Gary Beckman

Scurlock differentiates Ištar-of-Nineveh from other local Ištar-associated goddesses in Mesopotamia primarily because she considers this goddess Hurrian rather than a native Mesopotamian goddess. Like any proper Ištar-associated goddess, Šaušga is the daughter of a supreme deity, in this case Anu, but she is also the sister of the storm- god Tešub; however, D. Schwemer notes that the relationship between this Ištar and Tešub is not fully understood.73 Despite this problem, whether Ištar is understood as

72 _{Unless, by doing so, she is trying to isolate local traditions about Ištar, her family, and most importantly} her nature. Thus, she would need to treat each city as though it is operating in a theological vacuum. If so, then she should limit this discussion to a period when these various cities would have had no contact with each other, if such a period ever existed. However, our copy of the DPS is a first millennium work, so no city would have been in a theological vacuum.

73 _{I. Wegner states that Šaušga is the sister of both Tešub and Tašmišus in Hittite-Hurrian tradition and that} both are the children of Anu. In addition to being Anu’s child, Tešub also appears as the son of Sȋn (KUB 33 89:6). This suggests to Wegner that Sȋn may also be the father of Šaušga (I. Wegner, GestaltundKult derIštar-ŠawuškainKleinasien [AOAT 36; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981], 43-44).

D. Schwemer, “The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies: Part II,” JANER 8 (2008b): 4. Ištar/Šaušga-of-Nineveh is Tešub’s sister in the Hurrian myths (the goddess

Tešub’s sister or consort, this relationship still differentiates her from the other Ištars. More importantly, this ambiguity highlights how little is actually known about this goddess prior to the Middle and Neo-Assyrian periods.74

G. Beckman notes that in the Middle Hittite period Ištar first appears in an early fourteenth-century treaty between Arnuwanda I of Ḫatti and Ašmunikkal of Kaška.75 However, it is during Šuppiluliuma I’s reign about twenty years later that the divine name Ištar begins to gain headway in Hittite treaties. In Šuppiluliuma I’s treaty with Ḫuqqana of Ḫayasa, the divine first name appears no less than five times in the divine witness-list, following a pair of sun-deities, 21 storm-gods, 2 Ḫebat-named goddesses, 8 protective deities, and Aya (see Table 7.2). These five Ištars include an unspecified Ištar, Ištar-of- the-Countryside, Ištar-of-Nineveh, [Ištar]-of-Ḫattarina, and Ištar-Queen-of-Heaven (no. 3 §8, A i 48-59).76 The goddesses Ninatta and Kulitta, servant goddesses of Šaušga, follow these five Ištars, marking the end of the Ištar section in the witness-list as the war-god section begins.77 Various other treaties include these five Ištar-associated goddesses along with a few others.78 Beckman estimates that 25 local Ištar-associated goddesses

appears as d_IŠ8.TAR uru_{ne-nu-wa-aš MUNUS.LUGAL in the Myth of Ḫedammu [CTH 348]) and rituals} recovered from Ḫattuša, the Hittite capital, suggesting their relationship was one of siblings within the Hittite Empire and into North Syria, but she seems to have been the primary goddess of the official Mitanni Empire, second to Tešub, and potentially his consort there. Although not explicitly labeled his consort to the east of the Tigris, as well as in Upper Mesopotamia, Ištar/Šaušga appears alongside Tešub often enough in cultic settings that the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand for the deity in the east (D. Schwemer 2008b, 5).

74 _{Indeed, so little is known about the early history of this goddess from the north that her earliest known} reference is probably not actually a reference to the deity Šaušga at all but rather to the city Nineveh, dating to the Ur III period, to Šulgi’s 46th _year: 5_{1 SILA4.NIGA} 6 d_ša-u18-ša7_{ni-nu-a-kam (“1 lamb for Šaušga of}

Nineveh,” N. Schneider, DieDrehem- undDjohatexteimKlosterMonserrat (AnOr 7; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1932), no. 7; Beckman 1998, 1).

75 _{Beckman 1998, 3. Ištar appears as a divine witness in CTH 139 ii 10.} 76 _{Beckman 1999, 29.}

77 _{For a discussion on these goddesses, see Wegner 1981, 76-81.}

78 _{Other Ištar names appear in treaties including: The-Proud-Ištar (var. Ištar Venus Star), Ištar//Evening-} Star (var. Ištar Venus Star), and Ištar-of-Alalaḫ from Šuppiluliuma I’s reign; and Ištar-of-Samuḫa and Ištar- of-Lawazantiya from Ḫattusili III’s reign. A full discussion of Ištar names in Hittite god-lists appears in chapter 7.

appear in the Boğazköy archives, although most of these Ištars belong outside of the Hittite heartland,79 which suggests that these various Ištars arrived in the Hittite pantheon as the Hittite Empire encountered and expanded into northern Syria and Mitanni.80

The multiplicity of Ištar/Šaušga divine names troubles Beckman, especially as it relates to the status of Ištar-of-Nineveh. In none of the treaties does Ištar-of-Nineveh appear at the beginning of these Ištar-lists, indicating her lack of primacy in this period. However, Ištar-of-Nineveh figures prominently in an invocation rite of queen Taduḫepa and in other records,81 and she is explicitly called queen in the Hurrian myth of

Ḫedammu. Given the divergent evidence, what can be made of Ištar-of-Nineveh as she relates to the rest of the Hittite pantheon? Solving Ištar-of-Nineveh’s relative status within the Hittite divine hierarchy is only of secondary interest to Beckman, however. Instead, Beckman’s problem arises from his belief that all of these local Ištar-associated goddesses are merely “hypostases of a single divine archetype.”82 Despite the

observations that these local Ištar/Šaušga-associated goddesses receive individual offerings – even within a single offering-list (KUB 45 41 ii and iii) – he still senses that “these Ištar-figures partake of a common essence” that unite them as one, as are the cases with Zeus in ancient Greek religion and the Virgin in Catholic belief.83 This view allows him to elevate Ištar-of-Nineveh to the top of the Ištar hierarchy, which is not much of a difficult feat given that he has reduced the hierarchy to a list with one entry.

79 _{Beckman 1998, 3. In addition to the numerous Šaušga local goddesses that Wegner lists (Wegner 1981,} 157-196), Beckman lists four more (Beckman 1998, 4 n. 39).

80 _{Beckman 1998, 4.}

81 _{Beckman 1998, 3 n. 31; KUB 36 18; KBo 10 45; and KBo 16 97.} 82 _{Beckman 1998, 4.}

83 _{Beckman 1998, 4 n. 48.}

Beckman’s elevation of Ištar-of-Nineveh as the primary Ištar/Šaušga-associated goddess reflects, in part, a bias toward her because of her antiquity. If Ištar-of-Nineveh was the primary Ištar/Šaušga-associated goddess in the eyes of the Hittites, then their treatment of her raises the question: Why is the primary Ištar, Ištar-of-Nineveh, not first among the Ištars listed in Hittite treaties? Regarding her position in these witness-lists, Beckman notes that the divine witness-lists “usually place unmodified Ištar (at the beginning of the Ištar section), sometimes followed by Ištar of the Battlefield, before the goddess of Nineveh, who in turn precedes all other local types.”84 This description is accurate in several instances but not a rule, nor does it harmonize his opinion of her with the Hittites’ treatment of the goddess.85

Beckman also identifies Ištar-of-Šamuḫa and Ištar-of-Nineveh as the same Ištar goddess. However, he does admit that each goddess, like all the various Ištar-associated goddesses, can be studied in isolation to discern features particular to a local goddess. The portrait that he subsequently paints of the Ištar-of-Nineveh worshiped by the Hittites

84 _{Beckman 1998, 4.}

85 _{Two treaties from the thirteenth century noticeably differ from earlier practice, and each differs in its} own way. Ḫattušili III’s treaty with Ulmi-Teššup of Tarḫuntassa contains two distinct divine witness-lists (Beckman 1999, no. 18B §7-8 [obv. 48´-r. 4´]) The first of these two EGLs appears to be an abbreviated version of the longer second god-list, invoking only six specific divine names and the thousand gods of Ḫatti as witnesses. The two Ištars in this list are Ištar-of-Šamuḫa (patron goddess of Ḫattušili III) and Ištar- of-Lawazantiya, and neither toponym is particularly close to Ḫatti or Taḫuntassa or plays a role elsewhere in the text. The second god-list begins by stating that the thousand deities are in assembly to serve as witnesses for the treaty, and it contains about four dozen divine names and several summary statements. Four of the deities specified in the first god-list reappear in the second; the two who do not are the two Ištars: the first list begins with the IŠKUR-of-Lightning, but he follows the other three deities who reappear in the second list in addition to several other deities. His promotion in the first list – in place of the

expected Sun-god of Heaven who typically begins these lists – rather than his demotion in the second list piques the reader’s curiosity. Technically, Ištar-of-Nineveh is the first Ištar tied to a specific toponym in the god-list in which she appears, but her absence in the first list is curious.

The second treaty of interest is between Tudḫaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarḫuntassa and only contains one lengthy divine witness-list (Beckman 1999, no. 18C, §25, iii 78-iv 15). The thousand gods are called as witnesses, including five specific Ištar manifestations, who appear after Ḫebat of Uda and Ḫebat of Kizzuwatna and before Ninatta and Kulitta: Ištar-of-Šamuḫa, Ištar-of-the-Countryside, Ištar-of- Lawazantiya, Ištar-of-Nineveh, and Ištar-of-Ḫattarina. Here, the two local manifestations that appeared in the abbreviated list a generation earlier in Ḫattušili III’s reign appear before Ištar-of-Nineveh, suggesting that Ištar-of-Šamuḫa came to be a more important deity than Ištar-of-Nineveh.

is one that includes an important role in magic, which developed in her Hurrian past.86 She may have had a temple in Ḫatti, assuming that the oracle report that mentions her temple (E2.DINGIR-LIM, KUB 5 10 + KUB 16 83) refers to a location in Ḫatti since no other town is mentioned in the report,87 but she does have temples in other cities within the empire. She also seems to have participated in rituals at the capital, twice beckoned in ritual texts.88 However, Ištar-of-Nineveh lacks the close associations with the royal family in Ḫattuša that has been picked up by Ištar-of-Šamuḫa.89 Though Ištar-of-Nineveh does receive offerings from the royal family and the queen performs cultic rituals for her, Ištar-of-Šamuḫa definitely benefits from her particularly close relationship with the Hittite royal family in the mid-thirteen century. According to the “Apology of Ḫattušilis,” Ištar-of-Šamuḫa visits her priestess Puduḫepa in a dream and proclaims to her that her husband will become king and the goddess’s priest.90

Despite Beckman’s earlier statement that he ultimately believes that Ištar-of- Šamuḫa is just another form of Ištar-of-Nineveh, he claims that he will reserve his final judgment when future scholars reevaluate the available data:

While I am inclined to follow the common opinion that the other Ištar types of the later Boğazköy texts, in particular Ištar of Šamuha, are basically “avatars” or hypostases of the Ninevite goddess, any special features of the varieties will become apparent only if each is initially studied in isolation.91

86 _{She is called “the woman of that which is repeatedly spoken” (KUB 17 7+ iii 34´:} d_IŠ8-TAR uru_ni-nu-wa- aš MUNUS.LUGAL-aštar-š[i-i]k-kan2-ta-aš MUNUS-aš), which Beckman suggests relates to repeated recitation of incantations (Beckman 1998, 5 n.53). Other associations Ištar-of-Nineveh has with magic include: chthonic rituals, a healing plague, and lifting curses (p. 6).

87 _{Beckman 1998, 5 n. 63.} 88 _{Beckman 1998, 5 n. 57.}

89 _{Beckman 1998, 7. Ištar-of-Nineveh also loses any astral and martial aspects to Ištar-of-Šamuḫa; see also} R. Lebrun, Samuha: Foyerreligieuxdel’empireHittite (Louvian-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, 1976), 17 and 20-24.

90 _{J. G. Macqueen, “Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy,” AnSt 9 (1959): 187 n. 115.} 91 _{Beckman 1998, 4-5.}

However, over the next two pages, Beckman easily switches between proclaiming all references to any Ištar a mere “avatar” of the all encompassing Ištar goddess and

presenting valid reasons for considering these goddesses their own distinct personalities. After all, he reports that Ištar-of-Nineveh retains her Hurrian layer of magic associations but lacks the astral and martial aspects found in Ištar-of-Šamuḫa, aspects which are commonly associated by scholars to the Mesopotamian Ištars.

Beckman’s reluctance on this issue is all the more frustrating, given that he is discussing the Hittite people and their pantheon, which consisted of a thousand deities. He continues to hold his divided stance in a later article discussing the nature of the Hittite pantheon and the Hittites’ focus on “various local hypostases” of the deities: “There can be little doubt that the various ‘Šawuškas of Nineveh’ honored in different Hittite towns were avatars of a single divinity, but they nonetheless receive separate offerings.”92 Does this statement mean that all the Šaušga honored throughout the Hittite Empire are really one Ištar/Šaušga-of-Nineveh, or does it really mean that all the

Ištar/Šaušga-of-Nineveh goddesses are one “avatar” of one all-encompassing Šaušga? If each of these goddesses receives her own offering and otherwise receives individual attention, and if Ištar-of-Nineveh has noticeably different qualities than does Ištar-of-Šamuḫa, why should Beckman continue to hold out and follow “the common opinion,” waiting for later scholarship to reassert in a more convincing manner what he has already reported? Applying this frame-of-mind to the rest of the Hittite pantheon, beyond just Ištar/Šaušga, severely limits the number of deities within the pantheon. As there is one Ištar/Šausga, there would be one Ḫebat, one LAMMA/Tutelary deity, and one IŠKUR/Storm-god. Indeed, he uses this singular form when comparing other Hittite

92 _{Beckman 2004, 308.}

deities with Ištar: “the number of texts devoted to her worship is small compared to those treating the Storm God Tešub, Ḫebat, or even the Protective Deity.”93 If the Hittites worshiped only one of each of these types of deities, how could they begin to count the thousand deities in their pantheon? If any ancient peoples allowed for or even desired a multiplicity of gods with one name or occupation, the Hittites would be that people. It seems, rather, that Beckman is content allowing our Western culture biases – or as he calls it, our “common opinion” – to influence his decision on the matter rather than the texts written by ancient Hittite scribes.

However, if even the Hittites could or would not recognize a multiplicity of gods sharing a first name, the possibility that the divine name Ištar/Šaušga and its related spellings function as a common noun – meaning either “goddess” generically or a particular class of goddesses – rather than a proper name should be considered.94 Likewise, this possibility must be entertained for other divine names that appear

frequently in EGLs, e.g., the Hittite treaty divine witness-lists: LAMMA/Protective-god, IŠKUR/Storm-god, War-god, etc. These could just be classes of, or titles for, gods in the Hittite texts.