1 Hurrians and Anatolia
Judging only from the number of documents and linguistic materials available, Hurrian appears to be one of the most important foreign languages that emerged from the scribal production of Hittite Anatolia. It was the language of magic, the language of ritual practices, the language of literature: the fields in which Hurrian was used, as documented in the Hittite archives, testify to its highly influential status in the Hittite society.
Of course, Hurrian’s penetration into Anatolia was a gradual process. As outlined in Chapter 4, the first Hurrian words that arrive from documents produced in Anatolia are found in the Old Assyrian documents of the kārum society. However, despite Michel’s claim that the kārum “archives contain many words borrowed from early Hittite, Luwian, or Hurrian” (Michel 2014:77), the number of Hurrian words recognizable as foreignisms or loanwords in the Old Assyrian corpora remains limited. Furthermore, most, if not all, that can be identified with a fair degree of confidence also are found in northern Mesopotamian documents (cf. Dercksen 2007), which implies that it is impossible to exclude a borrowing process that occurred in Assyria rather than Anatolia. The presence of Hurrian personal names in the Middle Bronze Age Anatolian corpora is equally modest, although some names have been convincingly identified and analyzed (Wilhelm 2008).
Whatever the extent of the presence of Hurrian in Kārum Anatolia, what was spoken at this stage probably corresponded to the Old Hurrian variety of the early dynasty of Urkeš (see also below, § 2), which is also the stage to which most of the material attested in both the earlier and later onomastics appears to correspond (Giorgieri 2000b; cf. also Wilhelm 1992b on the verbal system and Richter 2016 for a Hurrian onomasticon). This variety of Hurrian is also closer to the Hurrian dialect of the texts composed in Hattuša and Syria (e.g., at the site and in the region of Mari), judging from some features that have been considered suitable for describing linguistic contiguity,1 than the Mittani letter (EA 24), one of the few Hurrian documents presumably written by the scribes of the kingdom of Mittani, in this case during the first part of the reign of King Tušratta (around the 1350s BCE). In recent studies, the label Old Hurrian is sometimes used not only for the Urkeš early dialect but for all of the Hurrian varieties that shared features as opposed to the Mittani Hurrian as attested in the Letter.2
Although this is not the place to review the criteria of this classification, the ‘peripheral’ nature of the Hurrian of the Hittite archives is relevant to the present discussion. It allows the penetration of the Hurrian language into the Hittite kingdom to be seen in the context of the historical phase in which political connections between Hatti and the Cilician and Syrian Hurrianized areas are attested.
The phase of intensive political contact between Hatti and the Hurrians of the influential kingdom of Kizzuwatna began with the reign of Telipinu and continued through the transitional pre-imperial phase with periodic stipulations of international treaties,3 until, toward the mid-14th century, King Tuthaliya I married a noblewoman named Nikkalmadi, who was probably a princess from Kizzuwatna (de Martino 2020:62). Although contacts between the Hittite and Hurrian peoples existed much earlier (see Chapter 5 for the historical context)—Hurrian troops participated in the Syrian campaigns of the earliest Hittite kings (CTH 13)—the communis opinio today is that the extensive penetration into Hatti of Hurrian ritual, religious, and literary texts and traditions began, or at least intensified, at this moment. Hurrian deities entered the official pantheon, Hurrian cults and religious praxes joined Hattian-Anatolian cults and praxes, and Hurrian personal names were adopted by several Hittite princes starting with the generation of Tuthaliya III (Tašmišarri); the latter practice would become even more widespread during the 13th century BCE.4
The increasing importance of the Hurrian culture, language, and traditions in Hatti is reflected by the numbers and diversity of the Hurrian documents in the Hittite archives during the Late Bronze Age. However, it is necessary to better contextualize the position of Hurrian and the Hurrians among the cultures and languages of the ancient Near East before discussing the presence and role of Hurrian in the Hittite archives.
2 Areal Relationships of Hurrian and the Hurrians
Hurrian names are attested in ancient Near Eastern texts from Mesopotamia during the Early Bronze Age, far before the Hittite age began. According to Salvini (2000b:27), the earliest, Tahiš-Adili, occurs in an Akkadian year name of Narām-Sîn (MU dna-ra-am-dEN.ZU subirKI in a-zu-hi-nimKI i-ša-ru tá-hi-ša-ti-li ik-mi-ù).5 Anthroponyms and some toponyms also emerged during the Neo-Sumerian age. We share Salvini’s pessimism (2000b:21) with regard to discussing the geographical origin of the Hurrians during the proto-historical phase (the usual suspects are the Caucasus and the Armenian/Anatolian interface). However, the cultural, political, and linguistic contexts of the Hurrian civilizations can be discussed seriously for the second millennium BCE.
The earliest Hurrian dynasty known from direct epigraphic sources ruled in the North Mesopotamian city of Urkeš (Tell Mozan),6 probably toward the end of the age of Akkad and during and after the century-long existence of the Neo-Sumerian kingdom. Tiš-adal appears to be the earliest member of the Urkeš royal family whose name survives in a local inscription, while Atal-šen must have ruled around the end of the third millennium.7 At this stage, the geographical context of the Hurrian civilization seems to coincide with the portion of northern Syro-Mesopotamia known as the Jazira. Urkeš is located at the northeastern periphery of this fertile area, not far from the heart of the kingdom of Assyria (Šubat Enlil/Tell Leilan, the royal city of the northern Amorite kingdom of Šamši-Addu, will flourish no more than 50 km from Tell Mozan).
During the Middle Bronze Age, the Hurrian element spread toward northern Syria and possibly the interface regions of Cilicia and the Hatay (if the kingdom of Anum-hirbe of Ma’ama is to be located there),8 exposing the local Semitic and Anatolian languages to possibilities for interference and contact. Indeed, during the early centuries of the second millennium, Hurrian presence was visible in the Orontes area (e.g., in Alalah during the 17th century), from which it expanded to the central Levant (including the Ugarit region), and in portions of Anatolia: Cilicia and the Euphratic regions north of the Jazira.9 The spread of Hurrian generated some of the most fascinating and famous areas of intensive language contact in the Syro-Mesopotamian world: in the city of Nuzi, as early as in the 16th century BCE, the coexistence of Akkadian and Hurrian speakers resulted in Nuzi Akkadian, a variety of early Middle Babylonian that exhibits traces of grammatical influence that bring to mind creolization phenomena known from the modern history.10
Northern Mesopotamia is roughly the area in which the kingdom of Mittani emerged, beginning in the late 16th or early 15th century BCE, with its peculiar sociopolitical lexicon that features royal names and titles stemming from an otherwise unknown Indo-Aryan superstrate (see Chapter 13). Mittani’s political influence increased until the mid-14th century, propelling a new diffusion of the Hurrian element into the western areas of the ancient Near Eastern world.11 However, the Hurrian expansion seems to have predated the military exploits of the Mittanian kings and may or may not have been connected with earlier Hurrian political formations of the Upper Mesopotamian regions.
In the Syrian and Levantine areas, Hurrian penetration began during the Middle Bronze Age. Hurrian personal names and toponyms occur in the Mari texts during the reign of Zimri-Lim (18th century BCE).12 In the principality of Tikunani, probably located somewhere to the east, not far from the area of the future Mittani kingdom (Salvini 2000b:55–66), some members of the new social class of the habiru bore Hurrian names as early as the early 16th century BCE. At one of the most significant sites of the Orontes area, Alalah, the local Akkadian vernacular borrowed Hurrian onomastics and words, including, for the Mittani Age (Alalah IV), important cultural loanwords such as designations of the local social classes.13 Later, during the 14th century, Hurrian was employed in lexical texts in the Syrian harbor city of Ugarit; it was also used in some religious and poetic texts that were occasionally encoded in the Ugaritic proto-alphabetic variety of the cuneiform system.14 Traces of Hurrian interference in the local Akkadian documents have been detected (van Soldt 1991:375–381, 471, 517–518). Because of the political expansion of the Hurrian empire of Mittani during the 15th and 14th centuries BCE, Hurrian names emerge also in the Levantine letters from the Egyptian archive of Amarna, where an Akkadian version of the Hurrian myth of Kešše has been recovered (Wilhelm 1989:58).
Finally, as early as the 15th century BCE, a major Hurrian kingdom situated in Kizzuwatna began to entertain diplomatic and political relationships with the surrounding powers. Given the position of Kizzuwatna, roughly corresponding to Cilicia, one of the diplomatic partners of the Hurrian kings in the area was Hittite Anatolia. However, evidence from the Hittite archives indicates that Kizzuwatna was populated by Luwians as well, meaning that there was intensive contact between Hurrian and Luwian.
Given its extremely wide diffusion during the central and late second millennium BCE, Hurrian came into contact with almost all the languages spoken in the ancient Near East during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. These included Akkadian (with a well-known case of quasi creolization that emerges from the written corpus from Nuzi), West Semitic (with cases of interference, mostly on the lexical level, in several Syrian centers, most notably in Ugarit), and certainly also Luwian (which was spoken together with Hurrian in the liminal Anatolian region of Cilicia). The extent to which Hurrian interacted sociolinguistically with Hittite in the Hittite kingdom will be the topic of § 4; for a discussion of the Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mittani, a relic that probably originated from a phenomenon that predates the historical age under discussion, see Chapter 13.
3 Hurrian Texts from the Hittite World: Chronology, Typology, and Functions
Hurrian texts dated to different periods have been found throughout the ancient Near East, in more or less significant amounts for each area.15 Here we will focus on the Boğazköy corpus and related Anatolian archives, with some remarks on non-Anatolian ones.
In the Catalogue of Hittite Texts, Hurrian documents have their own section (CTH 774–791)—as do texts written in the other foreign languages attested in the Hittite archives—but several Hurrian texts with Hittite translations or adaptations, as well as texts belonging to the Hurrian milieu, are included in other parts of the catalog. Among these are foreign mythological narratives (CTH 341–353), Kizzuwatna rituals (CTH 471–500), and festival texts related to the cult of Teššub and Hebat (CTH 698–706) and Ištar (CTH 710–722).
Before providing a more detailed description of the different Hurrian textual genres attested in the Anatolian archives, we briefly summarize the chronology of Hurrian texts that was established by Giorgieri (2013) and de Martino (2017) based on paleographic data and contextual information in the documents. Limited evidence for the presence of Hurrians in the Old Assyrian kārum of Kaneš/Kültepe (19th–18th century BCE) is provided by personal names,16 but no Hurrian text can be safely dated to the Hittite Old Kingdom. The earliest Hurrian documentation found in the Boğazköy archives consists of some liver omens dated to the first half of the 15th century. Kizzuwatna may have played a role in their transmission, although it was not part of the Hittite kingdom.17
The first substantial wave of Hurrian documents, together with the adoption of Hurrian cults,18 reached Hattuša during the reigns of Tuthaliya I and his successor Arnuwanda I. The annexation of Kizzuwatna, the Syrian campaigns of Tuthaliya I, and his marriage with the Kizzuwatnean princess Nikkalmadi contributed to the Hurritization of the Hittite court. We can date to this period not only the bilingual ‘Song of Release’—whose Hurrian text is older, however (17th–16th century)—and the so-called Parables but also the bilingual rituals of Allaiturahhi (CTH 780–781), Šalašu (788), and Ašdu (CTH 490). Kizzuwatna rituals were also copied in this period. Furthermore, some Hurrian fragments that are referred to as edicts can be dated to the reign of Arnuwanda I. KUB 27.42, a Hurrian invocation to the gods, is attributed to Kantuzzili, the son of Arnuwanda I, in the colophon.
Recensions of the purification rituals itkahi and itkalzi, which were composed in Hurrian for Tuthaliya III/Tašmišarri and his wife Taduheba at the beginning of the 14th century, have been found in both Hattuša and Šapinuwa. The Hurrian prayer to Teššub KUB 32.19+ (CTH 777.8, MS) was also composed for Tuthaliya III/Tašmišarri and Taduheba. The Hurrian texts from Ortaköy/Šapinuwa and Kayalıpınar/Šamuha should also be dated to the reign of Tuthaliya III, who resided in both of these cities. Among these documents, Kp 05/226 (= DAAM 1.11) is exceptional because it seems to contain an account of military campaigns in Syria in Hurrian. In this period, Hurrian personal names at Hattuša seem to have been used only at the royal court and by some foreign experts, whereas several people at Šapinuwa bore Hurrian names, which may hint at the existence of a local community.
The bulk of Hurrian mythological texts together with their Hittite adaptations (the Kumarbi cycle, the narrative of Kešše, etc.), as well as the Hurrian adaptation of the Gilgameš epic, are dated to the imperial period (14th–13th century). There is limited evidence for earlier tablets, which may point to a composition or copy during Šuppiluliuma I’s reign, possibly as a consequence of the conquest of Mittani. The ritual of Ummaya (CTH 779) can be dated to Muršili II, but no Hurrian text can be safely assigned to the reign of Muwattalli II, although Muwattalli reintroduced the use of Hurrian names among the members of the royal family.19
A renewed interest in Hurrian religious traditions marked the reign of Hattušili III, who married Puduheba, daughter of a Kizzuwatnean priest of Ištar. Puduheba commissioned Walwaziti, the chief scribe, to collect the tablets of the (h)išuwa festival from Kizzuwatna, which were redacted in Hittite, with only limited Hurrian insertions, displaying an almost exclusive liturgical use of Hurrian. We can date the most recent edition of the ritual of Allaiturahhi, which, unlike the older edition, featured no passages in Hurrian language, to the last Hittite king, Šuppiluliuma II, which provides further evidence that Hurrian was probably no longer in use.
3.1 Mythological Narratives
Hurrian myths probably are the best-known Hurrian compositions because of the numerous parallels between them and ancient Greek epics. In the archives of Boğazköy, they are mostly attested in Hittite versions, but some fragments in Hurrian and Akkadian can be found. Hittite versions of original Hurrian myths, as well as Hurrian and Hittite versions of original Akkadian compositions, cannot be regarded as Übersetzungsliteratur because the parallel passages are not direct translations but rather adaptations of the original text.20 For example, the Hurrian version of the Gilgameš epic (CTH 341.II) was, according to Beckman (2019b:23), “a substantial reworking of these tales in order to adapt them to the religious and mythological world of the Hurrians.”21 It survives in only seven fragments, whose content is unclear; some of them date to the 14th century (see also Chapter 8).22 The colophon of KUB 8.61+ suggests that the Hurrian recension covered more than four tablets, but it is also possible that different compositions were present since the colophons are not consistent (ŠA dBilgames in KUB 8.60(+) vs. ŠA dHuwawa in KUB 8.61+).
The most famous Hurrian mythological cycle is that of Kumarbi, which includes compositions referred to as ‘songs’ (SÌR) in the colophons, which reveals that they were metrical poems. There is no consensus on the origin of the Hurrian poems. The common and most intuitive position is that they were original Hurrian poems imported into the Hittite capital and translated or adapted into Hittite. However, this stance has been variously challenged by scholars. According to Pecchioli Daddi and Polvani (1990:19–21), for example, the Hurrian recensions of the songs could have been a product of the Hittite chancellery because this cycle is so far known from Hittite archives only and Kumarbi, who has a prominent role in the narratives, does not seem to have been particularly relevant in other areas and is absent from Hurrian onomastics, although it featured several theophoric names. Furthermore, the mix of Mesopotamian and Anatolian narrative themes in the songs suggests that they could be interpreted as “reworkings of external cultural traditions linked to typically Anatolian elements that have been set down in an original synthesis” (Corti and Pecchioli Daddi 2012:618).23 But even if we accept the idea of original foreign compositions transmitted to the Hittite capital, it is not obvious that the original compositions were written in Hurrian. Akkadian versions of these myths are found sporadically, so the original versions of these Hurrian poems could have been written down in Akkadian—perhaps in Mittani, where Akkadian was used side by side with Hurrian and enjoyed high cultural prestige—and the poems transcribed in Hurrian later, in Anatolia.24
How these songs were transmitted is also debated. According to Archi (2007), the lack of exact correspondences between Hurrian and Hittite versions strongly points to oral transmission and writing from dictation in a scenario that involves the presence of Hurrian bards at the Hittite court in the 13th century.25 However, the prevalence of Hittite versions seems to show that the royal court had little familiarity with the Hurrian language, which is consistent with the data emerging from other texts.
The number of songs that were part of the Kumarbi cycle is unknown, and their order in the series can only be hypothesized from their content. Additionally, the Kumarbi cycle may not have been a single coherent narrative, in which every song was necessarily consistent with the others; multiple cycles or narrative nuclei, more or less independent of each other, could have existed.26 Thus it could have been not a ‘cycle,’ in the sense of a coherent and cohesive whole, but rather an ‘archipelago’ of songs, as suggested by Archi (2009:211).
The Song of Emergence, also known as Kingship in Heaven or Theogony (CTH 344),27 is unanimously regarded as the opening song of the Kumarbi cycle. It is only attested in two NS tablets in Hittite, but the Hurrian fragment KUB 47.56, which is included in the mythological fragments under CTH 370.II, may belong to a Hurrian version of this song (seemingly with a colophon in Hittite). The colophon of the Hittite tablet KUB 33.120+ informs us that it is a copy of an older worn tablet that must have been in Hittite too. Based on this colophon and the Hittite colophon on the Hurrian tablet, Corti (2007:120–121) suggests that the Hittite version may have been based on a Hurrian draft and the Hurrian version translated from an earlier Hittite version. However, the presence of the Hittite colophon on the Hurrian tablet should probably not be emphasized too much because colophons are not part of the text but rather reflect the Hittite archival practice.
The second known composition of the cycle seems to have been the Song of the kingship of the god LAMMA (CTH 343), which is preserved in Hittite on 14 tablets dating to the Empire period.28 The Song of Silver (CTH 364) came next, attested from 12 NS and LNS fragments in Hittite from Boğazköy, although a MS Hurrian fragment has been found at Kayalıpınar/Šamuha (Kp 07/84 = DAAM 1.14).29
Two fragments of a Hurrian recension, both in LNS, are also attested for the Song of Hedammu (CTH 348),30 whose Hittite version is preserved on 36 tablets of the Empire period. The Song of Ullikummi (CTH 345) is attested on 26 tablets, of which five contain the Hurrian version. Among the Hurrian tablets, KUB 45.64+ (which does not necessarily belong to this composition) shows a MH ductus, while the others can be dated to the Empire period on paleographic grounds. Furthermore, only the Hurrian fragment KUB 45.61 (345.II.1) bears a passage that matches a section attested in the Hittite version (KUB 33.93+ iii 9′ ff.). The comparison between the two passages makes it clear that the Hittite text is not a direct translation of the Hurrian text but rather a reworking, as shown by Giorgieri (2001).
Besides these songs, which are the best-preserved, other compositions can be ascribed to the Kumarbi cycle, although their collocation in the series is debated. Among the fragments listed under CTH 346 (Fragments of the Myth of Kumarbi), the Hurrian tablets KUB 45.63 and VBoT 59 have been recognized as the Song of the Sea, which probably narrated Teššub’s victory over the Sea and was thematically consistent with the Ugaritic myth of Ba‘al and Yamm, widespread in the ancient Near East.31 Another text probably belonging to the Kumarbi cycle is the MS Hittite composition Ea and the Beast (KUB 36.32, currently listed under CTH 351, Fragments mentioning Ea),32 which Rutherford (2011:218) suggests is a narrative hymn to Teššub. According to Archi (2002), “[t]he numerous erasures indicate that we are in possession of the first (possibly the only) Hittite redaction of this ‘song’ of Hurrian origin.” Indeed, we do not know of any other references to this song, and its contents are not fully consistent with the other compositions in the cycle.33
The fragment KBo 22.87 seems to be somehow related to the Kumarbi cycle. It contains a mythological tale that refers to the kingship in the sky of the god Eltara, one of the ‘ancient gods;’ in this regard it recalls the Song of Emergence.34 The fragment KUB 33.108 (NS, CTH 350.3.A), containing the Hittite version of a Hurrian narrative concerning Ištar and Mount Pišaiša (located in northern Syria), may have been part of the same mythological cycle,35 along with the NS Hittite tablet KUB 33.118 (CTH 346.5.A), which is the only fragment to preserve a composition about Kumarbi and Mount Wašitta.36
The three NS fragments in Hittite referred to as the Cycle of Teššub (CTH 349) may also be part of the Kumarbi cycle, specifically the Song of Ullikummi.37 It is far less likely that the composition listed under CTH 776.2, the Song of Oil, belonged to the Kumarbi cycle:38 although six NS fragmentary tablets in Hurrian belonging to this narrative have been identified,39 no Hittite version has been found, making it unlikely that it was part of the Kumarbi cycle.
In KBo 8.88 obv. 8 (NS, CTH 785.1.B) is said that a Song of Kingship (šarraššiyaš SÌR) is performed during the ritual for Mount Hazzi, although no fragments of this composition have been identified with certainty and its inclusion in the Hurrian Kumarbi cycle cannot be established.40 This Song of Kingship might be the Kingship in Heaven song, although, as mentioned, the title provided by the colophon of the latter composition is rather Song of Emergence.41
The Boğazköy archives contain several Hurrian fragments of the Tale of the hunter Kešše and his beautiful wife (CTH 361.II), which is also a ‘song’ (SÌR); two of them are in MS. The composition is also attested by five tablets in Hittite (CTH 361.I), which represent a rewriting of the original Hurrian text,42 and an Akkadian fragment found at Amarna (EA 341 = CTH 361.III). Although not many lines of this narrative are preserved, the Hurrian text was quite long, covering at least 15 tablets.43 Also related to the theme of hunting is the Story of the hero Gurparanzah (CTH 362), although the text is difficult to reconstruct because only some fragments in Hittite survive.44 Conversely, despite some parallels with the songs of the Kumarbi cycle, there is no compelling evidence to assign the Tale of Appu and his sons (CTH 360) to the Hurrian cultural milieu. It is preserved in 12 manuscripts in Hittite that date to the Empire period, although linguistic data show that the composition is older.45
Finally, Hurrian mythological fragments that are difficult to identify are included under CTH 370.II and CTH 775. CTH 776, besides the fragments assigned to the Song of Oil (CTH 776.2; see above), includes five manuscripts of the mythological composition known as Teššub and the rivers (CTH 776.1), which dates to the MH period and is connected to the city of Šapinuwa.
3.1.1 The Bilingual Song of Release
Among the mythological compositions, the Song of Release (CTH 789)46 holds a special position because it is the only Hurrian ‘song’ (SÌR) attested in a bilingual format. The original Hurrian text and the Hittite version—which is not an independent recension, like other Hittite adaptations of Hurrian songs, but a true translation (although perhaps not the original one)47—are written side by side on the same tablet.
The tablets of the Song of Release were discovered between 1983 and 1985 in Temples XV and XVI in the Upper City. All of them are MS manuscripts, although the Hurrian text is older as linguistic evidence reveals.48 Only the small fragment ABoT 2.247 (findspot unknown) is seemingly written in the NH ductus. The existence of this NS fragment, together with the mention of a Festival of Release in the votive text KBo 31.169 (NS, CTH 590) that is perhaps related to this song and the possible mention of the Song of Release in the festival tablet KBo 57.180 (NS, CTH 670.1217),49 may point to the performance of all or part of the song during festival celebrations as late as the 13th century—perhaps in connection with the Hurrian revival promoted by Hattušili III and Puduheba.50
A fragment of the song has also been found at Ugarit (RS 19.148), containing Teššub’s descent to the netherworld.51 This fragment is the only evidence of the existence of this song outside Hattuša, which has nevertheless been assumed because of the antiquity of the Hurrian text. According to Wilhelm (2008:192–193), the song belonged to the tradition of Igingalliš and was probably composed originally in a city close to Ebla—perhaps Haššu—where Hurrian was spoken.
The Song of Release narrated Ebla’s destruction by Teššub because of the city’s refusal to release the people of Igingalliš, who were Ebla’s subjects. The composition covered at least six tablets, which are sequenced mostly using Wilhelm’s (1997) interpretation.52 The fourth and fifth tablets exist in multiple copies, while others are unica. This may be the result of chance or could indicate that some tablets were regarded as more interesting than others and thus copied more frequently.
Some mistakes in the Hittite translations seem to show that the tablets were written by “a team of scribes, some of them speaking Hittite and others Hurrian, maybe both with a double linguistic competence although at different degrees” (de Martino 2017:154).53 Other interference phenomena in the Hittite translation—for example, unusual or even incorrect word order in some sentences—represent an effort to maintain the original Hurrian structure as far as possible. Thus they are ‘translationese’ phenomena rather than the results of true grammatical interference.54
Two tablets containing the Parables, which belong to the genre of wisdom literature, are also bilingual (KBo 32.12 and KBo 32.14, without duplicates).55 In Neu’s (1996) reconstruction, these were regarded as the second and third tablets of the song, and p[arā tarnuma]š in the colophon of KBo 32.12 was restored. However, such a restoration is not compelling, and the content of the Parables is dissimilar to that of the rest of the Song of Release, leading Wilhelm (2001:84) to rule out their inclusion in it.56
According to von Dassow, both the Parables and the Song of Release may have been part of a Hurrian scribal curriculum, “to train Hittite scribes to read and write Hurrian” (von Dassow 2013:130)57 in the same way that other mythological compositions were used to teach Akkadian.58 More specifically, they represented two different stages of Hurrian instruction for Hittite scribes who already knew cuneiform: the Parables would have been a more elementary stage, used to teach Hurrian grammar, much like the proverbs in the Mesopotamian curriculum, whereas the Song would have been an advanced stage of the curriculum, like the Gilgameš epic and other poems. This hypothesis would account for the existence of several manuscripts with layout variations and a “grammatically overexplicit” Hittite translation in which there was “a deliberate effort to represent every element in Hurrian with a corresponding element in Hittite” (von Dassow 2013:148).
As mentioned, very limited evidence is found for the survival or performance of this composition in the Empire period, which probably points to a lack of interest in the song, whether due to its content or the existence of more attractive works, such as the songs included in the Kumarbi cycle, which had several independent Hittite recensions.59
3.2 Rituals and Festivals
As is the case for mythological compositions, the ‘Hurrian’ ritual and festival materials stored in the Hittite archives include original works written fully or partly in Hurrian, Hittite reworkings based on original Hurrian compositions, and texts whose content reveals a Hurrian milieu (although the use of Hurrian is limited to a few borrowings and technical terms as is the case of several Hurro-Luwian rituals from Kizzuwatna). Some of the Hurrian compositions are foreign rituals that were copied or adapted in the Hittite capital city, whereas others seem to be original works composed in Hurrian on specific occasions in Hittite contexts.
The latter group of the texts is represented by the Washing of the mouth rituals itkahi and itkalzi, called in Hittite aiš šuppiyahhuwaš (CTH 777–778). These are attested on several tablets from Boğazköy and Ortaköy/Šapinuwa and also on a fragmentary tablet from Kayalıpınar/Šamuha (DAAM 1.29).60 The itkalzi ritual is attested in two main series, a complete MH edition including 22 tablets and a short recension only including 10 tablets, which is also MH.61 A third recension is attested by the MS tablets KBo 20.129+ from Boğazköy and Or 90/1473 from Ortaköy, whose colophons provide the title Great itkalzi (ritual) (itkalziyaš GAL).62 The text was originally composed in Hurrian at Šapinuwa, as emerges from the tablet Or 90/393 + Or 90/1050 from Ortaköy, the 11th tablet of the complete recension, according to the colophon. This is the only tablet on which not only the recitations but also the descriptions of the ritual actions are in Hurrian; just a short passage and the colophon are in Hittite.63 All of the other tablets include Hurrian recitations in a Hittite framework that provides the instructions for the ritual. Several copies date to the Middle Hittite period, but the text was also copied several times in the 13th century, perhaps as a consequence of the Hurrian revival under Hattušili III and Puduheba.64
The ritual was originally composed for Tašmišarri/Tuthaliya III and Taduheba, probably on the occasion of their wedding, and the royal couple is explicitly mentioned in several fragments, including the Hurrian version from Ortaköy.65 However, the ritual patron remains anonymous on other tablets, which seems to point to a generic adaptation of the original text that could be used for any ritual patron. Both the original version for Tašmišarri/Tuthaliya III and Taduheba and the generic recension are attested at Boğazköy and Ortaköy. It is not clear whether the reduced version in 10 tablets was also originally performed for Tašmišarri and Taduheba, like the full edition, or whether the reduction was part of the transformation to a generic ritual.66 Both manuscripts of the Great itkalzi (ritual) include a generic ritual for any ritual patron.67
The same CTH numbers are used to catalog other Hurrian compositions related to Tuthaliya III, such as KUB 32.19+ (MS, CTH 777.8), a Hurrian prayer to Teššub by Taduheba for the military success of Tašmišarri/Tuthaliya III, and KBo 9.137+ (MS, CTH 778.I), an ‘edict’(?) dated to the reign of Arnuwanda I.68
As previously mentioned, the earliest versions of the bilingual rituals of Allaiturahhi (CTH 780–781), Šalašu (CTH 788), and Ašdu (CTH 490) can also be dated to the Middle Hittite period and probably reached Hattuša with the annexation of Kizzuwatna. The ritual ascribed to Allaiturahhi (CTH 780–781), a ritual practitioner from Mukiš, in northern Syria, is attested by several manuscripts in the archives of Boğazköy, which can be categorized into three redactional phases. The first is an older recension, featuring recitations in Hurrian in a Hittite ritual framework, and the second is a later bilingual version with Hurrian recitations and their corresponding Hittite translations. In the third, and final, recension, dating to the reign of Šuppiluliuma II (who is mentioned as the ritual patron), only Hittite translations are found, without the original Hurrian recitations. The format of the final recension seems to indicate that Hurrian was no longer in use at the end of the Empire.69 Both the Hurrian passages, with several mistakes, and the Hittite translations show that the scribes had difficulties in understanding the Hurrian text.70 Judging from the colophons, the composition probably covered six tablets.71 Some characteristics of the earliest texts of the series, such as the use of the second person in the ritual instructions, are quite common in Mesopotamia but very rare in Hittite rituals. They seem to suggest that the recension attested at Boğazköy may represent a direct translation from Hurrian and/or Akkadian.72
The ritual of Šalašu (CTH 788), an ‘old woman’ from Kizzuwatna, occupied at least nine tablets and was quite close in content to the ritual of Allaiturahhi. Like the ritual of Allaiturahhi, the ritual of Šalašu had Hurrian recitations with Hittite translations, but tablets that include only the Hurrian versions are known (KBo 11.19+).73 Lacking a thorough understanding of Hurrian, the scribes who produced the Hurrian texts made errors similar to those made by the scribes who recorded the ritual of Allaiturahhi.
Hurrian recitations, although without Hittite translation, are also included in the ritual of Ašdu (CTH 490), a ‘Hurrian old woman’ (MUNUSŠU.GI URUhurlaš). There are no other indications of the geographic origins of this ritual practitioner. The text is attested by more than 40 tablets, mostly dating to the 13th century BCE, although a couple of manuscripts show the MH ductus.74 It is difficult to determine how many tablets were included in the series. Furthermore, there were likely two distinct rituals of Ašdu because the colophon of KUB 44.54 indicates that it is the third tablet and completes the ritual text (iv 3′), but KBo 19.144+ is the fourth of the series (iv 25′) per its own colophon, and the tablet catalog KUB 30.65+ mentions a seven-tablet ritual of Ašdu (iii 5–6).75
The Hurrian ritual for the royal couple KUB 27.42 (MS, CTH 784) can also be dated to the Middle Hittite period as the tablet is attributed in the colophon to the ‘priest and prince’ (LÚSANGA DUMU.LUGAL) Kantuzzili, son of Arnuwanda I. The text is a long invocation to Teššub and Hebat in Hurrian, in which Hurrian passages, without translations, are introduced by short Hittite clauses.76
The medical ritual of Zelliya (CTH 783), which includes Hurrian Ritualtermini and some Hurrian recitations in a Hittite ritual framework, appears on four fragments, including one in MS.77 The ritual of the goddess Išhara against perjury (CTH 782), which also includes Hurrian recitations, is only attested by tablets of the Empire period. This ritual surely consisted of more than one tablet, although only the first tablet of the series is preserved.78
The ritual of Ummaya (CTH 779) is recorded on four Sammeltafeln dated to the imperial period, together with other ritual compositions. The text includes a Hittite ritual framework with extensive Hurrian recitations but no Hittite translations. The Hurrian text in KBo 15.1 mentions the name Muršili three times (iv 25′, 32′, 38′), indicating that it was composed during the reign of Muršili II. In KUB 7.58 iv 2, 9 and KUB 45.20 iii 17′ Tašmišarruma is mentioned instead. Although the Hurrian recitations are identical, the rituals may have been different.79
Under CTH 790, several fragments of Hittite-Hurrian rituals and incantations are listed. The small NS fragment KUB 47.49 can be assigned to the Hurrian ritual of Šapšušu from Kizzuwatna, which also included Hurrian recitations; this fragment is the only known text belonging to that ritual.80 Or. 97/1, from Ortaköy/Šapinuwa, also listed under CTH 790, is a small tablet in MS containing a ritual for ‘Teššub of salvation and well-being(?)’ that was performed for Tašmišarri/Tuthaliya III; the incantations are in Hurrian and the ritual instructions in Hittite.81 CTH 791 (‘Hurrian fragments’) also includes some Hurrian ritual texts. For example, KBo 8.153 (MS) contains the Incantation of the scorpion (ŠIPAT GÍR.TAB).
CTH 700 is labeled Enthronement ritual for Teššub and Hebat. Twelve manuscripts are preserved, one in MS (KUB 11.31+). According to the colophons, the composition, which filled three tablets, was composed for the enthronement of Tuthaliya III and included the celebration of the šarrašši ritual for Teššub and the allašši ritual for Hebat. Although the two rituals have Hurrian names (from šarri- ‘king’ and allai- ‘lady’), no passages in Hurrian are found, so the composition seems to be a Hittite reworking.82
CTH 701 includes more than 150 manuscripts, some of them in MS, containing rituals celebrated by the AZU priest that have similar Hurrian recitations in common. Among these fragments, some groups can be singled out: 1) the drink offerings for the Throne of Hebat (CTH 701.a), of which several manuscripts feature Hurrian recitations; 2) the šarra-offering to Teššub (CTH 701.b), which consisted of at least seven tablets; 3) the allanuwašši(yaš) ritual of Giziya, man of Alalah, only attested by the MS manuscript KUB 45.3+, which represents the sixth tablet of the series;83 and 4) rituals for Teššub and Šawuška (CTH 701.d). To these groups we can add some fragmenta incertae sedis (CTH 701.e) and various indeterminate rituals performed by the AZU priest (CTH 701.f). Notable among the latter is the Hurrian fragment KUB 47.41 (CTH 701.f.4.B), which has a Middle Assyrian or Assyro-Mittanian ductus; it may represent an imported original tablet from Kizzuwatna.84
The ritual for Mount Hazzi (CTH 785), which includes several Hurrian terms, is attested on 13 fragmentary manuscripts; the earliest dates from the late Middle Hittite period.85 As shown by Corti (2017b), this festival was culturally connected to Šapinuwa and reflected the influence of northwest Syria on this city (the MS tablet KBo 8.86+ probably represents a version of the original composition from Šapinuwa). As mentioned above, some passages provide evidence that the Song of Kingship and the Song of the Sea were sung during the celebration of this festival.
More than 300 tablets preserve the large (h)išuwa- festival (CTH 628). The composition filled 13 tablets, the first ones including Hurrian recitations and the remainder, beginning at least with the fifth tablet, with Hittite recitations only. This seems to point to a stronger interest in Hurrian culture than language, as is independently shown, for example, by the later reworking of the Allaiturahhi ritual (see above).86 Most of the tablets can be dated to the reign of Hattušili III. The colophons of the festival indicate that Queen Puduheba ordered the chief scribe Walwaziti to look for Kizzuwatna tablets in the archives of Hattuša and that he compiled the (h)išuwa- series from those tablets. Older tablets surely existed, as shown, for example, by a passage on KUB 40.102+ rev. 5′–7′ (CTH 628.Tf08.A), “This zammuri-(bread) was not in the ancient tablets. Muwattalli, the Great King, later introduced it.” The notation points to the existence of a recension dated to the reign of Muwattalli II that was based on earlier materials.87 Some tablets showing a MH ductus can be identified, including examples in Hittite that were found at Kayalıpınar/Šamuha.
The Hurrian deity lists (CTH 786) and Hurrian offering lists (CTH 787) are written in a sort of mixed Hittite-Hurrian, with the names of the deities receiving offerings written in Hurrian.88 Hurrian Ritualtermini and Hurrian deity lists can also be found in various festivals in Hittite related to the cult of Ištar-Šawuška and her hypostases (Ištar-Šawuška of the cities Šamuha, Nineveh, Tamininga, Hattarina, etc.), who were also celebrated during the large AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival.89 Other Hittite festival compositions whose celebration included the performance of Hurrian songs are listed under CTH 656.
3.3 Omen Texts
Just under 50 manuscripts are listed in CTH 774,90 Hurrian omens. As previously mentioned, these omens represent the earliest documents in Hurrian that reached Hattuša; they arrived during the 15th century BCE, before the annexation of Kizzuwatna (the oldest tablets show an OH ductus).91 They deal with extispicy and hepatoscopy; no Hurrian ornithomantic texts, snake omens, KIN omens, or dream incubations have been found. Limited evidence for astrological omens also exists.92
Among the earliest documents are some liver omens, KUB 8.47 (OS) and KBo 32.223 (MS). They contain a collection of danānu omens (literally, ‘strength,’ probably denoting the ligamentum teres hepatis in Babylonian hepatoscopy) based on a Babylonian model.93 Some fragments, such as KBo 62.54 (OS) and KBo 49.60 (MS), include gallbladder omens. KUB 47.93, also in OS, contains entrail omens.94
Two fragments, KUB 47.96 (MS?) and KBo 27.215 (NS), are identified as šumma izbu omens. The latter has a parallel in the Hittite omen text KUB 8.83 (CTH 538.II.1; MS); although they are not translations of each another, they probably derive from a common Babylonian source.95 The bilingual Hurrian-Akkadian KUB 29.12 (NS) is also a fragment of the šumma izbu series: its right column contains Akkadian omens, although they do not correspond to the Hurrian omens on the left. Possibly the fragment belonged to a four-column tablet, especially because the Akkadian model would be expected to be on the left. Thus, the Hurrian omens on the fragment would have translated Akkadian omens in a lost first column, and the Akkadian omens in the right column would have had Hurrian translations in a lost fourth column.96 The small fragment KUB 8.32 (MS?) contains two astrological omens.
The influence of Hurrian divination on Hittite divination and the intermediary role of the Hurrians between the Mesopotamian and Hittite mantic traditions emerge in the technical terms employed in Hittite hepatoscopic practices, most of which are Hurrian (with some Akkadian loanwords). Curiously, technical terms occurring in Hurrian omen texts are consistently written with Sumerograms.97
3.4 Miscellaneous Hurrian Documents
Besides mythological, ritual, and oracular texts, which represent the majority of documents in Hurrian, other textual typologies appear sporadically. Hurrian hymns and prayers can sometimes be found. KUB 47.78 (NS), a hymn to Teššub of Aleppo, listed under CTH 791 (Hurrian fragments), can be added to KUB 32.19+, Taduheba’s prayer to Teššub, included in CTH 777 (see above).98 Hurrian characteristics can also be detected in some Hittite prayers and hymns, including the hymn to Ištar-Šawuška contained in the Sammeltafel KUB 24.7 (CTH 717, NS), also containing the Tale of the Sun god, the cow, and the fisherman (CTH 363). The latter composition is seemingly unrelated to the hymn because Hurrian origin cannot be proven for the narrative.99
KUB 27.43 (CTH 791, NS) is regarded as an edict and can be dated to the reign of Arnuwanda I, like KBo 9.137+ (CTH 778.I, MS) mentioned above.100 The MS tablet Kp 05/226 (= DAAM 1.11; CTH 791), found at Kayalıpınar/Šamuha, is exceptional because it contains a historical narrative in Hurrian concerning military campaigns in Syria.101
4 The Status of Hurrian in Anatolia
4.1 Areal Convergence and Local Phenomena of Interference
While the role of Hurrian in the transition of the Hittite culture from proto-literate to literate and in its inclusion in the cuneiform koiné has been emphasized by some authors,102 there is no evidence of an active status of the Hurrian language in Anatolia before the pre-imperial phase of Hittite history, which roughly coincided with the full penetration of the Hurrian demographic element in Syria and Cilicia and the political expansion of the kingdom of Mittani. The brevity of the phase during which Hurrian texts were written down in Anatolia argues for caution, and the tendency of the Hittite scribes to use very few heterograms (Akkadograms and Sumerograms) when writing in Hurrian (except for oracular texts; cf. Görke 2020) may also be indicative of a lack of familiarity with the language, supporting the conclusion that Hurrian culture was widely accepted in central Anatolia, but the Hurrian language maintained a rather exotic status.
Hurrian would participate in some phenomena of alleged areal convergence in Anatolia, including relative pronouns that behave adjectivally and are inside the relative clause,103 a morphologically rich Wackernagel position in the clause architecture, and a tendency to exclude sonority at word onset (through the absence of initial trills and the apparent word-initial neutralization of phonemic voiced/voiceless opposition).104 If these convergent traits are true areal phenomena that affected the known Anatolian languages (but cf. also Chapter 16), Hurrian, and, to some extent, Hattian, the convergence would have occurred far earlier than the era when the Hittite archives were established and would have been reflected there as the result of a previous stage that we can only indirectly and uncertainly observe.
In historical times, inside Anatolia, Hurrian interference behavior was limited in comparison to the integration with local traditions and languages in northern Mesopotamia and Syria. At the level of grammatical interference, Hurrian remains the best candidate model language for the introduction of unexpectedly marked number in Luwian genitival adjectives, which occurred mostly in Kizzuwatna as in the following example (note that the number of the possessed is unexpressed because the ablative-instrumental does not mark the number):105
Expected Luwian
maššan
=ašš
=ati
god
poss
instr
with those of the god(s)
Attested Kizz. Luwian
maššan
=ašš
=anz
=ati
god
poss
pl
instr
with those of the gods
Hurrian
en(i)
=n(a)
=až
=(e)
=ae
God
art
pl
gen
instr
with those of the gods
The position of the number morpheme depends on the structure of the nominal form in the two languages, but the insertion of it in Luwian seems to depend on the influence of the agglutinative grammar of Hurrian in an area of coexistence of the two idioms.
While this hypothesis has been criticized (Simon 2016), we still find it extremely likely, even though the presence of possessive adjectives unusually marked for number has been highlighted in other areas and traditions (for example, in a variety of Luwian used in the city of Tauriša). That is no reason to doubt the Hurrian explanation, which was originally proposed by Yakubovich 2010. Indeed, the vast majority of the occurrences remain connected with Kizzuwatna, as they occur in the ritual traditions of Kuwattalla/Šilalluhi, while the presence of a few cases in Tauriša can be explained by assuming that formulas and materials from the Kizzuwatna tradition circulated widely in Hittite Anatolia, just as Kizzuwatna’s Hurrian traditions did (see however Chapter 15, § 3.3, for a longer discussion). Nor can we exclude that Hurrian and Luwian materials circulated together.
One may accept or reject the hypothesis of this interference-driven grammatical innovation in some varieties of Luwian. However, if the reconstruction is correct, this would be the only case of true morphosyntactic interference between Hurrian and an Anatolian language during the Late Bronze Age, implying a lack of evidence for intense interactions, changes in grammar, and language shifts beyond Cilicia.
4.2 Lexical Phenomena Involving Hittite and Luwian
Loanwords, which circulate readily, can be traced more easily than grammatical interference. Words of Hurrian origin emerge in the lexicon of Late Hittite, beginning sometime during the 15th century BCE, probably at the same time that Hurrian religious and ritual material spread widely in the Hittite kingdom. It is certainly tempting to propose the reign of Tuthaliya I as a date for this tendency, but phenomena hardly ever begin at a specific point in time, so the onset was probably gradual. This date, although merely approximate, is not only the starting point for the production of copies of Hurrian texts in the Hittite archives but also the terminus post quem for the attestation of Hurrian linguistic material. In other words, if one excludes a limited number of Hurrian loanwords into Assyrian attested in the Middle Bronze Age texts from the kārum archives, there is no evidence that Hurrian played any role in the area of Hatti before the 15th century BCE.
While lexical items are generously represented in ancient corpora that stem from contact scenarios—certainly more generously than circulating or shared grammatical constructs—they are not very informative per se because loanwords and foreignisms need to be contextualized in terms of variation and function to use them to assess the sociolinguistic status of a code in a multilinguistic and multicultural environment.
Morphologically, as will be discussed in Chapter 14 (§ 5), most Hurrian words that occur in Hittite contexts are adapted to the morphology of the target language. Verbs borrowed from Hurrian have not emerged from the sources. Hurrian nominals, on the other hand, generally end with a vowel that is graphically rendered as an /i/. Although it has been proposed (Giorgieri 2000a:198) that this element was reduced to an indefinite vocoid, it appears that the Hurrian words that were immediately reanalyzed as vowel-themed nouns were treated as i-themes. Based on the data collected, these mostly included names of realia or concepts employed in (or related to) ritual or mantic contexts, such as allašši- ‘queenship’ (as the name of an enthroning ritual), harni- (meaning unknow), hašari- ‘oil’, and nipašuri- (part of the liver mentioned in omens). These rather rough adaptations are poorly conducive to linguistic or sociological analyses. If they do not occur in the stem form, they tend to appear in a dative-locative case in -iya, which, according to Haas and Wilhelm (1974:130–134), may calque a Hurrian essive with a terminative function that is lost in the Mittanian variety of the language. Since they show no traces of a path of borrowing or adaptation, the only information they provide is that they pertain to religion and probably behave as technical terms in a jargon that might be termed the ‘Hurrian of religion and the ritual sphere.’
A little more informative are those loans that derive from Hurrian, either ultimately or as an intermediate step, and exhibit morphological integration into Hittite via Luwian intermediation. The model for most of these words are proper Hurrian nouns, and the integration normally follows the path of an assignment of an i-theme and then a reanalysis as a dental stem, based on the Luwian -it- dental stems. In some cases, the two adapted inflections, i-stem and dental stem, are both maintained. The most typical example is ahrušhi(t)- ‘censer’, certainly borrowed from Hurrian and attested also as a common gender i-stem (ahrušhi-) (see Giusfredi and Pisaniello 2020 for further examples and discussion). In very rare cases, such as api(t)- ‘pit’, the path of adaptation appears to be the same but the language of origin is not Hurrian (in this case, possibly Sumerian ab ‘window’; see Chapter 14). These cases allow us to recognize Hurro-Luwian mediation in the acquisition of a limited number of Mesopotamian words into Hittite.
While we will provide more details about the borrowing and morphological adaptation of foreign words into Hittite in Chapter 14, it should be observed here that both the primitive words borrowed from the ‘Hurrian of religion and the ritual sphere’ and adapted loans that reached Hittite via Luwian are attested from the pre-imperial phase, with no occurrences that predate the historical phase when connections between Hatti and Kizzuwatna intensified. Thus, Kizzuwatna appears the most likely source for the integration of Hurrian words into the Hittite lexicon. Moreover, Hurrian-Hittite lexical interference appears to have been a very circumscribed phenomenon diachronically and sociolinguistically, given that virtually all of the Hurrian loanwords pertain to the fields of religion and magic.
5 Concluding Remarks
Hurrians were in contact with the peoples of Anatolia in relatively early phases. However, there is no conclusive evidence of intense cultural or linguistic contact during the Middle Bronze Age or the earlier years of the Late Bronze Age. The situation changed around the 15th century, with the intensification of the relationships between Hatti and the Hurrianized kingdom of Kizzuwatna. This is also the phase during which the first Hurrian texts begin to be composed or copied in Hattuša, with a sharp increase in production in the early to mid-14th century, when queens of Cilician origin began to marry into the royal family of Hatti.
While the Hurrian language and literature were probably mastered by members of the Hittite court during the pre-imperial age, their penetration starts to become indirect relatively quickly. Hurrian culture was generally transmitted by translations into Hittite during the imperial age, although Hurrian materials were still used in ritual practice. This scenario coincides with that proposed by de Martino (2017:158):
Hurrian was (…) read and written among small circles of erudite persons, such as those who collected the tablets of the ‘Song of Release’ and of the Parables (…). The provenance of these people is unknown and we cannot exclude that they were priests or scribes of Kizzuwatnean origin. No element supports the hypothesis that the Hurrian language was also widespread among the population of central Anatolia.
The linguistic evidence is consistent with this interpretation. Hurrian grammatical interference is only attested with Luwian for the Kizzuwatna region, while no shifting features in Late Hittite are conducive to a Hurrian model language. Furthermore, Hurrian foreignisms and loanwords in Hittite—excluding those in Old Assyrian that were probably borrowed outside of Anatolia during the Middle Bronze Age—belong chiefly to the fields of ritual, religion, and magic. No evidence indicates that they were part of the general lexicon of the language spoken in Hattuša or elsewhere in the core area of the Hittite world.
Cf. Giorgieri 2000a:179–180.
Campbell 2016b, in particular, employs a very broad definition of Old Hurrian. However, this seems a little idiosyncratic as it presumes that it is possible to generalize a label based on nothing but some morphosyntactic features (in this case, the morphemes employed in the verbal system).
On the treaties with Kizzuwatna, cf. Devecchi 2015:63–92.
On Hurrian onomastics in Hittite Anatolia, see de Martino 2011.
The associated toponym, Azuhinum, also occurs in texts from Mari and Nuzi. There are a few other sparse mentions as well. It is not clear whether all of the toponyms refer to the same site. For further discussion, see Salvini, 2000b:27–30; see also Sallaberger 2007:425–431 on the age of Akkad.
See Salvini 2000b:36–55; Wilhelm 1989:10–12.
For further details, see the overview and discussions by Wilhelm 1989, Salvini 2000b, and Sallaberger 2007.
See Chapter 4 for the general historical context.
Cf. Wilhelm 1989:12–13. On the western areas of Hurrian penetration, see also Salvini 2000c.
On Nuzi Akkadian, see Wilhelm 1970, Giorgieri 2005:92–97, and Andrason and Vita 2016:308–316.
On the western presence of Hurrians and their relationship to the expansion of Mittani, see the historical discussions in de Martino 2000 and Salvini 2000c.
See Sasson 1974.
Cf. Dietrich and Loretz, 1969; von Dassow 2008.
Cf. Gioirgieri 2000a:183–184 for a discussion on the importance of the Ugarit alphabetic texts for the investigation of the phonology of Hurrian and Giorgieri 2013 for a discussion of the Hurrian texts from Ugarit.
For an overview, cf., e.g., Salvini 2000a and 2000b.
Cf. Wilhelm 2008.
Cf. de Martino 2017:152.
See, e.g., the beginning of KUB 32.133, containing Muršili II’s reform of the cult of the Deity of the Night: “When my forefather, Tuthaliya, Great King, split the Deity of the Night from the temple of the Deity of the Night in Kizzuwatna and worshipped her separately in a temple in Samuha …” (translation Miller 2004a:312).
It is possible that Hurrian texts were stored in the archives of Tarhuntašša.
Cf., e.g., Giorgieri (2001) on the Song of Ullikummi, and see Corti and Pecchioli Daddi (2012), who compare them to the Latin epic literature.
Cf. the presence of Hurrian deities, especially Teššub, who are almost absent in the Akkadian and Hittite recensions. However, some Mesopotamian formulas can be identified, e.g., (tiwe=na) al=u=mai(n) kad=i=a “speaking (words), (s)he says”, an imperfect calque on the Akkadian pâšu īpuš(a) iqabbi (Beckman 2019b:23).
For Hurrian as mediator between Akkadian literature and Hittite, see Archi 2000, who also suggests a Hurrian intermediation for the transmission of the Akkadian šar tamhāri to Hattuša.
See also Lorenz and Rieken (2010), who regard the Hurrian-Hittite songs as Anatolian inventions, developed primarily as teaching texts for use as in the scribal curriculum.
Cf. Wilhelm 1989:58.
See also Bachvarova 2014.
Cf. Trémouille 2000:138, Polvani 2008:623–624, Rutherford 2011:219.
On the original title of this composition, see Corti 2007.
According to Archi (2009:218), “The presence of Kubaba alongside LAMMA enables us to attribute this song with certainty to the Hurrian-Syrian context of Karkamis.”
Cf. Rieken 2009:210–211 and Wilhelm 2019:200–202.
Cf. Salvini and Wegner 2004:40–41, 49.
Cf. Rutherford 2001. This song was performed in connection with the cult of Mount Hazzi, as emerges from KUB 44.7 obv. 11 (NS, CTH 785.2.B). Furthermore, the tablet catalogue KUB 30.43 mentions a tablet ‘of the Sea,’ possibly referring to this composition.
Cf. Archi 2002.
See the discussion in Rutherford 2011. See also Archi 2009:213.
Cf. Polvani 2008.
Cf. Rutherford 2001:602.
Cf. Archi 2009:215–216.
Cf. Güterbock 1946:23–24, 49–50.
See Giorgieri 2009. Cf. also Dijkstra 2014, who suggests that the narrative may be reminiscent of the Sumerian tale of Inana and the Huluppu tree that is included in Gilgameš, Enkidu, and the Netherworld.
Two other fragments, KUB 47.21 and KBo 53.233, included under CTH 370.II (Hurrian mythological fragments), might perhaps be assigned to this composition (cf. Dijkstra 2014:68).
Cf. Rutherford 2001:599.
Cf. Archi 2009:219.
Cf. Dijkstra 2008:215.
Cf. the colophon of KUB 47.2: DUB.14KAM SÌR mKešši NU.TIL.
Cf. Wilhelm 1989:62.
Cf. Siegelová 1971:33–34.
Editio princeps by Neu 1996. See de Martino 2019.
Cf. Melchert 2015:61, who, however, only discusses the parables and not the text as a whole.
Cf. Neu 1996:5–6, who dates it to ca. 1600 BCE.
Note however that only […-]numaš SÌR can be read.
As mentioned above, other Hurrian songs are known to have been performed at such festivals, e.g., the Song of the Sea, performed during the festival for Mount Hazzi.
cf. Giorgieri 2013:177–178.
Cf. also de Martino 2012 and von Dassow 2013.
See also de Martino 1998:40–41, including the references.
Cf. Melchert 2015.
Note that in KBo 32.14, from obv. 23 on, Hurrian and Hittite paragraphs alternate on the entire length of the tablet, without column division. No colophon is found on this tablet, which should probably be regarded as a draft or preparatory version (cf. Wilhelm 2001:84; Archi 2007:189).
According to Bachvarova (2014:92), if they were actually embedded in the Song of Release, they represented “an extended digression in the plot,” thematically connected with the main narrative and probably told by Išhara.
See also de Martino 2017:153.
As mentioned (cf. Chapter 8), Gilgameš was probably used at Boğazköy mainly for scribal education. Note that four MS Akkadian tablets of Gilgameš were also found in Temple XVI.
See also de Martino 2017:153: “the interest in these texts was limited to the erudite priests active in these two temples [scil. Temples XV and XVI in the Upper City].”
Cf. Haas 1984 and de Martino 2016. The fragment from Kayalıpınar/Šamuha may be related to the temporary presence of Tuthaliya III in this city.
Cf. KBo 21.44 iv 12′ [D]UB.22KAM kuit URUŠapinuwaz ute[r] (13′) [n]=ašta kē ṬUPPAHI.A-TIM apezza (14′) [arh]a hanteurauen “The 22 tablets that they brought here from Šapinuwa, we have written these tablets as an excerpt from those.”
Cf. de Martino and Süel 2017.
Cf. de Martino et al. 2013.
Cf. de Martino 2016a:211.
Conversely, in the itkahi series only Tašmišarri appears as the ritual patron (cf. Haas 1984:2).
Cf. de Martino 2016b:206.
Cf. de Martino and Süel 2017:17.
Cf. de Martino 2017:155.
Cf. Haas and Thiel 1978:8; Haas and Wegner 1988:48–207.
Cf. Haas and Thiel 1978:8–9; Salvini 1980:159–160.
See the discussion in Haas and Thiel 1978:16, 181.
Cf. Miller 2004a:507–508.
Cf. Haas and Thiel 1978:20–21; Haas and Wegner 1988:208–232.
Cf. Görke 2020b:25–31.
Cf. Otten 1986b:171, Haas and Wegner 1988:18; Görke 2010:8.
Cf. Haas 1984:113–119.
See KUB 30.26 iv 2′–5′ (cf. Trémouille 2005:112).
Cf. Haas and Wegner 1988:28–29.
Cf. Kümmel 1967:141–143, Haas and Wegner 1988:15–17.
Cf. Haas and Wegner 1988:248–249.
Cf. Wilhelm and Süel 2013.
Cf. Kümmel 1967:47–49.
Cf. Bawanypeck and Görke 2007.
Cf. Miller 2004a:526–527 and Homan 2019:257–259.
Cf. Corti 2017b.
Also note that Hurrian recitations included in the first tablets of the series have mistakes and violations of the Hurrian grammatical rules (cf. de Martino 2017:157–158).
Cf. Wegner and Salvini 1991:6.
Similar offering lists that have divine names with Hurrian endings have been found at Ugarit, written in alphabetic writing and mixed languages (cf. Giorgieri 2013:169).
Cf. Wegner 1995 for the compositions.
See de Martino 1992 for a comprehensive edition. Hurrian omen texts were also found in the city of Emar; see Salvini 2015.
Cf. Wilhelm 2010:630.
Cf. Trémouille 2000:145.
Cf. Wilhelm 1987.
Cf. Wilhelm 2010.
Cf. Cohen 2017b. Both versions show parallels to the 11th tablet of the standard series.
Cf. KUB 29:v, with fn. 1.
Cf. Trémouille 2000:146.
Cf. Rutherford 2001:603–604.
Cf. Güterbock 1983.
De Martino 2017:155.
Cf. de Martino 2017:155, Wilhelm 2019:197–200.
Above all Hart 1983.
The structure of relativization in Hurrian is more complex; cf. the discussion in Giorgieri 2000a:239–242.
Cf. Bianconi 2015:139.
See Yakubovich 2015a for this example. For a critical position, see Simon 2016.