On Recent Cuneiform Editions of Hittite Fragments (II). (Review of: H. Otten et alii, KBo 47)

Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.4 (2013) 691

On Recent Cuneiform Editions of Hittite Fragments (II)Oğuz SOySal

The Oriental Institute

The aim and structure of this article are the same as those of its first installment in JAOS 129 (2009): 295–306. The cuneiform edition under review, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, vol. 47 (henceforth KBo 47), represents a collection of work by various scholars (H. Otten, Chr. Rüster, G. Wilhelm, E. Neu, H. M. Kümmel, J. Miller, D. Schwemer); accordingly, the quality of the hand copies varies from text to text. The content of the fragments is mostly dull, with the exception of nos. 7 and 147. The present review therefore endeavors primarily to highlight and discuss hapax legomena, rare and problematic Hittite word forms from these fragments which will be useful for future lexical studies.

KBo 47 has previously been reviewed by V. Haas, OLZ 101 (2006): 307–8, and in more detail by D. Groddek, WO 38 (2008): 248–53. In addition, in DBH 33 (2011) Groddek pub-lished transliterations of the texts from KBo 47; this is a very helpful tool for all us. Since he has masterfully discovered a large number of joins and duplicates, there is not much remain-ing here to offer to the readers of the present review. In this regard, my only contribution is a direct join given under no. 120, for which I have also included a photo taken in the Ankara Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi in June 2011. In order to enrich the contents of the review I have decided to take into account also DBH 33 when necessary.

For reasons of space, Groddek’s book is not always cited in discussions by page numbers; however, all corrections (marked with “pace Groddek”) and alternative suggestions refer to his DBH 33, if not otherwise indicated. For problematic signs and text passages I have grate-fully utilized the tablets’ photos at Konkordanz der hethitischen Texte (http://www.hethport.adwmainz.de); each photo’s identification is given here in parenthesis following Konkordanz (Citatio: hethiter.net/: PhotArch . . .). For some brief discussions on Hittite lexicography (e.g., šumanzana-, (NA4)šur(a)-, (LÚ)tazelli-, GIŠtipa-, and tiuna-), I have made use of the infor-mation from the first drafts for the Chicago Hittite Dictionary (CHD) written by me between 1996 and 2008.

additions and corrections to indicesNo. 1: [m. . .-LU]GAL-ma-za (l. 2′), mNu-u-u a-an-n[a(-). . .] (l. 6′), and mZu-⸢x⸣-[. . .]

(l. 7′).No. 11 obv. (7′) and 10′: Read mGAL.dU-da-aš and remove mGAL-dIŠTAR from the indi-

ces, p. xvii.

This is a review article of Texte von Büyükkale aus den Jahren 1957–2002. By HeinricH Otten; cHriStel rüSter; and GernOt WilHelm. Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, vol. 47. Berlin: Gebr. mann VerlaG, 2005. Pp. xix + 58, illus. €27 (paper).

Abbreviations employed here are those of The Chicago Hittite Dictionary. Add:FsWilhelm: Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010, ed. Jeanette

C. Fincke. Dresden 2010.GsKlíma: Iranian and Indo-European Studies: Memorial Volume of Otakar Klíma, ed. Petr Vavroušek. Prague 1994.GsMoreschini: Do-ra-qe pe-re. Studi in memoria di Adriana Quattordio Moreschini, ed. L. Agostiniani et al.

Pisa and Rome 1998.Indogermanisches Nomen: Indogermanisches Nomen: Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten der Arbeitstagung

der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Freiburg, September 2001), ed. E. Tichy et al. Bremen 2003.

692 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.4 (2013)

No. 48 obv. 3: [dZi-in-t]u-ḫi-i a.No. 91 rev. 8′: dḪa-ša-[mi-li-in].No. 111 l. 2′: [ḪUR.SAG]Ḫa-az-⸢zi⸣.No. 133 obv. 5: [URUŠa-p]í-nu-u a-, obv. 7: [URUŠ]u-lu-pa!-aš-ši-.No. 146 l. 3′: Read [. . .]-⸢x⸣–tul /DUL and not dIŠTAR as listed in indices, p. xvi.No. 147 rev. 9′: m⸢Wa-tar-ra-ḫa⸣-ši-iš (i.e., Watara-ḫašiš = Atra-ḫašiš), see remarks below.No. 154 rev. 6′: URUŠa-la-aš-ḫa-⸢x⸣(-)[. . .?]; rev. 7′: [md]LAMMA-pí-i ⸢a-a⸣[n?] for

mdLAMMA.SUM (E. Laroche, NH [1966], no. 1748)?No. 159 obv. 2: Read 1 ga-pár-t[a?-an?] (see remarks below) and not mGa-pár-x as listed

in indices, p. xvii.No. 184 obv. 8′: According to the tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch BF00354) read

[d]⸢U?⸣ URU⸢Kum⸣-man-ni (not URUPí-i[n-. . .], pace indices, p. xviii) ⸢d⸣[U? URU. . .].No. 193 l. 6′: URUPí-iš-ka-n[a?(-). . .].No. 213 rev.? 7′: ḪUR.SAGḪu-u [a-at-nu-u a-an-da]? Cf. KUB 58.15 i 10, 15 (CTH 530).No. 214 i 31′: dNupatik z[almana(ya)] or z[almatḫi].No. 227 iii 5′ + no. 223 iii 12′: m[A]r-[ma]-⸢ta-an-ta⸣.No. 235 rt. col. 7′: m⸢Ar-ma⸣-[ta-an-ta].No. 239 iii 4′: ⸢URUKum⸣-ma-an-[ni].No. 241 obv.? 9′: [dDa-ši-mi]-iz (= dTašimmet) is mistakenly listed in indices, p. xvii under

Tašimi, who is a different deity.No. 242 obv.? 3′: dUTU-aš/AŠ and rev.? 5′: [dLAMMA URUTa-ú-r]i-ša; all readings are

uncertain.No. 258 l. 3′: [ḪUR.SAGDa-ḫa-a]n-na.No. 264 obv.? 5′: mDu-u a-x-[. . .] should be removed from indices, p. xvii.No. 273 l. 7′: URUKa-l⸢a-a⸣-[aš-ma].No. 278 l. 5′: [dPí-ri]-in-ki[r8(?)].No. 291 l. 3′: ⸢m⸣Zu-uz-zu-u-u a-l[a].No. 300 left col. 1′: ⸢d⸣Ni-ga-lu-i a.

remarks on individual texts

No. 1 has some words which can be interpreted as personal names as well, see above.No. 3 l. 4′: Is GIŠku-pa-aš here related to ku-u-pa-aš ZU9.SI in KUB 42.34:5′, or should

we rather read GIŠ KU-BÁ-RÙ ‘thick(-cut) wood?, timber?’ going back to Akkadian kubāru A < kabāru (CAD K [1971], 4 and 481)?; l. 6′: One might restore [DUG.DU10.Ú]S.SA, but the following KAŠ ‘beer’ does not permit this possibility.

No. 4 l. 3′: dankuwanušk- ‘to make dark’ and l. 4′: dankutar (for *dankuwatar?) ‘dark-ness’ are both hapax legomena, and are already listed by J. Tischler, HEG III/8 (1991), 111, as then-unpublished occurrences; l. 9′: Even if Groddek’s reading ⸢e-eš-ḫar(-)nu⸣-x-li-iš-x[ (restore perhaps -iš-k[i-it] like da-an-ku-u a-nu-uš-k[i-it] in l. 3′) is correct, no logical mean-ing can be produced here, either with ešḫarnu- or any other known verb.

No. 5 seems to be a fragment of a catalog tablet, and not an incantation (CTH 458). For the repeated word ŠI-PÁT see KUB 30.46 rt. col. 7′–10′ (CTH 277.1) without the presence of paragraph strokes.

No. 7 includes numerous unique MH lexemes and forms. The narrative is more interesting and enigmatic than one would expect from an incantation (CTH 458). The text has strong agricultural features, with the mention of (domestic) animals, plants, and fields. Obv. 3′: [šu]-⸢ú?⸣-ni-it-te-en “may you (pl.) [s]ow” (cf. obv. 21′: na-ta-an A-NA NAM.ḪI.A še-er ar-ḫa šu-ú-n[i-iz-zi] “He (= the landlord) so[ws] reed all over the districts”); obv. 5′: If not an

693SOySal: On Recent Cuneiform Editions of Hittite Fragments (II)

unknown word, na-an-ni-u a-an-z[i] can only be an infinitive form of nanna- / nanni(ya)- ‘to drive’, with preceding [GU4

?].NÍTA.ḪI.A-uš ‘[bu]lls?’ as the direct object of the sentence; obv. 6′, 13′: With ti-i-ú-ni-iš(-za) and [ti]-⸢i⸣-ú-ni (d.-l.), one suspects the Hittite counterpart of Palaic tiuna-, denoting the ‘bull’ (cf. H. Otten, AfO 22 [1968–69]: 112; differently O. Carruba, StBoT 10 [1970], 75; Pal. [1972] 38, 49–50, and GsMoreschini [1998], 152); for more on this subject, see my contribution in a forthcoming Festschrift; obv. 12′: complete as ḫa-a-[ra-ašMUŠEN]; obv. 10′–13′: The setting here is obscure. It seems that before (or behind) a curtain, a theatrical act involving the eagle and the tiuni- is performed before the members of the district community and the general(s); obv. 14′: (andan) iš-ta-an-da-a-u-en “we lingered / tarried in” add to J. Puhvel, HED 1–2 (1984), 464. The following word nu-na-ša-[. . .] is probably for nu⸗(n)naš⸗a[š] or ⸗a[t]; obv. 15′: a-ri-ši-e-eš-na-aš (versus regular form ariyašešnaš) iš-pa-an-za “(on) the night of the oracle (performance)”; rev. 2′: [i]š-ša-ra-ši-il may render a complete word and a primary form of iššarašila- (a kind of plant); rev. 4′: Despite E. Neu’s interpretation of NUMUN.ḪI.A-ni (sg. “collective” loc.) in StBoT 26 (1983), 263 n. 48, I reserve the possibility of reading NUMUN.ḪI.A-NI “our seeds”; rev. 8′: šarkuwawar is a hapax of unknown meaning and to be added to CHD Š/2 (2005); rev. 9′: Perhaps [DUG?iš-pa-an]-du-zi-it-te-e[t] “wi[th] your [liba]tion(-vessel?),” and not [. . .]-ap-zi-it-te-et (pace Groddek); rev. 11′: According to the tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch BF00704) ar-nu-t[i] (pres. sg. 2) rather than ar-nu-n[u-. . .].

No. 8 obv. 5: On TÚGkatte[lluri] see S. Košak, ZA 80 (1990): 147. The unpublished occur-rence TÚGkat-te-el-lu-u-r[i] in Bo 6833 i? 5′ is followed by šar-ku-zi ‘puts on footwear’ in the first line after a break, and this information would give a better idea about the identity of the garment in question, although it is possible that other objects may have been mentioned in the gap between the ll. 5′–6′.

No. 9 is not to be assigned to CTH 458, but to the MH “protocol of dynastic succes-sion” (CTH 271 or CTH 275), as the unique usage of parḫandaru “let them banish” would hint. l. 2′: [na-ak-k]i-i-iš; l. 3′: [. . . LÚKÚR-ŠU e-eš]-tu na-an pár-ḫa-an-d[a-ru], cf. KUB 36.109:10′ (CTH 275) and KUB 34.41+ 5′, 10′ (CTH 271); l. 6′: Perhaps as part of a con-ditional sentence [. . . na-at-t]a-an iš-ta-ma-aš-zi-ma “but [if ] he [does no]t listen to him.”

No. 11 obv. 4′: Compare with a-ut-ti in obv. 3′ and tentatively restore [a-aš-š]a?-u-it IGI.ḪI.A-i[t a-ut-ti] “[you will look] with [benevo]lent eyes”; obv. 7′ and 10′: Contrary to KBo 47 (indices, p. xvii) and Groddek, I read the proper name mGAL.dU-da-aš (Ura-Tarḫundaš) instead of mGAL.dIŠTAR. For a critical comparison, the identical “da” sign is present here in obv. 12′. This PN and the title [GAL] QÁR-TAP-PÍ in obv. 8′ exactly match the person mGAL.dU GAL QÁR-TAP-PÍ “Ura-Tarḫunta, the master charioteer” in the witness list of the Bronzetafel iv 38 (CTH 106.A.1). See now my article in Colloquium Anatolicum 11 (2012): 320 n. 35.

No. 15 is reminiscent of KUB 45.47 i 30–34 (CTH 494.A), including the phrase [. . .⸗kan ANA NINDAn]aḫḫiti šer [dāi] in l. 6′.

No. 16 rev. 6′–8′ can be entirely restored after the catalog tablet KBo 31.4 vi 31′′-33′′: [ma-a-an DUMU LÚ]⸢SANGA ták-na-aš⸣ / [dUTU-i] tar-pa-a-al-li-i[n] / [pa-a-i] ⸢x⸣ QA-TI. Against the hand copy, on the tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch B1117d) there is no sign trace before tarpālli[n] in l. 7′, but it appears to be present in the following line before QATI.

No. 17 rev. rt. col. 2′–3′: It would be a noteworthy detail for Hittite religious history that the fate divinities DINGIR.MAḪ and Gulša were honored by cultic drinking from a pig-shaped silver BIBRÛ, if Groddek’s restoration Š[AḪ] for l. 3′ is correct. The “protec-tive deity of the spear” also has a pig-shaped BIBRÛ as its representative drinking vessel: dLAMMA GIŠŠUKUR . . . / [(IŠTU BI)]BRÎ ⸢Š⸣A[(Ḫ KÙ.BABBAR eku)]⸢zi⸣ (KUB 40.110 rev. 2′–3′// KBo 48.71:9′–10′). I wonder, therefore, if one should expect in KBo 47.17 rather a special kind of pig, e.g., Š[AḪ.MUNUS] ‘s[ow]’, etc.


No. 18 l. 7′: The noun kur-ši-en, despite this previously unattested spelling and showing no determinative, quite probably refers to GI/GIŠkurši-, on which see A. Archi, Or 49 (1980): 117–18; J. Tischler, HEG I (1983), 658; and later J. Puhvel, HED 4 (1997), 270ff., who, however, does not distinguish between KUŠkurša- and GI/GIŠkurši-.

No. 19 l. 6′: Based on the tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch B1113a) I suggest the reading [. . .-o]ḫ-ḫa-ri-mi-iš ma-⸢ḫa-aḫ-ri⸣-m[i?-iš?], a non-Hittite rhymed spell formula? Nevertheless, the first word may contain the divine name Ḫarimmiš, since it appears in the analogous passage in KBo 21.36 rt. col. 8′ (CTH 470.868); l. 9′: Read ⸢ti-eš⸣-ki-iz-zi.

No. 28 exhibits without doubt MH ductus. Obv. 8: If [GADAg]az-za-ar-nu-ul-la-aš-š[a(-). . .] (cited by E. Rieken, StBoT 44 [1999], 467 as unpubl. 300/w) is not to be ana-lyzed as gazzarnul⸗a⸗ša[n], then the form gazzarnulaš⸗[a] is a sg. gen. and to be added to the occurrences in J. Tischler, HEG I, 549, and J. Puhvel, HED 4,141; obv. 10–11: [. . . 1 GIŠBANŠUR AD.KID da-a-i nu-uš-š]a-an še-er NINDAna-aḫ-[ḫi-ti-in da-a-i] / [še-ra-aš-ša-an IN-BIḪI.A GIŠPÈŠ GIŠGEŠTIN.È.A GIŠSE20-ER-DUM(?) ku-it-t]a pa-ra-a te-pu iš-[ḫu-u a-a-i]; for a similar description see KBo 39.189 + KBo 24.59 obv.? i 5′–7′, 12′–15′ (CTH 706).

No. 37 l. 14′: Note the unique spelling ḫu-it-ti-an-ni-eš-ga-u-e-ni against ḫu-it-ti-i a-an-ni-iš-ki-u-e-ni in dupl. KUB 15.34 iii 36′.

No. 38 l. 12′ has perhaps a lapsus calami for <na->ak-ku-u a-a[š] caused by the preceding nu, cf. l. 10′: ke-e-da-aš na-ak-ku-[u a-aš], that is, pl. d.-l. of nakku- (a remover of evils), CHD L-N fasc. 4 (1989), 374.

No. 39 obv. 3′: Restore [le-el-ḫu-u a-a]r-ti-im-ma-aš (CHD 3/1 [1980], 60: ‘outpourings?, spray?’) as part of an analogic spell; obv. 9′: ŠA dIŠKUR ka[rtimmiyattan] “the a[nger (acc.)] of the Storm-god” (cf. KUB 7.13 obv. 29) would fit the context of a ritual (including mytho-logical passages) composed to calm down an angry god.

No. 42 obv. 14: a-pí-ša seems to be a short form of a-a-pí(-iš)-ša (KBo 44.97 ii 8′, KUB 34.57:4′) from āpi- ‘sacrificial pit’. The related forms api, apita, and apiša here have a nominal pattern similar to the other Kizzuwatnaean cult term DUGkazzi- ‘cup’ and its deriva-tives DUGkazzita- and DUGkazziša-, on which see my contribution in FsWilhelm (2010), 338 n. 11; rev. 1′: The tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch B0718h) shows a clear nu tar-pa-at-t[a-. . .], which can be connected to the noun („)tarpatta-/tarpattašši- of unknown meaning, cf. H. C. Melchert, CLL (1993), 216; rev. 4′: ša-uš-ši-i a (sg. d.-l.) after the logogram DUG.A may be an attribute or special designation / qualification of the water container. The word is a hapax; the only similar lemma would be the ghost word †šaušiya- as found in S. Alp, HBM (1991), 128, 304, and 400, but this has been revised in CHD Š/1 (2002), 204f. (s.v. šapašiya-).

No. 45 seems to deal with cultic-oracular matters, and not purely festive ones. Obv.? 2′: Read [SISK]URše-ḫe-el-li-in and not [DU]G (pace Groddek); obv.? 6′: Note the unique spell-ing for sg. acc. NINDAga-ak-ka4-ri-in with the “qa = ka4” sign; obv.? 7′–8′: Striking (zaḫ-) someone in connection with a punishment (zankilatar) occurring sometimes in front of the gods, as here, is described also in KUB 5.6+ ii 15′–16′, 48′–49′, and KUB 5.7 obv. 32, 35 (all in oracular context).

No. 48 obv. 3: To be reconstructed as [ANA dZint]uḫiya šipant-, cf. KUB 20.5:6′–7′ and KUB 51.11:12′ (both CTH 670).

No. 49: The key words apalkiti (obv.? 8′) and [LÚ/MUNUS.MEŠt]apritaššiēš (obv.? 10′) refer rather to the (ḫ)išuwa-festival (CTH 628).

No. 50 rt. col. 2′: Read nam-ma-⸢kán?⸣ and not UZUku-[d]u-[ur (pace Groddek).No. 53 ll. 4′–5′: On DINGIR.MEŠ (UL) taranteš “the (un)mentioned / (un)spoken deities”

see I. Wegner, SMEA 36 (1995): 100f.No. 54 l. 3′: [MUNUS.MEŠSUḪUR].LA5 kar-ap-pa-an ḫ[ar-kán-zi(?)].


No. 55 obv.? 1′, 4′: For the Hurro-Luwian designation DUGkazzi(ta)-, possibly borrowed from Akkadian kasū ‘cup’, see most recently my contribution in FsWilhelm, 338 n. 11.

No. 59 is a MH oracular inquiry concerning military expeditions, with mention of the hitherto unattested URUGaputta and URUḪirutta (obv. 2, 4), which were possibly located around the well-known cult center Garaḫna (obv. 3). Obv. 6–7: an-da pa-iz-zi dUTU-Š[I pí-ra-an . . .?] / ši-na-aḫ-ḫa ⸢ti⸣-i[š-ki-iz-zi(?)] “Will [the enemy?] go in (and) s[et] a trap [there before] M[y] Majesty?”; obv. 8 is partially erased and somehow corrupt; thus one may perhaps read pa-ak-ma!-ri!-⸢ti!?⸣ (an oracular term), against the copy; rev. 2: The sign combi-nation “ši+lu” indicates “Ù” or “LIBIR” (Chr. Rüster and E. Neu, HZL [1989], no. 265.26), and the following u a-a-i-it is a predicate in pret. sg. 3, but how to combine these? On the other hand, an alternative reading ḪUL!-u a-a-i-it would suggest a verbal form of unattested *īdalawai-. For the error IGI + LU for IGI + UR see CHD Š/3 (2013), 367.

No. 63 rt. col. 5′: Unidentified MUŠEN.MUŠ ‘snake-bird’ occurs for the first time here.No. 65 rt. col. 9′: The tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch B1035c) shows a clear ta-pu-uš

⸢1-⸣[ŠU ši-pa-an-ti], cf. also another similar passage in KUB 56.50 ii 17′ (CTH 670.1938). On tapuš see S. Heinhold-Krahmer, FsAlp (1992), 278.

No. 67 iv 1′: Read ⸢ŠA⸣ EZ[EN4 . . .] and not ⸢ša⸣-at-[. . .] (pace Groddek).No. 68 ll. 14′–16′ have been studied by C. Kühne, ZA 62 (1972): 256 (text cited there as

unpubl. 1238/v), in discussion of the enigmatic word (LÚ.MEŠ) ḫunepiša-.No. 69 iv 8′: URUḪa-la-“pí” (or ḪA-LA-“BI”) is under the influence of the initial sign of

the following “pé”-en-ni-an-[zi], rather than being a real form as seen in URUḪa-la-ap in iv 5′ and 10′.

No. 70 l. 7′: In terms of the terminology of KIN-oracles, one would expect IZI-i a ME-aš rather than Groddek’s [GU]NNI-i a ME-aš.

No. 73 obv. 11′: Seemingly nothing is missing before ⸢A⸣-NA; rev. 9′: a-pa-a-ta(-)[. . .] (= apāt⸗a), if a complete form here, displays yet another spelling beside a-pa-(a)-at-ta (regu-lar usage) and a-pa-ta (only in KBo 30.61 obv.? 22′).

No. 74 obv. 5′: dḪašammiūn is a Hattian oblique form (i.e., dative) in -Vn, which has no gender, against the masc. form dḪašammil, see O. Soysal, HWHT (2004), 145.

No. 76 contains many striking geographical names in connection with their own deities. Obv. 8′, 12′: dḪatepuni is a rare variant of dḪatepuna / dḪatipinu, on whose word formation in Hattian see my study in Anatolica 31 (2005): 200; rev. 14′: tar-ma-⸢x⸣-š[a?-. . .] is obscure, but seemingly a local epithet of the preceding god dU.

No. 77 obv.? 4′: [túḫ-ḫ]u-uš-ta “is [fini]shed.”No. 79 obv. iii 12′: Alternatively read GIŠAL ‘hoe’; rev. v 6′–10′ are comparable with IBoT

4.76 obv. iii 2–6 (CTH 612) and KUB 20.6:3′–6′ (CTH 670.1731).No. 80 obv. 1′: On laḫm/pa- (c.) ‘ivory’, also in this context, see my review JAOS 129

(2009): 301; obv. 5′: DUGki-iz-zu-ul, here in close connection with LÀL ‘honey’, is found in KUB 55.16 obv. 19′ (even if incomplete) and also with the spelling DUGgaz(= kizx)-zu-ú-ul in KBo 13.230:4′; obv. 6′: For this line I suggest eš-ḫa-aš-ḫa-a-i Ù LÀL š[u-un-na-i], where the verb ešḫašḫai- is unknown, but seems to denote an act parallel to the following “he f[ills (with)] honey”; obv. 8′: On the spelling šu-u-ú “full (of)” see H. Otten and Vl. Soucek, StBoT 8 (1969), 100 n. 2, with reference to this occurrence as unpubl. 1256/v.

No. 81 i 1′: Most of the older texts (OS, MS) apply to tazelli- the determinative “m” instead of “LÚ”, on which see A. Kammenhuber, Or 39 (1970): 558. This is clearly not the number “1,” and the same usage may be observed also with the other priestly designation LÚ/mtaḫpurili-; i 5′: ša-le-e-a-an-da, already mentioned by E. Neu, StBoT 5 (1968), 146 (as an occurrence from then-unpubl. 1009/u), is the participle of šalai- C / šaliya- ‘to pull, drag’ (CHD Š/1, 85f., where this form is to be added), eventually said of “strung bow(s)” in


the present context with mention of MUNUS GIŠPAN arta “a female archer stands (there),” thus, a near synonym of GIŠPAN ḫuittian in IBoT 1.36 ii 39; i 8′: Read and restore [kat-t]i- [i]š-⸢ši⸣-ma 1 LÚmi-na-[. . . ar-ta] “[wit]h him [stands] an m.-man.” The restoration with LÚmi-na-[al-lo] (Groddek) is insecure since no sg. form of *LÚminalla/i- is available from the published material; iv 5′: The word ending -Ca-ra-ak of the strange sounding profession LÚ.MEŠla-ta-ra-ak pleads for Hattian origin, cf. the formations URUNarak and waarak in this language (Soysal, HWHT 148, 321).

No. 84 obv. iii 2′ff. can be entirely restored with the help of parallel texts or analogous passages such as KUB 25.3 obv. iii 15ff., KUB 41.44 ii 2′ff., KBo 46.142 rt. col. 1′ff., etc., which are not utilized by Groddek. Obv. iii 4′: I propose the reading TU7 tu-ḫa-⸢ša-a?-el?⸣ (a kind of beef stew named after the divine being Tuḫašail); for more on this topic see my contribution in a forthcoming Festschrift; rev. iv 6′: The spelling ḫu-u-up-“pár”-r[i] is cus-tomary, hence there is no necessity for the emendation “pár = pa!” by Groddek; rev. iv 17′: KUB 11.16+ iv 19 (CTH 669.3.A) allows the restoration URUA-ri-in-na-[az NINDAḫar-ši-iš]; rev. v 23′: [. . .] p[é]-⸢e⸣-da-i.

No. 88 ll. 5′–6′: Read and reconstruct dZu-li-in t[a-u a-li-it] / [ua-a]l-ḫi-it ekuzi. Thus there is no deity dZulinga (pace indices, p. xvii). On the cult term “to drink / toast a deity with / using a particular beverage” see my study in FsWilhelm, 348.

No. 89 l. 3′: [Š]A DINGIR-LIM ME-E [QA-TI] “[hand]-water [o]f the deity” with this specific classification is attested only here, if not also in KBo 45.129 i 24′ (again in broken context).

No. 90 l. 5′: Restore [LÚu]-ri-an-ni-⸢iš⸣, whose connection to the marnuan-beverage (l. 4′) is known from KBo 3.34 i 5–6.

No. 91 obv. 1′–3′: Read and restore [ḫ]⸢u-i ⸣a-an-zi LUGAL-u[š-kán É. . . an-da(?)] / ⸢ti⸣-i a-zi (similar to obv. 9′–11′); rev. 8′: dḪa-ša-[mi-li-in e-ku-zi], cf. KUB 30.41 vi 11ff.

No. 92 obv.? iii 5′: GIŠLAM.GAL gul-aš-zi (not GUL-, pace Groddek) “whittles? the pista-chio-wood” is present also in KUB 33.67 i 3′, for which see G. Beckman, StBoT 29 (1983), 72f., 78; rev.? iv 1′–3′ should be read [LÚ.MEŠMUḪALDIM-ma-aš-ša-a]n UZUÌ / [zé-i a-an-ta] NINDAša-ra-am-ma / [še-er ar]-⸢ḫa⸣ iš-ga-ra-an-zi based on a similar description in KBo 4.9 i 23–24; rev.? iv 9′: ḫé-e-šu-u a-aš ú-u a-an-na [pa-i]z-zi “He (= the chief of the palace attendants) [go]es to watch the opening procedure (before the king goes to the temple of the Storm-god).”

No. 93 l. 1′: Read lu-kat-te-i-m[a], which displays a unique spelling for lukatti⸗ma “but in the morning,” and add to CHD 3/1, 76f.

No. 95 obv.? 5′: NA4-aš šu-u-ra-aš a-r[i], cf. KBo 23.89:13′; obv.? 9′: LUGAL-uš ḫu-u a-ši-i a a-r[i]. Note that all assured occurrences of (NA4)šur(a)- (a sacred stone or cult object of stone) are found in the fragments of CTH 608 and 666.

No. 96 l. 8′: [k]án-ga-ti-an-zi “they propitiate” is for regular kangatanzi / gangadanzi; this form is to be added to J. Tischler, HEG I, 484, and J. Puhvel, HED 4, 53f.

No. 100a obv. 4′: NINDA MI-I[Š-LU] ḫ[a-a-l]i?-iš.No. 106 l. 7′: The rare occurrence of dTa-ki-du-un (acc.) is to be added to B. H. L. van

Gessel, Onomasticon I (1998), 434.No. 107 obv. 8′–9′: According to the tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch B1051b) and

KBo 11.36 v! 6–7 read ⸢1⸣ ½ NINDAša-ra-am-ma-na-aš ḫa-⸢a-li⸣-[iš] / [x]+⸢1?⸣-i⸣š ½ NINDAZI.ḪAR.ḪAR ⸢XX-iš⸣.

No. 109 rt. col. 10′: Read pár-ši-i [a] and not DINGIRLIM-x (pace Groddek), cf. l. 12′.No. 111 l. 6′: PÚ.[MEŠ-na].No. 112 is the same composition as VS 28.12 (CTH 647); therefore some additional res-

torations can be made on the basis of the latter text. l. 5′: One finds for the first time [i]š-ḫa-


am-ma-a-an-na z[i-in-na-i] (cf. L[Ú. . .] / [. . . S]ÌR-RU in ll. 3′–4′), which is inf. II instead of inf. I of the same verb, cf. iš-ḫa-mi-i a-u-u a-an-zi zi-in-na-i in Bo 6870 obv.? 13′; l. 7′: [A-NA DINGI]R-LIM UŠ-KE-EN LÚAL[AN.ZU9 ma-al-di], cf. VS 28.12 i 8; l. 12′: [DUMU-aš an-da pa-iz-zi A-NA DINGI]R-LIM UŠ-KE-E[N . . .], cf. VS 28.12 i 7–8.

No. 117 l. 9′: Read [Š]⸢A LUGAL Ù⸣ ŠA MUN[US.LUGAL].No. 120 obv. 1′ (CTH 670.1268) directly joins KBo 49.114:7′, which now reads

[. . .-i]⸢z?-zi⸣ 1 NINDA.GUR4.RA EM-Ṣ[A], see photo below. Obv. 3′: [GIŠpu-ri-i a-a]š AD.KID še-er-ša-an DUGta-p[í-ša-ni-iš]; obv. 5′: ḫa-an-da-[iz-zi]; rev. 1–3 can be restored as [ḫ]a-an-da-iz-z[i] / [DUGkat-ta-ku-r]a-an-ta-ká[n?] / [GIŠpu-ri-i a-aš A]D.KID, following a similar description in obv. 5′–7′.

No. 121 is possibly from the Hattian cultic milieu. Obv.? 2′: [LÚ.MEŠ(?)a-ra-aš LÚ.MEŠ(?)]a-ra-aš me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da “colleagues (facing) each other,” cf. KBo 37.51+ obv. 11′–13′ (CTH 738.I.24.A), KUB 54.64 obv. 21′ (CTH 821); obv.? 4′–5′: [ki-iš-š]a-an SÌR-RU / [. . .](-)⸢x⸣-al-la-i a. The latter appears to be part of a Hattian song or recitation, thus to be added to Soysal, HWHT.

No. 125 obv. 1–2: Groddek, DBH 33, 114 n. 284 and 285, meticulously examines the readings of two incomplete Hattian words here listed in my HWHT 472 and 473. During the preparation of HWHT there were no digital photos as easily available as they are today at the Konkordanz, so some inconsistencies in the reading of the then-unpublished material were unavoidable. However, examination of the photo now shows that, against the hand copy in KBo 47, there are indeed slight remnants of a (lower) Winkelhaken visible prior to the word ḫu-ur-ḫu-ur(-)⸢x⸣(-)[. . .] in obv. 2, thus [ḫa-le-e?-e]ḫ-ḫu-ur-ḫu-ur posited in HWHT 472 is tenable. Groddek’s further claim that one finds for this entry in HWHT also the restoration o-ur-e[ḫ] is not true and is obviously caused by his confusion about the proposed reading x1 = “eḫ,” which indicates the first broken sign before “ḫu,” and not the last one after “ur.”

Fig. 1. KBo 47.120 obv. (bottom part) and KBo 49.114 (right upper part) after join.

Fig. 2. Close-up.


No. 126 l. 5′: Read ḪAL-TI-IK-<KU>-TI (a vessel).No. 130 i 15, 22: The substantive šumanzana- does not denote primarily ‘rope, cord’, but

‘rush’, as CHD research has shown, see H. C. Melchert, Indogermanisches Nomen (2003), 129–32. As the determinative “Ú” in KBo 21.20 i 17′ indicates, šumanza(na)- was originally a kind of grass or plant. Obviously, it also serves as raw material for the making of cord/rope. In this regard the Hittite word can be compared with its Akkadian equivalent(s) ašlum in the vocabulary KBo 1.45 rev.! 2′, which mean(s) ‘rope’ and ‘rush’ (CAD A II [1968], 447–49, s.v. ašlu A and B). In Hittite rituals the plant itself and its product cord/rope are both materia magica, so that their differentiation in the texts is difficult. Note that šumanzana- also appears as a geographical name URUŠumanzana (G. F. del Monte and J. Tischler, RGTC 6 [1978], 366), like today’s Rush, Rush City, Rushville; i 19–20 can be securely reconstructed as nu anniškizzi k[uin antuḫšan / UN-an n⸗an⸗kán] / ŠUM-ŠU [tezzi] “and [she mentions] by name [the person] w[hom] she is treating,” following the same formula in HT 6+ i 24′, KUB 9.4+ iv 17′–18′, KUB 9.34 i 20′, ii 12–13, iv 19′, and KBo 17.54+ i 6′–7′.

No. 131 rev.? 2′: ta-pí-ša-n[i-it KÙ.BABBAR?]; rev.? 4′: [LUGAL-uš] ⸢GAL-SÚ e-ku-zi⸣; for these lines cf. KBo 15.61 rev. 13′–14′ and KBo 15.52+ i 53′–56′.

No. 136: It is now quite clear that ll. 1′–4′ are not Hattian (pace Soysal, HWHT 67, 472, 489, 631 where this fragment is cited as unpubl. 1264/v), since non-Hittite ma-a-i a-aš-ši in l. 3′ and Hittite [DUG]ḫu-pu-u-u a-a-i-i a in l. 4′ are comparable with Hurrian [ma-a(?)-i ]a-aš-ši ḫu-u-pu-u a-aš-ši in KUB 45.6 l. col. 10′.

No. 142 expresses various benedictions. Obv.? 10′: MUŠEN-ša GIŠtap-tap-pí ⸢É⸣ (not “⸢ú⸣” pace Groddek), [. . .] “and the bird [. . .s] in the nest?, [its?] house”; obv.? 11′: Read ḫa-ap-pí-na-t⸢a⸣-[an] and compare parnaš ḫ[a]ppinattan “richness (acc.) of the house” in KBo 34.45:6′+ KBo 38.185:4′ (likewise in a benediction).

No. 144 rev.? 3′: mu-u a-an-zi (pres. pl. 3) is probably to mauš- ‘to fall’ and comparable with the middle form mu-u a-a-an-ta-ru (imp. pl. 3) in KBo 32.14 ii 60, cf. E. Neu, StBoT 32 (1996), 211.

No. 147 has prominent features of a mythological narration, wherein the use of old / archaic possessive pronouns is also striking, e.g., [t]aparriya(n)⸗šummin (obv. 8), [. . .]šar⸗mit (rev. 5′), piran⸗šemit (rev. 10′). I read and interpret the partly damaged word in rev. 9′ as PN m⸢Wa-tar-ra-ḫa⸣-ši-iš (*Watara-ḫašiš), a variant of the otherwise well-known Atra-ḫašiš. The interchange of Akkadian atru / watru ‘pre-eminent, foremost’, even as part of personal names, is not unusual, cf. CAD A II, 501. If KBo 47.147 belongs to the Atra-ḫašiš legend (CTH 347), then it should represent a Hittite translation from another, possibly older, writ-ten source (i.e., not Hurrian, but Old Babylonian), unlike the version KUB 8.63 + KBo 53.5 (CTH 347.1.A), which always uses the form mAt-ra-am-ḫa-ši-.

Obv. 6: Alternatively read [. . .-a]š? pár-ni an-da ⸢še⸣-šu-un “I slept / stood overnight in the house [o]f [. . .]” for which compare tuša wašbāku / ina bīt nakmati “As if I were to dwell in a treasure house” (W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-ḫasīs [1969], “Tablet III” iii 49–50).

Obv. 7 and 8: The source of taparriya- ‘command’ can be found in the Akkadian sentence ilu māru-šu išmû siqir-šu “Whose divine sons obeyed his command?” (Atra-ḫasīs “Tablet III” iii 52). The parallels between the Akkadian and Hittite versions pointed out here can be, of course, mere coincidence, since there is too little Hittite context available in KBo 47.147 for reliable comparisons.

Rev. 6′: Rather read KUR-⸢an⸣-za.Rev. 8′: A tenable reconstruction for this line would be [(PN) memiškiuw]an dāiš

ḫalzešten⸗a[n] “[. . .] began t[o speak]: ‘(You all) call hi[m!’”].Rev. 10′: pí-ra-an-še-mi-it and not -me-et (pace Groddek).


No. 148 contains non-Hittite, probably Luwian, lexemes. L. 8′: [. . .(-)d]u-ú-i-ip-pa-ša-an; ll. 9′–10′: After mutual restoration of these lines, one can postulate ú-ua-an-na-aš-ša-an, perhaps a form of Luw. wana- ‘woman’, cf. [wa]naššan listed by H. C. Melchert, CLL 254.

No. 149 l. 6′: i-da-a-lu ma-an-ka4! “in a bad / negative way” antonym to SIG5-in ma-an-

ka4 “in a good / positive way” in KBo 18.88 obv. 7?No. 150 l. 2′: šum-ri-⸢x⸣-[. . .] to *šumrai- / *šumriya- ‘to become pregnant’ and repetitive

ú-ša-an-[. . .] to ušantari- ‘pregnant’ in ll. 4′–8′ would point to a homogeneous context, cf. H. Otten-J. Siegelová, AfO 23 (1970): 35 n. 3.

No. 151: Is this text really in Hurrian? All words including e-nu-ma-an-[. . .] (cf. Hittite verbal form enumandari) in l. 6′ can be interpreted within the Hittite lexicon.

No. 152 is a ritual with the material zapzagai- ‘glaze’, also containing an incantation to the god, thus strongly reminiscent of the funerary ritual, “days 8 and 9”; compare with KUB 30.24a+ i 7′–10′ and KUB 30.24+ ii 1–2 (CTH 450.I).

No. 153 obv.? 6′′, 8′′ concern the telling of something confidential (awan katta mema-), thus a treaty or an instruction? Cf. KUB 40.49 rev. 10′–11′, 13′ (CTH 212.84).

No. 154 rev. 4′: LÚ.MEŠ ŠÀ-YA “the men of my heart = my favored people.”No. 159 obv. 2: [dU-n]i 1 ga-pár-t[a?-an?]? Cf. KBo 10.37 iii 54 (CTH 429.1.A).No. 160 is an unidentifiable small fragment with frequent attestation of various participial

forms of the verb uwa- ‘to come’: uwanza (sg. nom. com., l. 4′), uwantaš (sg. gen. or pl. d.-l., l. 5′), uwanti (sg. d.-l., l. 6′).

No. 161 is a ritual or festival fragment where (ll. 6′–8′) the pinecone ([ḫuw]alliš) is taken and thrown into a cup or into water ([anda p]ešš[iya-]), cf. KBo 21.25+ i 40, KUB 7.58 i 1′–3′ (// KUB 45.20 i 18′–19′), and KUB 58.6 v 11′–14′.

No. 162 l. 3′: If not a hitherto unknown lemma, mi-nu-na-u [a?] can be analyzed as minun⸗a⸗wa?, possibly sg. acc. com. of mienu- A / minu- ‘(the) mild (one)’, therefore add to CHD 3/3 (1986), 242.

No. 163 l. 3′: [I]7.MEŠ P[Ú.MEŠ].No. 164 rev. 4′: Perhaps [ma]-ši-e-u-u a-an-ta (pl. nom.-acc.neut.) as a form of mašiwant-

‘as much as’. For a similar spelling cf. ma-ši-u-u a-a⸢n⸣ (to mašiwan) in KUB 54.83 i 4′.No. 165 l. 2′: [g]inuššarriy[a-] > ginušriya- ‘to kneel’ is discussed by H. Eichner, in

Heth.u.Idg. (1979), 52–57; l. 7′: Read [ḫu]-⸢ul-p⸣a-an-za-na-za “with [em]bossing,” to be added to J. Tischler, HEG I, 281; J. Puhvel, HED 3 (1991), 425; J. Friedrich and A. Kam-menhuber, HW2 III/2 vol. 19 (2010), 701f.

No. 174 is possibly Hattian.No. 176 obv.? 3′ and 6′ can be mutually restored with the word šu-ú-i-il(-ma) ‘thread’, cf.

GADA ‘linen’ in obv.? 2′.No. 178 l. 4′: Read ⸢a⸣-ku-an-⸢na⸣-[ma?], not [tá]k-ku an-⸢na⸣-[. . .] (pace Groddek). For

aku(w)anna⸗ma in the initial position of a new paragraph see KUB 25.37+ iv 16′, KBo 14.95(+) iv! 6′.

No. 180 l. 4′: The tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch B0840l) shows ma-uš-ki-i[z-zi] rather than du-uš-ki-i[š-. . .] (Groddek).

No. 182 ll. 2′′-3′′: The formula tuk A[NA m. . .] / [. . .] iyanun “I (i.e., ‘My Majesty’ in l. 1′) made [. . .] t[o] you [PN]” would refer to a treaty.

No. 184 obv. 1′: ⸢ḫa-zi⸣-[la-aš]; obv. 2′: ⸢ŠA PA⸣ 1/2 BÁN; rev. 7′: šar-⸢x-x-i a⸣ and not ke-⸢el-di⸣-i a (pace Groddek).

No. 185 may contain a myth and ritual dealing with an eye disease; l. 1′: [iš-t]ar-⸢ak-z⸣[i] “get[s si]ck”; l. 2′: [KALAG.G]A-aš ḫar-ki-i[š?] “[intens]e whiteness,” cf. KUB 8.36 ii 17′–19′; l. 4′: Due to the mention of ⸢dIŠKUR⸣ the context suggests the mythological sphere.


No. 186 is not Hittite, but perhaps Hattian if l. 3′ contains the word zari ‘mortal, human’.No. 189 can be identified more precisely than simply being assigned to CTH 832 because

EN.SISKU[R] (obv. 4) and the Hurrian word remnants (obv. 2′–3′) hint at a Kizzuwatnaean festival / ritual.

No. 190 obv. 2, 7: The personal name here is traditionally transliterated mDU.dU (NH no. 1736) and not mDu- (pace Groddek). On the other hand, why Chr. Rüster and E. Neu, HZL, p. 152, identify mDU.dU with Duppi-Teššub is not clear.

No. 191 obv. 5: la-a[ḫ-la-aḫ-ḫi-i a-. . .] and not ⸢DUMU.MEŠ⸣ (pace Groddek), cf. lower edge 14: la-aḫ-l[a-aḫ-ḫi-i a]-iz-z[i] “he wo[rri]e[s]” which should be added to CHD 3/1, 10.

No. 193 l. 5′: [mT]a-ti-li pí-du-pí-i?-[. . .] is another example of PN + a foreign designa-tion with initial morpheme pi⸗; on this see my review in JAOS 129: 297f.; l. 6′: URUPí-iš-ka-n[a?(-). . .].

No. 195 l. 5′: [ud-da]-⸢a⸣-ar; l. 6′: ⸢a⸣-pí-⸢iz⸣ pí-iš-k[a-. . .].No. 196: I suggest the following alternative readings for l. 3′: [ma]-⸢a⸣-an AŠ U[D.x.KAM]

and l. 5′: [ma-a]-an I-NA I[TU.x.KAM].No. 199 rev. 2: [n]i?-u a-al-la-an.No. 201 l. col. 4′: [l]⸢a-ak-kar-u ⸣a-an.No. 203 is not a ritual fragment (CTH 470). The oracular term zi-i-la-aš with a unique

plene-writing (l. 3′) refers to a divination case that investigates a curse of Ayatarza ([f]A-i a-tar-za-aš ḫur-z[a?-ki?-. . .]) in l. 4′.

No. 204 ll. 4′–5′: [e]-et-ri-te-[et] / [. . .-a]z? iš-pa-i “(with?) yo[ur m]eal [. . .] be satiated,” most likely addressed to a deity.

No. 207 ll. 1′ and 5′: Note that LÚ“AZU” is written with the sign “MIŠ” (Chr. Rüster and E. Neu, HZL, no. 112).

No. 214 i 5′: 1 ⸢SILA4-an⸣; i 10′: [tar]-uḫ-zi (cf. tar-uḫ-ta in i 11′); i 11′: [A-NA BE-E]L SISKUR; i 12′: [nu BE-EL SISK]UR; i 18′: [LÚ.MEŠ GIŠ?]BALAG.DI-ma; i 32′: ḫu-pu-ri-ti-⸢x⸣(-)[. . .]; i 33′: ⸢ke⸣-el-di-i [a], and not ⸢ku-el-ki⸣ (pace Groddek); iv 14: To be read ⸢šu-pé-eš-ḫi-i a⸣?; iv 15: Read ku-⸢uz⸣-zi or KU-⸢UṢ–ṢÍ, but not ku-⸢en⸣-zi (pace Groddek); i 17′–18′: kam-mi-ir-ḫi-i a ⸢iz-zu-úr-ši-i a⸣ / ⸢x-x-uz-zu-ur⸣-ši-i a (for this word sequence see KBo 8.86 obv. 11′, KUB 45.78 obv. iii? 10); iv 19′: It is difficult to decide between the read-ings du-u-u a-⸢ar⸣-ši-i a (after Groddek) and du-nu-u a-⸢ar⸣-ši-i a as seen on the tablet photo (hethiter.net/: PhotArch B1239).

No. 217: It is suggested in KBo 47 Inhaltsverzeichnis, p. vii, that this fragment includes omens. The preserved passage deals with family matters, so it can be compared with KBo 13.71 + KUB 43.22 (CTH 573), studied by A. Ünal, “Ein Vogelorakel aus Boğazköy mit pseudo-rechtlichen Bemerkungen über Familienrecht,” AoF 25 (1998): 112–18; l. 6′: I understand the incomplete sentence [. . .]-⸢az ma-aḫ-ḫ⸣a-an šu-u a-i a-az-[zi] as “how (s)he divorce[s].” For incorrect use of šuwaya- in the sense of ‘to push off’ (instead of ‘to look’) see KBo 6.5 iv 15.

No. 218 rev. 3′: DUGDÍLIM.GAL.Ì GAL adannaš means “bowl for fat (and) cup for meal / food” and is not to be read Ì-ma-aš adannaš (pace Groddek).

No. 219 obv. 3: The rare vessel designation ⸢DUG⸣pu-uš-ša-⸢li⸣(-)[. . .] is also attested in KBo 53.288 obv. 1, see my review in JAOS 129: 305; obv. 4: Restore and read [DUGt]a-[pí-ša-ni-i]š GEŠTIN like the usage in obv. 15.

No. 220 obv. 4: [UM-MA MUNUS]ŠU.GI; obv. 8: Perhaps [kar-t]im-mi-i a-u-u a-⸢an⸣(-)[. . .], but certainly not [tar-k]um-mi- (pace Groddek).

No. 221 obv. 2′ and 7′ are parallel, thus obv. 2′ reads ti-i [a-az-zi].No. 223 iii 1′: The traces would better fit the reading [ar-š]i-⸢ta-at⸣-ḫi-iš, a form found

also in KUB 5.11 i 19, 63, iv 35′, etc.; iii 14′: [IGI-z]i [SU.MEŠ].


No. 224 includes oracular questions about a military expedition against KURAzzi (obv. 1′, 4′). For Azzi in divination texts see IBoT 1.32 obv. 1, 11, KBo 13.68 rev. 2′, KBo 23.115 obv.? 2′, KUB 18.2 rev.? iii 10′, 16′, KUB 22.62:16′; obv. 3′: [12 ŠÀ] DIR.

No. 225 obv.? 2: Perhaps [šal?]-u-i-ni-in (unlikely x-i-x KUR KÚR with Groddek); obv.? 4: Reading ⸢ḫu-u a-ra⸣-an-ni-iš is also conceivable, a rare bird name which appears also in KBo 32.123 obv.? 8′ and 10′.

No. 226 l. 5′: Read and translate [A].ŠÀ pariyan “across the [fi]eld.”No. 227 iii 5′ (+ no. 223 iii 12′): m[A]r-[ma]-⸢ta-an-ta⸣, cf. no. 235 rt. col. 7′; iv 8′: Alter-

natively read [i-pá]⸢r-u ⸣a-aš-ši-iš-kán; iv 17′′: I prefer here [ḫa-an-da-i]t-ta-at “[confirm]ed” over Groddek’s [pé-eš-ši-i a-a]t-ta-at.

No. 228 obv. 5′: One suspects here a defective spelling ki-<ik->ke-eš-š[a-an-ta(-). . .?] of kikkiš- ‘to become, happen’ (preceded by [. . .]⸢x⸣.ḪI.A).

No. 229 obv. 3′: [EG]⸢IR-an⸣ ša-r[a-a]; obv. 7′: To be restored as pret. pl. 1 pé-en-nu-m[e-en] (cf. ú-e-ku-en in rev. 14′); lower edge 13′: Read ⸢ku-uš⸣-ta-i a-aš-ši(-)[. . .], not ⸢ku-it⸣-ta- (pace Groddek) because the same form is extant in KBo 50.252:11′.

No. 230 l. 9′: [. . .]-⸢x IZI? TI8MUŠEN tar⸣-[liš] ⸢ti-an-z⸣[a?] “[on the?] fire(-side?) the

eagle is perched tar[liš]”; l. 10′: ⸢ma-an na-ak-kiš?-ta⸣ “If it (would have) bothered”; l. 14′: [. . .-a]š GIN-ri (= iyattari); ll. 15′ and 16′: ⸢„ti-ta-aš⸣ is a hapax and the subject of the verb tuwarniya- ‘to break’ in l. 15′.

No. 231 l. 5′: [a-l]i-la-a-aš-š[a?] (cf. l. 6′: a-l[i-. . .]); l. 7′: [zi-l]⸢a-u ⸣a-an.No. 235 rt. col. 4′: Read ⸢ar-ḫa⸣ and not SIG5

!-za! (pace Groddek); rt. col. 5′: ⸢a-li-li-aš-ma-kán⸣; rt. col. 7′: Groddek’s restored form m⸢Ar-ma⸣-[ta-an-ša] is obviously taken from KUB 5.14:3′ (see NH no. 137), where, however, one should read the personal name as mAr-ma-ta-an-ta.

No. 236 l. 4′: 2 šal-u-e-ni-i[š] (or -u[š]), pl. nom. or acc. form of šalwini- (a bird name in ornithomancy) and syllabified here for the first time as o-u-e-o, is to be added to CHD Š/1, 110.

No. 239 is a vow with many unique and glossenkeil words including, „parriyalla-, „par-riyalli-, „za-am-mu-ra-u?-m[a?-. . .], „purani- (ii 3′, 4′, 12′, iii 6′, 8′, 14′), etc.; iii 1′: Read MUNUS.LUGAL-u [a]-za; iii 4′: The restored reading Kumman[ni] here (see above), fol-lowed by mKaššū in iii 5′, is not unexpected since this town appears frequently in the vow texts in connection with historical personalities from the period of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa (cf. KUB 56.15 ii 25 with mention of mPiyamaradu ii 25, 28); iii 8′: nu-u a-kán [ka]-a-aš [„]pu-ra-⸢ni⸣-iš (cf. iii 6′); iii 14′: [„]pu-ra-ni-iš.

No. 240 l. edge 1: DINGIR.MAḪ-a[n]; l. edge 4: [m]⸢a-ni-i a-aḫ-zi⸣.No. 241 obv.? 1′: Restore [me]-ma-⸢al⸣; obv.? 12′: The divine name [dUškuwattaššiš] can

be seen with a phonetic variation also as [dWaškuwattaššiš]; rev.? 11′–15′: For similar list-ings of deities see KUB 43.30 iii 8′–12′, KUB 58.38 i 13′–15′, 26′–28′, ii 17′–19′, and KBo 11.32 obv. 34–38, on which see also O. Carruba in GsKlíma (1994), 14ff. The formation [kat]ti⸗šši⸗ma⸗šši “beside it, with it (together)” with a second and redundant ⸗ši is frequently present here and elsewhere (KBo 11.32 obv. 31, KUB 58.38 i 11′, 23′, ii 17′, etc.). On the use of double pronouns in a morpheme chain cf. A. Kammenhuber in FsLaroche (1979), 189.

No. 244 ll. 2′–4′, part of an invocation or evocation, are clearly to be interpreted as “O you god, eat and drink, be satisfied; so give to the royal family such and such a favorable / desirable thing!” Why should this fragment then be assigned to CTH 617 (Groddek and Konkordanz)?

No. 245: Due to the lexeme [za]-an-ki-la-tar ‘[f ]ine, [pe]nalty’ in l. 7′ this fragment is hardly a festival text (thus, not to CTH 670 as indicated in the Inhaltsverzeichnis, p. viii), but rather an oracular text or a vow; l. 6′: [A-NA?] É.DINGIR-LIM pé-eš-t[a?]; l. 9′: EZ[EN4 . . .].


No. 246: Read and restore obv. 1′: ḪUR.SA[G.MEŠ] (cf. rev. 4′); obv. 2′: NA[4 . . .]; obv. 3′: ⸢DINGIR.M⸣[EŠ].

No. 247 is a festival description (CTH 634?) with Hattian passages (rev. vi? 12′–13′). After parallel KUB 10.99 i 17′–23′ read and restore vi? 2′–6′ as follows: [. . . iš-ka4-r]u-ḫi-it an-da / [e-ep]-zi § [LÚSAGI.A 1 NINDA.GUR]4.RA EM-ṢA / [a-aš-ka-za ú-da-a-i NINDA.GUR4.R]A.KU7 LUGAL-i / [pa-a-i LUGAL-uš] pár-ši-i a.

No. 248 l. 4′: I-YA-TUM(-MA) is the Akkadian pronoun jâtum (fem. pl.) ‘mine’; l. 8′: al-pa-r[a-. . .] can be compared only with hapax al-pa-ra-mi-it-ti-ta in KBo 3.21 ii 20, whose meaning is obscure; l. 9′: MA-AN-DA-TI-TI-ká[n?] has an odd formation (plural?), but doubt-less refers to Akkadian mandattu ‘tribute’.

No. 257 v 3′: One expects here the common cultic expression [LÚ.MEŠa-ri-i]š LÚ.MEŠa-ru-⸢uš⸣ “colleagues / friends of each other.”

No. 258 ll. 3′–5′ are to be restored after the similar passage in KUB 20.96 iii 15′–17′ (CTH 635.2) as follows: [ḪUR.SAGDa-a-ḫa-a]n-na a-ku-u a-an-[zi] / [GIŠ dINANNA.TUR LÚ.MEŠḫal-l]i-i a-re-eš / [SÌR-RU LÚALAN.ZU9 me-m]⸢a-a-i⸣.

No. 260 rev. 2′: [a-pé-e-d]a-ni-i a A-NA 1 GIŠBANŠ[UR], cf. obv. 9′ (likewise partially preserved).

No. 263 obv.? l. col. 2′–5′ are parallel to KBo 19.161 i 15′ff. (CTH 738.I.2) and KBo 19.163 iii 28f. (CTH 738.I.1.A); obv.? l. col. 3′: restore [GIŠBANŠUR]-i (after KBo 19.161 i 16′, KBo 19.163 iii 28); obv.? l. col. 7′–8′ may contain the Hattian taššanina-hymn sung by the zintuḫi-women: [MUNUS.MEŠzi-in-t]u-[ḫi-. . . S]ÌR-RU / [. . . ta-aš]-š[a-an-ni-in-n]a?; obv.? rt. col. 5′: read [LÚ] GIŠGIDRU and not [a-a]p-pa (pace Groddek); rev.? 5′: [ki-i]š-ša-an; rev.? 7′: [MUNUS.MEŠz]⸢i-in⸣-[tu-ḫi-. . .].

No. 264 obv.? 2′: lu-me-e-n⸢i⸣ is also found in the duplicate KUB 28.79:3′, which I had listed in HWHT 623 as a Hattian word. Now I doubt this, since the identical lemma appears here in a purely Hittite context. Beyond this, KUB 28.79:5′ has the predicate tu4-me-e-ni “we (will) take,” hence I wonder if lumēni is likewise a pres. pl. 1 form of a hitherto unat-tested verb, or even of lā- ‘to unbind, etc.’ (i.e., for regular laweni “we untie, release,” cf. daweni ~ tumeni to dā- ‘take’ which appears in the same text); obv.? 4′: Following KUB 28.79:4′, restore the whole sentence [(ták-k)]u É-ir ku-iš-k[(i ú-i)-te-ez-zi] “If someone bu[ilds] a house”; obv.? 5′: 1 du-u a-a[r?-. . .] may be a noun, but clearly not a personal name (pace Groddek); obv.? 9′: Based on KUB 28.79:6′, read the sentence [(nu)] LUGAL-a[(n É-ir-za 6 PA Z)Ì.DA . . .] “and [we give(?)] from the king’s house six PARISU-measures of [. . .]-fl[our].”

No. 265 may be assigned to the (ḫ)išuwa-festival (CTH 628) because of [dKal]iyara URUKizzuw[atn]a (l. 5′, cf. KUB 55.58 rev. 12′–13′) and the cult term [la]ḫanniuš šipanti (l. 6′, cf. KBo 15.61 i 14′, 19′; KUB 46.47 obv. 18′–19′, 20′, rev. 14, 16, etc.); l. 9′: Read ap-pa-i “is finished” rather than tup-pa-i (Groddek).

No. 266 obv. 18′: gi-nu-u a-al-li TA-ḪA-[AP-ŠI] ⸢GE6⸣ “black knee-strap, garter?,” where ginuwalli- “pertaining to the knee” is attested for the first time; obv. 22′: 3 GIŠt[(i-i-pa-aš 2 GIŠku-u)š-ku-uš-šu-ul?-li?] (restorations from the duplicate KBo 46.258:6′) “three tipa-imple-ments and two mo[rtars].” In Hittite texts, GIŠtipa- is mostly listed with other (kitchen) imple-ments and regarded as a ‘spoon’ or ‘ladle’. That the meaning ‘spoon’ is unlikely, however, is suggested by two facts: Firstly, GIŠtipa- is never mentioned in a meal scene where it would serve for eating, and secondly, GIŠtipa- seems to be a quite large tool—at least bigger than a spoon—since we are told that some fruits are poured onto the tipa-implement (KUB 43.60 iv 8′–9′) and immersed in fine oil with it (KBo 11.32 obv. 21). For such purposes, rather, a ladle would come into consideration.


No. 267 obv. 4′ and 5′: Restore [š]i-la-al-lu-ḫi(-)[. . .] either to Hurrian šilalluḫi (E. Laroche, GLH [1980], 231) or, less probably, to the feminine proper name fŠilalluḫi (NH no. 1148); obv. 7′: [a-pé(?)-e-da-n]i-pát UD-ti.

No. 269 contains Hurrian offering phrases, thus it is from the Kizzuwatnaean cult milieu. Ll. 2′–3′ can be securely restored as [DINGIR.MEŠ-na ḫé-i a-ru-un-na aš]-du-uḫ-ḫi-[na] / [DINGIR.MEŠ-na] ku-ul-lu-[pa-te-na], see KUB 27.1 iii 4–5 (CTH 712.A).

No. 274: Should this text be regarded as Hittite or Akkadian? For example, l. 3′: A word such as (-)ke-e-ri-i a is hardly Hittite, thus [. . . NA]-KE-E-RI-YA to Akkadian nakiru ‘enemy’?; l. 6′: Read Hittite e-kir or alternatively Akkadian E-PIŠ.

No. 276 l. 2′: [x]-TA.ÀM; l. 4′: [GIŠ?]MAR; l. 5′: a-da-an-na-[aš?]; l. 6′: u a-ar-nu-m[a-aš?].No. 278 l. 5′: If one considers reading [dPí-ri]-in-ki[r8] (on which see G. Beckman,

Ktèma 24 [1999]: 25–29) this fragment is of a religious nature.No. 288 l. 3′ has the cult term KASKAL-šaz ḫuittiya- ‘to draw (a deity) from the road’,

see CHD P/1 (1994), 73a.No. 290 (CTH 760 or 761) is almost illegible, containing Luwian passages with the for-

mula 12-tāti ḫappišāti “with twelve limbs” (F. Starke, StBoT 31 [1990], 110f.), similar to KUB 35.43 iii 5′–9′ (CTH 760.II.1.A) and KUB 35.24+ obv. 5′–7′ (CTH 761.8). Ll. 1′–5′ read: [an-d]⸢a a⸣p-pí-iš-k[i-iz-zi] / [ . . .] (§) [na-a-ú-u ]a-ti-⸢i a-ta x-x-x⸣ [. . .] / [. . .] na-⸢a-ú⸣-u a-ti-i a-⸢ta⸣ [. . .] / [. . .] 12-[t]⸢a-a⸣-ti ḫa-a⸢p⸣-[pí-ša-a-ti].

No. 291 l. 3′: The proper name is perhaps to be restored as ⸢m⸣Zu-uz-zu-u-u a-l[a]. For the ending suggested here, cf. mZuwalla (NH no. 1579), mGazzuwalla (NH no. 563a); l. 8′: [ḫa-an]-⸢t⸣e-ez-zi-az?

No. 292 l. 3′: The verbal form pres. sg.1 ḫa-la-a-mi of ḫalai- ‘to set in motion’ is attested for the first time here; cited by N. Oettinger, Stammbildung (1979), 479, as an attestation in the then-unpublished text 479/w.

No. 299 (MS) obv. 1: For the proper name here see mŠa-i a-nu-uš in the letter KBo 18.57a obv. 8′, likewise written in MH script.

No. 300: Both the Hurrian divine name in dative ⸢d⸣Ni-ga-lu-i a (l. col. 1′) and ⸢2? MUŠEN⸣.[ḪI.A] (rt. col. 1′) refer to a Kizzuwatnaean ritual with bird offerings.

No. 303 appears to be a ritual about or around a building. Rev. 1′: Perhaps [A-NA] ⸢É-TI⸣ an-d[a-an pa-iz-zi], cf. rev. 5′.

No. 306 l. 2′: KUR-eaš MUNUS.LUGA[L] “Quee[n] of the Land” would refer to an invocation or a prayer addressed to a goddess, cf. dUTU URUPÚ-na⸗za GAŠAN–YA KUR-eaš ḫūmandaš MUNUS.LUGAL-aš in Puduḫepa’s prayer KUB 21.27 i 3.

No. 307 l. 7′: DUG⸢ku-ga⸣-n[i?-. . .] may be identified as DUGku(n)kanili-, a vessel proper to Ištanuwan festivals CTH 772 (KUB 32.123 ii 17′, 46′, 49′, 51′).

No. 309 is a MH fragment with many hapax legomena, unusual lexica, and spellings: [za?]-mi-in-ku-u-ur (l. 2′; for zamankur ‘beard’, another case of a ~ i in the Hittite nominal system?), ni-ni-in-ke-eš-šar (l. 3′), ši-i-la (l. 4′), dEn-zi-⸢li⸣ (l. 10′, which stands for usual dAnzili, see G. Wilhelm, StBoT 52 [2010], 341). The repetitive predicate ḫa-a-ar-[aš?-ta?] “plow[ed?]” (ll. 1′–4′) and the unique narration of the text bear a strong resemblance to MH KBo 34.29 + KBo 34.27 (CTH 370.I.5.A), hence they may belong to the same composition or even to the same tablet.

No. 311 is clearly Hurrian (cf. V. Haas, OLZ 101: 308) with only one recognizable word in obv. rt. col. 3′: tar-šu-u a-n[i] or -a[n-ni] ‘humanity’.

Documents

On Recent Cuneiform Editions of Hittite Fragments (II). (Review of: H. Otten et alii, KBo 47)