The Edict Issued by the Hittite King Ḫattušili III Concerning the Priesthood of the Goddess Ištar/Šaušga
From Firenze University Press Book:Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE
Stefano de Martino, University of Turin
The edict issued by the Hittite king Ḫattušili III on the priesthood of Ištar/Šaušga is documented in two manuscripts, namely KBo 6.29 + and KUB 21.5+. Although the findspot of the tablets KBo 6.29 and KUB 21.15 is unknown, we argue that these documents were originally kept in Temple because the fragments KBo 50.56 and KBo 50.59, which join respectively KBo 6.29 and KUB 21.15, come from the area of this temple. Incidentally, the collection of tablets stored in Temple 1 also includes some manuscripts of the other edict that deals with the priesthood of Šaušga, the so-called ‘Apology,’ or ‘Autobiography’ (CTH 81.A, B, D, F, and G). The tablet KUB 21.15+ omits a line in the first paragraph of the third column1 that is preserved in KBo 6.29, which contains some scribal errors as well. Hence, we argue that both tablets were copied from the lost original recension of the decree. Overall, the two manuscripts do not differ much, in contrast with the manuscripts of the ‘Apology,’ which survives in several tablets that show significant linguistic and orthographic differences. The edict KBo 6.29 attracted the attention of Albrecht Götze, who published the first two columns in his book Ḫattušiliš (1925). After five years this scholar published a complete edition of the text in his book Neue Bruchstücke zum grossen Text des Hattušiliš und den Paralleltexten (1930), where he could restore some damaged passages by means of the duplicate KUB 21.15. Although we owe Albert Götze a debt of thanks for this exemplary philological work, the discovery of the new joining fragments KBo 50.56 and 59 (a, b, c) requires an updated edition of this text, which is of great historical value.
The resolutions taken by Ḫattušili III in KBo 6.29 concern the priesthood of Šaušga of Šamuḫa, whose name is written with the Akkadogram IŠTAR, and the economic support given by the Hittite royal house to the sanctuary of the deity. We share Imparati’s assumption (1995) that the issuing of the edict KBo 6.29+ preceded the composition of the ‘Apology;’ in fact, in the latter document the king appoints his son Tutḫaliya as priest of Šaušga of Šamuḫa and eventually elevates him to the dignity of tuḫkanti.Instead, in KBo 6.29+ Ḫattušili III only establishes that one of his sons shall be priest of the deity, without mentioning any of them by name (see also ultra). Thus, we argue that KBo 6.29 was written when the children of Ḫattušili and Pudu-Ḫeba were little, and hence the royal couple could not yet decide which of them would merit being chosen for the priesthood of the patron deity of the king. As the incipit documents, the edict KBo 6.29 was issued by Ḫattušili III, whose name is followed by his genealogy. This Hittite sovereign only mentions his father Muršili II, his grandfather Šuppiluliuma I, and his homonymous predecessor Ḫattušili I of Kuššara. Hence, here as well as in the other official documents issued by Ḫattušili III, the king aimed to inscribe his own name as the direct heir of his father by cancelling the names of Muwatalli II and Muršili III. Furthermore, the reference to his ancestor Ḫattušili I was intended to prove his affiliation to an old royal dynasty. The name of Pudu-Ḫeba occurs after the titles and genealogy of her husband, but the queen’s name is not present in other decrees issued by Ḫattušili III, such as KBo 6.28+ (de Martino in press b), KBo 4.12, KUB 26.58, and the ‘Apology,’ with the sole exception of KUB 21.17.
DOI: 10.36253/979–12–215–0042–4.03
Read Full Text: https://books.fupress.it/chapter/the-edict-issued-by-the-hittite-king-attuili-iii-concerning-the-priesthood-of-the-goddess-itarauga/13185
