Cult inventory

(CTH 529.9)

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

Previous editions: Hazenbos 2003: 85-88.

Collated (March 2020). Fragment of a possibly single-columned tablet (max preserved thickness ca. 40 mm); coarse clay, with many pebbles, now of a reddish color.

Palaeography and orthography: Cursive script, with shallow impressions and a conspicuous inclination of the aperture angle of the vertical wedges. Script size 3 mm. ḪA normally with two Winkelhaken, but occasionally with one (rev. 1′); inscribed verticals in TA and ŠA reach above the upper horizontal. Note the spellings a-ir-ia-ta-ti (rev. 12′, against a-ri-ia-ta-ti in obv. 6′, 10′; rev. 2′, 6′, 7′) and ḫa-ma-ka4-aš (against usual ḫa-ma-ak-ta in all other occurrences) .

obv. 3′, 11′: For the reading GAM cf. rev. 8′.

obv. 4′; rev. 1′, 10′, 14′: Hazenbos 2003: 86 restores the determinative URU “town” at the beginning of the line, but a divine name seems to be required there: the name of mountain Šinipala in obv. 8′ makes better sense if interpreted as the deity for which the listed festivals are celebrated, rather than as designation of the town responsible for the supply of offerings. Indeed, with a geographical name at the beginning of the line, one should admit that the text lists festivals but not the deity (or deities) for whom they are to be celebrated. Admittedly, the “fortified post” in rev. 5′ is not otherwise attested as divine name, on the other hand a single sign is to be restored before it, and AN.ZA.GÀR is unattested as geographical name. The same remarks apply to the alleged divine name Tattanaši (rev. 10′, considered to be a geographical name in RGTC 6 413 and not booked in van Gessel 1998), for whom cf. the DN Tatta.

obv. 5′, 9′, 14′; rev. 11′: On the GIŠTUKUL.GÍD.DA-men as suppliers of cult offerings see the remarks of d’Alfonso 2010: 76 with fn. 20.

obv. 6′, 10′; rev. 2′, 6′, 7′, 12′: On the Luwian instr.-abl. ariyatati “by levy” see Otten 1988: 48 and HED Ḫ 446; note in rev. 12′ the spelling a-ir-ia-ta-ti.

rev. 5′: See commentary on obv. 4′.

rev. 9′: Erroneously DUTU-ŠI in Hazenbos 2003: 86.

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.