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.
Previous editions: Hazenbos 2003: 131-41.
Collated (March 2020). Upper half of a thick and large tablet (max preserved thickness 57 mm, width 193 mm), the original length of which will have been ca. 40-45 cm. Coarse-grained clay, now sienna in color, with many pebbles. The obverse is slightly convex, a feature observed in some other cult inventories as well (e.g. KUB 55.14 (+) KUB 57.102). The width of the columns is not uniform: the left column of both faces is 97 mm wide, the right one 85 mm. The last two paragraphs of column iv, constituting a sort of appendix or colophon, were written as the clay was already rather dry, so that the impressions are more shallow here (see commentary on iv 28′-36′, l. e. 1 for discussion). A remarkable feature of this tablet is the extraordinary number of omissions of signs (i 27, ii 2, iii 5′, 8′, 10′, 22′, iv 18′, 28′, 32′), apparently even in the writing of the name of the principal deity treated here (ii 3, iv 2′). Related to this is perhaps the use of a cumbersome abbreviation (ḫa-az for ḫazziwi in iv 11′). The fragmentary state of the tablet and the extremely abraded surface make the understanding of large portions of the text difficult, and the copy by H. Figulla in KBo 2 is in need of improvement (note that Figulla’s work on the original manuscripts suffered from constraints imposed by the outbreak of the Great War).
The tablet preserves descriptions of cult images (i 1-13) and festivals related to several gods. The festival descriptions differ in some respects from the usual ones; noteworthy are also the absence of null objects as well as the presence of Luwisms (gloss word zuzunimi zuzuninti, ii 5; zarim(m)i/am(m)a, iii 13′, iv 33′, 35′). The festivals include, apart from the usual daily bread and monthly rite, the festivals ḫarpaš (of the pile?), SÈD-ḫarpiya (a winter festival), of the lot(s), and of releasing? the sickle (see the list in obv. i 14-16; for discussion see Cammarosano 2018: 131, 136-37). A sickle festival is treated in rev. iii 4′-30′; however, in the preserved portion of text the sickle plays no role at all. A variety of cult personnel is mentioned, unparalleled in the corpus – especially noteworthy are the “tongue-woman” (see commentary on i 22, 32) and the “woman of the rite” (i 19, iv 22′), both attested in this tablet only.
The inventory is normally assigned to the town of Parnašša based on the fact that the “Deity of the Night of Parnašša” is the principal deity treated therein, besides Ḫilašši, Ḫašammili, mount Kuduwa, the Heptad, and the mysterious AMA(-)kumalili (see commentary on i 12, iv 16, iv 31). The geographical setting of the text is therefore likely to be the town Parnašša itself. Parnašša is tentatively located by Forlanini (2009: 54 with fn. 94) at classical Parnassos between the Kızılırmak and the Tüz Gölü, but this is admittedly very uncertain. If URUpa-an-na-aš-ša-wa-kán in DAAM 1.56+ ii 63′ represents an alternative spelling of the GN Parnašša (Miller 2019: 136 with discussion), the town is rather to be localized not too far from Kayalıpınar/Šamuḫa. In the Hittite pantheon, the “Deity of the Night” (DGE6) is considered to be a manifestation of Ištar/Šawuška, the cult of which was introduced from Kizzuwatna (Miller 2004: 359, id. 2008b); the prominence of the cult of Šawuška in Šamuḫa would fit well the assumption that KBo 2.8 relates to an area in that region.
Palaeography and orthography: Although the clay of this tablet is the same of many typical “cursive” tablets (e.g. KUB 38.26, KBo 2.7), the script of KBo 2.8 is not the typical cursive script, since the aperture angle of both vertical and horizontal wedges is quite perpendicular to the tablet surface (for discussion of this feature, see Cammarosano 2015: 168). URU both in the standard and in the HZL no. 229/26 variant (cf. i 33 vs. i 37, the latter occurrence misrepresented in the copy); AZ without inscribed ZA; ḪA with two Winkelhaken; late LI; UN with inscribed vertical. Note the variable spelling of words (e.g. memal, i 32 vs. i 35); IŠ for /es/ (ii 4); the spelling UZUḫa-pé-šarx (ii 16); the “nasal reduction” in kar-ap-pa-zi (pl.3) in iii 28′; the likely abbreviation ḫa-az for ḫazziwi (iv 11′).
i 5: For the tentative restoration of the DN cf. line obv. i 29.
i 6: The photo (and the original) show a clear DUL8, not DUL5 (differently HW2 Ḫ 731). On the GIŠḫuppanta-vessel (here and in ii 8) see HW2 Ḫ 731-32.
i 7: The traces do not seem compatible with a reading uški(ya)waš or uškiškatalla-, the sign following KI resembles EZ.
i 9: For the restoration of the DN Ḫašamili see already Hazenbos 2003: 132 fn. 27.
i 10: The sign GIŠ is omitted in Hazenbos 2003: 132.
i 12: The name of the divine mountain has been read as Maduwa or Kuduwa (see RGTC 6 231, where the latter option is preferred); the horizontals in i 12 are aligned, hence rather MA, whereas in iv 30′ (clearly referring to the same GN) the central horizontal is somewhat indented, hence rather KU (but note that the horizontals of MA are not always perfectly aligned, see e.g. me-ma-al in i 32). The occurrence in i 28 is likely to refer to the same mountain as well, but the traces can be interpreted there either as MA or KU (clearly neither as ḪUR.SAGšu!-ni!-[pa-wa], the reading proposed in HW2 A 376, nor as ḪUR.SAGma-aš?-[…] as per Hazenbos 2003: 128). Neither Maduwa nor Kuduwa are attested elsewhere.
i 15: The tentative restoration follows Carter 1962: 36 fn. 2 (differently Hazenbos 2003: 133).
i 17: Note the enclitic pronoun attached to the DN (not present in the other occurrences of the formula).
i 21: Note the nonstandard spelling wa-ar-pa-zi (for sg. coll. wa-ar-ap-zi).
i 22, 32: The MUNUS.EME (“woman of the tongue,” or perhaps with CHD L-N 25 “woman (who is called) tongue”?) is not otherwise attested; cf. lalaš išḫaš “lord of the tongue.” The traces preceding the preposition INA may be interpreted as an erasure which was carried out imperfectly. Cf. ii 21.
i 26: The tablet show before tariyanza a sequence resembling AMAR+EN, which does not give sense. Neither a reading AMAR.MAḪ! nor GURUN! nor BURU14! seems satisfactory. I see no way of reading 1-EN as per Cotticelli-Kurras 1991: 152.
i 27: The reading follows CHD Š 69; the traces of IGIḪI.A, still visible on the photo of the Vorderasiatisches Museum, are not preserved any more on the original manuscript. At the end of the line the copy shows a broken horizontal, but no traces of it are visible on the photo.
i 28: On the reading of the GN see commentary on obv. i 12.
i 29: The fact that a verbal form ešanda “they sit” is never present in the usual feasting formula of the cult inventories (differently than in festival texts) speaks against the restoration proposed in HW2 A 376, HW2 E 131.
i 32-33: The passage is discussed in CHD L-N 266-67.
i 36: For the use of watarnaḫḫ- “to command” in another cult inventory see KUB 17.35 iv 6-7.
i 44: Cf. i 22 (the sign is ŠEN in both occurrences, but Hazenbos 2003: 134 reads NAG in i 44).
ii 3-4: The restoration of kāša follows Collins 1989: 180-181; for DINGIR-LUM 〈GE6〉-ŠI cf. i 17. The following signs are problematical, insofar as the sequence NU WI5 TE gives no sense. Collins’ reading (ibidem) nu GEŠTIN SUM “Wine will be given? to the UDU.KUR.RA” is not satisfactory because of the position of the alleged SUM and in view of the fact that the vertical of SUM! is not broken and that a phonetic ending would be expected. The UDU.KUR.RA (provided that the reading is correct) must be part of the direct speech, and the part. pl. turiyawanteš must agree with the subject of arantari, not with UDU.KUR.RA. For UDU.KUR.RA, here translated conventionally as “wild sheep,” see Waetzoldt 1975: 422 and Weeden 2011: 163 fn. 727; Collins 1989: 175-82 argues that this was a particular breed of domestic sheep, not a wild one. The reading [tu]riyauwanteš follows Collins 1989: 180, which fits the context better than [naḫš]ariyauwanteš assumed in HEG W-Z 782 (Hazenbos 2003: 134 fn. 39 observes that naḫšariyauwanteš would require too much space, but this could be obviated by assuming logographic writing with ḪUŠ.
ii 5: On the Luwian figura etymologica :zuzunimi zuzuninti see HEG W-Z 782.
ii 9: Copy, photo and original clearly show the sign ANŠE (the sign is read LUM in Collins 1989: 180 and Hazenbos 2003: 134). The following sequence is most probably to be read UDU!.KUR.RA, the Sumerogram occurs in line ii 3 as well. The ritualists address a donkey by calling it “wild sheep.”
ii 15: The spelling SUM-an-zi proposed by Hazenbos 2003: 134 seems too short for the gap’s length; for the form pí-ia-an-zi in comparable context cf. e.g. KBo 12.53+ rev. 8 or DAAM 1.36 obv. ii 8. Here and in iv 9′ we find a rare mention of NINDA.KAŠ among cult inventories.
ii 21: Whether the word lala- “tongue” is attested here is uncertain, cf. the MUNUS.EME attested in i 22, 32.
ii 30: The reading UDU is uncertain despite the copy; it might also be 3-ŠU.
iii 5′: Note the sg. peškezzi for pl. peškanzi.
iii 10′: For the tentative restoration of the verbal form omitted by the scribe cf. iii 19′.
iii 13′: On the Luwian part. zarim(m)i/am(m)a (dat.-loc., here and in iv 33′, 35′; perhaps in Bo 7863 i 7) as well, see Carter 1962: 201 (similarly HEG W-Z 672, RGTC 6 558).
iii 17′: Hazenbos 2003: 135, 140 with fn. 77 emends tiyazi in tiyanzi assuming an impersonal subject and takes GIŠšuruḫḫaš as an acc. pl. “pieces of šuruḫḫa-wood;” Badalì 1990: 134 takes the palwatalla-woman as subject and translates “La recitatrice … si sistema con lo scettro di fronte alla stele,” but then we would expect an abl. Since both in iii 9′ and iv 13′ the reference is to a single šuruḫḫa-, manipulated by a palwatalla-woman, I see no reason to emend the text. The verb tiya- means basically “to assume a standing position,” which is precisely what the text says it happens to the šuruḫḫa-. This term denotes a kind of wood and an object made thereof. Since here it is the palwatalla-woman who manipulates it and it is set “standing” before the stela, it seems reasonable to suspect with Carter (1962: 195) that it may be a musical instrument, possibly a drum; on this word see also HEG Š 1210-11. The sign ZI at the end of the line was not preserved any more already in the photo of the Vorderasiatisches Museum.
iv 9′: Cf. ii 14-15.
iv 10′: The ankuwarnu[…]-woman seem to be otherwise unattested; the reading is uncertain.
iv 11′: The context suggests that the signs ḪA AZ are to be taken as a bizarre, perhaps mistaken, shortwriting for ḫazziwi “(there is) the rite,” “the rite (takes place),” less likely for MUNUS.MEŠḫazkarai “the ḫazkara-women (set up the lamps)” (so Carter 1962: 187, followed by Hazenbos 2003: 141 with fn. 83). The interpretation as ḫazziwi (on which see Carter ibidem) is also favoured by the fact that between these signs and the concluding formula there is ample blank space. In iv 15′, the gap allows for the restoration of the entire word.
iv 13′-14′: The pl. form danzi is likely to be erroneous given the sg. determinative and the fact that the šuruḫḫa- is manipulated by a single palwatalla-woman in the other occurrences (see commentary on iii 17′). Differently than Hazenbos 2003: 141 with fn. 84 and HW2 K 51, I take GURUN pānzi in the literal sense of “they (i.e. the ḫazkara-women) go to the fruit,” based on the clear parallel of the cult inventory KUB 56.56 rev. iv 25 (q.v.; this favours the assumption that no further subject has to be restored at the end of line 13′). The form kalwišaniyan has been considered an acc. sg. (HEG A-K 472, HED K 35) or nom. sg. (HW2 K 51, which however translates on the same page the passage as “eine Frucht ist oben auf k.”), but the presence of šer suggests it has to be interpreted as dat.-loc. (the variety of attested spellings of this term may attest to some confusion in the inflection). The fact that line 15′ begins with aranzi “they arrive,” combined with the relatively clear traces of NI, IA and AT at the end of line 14′ (the copy has to be corrected here), suggest that a dat.-loc. has to be restored in the gap, hence the tentative reading.
iv 16′: The signs of the DN are clearly AMA KU MA LI LI (cf. van Gessel 1998: 1033 Dx-ku-ma-li-li; HZL no. 57 Anm. and Hazenbos 2003: 136 read instead DAMA-ma-ma-li-li), the interpretation is however unclear.
iv 27′: On the value of anda epp-/app- as “to include,” “to involve” in a rite see HW2 E 68.
iv 28′-36′, l. e. 1: Based on the aspect of the wedge impressions, this and the following lines must have been written when the tablet was already quite dry; furthermore, they are slightly indented, as is typical for colophons. They give the impression of having being written hastily or in any case much less carefully than the rest of the tablet. Lines 28′-32′ list cult provisions, whereas lines 33′-36′ list gods, so that these two paragraphs indeed represent a sort of colophon, which helps explain why they were written down indented and at a later stage (cf. Waal 2015: 378; perhaps a cross-check had to be done before writing the lists). The line written on the left edge, which is not centered within it, may pertain to one of the other paragraphs of the tablet and may be there because of space constraints.
iv 28′-29′: The surface after tiyante〈š〉 is uninscribed and there is no place to restore a DN at the end of line 29′ (contra Hazenbos 2003: 136). For appanda tiyanteš “placed/set additionally”?, cf. KUB 56.40 iv 12′. The expression seems to refer to the reinstatement, or increase, of supplies for the “festival of the queen.”
iv 30′: For the reading “Parnašša,” correcting RGTC 6, see also Miller 2019: 136 fn. 7.
iv 31′: With van Gessel 1998: 151, Dḫi-i-la-aš-ša-an is considered as a peculiar spelling of the DN Ḫilašši (not attested elsewhere; cf. Dḫi!?-la-aš-ši in line i 29).
iv 33′, 35′: Cf. iii 13′.
l. e. 1: Note the mistaken sg. form peškezzi in place of expected peškanzi.
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.