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.
This large fragment preserves the left upper part of a two-columned tablet. As usual, the inventory begins in medias res and is organized in sections and paragraphs. The first paragraph of each section lists the deities, describs their cult images, and details restorations and other measures taken by royal command. The second and third paragraphs of each section are devoted to the description of the seasonal festivals of autumn and spring (the section treating mount Ḫaggalana consists of two paragraphs only, with the autumn festival treated within the first paragraph).
The first section (obv. i 1-32, incomplete) is devoted to mount Ziwana, for whom a shrine, with a “renewed cella of the pithos,” is built in the town of Ḫartana (obv. i 3). This section is a good example of a local pantheon and its differences in respect to the state pantheon: in Ḫartana, the otherwise unknown mount Ziwana happens to be the principal local god, whereas Storm god, Yarri, and IMIN.IMIN.BI appear to have a subordinate position (see also the analogous case of mount Ḫaggalana, rev. iv 19′ff.). Both mount Ziwana and mount Ḫaggalana (rev. iv 19′-20′) are represented as statuettes of iron, in the shape of a man, beneath which are two wattatar of iron (see commentary on obv. i 2). The description of the autumn festival for mount Ziwana is exceptional under many respects: the festival lasts three days and includes an offering of wine as well as a series of libations, both features which are uncommon in cult inventories. The specification on the arrival of autumn (zena-) in obv. i 8 provides precious information on a specific local calendar (contra Cammarosano 2018: 118, which cannot be reconciled with the assumption that the Hittite year began in April and zena- in July, ibidem p. 106, kindly pointed out by I. Rutherford, e-mail 21.2.2019). The passage on lines 4-6 seems to refer to the construction of stelae, to which the procession of the spring festival led (see commentary).
On the rev. the fragmentary end of a section is preserved, then a new section begins (rev. iv 8′-18′), the first three lines of which were erased. The preserved text pertains to the spring festival for the Storm god of Liḫzina and IMIN.IMIN.BI.
The last preserved section (rev. iv 19′-31′) pertains to mount Ḫaggalana (principal god) and the god called “Eagle-hero” (UR.SAG TI8MUSEN, see commentary on rev. iv 28′), and follows the usual pattern. The prominent position of the mountain god is evident also from the offerings, since he receives one ox, one ram and one billy goat whereas “Eagle-hero” receives only one sheep. A further interesting aspect of the inventory is the specification on the use of bread wheat (ZÍZ) as overt object of the formula “they grind and mill” in rev. iv 26′, whereas in rev. iv 22′ the pithos is filled with šeppit (most probably Einkorn wheat, triticum monococcum).
The tablet contains several full spellings of DUGḫarši(y)aš (iv 17′, 22′, 29′), corroborating the assumption that DUGḫarši in, e.g., i 13, iv 13′, 25′ is no shorthand writing; also, it presents the opportunity of contrasting the spelling “1 ḫu-u-up-pár” (i 14, iv 23′) with “1 ḫa-ni-ša-a-aš” (iv 14′, probably also iv 26′ with determinative), suggesting that the form huppar was perceived as neuter (not as a shorthand writing for ḫupparaš).
The geographical setting of the inventory appears to be in the central-western area, since the town of Ḫartana was in the district of Kaššiya (de Martino 2017: 256 with literature; according to Forlanini, Ḫartana may be lcoated at Külhöyük and in this case mount Ziwana might correspond to the hill of Gavurkalesi).
Palaeography and orthography: ḪA with two Winkelhaken; AŠ for INA (iv 15′, 27′; differently in i 3), UGU for šara (i 23). Note the absence of the determinative DUG in the occurrences of ḫuppar and ḫaneššaš (see above).
i 1: A comparison with the analogous description in rev. iv 19′-20′ suggests that the sign GIŠ was erroneously inserted (so already Rost 1963: 194); Starke 1990: 524, Gérard 2006: 250 and Haas 1994: 496 interpret the passage as referring to a “wooden statuette, shaped as a iron man” which does not give much sense and is in contrast with the usual formulation. Güterbock 1983: 210 emends the text in AN.BAR 〈GAR.RA〉 “eine männliche Figur aus Holz, mit Eisen überzogen (?).”
i 2: The word wattatar might denote a representation of a (water) spring (so L. Rost, cf. wattaru) or of a bird (so E. Laroche, cf. wattai-), see Starke 1990: 524, CLL 267, HEG W-Z 450.
i 4-6: Since it follows immediately the information on the restoration of shrines, the phrase NA₄ZI.KINMEŠ tiyanzi “they set the ḫuwaši” seem to refer to the construction of cult stelae. The following sentence on the “presentation” of the god in front of mount Ziwana at the occasion of the spring festival may refer either to the fact that the procession led to the foot of the sacred mountain (which we expect to be the natural stage of the festival, so CHD P 255), or to the mere fact that at the occasion of the festival the statuette of mount Ziwana was placed in front of the corresponding stela. For the expression DINGIR-LUM … pē ḫark- “to present a deity” cf. DAAM 1.39 iv 26′-27′.
i 8-9: “When autumn comes, (and) the eighth month in the year [arrives?], on the following day they proceed to the (ritual) washing.” On this passage see the general introduction above and CHD P 124 (with slightly different readings, and literature), where it is rightly observed that “the new moon, signaling the arrival of the eighth month, would have been first observed at sunset; parā šiwatti would have been on the following day.” The restoration at the end of line 8 was originally proposed by Ehelolf. The reading MU-UḪ-TU (instead of MUKAM-ti) in Taggar-Cohen 2006: 299 is erroneous.
i 10: Note the asyndetic expression (with null object) šanḫanzi ḫurnanzi.
i 11: Cf. iv 22′.
iv 4′: The photo suggests to read “8” instead of “7” (for the offering of one ox and eight sheep see commentary on KBo 26.227 rev. iii 10′-11′), but cf. iv 6′.
iv 5′: Whether the sign GA has to be emended in TA in order to match this GN with that attested in iv 31′ (q.v.) is unclear. If not, perhaps Gappatta or Gappaduwa?
iv 20′: Cf. obv. i 3 and see commentary on i 2 for wattatar.
iv 21′: For the restoration cf. e.g. KUB 38.26(+) obv. 40′′ (=KUB 38.26 obv. 21′) and compare this passage with obv. i 6-7, where the subject is probably the king.
iv 28′: The god “UR.SAG TI8MUSEN,” to whom one sheep is offered, seems to be distinct from the “Storm god UR.SAG,” under whom is booked in van Gessel 2001: 785 (the two deities are kept apart also in RGTC 6 397: “dem «heldischen Adler»”). The interpretation of Rost 1963: 195, according to whom “Rs. 28 ist neben Ḫaggalana, dem ein Schaf geopfert wird, eine Gottheit UR.SAG genannt, der man einer Adler libiert,” is impossible.
iv 31′: According to RGTC 6 396, the GN cannot be read either Tapašpa (which however is not the reading proposed by L. Rost, contra RGTC) or Tapapala as proposed by Gonnet. The traces on the photo would allow a reading URUta-ap-pa-p[a-a-l]a-aš, on the other hand the sign before the break resembles better ŠA or TA than PA. Thus perhaps Tappaššanda (attested in KUB 1.16 ii 63)?
lo. e. 1: Neither the reading nor the meaning of the signs impressed on the lower edge are clear. It might perhaps be a gloss or a provisional note which slipped into the text.
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.