Cult inventory

(CTH 527.24)

Textual tradition

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

This fragment, written in a very cursive script, is closely related to KUB 12.2(+) (q.v.) and presents the same content structure, coming especially close to the section pertaining to Town 4 in that inventory. Interestingly, however, the formulation differs in some details: in the present fragment, the name of the priest follows the label LÚSANGA, whereas in KUB 12.2(+) it precedes it .

Except from the fragmentary [ … ]riḫ and [ … ]uttariya (obv. 8′ and 12′ respectively), the gods treated in the text are all treated in KUB 12.2(+) as well, confirming that the two manuscripts are closely related. Nothing, however, suggests that they are parallel text as sometimes assumed in the secondary literature. The presence of the “new Ištar” ([DIŠ]TAR GIBIL, obv. 3′) is striking, since in KUB 12.2(+) only the “new deity” (DINGIR-LUM GIBIL) is treated. Possibly, the “new deity” of KUB 12.2(+) is identical with the IŠTAR of the present text.

obv. 3′: On the “new Ištar” ([DIŠ]TAR GIBIL) see the introduction.

obv. 5′-6′: Cf. KUB 12.2(+) A1 obv. ii 9′-10′.

obv. 9′: Here and in all other analogous cases, the offerings are likely referred to the standard main festival, i.e. the spring festival, otherwise we would expect an extra remark like in obv. 6′.

rev. 7′: For the PN Tapara (not booked in the Index of KBo 49) cf. Tiwatapara (NH 1348) and hieroglyphic Tapara/i (Herbordt 2005 no. 259).

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.