Cult inventory

(CTH 526.28)

Textual tradition

A	A1	KUB 41.34
	A2	+ KUB 46.22

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

Collated (March 2020). Large fragment of a thick two-columned tablet (max thickness ca. 5 cm), preserving the lower half of col. i and the upper half of col. iv. Coarse clay, now sienna in color, with several pebbles. The vertical rulings are traced by hand and are not at all straight, a fact which gives an impression of sloppiness. The indirect join with KUB 56.40, proposed by C. Corti, has been accepted by S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.992) (“Gesamtjoin C. Corti (9.7.2011)”), despite the fact that H. Otten (1976: 299), having collated the fragments, concluded that they belong to separate tablets (similarly H. Klengel, KUB 56 VI sub no. 40: “Das als Bo 2564a bezeichnete Fragment ist in Ton und Duktus ähnlich, kann aber kaum dazugehören.”) Another argument against the join is the spelling of aššanumaš “provisions,” a word which is regularly spelled aš-nu-ma-aš in KUB 56.40, whereas in KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22 extended spellings are used. Collation of the original tablets in March 2020 confirmed that KUB 56.40 cannot join KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22. The clay of KUB 56.40 contains considerably more pebbles than KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22 and its script is similar, yet not identical to that of KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22. Still, the two tablets are related to each other: in both tablets the cults of mountain Pupara are treated, and the peculiar formula “they have brought the ‘deities of the lot(s)’” is used.

The text is organized in sections and paragraphs. The first paragraph lists the name of the inventoried town, the relevant gods, the cult images, and measures taken for their renovation, whereas the following ones are devoted to the description of the autumn and spring festivals. If mount Šidduwa of this text (treated in §§4-5) is the same of KBo 2.7, the setting might be in the region of the middle Kızılırmak (Cammarosano 2018: 209 with literature; the mountains Wanzapanda and Pupara are hardly to be localized in southern Anatolia as suggested by Klengel, KUB 56 VI sub no. 40). Noteworthy are the mention of a personal god of Mr. Ḫešni (see commentary on A2 i 14′) and the formula “they have brought the ‘deities of the lot(s)’” (A1 i 8′, A2 iv 8′; on this formula see Cammarosano 2018: 44-45, missing these attestations).

Palaeography and orthography: Cursive script with shallow impressions; note the shape of signs of the NI-pattern with almost parallel wedges (e.g. A2 i 22′). The scribe seems to have had a peculiar taste for plene spellings, see the writing aš-ša-nu-ma-a-aš in A2 i 11′ and iv 19′, A1 iv 4, 11, ge-nu-ma-a-aš in A2 i 25′ and A1 iv 6, ḪUR.SAG⸢wa-šu-ma-a⸣ in A1 i 2′, DUGḫu-u-up-pár in A1 iv 3, ḪUR.SAGpu-u-pa-ra-a-aš in A1 i 10′ (against different spellings passim). Like in other tablets, a remarkable degree of free variation in the adopted spellings is observable: the form aššanumaš is spelled mostly with plene spelling, but appears as aš-ša-nu-ma-aš in A1 i 5′, the noun ḫazkara(nt)- is spelled [MUNUS.MEŠ]⸢ḫa-az-ka-ra⸣-an-za in A2 i 8′ but MUNUS.MEŠḫa-i-ka-ra-za in A1 i 6′. Note that the variation is observed within a single fragment too, so it cannot be used as an argument in assessing the indirect join of KUB 56.40. Late KU (A2 iv 6′; for this variant see Giorgieri and Mora 2004: 34).

A2 i 3′: Cf. A2 i 25′ and KUB 12.2+ ii 6′, KUB 38.19+ i 17′, IBoT 2.106 i 3′, KUB 51.33 i 21′, KBo 26.189.

A2 i 8′: This is the only occurrence of MUNUS(.MEŠ)ḫazkara(nt)- spelled with -anza instead of -(a)za (Hoffner 1998b: 39); cf. the different spelling found in ms. A1 i 6′.

A2 i 11′: Add this attestation of dušgaraz(a) “there is rejoicing” as well as that in A1 i 6′ and A2 iv 6′ to the list of Cammarosano 2014: 150.

A2 i 13′: Note the unusual formula šuppa UD-li KI.MIN.

A2 i 14′: L. Rost read here a DN “Ziparša,” otherwise unattested (booked as a hapax by van Gessel 1998). Otten 1976: 299 was skeptical on this reading, but collation of the original manuscript confirmed the correctness of the copy. Note however that in the following sections a Storm god and the divine mountain are treated, with no further hint at another deity. An alternative reading could not be found. On priest Ḫešni see van den Hout 1995: 102, but it is unclear whether the person mentioned here can be equated with one of the known persons bearing this name.

A2 i 15′, 21′, 28′: The reading of the name is secure (collated, cf. RGTC 6/2 188); in the last occurrence the name is written with plene spelling, which fits what happens to be a peculiar attitude of this scribe to plene spellings (see above).

A2 i 25′: Cf. commentary on A2 i 3′.

A1 i 8′: For this formula, see the introduction.

A2 i 9′: Here a GN ending in -duna is expected, cf. Arduna, Ḫadduna, Gazgalpaduna, Zarkapduna.

A1 iv 1: The reading UBARI, proposed by Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 576, is uncertain. Equally uncertain is whether the reading 3 ME BÁN is correct: this would be the biggest volume expressed in BÁN in Hittite texts (van den Hout 1990: 525), and in this case it may well represent a scribal mistake.

A1 iv 2: Restoration and reading areuncertain, cf. A2 i 8′.

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.