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: Corti 2018: 59-62, 65-68.
Collated (March 2020). Relatively fine-grained clay of a yellowish color, with some pebbles. An unusual feature among cult inventories, the text of the obverse continues on the lower edge, and there are no Randleisten either at the end of the obverse or at the beginning/end of the reverse (at the end of the reverse a simple paragraph line marks the end of the text).
For the reconstruction of the text see Otten, KBo 34 V and 21 sub no. 106 (correcting own previous assumptions on the number of columns of the tablet) and Corti 2018: 37 with fn. 40, 59-62, who reverts his own previous join proposal with KBo 39.48 + KBo 40.42 (+) KBo 24.117 (q.v.), still accepted by S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.99). Indeed, the two groups of fragments cannot belong to the same tablet, and a careful examination of the photographs available online would have been enough to come to this conclusion. Contrary to what Corti 2018: 37 fn. 39 assumes, the fragment KBo 21.81 is not “too thick for a single-column tablet,” as cases like IBoT 2.104 or KUB 38.26(+) show (the max preserved thickness of KBo 21.81 is ca. 36 mm). However, the rarity of single- and three-columned tablets among cult inventories suggest to keep the assumption that the tablet was originally two-columned, as already proposed by Otten in the publication of KBo 34.106. Also, Corti (ibidem) rightly points out that the gap between mss. A1 and A2 must be larger than the seven lines assumed by Otten. Collation of the original manuscripts in March 2020 showed that the gap must have been at least ca. 21-23 lines on the obverse and ca. 16-18 lines on the reverse based on the curvature of ms. A1. Corti 2018: 60 notes “ca. end of the column” at A1 i 14′, but the column had at least five more lines, partly written on the lower edge, as correctly noted in the copy. Accepting the assumption that ms. A3 constitutes an indirect join of mss. A1 and A2, the shape of the fragment is only compatible with its positioning in the right half of the tablet, thus confirming Otten’s tentative numbering of the two faces as columns ii and iii respectively, followed in the present edition. The inverted sequence of the two faces is possible as well (in this case, the sequence of the sections corresponding to paragraphs 6′-7′ and 8′′ would have to be inverted).
The geographical setting of this tablet is in the central-northern districts, as the gods treated in the inventory clearly show. Especially relevant are the “gods of Ḫattena” and the “gods of Ḫanḫana” as well as the “Storm god of Ištaḫar(a)” mentioned at the onset respectively of sections 1, 5′ and 11′′. It can be confidently assumed that the gods listed in these sections belong to the local pantheons of Ḫattena, Ḫanḫana and Ištaḫara, but this does not necessarily imply that the tablet represents an inventory of those towns. More likely, the tablet reports on the cults of a major cult center where various “northern” local panthea were worshiped, e.g. Ḫakmiš or even Nerik. The mention of Tašimuwa in fragmentary context in section 9′′ fits well this picture, since this town is located somewhere between Ḫattena and Ḫanḫana (Kryszeń 2016: 182-84; see also commentary on KBo 57.114 and KBo 61.87). For observations on the local panthea of these settlements, see most recently Corti 2018: 38-39 (Ḫanḫana, Ḫattena, Tašimuwa), ibidem 46-47 (Ištaḫara).
Apart from listing gods and festivals, the inventory reports on the state of cult images and the relevant renovations (see especially A2 i 3-4 and A1 iv 6-7 with commentary). The very last paragraph does not constitute a standard colophon (Cammarosano 2013: 69), nevertheless its character and purpose are clearly different from the rest of the text. The references to the “grandfather of the king” and to a Mr. Kantuzili (A2 iv 25′, 27′) as well as a call to “seal” something (ibidem 26′) – perhaps the “word of copper” (i.e. a written tablet?) mentioned in line 24′ – are all in fragmentary context. The mention of a “grandfather of the king” suggests to date the text to the reign of Tudḫaliya IV (Cammarosano 2012: 22), whose name may be restored in line A2 i 3.
Palaeography and orthography: Cursive, clear script with vertical wedges slanting to the left; the script and the sign variants are identical to those of KBo 39.48 + KBo 40.42 (+) KBo 24.117, which in all likelihood was written by the same scribe. The script size is somewhat bigger on the reverse than on the obverse (ca. 4 mm vs. ca. 3 mm respectively). Late KU (A1 i 6′) and KI (A1 i 6′, A2 iv 22′). Note the spelling KUD-da-a[n(-)] in A3 iii 5′ and the plural determinative written both as MEŠ and ME.EŠ in ms. A2.
A2 i 3-4: The (late) form newaḫta (GIBIL-aḫ-ta, most probably a pret. 1 sg., attested in KBo 55.179 2′ as well) is not booked in CHD, HED, HEG, and EDHIL. The restoration of Tudḫaliyas name in line 3 (Corti 2018: 59) is uncertain.
A1 i 3′: Perhaps Ibrimuša or IB-mama?
A1 i 9′: Corti 2018: reads “EN KUR T[I?” (sic), but there is ample blank space between the alleged KUR and TI, furthermore the traces are not compatible with the reading TI. The correct reading is GURUN.
A3 iii 2′: For the restoration cf. DAAM 1.39 ii 2.
A3 iii 5′: “Nothing (is/has been) neglected” (lit. “cut”), with an unusual logographic spelling of the verb karš- (for the use of karš- in the sense of “cutting” off parts of festivals or offerings cf. e.g. Tudḫaliyas prayer KBo 12.58+ (CTH 385.9) obv. 7 and the cult inventory IBoT 2.131, passim).
A3 iii 5′: That this line is to be restored analogously to sections 1 and 5′ as assumed by Corti 2018: 39 is possible, but uncertain.
A1 iv 3: here and in A1 iv 15 Corti 2018: 61 with fn. 140 tentatively restores [DUGkul-l]i?-ta-aš, but this is highly unlikely if not impossible: DUGkulli- is a rarely attested Luwism and the form “kulitaš” is unattested. We expect here a short DN ending in -lita, e.g. Kulita, Ulita, Zulita etc., and in the gap following KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.SI22 an expression like NU.GÁL, kappuwan or the like.
A1 iv 6: In view of the admittedly very uncertain reading of KU at the end of the line, a comparison with DAAM 1.39 ii 4 “ALAM LUGAL-aš arḫa 2? kuramman” is stimulating. Other restorations are of course equally possible.
A1 iv 7: Cf. the phrase “NA₄ arḫa išḫuwan ḫarkanzi” in DAAM 1.39 i 4-5, 14, in analogous context. This suggests a meaning like “to cut off” for Hittite šeba- (attested elsewhere only in KUB 26.69, see CHD Š 382, where the occurrence from KBo 21.81 is not noticed). Corti 2018: 61 restores the form as šeban[zi], but this would imply right displacement of the last sign, a very unusual practice among cult inventories. The form šeban (part. nom.-acc. neut.) poses no problem, assuming either that NA₄ corresponds here to neut. peru or that an inflected form, most probably ḫarkanzi, is to be restored in the gap.
A1 iv 8: Išdaḫar is a variant spelling of Ištaḫara, see most recently Corti 2018: 47 fn. 85; for the reading DUTU A[N-E] see ibidem, fn. 86.
A1 iv 9: See Corti 2018: 61 fn. 142.
A1 iv 10: Corti 2018: 61 restores D10 daḫ[attaruna(?), who is however already listed in the previous line; his commentary (ibidem, 47 with fn. 87) contradicts his own edition.
A1 iv 15: See commentary on A1 iv 3.
A2 iv 24′: Restoration after Corti 2018: 62.
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.