Cult inventory

(CTH 526.35)

Textual tradition

A	A1	KUB 55.14
	A2	(+) KUB 57.102

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: 79-82, 93-97.

Collated (March 2020). Fragments of a thick two-columned tablet (max preserved thickness 55 mm in ms. A1, 43 mm in ms. A2); clay of a yellowish/reddish color. The curvature of the extant portions of the tablet show that in this tablet the obverse was convex, although not as much as the reverse (similarly e.g. in KBo 2.8).

The indirect join between KUB 55.14 and KUB 57.102 has been proposed by Groddek (17.6.2015 according to S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.992)), apparently based on the argument presented in Tischler 2016: 244 fn. 279, namely a peculiar variant of the sign GIŠŠEN (KUB 57.102 iv 7′, KUB 55.14 rev. 18′; on this variant see already Hazenbos 2003: 80 fn. 84, 95 fn. 149) as well as the handwriting and the content. Indeed, there is little doubt that the fragments belong to the same tablet, as they share not only identical clay and handwriting but also close similarities in the content. Collation of the original manuscripts suggested that obverse and reverse of ms. A2 are to be inverted in respect to the copy by A. Archi (where they are provided with a question mark) based on the shape and curvature of the two fragments. Note that the text restorations combined with the curvature of the preserved surface show that this must be a two-columned tablet.

Further fragments which are related to this inventory are KUB 51.33 and KUB 58.71. The similarities of KUB 51.33 with KUB 57.102 have already been noted by van den Hout 1990b: 429, (add the use of KUR as a determinative equivalent to ḪUR.SAG), who states that “a direct join seems not possible.” The handwriting of KUB 51.33 is indeed identical to that of the present manuscript, but the collation led to discard the option of an (in)direct join based on the dimensions, shape and curvature of the fragment, which are not compatible with this hypothesis. Therefore, KUB 51.33 is to be considered as a separate tablet referring to the same town of the present fragments, possibly corresponding to Ḫašuna (cf. commentary to KUB 51.33). As for KUB 58.71, it represents a festival text related to the cult of the Storm go of Ḫašuna and the divine mountain Paḫašunuwa, two of the gods treated in KUB 55.14(+) (note, among other elements, the diagnostic sign TEN for /dan/ in KUB 55.14(+) and KUB 51.33 vs. the sequence -da-an- in KUB 58.71).

The text deals with the cults of a number of gods, including Šuwenta, Daḫarunuwa, the Storm god of Zippalanda, the Sun deity, the “small gods” (DINGIR.TURMEŠ), Sanda (AMAR.UTU), the Storm go of Ḫašuna and the divine mountain Paḫašunuwa. The text treats cult object and festivals and specifies the measures taken by “His Majesty,” like the institution of a pithos (A1 iv 9′-10′) and of offerings. Noteworthy is the lack of the characteristic bipartition of the offerings. The occurrence of mount Paḫašunuwa, the Storm god of Ḫašuna, and the Storm god of Zippalanda show that the geographical setting of the inventory concerns the local cluster of Zippalanda (see for these toponyms Kryszeń 2016: 276-78). The deity Šuwenta of the town Šuwašuwa is treated in KUB 44.42 as well.

Palaeography and orthography: Cursive, yet clear and regular script, with a characteristic inclination of the horizontal wedges, script size ca. 3 mm. The heads of inscribed verticals reach above the crossing horizontals (e.g. in ŠA, TA). The handwriting is identical to that of KUB 51.33 (q.v.), which shares many similarities with the present fragments and was written in all likelihood by the same scribe. Note the unusual spelling ḫal-zi-ri (A2 i 20′, iv 20′, already noted by van den Hout 1990b: 429), and the occasional use of KUR for ḪUR.SAG in ms. A2 (likewise in the related fragment KUB 51.33).

A1 i 5′, iv 7′: The scribe seems to take the prescribed volume of ZÍZ “grain” (normally measured in PA or BÁN) for granted.

A1 i 8′-10′: On the sequence of festivals see Cammarosano 2018: 106-107 (to be updated with the reading GURUN in line 8′). On line 8′, Groddek 2002: 24 reads zé!-ni, Hazenbos 2003: 94 reads “x,” and Zinko and Zinko 2007: 744 read 〈ZU〉-UN-NI, but the sign is clearly GURUN. On the reading še-la-aš in line 10′ see Cammarosano 2018: 143 (differently CHD P 374).

A2 i! 10′, 16′: On the restoration of the PN see van den Hout 1990b: 429 with literature and cf. KUB 51.33 i 15′.

A2 i! 24′: At the beginning of the line a PN or GN is expected, but this can hardly a PN “Zipulišša” as proposed by Archi (KUB 57 IX) since the gap is too large to accommodate only the determinative for PNs, and too small to accommodate e.g. “[É m]zipuliššaza.”

A1 iv 5′: At the beginning of the line “[DINGIR.TU]RMEŠ” is the most likely restoration, contra Hazenbos 2003: 95 fn. 145; see the identical shape of TUR in KUB 57.102 iv 8′.

A1 iv 8′: Hazenbos proposes to read ḪU-[U]Ṣ-ṢÍ?, but Akkadian ḫuṣṣu “reed hut, reed fence” is not attested elsewhere in Hittite texts; perhaps our occurrence is related to (GADA)ḫuzzi(ya)? Note that the responsibility of the contribution falls upon that one “who works the ḫuzzi-field.”

A1 iv 9′-10′: For this passage, see Cammarosano 2012: 20.

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.