Cult inventory

(CTH 526.43)

Textual tradition

A

A1

KUB 56.40

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: 74-78.

Collated (March 2020). Fragment of a thick two-columned tablet (max thickness ca. 5 cm), preserving the beginning of col. i (with the very first lines missing) and a large portion of the latter half of the reverse. Coarse clay, now sienna in color, with many pebbles, very similar to that of KUB 38.26(+), KBo 2.7, and KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22. Traces of fingerprints are visible on the last paragraphs of col. iii, a rare feature among Hittite tablets. This fragment, previously considered an indirect join to KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22, is to be considered a separate tablet (see commentary on KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22 for discussion). It may have been written by the same scribe of KUB 38.26(+) and/or KBo 2.7, given the similarities both in clay and handwriting; similarities in the content between KUB 56.40 and KUB 38.26 were noted already by Klengel (KUB 56 VI) for col. iii.

The tablet contains the inventory of several settlements. In the colophon, where the inventoried towns are listed, the tablet is labeled with the archival remark appan tarnuwan (see commentary on iv 15′). The colophon states that the inventory of this group of settlements is “completed” ([ … ]ḪI.A QATI, iv 20′). Among the deities treated therein there is mountain Pupara, treated in KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22 as well. This fact suggests that the two tablets concern the same geographical setting, which however cannot be localized with certainty at present. If mount Šidduwa (treated in KUB 41.34 + KUB 46.22) is the same of KBo 2.7, the setting might be in the region of the middle Kızılırmak (cf. 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).

The text is organized in sections and paragraphs, and follows the usual patter: 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 paragraphs describe the autumn and spring festivals. Interestingly, the text shows some variation in respect to the usual formulations (see commentary on iv 12′). Noteworthy are the formula “they have brought the ‘deities of the lot(s)’” (iii 12′, on this formula see Cammarosano 2018: 44-45), and the use of the verb ḫandae- in relation to the renovation of cult images ordered by the king (iii 14′, on the technical use of the verb see Cammarosano 2018: 37-38).

Palaeography and orthography: Cursive script with shallow impressions and vertical wedges slanting to the left, similar yet not identical to that of KUB 41.34+ (q.v.), and similar to that of KUB 38.26(+), but bigger in size. Note the shape of signs of the NI-pattern with almost parallel wedges (e.g. in iii 19′). Note the simplified variant of ALAM in iii 14′ (ALAMx, attested in other cult inventories as well, no faulty form, contra Rüster 1988: 305). Like in other tablets, free variation in the adopted spellings is observable: the form pedanzi is spelled both pé-danx-zi (iii 4′) and pé-da-an-zi (iii 11′, iv 10′). The form aššanumaš is spelled aš-nu-ma-aš in all occurrences.

iii 2′: Cf. iv 12′ and commentary.

iii 9′: Cf. iv 12′ and commentary.

iii 12′: For this formula, see the introduction.

iii 13′-14′: Cf. KBo 2.7 rev. 10 (with tarrawae- as verb; on the use of ḫandāe- and tarrawae- see Cammarosano 2018: 37-38). For the GN, cf. iv 18′.

iii 17′: Note the ritual slaughtering performed at the pithos (usually, it takes place at the altar).

iv 12′: Note here and in iii 2′, 9′ the specification appanda tiyan (“placed back” or “additionally”?), absent in all other texts.

iv 15′: Cf. KUB 27.68+ iv 1′ (Cammarosano 2018: 357 with literature) and KBo 70.109+ iv 36′ (see commentary on the online edition, correcting Cammarosano 2018: 470).

iv 18′: As for the first GN, the sign preceding IŠ ends by a Winkelhaken. The only attested GN ending in -iššana is Ḫupiššana; cf. Iššanašša/i. For the town URUDU6? LUGAL, cf. iii 13′.

iv 19′: The sequence (-)ḫu?-⸢mi⸣-ta-i-ma is expected to belong to a GN.

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.