Cult inventory

(CTH 526.10)

Textual tradition

A	A1	KBo 39.48
	A2	+ KBo 40.42
	A3	(+) KBo 24.117

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: 99-102 (KBo 39.48 only); Corti 2018: 55-59, 62-65.

Collated (March 2020). Fragments from the reverse of a three-columned tablet (max preserved thickness in both KBo 39.48+ and KBo 24.117 37 mm). The width of the central column varies between 45 and 50 mm.

For the reconstruction of the text see most recently Corti 2018: 37 with fn. 40, 55-59. Corti 2018 reverts his own previous join proposal with KBo 21.81 (+) KBo 34.106 (+) KBo 38.278 (q.v.), still accepted by S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.99). Indeed, the two groups of fragments cannot belong to the same tablet, and a careful examination of the photographs available online would have been enough to come to this conclusion. According to a collation of E. Neu (1998, reported in S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.992)), KBo 24.117 belongs to a “Vs.? [= Rs.! IV-V oder V-VI], unteres Randstück;” S. Košak’s Joinskizze (ibidem) considers it to belong to columns iv/v, but collation of the original manuscript shows that based on the curvature the preserved text must belong to columns v/vi, as correctly assumed in the edition by Corti 2018. Note how the scribe had to write the very last line of column vi on the Randleiste, evidently being short of space at that point.

The text represents the inventory of a number of deities in certain towns of the northern districts. Among the noteworthy aspects of this text is a passage referring to a selection of cult personnel, apparently performed by the chief of the scribes-on-wood (similarly to KUB 38.12), which seems to involve sealing procedures (§34, A3 vi 1′-13′).

Palaeography and orthography: Cursive, clear script with vertical wedges slanting to the left; the script and the sign variants are identical to those of KBo 21.81 (+) KBo 34.106 (+) KBo 38.278, which in all likelihood was written by the same scribe. Script size: 3 mm. Late KU (A3 r. col. 1′ and passim) and KI (A1 iv 3′, A2 vi 9′). EŠ with four Winkelhaken.

A1 iv 5′: In the gap not necessarily a PN, contra Corti 2018: 55.

A1 iv 11′: The tentative restoration follows Corti 2018: 55.

A1 v 2′: The tentative restoration follows Corti 2018: 56.

A1 v 12′: The sign preceding URU-ri is most probably a logogram characterizing the relevant town; the reading DU6 is tentative.

A1 v 14′-16′: These deities are mentioned in the same sequence in KBo 70.109 iv 31′-32′ as well. The interesting detail on the location of the “small stelae” behind the (town) gate (going back to a reading by Otten) is not noted in Cammarosano 2018: 156 and Cammarosano 2019a: 326.

A3 v 5′-6′: The tentative restoration follows Corti 2018: 57.

A2 v 1′, 4′: Corti reads KÌN-zi, but it is unclear what this should mean.

A2 v 11′: Corti 2018: 58 restores ešša[nzi], which is possible if a pl. nom. is to be restored at the end of the preceding line.

A2 v 12′: The first sign of the DN cannot be KU (contra RGTC 6/2 88), since KU is written with initial upright on this tablet. Corti 2018: 58 suggests KAT.

A3 vi 5′, 8′: An interesting hint at sealing practices in the context of local cults management. Unfortunately, the referent of the participle šiyan is not preserved. Corti 2018: 65 translates “of(?) the fat]her of His Majesty under seal,” “under se]al 8 men of the tool,” but – assumed he means “sealed” – the TUKUL-men belong to the following sentence.

A3 vi 6′: The form is unclear, perhaps related to arma- “moon” or a derivative.

A3 vi 7′: The “chief of the scribes-on-wood” is not the “chief of the wooden tablet” (so Corti 2018: 65). Here, this officer seems to act as responsible of the selection of cult personnel, cf. KUB 38.12.

A3 vi 8′: Corti 2018: 58 with fn. 133 pretends that the number must be “corrected from 7 to 8” in respect to the copy, but the copy has “8.”

A3 vi 9′: For the use of para epp-/app- in the context of a list of personnel cf. KUB 38.12 obv. i 4, 11.

A3 vi 11′: Surely not “one heavy infantry” (so Corti 2018: 65).

A3 vi 12′: Corti 2018: 58 propose to restore [ š]atena, but does not reflect this in his translation.

A3 vi 13′: The traces are not compatible with the reading EZEN4?MEŠ proposed by Corti 2018: 58.

A2 vi 5′, 10′: Corti 2018: 59 reads “[ ␣␣␣␣URUḪ]a-zé-ḪAR” and “[ ␣␣␣␣URUḪa-z]é-ḪAR” respectively, based on his reading URUḫa-zé-ḫar in KBo 45.273 l. e. 3′ (Corti 2018: 45). However, in all these occurrences the alleged sign ZÉ may also be read RA, cf. the town Ḫaraḫara attested elsewhere (RGTC 6 83).

A2 vi 14′: Corti 2018: 59 tentatively restores [D10 URUḪa]rpišaš, but the fact that the GN is inflected speaks against this (following the Sumerogram D10, the GN should be in the stem form or in dat.-loc.). It seems plausible that Ḫarpiša may be the name of a not yet attested mountain, homonymous with the town.

A2 vi 16′: The last sign appears on the photo quite differently than in the copy. It does not seem possible to read it as EL and surely not as KI.SIKIL (contra Corti 2018: 59 with fn. 137).

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.