Cult inventory

(CTH 528.9)

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: Cammarosano 2018: 258-70.

Collated (November 2013).

Correct Cammarosano 2018 258-59: “in various towns and shrines,” “Many towns ... mostly as inventoried settlements:” this is out the mark, the text seems rather to concern a single cult of Pirwa, to which a number of neighboring settlements contribute (kindly pointed out by I. Rutherford, e-mail 14.12.2018).

obv. 21′: That the correct interpretation of GIŠ.ḪUR is as a determinative (contra Cammarosano 2018: 262 and others) has been kindly pointed out by James Burgin (pers. comm.). As he observes, this interpretation is supported by the absence of blank space between the logogram and the following part. šiyanteš, and furthermore disposes of the only alleged occurrence of GIŠ.ḪUR showing agreement in the common gender (pace Cammarosano et al. 2019: 140 with fn. 189 and others).

obv. 23′, 27′: The reading of KÙ.BABBAR was originally suggested by C. Corti. To the attestation of the PN “Zu” add KBo 45.273 obv. 6′ (discussed by van den Hout 2006: 284-85, spelling mzu-ú, but erroneously read as “Zupadda” in KBo 45 XVII and in Corti 2018: 48, 45).

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.