Cult inventory

(CTH 527.7)

Textual tradition

Basis of the edition

The present edition is based on the photographs available at the Mainzer Photoarchiv of the Hethitologie Portal Mainz, as well as the available hand-copies and relevant secondary literature up to 2019. When the original manuscripts have been collated, this is noted in the commentary.

Commentary

Previous editions: Hazenbos 2003: 54-55.

3′: Perhaps [n k]u-ra-ma-an (cf. DAAM 1.39 ii 4-5)?

10′: The tablet clearly shows GIŠTUKUL (misrepresented in the copy, but see already Beal 1988: 285), not SANGA (so Hazenbos, CHD Š 196, and others). If the numeral is “3,” then LÚ GIŠTUKUL is the category to which the professionals listed thereafter belong (see Beal ibidem), but the traces may be read “1” as well, in which case a single TUKUL-man would belong to the temple personnel along with the other professionals listed. The comparison with other lists of personnel within the corpus favours the latter option (e.g. KUB 42.100+ iii 11′, 40′).

12′: The DN Partaziya is unattested and the reading tentative. The first visible sign cannot be ZA as per Hazenbos 2003: 55 (collated on photo), and resemble PÁR; NA seems less likely (then cf. Enatarziya, a divine mountain attested in the ḫišuwa-festival).

15′: Neither the copy nor the photo justifies Hazenbos’ reading “[x]+2 šekan.”

CC BY-SA 4.0 Michele Cammarosano | Produced as part 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, 2016–2020.