The following article has to be conceived as one of my responses to a long standing and enigmatic question-mark which I have been carrying incessantly in mind since my first acquaintance with cuneiform writing and archaeology: Are there interactive implications between archaeological record and textual context in Hittite Anatolia at all?1 One might promptly and spontaneously expect that as a principle there must have been close relations between both sorts of data, since, first of all, they are mental and material products of the same people. Why are, then, the results gained from comparisons of archaeological and philological material disappearingly feeble considering that Hittitology is in a very lucky position in being supplied abundantly by both sorts of material? The temporary results gained from the comparative studies by other scholars as well as by myself were often disappointingly meagre. This is one of the reasons why I have frequently pointed out in a pessimistic way inconsistencies between archaeological objects and information supplied by the written sources in Hittite culture.2In a recent study on Hittite construction ritual and architecture I had opportunity to deal with the textual evidence for games, sports, athletics and agonistic fights as they are attested occasionally in the Hittite cultic practices. As we know well, these games, originally taken from the native folklore, make up an important part of entertainments in the course of festivals which aim at