StBoT 68. Cammarosano, Cult Inventory

Michele Cammarosano
AT THE INTERFACE OF RELIGION AND ADMINISTR ATION:

THE HITTITE CULT INVENTORIES
Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten
Herausgegeben im Auftrag
der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz,
von Elisabeth Rieken und Daniel Schwemer
Band 68
Michele Cammarosano
At the Interface of
Religion and Administration:
The Hittite Cult Inventories
With a contribution by Adam Kryszeń
2021
Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

Gefördert durch die Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, im Rahmen
des vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn/Berlin, dem Ministerium für
Bildung, Wissenschaft, Weiterbildung und Kultur Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz, dem Hessischen
Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Wiesbaden, und dem Bayerischen Staatsministerium
für Wissenschaft und Kunst, München, finanzierten Akademienprogramms.
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet
über https://dnb.de/ abrufbar.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet
at https://dnb.de/.
For further information about our publishing program consult our

website https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/
© Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2021
This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright.
Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission
of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies
particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage
and processing in electronic systems.
Printed on permanent/durable paper.
Printing and binding: A Hubert & Co., Göttingen
Printed in Germany
ISSN 0585-5853 ISBN 978-3-447-11731-9
eISSN 2702-0002 eISBN 978-3-447-39197-9
to the memory of
Mojca Cajnko
CONTENTS
Tables ...................................................................................................................................... X,
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ X,,,
Bibliographical Abbreviations ..................................................................................... X,,I
General Abbreviations ................................................................................................... XV,
Symbols ............................................................................................................................. XV,,
Preface .................................................................................................................................... X,;
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
2. The cult inventories as textual genre ......................................................................... 3
2.1 The corpus and its Sitz im Leben .......................................................................... 3
2.1.1 The nature of cult inventories .................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Cult inventories and other genres ............................................................. 5
2.1.3 Typological classification of the texts ....................................................... 8
2.1.4 Principles of analysis of the corpus ........................................................... 10
2.1.5 Selected aspects of the corpus ..................................................................... 11
2.2 Materiality, layout, and palaeography ................................................................ 13
2.2.1 Materiality ....................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Layout ............................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3 Palaeography ................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Language and orthography .................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Cult inventories as text type ....................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Orthography .................................................................................................... 19
2.3.3 Morphology ..................................................................................................... 26
2.3.4 Morphosyntax und syntax ........................................................................... 26
2.3.5 Semantics, lexicon, and formulae ............................................................... 28
2.3.6 Pragmatics ....................................................................................................... 29
2.3.7 Negatively defined characteristic features ............................................... 30
3. The geography of the Hittite cult inventories .......................................................... 31
3.1 Sources and method ................................................................................................. 32
3.1.1 Basic data ......................................................................................................... 32
3.1.2 Visiting representatives ................................................................................ 35
3.1.3 Transport of goods and livestock ............................................................... 35
3.1.4 Local institutions and officials .................................................................... 36
3.1.5 Mountain cults ................................................................................................ 37
3.1.6 Geographically circumscribed cults ........................................................... 37
3.1.7 Recurring groups of toponyms ................................................................... 39
V,,I Contents
3.2 The geographic extent of the Hittite cult inventories ..................................... 39
3.2.1 Geographical sectors ..................................................................................... 39
3.2.2 Northern sector .............................................................................................. 40
3.2.3 Central sector ................................................................................................. 45
3.2.4 Western sector ............................................................................................... 54
3.2.5 Eastern sector ................................................................................................. 55
3.2.6 Southern sector .............................................................................................. 58
4. Local panthea ................................................................................................................... 63
4.1 The gods worshiped and their distribution across the corpus ...................... 63
4.1.1 Aims and method ........................................................................................... 63
4.1.2 Distribution of the gods worshiped ........................................................... 64
4.2 The principal gods ................................................................................................... 67
4.2.1 Storm gods ....................................................................................................... 67
4.2.2 Solar deities ..................................................................................................... 69
4.2.3 Stag gods .......................................................................................................... 72
4.2.4 The question of the “Hittite triad” ............................................................. 73
4.3 Religious milieus and divine clusters .................................................................. 75
4.3.1 Gods worshiped and religious milieus ...................................................... 75
4.3.2 Gods of the Hattian milieu .......................................................................... 76
4.3.3 Gods of the Luwian milieus ........................................................................ 84
4.3.4 Gods of the Hurrian milieu and “foreign” gods ...................................... 86
4.4 Geographical perspectives ..................................................................................... 91
4.4.1 Distribution of the texts across geographical sectors ........................... 91
4.4.2 Geographical sectors and gods worshiped .............................................. 93
4.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 94
5. Festivals ............................................................................................................................. 99
5.1 The cult calendar ...................................................................................................... 99
5.2 The attested festivals ............................................................................................... 101
6. Selection of texts presented in full edition ................................................................ 111
6.1 KBo 2.8 (CTH 526.3) ................................................................................................. 111
6.2 KBo 49.310 (CTH 526.11) ........................................................................................ 122
6.3 KUB 12.2 (+) KUB 59.14 (+) KUB 38.16 (CTH 526.17) ....................................... 126
6.4 KUB 38.23 (CTH 526.19) .......................................................................................... 141
6.5 KUB 38.32 (CTH 526.26) .......................................................................................... 144
6.6 KUB 57.108 + KUB 51.23 (CTH 527.62) ................................................................ 150
6.7 KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22 (CTH 526.28) .................................................................. 157
6.8 KUB 56.40 (CTH 526.43) .......................................................................................... 164
6.9 KUB 44.1 (CTH 526.30) ............................................................................................ 169
6.10 KUB 51.33 (CTH 526.34) ........................................................................................ 174
6.11 KUB 55.14 (+) KUB 57.102 (CTH 526.35) ........................................................... 177
6.12 KUB 38.14 (CTH 527.54) ........................................................................................ 183
Contents I;
6.13 KUB 25.26 (+) KUB 42.86 (+) KUB 42.87 (CTH 529.37) ................................... 186
6.14 KBo 22.222 (CTH 528.26) ....................................................................................... 196
6.15 KUB 38.25 (CTH 526.21) ........................................................................................ 199
6.16 KUB 25.22 (CTH 528.101) ...................................................................................... 204
6.17 KUB 25.24 (CTH 528.102) ...................................................................................... 207
6.18 KUB 12.4 (CTH 529.36) .......................................................................................... 211
6.19 KUB 51.69 + KBo 13.234 (+) KUB 46.33 (CTH 529.61) .................................... 213
6.20 KUB 56.37 (CTH 529.52) ........................................................................................ 221
6.21 KUB 48.113 (CTH 529.38) ...................................................................................... 223
7. List of cult inventory manuscripts .............................................................................. 227
7.1 According to publication (or inventory) number ............................................. 227
7.2 According to CTH number ..................................................................................... 232
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 239
Indices ..................................................................................................................................... 253
TABLES
Table 2.1: Characteristic features of festival texts and cult inventories .................. 6
Table 2.2: The eight most frequently attested elements in the corpus ..................... 12
Table 2.3: Manuscripts with (partly) preserved colophon........................................... 12
Table 2.4: Distribution of selected spellings ................................................................... 21
Table 2.5: Patterns used in cult image descriptions ...................................................... 30
Table 2.6: Distribution of the patterns considered in table 2.5................................... 30
Table 3.1: Conventionally defined geographical sectors ............................................. 40
Table 4.1: Number of tags corresponding to divine names ......................................... 65
Table 4.2: The most frequently attested gods as deities worshiped .......................... 65
Table 4.3: Most frequent theonyms containing geographical names ....................... 66
Table 4.4: Storm gods worshiped ...................................................................................... 68
Table 4.5: Solar deities worshiped ..................................................................................... 70
Table 4.6: Stag gods worshiped.......................................................................................... 73
Table 4.7: Texts attributable to specific geographical sectors .................................... 93
Table 5.1: Catalogue of the festivals attested in the corpus ................................. 104–110
ABBREVIATIONS
Bibliographical Abbreviations
AA Archäologischer Anzeiger
AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology
ABoT 1 Kemal Balkan. Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy tabletleri.
Istanbul: Millî Eğitim Basımevi, 1948.
ABoT 2 Rukiye Akdoğan. Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy tab-
letleri II / Boğazköy Tablets in the Archaeological Museum of Ankara II.
CHDS 1. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2011.
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AfOB Archiv für Orientforschung, Beihefte
AnAr Inventory number of the Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Ankara
AnSt Anatolian Studies
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AOATS Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Sonderreihe
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
ArAn Archivum Anatolicum = Anadolu Arşivleri
AS Assyriological Studies
AuOr Aula Orientalis. Revista de estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo
Belleten Türk Tarih Kurumu Belleten
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
BMECCJ Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan
Bo Inventory numbers of the Boğazköy tablets
BoHa Boğazköy-Ḫattuša. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen
CAD Ignace J. Gelb† et al. (eds.). The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Insti-
tute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2010.
CDOG Colloquium der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
CHD Hans G. Güterbock†, Harry A. Hoffner† et al. (eds.). The Hittite Dictionary
of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental
Institute, 1980–.
CHDS Chicago Hittite Dictionary, Supplements
CNIP Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications
CollAn Colloquium Anatolicum
CoS William W. Hallo† and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (eds.). The Context of
Scripture. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997–2016.
CTH Emmanuel Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris: Klincksieck, 1971
(with supplements in RHA 30 [1972]: 94–133 and RHA 33 [1973]: 68–71;
X,9 Abbreviations
now extensively expanded and revised in the online Catalog der Texte der
Hethiter of the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz: Silvin Košak and Gerfrid G. W.
Müller, hethiter.net/: Catalog [2015–08–04], at: http://www.hethport.uni-
wuerzburg.de/CTH/).
DAAM Documenta Antiqua Asiae Minoris
DBH Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie
DBH 46/2 Rukiye Akdoğan. Hethitische Texte. Bo 4658–Bo 5000. Teil 2: Autographien.
DBH 46/2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016.
FHG Emmanuel Laroche, “Fragments hittites de Genève,” in: RA 45 (1951) 131–
138, 184–194; RA 46 (1952) 42–50.
FHL Jean-Marie Durand and Emmanuel Laroche, Fragments hittites du
Louvre, in: Mémorial Atatürk: Études d’archéologie et de philologie
anatoliennes. Synthèse 10. Paris: A.D.P.F., 1982: 73–107.
HbOr Handbuch der Orientalistik
HED Jaan Puhvel. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Trends in Linguistics. Doc-
umentation. Berlin; New York; Amsterdam: Mouton; de Gruyter, 1984–.
HEG Johann Tischler. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. IBS 20. Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 1977–2016. (Volumes are referred to by
the letter[s] covered in each.)
hethiter.net/: CTH … : online text editions of the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz available at:
http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HPM/txthetlink.php
Hethitica Hethitica (subseries of Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguis-
tique de Louvain)
HFAC Gary M. Beckman and Harry A. Hoffner, “Hittite Fragments in American
Collections,” in: JCS 37 (1985) 1–60.
HKM Sedat Alp. Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maşat. TTKYayın VI/34.
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1991.
HS Historische Sprachforschung (continuation of Zeitschrift für verglei-
chende Sprachwissenschaft)
HW2 Johannes Friedrich†, Annelies Kammenhuber† et al. (eds.). Hethitisches
Wörterbuch. Zweite völlig neubearbeitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der
edierten hethitischen Texte. Indogermanische Bibliothek, zweite Reihe:
Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: Winter, 1975–.
IBKS Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft
IBoT İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri(nden seçme
metinler). Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, etc., 1944, 1947, 1954; Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1988
IBS Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft
IF Indogermanische Forschungen
IM Istanbuler Mitteilungen
JAC Journal of Ancient Civilizations
JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
JANES Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
Bibliographical Abbreviations X9
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JKF Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschungen (1950–1953; 1954ff. = Anadolu
Araştırmaları,)
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköy
Konkordanz Silvin Košak. Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschrifttafeln, Hethitologie-
Portal Mainz, at: http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hetkonk/.
Kp Inventory number of the tablets from Kayalıpınar
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy
Kubaba Kubaba. Arkeoloji - Sanat Tarihi - Tarih Dergisi - İzmir
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin
MesCiv Mesopotamian Civilizations
MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung (Berlin)
MRS Mission de Ras Shamra
MSS Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
MVAeG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft
NABU N.A.B.U. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires
OA Oriens Antiquus
OAAS Old Assyrian Archives, Studies (within PIHANS)
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OIP Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago)
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
Or Orientalia. Nova Series
PIHANS Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de
Stamboul = Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut te Istanbul
Privat Hittite tablets in private collections, numbering follows the Konkordanz
RGTC Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes
RHA Revue hittite et asianique
RIL Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie (und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie)
RS Inventory numbers of the tablets from Ras Shamra (Ugarit)
RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali
SCO Studi Classici e Orientali
SMEA Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici
Sprache Die Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft
StAs Studia Asiana
StBoT Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten
StBoTB Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Beihefte
StMed Studia Mediterranea
StPohl Studia Pohl
THeth Texte der Hethiter
TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments
TUAT NF Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Neue Folge
XV, Abbreviations
TVOa Testi del Vicino Oriente antico

UF Ugarit Forschungen
VBoT Albrecht Götze. Verstreute Boghazköi-Texte. Marburg: Selbstverlag des
Herausgebers, 1930.
VO Vicino Oriente
VS NF Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin.
Neue Folge
WAW Writings from the Ancient World
WO Die Welt des Orients
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
ZVS Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (Kuhns Zeitschrift)
General Abbreviations
abl. ablative MS Middle Hittite Script
acc. accusative n. (foot)note
adj. adjective neut. neuter (gender)
adv. adverb NH New Hittite
all. allative nom. nominative
C consonant (e.g., -iC-) NS New Hittite Script
col. column Nx unknown number
coll. collective OA Old Assyrian
com. common (gender) obv. obverse
dat.-loc. dative-locative OH Old Hittite
DN divine name OS Old Hittite Script
erg. ergative part. participle
gen. genitive/genitival PIE Proto-Indo-European
GN geographical name pl. plural
IE Indo-European PN personal name
imp. imperative pres. present
instr. instrumental pret. preterite
iter. iterative r. c./r. col. right column
l. line rev. reverse
l. c./l. col. left column sg. singular
l. e. left edge s.o. someone (in translations)
lo. e. lower edge V vowel (e.g., -Vš-)
LNS Late New Script voc. vocative
MH Middle Hittite 1, 2, 3 first, second, third person
mid. middle (voice) (morphological analysis)
Symbols XV,,
Symbols
? reading or restoration of sign (in (+) fragments join indirectly
translations: of word) uncertain // duplicate text
(?) reading or restoration of word (in 𒀹 Glossenkeil (single)
translations: of phrase) uncertain 𒑱 Glossenkeil (double)
! abnormal or mistaken sign; desig- < developed from
nation of column or side of tablet > developed into
varies from hand copy /…/ phonological analysis
sic marks a discrepancy with the * reconstructed form
hand copy *…* encloses signs over erasure
[ ] encloses lost text = separates morphological elements
⸢ ⸣ encloses damaged but legible signs within words
〈〉 omitted by scribal error n indicates the presence of a
〈〈 〉〉 sign to be omitted number within restorations
x illegible sign (in transliteration) [ x ] indicates space in break
+ fragments join directly
PREFACE
This book aims to offer an in-depth study of selected aspects of the Hittite cult inven-
tories, based on a systematic investigation of the entire corpus. The book has been
written in the framework of the research project “Critical edition, digital publication,
and systematic analysis of the Hittite cult-inventories (CTH 501-530),” funded by the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, project number 298302760). Additional fund-
ing has been made generously available by the Chair of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
of the University of Würzburg. The collation of original manuscripts at the Museum of
Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara was made possible by kind permission of the Turkish
Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The research work has greatly benefited from a co-
operation with the Academy programme project “Corpus der hethitischen Festrituale”
(HFR) at the Academy of Sciences and Literature | Mainz: The support of its directors,
Daniel Schwemer and Elisabeth Rieken, and of its postdoctoral researchers, especially
Susanne Görke, Silvin Košak, Jürgen Lorenz, Gerfrid G.W. Müller, and Charles Steitler,
is gratefully acknowledged, as are the invaluable resources of the Hethitologie-Portal
Mainz, in particular the Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschrifttafeln by Silvin Košak
and the Groddeks Liste der Sekundärliteratur zu Textstellen aus Boğazköy by Detlev
Groddek. Adam Kryszeń generously agreed to collaborate on the analysis of the topo-
nyms attested in the corpus: Ch. 3 was written by him as part of the project “The Na-
ture of Geographical Knowledge in Hittite Anatolia in 18th–12th cent. BCE in the Light
of Cuneiform Texts,” funded by the National Science Centre, Poland. Special thanks
are due to Elisabeth Rieken and Daniel Schwemer for accepting to publish the book in
the series Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten as well as for countless corrections and sug-
gestions. I am deeply grateful to Charles Steitler and Detlev Groddek for providing
extensive comments and corrections, to Jürgen Lorenz for sharing his digital translit-
erations of Hittite texts, and to Christoph Forster for his work on the database “Hittite
Local Cults.” A special word of thanks is also due to James Burgin, H. Craig Melchert,
and Ilya Yakubovich for providing many valuable comments, and to Billie Jean Collins
for accepting to revise the style of the manuscript.
Marburg, July 2021

Michele Cammarosano
Hittite Anatolia
1. INTRODUCTION
The management of cult represented a pivotal concern for the Hittite state: any short-
coming in the fulfilment of the traditional regulations would have provoked the anger
of the gods, with severe consequences for the entire land. The duty of the king as su-
preme guarantor for the observance of the cult practices was not restricted to the rites
in which he or other members of the royal family directly participated, but extended
to the entirety of the cults within the central Anatolian districts constituting the core
of the Hittite Empire. Cult management concerned the care of shrines and cult images
as well as the supervision of the ritual activities and, crucially, the supply of the re-
quired offerings.
The process of supervising, regulating, and maintaining the traditions of the cult
prompted the production and dispatch of a large body of written documents, which
were stored in the capital’s tablet collections as well as in provincial settlements. Some
of these texts were written on wooden writing boards, of which we have indirect evi-
dence only. Among the text genres involved in this process were festival texts, cult
inventories, oracle reports, ration tablets, and royal decrees. While the mechanisms
regulating the mutual relations between these genres are still not fully understood, it
is clear that each of them fulfilled specific functions within the complex of religious
ceremonies constituting what we call “cult.”
The past two decades of research on Hittite religion have been characterized by a
growing interest in a more nuanced consideration of the diachronic dimension of the
religious traditions of the Hittites and in the investigation of the various milieus, or
Kultschichten, that intertwine in their fabric, as well in the interdependence and mutual
influence of these milieus from the Old Assyrian period down to the end of the Em-
pire.1 The present book contributes to the study of Hittite religion by offering a sys-
tematic analysis of a specific textual genre. In doing so, it explicitly refrains from a
comprehensive appraisal of any particular aspect or period, but rather focuses on the
particular perspective that is gained when a certain category of documents is investi-
gated in its entirety and contrasted with other ones.
The cult inventories provide an interesting lens through which to study the Hittite
cult management. This is owing to their flexible nature as reports touching on
potentially any aspect of the cult, to their connections with the other genres mentioned
above, and to the fact that they contain descriptive accounts of local traditions as well
as prescriptive sections on measures to be taken, thus allowing an insight into both
diachronic patterns of continuity and change and centre-periphery dynamics.
The book is organized into five parts. Chapter 2 provides an in-depth overview of
the text genre of the Hittite cult inventories, including a definition and a typological
1 Steitler 2017: 1–4.

2 Introduction
subdivision of the corpus; a study of the material aspects of the manuscripts; and a
discussion of palaeographic, orthographic, and linguistic features. Additionally, this
chapter illustrates the methodology that informed the analysis of the texts. Chapter 3,
by Adam Kryszeń, offers a thorough investigation into the geography of the local cults
as it emerges from the place names attested in the corpus. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on
systematic analyses of the local panthea and cult calendar respectively, based on an
appraisal of the gods and festivals attested in the corpus, and of their distribution and
mutual relations. Finally, chapter 6 presents critical editions of a representative selec-
tion of original texts.
This book is part of a series of studies devoted to the Hittite cult inventories, each
focusing on one or more specific aspects of the corpus. In particular, it represents a
complement to Hittite Local Cults,2 and the two volumes are best read in tandem. It is,
therefore, hoped that the reader will be indulgent towards the overlaps and redundancy
that necessarily remain, as well as towards the numerous cross-references to my other
publications on the topic. In order to facilitate navigation among them, it seems con-
ducive to highlight here the principal aspects dealt with in each study. In Hittite Cult
Inventories, Part One: The Hittite Cult Inventories as Textual Genre (Cammarosano 2013),
the defining features of the genre are discussed and a clear-cut distinction between cult
inventories and related genres is argued. The definition and characterisation of the
genre are further expanded in Hittite Local Cults (id. 2018: 11–19) as well as in §§ 2.1.1–
2.1.2 of this book. The dating of the texts, which has relevant implications for the dy-
namics of power in the cult management of late imperial Hatti, is dealt with in Hittite
Cult Inventories, Part Two: The Dating of the Texts and the Alleged ‘Cult Reorganization’
of Tudhaliya IV (id. 2012). The nature and scope of athletic contests among local cultic
activities are investigated in the paper Rejoicing in the Gods: the Verb dušk- and Hittite
Cheese Fighting (id. 2014), while a broader look into the socio-economic significance of
Hittite local festivals is offered in Ch. 5 of Hittite Local Cults (id. 2018: 103–138). The
analysis of the cult calendar and of the attested festivals, presented there on pp. 105–
110 and 114–138 respectively, are complemented by Ch. 5 of this book, while an ap-
praisal of the local cult personnel is presented in the paper Local Priests in Hittite Ana-
tolia (id. 2020). Ch. 6 of Hittite Local Cults discusses the offering system that emerges
as peculiar of local cults, in particular the nature and management of the offerings, the
metrological framework under which they were administered, and the important ques-
tion of who actually participated in the festivals (id. 2018: 139–158). The rationale be-
hind the offering system is further addressed in the paper Der hethitische Staatskult als
öffentliches Gut (co-authored with Jürgen Lorenz, 2019). Local panthea and cult images
are treated in Ch. 4 of the present work and in Ch. 4 of Hittite Local Cults respectively
(id. 2018: 51–102). Finally, palaeography and jargon of the cult inventories are dis-
cussed in Ch 3. of Hittite Local Cults (which is to be considered a primary reference for
the analysis of termini technici and formulae) as well as in the paper Linguistic text
types in 13th c. Hittite: A research program (co-authored with Elisabeth Rieken, 2020)
and, in a comprehensive manner, in Ch. 2 of the present book.
2 Cammarosano 2018.
2.THE CULT INVENTORIES AS TEXTUAL GENRE
Based on features that emerge as characteristic for this group of texts, cult inventories
can be defined as one of several textual genres within the Hittite written legacy. Such
features include layout and material aspects of the tablets as well as palaeographic,
orthographic, and linguistic aspects. The following sections aim to provide an insight
into the nature of the corpus as well as an analytical discussion of its defining charac-
teristics.
2.1The corpus and its Sitz im Leben

2.1.1The nature of cult inventories
Hittite cult regulations may be subdivided into two broad categories, the state cults
and the nonstate cults. The state cults are those celebrated by or in the presence of the
king, the queen or a prince: they form what may be regarded as the official cult of the
kingdom at a given time. The rest are nonstate cults. This dichotomy is not only justi-
fied for pragmatic reasons, but also reflects an emic distinction that is apparent from
the extant texts: state cults are normally treated in the so-called festival texts (German
Festrituale), whereas most nonstate cults pertaining to local settlements are treated in
the so-called cult inventories. The two text genres served different purposes, were or-
ganized and managed according to different principles, and possibly drafted by differ-
ent groups of scribes. Many state cults were performed in Ḫattuša, and most nonstate
cults in provincial towns, but it is important to stress that the dichotomy lies between
“state” vs. “nonstate” cults, not between “cults performed in the capital” vs. “local
cults:” those local cults where the king takes part are treated in festival texts and not
in cult inventories.3
Cult inventories can be defined as reports on the condition of a cult in one or more
specific places at a specific time.4 As local reports (or copies thereof), the cult invento-
ries ultimately go back to the work of different individuals, and were written at differ-
ent times and with different purposes, albeit within the general framework of the royal
cult administration. Also, they were drafted on the basis of very heterogeneous mate-
rial: the direct experience of royal delegates, depositions of local cult personnel and
3 Cammarosano 2013, id. 2018: 14. On the relevance of the king in the categorization of the Hittite festival
tradition and for a stimulating comparison with the Greek culture, see recently Rutherford 2016: 79–80.
For the interplay between center and periphery in cultic activities, see Rutherford 2004.
4 For a thorough discussion of the nature of these texts, see Cammarosano 2012, id. 2013, and id. 2018:
11–30.
4 The cult inventories as textual genre
other involved people, and written documents like wooden boards and clay tablets.5
Cult inventories served the management of nonstate cults by the central power, hence
they can have a “descriptive” or a “prescriptive” character, or, as most often happens,
a mixture of both: some texts are more concerned with reporting the state of the cult
at the time the tablet was drafted, while others focus on the measures ordered by the
king, and most display both features. While some cult inventories have been recovered
in provincial centers like Kuşaklı (ancient Šarišša) and Kayalıpınar (Šamuḫa), the bulk
of the extant tablets comes from the capital city Boğazköy (Ḫattuša). It stands to reason
that among the Boğazköy tablets we have both official versions of the incoming reports
and archival copies of the (prescriptive) texts dispatched to the provincial settlements.
Some of the tablets from Kayalıpınar hint at a coming and going of wooden writing
boards between the capital and Šamuḫa in the context of cult inventorying procedures.
From the point of view of text management, a cult inventory is a one-off report,
which becomes outdated as soon as a follow-up is available. As such, it is not conceived
as being for long-term storage and is not meant to be copied and recopied over time.
These features may well account for the fact that virtually all extant cult inventories
date to the latest period of the Hittite kingdom. Indeed, the ca. 20 fragments that can
be dated with certainty to a specific ruler all date to the reign of Tudḫaliya IV (2nd half
of the 13th cent. BCE). While it is not implausible that the bulk of all the extant texts
dates to that period, some texts may well date to the reigns of his immediate predeces-
sors or successors, especially to his father Ḫattušili III. More often than not, cult inven-
tories are drafted on tablets made of coarse clay, are written in a cursive script, and
show an irregular layout (e.g. with columns of unequal width or with the lines of the
script tending to rise from left to right), all features that highlight the ephemeral nature
of these texts.
Given these premises, it is no surprise that the corpus of the cult inventories repre-
sents “almost as heterogeneous a mixture as one can want” (so Charles Carter, who
first investigated them systematically),6 and still the one for which proportionally the
least number of joins has been identified among all Hittite text genres. Typical compo-
nents of the cult treated in the cult inventories are cult objects, temples and shrines,
cult offerings and people charged with their supply, lists of festivals, outlines of festi-
vals, cult personnel, and negligence concerning delivery of supplies, rites, or mainte-
nance of cult objects and temples. Normally, several of these components are treated
in a single text, with each individual tablet displaying its own peculiar balance.
Despite their common basic pattern, the festivals treated in the corpus vary from
each other to a considerable extent, and this circumstance, together with other evi-
dence, points to the hypothesis that the texts tend to reflect traditional local rites, at
least those that were accepted and “approved” by the central power, rather than a su-
perimposed pattern.7
5 For wooden boards, see now Cammarosano et al. 2019, where arguments are brought favoring the
assumption of a widespread use of this medium in Hittite Anatolia.
6 Carter 1962: 1.
7 Cammarosano 2012: 16–21, id. 2018: 111–114 (endorsed among others by Beckman 2020: 180).
The corpus and its Sitz im Leben 5
2.1.2Cult inventories and other genres

In a previous study, I argued for a clear-cut demarcation of the corpus of the cult in-
ventories, submitting that this kind of text was treated as a distinct category of docu-
ment already in ancient times.8 According to this schema, cult inventories can be said
to meet two basic conditions:
They deal with certain deities in relation to one or more specific towns and treat
at least one further component of the cult;
They 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.
These criteria, which are reflected conspicuously in the principles governing colo-
phons and incipits of the tablets, allow us in many cases to decide whether a text is to
be classified as a cult inventory or not in spite of their fragmentary character. The
genre that is closest to the cult inventories and with which ambiguities of classification
are most evident is that of the festival texts. Based on a comparative analysis of typical
features of these genres, a set of rules of thumb helps in the attribution of fragmentary
texts to either genre (table 2.1).
That cult inventories constituted a textual genre of their own does not mean that
there are no hybrid or ambiguous cases. Among the most interesting cases for the
possible interference between cult inventories and festival texts are the tablets grouped
under CTH 678 “Festival fragments concerning the cult of Nerik.” The tablet KUB 58.31
+ KUB 59.32 + Bo 3315 + Bo 3332 (CTH 678.3.A) presents on the one hand traits that
are typical of festival texts, like the archaizing conjunction ta, a set of libations, and
the participation of a varied body of cult personnel (but not of royals), and on the other
hand is written using formulas and orthographic conventions that are characteristic of
cult inventories, like the expressions duškaraz “there is rejoicing,” GU7-zi NAG-zi “they
eat (and) drink,” and the sign DIN for /dan/. Similar observations can be made for KUB
25.25 + KUB 55.60 + KBo 64.163 (+) KUB 9.24 (+) KBo 53.212 (+) CHDS 2.57 (CTH
678.3.B). Since for none of them is the colophon preserved, we have no decisive hint at
their emic classification, so both tablets may be considered either as festival texts or as
cult inventories depending on the perspective one chooses. KUB 58.39 (CTH 678) can
be considered as a festival text concerning the festival of the (grain) pile ([EZEN4]
ḫarpiyaš, l. e. 1′). The focus on a specific festival and the scribal signature (ibid.) are
distinctive features of festival texts, yet other features are typical of cult inventories
(e.g. dapiant- instead of ḫumant-; aššanumaš “provisions”). Was this a festival text writ-
ten by a scribe well acquainted with drafting cult inventories?
The tablet KUB 25.32 (CTH 681.1) treats a series of local state festivals celebrated in
the vicinity of Karaḫna, and represents a telling example of a festival text bearing a
strong affinity with cult inventories.9 The “national” relevance of these cults is evident
8 Cammarosano 2013.
9 McMahon 1991: 53–82.
Festival texts Cult inventories

Royals usually participate Royals never participate
No bipartition of offerings ‘at the Bipartition of offerings ‘at the al-
altar’ vs. ‘provisions’ tar’ vs. ‘provisions’
Greater detail, great variety of rit- More concise character, standard

ual acts set of ritual acts
Possible presence of archaic or ar- Absence of archaizing ta
chaizing ta
Preference for full and phonetic Preference for abbreviated and
spellings heterographic spellings
No use of the sign DIN for /dan/ Occasional use of the sign DIN for
/dan/
Texts are arranged by festivals Texts are arranged by towns
Table 2.1: Characteristic features of festival texts and cult inventories.
in the participation of the king, and based on this as well as on other features of the
text the tablet is definitely to be included in the corpus of festival texts. Nevertheless,
these festivals also display features that are analogous to the local festivals treated in
the cult inventories, in particular the rites taking place at extramural stela sanctuaries.
Another group of festival texts to be considered close to the genre of the cult in-
ventories is represented by KBo 14.142 + KBo 64.356 with its duplicate and parallel
texts, catalogued under CTH 698 “Cults of Teššup and Ḫebat of Aleppo.”10 These tablets
record the regular festivals to be celebrated for the Aleppine divine couple in various
towns of the kingdom (among them Šalma, Pakkurunuwa and Taptaḫina), and list the
offerings to be provided together with those responsible for supplying them. The text
displays close similarities with the cult inventories both in form and content. These
include the use of specific formulae and termini technici,11 lexical traits,12 and analo-
gies in the quality and quantity of the listed offerings and festivals as well as their
suppliers.13 However, the fact that the focus is here on a specific group of gods rather
than on one (or more) towns constitutes a fundamental difference in respect to cult
10 For this group of texts, see Souček and Siegelová 1974, Schwemer 2001: 498–502.
11 See, among others, the peculiar formula for referring to sunset (“when the leafy branches seize the Sun
God of Heaven,” KBo 14.142+ ii 17; for this formula, see Cammarosano 2018: 40), the contrapunct
between former and present state of the cult (e.g., KBo 14.142+ iii 30′), the use of peškanzi “they regularly
supply” for referring to the contribution of offerings.
12 See the use of dapi- instead of ḫumant- (e.g., KBo 14.142+ iii 28′, iv 26; for the relevance of this, see
below, § 2.3.5).
13 See, among others, the festivals of the grain pile, of the fruits, of the forest, and of the filling up and
opening of the pithos (i.e., the autumn and spring festivals); KBo 14.142+ iii 21′–24′, KUB 27.15 iv 22′–
25′. Within the corpus of the cult inventories, the most close analogies are to be found in the so-called
Šamuḫa tablet (DAAM 1.36, ed. Cammarosano 2018: 384–400, text no. 14; id. 2019b: 51–67).
inventories, and indeed the colophon of KBo 14.142+ is genuinely different from those
typical of cult inventories.14
Conversely, some texts that can be classified as cult inventories display analogies
with festival texts. A good example are two cult inventories concerning Nerik and Zip-
palanda respectively.15 These texts display an orthographic trait that is peculiar within
the genre, namely, full spellings for the words ḫuppar(a)- “bowl” and ḫanešša- “jug.”
Such spellings are normal in festival texts, but very rare in cult inventories. It is no
coincidence that these tablets concern major cult centers, since these are precisely the
places where the ritual and scribal traditions pertaining to the state and non-state cults
were closest to each other, and thus the likelihood of contaminations between them
was highest, both on the substantial level (rites) and on the formal level (scribal habits).
Another text displaying features that are normally not found in the genre is KUB 46.28
(CTH 528.109). This fragment has content, lexicon, sign variants, and spellings that are
atypical for cult inventories: older LI, ḫumant- instead of dapiant-, phonetic ištanana-
instead of logographic ZAG.GAR.RA, right-displacement of the last sign of a paragraph,
and the mention of the KAŠ.GEŠTIN-drink. However, the formulae that are used in the
text and the bipartition of the offerings show that we are dealing with a cult inventory.
KUB 55.15 (CTH 528) treats seasonal festivals in the same way as standard cult
inventories, but the descriptions lack the typical bipartition of the offerings and the
word for “cult stela” is spelled phonetically (ḫuwaši) rather than logographically
(ZAG.GAR.RA).
Other texts with close contact points to the cult inventories are inventories of treas-
ures with cult images, within the genre of the so-called palace inventories.16 Among
the few examples known from Hittite archives is KUB 38.8 (+) KUB 38.9 (+) Bo 9419
(CTH 527.52), a rare example of an inventory of theriomorphic votive statuettes with
royal names engraved on them. These statuettes, made of metals and precious stones
and mostly shaped as bulls, would have been housed in one or more shrines within a
royal residence or a temple. The royal names “written” (ŠATRU) on them are those of
Muršili (II), Ḫattušili (III), and Tudḫaliya (IV), who apparently dedicated them to the
gods, while one of the statuettes is described as a “gift” (ŠULMAN) of king Bentešina of
Amurru. A further example of a text that may be seen as a hybrid between a cult and
a palace inventory is Bo 9142.17
Further cases of texts with points of contact with cult inventories are scattered
among other CTH numbers. A first case in point is represented by CTH 662 “Offerings
for local cults,” in particular by the fragments KBo 20.86 + KBo 8.124, KBo 55.263 +
KUB 25.31, KUB 11.28, and KUB 11.33 (+) IBoT 3.38 (+) IBoT 3.95. These texts present
similarities with the cult inventories, insofar as they treat offerings supplied by local
administrators and sometimes also cults involving local communities, providing an
14 See KBo 14.142+ iv 25–27: “[nth] tablet, complete, of the daily bread offering for the Storm God of Aleppo
and all the gods of (the circle of) the Storm God of Aleppo.”
15 KUB 25.24 (CTH 528.102, edited below, § 6.17), KUB 25.26(+) (CTH 529.37, edited below, § 6.13).
16 A comparable case is attested in a group of texts dating to the Ur III period and pertaining to a town
southeast of Nippur, see Owen 2013.
17 Pointed out to me by James Burgin.
insight in the mechanisms of supply and redistribution of goods in an important sector

of the Hittite economy.
KUB 40.2 (CTH 641 “Cult of Išḫara”) contains a sort of cultic-cadastral description
of a Kizzuwatnean area, with information on its geographic-economic structure, duties
and privileges of cult personnel, and lists of prebends and taxes.
KUB 40.110 (CTH 824 “Itinerary fragments”) has been considered by Massimo
Forlanini (2017: 241) the itinerary of a cult inspector.
KuT 32 (CTH 530) has been defined by Mauro Giorgieri as a “text concerning cult
personnel.”18 The tablet focuses on depositions of cult personnel and shortcomings in
the cult, and thus comes close in nature to a cult inventory. Similarly, some oracle
reports contain depositions of cult personnel about deficiencies in the supply of
offerings or celebration of rites, as well as detailed information on cult images
(including damage they may have displayed), both features that are common with cult
inventories.19
2.1.3Typological classification of the texts

The section of Emmanuel Laroche’s Catalogue des textes hittites devoted to the cult
inventories has been revised within the framework of the project “Critical edition,
digital publication, and systematic analysis of the Hittite cult-inventories.”20 The texts,
previously distributed across numbers 501 through 530 of the CTH, have been
reassigned to five CTH-numbers:
CTH 526: Cult inventories with descriptions of festivals and cult images
CTH 527: Cult inventories with descriptions of cult images
CTH 528: Cult inventories with descriptions of festivals
CTH 529: Cult inventories without descriptions of festivals or cult images
CTH 530: Fragments of cult inventories without descriptions of festivals or cult
images
Within each CTH-number, individual texts are assigned a specific sub-number and par-
allel texts are labelled by letters. This simplified scheme focuses on the presence (or
absence, respectively) of two crucial components of the cult treated in the texts, namely
festivals and cult images. Importantly, the reference to the presence of cult image de-
scriptions refers specifically to cult images other than cult stelae, since apart from a
couple of exceptions these are simply listed, never described in detail. Since most tab-
lets are fragmentarily preserved, one must take into account that the assumed absence
of a certain component is rarely completely secure. Fragmentary texts consisting of
fewer than 10 lines with no trace either of festival descriptions or cult image descrip-
tions have been grouped under CTH 530.
18 Giorgieri 1996.
19 See for example AT 454, KUB 5.7, DAAM 1.56.
20 For a discussion of the problematic aspects of Laroche’s classification, see Cammarosano 2013: 81–83
and id. 2018: 23–24.
The corpus of texts edited in the frame of the project “Hittite Local Cults” consists
of all fragments that were considered to be cult inventories in version 1.9 of Silvin
Košak’s Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschrifttafeln (2014), augmented by those re-
covered in Kayalıpınar between 1999 and 2015 as well as by selected fragments previ-
ously assigned to other genres, which could be identified as cult inventories either in
later versions of the Konkordanz or in the course of the project. Conversely, some frag-
ments that were previously classified as cult inventories but turned out to belong to
other genres have been excluded from the corpus.
The resulting body of edited texts consists of 450 (reconstructed) manuscripts, cor-
responding to 502 different tablet publication numbers (see List of Cult Inventory Man-
uscripts, § 7). In accordance with the above schema, the texts are distributed across five
CTH-numbers, for a total of 447 CTH-subnumbers: CTH 526 (43 manuscripts), CTH 527
(76 manuscripts, including three pairs of parallel texts), CTH 528 (146 manuscripts),
CTH 529 (61 manuscripts), and CTH 530 (124 manuscripts). These 450 reconstructed
manuscripts form the basis for the present study (see List of Cult Inventory Manu-
scripts, § 7).
The analysis of the entire corpus confirms the results previously obtained through
a study of a substantial portion of it.21 Cult inventories are most typically drafted on
two-columned tablets (with some examples of single-columned tablets and very few
cases of three-columned tablets), and are typically arranged in sections and subsections
(or: “sections and paragraphs”), the former delimited by double horizontal ruling and
the latter by single ruling.
The texts typically treat both cult images and offerings (often together with festi-
vals) besides listing the gods of a town. The most ubiquitous element is the list of of-
ferings, often with a specification about who has to supply what. This feature under-
scores the primary concern over the regular delivery of food and drink to be used in
the seasonal rites that occupies the texts, hence the importance of their economic func-
tion. Such a function is all the more significant given the scarcity of economic records
in the written legacy of the Hittites. Importantly, the majority of the texts contain fes-
tival descriptions: out of the 323 manuscripts considered well-preserved enough to al-
low a typological classification (CTH 526–529, leaving aside parallel texts), 189 man-
uscripts contain festival descriptions (CTH 526 and 528) compared with 134 that do not
(CTH 527 and 529), a proportion of 59%. This figure becomes even more significant if
we consider that the presence of “festival descriptions” represents an element supple-
mental to the main rationale of the cult inventories insofar as a festival was “described”
only when its performance could not be taken for granted.22
A further relevant characteristic of the corpus is the presence of descriptions of cult
images. According to the classification discussed above, 119 manuscripts (37% of the
total of 323 better preserved ones) contain descriptions of cult images (CTH 526 and
527, note that this figure would be considerably higher if the information on the
presence of a cult stela were taken as a cult image description). The sequence in which
21 Cammarosano 2018: 23–26.

22 Cammarosano 2018: 26.
the three basic components of the cult appear is the same in most of the texts, namely,
name of the god(s), cult image(s), and offerings. This rule applies independent of
whether additional aspects are treated. Among the rare exceptions to this rule are KBo
26.152, KUB 12.3, KUB 17.35, KUB 38.18, KUB 38.24, KUB 42.88, where the cult image
is listed first, as well as KUB 44.4+ and KUB 48.114, where cult images are not treated
and the list of offerings precedes the god’s name.
2.1.4Principles of analysis of the corpus

The corpus of texts defined above forms the basis for the data presented in this book.23
Parallel to the philological study of the manuscripts, selected elements and features
have been annotated systematically in the dedicated database Hittite Local Cults by
means of tagging.24 To this end, a text has been defined as a unique abstract entity
including all parallel versions (if extant) of a specific inventory. 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 sections containing the inventory of different towns (e.g., in KBo
2.7). When the inventory is particularly detailed, however, it has been possible to
implement a more subtle partitioning, e.g., by considering sections that treat different
festivals and/or different deities within a certain town as separate textparts (e.g., in KBo
2.8). Conversely, data extracted from highly fragmentary contexts have sometimes
been grouped in one textpart, although there is no certainty that they refer to one and
the same town (e.g., in IBoT 2.131). Accordingly, a textpart may consist of one or more
paragraphs. The distinction between texts and textparts has implications for the quan-
titative analysis of the corpus, insofar as the material can be analysed either “per texts,”
i.e., grouping together the data contained in a single text, or “per textparts,” i.e., con-
sidering each textpart as a separate entity.
The corpus includes 416 texts, which are in turn subdivided into 1122 textparts.
Overall, 1466 different tags were used in annotating the texts. For each textpart, the
following data have been recorded in separate categories as tags within the database:
Publication number(s) and Leitnummer;

Broader geographical setting (category “Region,” 22 tags);
Inventoried town (category “Town,” 181 tags);
Worshipped deities (category “Deity,” 565 tags);
Festivals to be celebrated (category “Festival,” 129 tags);
Suppliers of the cult offerings (category “Supplier,” 217 tags);
Cult personnel (category “Personnel,” 122 tags);
Further relevant information (category “Other,” 230 tags).
23 When referring to specific paragraphs of the texts, the numbering corresponds to that established for
the digital editions prepared in the frame of the project Hittite Local Cults (see www.hethport.uni-
wuerzburg.de/txhet_kultinv/ and Cammarosano 2021).
24 The database is available online at www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HLC/ and was realized by
Christoph Forster.
The category “Other” refers to miscellaneous data: particularly relevant are tags mark-
ing the presence of a festival description, a cult image description, the mention of “His
Majesty,” a passage of direct speech, and a colophon, since these data are of special
importance for establishing groups of texts based on content, or for retrieval of specific
information (e.g., for listing all texts or textparts containing a cult image description, or
all tablets with preserved colophon, etc.). In this field have been recorded also those
geographical and divine names that do not correspond to the inventoried settlements
and to the worshipped deities respectively, and therefore do not fit into the categories
“Town” and “Deity.” Likewise, personal names, the presence of an “archival remark,”
and further aspects of interest have been recorded here.
In tagging the texts, a standardized orthography has been used in order to maximize
retrieval. For example, the spring festival is always tagged as “ḫamešḫandaš” inde-
pendently of whether it is written phonetically or logographically, and the tag
“Kataḫḫa” is used for all instances where this deity is attested independently of the
spellings used (Ḫattaḫḫa, Kattaḫa, etc.). A complete list of the used tags, with filter
options, is available in the section TAGLIST of the database.25 Importantly, the tags make
no distinction between fully preserved and restored attestations.26
Divine names have been annotated on two levels. In the first place, deities have
been recorded under their various manifestations as attested in the texts (albeit using
a standardized orthography as noted above). 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.27
2.1.5Selected aspects of the corpus

The tagging of the corpus detailed above reveals some meaningful data about the con-
tent structure of the cult inventories as genre. The most frequently attested elements
that characterize the corpus are summarized in table 2.2.
The preeminence of festival descriptions, followed by cult-image descriptions, cor-
responds to what has been observed based on a traditional appraisal of the evidence.28
The third most-frequent tag is the mention of “His Majesty.” In eleven of 69 texts
tagged accordingly, the king is explicitly called by name: it is Tudḫaliya (IV), who is
25 For correspondences between variant forms of proper names, see the database Laman at
https://cuneiform.neocities.org/laman/finder.html.
26 However, partially and fully restored attestations are recorded as such in the “Notes” field within the
section TEXTPARTS of the database.
27 For example, all manifestations of storm gods have been tagged as “Deity-Type: storm god;” likewise,
“DLIŠ,” “Šawuška” and “GAŠAN URUšamuḫa” have been tagged as “Deity-Type: Šawuška,” and so on. Since
it is important to distinguish between specific manifestations of a deity and “deity-types,” the
correspondence between the former and the latter ones has been tagged on a secondary level, and can
be taken into account by selecting the relevant tags in the search field “Deity-Types” within the TEXTS
and TEXTPARTS sections of the database. A list of correspondences between divine names and
Deity-Types can be obtained by sorting the tags of the category “Deity” according to “Deity-Types” in
the TAGLIST section of the database.
Tag Frequency Frequency

(texts) (textparts)
festival description 189 324
cult image description 114 221
mention of “His Majesty” 69 142
colophon 31 31
archival remark 21 33
mention of Tudḫaliya 15 16
direct speech 14 19
Table 2.2: The eight most frequently attested elements in the corpus (tag category: “Other”), out of a
total of 1122 textparts in 416 texts.
ABoT 2.118 KBo 26.152 KUB 12.36+ KUB 44.1

IBoT 1.9 KBo 26.178 KUB 13.32 KUB 51.31
IBoT 4.335 KBo 26.182 KUB 25.23+ KUB 51.33
KBo 2.8 KBo 26.207 KUB 38.12 KUB 51.53
KBo 2.13 KBo 26.228 KUB 38.14 KUB 56.39
KBo 12.140 KBo 49.310 KUB 38.25 KUB 56.40
KUB 51.69+ KBo 70.109+ KUB 38.35 KUB 57.97
KBo 13.237 KUB 7.24+ KUB 42.100+
Table 2.3: Manuscripts with (partly) preserved colophon.

mentioned also in four more texts.29 Those who embrace a “maximalist” view of the
so-called cult reorganization will tend to attribute to him the bulk of the corpus as well
and to attribute to such a “reorganization” a certain degree of uniqueness, while those
who accept the “minimalist” interpretation I have argued for elsewhere will rather con-
sider Tudḫaliya’s mentions a result of his insistence on having his name on the tablets,
and will consider his role in the “supervision” of the local cults to be rather the contin-
uation of a customary practice.30
Thirty-one texts preserve at least in part a colophon (table 2.3),31 twenty-one an ar-
chival remark (i.e. a note on investigations based on preexisting written records,
mostly wooden boards), and fourteen a reported direct speech.
29 The “father of His Majesty,” i.e. Ḫattušili III, is mentioned in three texts, all of which also mention “His
Majesty;” two of them also mention Tudḫaliya (IV). See Cammarosano 2012: 21–24.
30 For discussion and previous literature, see Cammarosano 2012, id. 2018: 20–23, endorsed by Beckman
2020: 180.
31 For the rationale governing the colophons of cult inventories, see Cammarosano 2013: 69–72; for
philological remarks on the individual colophons, see the editions of the relevant texts in Cammarosano
2018 and at www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/txhet_kultinv/, Cammarosano 2021. KUB 38.35 and KBo
Materiality, layout, and palaeography 13
Other quantitative data that can be extracted from the tagging of the texts concern
the geographical, divine, and personal names attested in the corpus. The geographical
names are represented by 512 different tags, the majority of which fall into the category
of inventoried towns (180 tags). These are followed by geographical names attested as
part of theonyms (129 tags); as towns which have to supply offerings or towns from
which the suppliers originate (94 tags); as part of the labeling of cult personnel (7 tags);
as festival denominators (3 tags); and finally in various other functions (99 tags,
grouped within the category “Other”). The most frequently attested theonyms contain-
ing geographical names are the Sun Goddess of Arinna (attested in 15 different texts /
15 textparts), the Storm God of Nerik (15/35), the Storm God of Zippalanda (13/19), Ištar
of Nineveh (5/19), and the Storm God of Kaštama (4/22).
Divine names are represented by 637 different tags, the bulk of which are attested
as gods worshiped (571 tags), the rest in other functions (e.g., as denomination of fes-
tivals, or as part of the designation of suppliers). Of these, 474 correspond to gods and
goddesses, 99 to divine mountains, 47 to divine springs, and 17 to divine rivers (see Ch.
4 for discussion).
2.2Materiality, layout, and palaeography

2.2.1Materiality
As administrative texts of ephemeral nature, cult inventories are often written on tab-
lets made of rather coarse-grained clay. Although many fragments are made of the fine
clay that characterizes the majority of the extant Hittite tablets, the proportion of
coarse-grained manuscripts is definitely higher than in non-administrative genres like
festivals or literary texts. Some tablets also have many pebbles: good examples of this
are KBo 13.231, KBo 26.182, KUB 41.34+, and KUB 56.40.32
A group of tablets stands out: these are made of coarse-grained clay now sienna in
color, with several pebbles: KBo 2.7, KBo 2.8, KUB 38.26+, KUB 41.34+, KUB 44.42, KUB
56.39, and KUB 56.40. All of these tablets are written in cursive script, sometimes with
very shallow impressions, albeit not by the same hand. In general, the use of coarse-
grained clay tends to correlate with cursive script. Some tablets are made of fine, com-
pact-grained clay now yellow in color, interspersed with microscopic stones. Among
these are KBo 21.81(+), KUB 51.33, and KUB 55.14(+) (note that the latter two tablets
are in close relation to each other and were in all likelihood written by the same scribe;
see commentary). By observing the broken surface of some fragments it is possible to
21.81(+) represent special cases. The last lines of the reverse (iv 7′–12′) of KUB 38.35 are written in
bigger size than the rest of the tablet, and the verticals slope to the left. They do not constitute the
colophon, the rest of which is preserved on the left edge, but rather a summary listing the cult personnel
that has been singled out and the total cult provisions to be supplied. The last paragraph of KBo 21.81(+)
does not constitute a standard colophon, nevertheless its character and purpose are clearly different
from the rest of the text.
32 Depending on the granularity of the clay and of its color, some tablets are more legible when the surface
texture is neutralized, e.g., in the case of KBo 26.182.
note the characteristic “puff pastry structure,” which hints at the process of making
clay tablets.33
Virtually all manuscripts display the plano-convex shape that is so typical for cu-
neiform tablets, with flat obverse and convex reverse. In a few manuscripts, the obverse
is slightly convex as well: this feature is observed in KBo 2.8 and KUB 55.14(+), and is
especially pronounced in IBoT 2.131, the shape of which can be defined as biconvex.
Many manuscripts are exceptionally thick and curved, with a thickness of 5 cm or more
for a single- or two-columned tablet (e.g., KBo 2.8: 5.7 cm thick for 19.3 cm width and
ca. 40–45 cm length; KUB 51.33, KUB 55.14(+): maximum preserved thickness ca. 5.5
cm; KBo 26.182, KUB 41.34+, KUB 56.40: 5 cm thick). All of them display cursive scripts
and belong to the group of tablets made with coarse-grained clay. Whether this is due
exclusively to lower-quality manufacture standards or perhaps also to their being
manufactured at a specific scribal workshop is unclear.
2.2.2Layout
Cult inventories are mostly written on two-columned tablets. Some of the tablets are
single-columned: IBoT 2.131, KBo 2.7, KBo 13.237, KUB 44.4+, KUB 38.26+, KUB 44.1,
VS.NF 12.111, KUB 54.67, and possibly also KBo 13.231 and KUB 44.42. Three-columned
tablets are even rarer in the corpus: only KBo 39.48+, KUB 25.21 (possibly a festival
text), KUB 25.26(+), KUB 42.92, KUB 46.31, KUB 51.47, and probably KBo 22.222 display
this layout.
As a rule, and as is customary for Hittite tablets, the manuscripts have a so-called
Randleiste at the bottom of the obverse and at both ends of the reverse. When a para-
graph ends immediately before the bottom edge of the tablet, normally a horizontal
ruling is traced, confirming that the scribes never used the Randleiste as a substitute
for a pending paragraph line (see e.g. KUB 38.25, end of col. i). Exceptionally, in KBo
21.81(+) there are no Randleisten either at the end of the obverse or at the begin-
ning/end of the reverse: at the end of the reverse a simple paragraph line marks the
end of the text. Two tablets have a Randleiste (or vertical ruling) on the left side: this
feature is observed in KBo 13.236 and KUB 38.26+.34
As in all Hittite tablets, horizontal rulings (paragraph lines) are always made by
pulling or pressing the stylus along the surface.35 Often, a wedge head is separately
added at the beginning of the ruling after this has been traced, a common feature on
Hittite tablets as well. Vertical rulings often have a curved profile, showing that they
were made by pressing or pulling a cord on the soft clay. Other ones were made with
the writing stylus, since they display the same v-profile of horizontal rulings. While
most of them are perfectly straight and therefore likely traced with the help of some
33 Cf. a Sumerian school text: “[Quick], come here, take the clay, knead it, flatten it, [mix(?)] it, roll it (like
a ball), make it thick, make (the tablet)!” (BM 54746, quoted after Civil 1998: 2); on the making of tablets,
see Taylor 2012.
34 For the case of KUB 38.26+, see already Cammarosano 2018: 229; a new examination of the original
manuscripts in March 2020 confirmed that the vertical ruling does not run along the entire length of
the tablet’s side.
35 Cammarosano 2014b: 74–76 with fig. 14. In rare cases, the rulings are extremely thin, e.g., in IBoT 2.108.
sort of ruler, in some cases the stylus was handled freehand, and the resulting rulings
give an impression of sloppiness (e.g., KUB 41.34+). Analogous to horizontal rulings, a
wedge head is often impressed at the beginning of vertical rulings, independent of
whether they are made with a cord or with the stylus. Sometimes, the position of the
intercolumnium on the obverse does not align with the position on the reverse (e.g., in
KBo 26.151), and the columns of one single face may have different width (e.g., in KBo
2.8 and KUB 12.2(+), where the left columns are remarkably larger than the right ones).
As already mentioned, cult inventories are normally arranged by sections (marked
by double ruling) and paragraphs (marked by single ruling). Tablets that are seemingly
arranged by paragraphs only are extremely rare (KUB 38.12, KBo 70.109+; in both cases,
the colophon is preceded by a double ruling).
2.2.3Palaeography
In examining the palaeography of cuneiform tablets, it is conducive to distinguish be-
tween script, handwriting, and sign forms and variants.36 Ideally, an exhaustive palae-
ographic analysis would consider the sign forms and variants used by the scribes and
their distribution within and across the tablets as well as geometrical features of the
script. At different levels these aspects are characteristic for a (portion of a) tablet, a
group of tablets, an individual handwriting at a certain time, a particular stylus or
group of styluses, and a certain scribal tradition. Optimally, the analysis of the sign
forms and variants should include quantitative data about the relevant sign shapes
found on a tablet and their distribution, and should be conducted with a consideration
of orthographic patterns, since the two aspects may correlate.37
A fundamental aspect of the palaeography of cult inventories is the polarity be-
tween cursive and non-cursive script. The fundamental feature that determines cursive
script is writing speed. Typical elements that characterize cursive script in cuneiform
tablets are shallow impression of the wedges and the inclination of the aperture angle
of vertical wedges.38 Cursive script correlates with a nonstandard placement of wedges
in certain configurations, determined by the higher writing speed: in particular, the
Winkelhaken at the end of a sign tend to “slide up,” and the oblique wedge in signs like
NI or GAG tends to be impressed almost parallel to the horizontal.39 When a vertical
is followed by a horizontal at the end of a sign, as in ŠI and WA, the latter sometimes
has the appearance of a shallow “dash,” i.e., it lacks a proper “head,” apparently because
its spine was impressed using the right edge of the stylus.40 Another feature typical of

37 See for example the case of the writing of the name of Tudḫaliya IV, for which late scribes use the older
variant of LI while the new variant was used elsewhere on the very same tablets (Lorenz 2013), or the
case of the use of two variants of the sign DÙ (GAG) in DAAM 1.36 discussed below.
38 Cammarosano 2015: 167–168, with literature and examples.
39 E.g., in DAAM 1.36, DAAM 1.39 (see for discussion Cammarosano 2019: 62, 76), KBo 49.310, KUB 41.34+,
KUB 56.40 (see commentary to the editions).
40 E.g., DAAM 1.39, see Cammarosano 2019: 76; this feature can be observed in other administrative genres
as well, e.g., in the letters from Maşat Höyük. For the terminology of stylus and wedge components, see
Cammarosano 2015: 151–153.
cursive tablets is that vertical wedges tend to lean towards the left, and horizontals
downward: i.e., the angle between verticals and horizontals happens to be smaller than
the standard of 90° as a consequence of the increased writing speed (see below). Often,
tablets written in cursive script also display simplified sign variants. However, there is
no stable correlation between these two features, and furthermore a remarkable vari-
ance is observable in many tablets, both in the sign variants and in orthographic pat-
terns (see below).
Compared to the situation in other genres, the number of cursive tablets in the
corpus of the cult inventories is relatively high. However, this does not mean that cur-
sive script is a defining feature of the genre. Many tablets do not display the typical
traits of cursive script, and some do display features that are rather characteristic of
“library” tablets, in particular a slope of the wedge’s head, a feature that seems to be
proportionally more frequent in non-cursive and “library” tablets than in cursive and
ephemeral ones.41
The terms cursive and non-cursive represent the poles of a continuum, so that any
consideration that is not based on exact measurements and a rigorous quantitative
analysis is necessarily informed by a high degree of arbitrariness. The following tablets
are written in a script that may be defined as cursive: ABoT 2.118, ABoT 2.119, ABoT
2.120, ABoT 2.121, DAAM 1.30, DAAM 1.33, DAAM 1.36, DAAM 1.37, DAAM 1.38,
DAAM 1.39, DAAM 1.40, DAAM 1.41, DBH 46/2.69, IBoT 4.40, IBoT 4.335, KBo 13.192,
KBo 13.231, KBo 13.236, KBo 13.237, KBo 13.250, KBo 13.252, KBo 13.253, KBo 13.258,
KBo 21.81(+), KBo 22.222, KBo 26.151, KBo 26.182, KBo 26.186, KBo 26.188, KBo 26.189,
KBo 26.194, KBo 26.198, KBo 26.199, KBo 26.206, KBo 26.210, KBo 39.48+, KBo 47.213,
KBo 49.111, KBo 49.205, KBo 49.310, KBo 51.106, KBo 51.107, KBo 52.94, KBo 54.97, KBo
56.60, KBo 70.109+, KUB 25.24, KUB 38.25, KUB 38.26+, KUB 41.34+, KUB 42.100+, KUB
44.1, KUB 46.16, KUB 51.33, KUB 54.67, KUB 55.14(+), KUB 56.39, KUB 56.40, KUB
55.14(+), KUB 56.40, KUB 57.103, KUB 57.108+, KUB 58.7, VBoT 110. Of these, those
marked by an underline also display vertical wedges leaning towards the left.42 Some
of the “cursive” tablets also display a characteristic downward inclination of the hori-
zontal wedges, which appear leaning downwards, e.g. KBo 22.222, KUB 44.1, KUB
51.33, KUB 55.14(+). As said before, both the leftward inclination of the verticals and
the downward inclination of the horizontals respond to the logic of maximizing writing
speed, insofar as they result – especially when combined – in a decrease of the angle
between vertical and horizontal wedges (which ideally is 90°), thus of the effort the
wrist is to make when passing from one class of wedges to the other.43 In some cursive
tablets, finally, the lines of the script tend to rise from left to right, e.g., in KBo 13.246,
KBo 13.250, KBo 22.222, KBo 26.151, and KBo 49.111.
41 For a definition of the slope of the wedge head, see Cammarosano 2015: 154, 157. Within the corpus of
the cult inventories, a marked slope of the wedge head is observed in KBo 60.90, KUB 12.36+, KUB
25.26(+), KUB 30.37, KUB 46.31; none of these tablets displays the typical traits of cursive script.
42 The erroneous remark about a “right slope of the vertical wedges” of KUB 56.39 in Cammarosano 2018:
249 refers in fact to the slope of the aperture angle.
43 For the wrist movements involved in writing cuneiform, see Cammarosano 2014b: 74–78.
The palaeography of the cult inventories is entirely consistent with their dating to
the Late Empire; i.e., the tablets display the sign variants that are characteristic for
manuscripts dating to the period starting with the reign of Ḫattušili III. These are QA
(HZL no. 21/6–9), EN (HZL no. 40/11), UN (HZL no. 197/8), DI and KI (HZL nos. 312/8–
10, 313/19–25), and KU (HZL no. 206/4–8).44 As is well known, in this period the older
variants continue to be used beside the new ones.45 Thus, cult inventories typically
display a mix of older and later variants, with both the old and new variants of a “di-
agnostic” sign present in a single tablet. While different variants of a specific sign are
often randomly distributed across a tablet, sometimes a pattern emerges, and interest-
ingly the same applies to orthographic variation. In KBo 12.53+, the sign LI is written
in the obverse in the older variant (obv. 20′, 26′, 42′), on the reverse in the later variant
(rev. 15, 16, 20, 28, 35, 41, 43), and the verbal form “(the king) instituted” is spelled
logographically (ME-iš) up to obv. 37′ (with one exception in obv. 16′), but phonetically
(daiš) from obv. 38′ on.46 Since there are no reasons to suspect that the tablet is the
work of two different scribes, we have to conclude that the observed pattern reflects a
quirk of the scribe, who perhaps escaped in this way a bored afternoon.47 In DAAM
1.36, the sign GAG appears in a simplified variant only within the form DÙ-an-zi “they
celebrate (a festival),” otherwise in the normal variant.48 Since cult inventories are not
copies of preexisting manuscripts but rather newly created texts, the coexistence of
older and later variants shows that they were genuinely interchangeable, and largely
a matter of free variation. A quantitative analysis of the distribution of sign and
orthographic variants in the individual texts would probably unveil meaningful
patterns and scribe-specific tendencies.49
Reduced sign variants, i.e., having fewer wedges than the standard ones, are well
attested in the corpus. Especially interesting are the reduced variants of DÙ, GUL, and
ALAM, since these seem to be presently attested in this corpus only. 50 Importantly,
besides reduced variants also variants with “redundant” wedges are used, i.e., with
more wedges than in the standard form, a fact that corroborates the general observa-
tion that economy is not the only principle governing the writing down of these texts
(§ 2.3.2.2). Sign variants with “redundant” wedges are present in both cursive and non-
cursive tablets, e.g., in KBo 54.88, KBo 55.174+, KUB 12.4, KUB 25.24, and KUB 42.100+.
A special case is represented by KBo 26.178 with its erudite sign variants in the colo-
phon.51
44 Van den Hout 1989: 326–343 (cf. now Goedegebuure 2014: 9–10), Klinger 1996: 32–39, Giorgieri and
Mora 2004: 30–37, Weeden 2011: 49–52, id. 2019: 327–330 with further literature.
45 Steitler 2020: 430–432 and passim, with previous literature.
47 This kind of pattern is not without parallels within Hittite tablets. For a macroscopic example, see
Weeden 2019: 326 apropos the Tawagalawa letter.
49 For a systematic analysis of this kind, see Gordin 2015: 83–89.
50 For DÙ and GUL, see Cammarosano 2019: 61 and Rieken 2014: 51 fn. 4; the simplified ALAM is attested in
KBo 2.1, KUB 17.35, KUB 38.23, KUB 38.34, and KUB 56.40 (no faulty form, contra Rüster 1988: 305).
51 See Torri 2010.
The script size varies between ca. 1–2 mm (KBo 13.250, KBo 13.252, KBo 26.151,
KBo 26.160, KBo 49.111, KUB 7.24+) and ca. 4–5 mm (KBo 19.131, KBo 26.182, KUB
38.14, KUB 46.32), with most tablets displaying a script that is around 3 mm high.52 No
correlation between script size and cursive script is observable. As usual, colophons
are mostly written in a bigger size than the rest of the tablet.
In sum, there is a great variance in the appearance of the script, even within the
group of the “cursive” tablets. E.g., KBo 26.151, KBo 49.111, and KBo 13.250 display a
tiny cursive script with slanted verticals, marked inclination of the verticals’ aperture
angle, shallow impressions, and lines slightly rising from left to right. Differently, the
script of KUB 38.26+ is of bigger size (ca. 3 mm) and the impressions are deeper. The
tablets KBo 21.81(+) and KBo 39.48+, in all likelihood written by the same scribe, are
written in a regular, neat script, with marked slant of the vertical wedges and lines
perfectly perpendicular to the vertical axis of the tablet.
2.3Language and orthography

2.3.1Cult inventories as text type
Cult inventories represent a well-defined and relatively large text genre, and they date
to a period that is especially suitable for the investigation of text types. A list of criteria
pertinent to the analysis of text types recently presented by Elisabeth Rieken expand-
ing on work by Manfred Stede and others53 includes the following:
Text-external factors: situational context, participants, background knowl-
edge, circumstances of text production (copy vs. new composition,
medium, immediacy, authorities, authors, addressees, copyists, function of
the text)
Text-internal factors: subject-matter, standardization, rhetorical structure,
coherence and cohesion markers, archaism vs. archaizing
Micro-structure: sentence and word-level features.
The following discussion will focus on selected aspects of the language of the cult in-
ventories, summarizing and expanding on previous work done on the subject.54
On a general level, the most evident feature of the jargon of cult inventories is lan-
guage compression, a fact that fits well their nature as administrative technical texts.
Within the tension between explicitness (overt complexity) and economy (covert com-
52 In some tablets, a variation of the script size across different portions of the tablet is observable, e.g., in
KBo 21.81(+).
53 Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 46–47.
54 Cammarosano 2018: 31–49, Cammarosano and Rieken 2020. The following sections expand on work
conducted together with Elisabeth Rieken and presented on the occasion of the conference “Anatolia
Between the 13th and the 12th Century B.C.E.,” January 22–23, University of Turin. For the sake of
completeness, sections of the results already published in Cammarosano and Rieken 2020 will be
proposed again in the following paragraphs.
Language and orthography 19
plexity), technical texts tend towards the latter. They show a high degree of compres-
sion, i.e., a tendency towards an economy of language that differs remarkably from the
“standard” narrative language.
An analysis of cult image descriptions in cult inventories as compared to
comparable descriptions in other genres shows that the degree of language
compression observable in the cult inventories is not determined by content, but rather
by the function of the text. Furthermore, the way language compression is realized in
cult inventories presents genre-specific traits, which distinguishes it from that of other
kinds of technical languages (e.g., from that observable in oracle reports).55 An analysis
of the decoding strategies that are necessary in order to understand the highly
compressed language that characterizes cult image descriptions shows that the
relevant clues are “mostly lexical in nature, rarely morpho-syntactic, and they
presuppose a close familiarity with the text type, sometimes together with cultural
background knowledge.”56
Some traits, like the rare examples of cleft constructions and some kinds of ellipses,
hint at a certain proximity to spoken language, and others, like the occurrence of suf-
fixed =maš as enclitic third-person pronoun dative plural (§ 2.3.3) or the use of aldanni-
instead of wattaru- for “(divine) spring” (§ 2.3.5), are in line with the increasing
influence of Luwian on Hittite in the Late Empire period.
2.3.2Orthography
2.3.2.1Sign values
Some signs and combinations of signs are used in the corpus in a way that turns out to
be particularly characteristic for this textual genre. The most relevant genre-specific
usage is probably the use of the sign DIN with the value /dan/ (e.g., in pé-danx-zi “they
bring”). DIN for /dan/ is used in more than 80 instances in the corpus, whereas it turns
out to be almost absent in the other genres. Interestingly, two of the exceptional oc-
currences outside the corpus are found in CTH 678, i.e., among the festival fragments
concerning the cult of Nerik: as discussed above, precisely this group of manuscripts
presents important points of contact with the cult inventories and may even be con-
sidered as a special subset of that corpus (§ 2.1.2). Of the other exceptional occurrences,
one is found in a fragment that may belong to the corpus of the cult inventories, one
in a festival text, one in a ritual, and the rest in a small group of tablets redacted “in
the manner of Arušna.”57 In view of the orthographic free variation observed in many
55 Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 48–51. A comparison of festival descriptions in cult inventories
vis-à-vis other genres would lead to similar conclusions. On language compression in Hittite texts, see
already Rieken 2011: 209 with literature.
56 Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 55, discussion on pp. 52–55.
57 KBo 31.172 (CTH 626); KBo 57.294 3′ (ar-ḫa pé-danx-[zi]; CTH 832, maybe a cult inventory); KUB 55.60+
rev. iii 13′ and passim, KUB 58.31+ obv. ii 12′, rev. iii 10′ (both CTH 678, on the peculiar character of this
text group, see above, § 2.1.2); Bo 8029 7′ (pé-danx-[ … ], CTH 470); finally in a group of tablets “redacted
in the manner of Arušna,” (CTH 495, e.g., KUB 39.54+ obv. 8′, KBo 56.9+ 95′, see Miller 2012: 96). These
exceptional occurrences have been pointed out to me by Jürgen Lorenz.
manuscripts (§ 2.3.2.4), the fact that both the spelling with DIN and with -da-an- could
be used interchangeably within a single tablet is not surprising.58
Another genre-specific sign usage concerns the use of the logogram KUR for
ḪUR.SAG “mountain,” which occurs more frequently than in other genres.59 Occasion-
ally, the sign LIŠ is used with the value /li/. Remarkable are the peculiar abbreviated
writings ZAG.GAR for ZAG.GAR.RA in VSNF 12.111 and GAR for GAR.RA in Kp 15/45a.60
2.3.2.2Orthographic patterns and their interpretation
An analysis of the contrast between logographic and phonetic spellings and more in
general a quantitative investigation of selected spellings is especially conducive to shed
light on the mechanisms that governed some aspects of the tradition of cult inventories
and other administrative texts in Hittite scribal practice. Especially illuminating is the
comparison with the corpus of late festival texts, which, by nature and structure, can
be considered closest to the cult inventories (see below). Selected spellings from cult
inventories and late festival texts are contrasted in table 2.4.61
Not surprisingly, the overarching principle governing the orthographic usage that
informs cult inventories consists of the application of effort-saving strategies. This
general principle is apparent in the predominant use of “reduced” spellings, i.e., such
that they required a smaller number of signs, or wedges, than concurrently available
alternative spellings. In many, but by no means all cases, the adopted orthography
consists of logographic as opposed to phonetic spellings, a phenomenon that is to be
seen against the general background of a tendency towards a more economic writing
style in the final decades of the Hittite chancery at Ḫattuša.62 Examples of this situation
(see table 2.4) are the predominance of GAM-an over kat-ta-an (34 vs. 5 occurrences),
of pé-danx-zi over pé-(e)-da-an-zi (83 vs. 65 occurrences), and of semi-logographic spell-
ings for the verbs šipant-/ispant- (168 vs. 6 occurrences), ad-/ed- (47 vs. 26 occurrences),
and eku-/aku- (55 vs. 31 occurrences).
58 See e.g., KUB 38.34, where pé-danx occurs in line 7′ (where very little space was available) while
pé-da-an-zi appears in line 2′.
59 In the corpus, at least 30 occurrences of KUR “mountain” can be counted. Kryszen (2019: 10 fn. 62)
observes that KUR as determinative for oronyms is used exclusively in late texts, more specifically in
oracles and cult inventories.
60 The same usage is found in KUB 56.48 and KUB 56.49 (CTH 672), where GIŠZAG.GAR-ni (with phonetic
complementation) contrasts with GIŠZAG.GAR.RA (without phonetic complementation; see KUB 56.48 ii
27, iii 24′, 26′ vs iii 29′; KUB 56.49 rev. 5′–6′ vs rev. 9′). Cf. also the peculiar use of AD for AD.KID in KUB
11.27 i 16′, 24′ (+) KUB 41.55 5′, 7′, 9′, 11′ (CTH 620).
61 Figures for LNS festival texts were retrieved in early 2017 by using the search tool “HFR-Suche”
developed by Gerfrid G.W. Müller in the framework of the Academy programme project Das Corpus
der hethitischen Festrituale (HFR). Although they do not reflect the final Basiscorpus but a preliminary
set of transliterations, the figures can be considered representative of the corpus of festival texts.
62 Neu and Rüster 1973: 226–232, Kühne 1988: 231-232 with fn. 137–140, Weeden 2012: 348–350.
Spelling Inv. Fest. Spelling Inv. Fest.

kiš-an 38 107 a-d/ta-an-zi 24 121
ki-iš-ša-an 3 296 a-danx-zi 2 0
Total 41 403 a-ku-wa-an-zi 30 551
GAM-an 34 70 a-ku-an-zi 1 100
kat-ta-an 5 334 GU‫ܚ‬-zi 47 1
Total 39 404 GU‫ܚ‬-an-zi 0 2
lu-kat 9 8 NAG-zi 52 10
lu-kat-ma 36 1 NAG-an-zi 3 11
lu-kat-ti 3 4 Total 159 796
lu-kat-ti-ma 46 26 BAL-ti 26 130
lu-uk-kat-ti 0 13 BAL-an-ti 40 90
lu-uk-kat-ti-ma 6 178 BAL-zi 5 6
lu-uk-kat-ta 0 153 BAL-an-zi 94 50
Total 100 383 BAL-kán-zi 3 1
GIŠ
ZAG.GAR.RA 217 129 ši-(ip)-pa-an-ti, 6 1928
ši-(ip)-pa-an-d/ta-an-zi
iš-ta-na-n* 7 284 Total 174 2204
Total 224 413 pa-a-i 70 175
NA‫ܗ‬
ZI.KIN 301 29 pí-an-zi 21 478
(NA‫)ܗ‬Әu-wa-ši 3 95 pí-ia-an-zi 17 25
Total 304 124 SUM-an-zi 24 18
aš-nu-ma-aš 47 0 pí-er, pí-i-er, pí-e-er 0 0
aš-ša-nu-ma-aš 52 4 pí-ia-er 0 0
aš-ša-nu-ma-a-aš 6 0 SUM-e-er 0 0
aš-ša-nu-um-ma-aš 40 2 SUM-er 11 0
aš-nu-um-ma-aš 3 0 pé-eš-ke-ez-zi 40 4
Total 148 6 SUM-ez-zi 7 0
pé-danx-zi 83 1 pé-eš-kán-zi 159 50
pé-da-an-zi 26 3 SUM-kán-zi 17 1
pé-e-da-an-zi 39 61 SUM-zi (sg./pl.) 38 1
Total 148 65 Total 404 752
Table 2.4: Distribution of selected spellings across cult inventories and LNS festival texts (figures
include restored attestations). For the method by which the figures have been retrieved, see fn. 61.
Considered against the background of the orthographic conventions of Hittite texts,

the spellings that are preferred in cult inventories often imply a less accurate rendering
of “long” vowels and geminate stops (see e.g. lu-kat-ti… vs. lu-uk-kat-ti…), and in some
case come close to pseudo-logographic spellings, e.g., lu-kat “on the morrow” (for
luk-katti) or kiš-an “thus” (against standard ki-iš-ša-an). Worth mentioning are the
remarkable frequency of the use of the logogram ME for dÃ- “to take” and dai- “to put,”
attested from the reign of Ḫattusili III, 63 and the occasional occurrence of the
abbreviation pé.-an for peran “before, in front of.”64
Pseudo-logographic spellings65 – consisting of nouns written in the stem form –
occur in specific cases in some of the manuscripts. Certain cases reflect free variation
in orthographic usage, like the spelling Ú-NU-WA-AN in KBo 2.1 i 9, iii 15 (instead of
expected unuwanza)66 and GUR-ZI-IP in KUB 38.6+ i 27′.67 At least two cases, on the
contrary, reflect coherently applied conventions that deviate from the standard usage.
These are the spelling of proper nouns in the stem form at the beginning of a paragraph
or sentence (observed in KBo 2.1, KBo 2.13, KUB 38.1+, and KUB 38.3)68 and the short-
hand writing of gen. sg./abl. sg. DUGḪAR-ŠI (instead of DUGḫaršiaš / DUGḫaršiaz) when it
follows the logogram NINDA.GUR4.RA or another heterographic cluster (observed in KUB
17.35, KUB 38.26+, KUB 41.34+, and VBoT 3).69 Both the cases of pseudo-logographic
spellings related to free variation and those representing nonstandard conventions are
a manifestation of the general principle according to which the presence of hetero-
graphic clusters triggers the use of uninflected stem forms in Hittite texts (see also
further below, § 2.3.2.3).70
When logographic and phonetic spellings are contrasted, cult inventories show a
clear predominance of logographic spellings. A conducive comparison is that with pal-
aeographically late (LNS) festival texts, since these arguably represent the corpus that,
by nature and structure, is closest to the cult inventories. Among the examples where
this pattern is most clearly visible (see table 2.4) are the spellings for ištanana- “altar”
and ḫuwaši “cult stela:” cult inventories almost invariably spell it logographically as
GIŠ
ZAG.GAR.RA and NA4ZI.KIN respectively (217 vs. 7 and 301 vs. 3 occurrences respec-
tively), whereas late festival texts show a mixed picture with the prevalence of pho-
netic spellings. Further examples come from the verbs šipant-/ispant- “to offer,”
pai-/pe-/piya- “to give,” ad-/ed- “to eat,” and aku-/eku- “to drink:” for all of them, semi-
logographic spellings are significantly better attested in cult inventories than in festival
texts. Importantly, this general tendency applies irrespective of the frequency of these
spellings, as opposed to fully phonetic ones, within the relevant corpora. E.g., for all
but preterite forms of pai-/pe-/piya- “to give,” both phonetic and semi-logographic
spellings are well attested in cult inventories, with a relative prevalence of full phonetic
spellings (e.g., 38 occurrences of pí-(ia-)an-zi vs. 21 of SUM-an-zi, 159 occurrences of
pé-eš-kán-zi vs. 17 of SUM-kán-zi plus 38 of SUM-zi). Of interest here is the remarkable
63 Weeden 2011: 308–309. In the corpus of the cult inventories considered here, a total of 72 occurrences
have been counted.
64 Weeden 2019: 333 with literature. In the corpus of the cult inventories considered here, a total of 5
occurrences have been counted.
65 More properly, “pseudo-heterographic;” for the concept of heterogram, see Kudrinski and Yakubovich
2016.
66 Cammarosano 2018: 204, commentary on KBo 2.1 i 9.
67 Cammarosano 2018: 463, commentary on mss. A i 27′//B i 39′.
69 Cammarosano 2018: 121 with lit. Contrast e.g., KBo 2.13 obv. 8, 15 with KUB 17.35 ii 10′, 20′.
70 For a thorough discussion of this phenomenon, see Rieken and Yakubovich forthcoming.
contrast as compared to late festival texts, where semi-logographic spellings in verbal

forms are virtually absent. Such distribution patterns, which vary on a case by case
basis against the general tendency towards “compression” outlined above, provide
useful clues for evaluating the classification of fragmentary texts: e.g., forms like
a-da-an-zi, pé-da-an-zi, or GIŠZAG.GAR.RA will be of little help in assessing whether a
fragment belongs to cult inventories or festival texts, whereas forms like GU7-zi,
pé-danx-zi and iš-ta-na-ni will represent a solid argument for classifiying a fragmentary
text as a cult inventory (in the case of GU7-zi and pé-danx-zi) or as a festival text (in the
case of iš-ta-na-ni).
On a diachronic level, the overall tendency towards a “compressed,” “economical”
orthographic style fits well with the general character of NS/LNS manuscripts men-
tioned above, while on the synchronic level it fits well with the cult inventories’ char-
acter as short-lived administrative tablets, to be contrasted with a more prolix ortho-
graphy in tablets meant to be copied over time and stored in libraries indefinitely, as
festival texts are supposed to be. If, however, there is no doubt that effort-saving played
a major role in the development and establishment of many of the spellings that char-
acterise the cult inventories, this alone does not present the entire picture. First, as has
already been mentioned, cases of prevalence of simplified spellings (like kiš-an vs.
ki-iš-ša-an) coexist with cases where more prolix spellings prevail (like in
pí-(ia)-an-zi/pé-eš-kán-zi vs. SUM-(an)-zi) and cases of apparently free variation (as in
the spellings attested for aššanumaš “of the provisions”, table 2.4). Second, some logo-
graphic spellings do not seem to entail a clear effort-saving component compared to
phonetic ones: e.g., both GIŠZAG.GAR.RA and NA4ZI.KIN require more wedges than their
phonetic counterparts, and can hardly be defined as effort- or time-saving spellings.71
Third, that effort-saving is not the only driving force behind many of the diachronically
innovative, “compressed” spellings is shown by asymmetries in the preferred spellings:
e.g., on the one hand the scribes of the cult inventories regularly wrote GU7-zi and
NAG-zi, never GU7-an-zi and almost never NAG-an-zi, but on the other hand they con-
sistently wrote BAL-an-zi and almost never BAL-zi. 72
71 Compare also exceptional cases of semi-logographic monstra like BAL-ip-pa-an-za-kán-zi of DAAM 1.40
rev. iii 9′, which are typical of late manuscripts and remind of the orthography used for hieroglyphic
Luwian texts. Considering that the phonetic spellings of ḫuwaši and ištanana- show little variance, cases
like GIŠZAG.GAR.RA and NA4ZI.KIN do not fit in the scheme proposed by Marquardt 2011, according to
which “elusive spelling” (Ausweichschreibung) for words showing substantial orthographic variance
would be the driving force for logographic writings besides writing economy.
72 In principle, we may wonder whether the difference in spellings may correspond to a convention to
differentiate between imperfective and non-imperfective forms (pointed out to me by Elisabeth Rieken).
A consideration of the spellings that can be undoubtedly assigned, however, seems to me to speak
against this hypothesis. In the case of šipant-/ispant- (BAL), both BAL-ti and BAL-an-ti are well attested
spellings in both genres for the non-imperfective sg.3 form, while the corpus of the cult inventories
contains almost no undoubtedly imperfective forms. In the case of pai-/pe-/piya, both undoubtedly
imperfective and non-imperfective forms are well attested in the cult inventories in phonetic spelling.
As semi-logographic spellings both SUM-an-zi and SUM-zi are well attested besides the unambiguosly
imperfective SUM-kán-zi. Neither the hypothesis that both are conventional writings for
Since there is little doubt that the bulk of the manuscripts dates more or less from
the same period, we must conclude that the observed patterns represent orthographic
conventions established as a result of scribal schooling and writing habits. Most im-
portantly, as has been seen, at least some of these patterns are genre-specific. The com-
plete absence of scribal “signatures” from the colophons of cult inventories prevents
us from cross-checking the identity of their scribes against that of known scribes at-
tested in other genres, so the question is open: were such genre-specific spellings de-
pendent on context, i.e., were they adopted by the scribes depending on the kind of
text they had to write, or rather do they indicate the existence of genre-specific scribal
circles? The overall preference for reduced and logographic spellings in cult invento-
ries makes the former hypothesis certainly plausible. In this scenario, the scribes would
change their spelling habits depending on the text they wrote, adopting a more suc-
cinct orthographic style when writing down ephemeral cult inventories (and other ad-
ministrative texts), while conversely turning to a more prolix mode for festival texts
(and other long-lived texts). The absence (and presence, respectively) of a textual tra-
dition must have also played a role in determining some of the asymmetries observed
across the two genres, insofar as a number of the older – and more often than not,
lengthier – spellings observed in late festival texts are undoubtedly determined by their
being late copies (or adaptations) of older manuscripts. The very presence of substan-
tial scores of logographic and simplified spellings in festival texts (e.g. kiš-an,
GIŠ
ZAG.GAR.RA, NA4ZI.KIN) may be explained by assuming that while in a majority of in-
stances the scribes managed to stay faithful to the orthography of the model texts (or
if one prefers, to the orthographic conventions overall prevalent in the genre), in a
certain number of occurrences the “compressed” spellings that they supposedly used
in writing administrative texts slipped into the tablets.
Still, were this the case, it would be reasonable to expect the share of “nonstandard”
spellings in festival texts to correlate in some way with the patterns observed in the
contemporary cult inventories (or more generally in those corpora that are presumed
to have served as triggers of those spellings). The figures illustrated above, however,
show that this is not the case. The scribes of late festival texts made a fairly common
use, e.g., of the spellings kiš-an and NA4ZI.KIN, but for some reason they virtually never
used the sign DIN for /dan/ nor the spelling SUM-zi for piyanzi/peškanzi – the examples
could be multiplied. Conversely, if the scribes who wrote the cult inventories were
indeed the same ones who wrote contemporary festival texts, we must admit that while
they often used the “prolix” spellings of festival texts in cult inventories, as in the case,
e.g., of pé-e-da-an-zi, they virtually never wrote the words for “altar” or “stela” pho-
netically – although they would have been perfectly familiar with the relevant spell-
ings – nor spelled geminate consonants in the formula lukkatti, although they did it all
the time when writing down festival texts. Again, it is not the hypothesis of strict
genre-specific conventions that is problematic, but rather the assumption that such
non-imperfective forms nor that SUM-an-zi is used for piyanzi and SUM-zi for peškanzi (or vice-versa) is
convincing, and neither option would configure a pattern conforming to those observable for šipant-
/ispant-, ad-/ed-, and aku-/eku-.
conventions would have been in certain cases very strict and in others very loose,
without any apparent rationale to explain the distribution of the observed spellings. In
an alternative scenario, individual scribes would specialize in certain genres (or groups
of genres), developing specific orthographic habits. Under such an assumption the
observed distribution no longer appears problematic, simply because the two groups
of texts would have been written by different people. This does not imply different
schooling. The specialization of the scribes may have taken place at an advanced stage
of the scribal career, along the lines recently argued by Theo van den Hout apropos a
proposed dichotomy between scribal craftsmen and scholar-scribes.73 In conclusion, it
seems possible to submit the view of genre-specific scribal circles as a working
hypothesis. This will have to be corroborated or disproved by further investigations,
which should take into account a comparative orthographic and linguistic analysis of
further textual genres and a more nuanced diachronic perspective.
2.3.2.3Absence of heterographic case-markers, lack of phonetic complementation in
logograms spelling participial forms
A characteristic orthographic feature observed in cult inventories is the lack of Ak-
kadographic case-markers and of phonetic complementation in formulaic expressions.
This strategy of language compression is common to other “administrative” genres as
well, in particular to inventories of goods and oracle reports, where the graphically
unexpressed information can be retrieved based on familiarity with the text type.74 By
far the most relevant case is the logogram GIŠZAG.GAR.RA “altar.” Virtually all of the 245
instances occurring in the corpus are in the dative-locative case.75 Of these, only two
are marked with both Akkadian preposition and phonetic complementation and 36 are
marked with Akkadian preposition but no phonetic complementation, while 109 have
the dative-locative phonetic complementation -ni appended and no Akkadian
preposition, and 98 display neither of these elements. The distribution is especially
telling insofar as it shows that the choice of appending a phonetic complement or not
to the logogram GIŠZAG.GAR.RA in the absence of an Akkadian preposition was seem-
ingly a matter of taste: in other words, no established convention prescribed either
option as long as readers were able to decode the expression based on contextual in-
formation and expert knowledge. Other, isolated examples are found, e.g., with
NA4
ZI.KIN “cult stela” (e.g., in KBo 2.7 obv. 11′ NA4ZI.KINḪI.A pedanzi “they bring (the bread
loaves) to the stelae”) and É DINGIR “temple” (e.g., KuSa 1/1.3 rev. iv 15 ANA INIM É DINGIR
“concerning the question of the temple”).76
A salient orthographic feature encountered in the corpus is the lack of phonetic
complementation in logograms spelling participial forms. The most typical case is
73 Van den Hout 2015.

74 For an appraisal of this phenomenon in the genre of the so-called palace inventories, see Rieken and
Yakubovich forthcoming.
75 “On the altar,” a label used in the list of offerings, see Cammarosano 2018: 152–153.
76 That INIM É DINGIR is a genitive construction is no reason not to expect the presence of the Akkadian
phonetic complementation, cf., e.g., the orthography KÁ É DINGIR-LIM regularly used in instructions and
festival texts.
represented by the endingless Sumerographic participle GAR.RA “plated, inlaid”

preceded by a logogram indicating the material,77 of which 94 occurrences are counted.
Another case is represented by endingless (KI.)GUB “standing,” of which 19 occurrences
are counted (against 45 occurrences of participial GUB with ending, e.g., GUB-an-za or
GUB-aš).
2.3.2.4Orthographic variation
Besides specific orthographic patterns, free variation is also a common feature of cult
inventories. Among the numerous possible examples, one may single out KBo 49.111
(see the variation in the spelling of the word for “stela,” logographic ZAG.GAR.RA in rev.
7′–8′ vs. phonetic ḫuwaši in rev. 10′), KUB 7.24+ (variance between A-NA and ANA,
ḫamešḫa- and Ú.BAR8, ḪUR.SAGḫa-pár-ḫu-na-aš and KURḫa-pa-ar!-ḫu-na-aš), KUB 12.4
(pé-eš15-k[án-zi] in i 3′ vs. standard pé-eš-kán-zi in i 10′ and passim), KBo 21.81(+) (use
of both MEŠ and ME.EŠ in KBo 34.106), and KUB 55.14(+) (use of both KUR and ḪUR.SAG
as logogram for “(divine) mountain”).
2.3.3Morphology
Of interest is the occurrence of suffixed =maš as a “Luwicized” enclitic third-person
pronoun dative plural.78 This phenomenon was interpreted by E. Rieken (2014b: 168)
as an interference with the Luwian dat./loc. pl. ending =manz(a). A more economical
explanation seems now preferable (suggested to me by Ilya Yakubovich and H. Craig
Melchert), namely to assume that -ma-aš renders the Luwian pronominal clitic =mmaš
attested in Cuneiform Luwian (although not in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Empire
Luwian).79
2.3.4Morphosyntax und syntax

Several syntactic traits can be considered characteristic for the corpus. To be sure, not
all of these features are restricted to cult inventories, but their high frequency and
combination produces a characteristic and unique syntactic blend. A list of the relevant
features, compiled together with Elisabeth Rieken, includes the following:80
Strong prevalence of parataxis over hypotaxis;

Tendency towards short sentences;
Verbal forms are mostly in the 3rd person plural (impersonal), rarely in the
3rd person singular (often with unexpressed subject), differently than in
festival texts; indicative only (no imperative, differently in royal instruc-
tions, although both genres have prescriptive character); present tense only
77 HW2 s.v. ḫališšiya-, Weeden 2011: 153 fn. 681.

78 For this phenomenon, see Rieken 2014b: 168; for examples and attestations, also outside the corpus of
cult inventories, see Cammarosano 2014: 144–151, Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 59–60.
79 For the interpretation of =(m)maš as the common form in all the Luwian dialects of the Empire period,
and Iron Age Luwian =(m)manz(a) as secondary innovation, triggered by analogy with the nominal dat.
pl. ending =anza, see Yakubovich 2010: 188, 190–191.
80 See Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 60–61.
(apart from embedded direct speech and description of the former state of
the cult);
Unexpressed subject (mostly either the local community taken as a whole,
or the local priest), unexpressed change of subject (from 3rd person plural
to 3rd person singular and vice versa);81
Asyndesis between main clauses, between appositions or parentheses, and
especially when describing rites, without =a/=ma for subtopic-marking;82
Null objects in formulaic expressions, with the relevant verbs being genre-
specific;83
Lists and “list-grammar”, often triggering the nominative instead of “cor-
rect” accusative or genitive;84
Parentheses, especially frequent in cult image descriptions, in contrast to
festival texts;85
One verbal form for multiple constituents;86
Ellipses (of pronouns, direct objects, adjectives, genitives, occasionally of
other constituents and entire phrases);87
Metonymies;88
Embedded direct speech (statements and depositions of cult personnel, no
recitations, differently than in festival and ritual texts);
Asyndetic constructions for consecutive actions;89
Cleft constructions.90
81 For examples and discussion, see Cammarosano 2018: 48–49.

82 For examples and discussion, see Cammarosano 2018: 48.
83 See Cammarosano 2018: 47, where ḫuek- “to slaughter,” pai-/pe-/piya- “to give,” peda- and uda- “to
bring,” dai-/te-/tiya- “to place,” and taninu- “to arrange” are noted as verbs attested with null objects in
cult inventories; note that some tablets, like KUB 25.23+ and IBoT 2.131, do use null objects very rarely
or not at all. Regarding festival texts, Pflugmacher 2016 notes that the verbs that occur frequently with
null objects are normally not combined with local particles; according to her, relevant verbs in the
corpus of festival texts include dai-/te-/tiya- “to institute,” pai-/pe-/piya- “to give,” dā- “to take,” paršiya-
“to break,” šipand- “to libate,” eku-/aku- “to drink,” ed-/ad- “to eat,” wāk- “to bite,” epp-/app- “to take,”
šarra- “to divide,” laḫu(wai)- “to pour,” and šuḫḫa- “to pour.” For the use of null objects in Hittite, see
now Inglese, Rizzo, and Pflugmacher 2019.
84 For examples, see Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 60–61.
85 See e.g., KBo 2.13 obv. 22–23.
86 See e.g., KBo 2.13 rev. 5′–6′.
87 See for examples and discussion Cammarosano 2018: 35–36 (predicative and depictive use of annalla/i
„former(ly)“, often with ellipsis of the reference word expressing the cult installation), ibid. 47 (ellipsis
of pronouns, objects, and phrases).
88 E.g., GÚ “neck” for GÚ SAG “head (and) neck” (cult vessel), DUGḫarši “pithos” for “seasonal festivals.”
90 So in IBoT 2.131 obv. 24′, rev. 23 and 33, see Cammarosano 2018: 270 with literature.
2.3.5Semantics, lexicon, and formulae

A number of technical terms and formulaic expressions can be singled out that are
characteristic of cult inventories. A list of the relevant termini technici includes the
adverb kinun, kinun=a/ma “(but) now,” the adjective annalla/i- “former, in place since
of old,” and the verbs pai-/pe-/piya- “to give” (with the specialized meaning “to supply
regularly (offerings),” mostly in the imperfective), dai-/te-/tiya- “to institute” (only
attested with the king as subject), katta ḫamenk “to fix, to mandate,” tarrawa(e)- and
ḫanda(e)- “to establish.”91
Formulaic expressions are attested for the coming of autumn and spring, of dawn
and sunset, for the sacrifice, feasting, “rejoicing,” and the act of “bringing the gods.”92
The label aššanumaš “of providing,” i.e. “provisions,” is regularly appended to the list
of the offerings to be consumed by the local community taking part in the rites; it
occurs very frequently in cult inventories (148 attestations), but is rare in festival texts
(only 6 attestations).
Regarding the lexicon, of interest is the distribution of the two words meaning
“entire, all,” namely, hūmant- and the late competitor dapi-, in cult inventories vis-à-
vis other genres.93 As a matter of fact, in cult inventories the stem dapi- is used far
more frequently than ḫūmant- (40 vs. 12 occurrences), differently than in LNS festival
texts (22 vs. 93 occurrences). It is also noteworthy that among the various terms
denoting water springs, cult inventories always use aldanni-, a word that represents a
lexical innovation in Hittite.94 Among the Luwian loanwords and Luwianisms found
in the corpus, annalla/i- “former(ly),” “of old” is the most frequently attested one;95
other examples include the figura etymologica 𒑱zuzunimi zuzuninti in KBo 2.8 ii 5 (ed.
below, § 6.1), the participle zarim(m)i/am(m)a (ibid. iii 13′, iv 33′, 35′), GIŠirwit- “basket”
in KUB 38.25 i 15′, 16′, 21′ (ed. below, § 6.15), the instr.-abl. ariyatati “by levy” in KBo
13.231 obv. 6′ and passim, the present tense with Heischefutur function āppan tarnuwai
“shall release,” equivalent to Hittite āppan tarnumaš “to be released,” in KBo 70.109+
iv 36′,96 the gloss words tirana- in KuSa 1/1.4 21′ and zarpa/i- in KUB 44.1 rev. 21′ (ed.
below, § 6.9), the verb palḫā- “make flat, spread out” in VBoT 42 3′, the word alattar
“fruit”? in KUB 42.91 ii 9, the verbal ending °-iyai in KUB 51.23+ iii 6′ ([ … ]-an-ti-ia-i),
and finally a number of Luwianized divine names in -aššiš (see below, § 4.3.3).
91 For discussion and examples, see Hazenbos 2003: 201–203, Cammarosano 2018: 35–38, Cammarosano
and Rieken 2020: 62 fn. 18 (on the uses of annalla/i-).
92 Cammarosano 2018: 38–45. For formulae in festival texts, see Rieken 2011, ead. 2014b.
93 On Hittite ḫumant-, see Rieken 2014b: 165–167, Rieken and Widmer 2014.
94 Steitler 2019: 6, with literature. If not a Luwian loanword, this term might be Hurrian loanword that
entered the Hittite lexicon via Luwian.
96 Pointed out to me by H. Craig Melchert, see Sasseville 2020: 477–478. For the leveling of the irregular
paradigm of tarna- as tarnuwa-, compare tūwa- “to put.” The form was previously considered a mistaken
Hittite form (Cammarosano 2018: 469–470).
2.3.6Pragmatics
The most evident feature that characterizes the corpus is the level of language com-
pression in accounts of festivals, which is even higher than in festival texts. The un-
derstanding of these “festival descriptions” presupposes familiarity with the genre and
a certain degree of expert knowledge. For modern researchers, the comparison of var-
iant formulations and the consideration of exceptional cases where rites are described
in more detail can be of help in decoding the abbreviated accounts present in most of
the tablets. Among the texts containing particularly detailed festival descriptions are
KUB 17.35, KUB 25.23+, and KUB 25.24.
A second feature to be stressed is the relatively frequent focus marking of the sub-
ject by its shift into preverbal position, especially for suppliers of offerings. Like the
level of compression of festival descriptions, this aspect represents a difference from
the situation observable in festival texts.97
A further aspect of interest is the word order in cult image descriptions.98 A stand-
ard word order for the basic elements of cult image descriptions exists, with additional
variants and sub-variants for the expression of accessory information, in particular for
the information on whether the represented gods are “standing” (GUB, Hittite arant-)
or “seated” (TUŠ, Hittite ašant-). Three patterns can be singled out depending on
whether the participle is found in the sg. nom. n., then in agreement with ešri “statu-
ette” (pattern A), or in the sg. nom. com., then in agreement with the god (pattern B),
or in the sg. gen. in adverbial function (pattern C).99 If additional participles are pre-
sent, a secondary distinction can be made within the first and third pattern, depending
on whether the participle agrees with the god or the cult image (table 2.5 on p. 30; for
examples, see Cammarosano 2018: 46).
A perusal of a representative sample of texts with cult image descriptions reveals
18 occurrences for pattern A, 7 occurrences for pattern B, and 16 occurrences for
pattern C, distributed as displayed in table 2.6 (p. 30).
The distribution shows that different patterns can coexist in a single manuscript,
hints at scribe-specific preferences for this or that pattern, and suggests that the use of
different patterns may also be related to the different kinds of cult image: in KBo 2.1,
out of thirteen attestations of pattern C, twelve pertain to statuettes, while descriptions
of theriomorphic vessels mostly follow pattern B.
97 For an example, see Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 62–63.

98 For discussion and examples, see Cammarosano 2018: 45–47.
99 The last option is seemingly influenced by the formula GUB-aš / TUŠ-aš, which is ubiquitous in festival
texts and is probably related to the so-called free-standing genitive.
Pattern Posture Further infos

A GUB/TUŠ-an (nom. n., agrees with ALAM/ešri) pt. c. / pt. n.
B GUB/TUŠ-za (nom. c., agrees with the divine
name)
C GUB/TUŠ-aš (‘free-standing’ gen.) pt. c. / pt. n.
Table 2.5: Patterns used in cult image descriptions for expressing the posture of statuettes.
Text Type of cult Pattern

image A B C
KUB 38.1+ ALAM 7 (6 pt. c.)
KUB 38.2 ALAM 6 (1 pt. c.) 1
KUB 38.3 ALAM 4 (1 pt. c., 1
pt. n.)
KUB 38.12 GU‫ܗ‬.MAԋ 1
KBo 2.1 B: 2× with 3 13
GU‫ܗ‬.MAԋ, 1×
with ALAM;
C: 12× with
ALAM, 1× with
GU‫ܗ‬.MAԋ
KUB 17.35 ALAM 1 1
KUB 38.26+ ALAM 1 (1 pt. c.)
KUB 38.6+ B: GU‫ܗ‬.MAԋ; 1 1 (1 pt. n.)
C: ALAM
KBo 70.109+ GU‫ܗ‬.MAԋ 1
Total 18 7 16
Table 2.6: Distribution of the patterns considered in table 2.5 in selected tablets.
2.3.7 Negatively defined characteristic features

The corpus can be characterized also by the absence of specific features:
Differently than in festival texts, cult inventories do not display archaisms
(e.g. ta, lukkatta, paršiya, Әalziya; the forms used are nu, lukatti, paršiyazzi,
Әalziyari; see Cammarosano 2018: 33);
Differently than in oracle texts, mismatches in agreement are rare or absent
Differently than in festival texts, cult inventories show a preference for
abstract nouns in genitive instead of adjective + head noun or finite verbal
forms (e.g., EGIR-an tarnuwaš, aššanumaš);
Differently than in oracle texts but similarly to festival texts, abbreviations
are rarely used (pé.-an for peran is sometimes attested, see § 2.3.2.2).
3.THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE HITTITE CULT INVENTORIES
by Adam Kryszeń
Since in the past only a selection of the Hittite cult inventories have been subject to
intensive research, previous investigations on the historical geography of the Hittite
kingdom were not able to use the full potential of this genre.100 The local focus of the
cult inventories, their highly technical language and a rather complex structure all
made it often difficult to come to grips with multiple rare toponyms mentioned in those
texts and the geographical relations between them.101 In the frame of a general study
of the corpus, we are presented with a welcome opportunity to analyse the geograph-
ical aspect of the Hittite cult inventories. Ultimately, it is hoped that this chapter will
make the geography behind those texts more accessible and useful for both more de-
tailed and more general research. For further considerations on geographical aspects
of local panthea, see § 4.4.
The Hittite cult inventories provide a wealth of geographical information. Unlike
other Hittite genres, however, these texts quite often focus on the panthea and cult
practices of small, lesser-known settlements that only occasionally show links to larger
urban centers. Yet, as a group their geographical scope is impressively broad, stretch-
ing far in every direction from the Hittite capital in Ḫattuša and clearly exceeding the
reach of the state-sponsored religious festivals.
The cult inventories offer a unique window into the world of people and places that
fall outside the purview of the great politics and the imperial affairs of the Hittite kings.
This means, however, that many of those places have little chance of surfacing in any
other documents found the Hittite archives, which mainly deal with matters of the
state.102 Indeed, almost two hundred different towns, mountains, rivers and springs
whose names appear in the cult inventories are not found anywhere else in the Hittite
corpus. The detailed, zoomed-in perspective of these texts often leaves us – quite iron-
ically – in a difficult spot when trying to locate these rarely mentioned places on the
map.
100 This chapter was written as part of the project “The Nature of Geographical Knowledge in Hittite
Anatolia in 18th–12th cent. BCE in the Light of Cuneiform Texts,” funded by the National Science
Centre, Poland (No. 2016/23/D/HS3/00808).
101 See, most notably, Forlanini 1996 and 2009, Houwink ten Cate 1992: 139–140, and Hazenbos 2003:
191–198.
102 One such opportunity could be the archives from places other than Ḫattuša, as demonstrated by the
recently discovered tablets from Kayalıpınar, and to a certain extent from Maşat Höyük. These
collections place stronger focus on the towns and villages situated in the immediate area of these
local centers.
32 The geography of the Hittite cult inventories
Fortunately, there are ways to overcome this problem, at least to a certain extent.
Identifying broader geographic contexts of many cult inventories can be achieved not
only solely through the analysis of the toponyms mentioned in the texts; we are able
to retrieve valuable information also by investigating the worshiped deities, the cele-
brated festivals, the officials or the specific terms that occur in the texts.
By using the information from other genres on one hand, and a careful, bottom-up
analysis of the internal structure of the cult inventories on the other hand, we have a
good chance of making sense of the complex relations between the lesser-known places
mentioned in those texts and link them to the better-known centers.
The general image emerging from such an investigation is one that could be de-
scribed – using a term from social network analysis – as the decentralized topological
model (see the graph at the end of this chapter, § 3.2.8).103 The Hittite cult inventories
paint a picture of a network of interconnected regions (or clusters), which are, how-
ever, neither uniform, as they differ in size and complexity, nor clear-cut, as they show
various degrees of overlap.
3.1Sources and method

3.1.1Basic data
Of approximately 450 texts identified as cult inventories, around 250 provide geograph-
ically relevant information, 104 meaning that they either mention place names (210
texts),105 or provide other data that can be used to attribute a given inventory to a
certain area.106 Texts containing toponyms range from those mentioning a single place
name (ca. 100 texts) to ones listing over 50 place names (several). Overall, we know of
around 500 different towns, mountains, rivers and springs attested in the Hittite cult
inventories.107 Usually (in ca. 400 cases), a toponym is found in a single text, since a
given area is rarely the focus of multiple inventories. More frequent are larger centers,
or towns that send their representatives or goods to other places for various festivals.
The most attested toponyms are Nerik, Zippalanda, Arinna and Ḫatti/Ḫattuša, each
appearing in more than 10 texts. These, however, are rarely used to indicate a
geographical location per se, but rather serve to identify a deity, e.g. the Storm God of
Nerik, the Sun Goddess of Arinna etc. (cf. § 4.1.2 with table 4.3). For this reason their
usefulness for geographical research is very limited.
103 Barabási 2002: 145.

104 The remaining 200 texts are irrelevant for the present analysis only because of their bad state of
preservation, as by their very nature they must have originally referred to a specific area or areas.
105 The term “toponym” is understood here as any place name, i.e. a name referring to a city, a country,
a watercourse or a mountain.
106 Note the important distinction between texts and textparts discussed earlier in the book (§ 2.1.4),
which implies that one text can contain the inventory of multiple places.
107 To this one may add ca. 50 akephala, which, at least partly, should refer to the otherwise unattested
toponyms.
Sources and method 33
From a geographical point of view, the available cult inventories are structurally
diverse in that they differ both in the scale and in the make-up of the described areas.
As a consequence, they fall into three categories with varying degrees of complexity:108
Texts describing the cult and the religious practices of one specific city (and its
immediate surroundings) – e.g. KBo 26.188 (cult of Kaštama or Nerik), KBo 61.87
(cult of Tašimuwa);
Texts describing the cult and the religious practices of one local area (a local
cluster) – such texts are usually organized around one larger center (a city or a
mountain), and are divided into sections devoted to individual cities and their
surroundings located in that area – e.g. KUB 25.23+ describing the cluster of
Ḫakmiš or KUB 42.105+ describing the cluster of Katapa;
Texts describing the cult and the religious practices of multiple local areas,
which can, but do not have to be, adjacent; separate sections in such descriptions
can vary with regard to the level of detail – e.g. KBo 21.81+ describing three
adjacent regions: Ḫattena, Ḫanḫana and Ḫakmiš, or KBo 12.53+ describing the
regions of Kaššiya, Durmitta, Wašḫaniya and Tapikka.
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.
Any detailed geographical analysis requires first the identification of the territorial ex-
tent of the inventory, i.e., which of the above types it represents. While in some cases
this is unproblematic (e.g., the texts found in Kayalıpınar/Šamuḫa will most likely refer
to the region around that city), in many others, especially when the investigated tablets
are preserved only in fragments, such identification becomes a complicated matter.
In our attempt to elucidate the geographical complexities of the Hittite cult inven-
tories, we can distinguish two major paths of inquiry. The first is to use the compara-
tive material from other texts found in the Hittite tablet collections. A good number of
the cult inventories mention places that we encounter also in historical narratives, de-
scriptions of the state-sponsored festivals, administrative documents etc. Such “exter-
nal” evidence can be of great help when trying to establish the general geographical
setting of a given inventory, and is particularly valuable for clarifying small fragments
with one or two settlements preserved. To give just one example, the badly broken
KUB 38.5 mentions only one toponym – the city Ziškuliya. Since this town is otherwise
known from only one group of texts, dealing with the Festivals for the god Telipinu
celebrated in and around the city of Ḫanḫana (CTH 638), this lets us conveniently at-
tribute KUB 38.5 (or at least its preserved part) to this region.
In many cases, however, the “external” evidence is hardly helpful, in particular be-
cause – as already mentioned – almost 200 place names found in the cult inventories
do not occur in any other text. Facing such obstacles, we need to turn to the second
path of inquiry, namely, a close, combinatorial analysis of the cult inventories in order
108 It needs to be stressed that the attribution to one of the following groups is based on the text in its
current state of preservation, not on its original, reconstructed form.
to find patterns and features that could reveal the nature of the relations between dif-
ferent places.
The geographical evidence in the Hittite cult inventories is to a high extent genre-
specific. The texts describe the panthea and the cult obligations of certain areas, whose
exact extents are unclear and most definitely not uniform. In addition, unlike the de-
scriptions of the state-sponsored festivals, cult inventories rarely provide details of the
celebrations. A particular difficulty in that respect comes from the fact that they fail to
outline any cult itineraries, which are of fundamental value for reconstructing the his-
torical geography of Hittite Anatolia.109
In addition, many toponyms mentioned in the cult inventories do not refer to loca-
tions per se, but are rather used to identify deities, institutions or groups of people. We
may thus read of the Storm God of the city Kazzaḫa or the palace of the city Kašaya,
but those very cities never occur as the locus of any action. That such pieces of infor-
mation do not necessarily bear any geographical significance is best illustrated by the
fact that the most frequently mentioned cities in the entire corpus of the cult invento-
ries – Ḫattuša, Arinna, Nerik, and Zippalanda, are hardly ever a reliable geographical
indicator. These centers – the four holy cities of the Hittites – were the seats of the
most prominent deities of the state and their presence in the texts is merely a reflection
of their status, having little to do with geography.
While the case of the holy cities is well known, it still forcefully demonstrates the
danger of mechanically assuming that places mentioned together should belong to-
gether on the map. In fact, with regard to toponyms functioning as identifiers (of dei-
ties, institutions etc.), the Hittite cult inventories, and indeed the entire Hittite corpus,
seem to be governed by the rule of reverse proportionality – the more frequently such
a place is mentioned and the wider its distribution, the less reliable it is for a geograph-
ical analysis.
With these reservations in mind, one can nevertheless point to certain features that,
especially when combined, should indicate proximity and can help identify the
geographical context of a given cult inventory. These features are:
Visiting representatives;
Transport of goods and livestock;
Local institutions and officials;
Cult of mountains;
Geographically circumscribed cults;
Recurring groups of toponyms.
Even one of these features can be sufficient to suspect a close geographical link. If
several of them can be detected in one text, that provides a strong clue suggesting
geographical proximity.
109 On the value of itineraries for geography, see Kryszeń 2016: 21–22. Cult inventories thus fall into
Group B in my attempt to systematize the Hittite written evidence with regard to its usefulness for
geographical research.
3.1.2Visiting representatives
Some inventories show groups of people from one settlement participating in celebra-
tions in other towns. Since we are dealing with local and regular religious practices
and not state-sponsored festivals, it is unlikely that people traveled for days to partic-
ipate in such celebrations. Much more probable is that they visited settlements close to
their homes.
In the cult inventories, representatives from other settlements are usually referred
to as LÚMEŠ URUGN “people from GN”,110 as opposed to LÚMEŠ URU-LIM (or LÚMEŠ URU-aš)
“people from the city”. The latter term describes the inhabitants of the city that is the
focus of a given inventory, i.e. the visited settlement. Its name is not required in the
expression LÚMEŠ URU-LIM as it is mentioned at the beginning of the relevant fragment
and in the colophon of the text. Compare the following fragments:
KBo 39.48 rev. v 7′–8′ D10 URUga-aš-t[u-ḫ]a LÚMEŠ URUták-du-ša 8′e-eš-ša-an-z[i]
“The people of Takduša celebrate the Storm God of Kaštuḫa.”
KBo 42.105+ rev. iii 7′–9′: [INA] URUḪi-šurx-la dMUNUS.LUGAL URUḫi-šurx-la A-NA EZEN4 8′DUGḫar-ši
šu-uḫ-ḫa-u-wa-aš (…) 9′LÚMEŠ ⸢URU-LIM⸣ SUM-kán-zi
“[In] Ḫišurla – the Queen of Ḫišurla. The people from the city provide for the festival of the pithoi-
filling.”
The distinction between LÚMEŠ URUGN and LÚMEŠ URU-LIM allows us at times to identify or
at least estimate an area, even if the beginning of the text or section is missing and the
city name is lost. For example, the colophon of KUB 7.24+ informs us that the tablet
lists the cult supplies for the deified mountains Malimaliya and Ḫaparḫuna, and for the
deities of the cities Takupša and Ḫawalkina, thus referring to four, presumably adja-
cent, areas. Although the beginning of the last section is lost, this part must refer to
the city Ḫawalkina and thus the expression LÚMEŠ URU-LIM can be assumed to refer to
that city.
Another case is KBo 39.48 cited above, where we find a series of short paragraphs
devoted to the cults of different (groups of) deities, each paragraph ending with the
mention of who was responsible for providing for these deities (LÚMEŠ URUGN eššanzi).
We thus have people of Zikmar, people of Takduša, and people of Ḫapatḫa stated. If
the distinction between LÚMEŠ URUGN and LÚMEŠ URU-LIM is valid also in this case, these
sections would refer to representatives from these three cities visiting another town
whose name is lost. We would thus be dealing with a text focused on an unknown city
somewhere north of Ḫattuša, whose vicinity included Zikmar, Takduša, and Ḫapatḫa.
3.1.3Transport of goods and livestock

At times, the descriptions of local festivals include the information on required food-
stuffs, beverages and livestock. In most cases, what was needed was available on the
spot, but sometimes it had to be brought from other places. Such remarks are valuable,
since they likely indicate small distances between the point of origin and the point of
destination of the transported goods and animals. For example, in KUB 51.69+ iv 9′–
110 GN stands here, and elsewhere, for “geographic name.”

12′ it is said that for a festival in Zitḫara one sheep was offered by the people of Ka-
warna and two vessels of wine were brought from Ḫanḫana. In turn, the passage
DAAM 1.36 ii 17 concerns bread and beer brought by the “godly servants” from Tal-
wanuwa to Šamuḫa for a festival in honor of the Storm God piḫašašši.
To be sure, the matter is not immediately obvious. One could argue that much de-
pends on the nature of what was being brought. As argued by the adherents of the
influential (and controversial) Central Place Theory, 111 the distance between towns
and the market is linked to the type of goods the towns offer. Bringing dairy and bring-
ing livestock to the same place are different matters altogether. The former can only
be transported from nearby, as it perishes sooner, while the animals could easily walk
for large distances.
One could therefore argue that the above-mentioned wine brought from Ḫanḫana
to Zitḫara does not necessarily indicate that both cities were located close to each
other. However, while useful, Central Place Theory refers to an ideal, “isolated” land-
scape and is applied in a preferably commercial context. The cult inventories, however,
seem to be governed by other priorities. Although our evidence is admittedly equivo-
cal, one would need some kind of supporting argument to counter the idea that
transport of products for local festivals indicates proximity. Unless one is able to prove,
e.g., that Ḫanḫana had a famous winery and its products were enjoyed in faraway Hit-
tite cities, it is reasonable to conclude that it produced the alcohol on a local scale.112
On the whole, information regarding the transport of goods and livestock for festivals
is rare in the Hittite texts and always seems to suggest proximity.
3.1.4Local institutions and officials

A distinctive feature of some inventories is the presence of state officials, who are re-
sponsible for certain cultic provisions. Their participation in the local cult must mean
that they acted within the region of their official activity.
The most prominent dignitaries we find are possibly the EN KUR-TI “Lord of the Dis-
trict” and the BĒL MADGALTI “Frontier Post Governor.” At times we find them
additionally identified by the city or the capital of the district, e.g. for Šamuḫa and
Katapa, but they often remain unidentified. 113 We also come across the “Lords” of
certain cities, e.g. of Šarišša (KuSa 1/1.3 i 19), whose “Lord” is responsible for deliveries
to “his” city; and of Ḫurma (KUB 56.56 i 21′).114
The distribution of certain institutions can also be relevant geographically, even if
not limited to a specific region. For example, “the palace of Kašaya” (É.GAL URUkašaya)
111 See, e.g., von Thünen’s model of agricultural location developed by Christaller (Cresswell 2013: 88–
96).
112 One should also add that there is other evidence in favor of the small distance between Ḫanḫana and
Zitḫara (see § 3.2.3.1).
113 Several EN KUR-TI without a clear identification are found in KUB 25.22 ii 13′ (cluster of Ḫattena), KBo
22.222 iii 1′ (cluster of Ḫanḫana), and KUB 25.23+ i 16′ (cluster of Ḫakmiš), KUB 26.227 iii 10′ (perhaps
the cluster of Ḫakmiš?).
114 The presence of the “Lord” of a city (EN URUGN), and not of a district (EN KUR URUGN) should not
necessarily mean that the inventory refers to that city, however.
supplies only the cults in the regions of Katapa, Šamuḫa or Šarišša, thus should be
viewed as a phenomenon of the territories east of Ḫattuša.
3.1.5Mountain cults
The cult of mountains is one of the most defining features of Hittite religion and is
clearly visible in the Hittite cult inventories (cf. § 4.1.2). Many Hittite cities were inti-
mately tied to certain mountains situated in their vicinity, the most famous examples
being the city Zippalanda and Mt. Daḫa, or the city Arinna and Mt. Ḫulla. To add to
that, we note more than thirty pairs of a city and a mountain sharing the same name.115
Thus it is far from surprising that a close connection between a mountain and a city
or cities in its vicinity figures prominently in the cult inventories. Several inventories
seem to focus on mountains rather than cities (e.g. KUB 38.32 or KUB 55.15). In other
texts, various lesser-known mountains are found in panthea of specific cities, which
again indicates proximity. For example, according to KBo 2.1, Mt. Šuwara enjoyed its
cult in the cities Maliyašša, Da[ … ]wišta and probably Maraša, while Mt. Auwara be-
longed to the pantheon of Šuruwa.116
In still other inventories we come across festivals for the local mountains that in-
cluded bringing the cult images of those mountains onto the mountains themselves.
Such a festival is described, e.g., in KUB 25.23+ i 10′–11′, according to which (the image
of) Mt. Ḫalwanna was carried up to the mountain.117
One needs to keep in mind, however, that just as with the famous gods and god-
desses, some mountains were celebrated also outside of their local context and their
presence in a text is not necessarily geographically telling. This is likely the case with
Mt. Daḫa, which appears alongside the supraregional Storm God of Zippalanda.
3.1.6Geographically circumscribed cults

A geographically limited cult of a (type of a) deity can manifest itself in several ways.
3.1.6.1The same local deity venerated in various cities
Unless a deity belongs to the state cult, like e.g. the Storm God of Nerik, the Storm God
of Zippalanda or the Sun Goddess of Arinna, its appearance in multiple cities, in par-
ticular mentioned in the same text, seems to indicate that its cult was a local phenom-
enon. Such reasoning is of course tricky in that it is impossible to draw a clear-cut
distinction between deities of local and regional importance and the evidence in many
cases is far from clear. To recall the known example of the cult of Telipinu, it is still
uncertain whether the fact that its main centers were Ḫanḫana, Durmitta and Tawiniya
is geographically determined or not.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that e.g. the “Queen” (dMUNUS.LUGAL)
of the poorly attested town Ḫišurla was a goddess of a rather localized importance. For
115 A provisional list of these can be found in Kryszeń 2019: 11.

116 On the text, see Forlanini 1996 (geographical setting) and Cammarosano 2018: 189–207 (edition).
117 KUB 25.23+ i 10′–11′, ed. Cammarosano 2018: 362–363.
that reason her cult in the town Ištuḫila118 should indicate the proximity of both cities
(an assumption that is also corroborated by other factors).
3.1.6.2The same type of a deity venerated in places listed in one text
Another indication of proximity is the case of one particular category of deity, whose
different hypostases were celebrated in multiple cities listed one after another.
We find such a shared category of deity in KUB 42.105+: the Queen of Zitḫara, the
Queen of Ḫišurla, and the Queen of Ištuḫila are all listed in subsequent paragraphs
(§§ 12–20). Since this particular inventory displays also other features pointing to a
specific area (the region of Katapa), the occurence of the Queen as a major divine cat-
egory in the region implies that geography and religion went hand in hand in this case.
Of course, this does not have to be true (or provable) for all similar cases.
We should not dismiss a priori the possibility that the defining criterion in such
texts is not geography, but theology. In other words, that the location of those places
is irrelevant, but the fact that they shared a common (type of) deity was the reason
they were grouped together in one text. Such an argument, however, would require
supporting evidence, which seems to be lacking. It thus seems more likely that a com-
mon (type of) deity in places listed together indicates geographical proximity.
3.1.6.3A deity of regional, but still geographically defined importance
The analysis of the available evidence also suggests that the cult of certain deities was
dispersed around larger, but still confined areas. A good example is the Storm God of
Ḫaštuwa,119 who seems to be a northern or north-central deity, connected only to the
areas around Ḫanḫana, Ḫattena Ḫakmiš, and Nerik,120 while never being accompanied
by deities from southern or eastern inventories.
On a more general note, it is interesting to see some other peculiar distributions of
deities in the cult inventories. Some deities seem to “avoid” each other. For example,
the Storm God of Ḫaštuwa never appears in one text together with Ḫašamili. The god-
dess Kataḫḫa, in turn, appears only once with Ḫašamili, but never with the Storm God
of Kaštama. The latter is found once with Ḫašamili, but never with the Storm God of
Ḫaštuwa. In addition, neither of these deities occurs in one text together with Yarri
(with the exception of KBo 70.109+). In general Yarri, but also Pirwa, seem to be ven-
erated in many different areas yet are demonstrably missing in northern cults. As con-
spicuous as these relations may seem, however, whether they present real patterns of
geographical distribution requires further study.
118 KUB 42.105+ § 18.

119 The name’s latter element, ḫaštuwa, might not necessarily indicate a city or town, yet it is certainly
a place, as demonstrated by the occasional use of the URU before the name. A frequent lack of deter-
minative is characteristic for some toponyms, particularly those which serve as identifiers of institu-
tions (such as É.GAL), cf. Kryszeń 2019: 12.
120 Cf. KBo 21.81, KBo 26.227, KBo 39.48+, KUB 25.22, and KUB 38.30.
The geographic extent of the Hittite cult inventories 39
3.1.7Recurring groups of toponyms

If more than one cult inventory contains a certain sequence or a group of toponyms,
and these toponyms do not function as identifiers of gods (thus, e.g., Zitḫara, not a
deity of Zitḫara), this seems hardly coincidental. Such clusters of names may, or
should— if the names are otherwise weakly attested—indicate that the places behind
those names belong together on the map.121
3.2The geographic extent of the Hittite cult inventories

3.2.1Geographical sectors
By applying the above criteria to the corpus and juxtaposing the results with the ex-
ternal evidence from other genres, we are able to identify the geographical setting of a
number of the cult inventories. As a whole, the texts have a remarkably broad geo-
graphical scope, which covers territories extending in each direction from the capital
and reaching far beyond the cultic journeys of the Hittite king.
The specific attribution of individual inventories is not always possible, and in
many cases only a very general area is suggested. In the following, such areas are con-
ventionally defined as the “central,” “northern,” “eastern,” “southern,” and “western”
sectors, whereby Ḫattuša serves as reference point. In some cases, a tablet contains
multiple inventories concerning areas located in different sectors, 122 while in other
cases we are only able to circumscribe the geographical setting by using negative evi-
dence.123 To be sure, the exact delineation of these sectors is a matter of interpretation.
This is due both to the controversial position of many ancient cities, as well as to the
fact that these sectors do not reflect the Hittite perception of their kingdom, but serve
as our modern tool of organizing the evidence.124 In numerous cases, however, we are
able to be more precise in our estimations and narrow down the geographic extent of
a text(part) or fragment to a specific region (cluster) around a large and/or well-known
administrative or religious center, such as Ḫakmiš (in the northern area) or Katapa (in
the central area). It needs to be stressed that for each sector a number of texts have
been identified that cannot be attributed to a specific area; this is particularly observ-
able for the “southern” sector.
The identified sectors with the relevant towns are summarized in table 3.1. In the
analysis presented in §§ 3.2.2–3.2.7, some important centers that could have well been
treated separately were treated as part of clusters of other cities. This is the case for
Ištaḫara (included in the cluster of Ḫakmiš) and Kaštama (the cluster of Nerik).
121 Note, e.g., Zithara, Zilalimuna and Taškuriya, which are found together in HT 4 and KUB 42.105+.
122 For example, KBo 12.53+ describes regions in the western, central and eastern areas.
123 For example, the features found in KBo 70.109+ seem to suggest that the regions described in this
text were not located to the north of Ḫattuša.
124 See similar remarks by Hazenbos 2003: 194 fn. 29. The Hittites themselves did not seem to have a
clearly defined heartland and thus various investigations place the border between the central and
northern districts differently (compare, e.g., Kryszeń 2016, and Weeden and Ullmann 2017).
Sector Principal towns

Northern sector Nerik (with Kaštama)
Ḫakmiš (with Ištaḫara)
Ḫattena
Central sector Ḫanḫana
Katapa
Durmitta
Wašḫaniya
Ḫattuša
Zippalanda
Western sector Kaššiya
Eastern sector Tapikka
Karaḫna
Šamuḫa
Šarišša
Table 3.1: Conventionally defined geographical sectors and relevant towns.
The evidence demonstrates very clearly that the best-attested areas are the central,
northern and eastern sectors. They are easier to identify and usually concentrated
around well-known centers, and although they often appear in texts collecting various
inventories, individual regions are nevertheless identifiable.
In contrast, texts that describe the western or southern territories present a less-
coherent picture. Those inventories rarely seem to be focused on larger centers, or at
least centers that we would know more about, usually treating multiple dispersed set-
tlements in one text. In addition, southern and western areas often seem to be treated
in the same texts, but are never, or almost never, mixed with northern or eastern ter-
ritories. This can only be a tentative conclusion, however, since the image is most cer-
tainly distorted by the nature of the available sources.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the clusters of some well-known centers are
entirely missing from the cult inventories. We thus find no, or hardly any, cults around
the cities of Arinna, Taḫurpa, Šapinuwa, and, it seems, Ankuwa (see below, § 3.2.3).
3.2.2Northern sector
The northern sector is dominated by three regions: Nerik, the northernmost region
which included the important cult center Kaštama; Ḫakmiš, the easternmost region,
which included Ištaḫara; and Ḫattena, the region closest to the Hittite heartland. Inter-
estingly, the Ḫaḫarwa mountains, so often mentioned in historical records and oracle
texts dealing with that region, are missing from the inventories.125
125 An overview of the geographical relations in the north can be found in Corti 2017 and 2018.
3.2.2.1Cluster of Nerik (north)

Nerik, now rather securely identified with the site of Oymaaǧaç in the Vezirköprü dis-
trict,126 was one of the four holy cities of the Hittites. The dramatic history of Nerik,
which included a long period of time during which the city was lost to the Kaškaean
enemy, is well documented. The Hittite sources quite often concern the various and
intensive attempts to reconquer Nerik and the northern territories, most vividly re-
flected in the oracle inquiries, which analysed possible paths the Hittite army could
take through the contested territories, in order to reach Nerik.127
The region of Nerik is rather well represented in the inventories,128 and includes
important cities such as Ḫawalkina and Kaštama. The two cities seem to be treated in
separate sets of sources, and it is possible that they were situated in different directions
from Nerik. Some additional texts can be attributed to the region thanks to a charac-
teristic feature of Nerik, namely the daḫanga religious complex, known to have been
situated exclusively in this city.129
The cult of the city of Nerik itself is described in KUB 42.100+, as the colophon of
the text explicitly states.130 The first part is devoted to the Storm God of Zaḫaluka, a
city always linked to Nerik, Kaštama, and Ḫuršama in other texts. Further, the inven-
tory mentions the cities Ḫadutaziya (§ 9), [ … ]-luwara (if a toponym) (§ 14) and Nata
(§ 25).131 In the last part of the text (from § 29 onwards), the city Utruna appears as the
locus of some of the celebrations. Similar to Zaḫaluka, Utruna is also known from ex-
ternal evidence associated with Nerik.132
Another inventory, KUB 53.21, can be assigned to Nerik on the basis of the mention
of the daḫanga-building and of Ḫawalkina. 133 The latter (written also Ḫawarkina),
must have been a city not far from Nerik, since for the monthly festival in Nerik the
“districts” (KURs) of Ḫawarkina, Ḫakmiš and Ḫattena provided various products.134 Not
only does it place the city close to Nerik geographically, but it also seems to position
Ḫawarkina on par with Ḫakmiš and Ḫattena.135 KUB 53.21 i 7′ also mentions Ḫakmiš,
126 Czichon 2013.

127 On these itineraries, see Beal 1999, Forlanini 2010b and recently Kryszeń 2016: 149–160. On the
geography of the region, see Corti 2017: 224f.
128 KUB 42.100+, KUB 53.21, KUB 7.24+, KBo 55.179, KBo 26.227, KBo 54.164, KBo 39.48+ (partly,
perhaps), KBo 26.188, KUB 25.24 and KBo 20.95.
129 On the elusive nature of daḫanga, see Lamante 2014.
130 KUB 42.100+ IV 1′–6′, ed. Cammarosano 2018: 352–353.
131 The first two are hapax legomena, which forces us to situate them tentatively in the vicinity of Nerik.
The evidence for Nata is equivocal, however. Since in the text the city is said to be the origin of the
tribute (iii 18′), it is possible that we are dealing with the same place that is mentioned in the Bronze
Tablet i 55 as part of the border between Ḫattuša and Tarḫuntašša. If so, it cannot belong to the
region of Nerik.
132 See, e.g., the votive text KUB 48.119+ (de Roos 2007: 208–213).
133 The daḫanga is also mentioned in KBo 55.179, which seems to concern the region of Nerik.
134 E.g., KBo 2.4 iv 36′f. (CTH 672).
135 One could therefore, and with good reasons, opt for a separate region of Ḫawalkina, but it was
decided to make the northern area simpler by including it in the cluster of Nerik. On the possible
location of that city, see Corti 2017: 223.
making the possibile reconstruction of that line perhaps: [IŠ-TU UR]Uḫa-ak-miš

URU
ne-ri-ik-ki URUḫa-wa-a[l-ki-ni-ia].
Ḫawalkina brings another inventory within the scope of the region of Nerik,
namely, KUB 7.24+. This text deals with the cult of two mountains – Mt. Malimaliya
and Mt. Ḫaparḫuna – as well as the deities of the cities Takkupša and Ḫawalkina, all
of which point to Nerik or at least the north. 136 The inventory starts with the
institution of the cult of Mt. Malimaliya, a peak or range that was included in the oracle
itineraries leading from Ḫanḫana in the south to Nerik in the north (KUB 5.1). From
KUB 7.24+ we learn that the cult image of Mt. Malimaliya was housed in the temple of
Mt. Kukumušša, and his stele was placed in the city Taḫniwara, both places likely close
to each other. Further, the text informs us that in the same temple was kept a cult
image of another mountain, Mt. Ḫaparḫuna (otherwise unknown), which also must
have been nearby.
If Mt. Kukumušša, the main resident of the temple, is to be situated in the vicinity
of Nerik, which is likely, then several more inventories mentioning that mountain
should be included in the present section: KBo 26.227 (mentioning the Storm God
ḫaštuwaš), KBo 54.164 and at least part of KBo 39.48+, which also deals with the region
of Ḫakmiš (see below).
The other part of the cluster of Nerik consists of texts dealing with the city of
Kaštama, an important cult center of the local storm god, Mt. Zaliyanu, the goddess
Za(š)ḫapuna and the deity Zuwaši. Kaštama rarely occurs in inventories with other
toponyms, however, and it usually functions as the identifier of the Storm God of the
city.
In KBo 26.188 the Storm God of Kaštama is found alongside Mt. Zaliyanu, the city’s
holy mountain, which was located in its vicinity; and in KUB 25.24 and KBo 20.95
alongside Zaḫpuna and Zuwaši. The latter text mentions a monthly festival for the
Storm God of Kaštama (§ 3), and interestingly mentions also Katapa (§ 6), although in
a broken context. The presence of the latter city means either that a deity of Katapa
was venerated in Kaštama, or that some provisions were brought for the festival to
Kaštama, or that the text was a composition of more than one inventory.
The remaining text mentioning Kaštama is KBo 70.109+ with its parallel text KUB
38.6+. These two tablets are the largest in the entire corpus and include over 50 topo-
nyms each. However, Kaštama (just as Nerik) appears in these texts solely as the iden-
tifier of a storm god, a deity of supraregional character. Its presence is thus geograph-
ically irrelevant.137
136 In Muwatalli’s prayer (CTH 381), the deities of Takkupša are the Tutelary deity of Ḫatenzuwa and
Mt. Ḫaḫarwa, while the city was fortified by Šuppiluliuma I (Forlanini 2010a), see Corti 2018: 40 (with
further references).
137 A number of local panthea include the Storm God of Nerik and/or the Storm God of Kaštama, yet
altogether the cults in these texts are a mix of various traditions from all over the known world, a
fact that effectively hinders any meaningful geographical inquiry.
3.2.2.2Cluster of Ḫakmiš (east)

Ḫakmiš, located near modern Amasya,138 was one of the major Hittite cities north of
Ḫattuša; its role only grew after the loss of Nerik to the Kaška early in Hittite history.
It was Ḫakmiš that took over the cult of the Storm God of Nerik when the god’s original
cult center had become unavailable for worship. This key fact in the history of the
Hittite kingdom is even recalled in one of the cult inventories (KUB 25.21), which are
usually devoid of historical digression. Nevertheless, such a strong historical link with
Nerik must mean that Ḫakmiš was the most prominent northernmost city not to fall
prey to the Kaška.
Ḫakmiš and its vicinity are well represented in the Hittite cult inventories. The
most informative is KUB 25.23+, devoted entirely to this region. 139 The colophon
clearly states that the tablet deals with the deities of Urišta, Ḫakmiš, and one other city
whose name is destroyed, perhaps Parduwata (see below).140 The text describes festi-
vals in and around Ḫakmiš. The celebrations triggered by the (first?) spring thunder
included the participation of the people from Urišta (§ 2) and the effigy of Mt.
Ḫalwanna being taken up to the mountain (§ 3′). In addition, some offerings for the
festival are provided by the Lord of the District (EN KUR-TI, § 3), which should refer to
the Lord of the District of Ḫakmiš. The festival concludes with the deity being taken
to the city of Ḫakmiš to stay there (§ 5).
Apart from Mt. Ḫalwanna and Urišta, KUB 25.23+ also mentions an “ox of the town
Parduwata” (§ 14). This may suggest that the town was not far from Ḫakmiš, unless a
specific, Parduwataean kind of breed is meant. In addition, the local cult of Ḫakmiš is
said to have included a festival that took place at the “Deaf Man’s Tell” near Ḫakmiš
(§ 28).
The deities of Ḫakmiš seem also to be the subject of two other inventories, namely,
KUB 38.25 and KUB 55.48, but these texts do not provide any additional geographical
information.
Therefore, the region of Ḫakmiš included Mt. Ḫalwanna and the cities of Urišta and
(likely) Parduwata. The first of these does not appear in any other text in the Hittite
corpus, which only confirms the attribution to Ḫakmiš, although a spring Ḫalwanna is
encountered in KBo 2.7 // KBo 2.13.141 Parduwata is attested in one other inventory,
KBo 48.109, which again mentions an ox of that city, exactly as we find in KUB 25.23+,
thus suggesting it should be included in the cluster of Ḫakmiš.142
138 Corti 2017: 223–224.

139 Ed. Cammarosano 2018: 358–380.
140 Cammarosano 2018: 358–360, 379–380, commentary on line iv 60′, and see the discussion below.
141 These texts, however, likely deal with southern regions, so the similarity of names seems accidental.
142 One should note, however, that other texts mentioning Parduwata seem to point to an entirely
different region, as shown by Forlanini (2007: 290; see also de Martino 2017: 260). Unless, as suggested
above, we should understood a Parduwata-ox as a kind of breed, we should assume two cities of that
name, since it is hardly possible that the gods of Ḫakmiš would be offered an ox from a city days if
not weeks away.
People of Urišta, in turn, are found in KBo 39.48+ (§ 27), where they provide for the
Storm God ḫaštuwaš, the Storm God of the Meadow and probably the goddess Ḫate-
puna. The text is an extensive report mentioning various northern cults, but it is un-
clear if they all refer to the region of Ḫakmiš.143 Among the many places mentioned in
KBo 39.48+ Zikmar (§ 8) and Ḫapatḫa (§ 17)144 were certainly located somewhere be-
tween Ḫakmiš and Ḫattena, while Mt. Kunkumušša (§ 28) seems to have been situated
towards the region of Nerik (see 3.2.2.1).
The region of Ḫakmiš also included the city Ištaḫara, which was historically and
geographically close to Ḫakmiš,145 and whose cult is likely the subject of the third sec-
tion of KBo 21.81+ (§ 11), discussing also the cults of Ḫattena and Ḫanḫana (see
§ 3.2.3.1). There, the Storm God of Ištaḫara is found alongside, inter alia, the Storm
Gods of Taḫattaruna, ḫaštuwaš, and Tarmatna as well as Mt. Ištaḫarunuwa, all of which
should be located not far from Ḫakmiš.
3.2.2.3Cluster of Ḫattena (south)
Ḫattena was situated three days from Ḫattuša and one day from Ḫanḫana via
Tašimuwa (see § 3.2.3.1) in the northern direction. The city is known to have been part
of the military itineraries that led from the heartland towards Nerik through enemy
territories.146
Ḫattena’s position between the Hittite heartland and the region of Nerik is sup-
ported also by the evidence from the inventories, which shows the city’s links with
Ḫanḫana to the south or (perhaps) southwest, Ḫakmiš to the east, and Nerik to the
north. The inventories mention Ḫattena only twice, but information on its region
seems to be preserved in two more texts.147 Ḫattena’s cult is described in KBo 21.81+,
a text describing at least three central-northern regions, namely that of Ḫattena
(§§ 1-4), that of Ḫanḫana, and that of Ištaḫara (treated as part of the cluster of Ḫakmiš).
The text starts with the statement: DINGIRMEŠ URUḫa-at-ti-na “the gods of Ḫattena” and
goes on to enumerate various deities, high among which we find the goddess Zaḫpuna
and Mt. Ḫaḫaya. Since the latter seems to be the only mountain in the pantheon of
Ḫattena listed in KBo 21.81+, it is reasonable to assume that it must have been the main
holy mountain of the city, which allows us tentatively to assign texts mentioning Mt.
Ḫaḫaya to the cluster of Ḫattena. These are KUB 25.22, where it is found along the
Storm God of Nerik, and KBo 26.191.148
The remaining KBo 12.140 is an outlier in the corpus and does not seem to offer
any relevant geographical information. The text, composed of short paragraphs,
143 If one restores the toponyms in § 2 and § 3 as Iš[taḫara] and Taḫ[attaruna] respectively, a substantial
part of the text could be assigned to the region of Ḫakmiš.
144 Ḫapatḫa is known to have been situated somewhere between Ḫanḫana, Ḫattena and Ḫakmiš
(Kryszeń 2016: 163 with fn. 406); Corti 2018: 40–41 locates it in the vicinity of Ḫakmiš.
145 Both cities formed the core of the vicekingdom of Ḫattušili III before his ascent to the throne (see
Apology of Ḫattušili III, col. ii 61–62, ed. Otten 1981: 14–15).
146 Kryszeń 2016: 311–323, Corti 2017: 221–222; Corti 2018: 39.
147 The texts referring to the cluster of Ḫattena: KBo 21.81+, KBo 12.140, KUB 25.22 and KBo 26.191.
148 The position of Mt. Ḫaḫaya is confirmed also in KBo 54.98, an oracle concerning military operations
in the general region of Nerik.
lists – at least partly – individuals possibly responsible for the verification of cults in
different places (see § 4.3.2). It is extremely terse and offers little information beyond
various names of places, individuals and deities. Even if some of its sections seem to
deal with places close to each other (e.g. Ḫattuša and Temelḫa in § 1), the general order
of the toponyms149 is obscure and can equally well be dictated by geographical reality
as by chance.
3.2.2.4Further texts concerning the northern sector
Some cult inventories cannot be assigned to specific regions, but surely concern the
northern territories between Nerik, Ḫakmiš and/or Ḫattena.
The northern city Zikmar (written also Zikpar or Zikapara),150 allows us to identify
as northern the smaller fragmentary inventories KBo 26.224 and KBo 52.94.151
The city Ḫalenzuwa/Ḫatenzuwa, one of the cities on the military routes leading
from Ḫanḫana to Nerik, is found in the inventories KUB 38.35 (with Kiškiluša), KBo
48.254+, Privat 28, and KUB 57.120.
The Storm God ḫaštuwaš, a clearly northern deity, is found in KUB 38.30, which
mention a a lord of a city (EN) the name of which is broken off; KBo 26.227 (§ 4) with
Mt. Kunkumušša (§ 9); KBo 21.81+ with Ištaḫara and Mt. Ištaḫarunuwa (§ 11); and KUB
25.22 (with the Stag God ḫaštuwaš).
The remaining inventories presumably dealing with northern territories are the fol-
lowing: Ku 99/153 (mentioning Ḫašpina);152 KUB 12.36+ and its duplicate KUB 30.37
(mentioning Tamarmara and a festival for the Storm God of Nerik); KUB 12.45+
(through Tamaḫa/Šamaḫa?); KUB 25.21 (mentioning Nerik, Ḫakmiš and the Kaška);
KUB 38.3 (mentioning Liḫzina and Tiliura); KUB 38.18 (mentioning Nerik); KBo 52.100
(mentioning Ḫarpiša); KBo 56.59 (Nerik); KBo 57.120 (Ḫatenzuwa); KBo 60.89 (men-
tioning Ḫanḫana and Nerik).
3.2.3Central sector
3.2.3.1Cluster of Ḫanḫana (central-north)
Recent research points to the position of Ḫanḫana at the northern edge of the Hittite
central territory and two days from Ḫattuša.153 While the city may belong to the heart-
land due to it proximity to the capital, its liminal character is evident. It constituted the
starting point of the various military itineraries analysed in multiple oracles that ex-
plored various ways to push through the contested territory in order to reach the city
Nerik (mainly KUB 22.25 and KUB 5.1). In addition, Ḫanḫana was not touched by the
149 § 1 Ḫattuša and Temelḫa and the king of Išuwa; § 2 the king of Išuwa; § 3 Zippalanda; § 4 Tawiniya;
§ 5 Wašḫaniya, Storm God of Ḫattena; § 6 [Ta]nizil[a (?); § 9 Sun Goddess of Arinna; § 10 Mountains
of Miyara and Tekaram[ma]; § 11 Mountains of Ḫup(iš)na; § 15 the king of Išuwa, the land of
Ḫarziuna, and the land of Dunna.
150 Corti 2017: 222, id. 2018: 44.
151 The city appears also in KBo 39.48+ (§ 8′).
152 Since the text is found in Kušaklı, this might be a case of a homonymous town located to the south
of Ḫattuša.
153 Cf. Kryszeń 2016: 144–190; Corti 2017: 221–222; Forlanini 2019a: 9 with fn. 43.
two great traveling festivals, the autumnal nuntarriyašḫaš and the spring AN.DAḪ.ŠUM,
during which the king visited the main centers of the central area. The impression that
Ḫanḫana gravitates more to the outside of the Hittite heartland than towards Ḫattuša
is confirmed also by the cult inventories.
Although no known cult inventory seems to be devoted to the cult of Ḫanḫana
itself, the cluster of that city is rather well represented by a variety of sources. 154
Ḫanḫana appears in at least one text with an interregional geographical scope, namely
KBo 21.81+.155 This text links this city to northern and north-eastern centers, such as
Ḫattena and Ištaḫara, in the region of Ḫakmiš.156 Although badly preserved, the text is
clearly organized into several parts, each describing the pantheon of a different re-
gional center and, it seems, its region. The first paragraphs (§§ 1–4) refer to Ḫattena,
then the focus moves to Ḫanḫana (i 13′), but shortly afterwards the text breaks for the
first time. Only parts of cols. ii and iii are preserved, the latter, apart from the deity
Telipinu, mentioning the city Tašimuwa, which is known to have been located on the
route from Ḫattena to Ḫanḫana.157 This makes it probable that the description of the
region of Ḫanḫana stretched from the first to the third column of KBo 21.81+. What is
preserved of the last, fourth column, seems to refer to yet a different region, with dei-
ties such as the Storm God of Ištaḫara and the Storm God of Ḫaštuwa suggesting the
area around Ḫakmiš.158
In three texts, Ḫanḫana figures as the source of deliveries for festivals in other cit-
ies. While not directly referring to the region of Ḫanḫana, these texts likely describe
adjacent territories. According to KUB 51.69+, the people of Ḫanḫana provide two ves-
sels of wine for celebrations in Zitḫara (§ 21). This may indicate that Zitḫara was lo-
cated in the district of Ḫanḫana,159 yet such an immediate conclusion is hindered by
the fact that another party responsible for the provisions was the Frontier Post
Governor of Katapa.160 In addition, a palace inventory mentions Zitḫara of Ḫanḫana,161
which seems like a straightforward indication that the city was close to Ḫanḫana.
However, such an affiliation is almost unprecedented in the Hittite text and, given the
importance of Zitḫara in other texts, Forlanini (2008a: 165) argued that there were in-
deed two cities of that name. This would mean that two Zitḫaras were conspicuously
close to each other and that among almost 50 attestations of the toponym, the two
154 These are: KBo 21.81+, KBo 55.175, KBo 22.222, KBo 54.86, KBo 60.92, KUB 38.28, KUB 38.5, KBo
57.114 and KBo 61.87.
155 Ed. hethiter.net/: CTH 527.9.
156 The other text, KBo 60.89, is a badly broken piece mentioning the city Nerik, and perhaps Ḫanḫana
(rev.? 2′, the reading [ḫ]a?-an-ḫa-a[n- … ] is uncertain).
157 KBo 60.148 i 1–15, see Kryszeń 2016: 160–161. On the location of Tašimuwa, see Kryszeń 2016: 182–
184.
158 The fact that the Storm God of Ištaḫara is not the first deity mentioned in that section of the text
might indicate that Ištaḫara is not the main city of that region, thus suggesting a more important
center in the area, i.e., Ḫakmiš.
159 As suggested in Kryszeń 2016: 185–88.
160 KUB 51.69+ iv 20′.
161 KBo 16.83 ii 3′ (CTH 242): URUzitḫara ŠA URUḫanḫana, thus “Zitḫara of Ḫanḫana.”
cities would be distinguished from each other only once. 162 Given Zitḫara’s strong
links with both Ḫanḫana and Katapa, we could instead cautiously assume only one city
of that name for the time being.163
Two other texts showing Ḫanḫana as the source of provisions are broken where
the suppliers’ destinations should be. KBo 55.175 mentions beer from Ḫanḫana (obv.?
10′–11′),164 and other information (the deities Sun Goddess of Arinna, Mezzulla and the
Storm God of Zippalanda) seems to indicate the central region, although this is far from
certain. The other text, KBo 54.67, seems treat problems of various cults (among them
Tawiniya in § 10), but it is impossible to estimate where the twenty PARĪSU of grain
from Ḫanḫana were to be delivered (§ 7).165
Additional pieces of evidence consist of smaller fragments mentioning places that
are known from other texts to have been close to Ḫanḫana. KBo 22.222, KBo 54.86 and
KBo 60.92 all mention the city Atalḫazi, which, apart from the inventories, appears
exclusively in texts describing the Festival for Telipinu in Ḫanḫana (CTH 638). Inter-
estingly, KBo 22.222 mentions the Lord of the District (EN KUR-TI), which should refer
to the district of Ḫanḫana, even if not explicitly stated. This would be the only mention
of the Ḫanḫana provincial governor in the cult inventories, or ineed in the entire cor-
pus of texts concerning this town.
On exactly the same basis we are able to attribute to Ḫanḫana the fragments KUB
38.28, where we find the city Kašḫa and Mt. Katala, as well as KUB 38.5 mentioning
the town Ziškuliya. All these places are known from the same Festival of Telipinu in
Ḫanḫana.
A similar line of reasoning can be used to connect KBo 57.114 and KBo 61.87166 to
Ḫanḫana. Both texts cite the already-mentioned Tašimuwa, situated somewhere be-
tween Ḫanḫana and Ḫattena.167
162 For a discussion of this problem and the evidence concerning Zitḫara, see Kryszeń 2016: 185–188 and
§ 3.2.3.2 below.
163 A possibile solution to the problem whether there indeed were two Zitḫaras could be a reinterpreta-
tion of the expression URUzitḫara ŠA URUḫanḫana. This kind of wording is found in several cases where
it indicates geographical proximity, but not necessarily administrative affiliation/dependency. Note
the description of the border of Mira-Kuwalliya (CTH 68), where we find ÍDaš-tar-pa KUR URUku-wa-li-
ya ZAG-aš e-eš-du “may the river Astarpa of the land Kuwaliya be your border” (KBo 4.13 i 20). An-
other example would be [ … ]ŠA KUR URUta-pa-pa-nu-wa-ya ÍDda-ḫa-ra “the Daḫara river of the land
Tapapanuwa” (KBo 14.20+ i 12). More than anything else, these passages treat Kuwaliya and Tapa-
panuwa as geographic points of reference, allowing specific parts of the river to be indicated. Perhaps
URUzitḫara ŠA URUḫanḫana should be understood similarly – the (part of the territory of) Zitḫara that
belongs to or borders on Ḫanḫana.

164 Another place is mentioned delivering beer (rev.? 10′), and in large quantities (36 DUG), but of its
name only [ … ]-ia is preserved.
165 If the transport headed to Tawiniya, then it would provide an argument for locating this city north
of Ḫattuša, as suggested by Barjamovic (2011: 297–305) and Kryszeń (2016: 111–143).
166 Both fragments show common features and it is not impossible that they belong together or that they
indirectly join KBo 21.81+.
167 Also interesting is the mention of the “palace of Takiputa” in KUB 46.17 (§ 13′), a city possibly in the
vicinity of Ḫanḫana.
The region of Ḫanḫana emerging from the cult inventories is one that shows links
with the areas of Ḫattena and Ḫakmiš to the north and northeast, with Katapa to the
east (or southeast), particularly through the city Zitḫara, and perhaps with Tawiniya
towards the south or southwest. Interestingly, no inventory mentions Ḫanḫana’s sa-
cred mountain – Mt. Takurga.
3.2.3.2Cluster of Katapa (central-north-east or central-east)
Katapa, one of the major urban centers in the Hittite kingdom, was situated at a two-
day travel distance from Ḫattuša east or northeast from the capital.168
The inventories depicting the cluster of Katapa can be recognized by the appearance
of the officials from Katapa, the various hypostases of the goddess Queen standing at
the head of the local panthea in the region, as well as cities that are known from ex-
ternal evidence to have been situated near Katapa.169
The major piece of evidence comes from KUB 42.105+, which seems to be entirely
devoted to the region of Katapa.170 The Lord of the District of Katapa (EN KUR URUkatapa,
§ 9) is mentioned early as a person responsible for some provisions and is followed by
a sequence of paragraphs mentioning Queen-goddesses from various cities, such as
Zitḫara (§ 12), Ištuḫila (§§ 15–18), and Ḫišurla (§ 16). Zitḫara appears once again at the
end of the text (§§ 29–30), which makes it possible that the entire inventory is con-
cerned with its cult. While the position of Zitḫara is somewhat problematic due to the
possibility of two cities bearing that name (see § 3.2.3.1), the presence of the cities
Ištuḫila and Ḫišurla strongly points to the region of Katapa. The two cities were sta-
tions on the king’s route during the nuntarriyašḫaš and the AN.DAḪ.ŠUM festivals, when
the ruler traveled between Taḫurpa and Katapa.171 Further, the text mentions deities
from Taškuriya (§ 18) and Zilalimuna (§ 21), towns known also from another
inventory, HT 4, where they also co-occur with Zitḫara.
All this makes the region of Katapa a very likely candidate for the geographical
setting of the entire text. If Zitḫara is to be treated as a name referring to a single city,
then the fact that its cult receives provisions from Katapa would imply that Katapa and
Ḫanḫana were neighbouring regions.
This is confirmed by another inventory, KUB 51.69+, in which we again find Zitḫara
together with Katapa and Ḫanḫana. The text lists offerings brought to celebrate the
Zawalli-deity of Muršili in Zitḫara. Katapa sends one of its officials (this time the
Frontier Post Governor, § 25) who delivers one sheep.172 From Ḫanḫana, in turn, two
vessels of wine are brought (§ 21). This clearly suggests the proximity of both major
168 The city’s exact location is debated. On Katapa, see recently Kryszeń 2016: 191–250 (with literature)
and Sir Gavaz 2017: 187–189.
169 The texts are as follows (in order of their evaluation): KUB 42.105+, KUB 51.69+, KBo 58.68, KUB
44.4+, KUB 17.37, KUB 42.91, DBH 43.2.109, KBo 20.95, and KUB 58.7.
170 Ed. hethiter.net/: CTH 528.105.
171 See Kryszeń 2016: 200f., 221–226.
172 The same official appears in the badly preserved KBo 58.68, which thus must be counted among the
texts referring to the region of Katapa, even if it fails to provide other geographical information.
centers to Zitḫara and seems to situate the latter at the border of two neighbouring
districts of Katapa and Ḫanḫana.173
The two remaining relevant toponyms in KUB 51.69+ are Kašaya and Šulupašši(ya),
which function here, as elsewhere in the inventory corpus, as identifiers for specific
institutions, namely, “palaces” (É.GAL URUkašaya and É.GAL URUšulupaššiya, both § 7). Like
the officials above, these palaces are responsible for provisions of various products as
cult supplies. The activity of the palace of Kašaya especially seems to have a particular
geographical scope, as it is present in texts relating to three regions only, those of
Katapa, Šamuḫa, and Šarišša.
Another text attributed to the cluster of Katapa is KUB 44.4+, which is concerned
with festivals for the Queen of Katapa, the major goddess of the city’s pantheon. There
again, we find mention of the palace of Kašaya (§ 4), but also of Mt. Puškurunuwa,
which has its own festival (§ 3). One of the prominent peaks in the Hittite kingdom,
Mt. Puškurunuwa is known to have been linked to several cities other than Katapa,
such as Zippalanda and Ḫattuša.174 In the pantheon of Katapa, it held an important
position next to the local Queen, and the Storm God of Šaḫpina.175
Several other inventories likely describe the region of Katapa, although do not men-
tion the city’s name. In KUB 17.37 we read of the Queens of Ḫišurla and Ištuḫila, which
most certainly were situated close to Katapa, as is clear from the already-discussed
KUB 42.105+ as well as from other texts, like the nuntarriyašḫaš festival. Even if the
main concern of KUB 17.37 is some other place than Ḫišurla and Ištuḫila, it still must
have been in the relative vicinity of Katapa.176 The Storm God of Ḫuniya[ … ] men-
tioned in the fourth column of the text likely represents a local god, so the town should
have belonged to the cluster of Katapa.
KUB 42.91 mentions two broken toponyms, [ … ]-pí-na and ḪUR.SAGp[u- … ] (both
§ 8). If one restores the names as Šaḫpina and (Mt.) Puškurunuwa, then we could safely
attribute the inventory to the region of Katapa, as especially Šaḫpina is closely related
to Katapa.
DBH 43/2.109 deals with the city Ḫakura. It seems that there were two places that
shared that or a similar name, one in the south (mentioned in KUB 26.43 // KUB 26.50,
the landgrant of Šaḫurunuwa) and one in the vicinity of Katapa. The former, however,
was always written with singleton k (Ḫakura), while the latter always has geminate k
(thus Ḫakkura). Since in DBH 43/2.109 § 2 we have the spelling ḫa-ak-ku-ra, it seems
that this text should also belong to the cluster of Katapa.
173 One should also note that at least two further towns offer provisions: Kawarna (§ 20) and Ḫa[ … ]
(§ 22). The former is found together with Zitḫara and Katapa in KBo 16.83 (CTH 242, ed. Košak 1982:
87–90), but in this case the co-occurence does not have to be geographically relevant.
174 Kryszeń 2016: 230–238; Sir Gavaz 2017: 190–191.
175 Cf. KBo 2.17 and KUB 6.46 ii 11–12. On Šaḫpina, see Kryszeń 2016: 238–242. Another text mentioning
Mt. Puškurunuwa (although with the divine determinative), together with the river Zuliya (likely
modern Çekerek), is KUB 56.37. Although the evidence for the attribution to Katapa is admittedly
weak, this text should depict some central location suggesting the central region close to Katapa.
176 Ištuḫila and Ḫišurla are mentioned in the first column of the text, and the fourth column mentions
the Storm God of the town Ḫunia[ … ].
Finally, possible, although by no means certain, is the attribution to this region of

the texts KBo 20.95 and KUB 58.7. In the former, Katapa (§ 6) appears in a rather north-
ern context as indicated by the mention of the monthly festival of Kaštama (§ 3).177 The
latter mentions the palace of Kašaya, which suggests an attribution to either Katapa,
Šamuḫa or Šarišša.
3.2.3.3Cluster of Durmitta (central-north-west)
Durmitta was an important commercial hub already in the times of the Old Assyrian
colonies in Anatolia, and managed to retain its position as one of the major cities of
the Hittite kingdom throughout its history. It was the capital of a seemingly large dis-
trict that included Kaskaean settlements, but both the location and the extent of Dur-
mitta itself and its district remain debated. 178 Regardless of its exact position, most
scholars tend to agree that the city was located on the western or northwestern fringes
of the Hittite heartland, beyond the Kızılırmak.
The region of Durmitta in the Hittite inventories is dealt with in the largely pre-
served tablet KBo 12.53+, which has been discussed on several occasions.179 The text
in fact contains several inventories of larger districts, namely Wašḫaniya, Durmitta,
Kaššiya and Tapikka, each of which is discussed in this chapter. The sections present
rather concise evidence on the (re)organisation of the cults listing mainly people and
workers newly assigned to individual towns, together with their original provenience.
The inventory of the territory of Durmitta (§§ 8–25) occupies the largest part of the
text. In it, we find the cities Liššina, Ḫadduḫina, [Ta]ggašeba?, Nenašša, Uwalma,
Tenizidaša, Pattaniyaša, Malitaškuriya, Kalašmitta, Tametaya, Tuḫuppiya and some
others whose names are preserved only in part ([ … ]-ratta, and [ … ]-parkawi?). The
internal order of the places listed within the section of Durmitta is unclear. With the
exception of Tuḫuppiya, none of these names are mentioned elsewhere in the corpus,
although some are known from other texts, stretching the district of Durmitta to the
north (Liššina) and west (Kalašmitta) or even south (Nenašša, Uwalma).180 Similarly,
the deities worshiped in the district also indicates a rather broad geographical scope,
including Telipinu, Pirwa, Ištar of Ḫattarina, and Nanaya.181
177 Katapa seems to appear after another toponym, [ … ]x-na-aš, which perhaps could be restored
[URUka-wa-a]r-na-aš.
178 On Durmitta, see Barjamovic 2011: 242–267; Forlanini 2010a and 2012; Kryszeń 2016: 343–387; Corti
2017: 232–233.
179 Archi and Klengel 1980; Forlanini 2009; Cammarosano 2018: 271–290. A possible additional piece of
evidence on Durmitta among the cult inventories is KBo 59.67, which in line 4′ may contain the name
of the city ([ … ]-⸢mi⸣-it-t[a(-) … ]). The fragment, however, is very badly preserved and contains no
relevant geographical information.
180 The individual towns of this section are discussed in Forlanini 2009: 50–57 and Kryszeń 2016: 362–
383.
181 The existence of some foreign cults in Durmitta likely stems from the Old Assyrian colony period,
see Cammarosano 2018: 275 with literature.
The only place from the region of Durmitta to appear in another inventory is
Tuḫuppiya.182 Its temples are curiously discussed in a text (KuSa 1/1.5) from a very
different part of the Hittite kingdom, namely Kuşaklı/Šarišša (see § 3.2.5.4). The pre-
served part of the inventory fails to mention any other toponym, but the context sug-
gests that it should be attributed to the cluster of Durmitta.
3.2.3.4Cluster of Wašḫaniya (central-west)
Wašḫaniya, a significant city in the trading network of the Old Assyrian colony period,
seems to have lost importance in the Hittite period, or at least was outside of the state
interest. It does not appear in annals or other political documents of the Hittite rulers,
neither does it occur in the festival texts related to the state cults. As shown by For-
lanini,183 the region of Wašḫaniya was probably adjacent via its northern border to the
district of Durmitta, which fits well with what we find in the cult inventories.
Given the overall modest presence of Wašḫaniya and its region in the Hittite
sources, the evidence from the cult inventories, even if far from rich, proves all the
more welcome. The cult inventories regarding the region Wašḫaniya are KBo 12.53+,
KBo 49.292, KBo 39.49, and KBo 12.140. The main piece of information is found in the
already-mentioned KBo 12.53+, which describes several inventories of larger adminis-
trative entities: Wašḫaniya, Durmitta, Kaššiya and Tapikka. The section regarding
Wašḫaniya (written Ušḫaniya; §§ 1–7) is unfortunately broken at the beginning, so
that we learn of only a part of its region. This includes the towns Šananawiya, 184
[Ki]pitta, Uḫḫiuwa, and Kapitatamna.185 The latter two towns appear together also in
a KBo 50.221 (CTH 215 or perhaps CTH 39),186 and if this text is geographically relevant
then we should also include the inventory KBo 49.292 to the cluster of Wašḫaniya, as
both texts mention the city Ikušši[ … ].
The remaining evidence on Wašḫaniya in the corpus is inconclusive. KBo 39.49 is
too fragmentary to offer any substantial evidence.187 While KBo 12.140 lists numerous
toponyms, the brevity and terse nature of the text make it difficult to assess its value
for geographical research (see above, § 3.2.2.3).
3.2.3.5Cluster of Ḫattuša (central)
The cluster of the Hittite capital is difficult to identify in the inventories, since the local
cult of Ḫattuša itself must have been to a large degree merged with the state cult. Nev-
ertheless, at least some deities or places identified with the toponym URUḪATTI men-
tioned in our corpus should relate to towns located in the most central region of the
kingdom.
182 The city is known also from other, historical records, e.g., the Apology of Ḫattušili III, col. ii 11,
according to which it was, together with Durmitta, the target of Kaškaean attacks.
183 Forlanini 2009: 49–50. See also Barjamovic 2011: 317–326 and de Martino 2017: 257–258.
184 Known only from the winter festival KBo 45.12 where it is mentioned along the otherwise unknown
city Takamuna(ya) (l. col. 6′–7′).
185 The possible provisions of alcohol from Šiendaza or Šienda to Šananawiya would also locate the
former in or near the region of Wašḫaniya.
186 Forlanini 2009: 49–50.
187 Perhaps one should view the name [ … ]x-ḫuliliya in line 6′ as a toponym, but this is unclear.
In the best-preserved parts of KUB 12.4 we read of the festival for the Storm God of
Ḫattuša taking place in Kulella (§ 2).188 The latter town is known to have been situated
in the immediate vicinity of the capital, since during the great nuntarriyašḫaš festival
the king, traveling from Ḫattuša to Arinna, made his first stop at Kulella.189 In addition,
the offerings for the festival described in KUB 12.4 are being provided by the palace of
Ḫattuša (É.GAL URUḪAT-TI).190
Two further inventories mention the town Temelḫa, known to have been close to
Ḫattuša.191 While KBo 12.140 (see § 3.2.2.3) and KBo 45.182 do not provide any addi-
tional evidence, another text, KUB 38.19+, offers slightly more information. Although
all the toponyms in the text are used as identifiers of deities, institutions or the like,
they all seem to point to a central area. First, the cult of the Storm God of Aštanuwa is
connected to the “ruin-towns of Ḫattuša” (URUDU6ḪI.A URUḪAT-TI) and the people from the
already-mentioned palace of Ḫattuša (§§ 9–10). Further, the festival of the Storm God
of Temelḫa, mentioned in § 13, must have been a local event, even if it was connected
with the festival for the Storm God of Zippalanda.192
3.2.3.6Cluster of Zippalanda (location unclear)
The location of Zippalanda, closely linked to that of Ankuwa, remains controversial,
with opinions varying widely between loci north and south of Ḫattuša.193 It is clear,
however, from festival itineraries that the city was situated two days from the capital.
Evidence for the local cults in the region of Zippalanda is meager in the corpus.
Admittedly, the name of the city occurs quite often in the cult inventories, yet mostly
as the identifier of the storm god, whose prominent presence in other cults obscures
the evidence for the cluster of that city.
KUB 55.15 focuses on festivals for two mountains, Mt. Kammaḫu (known only from
this text) and Mt. Daḫa, during which the effigies of both peaks were carried to the
respective mountains. This seems like a reliable indication of the local cult in the region
of Zippalanda, although not necessarily in the main city itself. The other texts men-
tioning Mt. Daḫa, namely KBo 26.197, KBo 58.72, and KUB 38.14, seem to deal with
similar matters, although they do not provide any further geographic evidence.
188 Edited below, § 6.18.

189 Kryszeń 2016: 46–48 and 71–74; Sir Gavaz 2017: 189–190. Of note is perhaps the fact that the ruler
traveled there in a ḫuluganni, a ceremonial cart drawn by bovines. This means that Kulella was very
close to the capital.
190 Kulella appears once again in the corpus in KUB 58.15, but the remaining toponyms mentioned in
the text (Šanawita, Mt. Ḫuwatnuwanda, Kuššar, and the river Ḫulana, written ÍDSÍG) make a geo-
graphical attribution difficult.
191 Forlanini 2008: 150–151; Sir Gavaz 2017: 192.
192 The text actually seems to suggest that the latter was a local hypostasis of the Storm God of Zip-
palanda (D10 URUzi-ip-la-an-da ŠA UR[U … ]).
193 See Taracha 2015; Kryszeń 2016: 251–285 (with literature); Sir Gavaz 2017: 196–199.
The remaining KUB 42.87(+) lists offerings for the Storm God of Zippalanda and
other deities, yet no other places apart perhaps from the spring Tatarina.194
Two other texts that may tentatively be attributed to the region of Zippalanda are
KUB 55.14+ and KUB 51.33. Both mention the city Ḫašuna and Mt. Paḫašunuwa and in
both of them the Storm God of Zippalanda appears. While the attribution is admittedly
based on weak evidence, the fact that both toponyms also occur together in KUB 58.71
and that the only major center linked to them is Zippalanda justify at least keeping the
possibility in mind.195
3.2.3.7Negative evidence
Conspicuously, for some of the major cities of the central area, richly attested in the
Hitttite corpus, there is little or no evidence in the cult inventories.
No inventory of the holy city of Arinna has been detected. It is possible that some
broken fragments do indeed refer to the cult of Arinna, yet their identification would
be extremely difficult owing to the fact that the almost all of the 30 mentions of the
city in the corpus refer to the Sun Goddess of that city. The richness of sources men-
tioning Arinna makes it extremely difficult to distinguish real evidence from the “in-
formation noise.”
Another important center, Tawiniya, appears in three texts, two of which (KBo
12.140 and KBo 45.179) provide lists of toponyms with no apparent geographical pat-
tern.196 The remaining source, KUB 54.67 seems to be dealing with very specific prob-
lems of particular cults rather than with comprehensive reports. Tawiniya occurs here
only to serve as a substitute city for celebrating the festivals for the goddess Kataḫḫa
of Ḫadanta, until the deity’s temple in the latter city is ready. While this should mean
that the two towns were close to each other, we can hardly speak of the cluster of
Tawiniya.
Even less evidence is found for Ankuwa. The city seems to appear exclusively in
KBo 45.181 (line 2′ reads [URUa]n-ku-wa-i[a?]), a small fragment mentioning Zi[pal-
anda?], Ḫattuša (as an identifier) and the city Zikmuḫa, which is associated (but on
limited evidence) with Ḫanḫana.
Finally, no inventory whatsoever concerns Taḫurpa.197
194 The inventory KUB 42.87(+) is composed of three indirect joins, and the spring Tatarina is in a frag-
ment in which the Storm God of Zippalanda is missing, so the connection between the two toponyms
must be treated with caution. Tatarina is mentioned also in YH 2005/1 obv. 9′ as well as in several
other texts listing various springs and showing Hurrian influence.
195 One should note that for the autumn festival of the Storm God of Ḫašuna wine is brought from the
city Tiura, known also from another inventory, KUB 38.1+.
196 On KBo 12.140, see § 3.2.2.3. The badly preserved KBo 45.179 hardly mentions anything more than a
number toponyms. In § 1′ we read of the slaves of the king of Išuwa, the city Wištauwanda, the
threshing floor in the land (KUR) of Tawiniya, and the people of the palace of Šapuḫa.
197 The only indication may be the mention of the Storm God of Tippuwa (KBo 13.249+), which was
located close to Taḫurpa, but the evidence in the text is inconclusive.
3.2.3.8Further texts concerning the central sector

Further inventories seem to concern cults to be located in the central sector, but cannot
be assigned to specific regions. They are HT 4 (mentioning Zitḫara, Taškuriya, and
Zilalimuwa, but also Šalma and Šapinuwa), KUB 38.7 (possibly mentioning Šapi[nuwa],
Mt. Kuwarri, and the river Zuliya, i.e. modern Çekerek), KBo 13.346 (mentioning Mt.
Kartiuna, associated with the river Zuliya), KBo 13.249+ (mentioning the Storm God of
Tippuwa), KUB 38.24 (mentioning the goddess Kataḫḫa), KUB 57.108+ (a long list of
seemingly central toponyms, like [Ša]pinuwa? and Zipalanta), and KBo 53.91 (mention-
ing the Storm God of Ḫattuša).
3.2.4Western sector
The western area seems to have only one identifiable cluster focused on a larger center,
namely that of Kaššiya, while many inventories deal with smaller, or lesser known
places. This is largely due to our generally rather weak knowledge of the western parts
of the Hittite kingdom.
3.2.4.1Cluster of Kaššiya
Kaššiya was the capital of one of the western districts given by King Muwatalli II to
his brother Ḫattušili to govern.198 The exact position of the city is unclear, but it must
have been situated towards Ankara, further away from Ḫattuša than Durmitta.199
In the corpus, the inventory of the district of Kaššiya is found in the third and small-
est section of KBo 12.53+ (§§ 26–28), following that of Durmitta and preceding that of
Tapikka.200 Apart from Kaššiya itself, the section discusses only three cities in its vi-
cinity, namely Aššuwašša, [ … ]ḫalḫaza?, and Ḫartana. The first is known only from a
badly preserved fragment H 6193a, and the second is hapax legomenon.201 The cult of
the latter city, Ḫartana, however, seems to be the subject of KUB 38.32.202 The text is
focused first and foremost on mountains: Mt. Ziwana and Mt. Ḫakalana, both of which
are unknown outside this text. In addition, KUB 38.32 mentions the city Tappa[ … ]
(§ 8′ and § 15′)203 responsible for some of the offerings for both mountains.204
3.2.4.2Further texts concerning the western sector
Some inventories presumably dealing with the western area are devoted to the cults of
smaller, or at least lesser-known settlements. KUB 17.35 seems to describe the cult of
the city Guršamašša, which, according to the text, was situated close to the towns Mu-
tarašši, Šallunatašši, Šarwalašši, and Laḫinašši, as well as Mt. Šuwara. The same region,
or at least a part of it, must be described in KBo 2.1, since it deals with the cities
198 Apology of Ḫattušili, col. ii 56–61 (Otten 1981: 14–15).

199 De Martino 2017: 255–257.
200 Ed. Cammarosano 2018: 284–285.
201 Wilhelm 2002.
202 Edited below, § 6.5.
203 The possible restorations include Tappa[ruta], Tappa[rešša], and Tappa[šanda].
204 One other toponym appearing in the text is found in the Storm God of Liḫzina, who is offered one
sheep during one of the festivals. This deity, however, appears also in the cult of Karaḫna in the east,
so its presence is geographically irrelevant.
Guršamašša, Šarwalašši and Mt. Šuwara, as well as in KBo 2.16 (mentioning Mt. Šu-
wara).205
In general, for this (as for the southern) region, various individual small cults seem
to be grouped onto a single tablet, which makes it tempting to see those cities as close
to each other. This is, for example, the case with KBo 13.237, which in the partly pre-
served colophon lists the cities Dumantia, Lappina, and Dumnama. Apart from the lat-
ter, however, none of these toponyms is attested in the Hittite sources. The outlier,
Dumnama, is known from one other inventory, KUB 38.26+ where the colophon pro-
vides more names that seem to have been close to each other: Dumnama, [ … ]atta,
Marwešna, Annum[ … ], Ḫišuniya, and Parminašša. From those, in turn, the last is
found in the landgrant of Šaḫurunuwa (KUB 26.43 // KUB 26.50).206 One could indeed
go on finding more relationships of this kind, where various groups of toponyms found
in different texts are connected by one common element. Yet this kind of “chain-argu-
mentation” does not seem to be particularly productive, as even if a pair of neighbour-
ing links of such a chain can be shown to represent adjacent cities, the distance be-
tween the first and the last link may be significant. Therefore, unless one could anchor
those poorly attested towns to a larger center, evidence based on multitude of connec-
tions must be treated as extremely tentative.207
3.2.5Eastern sector
3.2.5.1Cluster of Tapikka (east)
Tapikka, whose ruins were discovered at Maşat Höyük, is one of the few Hittite cities
where cuneiform texts have been found.208 The Maşat texts provided new geographical
data, as they focused mainly on local matters, yet, unlike at Kayalıpınar and Kuşaklı,
no local cult inventories were found at Maşat.209
Tapikka appears only once within the corpus. The city and its district are the focus
of the last part of KBo 12.53+, following sections on the districts of Wašḫaniya, Dur-
mitta, and Kaššiya.210 As these other regions were all situated west of Ḫattuša, Tapikka
seems to be the geographical outlier in the text, which makes the rationale behind the
make-up of KBo 12.53+ difficult to understand.
The district of Tapikka as revealed in KBo 12.53+ §§ 29–34 included the cities Gag-
gadduwa, Zapišḫuna, Ištarwa (also known as Išteruwa), and Anziliya. The very first
paragraph of the section refers to households of civilian captives, cattle, and salt to be
supplied “in the district (KUR) of Tapikka” by order of His Majesty, suggesting that
205 Ed. Cammarosano 2018: 162–188 (KUB 17.35), 189–207 (KBo 2.1), hethiter.net/: CTH 527.6 (KBo 2.16).
On the geography of these texts, see Forlanini 1996, who compares the Hittite place names with later
toponyms.
206 For this text, see Imparati 1974.
207 This is not to mention that some of those links are based on restorations, or that one has to take into
account cases of different names bearing the same names.
208 See Alp 1991.
209 For the places in the vicinity of Tapikka, see Süel and Weeden 2017: 203–207.
210 KBo 12.53+ rev. 37–48 (§§ 29–34), ed. Cammarosano 2018: 286–287; on this tablet, see also above,
§ 3.2.4.1.
these provisions concern the town of Tapikka itself (§ 29). The cattle are to be provided
here by the “troops of Išḫupitta.” While this is not a certain indication of proximity,
external evidence, including Išḫupitta’s frequent occurence in the texts from Maşat,
strongly suggest that it must have been relatively close to Tapikka.
3.2.5.2Cluster of Karaḫna (east)
The city of Karaḫna, long identified with Sulusaray (classical Karana),211 was an im-
portant cult center in the eastern part of the kingdom. The large tablet KUB 38.12 (//
KUB 38.15) represents a cult inventory of this city.212 The colophon lists a total of no
fewer than 775 temple officials employed in the city. Also, it states that “the towns of
Ḫurma and Kumma (are) not included” in the inventory, suggesting that both should
be located not far from Karaḫna.213
KUB 38.12 informs us that the cult of Karaḫna included festivals for Mt. Kantaḫuya
and the important Mt. Šaktunuwa (known otherwise as Mt. Šakaddunuwa). Other de-
ities celebrated in Karaḫna were the Storm God of Liḫzina, the Sun Goddess of Arinna,
the Sun Goddess of Durra, Mt. Ḫapidduini, and the Storm Gods of Kummaḫa, Walma,
Nerik, Tarmaliya, as well as the river Gazzarunaili. The composition is largely made
up of deities that were clearly not local, like the Storm Gods of Kummaḫa, Liḫzina and
Nerik, but both Mt. Šaktunuwa and Mt. Ḫapidduini, as well as the otherwise unattested
river Gazzarunaili should be located in the vicinity of Karaḫna.
According to DAAM 1.36, the palace of Karaḫna formerly provided 24 sheep and
later supplied grain for festivals in or near Šamuḫa. 214 If Karaḫna indeed can be
identified with Sulusaray, then the distance between it and Šamuḫa (Kayalıpınar) is
known – it is slightly more than 55 km as the crow flies. Admittedly, the “palace of
Karaḫna” referred to in the text must not necessarily be located in Karaḫna itself, but
in this particular case it seems plausible to assume that.215 If this is correct, it may be
assumed that the animals could arrive in two days in Šamuḫa, given that they indeed
started in Karaḫna. However, the sheep likely did not travel between the cities, but
between their regions, which must have been adjacent, so the traveled distance could
have been much smaller, and possibly covered in one day.216
3.2.5.3Cluster of Šamuḫa (south-east)
Šamuḫa has been identified securely with the site of Kayalıpınar, after the recent dis-
coveries brought to light ca. 100 texts from the site, including Kp 14/95 (now DAAM
1.36).217 Šamuḫa was the capital of the Upper Country, one of the major provinces of
211 See Süel and Weeden 2017: 204 fn. 42 and Forlanini 2019b: 34 with literature.
212 Ed. Cammarosano 2018: 416–432.
213 Ḫurma appears to be the town inventoried in KUB 56.56, where the “palace of Ḫurma” appears
together with the Storm God of Zippalanda and Mt. Daḫa, and is mentioned also in KUB 38.7, which
seems to describe, at least partly the region of Šapinuwa. The city Kumma is otherwise unattested in
the published Hittite texts (see Cammarosano 2018: 432, commentary on line iv 18′, with literature).
214 DAAM 1.36 §§ 4 and 21, ed. Cammarosano 2019: 52–53, 60–61.
215 Cammarosano 2019: 66 with fn. 10.
216 Karaḫna and Šamuḫa area also found together in DAAM 1.39.
217 Rieken 2014, but suspected already in Müller-Karpe 2000.
the Hittite Empire. The city is well attested in the Hittite texts, although cult invento-
ries regarding its environs resurfaced only in the Kayalıpınar corpus.
Since the cult inventories of Šamuḫa have recently been the subject of scrutiny from
both textual and geographical perspectives, 218 any new valuable information can
hardly be added in this chapter. What is important to stress is that similarly to the
sources found in Maşat Höyük, the sources from Šamuḫa provide previously unat-
tested toponyms, which strongly suggests that they refer to places in the vicinity of
Šamuḫa.219 The most prominent of these seems to be the town Zipi, whose storm god
figures in several inventories from Kayalıpınar.220 Apart from that, we find Mt. Aška-
liya (DAAM 1.41), but also many springs and rivers, some of which are new to us,221
while others we know already from other texts concerning Šamuḫa.222
The cult inventories link Šamuḫa to other known and important centers; see espe-
cially DAAM 1.36 and DAAM 1.39. From the former we learn about transports of goods
to Šamuḫa or its vicinity from cities and regions that must have been nearby, or at least
relatively close.223 Oxen were brought to Šamuḫa from the district of Ampara, possibly
further southeast from Ḫattuša, while sheep from Kummarna and presumably from
Karaḫna (specifically, by a palace named after the town, see above). Finally, flour was
brought from Talwanuwa. DAAM 1.39, on the other hand, informs us of wine from the
town Zizima or Zizimaza, which was surely close to Šamuḫa.
3.2.5.4Cluster of Šarišša (south-east)
The city of Šarišša, safely identified with the mound Kuşaklı some 100 km to the south-
east of Ḫattuša,224 is one of the only two regions (the other being Šamuḫa), whose cults
are known from texts found in the ancient towns themselves. The corpus of Šarišša
comprises some 50 tablets,225 most of which deal with local matters, and among which
we also find cult inventories.226 It is tempting to attribute all texts found in Kuşaklı to
the region of Šarišša, even if they do not mention any toponyms. That this would be
far-fetched, however, is shown by KuSa 1/1.5, which comes from Kuşaklı, but the con-
text, dealing with temples of Tuḫuppiya, suggests a very different geographical setting,
namely that of Durmitta. The only other text from outside of Kuşaklı that belongs to
the cluster of that city is KBo 26.213.227
218 Cammarosano 2019 and Forlanini 2019b.

219 Already noted by Forlanini 2019b: 40.
220 DAAM 1.39, DAAM 1.40, DAAM 1.41
221 These are, e.g., springs Muliliya, Annari, Ašiya, Ašuwanta, or Atana.
222 The springs Karipa and Pina are found together with Šamuḫa in a festival for river-deities KUB 51.79
(CTH 684).
223 Already shown by Rieken 2014 and Forlanini 2019b.
224 See recently Alparslan 2017: 211.
225 Most of which have been edited in Wilhelm 1997. Some of the Šarišša inventories have been analysed
in Hazenbos 2003.
226 The inventories attributed to the cluster of Šarišša are: KuSa 1/1.3, Kusa 1/1.6, Kusa 1/1.7, Kusa 1/1.8,
Kusa 1/1.10, Kusa 1/1.10, Kusa 1/1.11 and KuT 60.
227 The text likely mentions the people of Šarišša reponsible for some provisions (§ 1) which should
indicate that the concern of the inventory is not Šarišša itself, but a city in its vicinity.
The inventories regarding Šarišša often mention the “Lord” (EN) of that city, who is
one of the parties charged with cultic duties.
KuSa 1/1.3 mentions the land Zaziša228 (§ 9′) in connection with the Storm God of
Šarišša. Zaziša, known from several texts, among them the Annals of Muršili II (KBo
3.4 iii 69′), was located in the Upper Land, of which Šarišša was likely a part.229 KuSa
1/1.6, on the other hand, mentions some lesser-known towns, such as Inzalwa (hapax),
and Ḫalipašuwa (listed in the Edict of Telipinu as one of the granary-cities)230 as well
as the palace of Šulupašši (É.GAL šulupašši). The latter is an institution that seems to
have been operating in a specific region – that of Šarišša, Katapa, and Šamuḫa.231
The same institution seems to appear in KuSa 1/1.10 and KuSa 1/1.7 (§ 3). The latter
also mentions the city Ḫinariyaša, known to have been located in the district of Kin-
nara (Instruction for the LÚ.MEŠDUGUD, CTH 260, where we find a long list of presumably
adjacent cities).232 If both Ḫinariyas are one and the same city, then this would provide
a welcome hint at the location of those cities and the Kinnara district.
The remaining inventories attributed to Šarišša contain only geographically unclear
evidence or mention otherwise unattested toponyms, e.g., Mt. Kupit[ … ] and the city
Aš-x-itma[ … ] in KuSa 1/1.8 § 1, or the city Ḫanzalwa (§ 7) and springs Pita (§ 6) and
Iyaya (§ 8) in KuT 60.
3.2.6Southern sector
3.2.6.1Texts attributable based on geographical arguments
The southern part of the Hittite heartland is difficult to grasp in the inventories, as no
large centers emerge from the analysis of the texts. The southern cults often seem to
be treated collectively, in composite inventories that deal with numerous places but in
less detail. Most of those places are hardly known from other sources, however, which
makes it difficult to specify their geographical setting or settings. That is why also the
general contours of the southern area are rather obscure.
The major source regarding the southern sector seems to be KBo 70.109+ // KUB
38.6+, an extraordinary inventory known from two duplicate texts.233 The inventory is
one of the longest in the corpus and describes a great number of local cults presenting
an amalgam of different traditions.234 The preserved part of the text is organized into
228 Written errenously with the sign TA.

229 Forlanini (2019b: 33 fn. 16) proposes that Šarišša, together with Ḫurma, Šamuḫa, Karaḫna, et al.
formed the core of the Upper Land.
230 E.g., KBo 3.1 iii 42′.
231 Similarly É.GAL kašaya or É.GAL šulupašši. Characteristically, all of them are often lacking the deter-
minative URU.
232 KUB 31.44 i 24, see Miller 2013: 194–205. Note that the same instruction also deals with the cities of
the province Kaššiya (see the cluster of Kaššiya).
233 Ed. Cammarosano 2018: 433–470. On the geography of these tablets, see the exhaustive study of
Forlanini 2009.
234 “The panthea of those towns and villages are almost as heterogeneous a mixture as one could want:
unique among the entire corpus of Hittite texts, this composition witnesses the cult of Mesopotamian
no fewer than 27 different sections, each regarding a different city.235 Over 50 places
in total are mentioned, yet none seems to hold a more central position than the others.
The inventory, therefore, is not focused around one or several centers, as is often the
case with texts regarding the northern or central sectors, but rather deals with individ-
ual towns spread across a large area. The lion’s share of those places are poorly attested
or unknown elsewhere in the Hittite corpus, which hinders a safe geographic attribu-
tion.236 In addition, the local cults of individual cities are extremely eclectic, as they
include deities from Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia, but also have both local gods
next to state-pantheon deities (e.g. the Storm God of Nerik and the Storm God of
Kaštama).
That said, as a group the panthea present a certain cohesiveness: even if they are
composed of deities from both within and outside of Anatolia, they are still similar to
each other. Of note is also the lack of “northern” gods, i.e., deities that are usually found
in the inventories describing northern territories.237 This allows us to surmise that ra-
ther then several separate regions, the text describes one area, although its extent is
unclear.
With the few places mentioned in KBo 70.109+ for which we can provide a geo-
graphical attribution, the region most likely to be described in the inventory is, as
shown by Forlanini (1992), the middle Kızılırmak. The main argument for this is the
town Malitta, whose local cult is described in § 26 of the text. This town is known to
have existed already in the Old Assyrian times and from one merchant itinerary we
know that it was situated on the route from Wašḫaniya to Waḫšušana.238 This points
to the area southwest of Ḫattuša and west of Kaneš (modern Kültepe), although one
needs to note that it does not automatically mean that all the towns mentioned in KBo
70.109+ were necessarily situated in that region. Yet the middle Kızılırmak and the Old
Assyrian connection goes well with the prominent presence of the Storm God of Aššur
and Ištar of Nineveh, as well as of Syrian deities, whose cults can be explained as ves-
tiges of the kārum-period in Anatolia.239 Another city found in KBo 70.109+ pointing
to the south of Ḫattuša is Šalunatašši (§ 12), which is known to have been situated in
the area of Tuwanuwa.240 Šalunatašši is also found in another inventory, KUB 17.35
(attributed to the western sector through the city Guršamašša, see § 3.2.4.2), but
deities mixed together with a plethora of local, regional, and ‘pan-Hittite’ Anatolian gods.” (Camma-
rosano 2018: 433).
235 As estimated by Cammarosano (2018: 434), originally there were around 30 sections. Note however,
that the colophon states that the tablet is part of a series (ŪL QATI “not complete”), thus the entire
composition included significantly more local cults.
236 The geography of KBo 70.109+ has been dealt with by many scholars, whose opinions differ widely
(see Cammarosano 2015b: 206–208 who recounts various views on the matter).
237 This concerns, e.g., Kataḫḫa, Ḫašamili, Zaḫpuna, the Storm God ḫaštuwaš. The presence of the Storm
Gods of Kaštama and Nerik is a different matter altogether, as their cult was interregional, not limited
to any specific region.
238 See Barjamovic 2011: 320–323.
239 See Schwemer 2008: 151–152.
240 The evidence for that is found in The Landgrant of Šaḫurunuwa, KUB 26.43 obv. 38. Tuwanuwa is
usually identified with class. Tyana.
according to Forlanini (1996) and Cammarosano (2018: 164) we are dealing here with
a case of homonymy.241
We may draw another possible link between KBo 70.109+ and KBo 2.7 as well as
KBo 2.13 and the city Gazzana found in § 1 of the latter texts. The town seems to be
the same as Kanzana from KBo 70.109+ § 8 and likely the city from HT 2 v 20 (CTH
235), according to which it belongs to the district Kukuwawa.242 In addition, both texts
mention the toponym Mamananta, although in KBo 2.7 § 18 it is a city, while in KBo
70.109+ § 23 it is a mountain.
KBo 2.7 and KBo 2.13 represent two subsequent reports referring to the same geo-
graphical area, written at different stages of the inventorying procedure.243 They are
concerned with the cults of the towns Artešna, Wiyanuwanta, Panišša, Mam(a)nanta
and Laršiliya. Only Wiyanuwanta and Mam(a)nanta are known from other texts, al-
though the former seems to be a popular toponym in Anatolia, since it was derived on
the word wiyana- “wine.”244 Even if the towns whose cults are dealt with in KBo 2.7
and KBo 2.13 are obscure, it is a rather safe assumption that they were close to each
other. And since some other places mentioned in the text are better attested, we are
able to find some geographical footing. The greatest help comes from the mention of
Mt. Šidduwa (§§ 2–5 in the section devoted to Artešna), located close to Kuliwišna, a
well-known southern cult center of the local storm god. The same section mentions
the city Gazzana (see above) and possibly the city [Š]arišša (§ 1), which confirms a
southerly or southeasterly direction. The also text mentions Mt. Arnuwanda, Mt. Ḫur-
ranašša and Mt. Ḫarka (written ḪUR.SAGBABBAR) 245 in the section of the city Mam-
mananta/Mamnanta (§ 18) along with a number of rivers and springs: Šikašika, Dupša,
Kummayanni, Šiwana, Ḫašḫannari and Ḫawanna, which are unknown apart from
these tablets.
Mt. Šidduwa, found in KBo 2.7 // KBo 2.13 §§ 2–5, is mentioned again in KUB 41.34+
§ 5′, a text that, according to the colophon, deals with the cities Wattarušna, Kardušša,
[ … ]iššana, DU6 LUGAL, [ … ]ḫumitaima, and Artašušša. Apart from the first name, none
is otherwise attested. Wattarušna, however, is found together with the above-men-
tioned Ganzana in a section of HT 2, which provides rare instance of proof of geo-
graphical connection in the southern area: since both Wattarušna and Ganzana were
241 Note, however, that there might actually be some geographical overlap between KBo 70.109+ (men-
tioning Šallunatašši in § 12 and Mt. Šaluwantiya in § 23), and two “western” inventories, namely KUB
17.35 (devoted to Guršamašša and mentioning Šallunatašši in § 27), and KBo 2.1 (mentioning Mt.
Šaluwantiya in § 9 and Guršamašša in § 13). Perhaps these texts were all somehow dealing with the
south-western territories?
242 Forlanini 2009: 45. Kukuwawa, however, does not appear in any inventory. Another possible link
between the two texts is Mt. Mammananta in KBo 70.109+ § 23 and the city Mammananta in KBo 2.7
§ 18.
243 Cammarosano 2013: 95–99, ed. Cammarosano 2018: 208–228.
244 This is why it is uncertain, although certainly possible, that KUB 38.1+, which mentions Wiyanu-
wanta together with the otherwise unknown cities Tarammeka and Kunkuniya, refers to the same
region.
245 This mountain is also mentioned in the inventory KBo 48.115, which should be geographically rele-
vant.
situated in the district of Kukuwawa, then at least parts of KBo 2.7 // KBo 2.13 and KUB
41.34+ must refer to the same or adjacent regions.246 The main body of KUB 41.34+ is
focused on various mountains surely situated close to the cities mentioned in the col-
ophon: Mt. Wašuma (§§ 6–8), Mt. Pupara (§ 11, § 27, § 34), and Mt. Wanzapanda (§ 19).
The last of the large inventories mentioning numerous places, which can, at least
tentatively, be assigned to the southern area, is IBoT 2.131.247 While none of the names
are well attested and some (like Tiwaliya)248 are known to have been shared by more
than one town, there are some arguments (geographical and theological) in favor of a
southern or southeastern localisation. These are the mention of Mt. Liḫša, situated
close to Kaneš,249 the city Ikšuna, whose deity was Pirwa, usually associated with the
region of Kaneš and the middle Kızılırmak.
3.2.6.2Texts attributable based on theological arguments
The theological argument, although weaker than the geographical, can also be used to
identify some inventories as southern. The underlying assumption is that certain
(groups of) deities were venerated in specific regions. For example the deities Ištar
(Šawuška) of Nineveh, the Storm God of Aššur, Yarri, the Storm God of Thunder
(ḫaršiḫarši) or Pirwa, especially when combined, point to southern, or at least not
northern regions.250 This kind of reasoning is admittedly little more than an educated
guess, nevertheless we can detect certain likely patterns in the geographical distribu-
tion of the cult of these deities. On this basis we can cautiously suggest that some
inventories be attributed to the areas that are neither central nor northern.
Based on the worshiped deities attested in the inventory, a focus in an area of the
southern districts can be argued for KUB 12.2+, a large tablet containing the inventory
of no fewer than four different towns (see introduction to the edition, § 6.3). The same
can be said for HT 14, which mentions only the Storm God of Aššur, Ištar of Nineveh,
Pentaruḫši and Milku, as well as Mt. Ḫalunuwa and Uruiš[ … ].251
KBo 13.251+ mentions the Storm God of Aššur and Ištar of N[ineveh?], but seems
to mention one other toponym. The passage in col. i 6′ reads -n]e-ek-ka4, which is likely
the end of a place name, perhaps of a local center. Names ending in -ni/ekka are few,
and include Tuḫnika, Laknanika, Tapiniga, Ašuwanika, and Izḫanikka, but no produc-
tive narrowing down of the available options is possible.
KBo 26.167 mentions the Storm God of Aššur and Ištar of Nineveh and a stele of
Mt. Te[ … ]. The only two peaks in the Hittite texts that are written with the sign TE
(and not TI) seem to be Teḫšina and Tiriun. The former was located north(-east) of
246 See Forlanini 1992 and 2009. Note, however, the dangers of such chain-identifications, stressed above.
247 Ed. Cammarosano 2018: 258–270.
248 Kryszeń 2016: 82.
249 See Forlanini 1992: 172
250 This is not free from exceptions: KUB 7.24+ mentions both Yarri and the Storm God of Thunder, and
yet clearly belongs to the north (see § 3.2.2.1).
251 The cautious suggestion in RGTC 6, 475 that this refers to Uršu/Waršuwa seems unlikely given that
the inventories hardly reach that far from the capital.
Figure 3.1: The topological model of the main regions represented in the Hittite cult inventories.
The full lines connect regions within the same sector. The dotted lines connect regions across dif-
ferent sectors. The position of Zippalanda is uncertain.
Ḫattuša,252 whereas the latter is usually classified with the Hurrian term papenna and
thus to be referring to a mountain in southern Anatolia or Syria.
252 Found in KUB 19.13 i 22′ and KUB 19.37 iii 49′, 53′.
4.LOCAL PANTHEA
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 systemati-
zation.253 This chapter presents an overview of the local panthea as they emerge from
the corpus of the cult inventories taken as a whole, based on quantitative data as well
as on an analytical appraisal of the context in which the numerous theonyms attested
in the corpus appear in the function of gods worshiped.
4.1The gods worshiped and their distribution across the corpus

4.1.1Aims and method
The cult inventories reflect the state of local cults in the Late Empire (13th cent. BCE),
i.e., more than one century after the influx of Hurrian and Mesopotamian religious
influences in Hatti in the early New Kingdom. In the panthea witnessed by these texts
one finds Hittite, Hattian, Luwian, Hurrian and even Mesopotamian and Syrian gods
coexisting. 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. But in addition, the cultural profile of the deities
evolves over time. The resulting picture is one of interplay between evolving local tra-
ditions 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 sec-
tors of the society and population groups work at multiple levels, e.g., in the interplay
between various components of the population in provincial settlements.
Any attempt at a reconstruction of the local cults treated in the corpus is hampered
by major obstacles. First, it is often impossible to specify the function of the various
gods within the religious life of the relevant settlements. In particular when only a
concise list of theonyms is available, one hardly can tell something about the role of
the listed gods in the local pantheon. The fragmentary character of many manuscripts,
the conciseness of the descriptions, and the opaque character of the heterograms that
are frequently used by the scribes in the lists of local deities further prevent us from
obtaining a clear picture of the relevant panthea.
The basis for the present appraisal is the analytical investigation of the corpus car-
ried out through a systematic tagging of the manuscripts as detailed in § 2.1.4. The
253 Cammarosano 2018: 51–52.

64 Local panthea
figures are therefore subject to the caveat expressed there, in particular the fact that
the given numbers include uncertain attestations and that variant spellings have to
some extent been standardized. Importantly, two different rates of attestation can be
taken into consideration, depending on whether the frequency is measured across
manuscripts, each one considered as an internally undifferentiated entity (texts,
according to the terminology employed here), or across the sections considered to
represent meaningful segments of the manuscripts themselves (textparts). Since
textparts most often correspond to different towns inventoried in one single
manuscript, it seems conducive to prioritize the frequency across textparts as far as the
present overview of local panthea is concerned. 254 Since the partitioning of the
manuscripts in textparts is subject to a certain degree of arbitrariness, a different
segmentation would change the figures given below to some extent; however, every
effort has been made to ensure that the figures presented are indeed representative of
the overall evidence contained in the texts. The total number of texts and textparts
considered for the study is 416 and 1122 respectively.255
4.1.2Distribution of the gods worshiped

A first glimpse into the local panthea treated in the corpus is provided by the theonyms
attested therein. Theonyms are present in 637 different tags (§ 2.1.5). The bulk of them
is attested in the function of gods worshiped (571 tags), the rest in other functions (e.g.,
in denomination of festivals, or as part of the designation of suppliers, e.g., “the men
of the temple of the Storm God of Talwanuwa provide so and so,” or “they celebrate the
festival of Ḫuwarpazipa”). Of these tags, 474 correspond to gods and goddesses (deter-
minative DINGIR), 99 to divine mountains (determinative ḪUR.SAG), 47 to divine springs
(determinative PÚ), and 17 to divine rivers (determinative ÍD), see table 4.1.
From this point on, the analysis will concern the attested gods considered
exclusively in their function of gods worshiped (tag category “Deity”). The most
frequently attested gods are the Storm God (D10, present in 77 textparts across 47 texts),
the Stag God (DKAL, 57 textparts across 37 texts), and the Sun Goddess (DUTU, 50 textparts
across 26 texts).256 If one groups together the distinct manifestations of an overarching
deity as well as the distinct writings of one single deity (“Deity-Types,” see § 1.1.4), the
rate of attestation slightly changes, insofar as the storm gods (attested as “Deity-Type”
in 285 textparts across 131 texts) are followed by the sun deities (96 textparts across 54
texts), with the stag gods coming third (78 textparts across 50 texts), see table 4.2.
254 In particular cases, including the discussion of the geographical setting of the manuscripts, the fre-
quency across texts has been given precedence.
255 Note that attestations from texts with parallel or duplicate manuscripts are not double-counted, and
that whenever a parallel or duplicate manuscript is present, only the conventionally defined “princi-
pal” manuscript will be referenced in the discussion of individual cases (so that, e.g., references to
KBo 70.109+ refer implicitly to KUB 38.6+ as well).
256 In Hittite texts, the logogram DUTU can refer to male as well as female sun deities. For a discussion of
the solar deities attested in the corpus, see below, § 4.2.2. Since in the corpus of the cult inventories
the instances of DUTU without further attributes are most likely to refer to female solar deities, for the
sake of simplicity it seems legitimate to speak here of “Sun Goddess” tout court.
The gods worshiped and their distribution across the corpus 65
Class Number of tags

Gods and goddesses 474 (428)
Divine mountains 99 (82)
Divine springs 47 (45)
Divine rivers 17 (16)
Table 4.1: Tags corresponding to divine names (in parentheses: attested as deities worshiped).
Placing Deity As such As “deity type”

(textparts/texts) (textparts/texts)
1 Storm god 77/47 285/131
2 Sun god/Sun goddess 50/26 96/54
3 Stag god 57/37 78/50
4 Šawuška/Ištar 3/3 42/22
5 Storm God of Nerik 35/15 (35/15)
6 Heptad 26/12 28/13
7 Zababa 23/21 26/23
8 Ištar of Nineveh 22/8 (22/8)
9 ԋuwattašši 22/7 (22/7)
10 Storm God of Kaštama 22/4 (22/4)
11 Pirwa 17/14 19/16
12 Storm God of Zip- 19/13 (19/13)
palanda
13 Yarri 18/9 19/10
14 Storm God of the 17/10 (17/10)
Thunderstorm
15 Telipinu 16/16 (16/16)
16 Sun Goddess of Arinna 15/15 (15/15)
Table 4.2: The most frequently attested gods as deities worshiped, sorted by rate of attestation
across textparts as “deity types.”
A search for the theonyms attested in at least fifteen textparts each produces thirteen
further gods, among which are both distinct manifestations of the three principal gods
just presented and further “deity types” together with some of their specific hy-
postases. Listed by their rate of attestation as types, they are Ištar/Šawuška, the Storm
God of Nerik, the Heptad (IMIN.IMIN.BI), the war god Zababa, Ištar of Nineveh, ԋu-
wattašši, the Storm God of Kaštama, Pirwa, the Storm God of Zippalanda, the war and
66 Local panthea
Tag Frequency Frequency

(texts) (textparts)
Storm God of Nerik 15 35
Sun Goddess of Arinna 15 15
Storm God of Zip- 13 19
palanda
Ištar of Nineveh 7 21
Storm God of Kaštama 4 22
Table 4.3: The five most frequently attested theonyms containing geographical names.
plague god Yarri, the Storm God of Thunderstorm, Telipinu, and the Sun Goddess of
Arinna (table 4.2).
While it admittedly entails some degree of arbitrariness, the grouping of distinct
hypostases and writings under certain “deity types” aims to provide a more nuanced
picture of the distribution and “popularity” of gods for whom multiple manifestations
are attested. The consideration of the “deity types” is interesting especially when
sifting through the least-attested gods. Of the gods worshiped that are attested in fewer
than 15 textparts, 148 are attested in between 2 and 14 textparts each (of these, 17 are
attested in one single text each), and further 398 are attested in one textpart each. A
considerable part of these “minor gods,” namely, 121, belong to the type storm god,
while 23 belong to the type Ištar/Šawuška and only 18 belong to the types sun deity
and stag god each.257
Many of the theonyms corresponding to the gods worshiped are constructed with
a geographical name. The most-frequently attested ones are the Storm God of Nerik,
the Sun Goddess of Arinna, and the Storm God of Zippalanda, followed at some dis-
tance by Ištar of Nineveh and the Storm God of Kaštama (table 4.3).
The local panthea treated in the corpus include 428 gods and goddesses, 82 divine
mountains, 45 divine springs, and 17 divine rivers. Those gods and goddesses that are
determined by the Sumerogram DINGIR are treated in 606 textparts across 217 texts,
divine mountains in 107 textparts across 60 texts, divine springs in 38 textparts across
21 texts, and divine rivers in 20 textparts across 14 texts, thus corroborating the as-
sumption that mountains and water sources, so characteristic of the natural landscape
of central-north Anatolia and so indispensable to its agricultural fertility, played a con-
siderable role in local religious beliefs and cult practices.258
257 Note that these figures refer to the number of individual tags assigned to each “Deity-Type” within
the database, and are therefore subject to change slightly if the few tags that represent alternative
spellings of one single deity are merged, e.g., DLIŠ and DIŠTAR.
258 However, they do not support the view, expressed most recently by Taracha 2017: 131–142, especially
133–134, according to which divine mountains, paired to “great goddesses,” were at the head of local
panthea of the region in ancestral times; see on this question the critical remarks of Steitler 2019c:
369 and § 4.3.2 below.
The principal gods 67
4.2The principal gods

4.2.1Storm gods
The storm god represents the supreme god in most local panthea. This is not suprising,
since storm gods happen to be the prominent deities in any region of rainfed agricul-
ture. In Anatolia, the supreme storm god was associated since ancestral times with the
bull, as both embody the two essential qualities of superhuman strength and fertilizing
power.259
More than one hundred storm gods are attested in the corpus, but only 31 are
present in more than one text and only 4 in at least 10 different texts.260 By far most-
frequently attested is the storm god without further specifications (D10, present in 77
textparts across 47 texts). Importantly, in the context of the local cults these instances
will normally refer to local hypostases of the storm god. While in many instances the
geographical “affiliation” is made explicit in the text, 261 the information could be
omitted whenever it may be retrieved from the context. Given the fragmentary state
of most manuscripts, a number of “storm gods” cited in the texts cannot be attributed
to a specific place.
Apart from the storm god without further attributes, only three storm gods are
treated in at least 10 different texts (§ 4.1.2 table 4.2). These are the Storm God of Nerik
(present in 35 textparts across 15 texts), the Storm God of Zippalanda (present in 19
textparts across 13 texts), and the Storm God of the Thunderstorm (present in 17 text-
parts across 10 texts). The Storm Gods of Nerik and Zippalanda notoriously have “na-
tional” character within the official State cult. Since the corpus as a whole is thought
to reflect local religious traditions – at least those that were accepted by the authority
– rather than superimposition of cults by part of the central power (§ 2.1.1), the rele-
vance of the Storm Gods of Nerik and Zippalanda within the corpus and their presence
across all geographical sectors represented in the corpus suggest that at the time of the
Late Empire their cult was firmly rooted in Hatti also at the local level. The Storm God
of the Thunderstorm (ḫaršiḫarši) is treated primarily in two groups of texts, of which
one concerns the northern towns of Ḫakmiš (KUB 25.23+ §§ 23–24), Takkupša, and
Ḫawalkina (KUB 7.24+ § 15), the other possibly a “Cappadocian” area on the middle
Kızılırmak (HT 14; KBo 70.109+ §§ 4, 9, 15, 16, 17, 25, 16b; KUB 12.2+ §§ 13, 55; for the
geographical setting of this group of texts, see § 3.2.6 and § 4.4). Besides these, the god
is attested in KuT 60 (§ 4), presumably concerning the area of Šarišša, and in 4 further
textparts that cannot be attributed to a specific geographical setting (ABoT 2.120 § 6–
12, KBo 13.251+ § 6, KBo 45.178 § 1, and KBo 53.249).
259 Schwemer 2016: 84–87 with literature; for their iconography, see Cammarosano 2018: 64–65 with
literature.
260 In the database Hittite Local Cults, the Deity-Type “storm god” counts 128 tags (including the tags
“D10 URU[…,” “D10 […” and a few tags related to fragmentary occurrences).
261 66 tags correspond to storm gods “of the town so-and-so,” concerning a total of 182 textparts across
118 texts.
68 Local panthea
D
10 (77/47) D
10 GAŠRU D
10 URU…]itta
D
10 URUnerik (35/15) D
10 GIŠGIDRU D
10 URUkab[…
D
10 URUzippalanda D
10 ḫuwariyawa D
10 URUkaraḫna
(19/13) D
10 GIŠKÁ D
10 URUgaštuḫa
D
10 ḫaršiḫarši (17/10) D
10 karanza D
10 URUkummaḫa
D
10 AN (10/9) D
10 KIRI6 D
10 URUkummiešmaḫ
D
10 miyannaš (13/7) D
10 KURaššur D
10 URUlanda
D
10 KARAŠ (7/7) D
10 KURazzi D
10 URUmallitta
D
10 Ú.SAL (6/5) D
10 KURišuwa D
10 URUmaraš
D
10 ḫaštuwaš (5/5) D
10 KURka[… D
10 URUmizzuwa
D
10 URUkaštama (22/4) D
10 MÊ D
10 URUparenta
D
10 É (5/4) D
10 mziyazi D
10 URUpartiašša
D
10 É mlabarna (4/4) D
10 piḫammi D
10 URUšaḫpina
D
10 piḫaimmi (4/4) D
10 RA-IṢ D
10 URUšanantiya
D
10 piḫašašši (4/4) D
10 SAG.DU D
10 URUšarpaenta
D
10 URUzipi (4/4) D
10 ṢERI D
10 URUšaruwalašši
D
10 piḫammi (13/3) D
10 daḫ[a… D
10 URUšuruwa
D
10 GIŠTIR (5/3) D
10 taggantipa D
10 URUšuwarzapa
D
10 URUliḫzina (3/3) D
10 tappareššiya D
10 URUdaḫattaruna
D
10 alpaš (2/2) D
10 tarmatnaš D
10 URUtaḫpeta
D
10 aššur (2/2) D
10 tetḫešnaš D
10 URUtakduša
D
10 ḫeuwaš (2/2) D
10 TI8MUŠEN D
10 URUtap[…
D
10 KI.LAM (2/2) D
10 Ú.SAL D
10 URUdašimuwa
D
10 LÍL (2/2) URU
daḫattaruna D
10 URUtaštarišša
D
10 URUaštanuwa (2/2) D
10 UBARI D
10 URUtatta[…
D
10 URUatalḫazi(ya) (2/2) D
10 UR.SAG D
10 URUda[…]wišta
D
10 URUḫalab (2/2) D
10 URUa[… D
10 URUtemelḫa
D
10 URUḫašuna (2/2) D
10 URUariuwa D
10 URUti[…
D
10 URUḫattena (2/2) D
10 URUaššaratta D
10 URUtippuwa
D
10 URUšarišša (2/2) D
10 URUaššur D
10 URUwalma
D
10 URUtarmaliya (2/2) D
10 URUḫayaša D
10 URUwaršpa
D
piḫaimmi (2/2) D
10 URUḫalala D
10 URUwattarwa
attaš D10 D
10 URUḫan[… D
10 URUzaḫaluka
D
10 A.ŠÀA.GÀR D
10 URUḫanḫana D
10 URUzikmar
D
10 andan uwanza D
10 URUḫarana D
10 URUzippalanda É.GAL
D
10 ar[… D
10 URUḫarpiša takkipudda
D
10 aru[… D
10 URUḫašpina D
10 URUziparwa
D
10 ašgaš D
10 URUḫulaššiya D
10 URU.DU6
D
10 ḪUR.SAG[… D
10 URUḫuniya D
10 UŠALLI
D
10 ḪUR.SAGkummiešmaḫ D
10 URUḫurša D
10 wa[…
D
10 ḪUR.SAGziwana D
10 URUḫuršalašši
D
10 É [… D
10 URUišdaḫar
D
10 É.GAL ŠA [… D
10 URUišdaḫiša
Table 4.4: Storm gods worshiped, sorted by rate of attestation (in brackets, textparts/texts).
Table 4.4 presents the storm gods attested in the corpus in the function of deities
worshiped. The Storm God of Heaven (D10 AN) is attested in 10 textparts across 9 texts
concerning eastern, northern, southern, and central districts, mostly together with
various other gods. The Storm God of Growth (D10 miyannaš), too, is attested in 13
textparts across 7 texts concerning the same geographical sectors, mostly together with
other gods. 262 Several instances pertain to the worship of the gods Piḫammi (13
textparts across 3 texts: KBo 2.16, KBo 70.109+, and KUB 51.7), Piḫaimmi (12 textparts
across 2 texts: KUB 12.2+ and KBo 70.109+), the Storm God piḫammiš (one textpart in
KUB 51.88), the Storm God piḫaimmiš (4 textparts across 4 texts: KBo 26.161, KBo 56.59,
KUB 38.12, and DAAM 1.41), the Storm God of Lightning (piḫašaššiš, 4 textparts across
4 texts: KBo 42.22, KUB 38.12, DAAM 1.36+, and DAAM 1.39), and Piḫašši (one textpart
in KBo 46.83). Piḫammi and Piḫaimmi are originally epithets of the Luwian storm god,
“imbued with splendor” (vel sim.),263 and appear together only in KBo 70.109+.264 The
Storm God of Lightning is treated in 4 texts, three of which can be securely attributed
to the towns of Karaḫna and Šamuḫa (KUB 38.12, DAAM 1.36+, DAAM 1.39). Piḫašši
is arguably related to the same root and is treated in KBo 46.83 only. The geographical
setting of the relevant text sections primarily concerns the “Cappadocian” area of the
middle Kızılırmak (provided the tentative geographical attribution of these texts is
correct) and the towns of Karaḫna and Šamuḫa. The Storm God of Aššur is treated in
3 manuscripts that are assumed to concern small settlements on the middle Kızılırmak
with heterogeneous panthea, namely, KBo 70.109+, HT 14 and KUB 12.2+, while the
god “Aššur” (possibly meaning the Storm God of Aššur) is treated in fragmentary
context in KBo 13.251+ and in KBo 26.167. 265 Finally, the Storm God of Aleppo is
treated in DAAM 1.39 (town of Šamuḫa, treated together with Ḫebat of Aleppo and
other gods) and in KUB 55.48 (area of Ḫakmiš).
4.2.2Solar deities
At the head of the Hittite pantheon alongside the storm god is a solar deity, most com-
monly written Sumerographically as DUTU (Ištanu-). In Hittite, Ištanu- and the Sumero-
gram DUTU are used to express any of the solar deities peculiar to the different strands,
or “milieus,” which amalgamate in the Hittite culture: the Hattian supreme solar celes-
tial goddess Eštan, the female subterranean solar deity of the indigenous Anatolian
substratum (the Hattian “Sun Goddess of the Earth”), the inherited celestial, and diur-
nal solar god (the “Sun God of Heaven”), the Luwian god Tiwad, Palaean Tiyad, Hur-
rian Šimige, Akkadian Šamaš, and Sumerian Utu. From the Early New Kingdom on, the
supreme Hittite sun goddess was often referred to, after her principal cult site, as the
Sun Goddess of Arinna.266
262 Note that both “Miyanna” and “Umiyana,” listed in current repertoires, seem to be ghost deities; see
Cammarosano 2015b: 227, 229.
263 For piḫa- “glory,” “aura” as typologically equivalent to Akkadian melammu, see Yakubovich 2013:
157 fn. 5, expanding on Beckman.
264 Cammarosano 2015b: 205 with literature.
265 See below, § 4.3.4.
266 Steitler 2017, Melchert 2019: 242 with fn. 11.
70 Local panthea
Deity Attestations
(textparts/texts)
D
UTU 50/26
D
UTU URUarinna 15/15
EREŠ.KI.GAL / taknaš DUTU 21/12
D
UTU AN 7/6
D
UTU GAL 2/2
attaš DUTU 1/1
eštan 1/1
D
UTU ME 1/1
D
UTU A.ŠÀA.GAR 1/1
D
UTU ḫekur 1/1
D
UTU KASKAL 1/1
D
UTU LÍL walliwalli 1/1
D
UTU UGUḫalziyanza 1/1
D
UTU kulitta
URU
1/1
D
UTU URU
šanantiya 1/1
D
UTU URUtaštarišša 1/1
D
UTU URUdurra 1/1
D
UTU URUwipitiza 1/1
Table 4.5: Solar deities worshiped, sorted by rate of attestation across texts.
Several solar deities are attested in the corpus (table 4.5). Most frequently, solar deities
are referred to by means of the logogram DUTU without further complementation and
attributes (so in 50 textparts across 26 texts).267 The precise character of these local solar
goddesses remains mostly opaque to us, although the context, in particular the
accompanying deities, can provide clues on a case by case basis. In many and perhaps
most instances, the logogram will refer to the Sun Goddess of Arinna or to a local
hypostasis of the female supreme celestial solar deity; in some instances the chthonic
solar goddess may be meant. In 15 textparts across 15 texts, which concern all geo-
graphical sectors relevant to the corpus, the solar deity is explicitly identified as the
Sun Goddess of Arinna.268 Among the gods most frequently associated with her are the
267 The relevant texts are ABoT 2.120, KBo 12.53+, KBo 13.249+, KBo 13.258, KBo 2.1, KBo 2.7, KBo
21.81+, KBo 39.48+, KBo 26.180, KBo 26.189, KBo 26.193, KBo 30.130, KBo 46.86, KBo 70.109+, KUB
38.23, KUB 38.26+, KUB 38.28, KUB 38.3+, KUB 44.21+, KUB 44.42, KUB 46.27, KUB 55.14+, KUB 56.40,
KuSa 1/1.12, KuT 60, VS.NF 12.111.
268 The relevant texts are DAAM 1.36+, DAAM 1.39, IBoT 2.108, KBo 12.138, KBo 12.140, KBo 13.259,
KBo 2.13, KBo 26.218, KBo 46.83, KBo 55.175, KUB 25.22, KUB 38.12, KUB 53.21, KUB 56.39, KUB 58.7.
Storm God of Heaven, Mezzulla (her daughter according to Empire period systemati-
zations), the Storm God of Zippalanda and the Storm God of Nerik (who were both
regarded as sons of her at least in certain traditions and systematizations). Among the
gods who can be ultimately traced back to the Hattian culture (§ 4.3.2), the Sun Goddess
of Arinna happens to be the most widely attested in the corpus, but the specific traits
of her local hypostases remain unknown.
Equally well attested is the Sun Goddess of the Earth, attested in the spellings taknaš
D
UTU (6 textparts across 4 texts) and EREŠ.KI.GAL (15 textparts across 8 texts). The latter
Sumerogram may refer to multiple deities, but in the context of the local cults there is
little doubt that it stands for the Sun Goddess of the Earth, a female subterranean solar
deity rooted in the indigenous Anatolian substratum.269 As recently argued by Giulia
Torri, expanding on studies by Piotr Taracha, the expression Sun Goddess of the Earth
“looks more like an epithet connected with the Earth and thus liable to be applied to
several female deities worshipped in central Anatolia;” in particular, in late systemati-
zations of local panthea the Storm God of Nerik appears occasionally as the son of the
Sun Goddess of the Earth, and the mother goddess Kataḫḫa (the “Queen”) seems to
have been occasionally equated with the Sun Goddess of the Earth.270 In the relevant
texts of the corpus, there is no hint for equations of EREŠ.KI.GAL with deities other than
the Sun Goddess of the Earth; in one of them, EREŠ.KI.GAL and Kataḫḫa are treated
within one single section. 271 The Sun Goddess of the Earth, written EREŠ.KI.GAL, is
treated in several sections of KBo 70.109+ (§§ 7, 8, 9, 16, 22, 25, 26b; she is listed together
with many other gods of various milieus), in KuT 60 (§ 5, area of Šarišša), in KUB 13.32

Sprache

StBoT 68. Cammarosano, Cult Inventory

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

StBoT 68. Cammarosano, Cult Inventory

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Michele Cammarosano

AT THE INTERFACE OF RELIGION AND ADMINISTR ATION:

Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

For further information about our publishing program consult our

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

TVOa Testi del Vicino Oriente antico

Marburg, July 2021

1 Steitler 2017: 1–4.

2.1The corpus and its Sitz im Leben

2.1.2Cult inventories and other genres

Festival texts Cult inventories

Greater detail, great variety of rit- More concise character, standard

insight in the mechanisms of supply and redistribution of goods in an important sector

2.1.3Typological classification of the texts

21 Cammarosano 2018: 23–26.

2.1.4Principles of analysis of the corpus

Publication number(s) and Leitnummer;

2.1.5Selected aspects of the corpus

Tag Frequency Frequency

ABoT 2.118 KBo 26.152 KUB 12.36+ KUB 44.1

Table 2.3: Manuscripts with (partly) preserved colophon.

2.2Materiality, layout, and palaeography

36 Cammarosano 2015: 156.

2.3Language and orthography

Spelling Inv. Fest. Spelling Inv. Fest.

Considered against the background of the orthographic conventions of Hittite texts,

contrast as compared to late festival texts, where semi-logographic spellings in verbal

73 Van den Hout 2015.

represented by the endingless Sumerographic participle GAR.RA “plated, inlaid”

2.3.4Morphosyntax und syntax

Strong prevalence of parataxis over hypotaxis;

77 HW2 s.v. ḫališšiya-, Weeden 2011: 153 fn. 681.

81 For examples and discussion, see Cammarosano 2018: 48–49.

2.3.5Semantics, lexicon, and formulae

97 For an example, see Cammarosano and Rieken 2020: 62–63.

Pattern Posture Further infos

Text Type of cult Pattern

2.3.7 Negatively defined characteristic features

3.1Sources and method

103 Barabási 2002: 145.

3.1.3Transport of goods and livestock

110 GN stands here, and elsewhere, for “geographic name.”

3.1.4Local institutions and officials

3.1.6Geographically circumscribed cults

115 A provisional list of these can be found in Kryszeń 2019: 11.

118 KUB 42.105+ § 18.

3.1.7Recurring groups of toponyms

3.2The geographic extent of the Hittite cult inventories

Sector Principal towns

3.2.2.1Cluster of Nerik (north)

126 Czichon 2013.

making the possibile reconstruction of that line perhaps: [IŠ-TU UR]Uḫa-ak-miš

3.2.2.2Cluster of Ḫakmiš (east)

138 Corti 2017: 223–224.

belongs to or borders on Ḫanḫana.

Finally, possible, although by no means certain, is the attribution to this region of

188 Edited below, § 6.18.

3.2.3.8Further texts concerning the central sector

198 Apology of Ḫattušili, col. ii 56–61 (Otten 1981: 14–15).

218 Cammarosano 2019 and Forlanini 2019b.

228 Written errenously with the sign TA.