Luwili. Hittite-Luwian Ritual Texts Attributed to Puriyanni, Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫḫi (CTH 758–763).
Volume II: Discussion and Glossary

Ilya Yakubovich, Alice Mouton

► To cite this version:

Ilya Yakubovich, Alice Mouton. Luwili. Hittite-Luwian Ritual Texts Attributed to Puriyanni, Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫḫi (CTH 758–763). Volume II: Discussion and Glossary. Harrassowitz Verlag, 72/2, 2023, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, 978-3-447-11995-5. 10.13173/9783447119955.2. hal-04213335

HAL Id: hal-04213335

https://hal.science/hal-04213335v1

Submitted on 4 Oct 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten

Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz,
von Elisabeth Rieken und Daniel Schwemer

Band 72,2

Ilya Yakubovich and Alice Mouton

With a contribution by Laura Puértolas Rubio

Luwili

Hittite-Luwian Ritual Texts Attributed to Puriyanni,
Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi (CTH 758–763)

Volume II: Discussion and Glossary

2023

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden
YAKUBOVICH AND MOUTON

LUWILI

VOLUME 2

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten

Herausgegeben im Auftrag
der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz,
von Elisabeth Rieken und Daniel Schwemer
Band 72,2

Ilya Yakubovich and Alice Mouton

With an Appendix by Laura Puértolas Rubio

Luwili

Hittite-Luwian Ritual Texts
Attributed to Puriyanni, Kuwattalla and Šilalluhi
(CTH 758–763)

Volume 2:
Discussion and Glossary

2023

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
Gefördert durch die Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, im Rahmen
des vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn/Berlin, dem Ministerium für
Bildung, Wissenschaft, Weiterbildung und Kultur Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz, dem Hessischen
Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Wiesbaden, und dem Bayerischen Staatsministerium
für Wissenschaft und Kunst, München, finanzierten Akademienprogramms.

This project was sponsored by the ANR (France, ANR-17-FRAL-0007-01) and
DFG (Germany, YA 472/2-1).

The DOI of Volume 1 is: 10.13173/9783447119955.1

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

This publication is licensed under the Creative Commons licence CC BY-SA 4.0.

Further information: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from
other sources (identified by a source citation) such as charts, illustrations, photographs and
text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet
at https://www.dnb.de/.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website
https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/

© by authors.

Published by Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2023

ISSN 0585-5853

eISSN 2702-0002

DOI series 10.13173/0585-5853

ISBN 978-3-447-11995-5

eISBN 978-3-447-39387-4

DOI 10.13173/9783447119955.2
CONTENTS

<table><tr><td>1. Hittite-Luwian Ritual Texts and the Method of their Study</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2. Identifying Joins and Assembling Tablet Series</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>3. Structure of the Kuwattalla Tradition</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>4. Kuwattalla Tradition and Tunnawiya Tradition</td><td>271</td></tr><tr><td>5. Kuwattalla Tradition and Maštigga Tradition</td><td>289</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix I. The Luwian Proleptic Construction</td><td>313</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix II. SISKUR and EN SISKUR in Hittite and Luwian</td><td>331</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix III. Deities and Impurity in the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions by Laura Puértolas Rubio</td><td>349</td></tr><tr><td>Glossary</td><td>371</td></tr><tr><td>Bibliography</td><td>453</td></tr><tr><td>Indices</td><td>478</td></tr></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.V

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.V

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
# 1. HITTITE-LUWIAN RITUAL TEXTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR STUDY

## 1.1 CONTEXTUALIZING LUWIAN INCANTATIONS

The Luwian language belongs to the Anatolian group of the Indo-European language family and thus constitutes a close relative of Hittite. In the early second millennium BCE it was spoken in the central part of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). Subsequent Luwian migrations were connected with the expansion of the Kingdom of Hattuša (also known as the Hittite Kingdom), where Hittite was the socially dominant language, while the Luwian speakers were more numerous. Luwian is the only language of the Anatolian hieroglyphic inscriptions (van den Hout 2021, 21), and it is also attested in the cuneiform archives of Hattuša, mainly through incantations embedded in Hittite ritual texts. Furthermore, isolated Luwian words are embedded in Hittite texts of almost all genres, being frequently marked by a special sign, known as *Glossenkeil* / “Gloss Wedge” (van den Hout 2007, 226–51). Finally, Luwian names dominate the Hattuša onomastics in the 14th–13th centuries BCE (Weeden 2013a). After the abandonment of Hattuša, Luwian remained the main language of the so-called Neo-Hittite states (also known as Syro-Hittite states and Syro-Anatolian states), situated in southwestern Anatolia and northern Syria. These states continued to produce Luwian texts in the Anatolian hieroglyphic script until about 700 BCE (Bryce 2012). The closest relatives of Luwian are the so-called Luwic languages (Lycian A, Lycian B, Carian, and arguably also Sidetic and Pisidian), all of which are attested in the alphabetic transmission.

Formerly a relatively insignificant appendix to Hittitology, Luwian studies quickly developed into a research field in its own right following the progress in the understanding of Luwian texts. Historical linguists have realized that Luwian is as important as Hittite for reconstructing the Anatolian proto-language (Melchert 1994), and sometimes its data can contribute to refining our reconstruction of Early Indo-European (Rieken 2005; Yakubovich 2008). Historians have learned that the study of Luwian inscriptions can shed light on events that are not reflected in other kinds of written sources. As a recent example, one can mention the discovery of a number of stelae with Luwian inscriptions emanating from the previously unknown north Syrian kingdom of Walastina/Palastina, which was created in the wake of the Sea People migrations and whose name evokes the biblical Philistines of southern Levant (Hawkins 2011; Weeden 2013b). The contacts between Luwian and the neighboring languages can be explored in order to reconstruct the sociolinguistic situation in Bronze Age Anatolia (Yakubovich 2010a), while the study of Phoenician and Luwian bilingual inscriptions is conducive to advancing a new scenario of how the Phoenician alphabet was transmitted to the Greeks (Yakubovich 2015b).

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.001

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
The decipherment of Luwian inscriptions began even before that of Hittite. The
biscriptal (cuneiform and hieroglyphic) seal of Tarkašnawa, King of Mira (called
Tarkondemos in ancient publications), allowed A.H. Sayce to provide the correct in-
terpretation of the logograms for king (REX) and land (REGIO) as early as 1880. In the
early 20th century, the close genetic relationship between Luwian and the better-
understood Hittite language was conducive to determining the value of a number of
Luwian lexemes. The extensive Luwian and Phoenician bilingual of KARATEPE, dis-
covered in 1947, provided a solid confirmation of many hypothetical readings offered
in the preceding decades. Further progress in this field was initially hampered by the
false assumption that the Luwian cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts reflect two differ-
ent Anatolian languages (the latter was known then as “Hieroglyphic Hittite”), until
the revised values of several key hieroglyphic signs (the so-called New Readings;
Hawkins, Morpurgo-Davies, and Neumann 1974) narrowed down the difference be-
tween Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic Luwian and facilitated the comparison
across corpora. The key find that paved the way to the New Readings was the dis-
covery of short matching inscriptions in cuneiform and Anatolian hieroglyphs, which
were found on vessels excavated at the Urartian archaeological site of Altintepe.
Nowadays, our knowledge of Luwian is continuously improved through the discovery
of new hieroglyphic monuments and the publication of new cuneiform fragments.

At the same time, a large number of Luwian texts have defied interpretation for a
long time. This is particularly clear in the instance of Luwian fragments in cuneiform
transmission embedded in Hittite texts. Although their full corpus was published in
transliteration more than thirty years ago (Starke 1985), the majority of the relevant
fragments still lack a full edition with translation and commentary. When philologi-
cal treatments of substantial fragments become available, more frequently than not
they serve subsidiary purposes, such as elucidating meanings of certain problematic
lexemes (e.g. Poetto 1997; Melchert 2003b) or addressing the intricacies of the Luwian
supposedly poetic language (e.g. Melchert 2006; Francia 2014). An objective difficulty
in studying Hittite cuneiform texts with Luwian insertions concerns their genres.
Most of the available Luwian texts in cuneiform transmission represent incantations
preserved for the sake of their ritual efficacy. This restriction is due to the fact that
cuneiform scribes normally did not treat Luwian as a literary language and used it
mostly for rendering direct speech citations (real or invented). At the same time, it
would be an exaggeration to say that substantial progress in the interpretation of
Luwian cuneiform texts is impossible for linguistic reasons in the present state of our
knowledge. The best counterargument here is the existence of Melchert’s 1993 dic-
tionary, whose revised version is now in preparation, and the *Annotated Corpus of
Luwian Texts* (see Section 1.3), where the majority of Luwian words occurring in
these fragments have been provided with contextually determined meanings.<fnref n="1" />

<footnote n="1">1 The situation with the hieroglyphic texts is somewhat different, since the majority of them have been translated with comments in Hawkins 1995 and Hawkins 2000. Yet, although the efforts of J. David Hawkins brought about a true breakthrough in our understanding of Luwian hieroglyphic texts, these editions still cannot be regarded as definitive. It should be noted that a new volume currently planned by Hawkins will contain a full re-edition of all the Luwian texts of the Bronze Age published in Hawkins 1995.</footnote>
One potential way toward improving our understanding of Luwian passages em-
bedded in Hittite ritual texts is the analysis of Luwian religious discourse and reli-
gious jargon. In the spirit of Hoffman 1993, one has to accept that every type of pro-
fessional jargon serves the double purpose of transmitting and organizing human
knowledge. Therefore, the linguistic and philological study of religious texts cannot
be separated from determining their pragmatics within the context of their authors'
religious worldviews. This fact has practical consequences in the fields of Assyriol-
ogy and Hittitology, where it has been widely acknowledged for a long time that the
work on religious ceremonies requires a different set of qualifications from, say, the
study of economic documents. It was less obvious in the field of Luwian Studies as
long as the linguistic understanding of Luwian texts had not yet reached an advanced
stage. We believe, however, that the time is now ripe for further specialization in the
interpretation of Luwian religious discourse, which would go beyond the combina-
tory and etymological methods that define the work of linguists and philologists.
Such methods must now be complemented with a functionally oriented approach,
which should emphasize how individual elements of Luwian incantations interplay
with the general structure of the ritual texts and other texts that they belong to.

The way one should approach the pragmatics of Luwian religious texts depends to
a large extent on whether one can assume the existence of a uniform “Luwian relig-
ion”, which can be collected, like a puzzle, from individual pieces. A consequence of
this assumption would be the possibility and the necessity of studying all the Luwian
religious fragments as one corpus, segregating it from the corpus of Hittite religious
texts. In our opinion, such an approach has little to recommend itself, since there is
no evidence that the speakers of the Luwian language considered themselves as a
monolithic ethnic group in the historical period. We would rather stand by the phi-
losophy of the book *Luwian Identities* (Mouton, Rutherford, and Yakubovich 2013),
whose title implies the existence of diverse forms of cultural expression, including re-
ligious life, in various areas inhabited by Luwian speakers. Furthermore, quasi-
bilinguals teach us that the same or similar religious concepts could be simultane-
ously expressed in Luwian and other languages. Therefore, we submit that a key to
the improved interpretation of Luwian religious texts is their comparison with better
understood texts in different languages reflecting similar religious traditions.<fnref n="2" />

There are at least three geographic regions, where the available religious texts in
the Luwian language are known to reflect the interaction with known non-Luwian
population groups. In Bronze Age central Anatolia, which constituted the core of the
Kingdom of Hattuša, the Luwian texts reflecting state cult are likely to have been im-
pregnated by Hittite and Hattian religious views (see Yakubovich 2010a, 248–60). The
Luwian passages emanating from Kizzuwadna, a principality in Bronze Age south-
eastern Anatolia, are expected to reflect the religious traditions of the mixed Luwian
and Hurrian milieu (Hutter 2003, 250–54 and Strauß 2006). A controversial problem

<footnote n="2">2 Certainly, the comparative study of different religious traditions may yet reveal non-trivial similarities between various areas populated by the speakers of Luwian or closely related languages (for one recent example, see Mouton and Rutherford 2013). Nonetheless, we would like to make it explicit that this approach is not a focus of the present book.</footnote>
associated with texts describing Kizzuwadna rituals is the degree of their manipula-
tion at the hands of Hattuša scribes (Melchert 2013b). The Hittite-Luwian ritual texts
relating to the Lower Land in central Anatolia show numerous affinities with the
Kizzuwadna rituals, to the point that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between
the two. Finally, the religious discourse of Late Luwian texts from Early Iron Age
Syria was not immune to the influence of the local West Semitic cults but also dis-
plays a progressive adaptation to the Neo-Assyrian patterns. One of the typical fea-
tures of Luwian religious texts from this zone is their frequent reference to the Syrian
goddess Kubaba (Hawkins 1981). Accordingly, scholars must operate with different
sets of comparisons. For Luwian texts from Hattuša and its vicinity, these are primar-
ily compositions in Hittite, and secondarily those in Hattian and Palaic, two poorly
understood languages of Bronze Age central Anatolia.<fnref n="3" /> For Kizzuwadna, these are
both Hittite and Hurrian ritual texts, although the degree of our understanding of the
latter group varies to a great extent. In the instance of Iron Age Syria, these are royal
inscriptions in Akkadian, Urartian, and West Semitic languages.<fnref n="4" />

The advantage of comparing texts in various languages that come from the same or adjacent areas and reflect common religious traditions is the likelihood that they will reveal non-trivial similarities in the use of formulae. In order to make this idea intuitively clear it would suffice to refer to the structural similarity in Christian liturgies deployed in various language communities, even if they reflect different religious denominations. From the linguistic viewpoint, the comparison between similar formulae is almost as fruitful for the interpretation of poorly understood languages as is the analysis of bi- and multilingual inscriptions. On the other hand, the initial search for formulaic parallels does not always necessitate the use of primary sources in their original languages. Thus, given that the majority of Hittite ritual texts have already been provided with translations, a quick search within this corpus for the relevant concepts can yield much-needed comparative information in a reasonable amount of time.<fnref n="5" /> Another time-sparing strategy is turning to standard ancillary tools,

<footnote n="3">3 See the use of a Hittite narrative passage for elucidating a parallel Luwian narrative embedded within the same text of the Tauriša tradition (see the following section). As a further application of textual comparison pertaining to the same areal cluster, see the use of Hittite incantations for interpreting their counterpart in Palaic transmission (Eichner 2010, Sasseville and Yakubovich 2018).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 One example of how formulaic comparison was successfully applied to the study of Luwian is the use of Neo-Assyrian parallels for the interpretation of “prosperity clauses” in the inscriptions of Neo-Hittite rulers (Hawkins 1986). Another is the recent identification of the topos of a god granting a mighty weapon to a king in Late Luwian texts supported through its comparison with a parallel topos in Neo-Assyrian and Urartian texts (Yakubovich 2019, 549–50). These examples can be mentioned here only in passing, since the Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Iron Age generally remain beyond the scope of the present book.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Drawing yet another analogy from the study of Luwian hieroglyphic texts, one can search for parallels to Iron Age Luwian collocations not only with the help of philological editions, such as Tropper 1993 for West Semitic texts from Sam'al or Salvini 2008 for Urartian, but also initially relying on competent translations, such as Grayson 1991 and 1996 for the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions of the relevant period. This strategy played a key role in the identification of Neo-Assyrian counterparts to Late Luwian passages referring to the royal weapon (see the previous footnote).</footnote>
such as Haas 2003, and using specific ritual items as keywords in a quest for potential textual parallels.

Yet this approach to textual contacts has not played a decisive role in the analysis of Luwian religious texts, at least in the last fifty years of their study.<fnref n="6" /> Many textual comparisons proposed thus far involve formulaic similarities between fairly distant traditions, as is, for example, the case of an attempt to compare Luwian and Vedic incantations (Garrett and Kurke 1994). In other cases, scholars endeavored to compare collocations occurring in Luwian songs embedded in religious ceremonies from Istanuwa and the Homeric epic (Watkins 1995, 144–51). There were even attempts to establish relationships between Luwian songs and Lesbian lyric poetry (Teffeteller 2013). Whatever be the merit of such approaches for the history of religion, they are unlikely to trigger a breakthrough in the interpretation of the Luwian texts. From the sociological viewpoint, a partial explanation for this trend is the predominance of Indo-Europeanans, as opposed to Near Eastern scholars, among the people involved in the study of the Luwian cuneiform texts.

The study of contacts among religious texts across linguistic boundaries certainly plays a more important role in Hittitology. One trend here is the focus on partially matching concepts, such as ritual purity or blood sacrifice in Hittite rituals and the Bible (see e.g. Feder 2011; Christiansen 2013).<fnref n="7" /> In other instances, modern comparativists tackle the migrations of whole literary genres between Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Greece (Metcalf 2015; Bachvarova 2016). The study of parallels in Hittite-Luwian ritual texts also has place in modern Hittitological research but usually contributes to the elucidation of Hittite rather than Luwian passages (Torri 2010; Pisaniello 2015). Since the Hittite language can be considered fully understood, this research line has limited impact on linguistic interpretation beyond the specific passages treated. Research papers that directly address parallels between religious formulae in Luwian and Semitic languages tend to be written by scholars with a background in Semitic but not in Luwian (Pardee 2009; Sanders 2012). As a result, more frequently than not, they likewise tend to rely on the existing Luwian interpretations in order to clarify the Semitic idioms. The closest approximation to the methodology of the Luwili Project is the systematic analysis of Hittite and Luwian curse formulae in Reichardt 1998, but this dissertation concentrated on the better-understood formulae and therefore its impact on linguistic interpretation likewise remains modest.

This brief background survey is in no means exhaustive. It has the sole purpose of conjecturing that the interpretation of Luwian passages embedded in Hittite religious texts can yet be advanced through textual comparison. Naturally, the confirmation of this conjecture can be achieved only through a philological edition of the relevant texts.

<footnote n="6">6 The last reservation is necessary, since the pioneering work of Emmanuel Laroche on the study of Luwian incantations in the 1950s did rely on intertextual comparison to a significant extent—see e.g. Laroche 1955, Laroche 1958, and Section 1.3 below.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 However, criticism of Feder’s comparisons seems in order, since they have been overstretched by him; see Mouton 2014b.</footnote>
## 1.2 DELINEATING THE CORPUS

The purpose of the present book is an edition of the Hittite-Luwian ritual texts belonging to the Puriyanni tradition (CTH 758) and Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 759–763). The Puriyanni ritual texts, in as much as we can elucidate their purpose, are devoted to the purification of the house, while the rituals attributed to the female attendant Kuwattalla and/or the Old Woman Šilalluḫi address the person’s defilement. This said, there are several similarities between the two traditions that warrant their conjoined study. Thus, we shall see that both traditions feature manipulations with the taluppi-object (a lump of dough) and the characteristic merisms deployed for the classification of miasma ‘past or present/future, internal or external, of the living or the dead ...’ (Mouton and Yakubovich 2019).

Nothing is known about the prosopography of the male ritual practitioner Puriyanni, who does not appear to be mentioned outside the corpus of texts inspired by his ritual practice. In contrast, a person named Kuwattalla and carrying the title MUNUSSUHUR.LÁ ‘female attendant’ is also known as the recipient of the land grant issued by Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal (Rüster and Wilhelm 2012, 231–44). The assumption that she represents the same person as the performer of the rituals is supported not only by the identity of names and titles but also by the paleographic compatibility of the earliest tablets of the Kuwattalla tradition with their dating to the early 14th-century BCE, the reign time of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal. If Kuwattalla was indeed active at the royal court of Hattuša, this localization has non-trivial repercussions for the development of the Kuwattalla tradition, as we shall see in the subsequent chapters. Our present task is specifying how this corpus (and that of the related Puriyanni tradition) is different from other Hittite cuneiform texts with Luwian insertions, which are not systematically treated in this book.

A number of Luwian passages occur in the texts of Hittite festivals emanating from Hattuša or its vicinity. The famous examples comprise KUB 35.133+, which belongs to the festival text mentioning the ašuša(tal)la-people (CTH 665),<fnref n="8" /> as well as fragments featuring alternating Luwian and Palaic insertions, which belong to the festivals for the god Zaparwa or other members of Palaic pantheons (CTH 750–754). But the largest group of festival texts with Luwian insertions address the celebrations that are associated with the towns of Ištanuwa and Gallupiya (CTH 771–773). The Hittite festivals are different from privately sponsored rituals in that, prototypically, they are performed periodically and lack attributions to specific performers.<fnref n="9" /> The description of the Ištanuwa festivals features repeated indications that the participants

<footnote n="8">8 It is worth a passing mention that the Hittite-Luwian fragments currently listed under CTH 768 “Luwian mythological fragments” can also be classified as containing the description of festivals, since they feature references to various gods and cult sites that can be venerated in the context of such celebrations. Unfortunately, the fragments grouped under CTH 768 contain no incipits or colophons, and therefore the confirmation of the proposed hypothesis requires their full edition—which cannot be accomplished in the context of this monograph.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 For a more detailed discussion of the distinction between rituals and festivals in the Anatolian milieu, see Appendix I.</footnote>
sing (*sîr-RU*) the Luwian words. The corpus of Hittite festival texts is now comprehensively studied within the framework of the multi-year project *Das Corpus der hethitischen Festrituale: staatliche Verwaltung des Kultwesens im spätbronzezeitlichen Anatolien*, sponsored by the Mainz Academy of Science and Literature. It is expected that the Hittite festival texts with Luwian insertions will also be addressed as a part of this project.

The Hittite-Luwian fragments collected under CTH 764–766 are subsumed here under the label of the Tauriša tradition.<fnref n="10" /> They belong to the genre of conjurations (Hittite *hukmaiš* or Akkadographic *šipat*, as opposed to the Sumerograms *siskur*/*sîskur* and *ezen*₄ used for ‘rituals’ and ‘festivals’ respectively in Hittite texts).<fnref n="11" /> The texts belonging to this genre do not mention a specific performer; they are performed on particular occasions, which in the instances of CTH 764–766 usually have to do with pregnancy or children’s diseases. The beneficiaries of these performances are not called *en siskur* (lit. ‘patron of the ritual’), but are rather known as *dumu.nam.lú.U19.lu* ‘human child’ / ‘human being’. Furthermore, the conjurations of this group feature a quite peculiar divine triad—namely, the Sun-god Tiwad, the goddess Kamrušepa (probably an adaptation of Hattian *Katahzifuri*), and their offspring, the Tutelary God of Tauriša. While the Luwian Sun-god Tiwad is also common in CTH 759–763, the other two deities do not occur in the Puriyanni or Kuwattalla traditions. The conjurations are usually shorter than ritual prescriptions, but their Luwian portions may contain not only incantations as such but also historiolae. Arguably the best known among the latter is the tale of a botched banquet organized by the Sun-god, which can be interpreted based on its Hittite quasi-parallel version (CTH 764.1; Steitler 2017, 387–400). A number of Hittite fragments featuring isolated Luwian words and usually classified under CTH 767 likewise belong to this tradition. Its study could form the topic of a separate inquiry, which would need to draw upon the compositions from the Hattian-Hittite milieu as typological parallels.

The separation of the fragments belonging to the Tauriša tradition from those reflecting the Kuwattalla and Puriyanni traditions is facilitated by the grammatical differences between the two groups. The distinct feature of the former corpus are the clitics =wa and =ku-(wa), both of which are completely absent in CTH 758–763. The peculiarity of the latter corpus consists in the frequent use of the proleptic construction (see Appendix II). Furthermore, there are lexical cues: the mention of the ‘conjunction’ of the Tutelary God of Tauriša affirms such an attribution. Nevertheless, there is a residue of unclear cases—for example, the fragment KBo 9.145, featuring a fragmentary Luwian passage of thirteen lines. The argument for its connection with the Tauriša tradition is the characteristic numeral 3-šu 9-un ‘three times nine’; see the

<footnote n="10">10 For the justification of this term, see Mouton and Yakubovich 2021. The obvious starting point here is the prominent role of the Tutelary God of Tauriša in the pantheon associated with this group of texts (see immediately below). In the preceding scholarship, the texts of the Tauriša tradition are sometimes considered together with those of Kizzuwadna (see e.g. Hutter 2021, 154).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 In this book, the term ‘conjunction’ will be used exclusively for rendering the semantic field of Hittite *huk-*/huek-. As far as we can see, this type of incantation specifically aims at protecting the ritual patron. The term ‘incantation’ is broader and designates all types of ritual speech, conjurations included.</footnote>
parallel expression KUB 35.89:11' 2-š[(u)] 9-un-[za] ‘two times nine’ (CTH 765). On the other hand, the mention of numerous pegs and the act of nailing down links this fragment with the Kuwattalla tradition, where nailing down the miasma represents a recurrent topos. In this and similar cases we prefer to err on the side of caution: we do not attribute the controversial fragments to the Puriyanni or Kuwattalla traditions, treated in the present book, without prejudging the issue of whether they may belong to CTH 764-766.

Only one Hittite-Luwian text belongs to the genre of prayers. This is the anonymous invocation (*mugawar*) to the Storm-god of Zippalanda according to its colophon (KBo 29.31), while several more pieces belonging to the same tablet are assembled in Sasseville, forthcoming. For the sake of completeness, we must mention two Luwian fragments classified under CTH 769, which best qualify as Luwian secular texts in cuneiform transmission. The first of these (KBo 8.17) clearly represents a letter and features a subscript in Akkadian, presumably addressed to the scribe on the receiving end. The second (KBo 29.38) may also be a letter, although the mention of the Kaška people prompted Starke (1985, 368) to advance a hypothesis that its content is political. At any rate, this ethnonym separates the fragment under discussion from CTH 758-763, which have nothing to do with the northern Anatolian periphery.

Finally, there are several ritual traditions featuring Luwian passages that must be kept apart from the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions. A Hittite-Luwian ritual text that had a paramount importance for the initial study of the Luwian language is attributed to Zarpiya, a physician from Kizzuwadna (CTH 757). This is the only Hittite-Luwian text that was preserved almost in its entirety, although the Luwian insertions comprise only four paragraphs out of 25 according to the treatment of this composition in Görke 2015. Furthermore, it contains an invocation to the god Šanta and his retinue, which is recorded first in Hittite and then in Luwian, with only limited variations, and thus represents a quasi-bilingual (Yakubovich 2010a, 282-83). In view of the rapid appreciation of these peculiarities, the autographs of the short Zarpiya ritual were published earlier than those of most other Hittite-Luwian texts and translated several times, Görke 2015 being the latest among such translations. Different variants of CTH 757 can be characterized as duplicates rather than as parallel versions. While new fragments of this text emerge every now and again, they can be easily recognized as such and add little to the substance of its interpretation. Therefore, despite the similarity of genre, the corpus of CTH 757 can easily be kept apart from that of CTH 758-763.

A more complicated case is that of the Tunnawiya tradition (CTH 409), for which see Mouton 2015a. There is only one Luwian passage attested in the “first ritual” belonging to this tradition (Starke 1985, 43-46). Yet, certain grammatical features of its “second” and “fourth” ritual texts suggest that at least some of their incantations have been translated from Luwian (Mouton and Yakubovich 2021). Furthermore, we will be arguing in Chapter 4 of this monograph that several formulae occurring in the Tunnawiya tradition find non-trivial counterparts in the Luwian passages of the Kuwattalla tradition. This opens a possibility that some of the Hittite-Luwian ritual text fragments may in fact belong to a ritual CTH 409 or its specific version where the
Luwian incantations failed to be translated into Hittite. The question is essentially empirical: can we find the fragments which, despite the overall resemblance between the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions, display closer similarities to the former than to the latter?

It turns out that this question can be answered in the affirmative. On the one hand, Pisaniello (2015) convincingly argued that the Hittite-Luwian fragment KUB 35.146, traditionally classified under CTH 767, can be directly compared with KBo 20.73+, which in turn can be assigned to the Tunnawiya tradition on the basis of its numerous parallels with CTH 409.IV and CTH 409.II (see Fuscagni 2016a). On the other hand, the Hittite-Luwian fragment KUB 35.80, traditionally assigned to CTH 763, shows unmistakable similarity to the spitting formula of the Tunnawiya tradition, as opposed to that of the Kuwattalla tradition. Of particular importance here is the reference to spitting three times (line 11') and the phrase *pangauwaz* EME-az 'from the tongue of the assembly' (line 10'), whereas the Kuwattalla tradition prescribes spitting once at a time and deploys the Luwian expression *ma-a-ia-aš-ša-an-za-ti* EME-ti 'from the tongue of the multitudes' instead of its Hittite equivalent.

The emerging presence of a layer of Luwian incantations in the Tunnawiya tradition is compatible with the existence of problematic Hittite-Luwian ritual fragments, which can be assigned either to the Tunnawiya tradition or elsewhere. As an example, one can mention KUB 9.7, traditionally listed under CTH 763. The obverse of this fragment features a Hittite passage with the presentation of two pigs, one of which is a living animal while the other is a figurine made of tallow (lines 8–13). Such a gesture finds a direct parallel in Tunnawiya’s “second ritual” (KUB 9.34 iii 24’-27’; Hutter 1988, 38), while less precise parallels are also found in the other versions of the Tunnawiya tradition (Haas 2003, 418–20). Yet, the likely reverse of the same fragment addresses ritual manipulations involving the figurine of a herald (lines 6’-13’), which lacks any parallels in the Tunnawiya tradition.<fnref n="12" /> Accordingly, although the attribution of the fragment under discussion to CTH 409 is the default hypothesis, there remains some room for doubt. For our purposes, however, the only crucial thing is that the fragment under discussion has no chances of being assigned to either the Kuwattalla or Puriyanni tradition.

At this point it seems important to make brief comments on how we understand the term “tradition”. We assume the historicity of ritualists mentioned in the Hittite sources and believe that at least some of the available rituals were recorded in close cooperation with their practitioners. This last belief is particularly necessary in the instance of compositions with Luwian incantations, which reflect dialects other than that of Ḩattuša and therefore could not represent a product of Ḩattuša scribes. Therefore, the Old Woman Tunnawiya or the female attendant Kuwattalla must be taken as directly responsible for the performance of at least some of the rituals that bear their names. At the same time, we accept the arguments presented in Miller 2004 and Christiansen 2006 in favor of the ongoing modification of ritual texts in Ḩattuša

<footnote n="12">12 The only mention of a herald in a ritual context known to us is found in the Arzawa ritual text attributed to Huwarlu (Bawanypeck 2016, §§ 2–3).</footnote>
chanceries and believe that the list of secondary products of court scholarship is
likely to be extended in the future. The elite group of scholar-scribes, discussed in
van den Hout 2015, would supply the most likely milieu for the modification of the
pre-existent ritual texts. This means in practice that some of the ritual texts attrib-
uted to Tunnawiya or Kuwattalla may represent mere scribal compilations, which is
perfectly compatible with still treating them as parts of the Tunnawiya and Kuwat-
talla traditions respectively. What is no less important, the scribe can change the at-
tribution of a ritual to a specific performer, its patron, or the titles of the invoked dei-
ties, for ephemeral reasons, which we are not always able to trace. This explains, for
example, why variants of the same ritual can be attributed to Kuwattalla, Šilalluḫi, or
the cooperation of the two practitioners, as will be discussed in more detail below.

Under such conditions, a crucial criterion for attributing a ritual fragment to this
or that tradition is, above all, the similarity of its diction and formulaic repertoire to
the fragments that have already been reliably attributed to the same tradition. The
scholar-scribes may have changed references to the key figures or terms, but they
were unlikely to alter radically the description of the ritual and even less likely to re-
place its incantations. In other words, the procedures to follow in identifying variants
of the same ritual tradition are more or less the same as those embedded in modern
algorithms for detecting plagiarism. This observation may seem trite, but it is still
necessary, given that the traditional guiding principle of the *Catalogue des textes hit-
tites* is to identify compositions based on their titles preserved in the incipits and
colophons. Furthermore, the colophons and incipits, when available, will play the key
role in distributing the fragments of CTH 758-763 according to their particular CTH
numbers in this monograph. There is no contradiction between the two criteria of
classification, because the scholar-scribes tended to adjust the titles of the modified
versions. It is, however, important to distinguish between the said two criteria, be-
cause the majority of the ritual fragments at our disposal plainly lack either incipits
or colophons.

While the identification of two fragments as duplicates was always considered
sufficient in order to assign them to the same CTH number, even in the absence of ti-
tles, structural parallelisms between two fragments did not necessarily trigger their
assignment to the same tradition in the past. This need not be taken as a point of
criticism directed at the work by Emmanuel Laroche or other early contributors to
the *Catalogue des textes hittites*. It is obvious that one and the same fragment may ex-
hibit similarities of various degrees to several counterparts belonging to different
CTH numbers. In such a case its assignment is impossible without cluster analysis—
that is, evaluating the relative degree of resemblance of all the potential candidates,
which is in turn contingent upon working with a closed corpus. At the time of La-
roche, who knew only a portion of the Hittite-Luwian fragments found in Hattuša,
the corpus still remained open. No less importantly, the creation of the *Catalogue des
textes hittites* largely predated the philological work on scribal manipulation of ritual
texts, which fleshed out the concept of ritual tradition. Under such conditions, La-
roche’s classification must have featured certain provisional solutions, such as the
creation of temporary depositories for fragments awaiting further classification. In
particular, the characterization of CTH 761 and CTH 762 as “Great Ritual” and “Fragments of the Great Ritual” respectively makes little sense unless one assumes that the members of the second group are likely to belong to the same composition as the members of the first one; however, the matter merits closer scrutiny.

The present situation is different. We are lucky to work at a time when the bulk of the excavated fragments from Boğazköy archives and nearly all the well-preserved incipits and colophons have been published in autograph. Even though one cannot rule out that some newly emergent fragments will yet reveal to us entirely new ritual texts, it seems reasonable to treat the core of the existing classification as something that has stood the test of time. In particular, the survey of Hittite-Luwian texts provided above can be regarded as nearly exhaustive. This means that if we are dealing with a fragment of unknown attribution, it is entirely reasonable to wonder to which of the known traditions it belongs, while the hypothesis that it represents a specimen of a heretofore unknown tradition can only be entertained as a last resort solution. Furthermore, when one is classifying the fragments of an established tradition, it is likewise reasonable to group them into clusters based not only on their incipits or colophons but also on their diction and formulaic repertoire.

This is why we have changed the definitions of CTH 760, CTH 762, and CTH 763 vis-à-vis the earlier versions of the *Catalogue des textes hittites*. The specific rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition corresponding to CTH 760 and CTH 762 have now been defined on the basis of the characteristic incipits and colophons respectively (see Chapter 3), while the set of fragments grouped under both these numbers has been assembled through cluster analysis, taking into consideration ductus, orthographic features, diction, and/or formulaic repertoire. In the case of CTH 762, the new results did not interfere with the established boundaries between traditions: this CTH number had previously been subsumed under the Kuwattalla tradition, and it remains there after the necessary adjustments. In the case of CTH 760, the texts previously attributed to Tunnawiya were extracted from there to be moved to CTH 409, but otherwise this CTH number also remains anchored in the Kuwattalla tradition.

Not so is the case of CTH 763. This CTH number previously represented a depository for Hittite-Luwian ritual fragments of uncertain attribution. Our analysis suggests that some of the relevant fragments belong to the Tunnawiya tradition and thus have also to be moved to CTH 409 (see above in this section). The majority of them, however, display non-trivial similarities to those of the Kuwattalla tradition. The only fragmentary colophon remaining within this group attributes the fragment to a performer from Kizzuwadna, whose name is lost in the lacuna (KUB 35.8 i 1). While KUB 35.8 does not bear characteristic similarities to the Kuwattalla tradition on its own, its diction is conducive to linking it to some additional fragments, which in turn can be linked to those of the Kuwattalla tradition through other peculiarities in their diction and formulaic repertoire (see Chapter 3). This mediated comparison helps to annex CTH 763 to the zone of the *Catalogue des textes hittites* that is associated with the heritage of Kuwattalla and Šilalluhi. This said, not all the texts classified under CTH 763 can be connected to KUB 35.8; there remains a residue of minor fragments that show affinity with the Kuwattalla tradition but resist attribution to any specific
ritual. What we do not have any longer is the group of Hittite-Luwian ritual fragments that defy distribution among traditions. Those pieces that are so tiny that they cannot be attributed to any ritual tradition turn out to lack in general any sound foundation for identifying them as ritual fragments. For the time being, they can be classified under CTH 770, understood as the residual depository for Hittite-Luwian fragments of unidentified genre.

At the risk of seeming tedious, we must repeat once again that not all the fragments classified under CTH 758–763 and edited below necessarily reflect the actual performance of Puriyanni, Kuwattalla, or Šilalluḫi. The proven interference of scholar-scribes leaves ample room for secondary modification of the existing ritual texts, including their radical abbreviation and amalgamation of several sources. The picture that we have attempted to draw in our segmentation and classification of the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions rather corresponds to the perception of the scribal community, stretching from the point when the respective rituals were first recorded to the break of the written transmission of Hittite in Ḩattuša.

## 1.3 PREVIOUS AND CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH

The core of this book is the philological study of the texts that can be attributed to the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions. The edition of each fragment features an introductory section, where the previous editions, joins, and other most important advances in their study are usually listed. Here we shall limit ourselves to mentioning those works that were of particular significance for the holistic study of the relevant corpus. Furthermore, we shall endeavor to outline the most important tendencies in approaching the interpretation of this corpus. Many of the observations made in this section are also relevant for the Hittite-Luwian compositions at large.

While some texts of the Kuwattalla tradition (e.g. KUB 9.6) were published at the dawn of Hittitology, the publication of KUB 35 by Heinrich Otten in 1953 introduced the largest fragments with Luwian passages, including those of CTH 758–763, to the community of cuneiform scholars. Roughly simultaneously with the appearance of this autographic edition, Otten published a monograph devoted to the interpretation of Hittite-Luwian texts. A considerable portion (Otten 1953, 60–106) addresses those texts mentioning the Old Woman; according to the present state of our knowledge, they belong to the Kuwattalla tradition. A fragmentary incipit mentioning Kizzuwadna, which we likewise attribute to the Kuwattalla tradition, is considered separately (Otten 1953, 30–35). For the study of Luwian incantations, Otten primarily relied on the combinatorial method—in particular, on the analysis of recurrent formulae. While the state of the understanding of the Luwian language was clearly insufficient for venturing full translations of the edited texts at that point, the indirect join KUB 32.8 (+) KUB 32.5 (CTH 759.10.b), essentially arrived at based on the study of a Luwian passage, bears witness to the maturity of Otten’s approach. Unfortunately, Otten’s remarks about the similarity of scribal hands in the foreword to KUB 35 have not found confirmation in many cases.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.001

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
A number of subsequent steps toward the elucidation of our corpus are due to the work of Emmanuel Laroche. He had no access to unpublished Hittite-Luwian fragments but quickly realized that the compilation of a provisional Luwian lexicon is a key to the interpretation of the published material. Several years of his engagement with Hittite-Luwian fragments culminated in the publication of Laroche 1959. While preparing the lexicon, he produced several research papers, where he justified the previously unknown meanings of many Luwian lexemes. The innovative aspects of his method were, on the one hand, the close attention that he paid to the genetic comparison between the language of Luwian cuneiform texts, that of Luwian hieroglyphic texts, and of Lycian, and on the other hand, his hunt for parallel formulae in Hittite and Luwian incantations. The latter innovation is particularly relevant for our project; thus, he had pioneered the comparison between formulae in the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions (see e.g. Laroche 1959, 147–51), which was largely neglected for several decades, until undergoing further elaboration in Chapter 4 of this book. Laroche 1955 exemplifies how such a comparative study can lead to non-trivial lexical identifications.

Another accomplishment of Emmanuel Laroche that is highly relevant for our work is the preliminary classification of the published Hittite-Luwian texts (CTH 757–773) according to their genres. This task was accomplished within the framework of preparing the comprehensive *Catalogue des textes hittites* (Laroche 1971) and thus represented but one of many advances of this monumental project. The texts with Luwian insertions were arguably among the most difficult pieces to classify, due both to the paucity of large fragments with colophons and to their generally obscure content. Some shortcomings of Laroche’s classification, conditioned in part by the limited set of fragments available to him, will be discussed below in Section 3.1. Here, it is appropriate to stress that despite all its problems, its basic building blocks have essentially stood the test of time. In particular, Laroche drew a clear boundary between the Hittite-Luwian texts of the Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 759–763) and those of the Tauriša tradition (CTH 764–766), even though he did not operate with such cover terms. This is a particularly impressive achievement, given that Laroche did not base his classification on linguistic criteria, aside from setting apart the Luwian dialect of Ištanuwa (CTH 771–773).

New opportunities for the study of our corpus emerged with Otten's publication of another large group Hittite-Luwian fragments in KBo 29 in 1983. With the appearance of this book, the corpus of the fragments attributable to CTH 758–763 approached its current size. The release of the autographs of the new group was coordinated with Frank Starke's work on transliterating all the fragments with Luwian insertions identified at that point. The resulting book (Starke 1985) introduced paleographic datings of Hittite-Luwian fragments in accordance with the new system developed by the Marburg school but also refined Laroche's assignment of texts to individual compositions in the light of the new evidence. In particular, Starke classified all the texts attributed to Kuwattalla and/or Šilalluḫi as belonging to three distinct compositions: the *dupaduparša*-ritual, the Great Ritual, and the “third-ritual” (Starke 1985, 72–167). The next five years saw him turning to the linguistic implications of his phi-
lological work. Starke 1990 represents a monograph on Luwian nominal derivation, which draws on both cuneiform and hieroglyphic data.

Starke’s decision to limit himself to the transliteration of Hittite-Luwian fragments was optimal for the time being: the work on their translation should have followed an in-depth linguistic study of Luwian and could hardly be accomplished single-handedly in any case.<fnref n="13" /> At the same time, it inevitably led to certain shortcomings in the philological presentation of the fragments treated. In particular, the holistic understanding of the text improves the possibility of its restoration (including the reading of fragmentary signs) and helps to recognize joins. These are among the areas where we hope to have reached considerable progress beyond Starke 1985, and we have attempted to reflect it in our commentary. Furthermore, Starke’s meticulous attention to dating the tablets on the basis of their sign forms contrasts with the virtual lack of involvement in identifying scribal hands.

The growth of the accessible Luwian cuneiform corpus and the improved understanding of Luwian morphology called into being the new commented Luwian lexicon (Melchert 1993). This reference work both develops and revises the analysis of Luwian nouns reached in Starke 1990 and offers a new classification of Luwian verbal stems. In comparison with Laroche 1959, many more lexemes are provided there with assured or tentative interpretations, to a large extent as a result of the author’s personal research. The publication of Melchert 1993 marked the point when “reading with the glossary” could yield approximate translations of Luwian incantations, for the benefit of Hittitologists and Indo-Europeanans alike. At the same time, Melchert’s approach to the interpretation of the Luwian lexicon relied on the etymological method even more heavily than that of Starke 1990. In particular, his comments focus on the cognates in Hittite and the other Anatolian languages but frequently sideline the combinatorial parallels established by Laroche and others.

The publication of the bulk of Luwian hieroglyphic texts in Hawkins 1995 and Hawkins 2000 raised the overall profile of Luwian studies. This in turn triggered the appearance of Melchert 2003 (ed.), the first collective monograph devoted to this field. Its chapter on Luwian religious practices (Hutter 2003) addresses, among other things, the content of Hittite texts with Luwian insertions. Manfred Hutter generally follows the classification of CTH 758–763 adopted by Starke but adds the argumentation for the origin of all these texts in the region of Kizzuwadna in southeastern Anatolia (Hutter 2003, 250–52). The arguments are essentially linguistic. On the one hand, it is assumed that all the Luwian insertions in Hittite texts, except for those reflecting the cult of the area of Ištanuwa are written in a single dialect; and since some of them mention Kizzuwadna in their incipits, this is likely to be the origin of all the texts. On the other hand, several Hurrian loanwords or their derivatives are attested

<footnote n="13">13 One can compare the work on the decipherment of the Luwian hieroglyphic texts, which unfolded roughly at the same time and relied on the joint effort of J. David Hawkins, whose perspective was primarily philological, and Anna Morpurgo Davies, whose approach was primarily linguistic. The most successful contributor to the philological study of CTH 758–763 was at the time Annelies Kammenhuber, Professor of Hittitology at Munich (see Kammenhuber 1985 and Kammenhuber 1986).</footnote>
in the texts classified under CTH 758–763, while Kizzuwadna is thought to be the
primary locus of interaction between the Luwians and the Hurrians.

Hutter's pioneering treatment served as a point of departure for all the subsequent
work on the geographic localization of the rituals under discussion. The Kizzuwadna
origin of the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions was endorsed, again with reference
to Hurrian loanwords, in Yakubovich 2010a, a monograph addressing the Luwian
language from a sociolinguistic perspective. More recently, the problem of Hurrian
influence in CTH 758–763 found elaboration in Kaynar 2019, a paper entirely devoted
to the interplay of Hurrian and Luwian elements in the Kizzuwadna rituals. The het-
erogeneous origin of both traditions is defended by both authors of this monograph
in Mouton and Yakubovich 2021, a paper that emerged within the framework of the
Luwili Project. On the one hand, this paper defines the Tauriša tradition with its own
dialectal features and thus pronounces itself against the linguistic homogeneity of
Luwian cuneiform passages. On the other hand, it stresses the non-trivial similarities
between the Luwian incantations in the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions, noted
already by Laroche, and argues that Kuwattalla is likely to hail from the same region
as Tunnawiya, whose connection with the Lower Land is near universally acknowl-
edged. As for the Hurrian influence of CTH 758–763, we maintained that it can re-
flect the adaptation of the Kuwattalla and Puriyanni traditions at the court of Ḩattuša.

Quite independently of these proposals, two recent papers, Hutter 2019a and Sase-
seville 2020b, provided evidence against the rigid separation of the Kuwattalla tradi-
tion into three rituals. We interpret this evidence, addressed in more detail in Section
3.2, as the argument for the ongoing re-naming and re-shuffling of the compositions
attributed to Kuwattalla and/or Šilalluḫi on the part of the Ḩattuša scribes. There are
independent arguments, some of which were already offered in Christiansen 2006,
10–11, for the adaptation processes affecting the development of the Puriyanni tradi-
tion. If one accepts the dynamic approach to the study of the compositions under dis-
cussion, there is no longer a contradiction between their Lower Land and Kizzuwadna
features. It is, for example possible that a new text was created by amalgamating the
descriptions of the rituals that reflect the practices of Kizzuwadna and the Lower
Land, or that a ritual specialist at the court of Ḩattuša imitated the performance
structure of another specialist from a different region.<fnref n="14" />

Turning back to the linguistic issues, new opportunities for the study of our texts
became available with the development of the computer corpora. H. Craig Melchert
was the first scholar to open a searchable digital file with the Luwian cuneiform texts
for public use.<fnref n="15" /> The file is based on the documentation of Starke 1985 but features
many new readings and the overt marking of clitic boundaries. This was in turn used
as a basis for the cuneiform module of the Annotated Corpus of Luwian Texts
(ACLT), a project implemented in 2013–2015 by the team of Ilya Yakubovich and his
associates under the auspices of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences.<fnref n="16" />

<footnote n="14">14 These two hypotheses are fleshed out in Section 3.6 and Section 5.4 respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/CLUVIAN.pdf.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 http://web-corpora.net/LuwianCorpus/search/.</footnote>
Its primary purpose was to enable the search of Luwian texts for lemmata and gram-
matical parameters, but its implementation involved a close reading of the texts col-
lected in Starke 1985 (although not their collation with cuneiform originals). As a re-
sult, the ACLT lemmata contain a number of interpretations that go beyond Melchert
1993 and anticipate some of the results explicated in the present monograph. At the
same time, since ACLT is primarily a search engine, no attempt was made to system-
atically refer to its interpretations here. In the instance of the discrepancies between
ACLT and the present edition, one is recommended to follow the latter.

Another technical innovation, which facilitated the work with all the cuneiform
texts from Hattuša, was the publication of the photographs of the majority of the
known fragments at the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz, a project of the University of
Würzburg and the Mainz Academy of Science and Literature headed first by Gernot
Wilhelm and then by Daniel Schwemer and Gerfrid G. W. Müller.<fnref n="17" /> Before this, the
observations on scribal hands had remained the prerogative of those who had access
to the original tablets in the museums of Istanbul and Ankara or undertook trips to
consult their photographs at the Mainz Academy of Science and Literature; after-
ward, all interested Hittitologists gained permanent access to these paleographic fea-
tures, which cannot be adequately observed on the basis of the autographic editions.
This opportunity was particularly fruitful in the instance of the Hittite-Luwian texts,
which can be easily set apart on the basis of their content, and yet had not been sys-
tematically classified on the basis of their scribal hands in the context of their previ-
ous treatment. The numerous joins to CTH 758–763 identified by the authors and
contributors to the present book and communicated to the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz
bear witness to the practical use of such a classification. In the present edition, we
have attempted to explicate this classification as much as is feasible: our methodol-
ogy is summarized in Chapter 2.

Already at the stage of preparing the Annotated Corpus of Luwian texts, it be-
came clear that the study of the Luwian language had reached the point when one
could venture a commented edition of the rituals under discussion. Nevertheless, the
Luwili Project derived additional benefits from a number of research initiatives that
unfolded simultaneously with our work. First of all, one should mention the Digital
Philological-Etymological Dictionary of the Minor Ancient Anatolian Corpus Lan-
guages project (eDiAna, 2014–2022), headed by Olav Hackstein (Munich), Jared Miller
(Munich), and Elisabeth Rieken (Marburg). A number of conventions used in this
book—for example, the notation of Luwian nominal and verbal stems—were directly
influenced by the discussions at the working meetings of the eDiAna project. Second,
Sasseville 2020c, a monograph on the verbal derivational morphology of the Luwic
languages, impacted our notation of Luwian verbal stems and provided a valuable
second opinion on the interpretation of a number of contexts. But by far the most
important impact was that of H. Craig Melchert, who simultaneously worked on the
revised edition of his *Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon*. Many of the new linguistic interpre-
tations reached in the course of the Luwili Project were immediately communicated

<footnote n="17">17 https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HPM/index.php.</footnote>
to Melchert, who always reciprocated with quick and helpful feedback. The two papers by Melchert and Yakubovich cited in the bibliography of this book exemplify the vigor of this cooperation, which it is hoped was of equal benefit for both parties.

## 1.4 METHODS OF INTERTEXTUAL COMPARISON

There are two principal reasons the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions were selected among other Hittite-Luwian compositions for the publication in this book. On the one hand, this is the largest coherent corpus of Hittite texts with Luwian insertions; even with all the joins accomplished in the course of the project, it still comprises approximately 130 fragments. Furthermore, the best-preserved Hittite-Luwian fragments also cluster within this group: see for example KUB 9.6+ (CTH 759), KBo 29.3+ (CTH 760), and KBo 29.55(+) (CTH 761). On the other hand, we submit that this is the area where the most significant progress in the interpretation of Luwian texts can be achieved at present. While the demonstration of this claim must ultimately be derived from the edition of the relevant texts, it seems appropriate to show in this section how the peculiarities of the corpus under discussion facilitate the use of intertextual comparison, which was proposed earlier in this chapter as the most promising way of advancing the study of the Luwian language. We obviously do not strive to provide here a comprehensive treatment of the comparative material; our goal is rather to present a variety of strategies available for this particular corpus.

One structural feature that characterizes the descriptions of rituals as a genre is their presentation as a sequence of rites, which are sometimes aligned with the paragraphs of the cuneiform text. A rite prototypically consists of manipulations with a limited number of ritual items, which are followed by an incantation accompanying them, often clarifying them in the process. For example, after the ritual patron breaks the hand and tongue made of clay, the Old Woman states that he has broken the evil tongue (KBo 29.3+ iii 13'-17', CTH 760). Since the Luwian incantations of our corpus are not translated into Hittite, the relevant rite is conducive to identifying the stem of the Luwian verb 'to break'. This is not a new observation; see already Melchert 1988, 215, fn. 10. But the systematic application of the same comparison between the Hittite description of ritual gestures and the matching Luwian incantations is still capable of bringing about new results.

Let us illustrate this point with a rite belonging to a ritual against the impurity of the house attributed to Puriyanni (CTH 758). At a certain point in the performance, the Old Woman transfers silver, gold, all the seeds, and a variety of garden tools to the ritual patron (KUB 35.54 ii 27'-29'). Then the Luwian incantation begins with the statement: 'Here lie all the seeds, in-za-ga-a-an and wa-aš-ḫa' (KUB 35.54 ii 31'-32'), while the next sentence of the same Luwian passage describes the treatment of these items with two different tools. Since tools are unlikely to be treated with other tools, the principle of correspondence between the ritual gesture and the incantation suggests that in-za-ga-a-an and wa-aš-ḫa are likely to represent words for 'silver' and 'gold', or perhaps their pragmatic equivalents. This, however, is not the solution ad-

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.001

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
vanced in Melchert 2003b, 148, where the preference is given to the hypothesis that *in-za-ga-a-an* and *wa-aš-ḫa* refer to the seeds as well. It seems that the etymological considerations played the primary role in adopting such an interpretation: Melchert reconstructs the stem *inzagan-* as a hypostasis of Proto-Indo-European *en dʰīgʰom* ‘in(to) the earth’.

Fortunately, the work on the Luwili Project shed more light on the rite under discussion. The parallel passage KBo 29.2 + KUB 35.52 ii 9' [za-a-ú-i z]i-i-ia-ri ṁNUMUNHA-na pu-u-na-[t]a KÙ.BABBAR-an KÙ.GI-a[n], which became available as a result of a recent join (Sasseville 2020c, 554), can be translated without any doubt: '[Here] lie silver, gold, and all the seeds'. Thus, *in-za-ga-a-an wa-aš-ḫa* effectively alternate with KÙ.BABBAR-an KÙ.GI-an ‘silver (and) gold’ within the same formula. Melchert’s etymological suggestion is in no way undermined: the reconstructed phrase *en dʰīgʰom* ‘in(to) the earth’ fits equally well as the etymology of a metal. What is defended here with the help of a parallel version is the principle of using the Hittite text for interpreting the appended Luwian incantation. Other things being equal, one should maximize the match between the Hittite and Luwian parts of the same rite. Naturally, this is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a faithfulness constraint, which should always be weighed against other constraints imposed by philology.

On top of the match between the description of the rite and the incantation, there is a higher level of textual organization that contributes to the combinatorial analysis of our corpus. Several rites and key ritual items of the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions are co-referenced in the lists of ritual implements at the beginning of the respective compositions. Such lists again belong to the standard features of the ritual text genre, but in the instance of Hittite-Luwian compositions they acquire a particular exegetic importance. Thus, the interplay of the information available in the lists of ritual implements and the main parts of the ritual texts sheds light on the meaning of the *ikkunatt*-rite and some related Luwian lexemes.

Sasseville (2020c, 562) proposed to analyze the Luwian *ik-ku-wa-a[r]* (KUB 35.72:8') as the word for ‘liver’ and a cognate of Greek ἦπαρ, Latin *iēcur*, and Vedic *yākṛt/ yaknāḥ*. The combinatorial support for this suggestion is derived from the occurrence of the Sumerogram for ‘liver’, UZU NĪG.G[IG] in the preceding Hittite paragraph (KUB 35.72:3'). It is formally attractive to treat /ikkuna(i)-/ as a denominative verb based on the oblique stem *ikkun-*, and to analyze *ikkunatt-* ‘(name of a sacrificial rite)’ as a secondary nominal derivative from this verbal stem, borrowed into Hittite.<fnref n="18" /> Now, the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice requires one or two sheep for its performance, according to the available lists of ritual implements (see Bo 4388:4' and KUB 35.18(+) i 10 respectively). The descriptions of the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice are preserved in a number of tablet fragments, but the most transparent one is arguably KUB 35.78(+) iv 3'–11', where

<footnote n="18">18 Differently Sasseville 2020c, 191–93, who operates with the verb /ikkunawa-/ (sic) ‘to make something equate the liver (vel sim.)’. This translation is motivated by the proposed join KUB 35.72 (+) KUB 35.35, which implies that the livers of the ritual patron and an animal have been aligned in the course of the ritual. We believe, however, that the join KUB 35.72 (+) KUB 35.35 is incorrect. The fragments KUB 35.72 and KUB 35.35 are to be assigned to two different ritual texts: CTH 758 and CTH 759 respectively. Compare the discussion below in the editions of the respective fragments.</footnote>
gen.sg. [i-ik-ku-n]a-at-ta-aš is preserved in line 8'. We learn from this description that the liver and heart of the sacrificial animal, alongside its raw meat, play an important role in the rite. In fact, the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice is the only rite of the Kuwattalla tradition that refers to liver and heart, which supports the translation of the verb /ikkuna-/- as ‘to treat with liver’ and the interpretation of the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice as the rite of treating gods with liver (among other ingredients). Thus, Sasseville’s etymological hypothesis can be confirmed on independent grounds.

Sometimes the meaning of a Luwian lexeme can be established only with the reliance on joins and parallel versions. A case in point concerns the manipulations with a rope in a ritual of the Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 762). The matching Hittite and Luwian forms KUB 32.79:9' [š]u-ma-an-za-an 'rope' and KBo 29.5:6' šum-m[a-an-ti-...] (restored after KBo 22.254(+) ii 3) occur in the fragments that were shown to belong to the same tablet series (namely a group of tablets written by the same scribe, reflecting the same composition and belonging to the same exemplar of such a composition) based on paleographic analysis. The meaning of the second form has not been elucidated (see Melchert 1993, 196), but it is tempting to take it as the Luwian equivalent of Hitt. šumanza(n)-. The demonstration of this hypothesis is contingent upon showing that KBo 29.5 and KUB 32.79 belong to the adjacent parts of the tablet or tablet series<fnref n="19" /> and thus may reflect the same rite (or a group of rites linked by a common ritual object). The restoration of the two fragments suggests that KBo 29.5 features the familiar incantation that accompanies the destruction of clay hand and tongue, while KUB 32.79 contains the incantation for the purification of the gods. Now, the recent join KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94 offers evidence that the incantation for the purification of the gods closely follows breaking the clay hand and tongue in a different ritual of the same tradition (CTH 759.3). In the light of this evidence, one can suggest that šumanza(n)- 'rope' is deployed immediately after the destruction of the clay hand and tongue and in some way serves the purpose of purifying the gods in CTH 762. In addition, we gain the meaning of the Luwian stem /summant(i)-/.

The success of the procedure outlined above is due to the remarkable cohesion of our corpus, which manifests itself at various levels. First, the Luwili Project has shown that it contains a number of undetected joins, such as KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94, which are promptly reported to the *Hethitologie Portal Mainz*. Second, the project features numerous fragments that are written in the same hand and belong to the same tablet series without forming joins. While some of these have already been noted in Starke 1985 and others added in the previous versions of the CTH, the bulk of such groups was revealed in the course of the Luwili Project. In particular, we submit that KBo 29.5 and KUB 32.79 belong to the same tablet series as eleven other fragments. Third, our corpus is rich in close parallel versions of the same rites, which can be used for restoration purposes. This is the case of KBo 29.5 and KBo 22.254(+), which reveal a fairly specific version of the incantation accompanying the destruction of clay hand and tongue, despite reflecting very different scribal hands. Fourth, we have

<footnote n="19">19 The texts of the Kuwattalla tradition usually consist of a series of tablets, whereas those of the Puri-
yanni tradition always seem to fit on a single tablet each.</footnote>
four or five basic rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition, definable on the basis of colo-
phons or incipits (see Chapter 3). The texts of these rituals are usually not close
enough to each other to be helpful for restoration (except for certain formulae), but
they tend to show the same sequence of rites and therefore can be used for structural
macro-comparison. Fifth, the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions show remarkable
overlap in the use of ritual items. Thus, the reference to šumanza- ‘rope’ in KUB 35.54
i 15’ and IBoT 3.96+ ii 8 (CTH 758) add credence to the restoration of [š]u-ma-an-za-
an in KUB 32.79:9’.

Naturally, the texts of CTH 758–763 do not have a monopoly on joins and parallel versions, but it is fair to say that they have more of such tools left in stock for philologists than any other group of Hittite-Luwian fragments. They can be contrasted, on the one hand, with the Zarpiya ritual, which is preserved in several duplicates but shows little textual variation, and, on the other hand, with the conjurations of the Tauriša tradition, which are united by common themes and imagery but were not yet assembled into larger units, let alone organized into parallel versions. On top of this, however, the ritual texts edited in this book display an additional peculiarity helpful for intertextual comparison. Two groups of ritual texts notionally lying outside its scope, namely the Tunnawiya tradition (CTH 409) and Maštigga tradition (CTH 404), show non-trivial similarities to the Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 759–763), which can be explained only in terms of non-casual contacts.

As argued in detail in the first part of Chapter 4, the similarities between the
Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions primarily concern the incantations. One must
assume that the original locus of contacts between the two traditions lay outside
Ḥattuša, since the Luwian incantations of the Kuwattalla tradition reflect the dialec-
tal norm that is distinct from the Luwian dialect of Ḥattuša. Nevertheless, since the
great majority of incantations belonging to CTH 409 were subsequently translated
into Hittite, it is possible to use them as exegetical tools for the interpretation of Lu-
wian incantations embedded in CTH 759–763. The pioneer in this domain was Em-
manuel Laroche, who established the meanings of a number of Luwian formulae
through direct comparison with their Hittite counterparts (see e.g. Laroche 1959,
147–50). For a long time, this line of scholarly research had been neglected, but the
Luwili Project revealed additional parallel formulae, as will be demonstrated in Chap-
ter 4. Furthermore, the comparison between the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla tradi-
tions can sometimes contribute to understanding Luwian incantations even in the ab-
sence of direct formulaic parallels.

To illustrate the last point, it is appropriate to consider the Luwian verbal form
*hal-li-na-i* (3sg.pres.), which occurs several times in substitution rites of the Kuwat-
talla tradition and can be combined with body parts matched as subjects and objects.
The interpretation of this verb in Melchert 1993, 48 is ‘to be sick, hurt’, while at the
early stages of the Luwili Project we entertained the meaning ‘to contaminate’, also
reflected in Sasseville 2020c, 530–31. The rationale for the last interpretation was the
likely genetic relationship between *hal-li-na-i* and the nominal form *hal-li-iš-ša*,
which occurs in the Puriyanni tradition with the negative meaning ‘defilement’ (vel
sim.). The subsequent work on textual restoration, however, showed that the substi-
tute (Luw. *tar-pa-a-aš-ša-aš*) can function as the subject of the *hallinai*-clauses, while the ritual patron can function as its object. The substitute is unlikely to function as a means of contaminating the ritual patron; quite to the contrary, the substitution rite normally serves the purpose of purifying the commissioner of the ritual through the absorption of his miasma. But if *hal-li-na-i* means ‘purifies’ or something similar, how can such a meaning be reconciled with the proposed etymology?

A comparable formula in CTH 409.II offers a solution: KUB 9.34 ii 38 S[AG.DU-aš-kán SAG.DU-aš GIG-an] *kar-ap-du tar-na-aš tar-na-aš-ša GIG-an* KI.MIN “may the head lift up > remove the sickness of the head, the skull ditto the sickness of the skull ...” illustrates the possibility of expressing purification of the matched body parts by way of referring to their impurity. The syntax of the Luwian *hallinai*-clauses featuring matched body parts is admittedly different: here we find the construction of the type KUB 35.24+ obv. 14' [ħar-ma]-[iš hi-iš] *har-ma-hi-in ħal-l[i-na]-i “The head *hallina-es* the head ...” (CTH 761). It is, however, perfectly conceivable that the Hittite and Luwian languages use different strategies of conveying the same propositional meaning: in Hittite, ‘lifting up > removing sickness’ was rendered by a verbal phrase (GIG-an *kar-ap-du*), which necessitated the use of genitive for the affected body parts, while in Luwian the matching concept of ‘absorbing defilement’ was expressed by a derived verb, which freed the slot of the direct object for the same body parts. Given that both formulae describe the result of an identical rite—namely, aligning body parts of the ritual patron and substitute animal, they must be taken as functional equivalents, which in turn is conducive to confirming the meaning of *ħal-li-na-i* ‘absorbs defilement’. In order to preserve the syntactic correspondence between the relevant Luwian clauses and their English counterparts, we use the less precise semantic equivalent ‘decontaminates’ in the translation of the texts.

The role of the Maštigga tradition in the interpretation of the Kuwattalla tradition is not the same. In this case, the comparison between incantations has some limited impact, but far more important is the structural isomorphism between the two traditions. It turns out that the available fragments of CTH 759-763 largely preserve the same set of rites and many of the same rite sequences as Maštigga's Ritual against Domestic Quarrels (CTH 404.1). This observation, which came as a surprise in the course of the Luwili Project, is crucial for the analysis of fragmentary passages found in our corpus, as they can sometimes be restored and interpreted on the basis of the better-preserved ritual attributed to Maštigga, the Old Woman of Kizzuwadna. Furthermore, different fragments of CTH 759-763 can frequently be arranged vis-à-vis each other with the help of the fully preserved structural template of CTH 404.1. While the full implications of this remarkable similarity will be addressed in the second part of Chapter 5, here we will limit ourselves to addressing one example of how the Maštigga tradition contributes to making sense of Hittite-Luwian ritual fragments.

A recent join KBo 29.22 + KBo 57.226 (Sasseville 2020c, 558) revealed a Hittite-Luwian passage that seemingly belongs to a substitution rite and yet shows differences in diction from the better-preserved rites of this kind associated with the Kuwattalla tradition. One of its unusual elements is the fragmentary form *ti-iš-ša-ḫat-
[...] (line 4'), which is likely to refer to a substitute based on context. There are no Luwian or Hittite lexemes compatible with such a restoration in the Kuwattalla tradition, but Maštigga's Ritual against Domestic Quarrels contains a substitution rite featuring a piece of tallow wrapped in white wool and black wool, which is called *tiššatwa* (KBo 39.8 i 44–49; Miller 2004, 66). The presence of inanimate substitutes in the Kuwattalla tradition receives independent support from the fragment KUB 35.74 (CTH 762) where the mention of ʿuzuʾi.UDU ‘sheep fat, tallow’ precedes a Luwian incantation referring to a white sheep. Yet, without the fully preserved rite involving the *tiššatwa*-object made of tallow in CTH 404.1, it would hardly be possible to juxtapose the fragments KBo 29.22 + KBo 57.226 and KUB 35.74 and prove the existence of inanimate objects functioning as substitutes in CTH 759–763.

The selection of examples given above does not exhaust the typology of textual parallels that are relevant for the interpretation of the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions. We hope, however, that these examples suffice to demonstrate that intertextual comparison has a potential to complement the previous contributions to the study of the Luwian language, at least as far as our texts are concerned. As noted in Section 1.1, our focus on quasi-bilinguals harks back to the earlier breakthroughs in the field of Luwian Studies, which were based on the study of bilingual or digraphic inscriptions. The results that we present for your attention in the present section and elsewhere in the book may look less impressive, because they pertain to an advanced stage in the study, but they would still be impossible without the application of similar methods.

## 1.5 LINGUISTIC AND PHILOLOGICAL CONVENTIONS

The publication of Hittite-Luwian fragments undertaken in this book continues the tradition of the commented editions of Boğazköy texts and, as such, follows most conventions that are typical of such editions. Below we would like to dwell on some choices and idiosyncrasies in this area, which partly stem from the subject matter of this edition and partly reflect the academic backgrounds of one or both of its authors.

The narrow (sign-by-sign) transliteration of Hittite and Luwian forms mostly follows the modern conventions of StBoT. We use the italic capitals not only for the Akkadograms but also for the stem forms of proper nouns—for example, ḫKU-WA-AT-TAL-LA. The rationale for such a convention is the observation that the stem-forms prototypically occur in heterographic expressions—for example, KUB 35.41 iv 3’-4’ ṢA’-WA-AT ṣī-LA-AL-LU-Ḥi ṫŪ’ ṫKU-WA-AT-TAL-LA MUNUSUḤUR.LA5 ‘The word of Šilalluḥi and Kuwattalla, the female attendant’.<fnref n="20" /> The same convention was previously used in other StBoT volumes, namely Oettinger 1976 and crucially Starke 1985, where most of the texts published here were previously edited in transliteration. The Sumerogram of plurality is transliterated ḪÁ rather than ḪI.A, thus following the HZI (259, no. 335).

<footnote n="20">20 For the similarities between the stem-forms of proper nouns and Akkadograms, see further Kudrin-ski 2017b, 117–18.</footnote>
The Hittitological transcription (known as bound transcription in Hittitological circles) is used for Hittite forms, as well as for Luwian forms in those cases where they are addressed as technical terms (e.g. *dupaduparša*-ritual, *hallinai*-clauses). Furthermore, the Luwian forms are cited in Hittitological transcription in the glossary, in order to be able to keep the same alphabet in both its Hittite and Luwian sections.<fnref n="21" /> In other cases, the Luwian bound forms are given in linguistic transcription—for example, /tubadubarsa/ rather than *dupaduparša*. The ultimate rationale between the different systems of rendering the Hittite and Luwian lexemes is that the Hittite texts are always attested in cuneiform transmission, whereas the Luwian forms also occur in hieroglyphic transmission; therefore, the representation of the latter requires a common denominator that is independent from a particular writing system. In our case, this consideration plays a subsidiary role, since the hieroglyphic texts are not edited in this book. The different ways of referring to Hittite and Luwian forms, however, are useful as a handy reminder that we are dealing with bilingual texts. In other words, the difference between the Hittitological transcription and linguistic transcription in the commentary serves the same function as the difference between roman (upright) and italic (slanted) fonts used for rendering Luwian and Hittite transliterated forms respectively, in the main text of the edition.

The conventions of Luwian linguistic transcription are partly similar to those im-
plemented in the Annotated Corpus of Luwian Texts<fnref n="22" /> and branded “interpretative
transliteration” in Yakubovich 2015a. We refer the readers to the last source, in par-
ticular to Sections 4.2 and 5.1, for the phonetic-graphic interface and phonological in-
ventory respectively. Yet, since linguistic transcription must strive to approximate
phonetic reality using a universal notation, we made additional changes that reflect
the emerging consensus about the pronunciation of individual Luwian phonemes.
Thus, we use /x/ instead of /h/ in most positions; /-γ-/ instead of /-h-/ between vow-
els; /ts-/, /-ts-/ instead of /z-/, /-zz-/; /kʷ/ instead of /kw/; /gʷ/ instead of /gw/; and /j/
instead of /y/. For example, we transcribe /kʷis-xa/ instead of /kwis-ha/ ‘anyone’ and
/tsaja/ instead of /zaya/ ‘these’. We realize that these conventions may be unusual for
scholars with training in Cuneiform Studies but not in Linguistics, yet they are
unlikely to cause any confusion, since the citations of transcribed Luwian forms
normally follow their instantiations in transliteration. On the positive side, we be-
lieve that introducing the Luwian linguistic transcription to broad circles of Hitti-
tologists and Ancient Near Eastern scholars has certain educational value.

The morphological representation of Hittite forms follows the established best
practices and does not require special comments. In the case of the Luwian forms, we
follow the representation of Luwian nominal and verbal stems suggested in Yakubo-
vich 2015a and elaborated in the course of the eDiAna project (for the verbal stems,
see also Sasseville 2020c). These representations are equally applicable to forms in

<footnote n="21">21 A special convention concerns Appendix I: there the Luwian forms are cited in Hittitological transcription in the case of numbered examples without morphological annotation, and in linguistic transcription in the case of the annotated numbered examples.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 http://web-corpora.net/LuwianCorpus/search/.</footnote>
linguistic transcription and Hittitological transcription. They imply, for example, that the word for ‘hand’ is transliterated here as iššar(i)-, as opposed to iš(ša)ra/i- in Melchert 1993, 95. The notation of Luwian verbal stems in our book, but not in Melchert 1993, distinguishes where possible between the verbs of i-, ti-, and di-conjugations. The readers should pay careful attention to the existing differences in Luwian morphological notation, which reflect divergent approaches to the grammatical description as a whole rather than disagreements on the analysis of individual forms.

Italics are used in translation for marking the Hittite and Luwian technical terms—for example, *dupaduparša*-ritual, *ikkunatt*-sacrifice. They are also occasionally deployed for marking the translations of Hittite lexemes with less than assured meanings. In contrast, we chose not to mark the degree of reliability of Luwian translations, relegating the relevant discussion to the commentary. The reason for such a decision is not our complete confidence in the proposed interpretations; quite to the contrary, it is the sense of humility with regard to the task of translating from a language that has not yet been fully understood. A mere glance at our commentaries will be sufficient to appreciate the range of contexts where our translations from Luwian reflect original research, subject to the critical evaluation of other scholars. In a comparable number of instances, the meaning of a word is suggested based on a limited number of contexts, or there are tensions between the contextual and etymological meanings. Under such conditions, special marking of controversial cases would make little sense unless one evaluates every Luwian word on a scale of reliability and introduces a complicated multi-dimensional notation.

The Luwian dialect of CTH 758–763 was labelled Kizzuwadna Luwian in Yakubovich 2010a, and this label has found considerable following in recent years (see e.g. Melchert 2013b, 159–60; Rieken 2017a, 301–2; Giusfredi 2018, 80). It is appropriate, however, to stress that not all the incantations displaying the linguistic features of Kizzuwadna Luwian are necessarily to be linked with the land of Kizzuwadna (classical Cilicia). The dearth of Luwian textual material demonstrably associated with the Lower Land (southern part of Central Anatolia) makes it impossible to distinguish between the Luwian dialects of Kizzuwadna and the Lower Land on linguistic grounds. While most of the rituals associated with the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions lack specific text-internal attribution, it has already been mentioned that they display specific textual links with both the Tunnawiya tradition, usually attributed to the Lower Land, and the Maštigga tradition, firmly grounded in Kizzuwadna. A common linguistic feature of the Kuwattalla, Maštigga, Puriyanni, and Tunnawiya traditions is the proleptic construction (see Appendix II). The Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions exhibit it in Luwian incantations, while the ritual texts attributed to Tunnawiya and Maštigga calqued it in their incantations that were translated into Hittite. The combination of these factors suggests that, pending further evidence, the linguistic term Kizzuwadna Luwian can also be applied to the dialect of the Lower Land. This modification does not affect the transparent distinction between Kizzuwadna Luwian and the Luwian dialect of Hattuša and its vicinity.<fnref n="23" />

<footnote n="23">23 For a more in-depth discussion of the problems treated in this paragraph, see Mouton and Yakubovich 2021.</footnote>
The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European forms are cited using standard conven-
tions, which will not be specially addressed in this chapter. It might be appropriate,
however, to stress that comparative and etymological information plays a subsidiary
role in this book and is adduced only in those cases where it directly contributes to
the interpretation of the text. Such an approach aims at avoiding duplication of the
*Digital Philological-Etymological Dictionary of the Minor Ancient Anatolian Corpus
Languages* and the new edition of the *Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon*, currently in prepa-
ration by H. Craig Melchert. The formal cooperation with the eDiAna project and in-
formal exchange of opinions with H. Craig Melchert gave us an opportunity to com-
municate our new translations to both these lexicographic projects. Furthermore, many
of them have already been published as separate papers (see e.g. Yakubovich 2017/
2018; Mouton and Yakubovich 2019; Yakubovich 2019) or will be published in the near
future.

Turning to philological matters, our edition of CTH 758-763 shows that this cor-
pus is so fragmentary in character that it prevents us from reconstructing entire tab-
lets. Under these circumstances, it is still difficult if not impossible to affirm whether
we are dealing with exact duplicates or with parallel versions, since textual overlaps
can be only partially observed. In fact, whenever the tablet fragments are large
enough to provide a wider reconstruction, it seems that we are dealing with parallel
versions rather than exact duplicates. To this observation, we should add another
one: since the entire corpus of cuneiform texts in Luwian language is not very large,
each orthographic or linguistic variation is precious to us. In practice, this means that
each tablet is edited separately, and the round bracket notation for supplying the
missing content on the basis of an allegedly exact duplicate tablet is absent in our
edition. This approach is different from the practice adopted in Starke 1985, where
the round bracket notation is extensively used. This discrepancy should in itself be
sufficient to show that our decision to avoid interpreting these tablets as exact dupli-
cates is rooted in our respective research frameworks and priorities. According to
Starke, CTH 758-763 can be divided into a finite number of texts, while the variation
between different versions of the same text seems to be perceived as information
noise, which impedes the main task of restoring their content and is to be filtered by
philological methods. This approach reflects the Hittitological mainstream of the 20th
century and is ultimately rooted in the aspirations of Classical philologists to restore
the textual archetype associated with a specific Greek or Roman author by removing
scribal corruption. In contrast, the new approach to the study of Hittite texts, inaugu-
rated in Miller 2004 and Christiansen 2006, emphasizes that every tablet or tablet se-
ries is unique, and the study of scribal adaptations is inherently of no less interest
and sometimes of more intrinsic value than the restoration of the "standard" version
of a particular Hittite ritual text.

The ramifications of the new approach for the classification of ritual traditions
have already been addressed in Section 1.2 above. Here we would like to focus on
their practical implications for textual restoration, using the small fragment KUB 35.42
as an example. According to Starke (1985, 148), this is the duplicate of KUB 35.43
ii 12-19, and all the lines of KUB 35.42 are fully restored using the round brackets. In
particular, the Luwian verb *la-at-ta* ‘he took’ is restored in KUB 35.42:6’, even though the reduplicated form *la-a-la-a[t-ta]* ‘he took’ occurs in the parallel clause KUB 35.42:7’. In the matching passage KUB 35.43+ ii 17–18, we find *la-at-ta* in both clauses. Thus, Starke’s analysis privileges the restoration based on an alleged duplicate over the internal structural parallelism, which is arguably a consequence of the round bracket notation. Now, Detlev Groddek identified KUB 35.42 as belonging to the same tablet or tablet series as KUB 34.62 + KBo 34.247 + KUB 32.14,<fnref n="24" /> while *la-[a-la-at-ta]* is a better restoration than *la-[at-ta]* for space reasons in line 4’ of KUB 34.62+. Furthermore, the reduplicated form ‘*la*’-*la-at*-*ta*’ is attested in the same formula in KUB 35.43+ iii 23’—that is to say, on the alleged duplicate of KUB 35.42—although in a different rite. Therefore, the restoration of *la-a-la-at-ta* in KUB 35.42:6’ emerges as the default option, even though it undermines the notion that KUB 35.42 and KUB 35.43+ ii 12-19 are exact duplicates.

But the problem does not end here. The fragment KUB 34.62 + KBo 34.247 + KUB 32.14 features *BE-EL* SÍSKUR (variant: LÚBE-EL SÍSKUR) as the designation of the ritual patron. Since *BE-EL* SÍSKUR rarely alternates with *EN SÍSKUR* or *EN SISKUR* within the same tablet or tablet series (see Appendix I), one would expect the restoration of *BE-EL* SÍSKUR in KUB 35.42, if this fragment indeed once belonged to the same tablet series as KUB 34.62+. In contrast, KUB 35.43+ consistently deploys the Sumerogram *EN SÍSKUR*; thus, pursuing the duplicate hypothesis, one would also be tempted to restore [*EN SISKU*]R in KUB 35.42:8’. Starke prefers the third option and restores [*EN SÍSKU*]R, which lacks obvious philological motivation. The whole question may ultimately be moot, however, because the presence of the ‘ritual patron’ in the restored lines of KUB 35.42 is by no means guaranteed. Starke restored the final Hittite line 8’ on this passage on the assumption that it is the exact duplicate of KUB 35.43+ ii 19 and thus belongs to a substitution rite involving a white sheep. Yet, this conjecture is unprovable, because the preceding Luwian incantation (KUB 35.42:1’–7’) is in no way linked to a white sheep, but it would be quite appropriate in any substitution rite. On a more practical note, Starke’s reading of KUB 35.42:8’ as [... *EN SÍSKU*]R ‘*an*’-*d*[a ...] does not stand close scrutiny, since the alleged DA sign begins with a vertical; we prefer the reading [...]x ‘*DINGIRMEŠ*’ x[...], which does not match anything in KUB 35.43+ ii 19 and thus speaks against treating KUB 35.42 as a duplicate of KUB 35.43+ ii 17–19.

The necessarily technical discussion above provides an illustration of how looking for duplicates among the small fragments may lead to wishful thinking. At the same time, most of Starke’s restorations offered in connection with KUB 35.42 hold up perfectly, even without reliance on a specific duplicate. The formulae such as ‘I have made it run to his left, so that it took his sinisterness. I have made it run to his right, so that it took his evil terror’ can freely re-emerge at various points in the Kuwattalla tradition and, as we shall see below, can even be shared between the Kuwattalla and Tunnawiya traditions. Far from exercising skepticism for the sake of skepticism, we effectively offer an alternative restoration strategy for our corpus: the scope of comparison conducive to filling in the lacunae is no longer a particular tablet or tablet series.

<footnote n="24">²⁴ See Konkordanz sub KUB 32.14.</footnote>
ries but rather, as the case may be, a specific rite, incantation, or collocation. The best practice for indicating such parallels seems to be listing them in the commentary to the specific restored passages. Such a practice, unlike the round bracket notation, leaves room for variation between parallel passages, such as *la-at-ta* vs. *la-a-la-at-ta* 'took' in the incantation quoted above.

Hittitologists commonly operate with the distinction between direct and indirect joins. When two fragments are directly joined, they become one fragment, physically or virtually. The verification of direct joins is usually unproblematic, at least if the original fragments are available. The closer indirect joins can be further subdivided into horizontal and vertical, with typologically meaningful consequences. If a horizontal indirect join is extensive enough, it is usually possible to reconstruct the textual content of several lines running between the joined pieces, thus verifying their relative placement. A recent example of such a join within our corpus is KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94 (CTH 759). The vertical joins do not share lines of text, and their physical arrangement vis-à-vis one another is normally possible only in those cases when there is a duplicate or parallel version overlapping with both upper and lower pieces. Thus, in the instance of KUB 35.16 (+) KUB 35.14 (CTH 760), the parallel versions KBo 29.9 and KUB 32.8(+) help to demonstrate that the distance between the two joined fragments is hardly more than one to two lines.

The grey area begins with those fragments belonging to the same tablet, the distance between which cannot be evaluated. As an example, which comes from the workshop of the Luwili Project, one can consider the join KBo 53.228 (+) KBo 60.32 (CTH 758). Both fragments can be identified on independent grounds as belonging to the Puriyanni ritual and can be ordered vis-à-vis each other, while the paleographic analysis strongly points toward the identification of the same scribal hand. Yet, judging by other tablets of the Puriyanni tradition, the fragments hardly belong to the same column. Assigning them to columns two and three respectively is the most likely solution, but it cannot be proven either, because parallel versions of the Puriyanni ritual may vary in the distribution of rites across columns. This means in practice that such an indirect join cannot be regarded as either vertical or horizontal and generally cannot be drawn. Yet, as long as we can assume that all the compositions of the Puriyanni tradition consist of just one tablet, KBo 53.228 (+) KBo 60.32 can still formally be regarded as a join.

In contrast, the Kuwattalla tradition offers many instances of fragments that reflect the same tablet series but demonstrably belong to different tablets or cannot be proven to belong to a single tablet. The clearest case is that of KUB 35.41 and KUB 35.40, which are assigned to the eighth and ninth tablets respectively according to their colophons and reflect the same tablet series of the *dupaduparša*-ritual, characterized by the peculiar orthography *du-pí-du-pa-ar-ša* (CTH 759.2). Furthermore, the indirect vertical join KUB 35.94 (+) KUB 35.83 can be assigned to the same tablet series on paleographic grounds: it can belong to the eighth tablet, the ninth tablet or, no less likely, to a different tablet of the same series. On the one hand, there is no justification for assigning exactly the same CTH entry to KUB 35.41, KUB 35.40, and KUB 35.94 (+) KUB 35.83, as if they were indirect joins; on the other hand, it seems necessary to
distinguish such groups from the parallel versions of the same ritual. Toward this end, we have introduced the notation involving small letters—that is, KUB 35.94 (+) KUB 35.83 = CTH 759.2.a, KUB 35.41 = CTH 759.2.b, and KUB 35.40 = CTH 759.2.c. The order of letters corresponds to the perceived order of fragments within the tablet series, whenever a judgment on this subject is at all possible.

Another way of underscoring the distinction between different kinds of joins (and non-joins) is the convention concerning the use of the prime adopted in this book. It is an established Hittitological practice to increase the prime in the instance of line numbers belonging to the same column, which are separated by lacunae of uncertain length (e.g. 1-x [lacuna] 1'-x' [lacuna] 1"-x" etc.). The prime, however, is not increased if the indirectly joined fragments are assumed to belong to different columns, as in the case of KUB 7.14(+) (CTH 758). The fragment KUB 7.14 is anchored at the beginning of column one and therefore begins with line 1, while the fragments KBo 29.2 + KUB 35.52, KUB 35.53, and VS NF 12.60 demonstrably begin in the middle of columns two, three, and four respectively, and therefore their numbering begins with line 1' in all three cases. In contrast, if elements of an indirect join cannot be assigned to specific columns, the prime is still increased, as if they belonged to the same column. This is the case of the above-mentioned fragments KBo 53.228 and KBo 60.32, which are assigned lines beginning with 1' and 1" respectively. Finally, in the instance of elements belonging to the same tablet series but not necessarily forming an indirect join, the prime is obviously not increased, since the lines are technically attributed to different tablets of the same series.

It is obviously easier to follow all the proposed conventions if one turns to the edition of the relevant fragments. The purpose of outlining them together in this section is to summarize the specific challenges that reflect the subject matter of the Luwili Project. First, our corpus is dominated by the bilingual texts; second, these texts are organized into parallel versions displaying a considerable degree of variation vis-à-vis each other; and third, many compositions consist of several tablets and can be pieced together only on the basis of paleographic analysis. The Hittitologists who will be facing similar challenges in the future are invited to review the proposed set of conventions with regard to its applicability to their own work and suggest their own refinements.
## 2. IDENTIFYING JOINS AND ASSEMBLING TABLET SERIES

### 2.1 INTRODUCTION

The goal of this chapter is to provide arguments for treating together the fragments of Hittite-Luwian ritual texts that were considered separately in previous scholarship, or, in rarer cases, for disputing the joins advanced in earlier publications. Most modern editions of Anatolian cuneiform texts introduce the new joins in passing, while the online concordance of the *Hethitologie-Portal Mainz* was considered the designated place for reporting such discoveries for the last twenty or so years. The reason we have found it necessary to deviate from the established practice, and also to duplicate in part the information found in the textual edition below, has to do with the nature of our data. Only in a few cases did the Luwili Project yield new direct joins, such as KBo 22.137 + KBo 29.4, KBo 39.180 + KUB 35.104+, IBoT 3.96 + ABoT 2.241 + ABoT 2.237, and KUB 35.71 + KUB 35.31.<fnref n="25" /> In the majority of cases, our identifications range from indirect joins to fragments belonging to different tablets of the same tablet series (for a more nuanced discussion of different options, see Section 2.5). Such hypotheses cannot be verified on the spot to everyone's satisfaction and require detailed argumentation, while in extreme cases they remain probabilistic.

The key procedure that enabled us to move forward with joining and classifying the fragments of CTH 758–763 was the identification of scribal hands. Since the days when the photographs of cuneiform fragments from Ḩattuša first became publicly available at the *Hethitologie Portal Mainz*, it has become a standard procedure to test the possible joins by way of drawing paleographic charts for the joined fragments and establishing whether they may belong to the same scribe. The Luwili Project availed itself of paleographic information in a more rigorous fashion: all the major fragments of our corpus were classified for scribal hands, and then those reflecting the same hand were evaluated for additional similarities. In many instances, we could argue on independent grounds that such fragments also reflect the same tablet series, while in a smaller group of cases they turned out to reflect different tablet series, or

<footnote n="25">25 One of the reasons for such a state of affairs is that at the very start of the Luwili Project, our colleague David Sasseville undertook independent efforts aimed at joining Luwian cuneiform fragments and was able to identify a larger number of direct joins, which he promptly communicated to the *Hethitologie Portal Mainz* and also reported in his publications. His results demonstrated how much work remains to be done in this area and thus provided inspiration for our own efforts. Unfortunately, Sasseville was not able to collate the relevant fragments in the Ankara museum, while some of his joins did not find confirmation through our subsequent analysis. This is, for example, the case of two among the nine new joins listed in Sasseville 2020c, 553: the collation revealed the physically incompatibility of KBo 29.58 and KUB 60.36, while KUB 35.72 and KUB 35.35 are written in different hands and appear to belong to different compositions (see Fig. 2.6 and Fig. 2.25 below).</footnote>
even different compositions, despite the paleographic similarities. This, of course, is the expected outcome: it is quite conceivable that the same scribe was responsible for several Hittite-Luwian ritual texts, or for several versions of the same text. Nevertheless, given that the last scenario is rare,<fnref n="26" /> we assume that Hittite fragments written by the same scribe and showing indications of belonging to the same composition also belong to the same tablet series unless there is evidence to the contrary.

So far as we can judge, paleographic analysis on such a scale has not yet been undertaken in connection with the philological edition of cuneiform texts from Boğazköy. Given the novelty of our approach, we felt it incumbent upon ourselves to document it in concrete visual terms. This is the purpose of 27 paleographic charts illustrating different scribal hands, each represented by more than one fragment. The charts are placed immediately after this chapter. Since it would take too much space and time to describe every paleographic analogy or dissemblance for each chart, only the most characteristic signs are addressed in the text of the chapter. The description of the most characteristic paleographic features reflected in each chart is immediately followed by the evaluation of these findings in the light of contextual and other data.<fnref n="27" />

The greatest challenge for the paleographic analysis comes from the Middle Script fragments, whose sign shapes are generally very similar. The scribal hands of the Middle Script period, therefore, are more difficult to identify than those of the bulk of New Script hands. This observation goes hand in hand with the fact that many Middle Script fragments are quite tiny and their surface is badly worn away. With all these points of caution in mind, we suggest that our paleographic analysis of the Middle Script fragments should be taken as tentative. Fortunately, in a number of cases this deficiency can be compensated through contextual and physical similarities.

The proposed analysis arguably represents an approach whose significance goes beyond the Luwili Project. Indeed, there is no reason why it cannot be undertaken with respect to other groups of Boğazköy texts featuring numerous copies and/or parallel versions, with similar results for the improvement of their classification. Furthermore, once paleographic classification is performed for several corpora, this can be conducive to the comparison of scribal hands across the respective groups and beyond them. If feasible, the holistic classification of scribal hands in Hattuša has obvious practical advantages. On the one hand, the paleographic identification of tablets with and without colophons can allow scholars to assign the latter to the known scribes and thus significantly extend our knowledge about their prosopography. On the other hand, even if the name of the scribe remains unknown, a set of different texts

<footnote n="26">26 The only assured case of two tablet series reflecting the same composition and belonging to the same scribe in our corpus are CTH 762.1 and CTH 762.2, both showing the hand of Pariziti (see under Fig. 2.23 below). An additional likely case is that of KUB 60.36 vs. KBo 29.58 (see under Fig. 2.25 below), but in this case we cannot be fully assured that these two fragments reflect the same scribal hand.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 We hasten to add that the paleographic identifications suggested in this book are not exclusively based on this subset but also take into account others signs appearing in the charts. Our selection of signs for the charts is deliberately larger than the list of so-called diagnostic signs used for dating tablet fragments. The larger the selection of signs is, the easier the identification of each scribal hand becomes. In an attempt to avoid any bias, we offer the complete list of characteristic signs or their clusters.</footnote>
attributed to the hand of the same individual can teach us a lot about the relative chronology of Hittite compositions. Finally, establishing the scribal hands of fragments of uncertain textual attribution may restrict the options in assigning their CTH numbers and even help in joining them. In particular, we expect that more Hittite fragments that are currently grouped under CTH 470 and CTH 500 can be assigned to CTH 758–763 once they are shown to reflect one of the scribal hands treated below.

## 2.2 ANALYSIS

The discussion below follows the figure number of paleographic charts, which are in turn ordered according to the occurrence of the respective fragments (or the first among those fragments) in the text edition. It covers all the new joins reached in the course of the Luwili Project, except for KUB 35.71 + KUB 35.31, because this direct join, which has been physically verified at the Ankara museum, does not require paleographic verification, and there seem to be no other fragments reflecting the same scribal hand in our corpus.

**Fig. 2.1:** The DU sign of KUB 35.54, KUB 35.15 and KUB 35.65 has a wedge (*Winkelhaken*) on top of the horizontal elements, which tends to be placed quite close to the head of the upper horizontal element. The left vertical element of the E sign is much shorter than the right one. The wedges of the NA sign are obliquely aligned and often form a continuous oblique line. The vertical elements of the RU sign are located very much apart from each other, the middle vertical element being significantly shorter than the other two. The wedge placed before the vertical elements of the RU sign has its frontal tip looking downward. The RU sign, therefore, is significantly different from that of Fig. 2.17 (fragments of one-column Middle Script tablets). The RA sign is probably the most characteristic sign of this scribe, featuring a large empty space between the middle horizontal and left vertical elements. The shape of this RA sign resembles that of Fig. 2.13, but the empty space is absent from the latter. Furthermore, the HA sign of Fig. 2.1 shows wedges whose lower extremity is extended toward the bottom. This feature, as well as the oblique alignment of the wedges of the NA sign, as per the discussion above, constitute additional differences from Fig. 2.13. Therefore, although the signs in Fig. 2.13 and Fig. 2.1 share several features in common, they still reflect different hands. They may emanate from scribes belonging to the same circle.

Despite the identity of the scribal hands, one can positively claim that KUB 35.54 reflects a different composition from KUB 35.15 and KUB 35.65: in the first case we are dealing with the best-preserved tablet of the Puriyanni tradition, while in the second we can safely identify the two fragments as belonging to the Kuwattalla tradition. In view of this fact, the hypothesis that KUB 35.15 and KUB 35.65 belong to the same tablet series does not impose itself. There are, in fact, indications that KUB 35.65 reflects a very particular version of the Kuwattalla tradition, featuring a bull and a ram among the ritual items and /xaradar-/'offence' and /waskulimm(a)-/'fault' as the main set of miasma (see Section 3.6), while KUB 35.15 refers to a more usual triad
of /tabaru-/, /tadarijamman-/, and /xirun/d-/. Therefore, despite the reference to the
nakkušši-rite in both KUB 35.15 and KUB 35.65, we interpret them as belonging to
two different versions of the Kuwattalla tradition. It is possible that the scribe of the
three Middle Script fragments under discussion specialized in Hittite-Luwian ritual
texts—for example, due to his good command of the Kizzuwadna dialect of Luwian—
and therefore was asked to copy/record several of them.

**Fig. 2.2:** The scribal hand of KUB 7.14(+) is recognizable by its peculiar A sign, with a very thin and shorter left vertical element and a higher right vertical element with a very large head. The same structure can also be observed in the E and IA signs. The head of the vertical elements is slanted, as well as those of the horizontal elements. The ḨA sign is quite short with two wedges placed at the middle height of the vertical elements. The TI sign is one of the most recognizable signs of this scribe, with its very short structure, slanted heads, and the wedge placed under the central vertical element.

The fragments KUB 7.14, KBo 29.2+, KUB 35.53, and VS NF 12.60 can all be as-
signed to the Puriyanni tradition on the basis of their diction. KUB 7.14 and VS NF 12.60
feature direct references to Puriyanni, while KBo 29.2+ and KUB 35.53 contain paral-
lel versions of the passages known from KUB 35.54. In addition, KUB 7.14, KBo 29.2+,
and KUB 35.53 demonstrably belong to the version of the ritual featuring first-person
references to the performer. Because the layout of KUB 35.54 indicates that the text
of Puriyanni's ritual against the impurity in the house fits on a single tablet, all four
pieces can be treated as indirect joins, belonging to columns one, two, three, and four
respectively. Note that KUB 35.52 and KUB 35.53 had already been treated as belong-
ing to the same tablet in Starke 1985, 63–64.

**Fig. 2.3:** The scribe of KBo 22.137+ makes short and large signs, as is the case of A, E, IA and ZA. The top wedge of the WA sign crosses the head of the vertical element with its right horizontal element often touching the vertical element.

The fragments KUB 35.47, KBo 22.137, and KBo 29.4 can all be assigned to the Puriyanni tradition on the basis of their diction. KUB 35.47 contains a characteristic incantation accompanying purification with water and salt, while KBo 22.137 and KBo 29.4 refer to the Storm-god of the Open Country. Because Puriyanni’s ritual against impurity always fits on a single tablet, we initially assumed that all the four pieces form indirect joins, despite being unable to determine the distance between the fragments on the vertical axis. The collation of the relevant fragments in the An-kara museum brought about a gratifying surprise—namely, the direct vertical join KBo 22.137 + KBo 29.4—thus confirming the proposed paleographic identifications.<fnref n="28" />

**Fig. 2.4:** The scribe of IBoT 3.96+ and KBo 29.53 tends to make A signs with a left vertical element that is thin and sometimes slightly curved, whereas the right vertical element features large and flat heads. Many more vertical elements of signs associ-

<footnote n="28">28 Contrast Otten’s tentative hypothesis that KBo 29.3 and KBo 29.4 belong to the same tablet, which was problematic from the perspective of paleography as well as of content, and which furthermore delayed for a long time the recognition of the direct join KBo 29.3 + KUB 35.45 belonging to a text of the Kuwattalla tradition (Sasseville 2020b, 112).</footnote>
ated with this scribe also feature large and flat heads—for example, ŠA/TA, AN, E, and IŠ/UŠ. This peculiarity, compounded with the longer ḪA and ZA signs and a wedge on top of the DU sign, is what clearly distinguishes the scribe under discussion from that of Fig. 2.7, whose sign shapes are otherwise quite close and who may have come from the same scribal circle. Furthermore, the ŠA and TA signs in Fig. 2.4 feature a top wedge with a longer upper end, whose tip looks slightly downward. The WA sign has two wedges that are obliquely aligned with one another, the upper wedge being closer to the vertical element.

The fragments IBoT 3.96, ABoT 2.237, and ABoT 2.241 were all identified as parts of the Puriyanni tradition on the basis of their content before we were able to ascertain that they belong to the same tablet on the basis of their ductus (in particular, the WA sign). Once this step had been made, we quickly arrived at the direct join IBoT 3.96 + ABoT 2.241 and the indirect join involving these two and ABoT 2.237, which eventually turned into another direct join thanks to physical collation at the Ankara museum. In contrast, KBo 29.53 can be alternatively assigned to the Puriyanni or Kuwattalla traditions on the basis of its content, and even if one chooses the former option, it is not immediately conducive to determining its place on the tablet. Therefore, we have not affirmed its indirect join with IBoT 3.96+ (see the edition of CTH 763.3.1).

**Fig. 2.5:** The scribal hand of KBo 53.228 and KBo 60.32 is one of the most recognizable of our corpus, because of its slender signs; see for example the small distance between the vertical elements of the EN sign, as well as the horizontal elements of the LA and RA signs. The head of the top horizontal element tends to be much larger than the others, as is the case of the DA, IT, AD, LA, IŠ/UŠ, and Ū signs. The outlook of the TI sign, with its horizontal element positioned under the central vertical element and large wedge on the right, is also noteworthy.

Both KBo 53.228 and KBo 60.32 can be assigned to the text of Puriyanni's ritual against impurity in the house on the basis of their content. The former fragment shows a non-trivial overlap with the second column of IBoT 3.96+, including the rare verb *pu-uš-ša-i[z-zi]*, while the latter fragment contains a characteristic incantation accompanying purification with water and salt. Because Puriyanni's ritual against impurity always fits on a single tablet, an indirect join remains a default hypothesis, even though in this case one cannot calculate the physical distance between the two fragments.

**Fig. 2.6:** The paleographic data do not yield support to the indirect horizontal join KUB 35.72 (+) KUB 35.35 offered in Sasseville 2020c, 561–62. The A sign of KUB 35.35 is short and its two vertical elements are far apart. This is not the case for the A sign of KUB 35.72, whose vertical elements are closer to each other as well as longer. Although the RA sign of KUB 35.72 is partly damaged, one can see that the horizontal elements of the left part of the sign reach above the head of the left vertical element. The RA sign of KUB 35.35 looks quite different, since its horizontal elements are placed much lower. The NU sign of KUB 35.35 shows the tip of the oblique element going across the head of the horizontal element, which is not the case of the NU sign of KUB 35.72, where the oblique element is positioned further to the right. Although
there are very few signs to compare between these two tablet fragments, these obser-
vations suggest that we are dealing with two distinct scribal hands.<fnref n="29" />

The proposed indirect join also cannot derive support through contextual argu-
mentation. KUB 35.72 refers to the Storm-god of the Open Country and therefore can
be safely assigned to the Puriyanni tradition (see further the edition of CTH 758.5).
The textual attribution of KUB 35.35 is less assured, but the reference to raw meat
represents a link between this fragment and the *dupaduparša*-ritual (see further the
edition of CTH 759.11). The only assured lexical similarity between the two fragments
is the mention of Luw. *ik-ku-wa-a[r]* ‘liver’ in KUB 35.72 vs. the derived adjective *ik-ku-na-a-an-ti-ʿen*’ in KUB 35.35, but it has no value for the classification of the latter
fragment, because the *ikkunatt*-rite, another derivative of the Luwian word for ‘liver’, is
independently attested in the Kuwattalla tradition, including in the *dupaduparša*-ritual.

**Fig. 2.7:** The H>A, AN, ŠA/TA, IA, and ZI signs of KBo 39.181 and the related fragments have short vertical elements. The unique wedge of the DA sign is placed midway along the horizontal elements, and there is sometimes an empty space between the wedge and the vertical element. The proximity of the scribal hand of KBo 39.181(+) to that of Fig. 2.4 and the very symmetric wedges of its IN, NA, and ZI signs might suggest a Middle Script dating.

The joins KBo 39.181 (+) KBo 39.180 and KUB 35.104 + KUB 35.120 had already
been made before the start of the Luwili Project (see the edition of CTH 758.6). Both
pairs of fragments share the reference to the *ilwatiyati*-breads and thus could be as-
signed to Puriyanni's ritual against the impurity of the house once the same bread
was identified in KUB 7.14 i 12. On the basis of paleographic similarities, it became
possible to hypothesize that the two pairs of joined fragments belong to the same tab-
let—that is, form an additional indirect join, with uncertain distance between the
fragments. The inspection of the fragments in the Ankara museum confirmed and re-
fined this hypothesis, yielding the direct join KBo 39.180 + KUB 35.104.

Figs 2.8 and 2.9 show the hand of Ziti II, son of NU.GIŠ.SAR I and member of Anuwanza’s scribal circle (see Gordin 2015, 179–80 for more details). Ziti II’s hand is identified through tablet fragments showing his name on their colophons (including those not edited in this book) in Fig. 2.8, while all the other fragments of our corpus sharing the same ductus are presented in Fig. 2.9. Thanks to these two paleographic charts, one can summarize the characteristics of Ziti II’s hand in some detail. The first vertical element of the A sign is sometimes slightly curved. The horizontal elements of the PA sign are situated very close to the head of the vertical element and have a longer part on the right side. The head of the lower horizontal element slopes to the right. The KI sign is tiny, featuring one large wedge right in front of its structure. The inscribed vertical element of the ŠA sign is small and shifted toward the left edge of

<footnote n="29">29 The shape of the WA, IŠ, and NA signs of KUB 35.72 prompt us to suggest that this fragment reflects Middle Script. The dating of KUB 35.35 is less obvious, but the shape of its NA sign reminds us of that of Middle Script fragments. Several features of KUB 35.72 remind us of the fragments of Fig. 2.18. However, the AR sign of KUB 35.72 does not show a very high and oblique wedge on its left side. KUB 35.72 also differs from the fragments in Fig. 2.13 through the curved shape of the lower horizon- tal element of its NI, I, and PA signs, as well as through its RA sign.</footnote>
the sign. The right wedge of the HA sign is raised quite high up, whereas its left wedge is almost invisible. The right horizontal element of the GI sign is placed very obliquely. The left vertical element of the UN sign is quite remote from its other two vertical elements. The AL sign is large, with one lower horizontal element. The wedge of the RU sign slants toward the left, while the wedges of the ZI sign form a triangle.

According to the colophon of KUB 35.41, Ziti II is responsible for the eighth tablet of the *dupaduparša*-ritual (spelled *du-pí-du-pa-ar-š[a]*). The fragment KUB 35.40, also attributed to his hand, contains a colophon of the ninth tablet of the *dupaduparša*-ritual and features the same unusual spelling *du-pí-du-pa-ar-* [*ša*], which is a strong argument for the two fragments reflecting the same tablet series. The other two Hittite-Luwian fragments attributable to Ziti II’s hand—namely, KUB 35.83 and KUB 35.94—apparently form an indirect vertical join (see the edition of CTH 759.2.a). Despite the fact that they show only isolated words on the right edge of the tablet, a possibility of restoring one of these passages based on KUB 35.67 confirms that they also belong to the *dupaduparša*-ritual, which in turn is compatible with their attribution to the same tablet series as KUB 35.41 and KUB 35.40.

**Fig. 2.10:** One of the most recognizable signs of the scribe of KUB 35.81(+) is the TI sign, distinguishable through its horizontal element placed under the central vertical element. Furthermore, the tip of the right wedge of the TI sign tends to look upward. The DU sign features a top element placed horizontally over two other horizontal ones, although the medium horizontal element tends to be slightly curved. All three horizontal elements are quite long. The tendency to make long horizontal elements is also noticeable in the AL sign, with its two long horizontal elements stretched to the left, as well as the E and the Ú signs. In the latter, the vertical elements are sometimes three, sometimes four in number.

The identification of this scribal hand was conducive to assembling the indirect join KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94 (+) KUB 35.78 (+) KUB 35.37, the fragments of which all belong to the first tablet of the abbreviated version of the *dupaduparša*-ritual (see the edition of CTH 759.3 and compare the discussion at the end of Section 3.3). The distinctive feature of this tablet is the truncation of Luwian incantations up to the initial 2-3 forms. Yet, other fragments showing the same hand definitely do not conform to this pattern. KUB 35.42 and KUB 34.62 + KBo 34.247 + KUB 32.14, assigned to the same tablet series by Detlev Groddek (communication to the *Hethitologie Portal Mainz*), display archaic features and probably represent a copy of an older text of the Great Ritual (see the edition of CTH 761.2.3). The collation of these two fragments in the Ankara museum confirmed that their signs are smaller than those of KUB 35.81(+), thus providing an additional indication that they reflect a different composition. The final fragment showing the same hand is KBo 29.14. Judging by its content, it may represent yet another fragment of the Great Ritual, but given its small size and the lack of exploitable sign shapes we prefer to err on the side of caution and not to assign it to CTH 761.2.3 for the time being.

**Fig. 2.11:** In KUB 35.3, KBo 29.24, and KUB 35.67, the upper extremity of the wedges of the NA sign is high up, while the two wedges of this sign are almost symmetrically aligned along the vertical axis. The right wedge is placed very high, at the
top of the vertical element of the NA sign. This scribe's tendency to print his wedges almost vertically is also visible in the IŠ sign, whose lower horizontal element is in addition much shorter than the upper one. In a similar way, the E sign features a lower horizontal element that is much shorter than the upper one. The IN sign is quite long, while its horizontal element is slightly undulated. Although this last trait is also present in Fig. 2.12, the other signs of Fig. 2.11 addressed above indicate that we are dealing with two different scribal hands.

Both KBo 29.24 and KUB 35.67 can be assigned to the *dupaduparša*-ritual, since both mention purification with the *gangati*-plant, which constitutes a distinct peculiarity of this version of the Kuwattalla tradition (see Section 3.7). The reference to the Old Woman in KUB 35.3 suggests that it likewise represents a part of the Kuwattalla tradition, while the physical appearance of the fragments, collated in the Ankara museum, is compatible with the option that KUB 35.3 and KUB 35.67 belong to the same tablet. It is also to be noted that KUB 35.3 probably refers to household deities, while KUB 35.67 introduces purification of different parts of the house, which raises the possibility that the two fragments reflect the same rite. Although a strict proof that the small fragment KUB 35.3 reflects the *dupaduparša*-ritual is lacking, Occam's razor would encourage us to assign all three fragments to the same tablet series.

**Fig. 2.12:** KBo 8.129, KUB 32.8 (+) KUB 32.5, and KUB 35.85 share a wide KI sign, whose two wedges are placed far apart. The TI sign is quite short. The IN sign features a slightly undulated horizontal (see the discussion of Fig. 2.11 above). The WA and ŠI signs have wedges that form an extra-sharp angle. The ZA sign can be quite large. Finally, the left vertical of the UN sign is far apart from the other vertical elements. All these characteristics resemble those of KUB 7.14(+) (see Fig. 2.2), although the latter reflects another composition and comes from a different find spot. At the same time, it is reminiscent of Ziti II's hand (Figs 2.8 and 2.9), although with non-trivial differences. Thus, the TAR sign features a strictly vertical element below the horizontal, whereas Ziti II's TAR sign has an oblique element instead. Also, the DU sign is elongated, with a horizontal upper-left element and a slightly undulated element running parallel to it below. In contrast, Ziti II's DU sign has a wedge on top of a very similar structure. This combination of similarities and differences prompts the suggestion that the scribe of KBo 8.129 and the associated fragments might have belonged to the same scribal circle as Ziti II.

While KBo 8.129 and KUB 32.8 (+) KUB 32.5 are unlikely to belong to the same tablet, they may well reflect the same tablet series. The strongest argument in favor of such a hypothesis is the reference to the Luwian deity 'Supreme Sun-god', shared by these two tablets but occurring nowhere else. It is also worth noting the shared expression *za-an-da du-ú-pa-a-im-mi-* 'downstriking', written with the DA sign. In contrast, the small fragment KUB 35.85 does not provide contextual arguments for treating it together with the other two fragments, but the collation at the Ankara museum revealed its close physical similarity to KUB 32.8 (+) KUB 32.5, implying a possibility of belonging to the same tablet. While we cannot insist on an indirect join involving KUB 35.85, the hypothesis that all the fragments treated in Fig. 2.10 belong to the same tablet series can still be regarded as the default solution.
**Fig. 2.13:** In the case of both KUB 35.18(+) and KBo 58.225, the heads of the vertical elements are noticeably slanted, while the lower head of the right vertical element (e.g. in A) is almost invisible. In the H>A and ZA signs, the lower head of the left vertical element clearly protrudes toward the left, and all the heads of the vertical elements are slanted. The wedges of the H>A sign are placed quite low. The horizontal elements of the signs also generally have a slanted head, as is the case of the ŠA/TA, AN, and DU signs, for instance. The slanted heads of the two horizontal elements of the ŠA/TA sign are vertically aligned. Apart from its slanted heads (both for its horizontal and vertical elements), the E sign is distinguishable through its shorter left vertical, which is placed far apart from its longer counterpart to the right. The NA sign has a short horizontal element that ends with a wedge whose lower extremity is longer. The right wedge is placed very high up, often over the head of the vertical element.

Thanks to the paleographic comparisons in Fig. 2.13, we established the indirect join KUB 35.18 (+) KUB 35.66 (+) KBo 29.11 (+) KBo 29.10, which belongs to the first tablet of the combined version of the “ritual of striking down” and the Great Ritual. The first two fragments could be assigned to the first tablet based on their content (incipit and inventory list), while the last two find textual parallels in KBo 29.3+, which likewise reflects the first tablet of the combined version. The assessment of KBo 58.225 is more complicated. Its formulaic repertoire is generally compatible with what is expected of the first tablet (see the edition of CTH 760.1.b), but we lack precise parallels in the preserved part of KBo 29.3+, and therefore caution dictates merely taking it as an additional fragment of the same tablet series. A common feature of all the five fragments, vis-à-vis the parallel version KBo 29.3+, consists in significantly shorter lines.

**Fig. 2.14:** The scribe of KBo 29.3+ and KUB 35.46 tends to make horizontal elements which are slanted downward from left to right, as is the case of the LI, GI, RU, RA, and ŠU signs, for instance.<fnref n="30" /> This tendency is not present in the equivalent signs of KUB 9.36. This shows that the latter does not come from the same scribe, thus undermining the suggestion of a direct vertical join KUB 35.46 + KUB 9.36 advanced in Starke 1990, 596–97.

The question whether KBo 29.3+ and KUB 35.46 belong to the same tablet series is probably to be answered in the negative. The expression ‘tongue of misery’ followed by merisms in KUB 35.46 contrasts with its placement in KBo 29.3+ but finds a close parallel in KUB 35.49 (see the edition of CTH 761.2.1.a). If we take this formula as diagnostic (see Section 3.4), it follows that the scribe of KBo 29.3+ also copied a more archaic version of the Great Ritual, although given the small size of KUB 35.46 this hypothesis remains tentative.

**Fig. 2.15** illustrates the identity of the scribal hands responsible for KUB 35.14, KUB 35.16, and KUB 35.51, as well as the impossibility of attributing KUB 35.117 to

<footnote n="30">30 Otten tentatively suggested in his foreword to KUB 35 that KUB 35.45, KUB 35.46, and KUB 35.47 all belong to the same tablet. In the meanwhile, KUB 35.45 was joined to KBo 29.3, while KUB 35.47 can now be joined to KBo 22.137 and KBo 29.4 and interpreted as part of the Puriyanni tradition (see Fig. 2.3). This refutes the core of Otten’s suggestion, although the implied observation that KUB 35.45 and KUB 35.46 reflect the same scribal hand can still be credited to him.</footnote>
the same hand, which undermines the tentative join KUB 35.14 (+) KUB 35.117 advanced in Goedegebuure 2010a, 305 fn. 30. The scribe of KUB 35.51 and KUB 35.16(+) tends to print long vertical elements with large and flat heads. The lower vertical element of the EN sign is placed right under the head of the horizontal element. The lower extremity of the vertical element of the TI sign is often placed under the wedge, which overlaps with its center. This shape significantly differs from the TI sign of KUB 35.117, whose central element placed under the vertical element almost resembles a horizontal. The AL sign of KUB 35.51 and KUB 35.16(+) often has an extra oblique element crossing the two vertical elements. The lower horizontal element of the BI sign protrudes toward the left. The Ú sign has sometimes three, sometimes four vertical elements. The IN sign has a long and slightly undulated horizontal element on top of which the right wedge is placed close to its head. In contrast, the right wedge of the IN sign of KUB 35.117 is remote from the head of the horizontal. The two wedges of the WA sign of KUB 35.117 are widely stretched, unlike those of KUB 35.51 and KUB 35.16(+), which are very close to each other. The I sign of KUB 35.117 is noticeably different from that of KUB 35.51 and KUB 35.16(+), with the two heads of the upper horizontal element going downward, whereas the same heads have an extended upper extremity in the instance of KUB 35.51 and KUB 35.16(+). Finally, the GAD sign of KUB 35.117 features a very large head of the upper horizontal element, whereas the heads of the upper and lower horizontals have the same size in the instance of the GAD sign of KUB 35.51 and KUB 35.16(+).

The paleographic identity between KUB 35.16 and KUB 35.14, already spotted by Otten in his foreword to KUB 35, was conducive to establishing a vertical indirect join between these two fragments, the distance between which can be defined through parallel versions (see Section 3.3 for details). In contrast, KUB 35.51 almost certainly belongs to a different tablet, although it shares orthographic innovations with KUB 35.16(+), notably the shorter spellings EN SISKUR ‘ritual patron’ and *hu-uk-zi* ‘conjures’. The fragmentary colophon of KUB 35.16(+) bears a unique resemblance to that of KUB 35.18(+), which suggests that KUB 35.16(+) reflects a combined version of the “ritual of striking down” and the Great Ritual. Since the content of KUB 35.51 is the rites of the Great Ritual, the assumption that it reflects the same tablet series as KUB 35.16(+) does not cause any difficulties.

**Fig. 2.16:** KBo 29.19’s most characteristic sign is BI, whose lower horizontal element is protruding toward the left. KBo 29.19’s TA sign, with its slightly curved upper horizontal element and its shorter left vertical element may be compared to that of KBo 29.22+. The ŚI signs of both fragments are also comparable, both featuring a wedge whose upper extremity reaches the head of the vertical element and a left horizontal element whose head is almost invisible. Finally, the IA signs of each fragment have an upper horizontal element whose right head is slightly lower than the left one.

The Luwian incantations of KBo 29.19 and KBo 29.22+ can assuredly be attributed to the substitution and spitting rites of the Kuwattalla tradition on the basis of their diction. Their restoration suggests that their lines consisted of a comparable number of signs. The inspection of both fragments in the Ankara museum confirmed that their signs are of the same size, and their other physical features (sign depth, layout,
shape of dividing lines) are also compatible. Therefore, pending evidence to the con-
trary, these small fragments may be considered as reflecting the same tablet series,
even though one cannot say whether they belong to the same tablet.

**Fig. 2.17:** The group of Middle Script tablet fragments consisting of KUB 35.23, KUB 32.10+, KUB 35.24+, KUB 35.21, KBo 29.15, and KUB 32.9(+) is badly preserved and its paleographic analysis, therefore, is tentative. In all the tablet fragments of this group, the unique wedge found on the left side of several signs, such as ŠI, AR, and RU, tends to be placed very high up and to have a lower extremity that is longer than the upper extremity. The vertical elements of the RU sign are quite close to each other, with the middle vertical element being only slightly shorter than the other two. The EN sign is characterized by very short vertical elements on top. The two wedges of its lower part are placed immediately under the right vertical element and go downward almost vertically, while its lower vertical element is placed on the left side of its top left vertical element. All these features make this EN sign quite different from that of Fig. 2.18. The top element of the TAR sign (featuring a double head) is almost horizontal, while the bottom element is vertical. This differs from the TAR sign of Fig. 2.13.

The core members of the group under discussion—namely, KUB 35.23, KUB 35.24+, KUB 35.21, and KUB 32.9(+)—were already treated as fragments of the same tablet series in Starke 1985, 74. In the case of KUB 35.24+ and KUB 32.9(+), this hypothesis is supported by the identical format and content of the respective colophons. Furthermore, KUB 35.24+, KUB 35.21, and KUB 32.9(+) demonstrably belong to one-column tablets and show a contrast between a very short Hittite narrative frame and longer Luwian incantations. KUB 35.24+ and KUB 32.9(+) can be identified as parts of the Great Ritual based on their colophons, while the other two can be assigned to the Great Ritual based on their content. The Luwili Project added KUB 32.10+ and KBo 29.15 to the same group, primarily on paleographic grounds. Note, however, that both fragments can also be assigned to the Great Ritual on the basis of their content, while the former fragment also shares the short Hittite narrative frame. Another contribution of the Luwili Project is the realization that KUB 35.21 and KUB 32.9(+) cannot belong to the same tablet, which invalidates the indirect join between these two fragments offered in Starke 1985, 87–91. The collations of the relevant fragments in the Ankara museum revealed that they belong to tablets of different size; that of KUB 35.21 was broader and thicker. On these grounds, one can in principle doubt whether the two even belong to the same tablet series; however, assuming that the two series of one-column tablets were written by the same scribe is a considerable complication, not to be accepted lightly. As long as there is no textual overlap between the one-column tablets of different size, it seems still safe to assume that a scribe availed himself of disparate tablets for recording a single draft of the same text (contrast the discussion of Fig. 2.23).<fnref n="31" />

<footnote n="31">31 For the loose association of one-column tablets with drafts, see van den Hout 1995a, 9 (with fn. 9) and Waal 2015, 90. Although not all the one-column tablets can be regarded as drafts, it is remarkable that the only assured one-column tablet series of the Kuwattalla tradition addressed here is arguably the earliest available text belonging to this tradition (see already the paleographic datings in Starke 1985).</footnote>
**Fig. 2.18:** Typical features of KUB 35.34, KUB 35.49(+), KUB 35.69, KUB 35.82, and DBH 46/2.33 are slanted heads of both the vertical and the horizontal elements. The left wedge of the H>A sign often crosses the left vertical. The horizontal elements of the KI sign increase their length from top to bottom. The horizontal elements of the ŠA/TA sign form a trapeze, as also do those of the BI sign. In both cases, the horizontal elements are placed close to each other, and the upper wedge on the right side is often situated over the upper horizontal element. In both the ŠA/TA and BI signs, the horizontal elements are often placed slightly obliquely. The tip of the wedge of the RU sign goes slightly downward; its vertical elements are close to each other, the medium one being shorter than the other two. Its horizontal element features a large head, which is placed far apart from the vertical elements. The AR sign shows a very high and oblique wedge on its left side. The lower vertical elements of the EN sign are placed exactly under its two top vertical elements, whereas its two obliquely aligned wedges are placed on the right side of these top verticals. Finally, although seldom preserved, the MEŠ sign is noteworthy, since its left wedge is located on the left side of the vertical element.

From the perspective of textual assignment, the fragments assembled in Fig. 2.18 represent one of the most complicated cases in our corpus. All the fragments of this group with known find spots were found in Büyükkale. The only holistic generalization one can make about their orthography is the lack of innovative spellings, which is generally expected of Middle Script tablets. Their content leaves no doubt that all of them belong to the Kuwattalla tradition, but it is equally clear that they cannot all belong to the same tablet. Although we lack positive evidence that they all belong to the same tablet series, we provisionally accept this hypothesis as long as there are no textual overlaps (see the discussion of Fig. 2.17). The fragments KUB 35.49, KBo 9.147, and KUB 32.6 belong to the first tablet of the ritual on the basis of their parallels with KBo 29.3+ (see further under CTH 761.2.1.a). Although all three fragments appear to belong to different columns, their physical features are compatible with the hypothesis of their indirect join, as suggested by their collation in the Ankara museum. Two other possible candidates for an indirect join are KUB 35.69 and KUB 35.82: both of them feature slightly smaller signs than KUB 35.49(+) and show offprints of fabric. Yet, in the absence of a textual argument for the adjacency of the two relevant passages, and given their different, albeit close, findspots (Bk. A and Bk. D), we chose not to insist on this join. Finally, the fragments DBH 46/2.33 and KUB 35.34 do not show particular physical similarities to other fragments treated here and may belong to additional tablets. Summing up, this is an excellent example of a new hypothetical tablet series that is primarily assembled on the basis of a scribal hand.

**Fig. 2.19:** Both KBo 29.7 and KBo 47.290 are very worn away, which complicates their paleographic analysis. Furthermore, they are tiny and have only a few signs in common. However, all the signs they display have a shape which one could call “geometric” and which is common to most of the Middle Script fragments of our corpus: vertical elements that are not very close to each other (see IŠ/UŠ, NA, IA signs), right wedges that tend to be high up and with a longer lower extremity (see e.g. the ŠI sign; see Fig. 2.17), and oblique elements of the NI/IN signs that form a wide-open

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
angle. The signs that appear on both fragments, notably TI and IŠ, seem to match visually.

In this case, the tentative paleographic identification derives strong support from the identical find spot of both fragments in Bk. M, where no other fragments of our corpus have been found. They also contain the characteristic incantations that are otherwise attested in the version of the Great Ritual attributed to Kuwattalla, addressed above in connection with Fig. 2.17. The probability of an indirect join between the two fragments remains considerable, while their attribution to the same tablet series is nearly certain.

**Fig. 2.20:** On the paleographic level, KBo 22.143, KBo 30.190, and KUB 35.28 are mainly distinguishable by their ŠI sign, whose wedge crosses the vertical elements with its lower part and the head of the vertical element with its upper part. The IŠ/UŠ signs are characterized by a wedge with a longer upper extremity, two vertical elements placed close to each other, the right one being higher than the left one, and the upper horizontal element that protrudes toward the left.

The most characteristic feature of these three fragments is that they are all pre-ruled (*vorliniert*). Although a couple of other pre-ruled tablets are also available in our corpus, this feature is rare enough to corroborate the hypothesis of a single tablet series. Furthermore, the content of KBo 22.143 and KUB 35.28 is compatible with the hypothesis that they reflect the same incantation, which even prompted Sasseville (2020b, 114) to propose a direct vertical join between the two fragments. Although the collation at the Ankara museum unfortunately showed the physical impossibility of such a join, the incantation involved may occur several times in the text of the ritual, so its co-occurrence in KBo 22.143 and KUB 35.28 supports rather than contradicts the assumption that the two fragments belong to the same tablet series. Both KBo 51.220 and KBo 22.143 were found in the Temple I area, while the findspot of KUB 35.28 has not been recorded.

**Fig. 2.21:** KBo 51.220, KUB 35.29+, KUB 35.112, and KBo 29.16 feature both the vertical and the horizontal elements of signs with slanted heads. In general, the vertical elements are placed close to each other. The ŠA/TA sign is characterized by an upper horizontal element that clearly protrudes toward the left. This is also the case of the BI, AM, IŠ/UŠ, and UN signs. The right horizontal element of the AL sign has a larger head, while the left vertical element is shorter than the right one. The horizontal element of the NI/IN sign is curved. The upper horizontal element of the MA sign protrudes toward the left and has a larger head than the other two horizontal elements. The left vertical of the UN sign is much shorter than the other two and placed far apart, while its horizontal elements are long.

All the four fragments can be assigned to the Kuwattalla tradition on the basis of their content, while the collation at the Ankara museum confirmed the similarity of their physical features. Furthermore, the Luwili Project established that KUB 35.29+ and KUB 35.112 form a horizontal indirect join, where the missing content can be fully restored (see the edition of CTH 761.3.5.b). The fragments KBo 51.220, KUB 35.29+, and KBo 29.16 were all found in the Temple I area, while the same find spot of KUB 35.112 is assured through the join made.
**Fig. 2.22:** The signs of KBo 29.55+ and KUB 35.56 often have large wedges on the right side, with a long lower extremity, as is the case of EN, ḨA, TI, and MU. The EN, ḨA, and AM signs are quite recognizable through their defective shapes: no lower vertical element in the EN sign, only one visible wedge in the ḨA sign, and only one large wedge in the middle of the AM sign.

This paleographic identification led us in turn to propose a “deep” join between the two fragments, where KUB 35.56 is superimposed upon the cavity in KUB 35.43 (see the edition of CTH 761.3.8). This join could not be physically verified in the Ankara museum because of the way the parts of KUB 35.43 are fastened together, and thus it remains indirect for the time being. Nevertheless, it is conducive to filling a large lacuna between the two better-preserved parts of KUB 35.43 with the contextually expected content.

**Fig. 2.23** comprises fifteen fragments showing the hand of Pariziti, a scribe that belonged to Walwaziti's circle (Gordin 2015, 285-91). These are KBo 29.5, KBo 29.6, KBo 29.45, KBo 40.276+, KBo 44.221, KBo 29.63, KUB 32.4, KUB 32.7, KUB 32.70, KUB 32.79, KUB 35.12, KUB 35.17, KUB 35.33(+), KUB 35.70, and KUB 35.74. Within this group, the DA sign tends to get a shorter lower horizontal element. The A sign tends to have the lower head of its right vertical element at the same level as the head of the left vertical. The TI sign features a horizontal element under the central vertical element. The left horizontal element of the GI sign is low, while another distinctive feature of the same sign is a series of three obliquely placed wedges on top of a horizontal element, which is placed only slightly obliquely. The two horizontal elements of the PA sign tend to be very short to the left of the central vertical element.

The inspection of the fragments attributed to Pariziti is immediately conducive to dividing them into two unequal groups. The largest fragments—KBo 29.6 and KUB 35.70—show signs that are markedly smaller than those of the remaining pieces. Both fragments assuredly belong to the Kuwattalla tradition, while their content prompts the hypothesis of an indirect join, where KBo 29.6 contains large parts of column one and column two, while KUB 35.70 contains large parts of column two and column three (see the edition of CTH 762.2). The remaining thirteen fragments are all markedly smaller but have larger signs. Among them, one should single out KBo 29.63, whose content closely parallels the lower part of KUB 35.70 ii, KUB 35.33 (+) KBo 29.20—which features a partially preserved colophon attributing it to a particular version of the Kuwattalla tradition—and KBo 34.245+, which assuredly belongs to the Kuwattalla tradition on the basis of its content and mentions Pariziti's name. If these three and the remaining ten fragments all belong to the same tablet series, it is reasonable to assume that we are dealing with a closely parallel version of the text represented by KBo 29.6 (+) KUB 35.70. While we do not have a contextual proof of this hypothesis, one can at least say that there is not a single fragment among them whose content complicates its attribution to the Kuwattalla tradition, while the majority of them supply positive evidence for such an attribution (see the edition of CTH 762.1 for details). It is also remarkable that eleven of these thirteen fragments were found in Building A of Büyükkale (the other two were found outside of Building A but also in Büyükkale). The most suspect of the thirteen is KBo 29.45,

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029
which was found in building K and contains a rather generic list of Luwian theonyms.
For the implications of assembling Pariziti's version for understanding the history of
the Kuwattalla tradition, see Section 3.4.

**Fig. 2.24:** the signs of KBo 22.254 and KBo 29.18 feature noticeably slanted heads of the vertical elements, which tend to be printed close to one another and are quite long, as in the instances of A, E, AR, and Ú signs. The ŠA/TA signs have an upper horizontal element which protrudes toward the left. The DU sign has a short horizontal element on top of the two usual longer horizontal elements on the left side, which are printed close to each other. The Ú sign has short horizontal elements, the lower one being even shorter than the upper one, and three vertical elements, which are printed close to each other.

Both fragments were found in the Temple I area, assuredly belong to the Kuwat-
talla tradition, and very likely reflect the same rite, since both refer to a golden vessel
in the Hittite text and mention a woman in the accompanying Luwian incantation.
Given that the relevant rite begins at the end of column three in KBo 22.254, it is
logical to assign KBo 29.18 to column four of the same tablet; therefore, we propose
their indirect join. Assigning KBo 29.18 to the upper part of a column is compatible
with the results of its collation at the Ankara museum.

**Fig. 2.25:** The scribe of KUB 60.36, KBo 29.58, and KBo 29.60 tends to print wedges with their tips going slightly downward and sometimes featuring a long lower extremity, as is the case of the KI, IŠ/UŠ, WA, AR, and RI signs. The ŠA/TA signs tend to have short middle vertical element(s). The horizontal element of the RA sign runs obliquely.

All three fragments were found in the Temple I area and reflect the Kuwattalla tradition. Unfortunately, the indirect join KBo 29.58 (+) KUB 60.36, proposed in Sasseville 2020c, 556, was not confirmed by the collation of the relevant fragments at the Ankara museum.<fnref n="32" /> The signs of KBo 29.58 are slightly larger than those of KUB 60.36, and the thickness of the two fragments is also different. At the same time, at the purely textual level, the proposed join remains fairly plausible. As long as the scribal hands of KBo 29.58 and KUB 60.36 are indeed the same (which can be doubted, given the small number of signs common to both fragments), this leaves only one solution: there were at least two tablet series containing the same text, written by the same scribe and featuring the same layout. Unfortunately, if this is the case, then it is impossible to say whether KBo 29.60 belongs to the same tablet series as KBo 29.58 or KUB 60.36, and all three fragments are to be considered separately for formal reasons.

**Fig. 2.26:** The scribe of KUB 35.68 and KUB 32.124 tends to make narrow signs (see e.g. A, IŠ/UŠ, and ZI). The horizontal elements of the DA sign decrease from top to bottom. The AN sign has a short horizontal element, with two large heads. The KU sign is narrow, with a particularly short middle horizontal element. The BI sign is likewise narrow, featuring very large heads and an upper horizontal element that

<footnote n="32">32 According to Sasseville 2020c, this was actually a direct join KBo 29.58 + KUB 60.36, even though his transliteration shows a restored space of 2-3 signs between the left and right fragments. It is not immediately clear to us whether the use of + instead of (+) is merely a misprint or Sasseville operated with a different definition of what constitutes a direct join.</footnote>
protrudes toward the left. The wedges of the WA signs are aligned more or less vertically and placed very close to the vertical element.

Both fragments assuredly belong to the Kuwattalla tradition and, furthermore, show independent links to a very particular version of this tradition, which is probably associated with Kizzuwadna. KUB 35.68 features an incantation that finds a parallel only in KUB 35.65 (see the discussion of this fragment under Fig. 2.1), while KUB 32.124 refers to a bovine as a ritual carrier, which again resonates with the mention of the bovines in KUB 35.65. Both fragments were found in the same room of Building A in Büyükkale.

**Fig. 2.27:** In the instance of KBo 29.42, as well as in KBo 61.31, the A sign has a left vertical element that is curved and very thin. The TA/ŠA signs are characterized by upper wedges whose upper extremity runs high up. The right head of the horizontal element of the AN sign is larger than the left one and has a more developed lower extremity. The Ú sign is large and made of four vertical elements, which is in line with the Middle Script dating of the fragments under discussion. The two wedges of the WA sign are obliquely aligned, while those of the NA sign are placed very high up.

Both fragments were found in the same part of Temple I area, roughly to the east of Magazine 10, and have the same clay quality according to the description of *Hethitologie Portal Mainz*. Both belong to the Kuwattalla tradition on the basis of their content, but their tiny size precludes any more specific conclusions. Since the paleographic identification of Middle Script fragments is generally more difficult, the hypothesis that these two small fragments belong to the same tablet series, although likely, is not absolutely assured.

## 2.3 INTERIM BALANCE

Summing up the progress of the Luwili Project in piecing together the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions, one can state that it amounts to five direct joins, nineteen indirect joins, and thirty-four attributions for fragments to the same tablet series (within the latter category, some of the claims advanced are probabilistic). To this one can add the joins KBo 29.2 + KUB 35.52, KUB 35.33 (+) KBo 29.20, KBo 29.22 + KBo 57.26, KUB 35.13 + CHDS 2.99 + KUB 35.36, and KUB 35.64 + KBo 34.245 + KBo 40.276, independently reached by David Sasseville at the time of the Luwili Project, as well as the important join KBo 29.3 + KUB 35.45, which was initially identified by Annelies Kammenhuber but remained without official recognition until its re-discovery by David Sasseville (see Sasseville 2020c, 53). Taken together, these joins represent a significant step forward in our interpretation of CTH 758–763.

At the same time, one must make a distinction between the ways these new data contribute to the interpretation of the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla traditions. In the former case, the juxtaposition of all the identified and joined fragments is conducive to reconstructing and roughly sequencing all the main rites of the ritual for the purification of the house. The initial part of the ritual is reconstructed on the basis of the join KBo 39.181 (+) KBo 39.180 (+) KUB 35.104 + KUB 35.120 (CTH 758.6) and features

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
the act of tying the šēna- and ilwatiyati-breads to the patient. Presumably, these ob-
jects embody the miasma, and some of them possibly represent figurines of the
evil nakkiu-spirits. The next important sequence became available due to the join
KBo 22.137 + KBo 29.4 (CTH 758.2.2): the patient's wooden substitute is dressed be-
fore a huwaši-stone, and then the rope linking the patient to the miasma is cut. The
following step in the progression of the ritual consists in manipulations with the sev-
ered figurine (šēna-bread), accompanied by the incantation for the destruction of the
miasma. This rite is attested at the beginning of KUB 35.54 ii (CTH 758.1).

The tablet KUB 35.54 represents the largest available fragment of the Puriyanni tradition and establishes the rite sequence of the central part of the ritual for the purification of the house. After the miasma are severed from the patient, the wooden substitute symbolically transfers the polluted furniture items to the Storm-god of the Open Country, who is expected to neutralize their pollution (ii 17'–41'). At this stage of the ritual, utmost care is exercised to prevent the pollution of the Storm-god of the Open Country (see III.2.4). A brief interlude is the presentation of the symbols of Heaven and Earth, underscoring the irreversible character of the ritual acts (ii 41'–45'). The next major step is the purification of the house proper, which is accomplished by means of a scapegoat (ii 46'–iii 11). Finally, both the patient and his house are purified by means of water and salt, (iii 12–38), even though other versions of the ritual apparently prescribe the patient's purification earlier on, immediately after the manipulations with the severed šēna-bread (KUB 35.55 = CTH 758.3.2 and KBo 60.32 = CTH 758.3.3).

The last discrepancy shows that the variation within the text of the Puriyanni tradition occasionally concerns not only stylistic matters but also performance; relevant aspects, such as the order of rites. Another possible example illustrating the same phenomenon concerns the placement of sacrificial rites on a tablet. Thus, KBo 22.137 (CTH 758.2.2) apparently contains the description of a sacrifice in column two, KUB 35.72 (CTH 758.5) refers to a sacrificial rite in column two or column three, while VS NF 12.60 (CTH 758.2.1) refers to a sacrifice in column four. Since all the contexts are fragmentary, we cannot be fully certain whether the relevant versions contained one or more sacrificial rites; under the former scenario, one has to assume their changing order. Yet, whether one operates with a repetition or transposition of sacrificial rites, it seems clear that such rites are not ritual-specific and therefore do not constitute the structural core of the Puriyanni tradition. The only text belonging to this group whose structure remains opaque is the so-called second ritual (CTH 758.4), of which only the incipit has been preserved.

The case of the Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 759–763) is rather different. While the
new joins and paleographic attributions reduce the uncertainties within this group,
they are not immediately conducive to clarifying the structure of the respective com-
positions. The reasons for such a state of affairs are twofold. First and foremost, all
the rituals attributed to Kuwattalla and/or Šilalluhi fit on more than one tablet, which
in practice means that the majority of paleographic identifications do not qualify as
joins. Under such conditions, the information about the attribution of a particular
fragment to a specific column or part of the tablet has a limited value for positioning
it vis-à-vis other fragments reflecting the same scribal hand. Second, there is no con-

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
sensus on a number of rituals belonging to the Kuwattalla tradition, or the way of attributing individual fragments to specific ritual texts.

The discrepancy outlined in this section constitutes the principal reason the three chapters to follow closely focus on the structure of the Kuwattalla tradition. In Chapter 3, we shall attempt to build the rationale for assigning its individual fragments to CTH 759 through 763, building on the paleographic classification achieved in this chapter. In contrast, chapters 4 and 5 will be devoted to the comparative treatment of the Kuwattalla tradition. While its comparison with the Tunnawiya tradition undertaken in Chapter 4 is primarily important for clarifying its history, its comparison with the Maštigga tradition pursued in Chapter 5 unexpectedly provides a tool for sequencing its rites. Far from claiming that the discussion to follow can solve all the remaining problems, we would like to stress that the study of scribal hands merely represents one tool for approaching the pitfalls of our corpus, to be complemented through intertextual comparison.

## 2.4 PALEOGRAPHIC TABLES

<table><caption>Figure 2.1: Paleography of KUB 35.54, KUB 35.15 and KUB 35.65</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 35.54</th><th>KUB 35.15</th><th>KUB 35.65</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>EN</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>DA</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>IT</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>A</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 35.54</th><th>KUB 35.15</th><th>KUB 35.65</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>HA</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>KI</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>ŠA/TA</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>AN</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>LI</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>TAR</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>TI</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 35.54</th><th>KUB 35.15</th><th>KUB 35.65</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>DU</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>AL</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>AD</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>LA</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>KU</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>E</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>BI</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

N/A

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

N/A

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

N/A

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

N/A

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

N/A
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 35.54</th><th>KUB 35.15</th><th>KUB 35.65</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AM</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>GI</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>IŠ/UŠ</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NI/IN</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NA(+)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>UK/AZ</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>WA</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>ŠI</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 35.54</th><th>KUB 35.15</th><th>KUB 35.65</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>AR</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>RU</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>PA</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>I</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>IA</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>RI</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Ú</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 35.54</th><th>KUB 35.15</th><th>KUB 35.65</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>MA</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>RA</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>ZI</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>GAD</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>ŠU</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>ZA</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>UN</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>MU</th><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><tr><td></td><td>KUB 35.54</td><td>KUB 35.15</td><td>KUB 35.65</td></tr><tr><td>NU</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>DUMU</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>LÚ</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TE</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>HI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SISKUR/ SÍSKUR</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>MEŠ</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Fig. 2.2: Paleography of KUB 7.14 and related fragments</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 7.14</th><th>KBo 29.2</th><th>KUB 35.52</th><th>KUB 35.53</th><th>VS NF 12.60</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>EN</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>DA</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>IT</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>A</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td></td><td>KUB 7.14</td><td>KBo 29.2</td><td>KUB 35.52</td><td>KUB 35.53</td><td>VS NF 12.60</td></tr><tr><td>HA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>KI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ŠA/TA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

N/A

N/A

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>KUB 7.14</td><td>KBo 29.2</td><td>KUB 35.52</td><td>KUB 35.53</td><td>VS NF 12.60</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AN</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TAR</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TI</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>KUB 7.14</th><th>KBo 29.2</th><th>KUB 35.52</th><th>KUB 35.53</th><th>VS NF 12.60</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BI</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>AM</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>GI</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>IŠ/UŠ</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>NI/IN</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>NA(+)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>UK/AZ</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td></td><td>KUB 7.14</td><td>KBo 29.2</td><td>KUB 35.52</td><td>KUB 35.53</td><td>VS NF 12.60</td></tr><tr><td>WA</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ŠI</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AR</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>RU</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>KUB 7.14</td><td>KBo 29.2</td><td>KUB 35.52</td><td>KUB 35.53</td><td>VS NF 12.60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PA</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>IA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>RI</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Ú</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><tr><td></td><td>KUB 7.14</td><td>KBo 29.2</td><td>KUB 35.52</td><td>KUB 35.53</td><td>VS NF 12.60</td></tr><tr><td>MA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>RA</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>ZI</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>GAD</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>ŠU</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>KUB 7.14</td><td>KBo 29.2</td><td>KUB 35.52</td><td>KUB 35.53</td><td>VS NF 12.60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ZA</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>UN</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MU</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NU</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>DUMU</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LÚ</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td></td><td>KUB 7.14</td><td>KBo 29.2</td><td>KUB 35.52</td><td>KUB 35.53</td><td>VS NF 12.60</td></tr><tr><td>Əİ</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>SİSKUR/ SİSKUR</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>MEŞ</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Fig. 2.3: Paleography of KBo 22.137, KBo 29.4 and KUB 35.47</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>KBo 22.137</th><th>KBo 29.4</th><th>KUB 35.47</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>EN</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>DA</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>IT</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>A</th><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>HA</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>KI</th><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>ŠA/TA</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>AN</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KBo 22.137</th><th>KBo 29.4</th><th>KUB 35.47</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LI</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TAR</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>TI</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>DU</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>AL</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>AD</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>KU</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>E</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>BI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KBo 22.137</th><th>KBo 29.4</th><th>KUB 35.47</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AM</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>GI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>IŠ/UŠ</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>NI/IN</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NA(+)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>UK/AZ</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>WA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ŠI</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>AR</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>RU</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_140.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_141.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /></figure>

N/A

N/A
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KBo 22.137</th><th>KBo 29.4</th><th>KUB 35.47</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PA</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>IA</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>RI</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Ú</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>MA</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>RA</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>ZI</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>GAD</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_143.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_144.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_145.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_146.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_147.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_148.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_149.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>KBo 22.137</th><th>KBo 29.4</th><th>KUB 35.47</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ŠU</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>ZA</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>UN</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>MU</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>NU</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>DUMU</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>LÚ</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>TE</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>HI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>SISKUR/ SÍSKUR</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>MEŠ</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Fig. 2.4: Paleography of IBoT 3.96 and related fragments</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>IBoT 3.96</th><th>IBoT 2.241</th><th>IBoT 2.237</th><th>IBoT 2.239</th><th>KBo 29.53</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>EN</th><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>DA</th><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>IT</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>A</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>HA</th><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>IBoT 3.96</td><td>ABoT 2.241</td><td>ABoT 2.237</td><td>ABoT 2.239</td><td>KBo 29.53</td></tr><tr><td>KI</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>ŠA/TA</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AN</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><tr><td></td><td>IBoT 3.96</td><td>ABoT 2.241</td><td>ABoT 2.237</td><td>ABoT 2.239</td><td>KBo 29.53</td></tr><tr><td>TAR</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>TI</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>DU</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>AL</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_156.png" /></figure>

N/A

<figure><img src="image_157.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>IBoT 3.96</th><th>ABoT 2.241</th><th>ABoT 2.237</th><th>ABoT 2.239</th><th>KBo 29.53</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AD</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>KU</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>v</td></tr><tr><td>E</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>BI</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_158.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_161.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>IBoT 3.96</th><th>ABoT 2.241</th><th>ABoT 2.237</th><th>ABoT 2.239</th><th>KBo 29.53</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>AM</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>GI</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>ÍŠ/UŠ</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>NI/IN</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>NA(+)</th><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th>UK/AZ</th><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.029

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by authors
<table><tr><td></td><td>IBoT 3.96</td><td>ABoT 2.241</td><td>ABoT 2.237</td><td>ABoT 2.239</td><td>KBo 29.53</td></tr><tr><td>WA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ŠI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>AR</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>RU</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>PA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_171.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_174.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td></td><td>IBoT 3.96</td><td>ABoT 2.241</td><td>ABoT 2.237</td><td>ABoT 2.239</td><td>KBo 29.53</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>IA</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>RI</td><td></td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Ú</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>MA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_175.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_177.png" /></figure>

N/A

<figure><img src="image_178.png" /></figure>

N/A

<figure><img src="image_179.png" /></figure>

N/A

N/A

<figure><img src="image_180.png" /></figure>

N/A

N/A