incantations classified under CTH 760 in Laroche 1971 are now commonly assigned to the Tunnawiya tradition (Beckman 1990, 34–35; Mouton 2015a, 81), but those with matching Luwian incantations remained under CTH 760 in the subsequent versions of the CTH.<fnref n="34" /> Finally, the ritual fragments with Luwian insertions that do not display obvious similarities to any of the above (nor with the texts attributed to Zarpiya and Puriyanni—i.e. CTH 757–758) were assigned to CTH 763. In practice, most of these fragments can still be considered as part of the Kuwattalla tradition, which remains a default assignment for Hittite-Luwian ritual fragments, if only for statistical reasons.

Somewhat different classification principles were adopted in Starke 1985, where the bulk of Luwian cuneiform texts were published in transliteration. Frank Starke agreed with Laroche that the Great Ritual and the *dupaduparša*-ritual must be treated as two separate compositions belonging to one tradition; in his book they are called “First Ritual” and “Second Ritual” respectively. The corpus of the “Second Ritual”, however, was fleshed out with numerous fragments without colophons. Starke’s hypothesis behind such a decision was the alignment of certain peculiarities, such as references to oil and honey or the verb ‘to nail down’, with the *dupaduparša*-ritual, contrasted with the alleged absence of such features in the fragments of the Great Ritual. Furthermore, Starke postulated the “Third ritual” of the Kuwattalla tradition, which, according to him, is characterized by the performance in the open country. From the methodological perspective, Starke’s classification is more uniform than Laroche’s, since the analysis of the colophons is given there a consistent priority.

On top of segmenting CTH 759–763 into three rituals, Starke introduces the partially overlapping distinction between their adaptations (*Redaktionen*), which was again based on the colophons. There is one tablet series within this group attributed to the attendant woman Kuwattalla, several more mention the Old Woman Šilalluhi, and the largest group features the joint attribution to both ritual practitioners. All three types of colophons are attested among the fragments of the “First Ritual”; the joint attribution alone is found in those of the “Second Ritual”, while the authors of the “Third Ritual” are lost in the lacunae of the respective colophons and Starke did not attempt to reconstruct them. Although Starke’s monograph does not attempt to define or discuss at any length the notion of ritual adaptation, variation among versions is not rigidly linked there to their authorship; thus, the joint adaptation of the “First Ritual” is said to feature at least two distinct versions (Starke 1985, 75). This implies three levels of distinction among the specimens of the Kuwattalla tradition: one associated with the subject matter of the ritual, one triggered by its authorship, and one independent from both factors but presumably reflecting the copyists’ interference.

Although Starke’s classification scheme of CTH 759–763 has never been implemented in any version of the CTH, it is fair to say that it defined the subsequent discussion of the Kuwattalla tradition for several decades. In particular, it was adopted in the only existing reference work on Luwian religion (Hutter 2003, 253–54). Never-

<footnote n="34">34 We shall see below in Chapter 4 that the parallels with the Tunnawiya tradition are found very frequently in those texts that can be assigned to CTH 761 (the Great Ritual) on the basis of their colophons. Therefore, whatever one thinks about the origin of the similarities between the two traditions, using them for internal classification purposes of CTH 759–763 clearly did not pay off.</footnote>
theless, the postulated direct link between the adaptations of the rituals and the ac-
tivities of their performers elicited some skeptical remarks in Christiansen 2006. One
problem in such an explanation is the lack of consistent textual cues associated with
single vs. joint performance. Indeed, if both the Hittite and Luwian parts of the Great
Ritual had been recorded three times via intervening performers, it would have been
logical to find two versions with verbs of performance in 1sg. ('I libate', 'I conjure')
and one version with the matching verbs in 1pl. ('we libate', 'we conjure'). The
matching incipits KBo 29.3 and KUB 35.18 indeed reflect the contrast between the
first singular and first plural verbal forms, but it cannot be observed anywhere else in
the text of the respective versions.<fnref n="35" /> Even the oldest preserved tablet series of the tra-
dition contains the performative verbs in 3sg. despite the fact that its colophon fea-
tures a 1sg. verb (Christiansen 2006, 10). This is rather in accord with the hypothesis
that the attributions are mere labels introduced for the purpose of distinguishing in-
dividual versions from each other (Christiansen 2006, 11, fn. 33).

Christiansen's brief observations on CTH 759-763 anticipate her research on the
Ambazzi tradition, which constitutes the bulk of her monograph, and which contrib-
uted to a paradigmatic change in the study of Hittite ritual texts. In the footsteps of
Miller 2004, she succeeded in demonstrating that the Hattuša scribes played an active
role in the modification of the existing ritual texts, adapting them to the ever-
changing needs of the potential or actual patrons. We submit that the approach of
Miller and Christiansen is also fully applicable to textual variation in CTH 759-763.
The default hypothesis in the study of the parallel versions should be the modifica-
tion of the original text in the scribal milieu, not the examination of different ritual
practitioners. In other words, there is no need to assume the radical difference be-
tween level two and level three of Starke's taxonomy. This does not mean that the
Old Woman Šilalluḫi never existed, that the scholar-scribes never observed her per-
formance, or that they never had a chance to record her incantations. We shall see
that the existence of Šilalluḫi is intrinsically likely, and her interaction with the
scribes remains a viable option, but the final decision on how to modify the written
texts must have rested with the scholar-scribes, not with Šilalluḫi or even Kuwattalla.

It seems possible, however, to go a step further. In what follows we would like to
extend our enquiry to level one of Starke’s taxonomy and attempt to assess whether
the division of the Kuwattalla tradition into three rituals, which reflect three separate
performances, withstands close scrutiny. As we have seen above, this was a common
assumption of Laroche and Starke, and in two of the three cases it had the common
motivation—namely, the difference between the colophons mentioning the *dupaduparša*-ritual and the Great Ritual. Yet, recent studies of related ritual texts do not

<footnote n="35">35 One can compare here a related problem pertaining to the transmission of the Puriyanni tradition (CTH 758). As suggested by Starke, its available fragments reflect a “first person version” and “third person version”, but there is no paleographic indication that the fragments of the second group date back to a later period. Even if one assumes that the “first person version” is the original one, the transition to the “third person version” must have reflected a scribal initiative. It seems, however, equally likely that the ritual was recorded in the third person, while later a scholar-scribe adapted the Hittite part as a first-person discourse in order to increase its perceived authenticity.</footnote>
preclude the possibility of altering the name of a composition in the course of its
scribal adaptation. Thus, the Hurrian version of the Gilgameš Epic was known in
Ḥattuša as the Epic of Ḩuwawa (Beckman 2019, 4). More to the point, Beckman
writes in connection with two rituals attributed to Tunnawiya, which are known as
the *taknaz da*-ritual (CTH 409.II) and the Ritual of the Ox (CTH 409.IV): “I believe
that we are dealing with a single composition of Tunnawiya presented under two dif-
ferent titles. The former designation gives the purpose of the ritual, while the latter
names one of its primary material prerequisites” (Beckman 1990, 35). In a similar
fashion, it seems perfectly logical that the performance known under the generic
name Great Ritual could also acquire a more specific name /tubadubarsa/ “(ritual of)
prolonged striking”, presumably with reference to the patient’s bewitchment, which
he strives to overcome.<fnref n="36" />

Therefore, the question is essentially empirical: are there enough data to advance
a claim that the bulk of the fragments assembled under CTH 759-763 reflect varia-
tions of a single ritual? A consideration that provides the starting point for further
enquiry is the triad of abstract terms with negative connotations: /tabaru-/ tenta-
tively translated as ‘ruling, judgment’; /tadarijamman-/ ‘curse’; and /xirun/d-/ ‘per-
jury’. The corpus-based study of this group in Kammenhuber 1985, 763-72 revealed
that it occurs in texts classified as CTH 759-761—in other words, in all three rituals
of the Kuwattalla tradition according to Laroche. Nothing changes if we assume in-
stead Starke’s tripartite division: KUB 32.9(+) (“First Ritual”), KUB 9.6 (“Second Rit-
ual”), and KBo 29.55+ (“Third Ritual”) all feature the same triad of juxtaposed mi-
asma.<fnref n="37" /> In contrast, none of the Luwian incantations assuredly situated outside the
Kuwattalla tradition features the same triad. For example, the central miasma of the
Puriyanni tradition (CTH 758), otherwise featuring many similarities to CTH 759-
763, are /attuwaltsa udarsa/ ‘evil matter’, /xallissa/ ‘defilement’, and /parattantsa/
‘impurity’. If three different rituals were performed by the same group of specialists,
the logical expectation is that they should provide relief in three different situations.
Since none of the proposed tripartite divisions yields separate sets of miasma, the hy-
pothesis of one underlying ritual must be considered seriously.

In what follows we shall try to demonstrate how the philological discoveries of
the last several years, including those made within the framework of the Luwili Pro-
ject, undermine the attempts to dissect the Kuwattalla tradition into thematically un-
related units. The structure of this chapter roughly follows the order of observations

<footnote n="36">36 For the use of /tsanta tub(a)i-(di)/ as a bewitching gesture directed at the patient, see Section 3.5 below. As a formal parallel for naming a ritual after a condition affecting the patient, one can consider, for example, KUB 7.53+ i 8 *paprannaš* SÍSKUR ‘ritual of impurity’, the name given to CTH 409.I or the First Ritual of Tunnawiya (see Goetze and Sturtevant 1938, 4–5). Since hammering a peg into the earth could be used for bewitching someone in ancient Anatolia, it is likely that the verb /tarm(a)i-(di)/, which is conversely directed at the evildoers in the Kuwattalla tradition, echoes the bewitching gesture designated by the verbal phrase /tsanta tub(a)i-(di)/ (see already Starke 1985, 104).</footnote>

<footnote n="37">37 Certainly, this is not the only group of negative concepts targeted by the rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition, simply the one that occurs most frequently. See Section 3.6 and Section 5.4 for the discussion of the paired concepts /xaradar-/- /waskulimm(a)-/. For our present purposes, it is only important to state that they frequently occur in the same tablet series as the main triad.</footnote>
that led us to the proposed conclusions. The reasons for such a “mystery story” presentation is twofold: on the one hand, it is conducive to properly paying homage to our predecessors in the restoration of the Kuwattalla tradition; on the other hand, it highlights the limitations of our approach: other scholars can critically evaluate our advances step by step, see more precisely where we have paused, and we hope go beyond us.

In Section 3.2, we will address links between the fragments traditionally grouped under CTH 760 and CTH 761, with the purpose of tracing different versions of *šalli aniur* ‘Great Ritual’ across this continuum. This part of the argument is largely based on the published discoveries, notably those of Annelies Kammenhuber, Petra Goedebuure, Manfred Hutter, and David Sasseville. In Section 3.3, we will attempt to integrate the data of CTH 759, arguing that the versions of the *dupaduparša*-ritual display a considerable overlap with those traditionally assigned to the Great Ritual. The argumentation of this section is largely based on the joins and interpretations reached in the course of the Luwili Project. In Section 3.4, we will dwell on the structure of yet another version, combining the Great Ritual with the *halliyattanza* subritual and assigned the number CTH 762 in this book. Its core consists of the tablets written by the scribe Pariziti, which were also assembled in the course of the Luwili Project. The analysis of the above-mentioned similarities will be conducive to fleshing out the scenario of the development of the Kuwattalla tradition as an ongoing scribal effort in Section 3.5. In Section 3.6, our previous conclusions will be completed with the case studies suggesting that the scribes could add and remove rites in the process of preparing new adaptations. In the concluding Section 3.7, we will address the implications of our conclusion for the new classification of the Kuwattalla tradition. While we do not pretend that it is exhaustive, we deem it unlikely to require major modifications in the foreseeable future.

## 3.2 DECONSTRUCTING THE “THIRD RITUAL”

The Hittite-Luwian fragments grouped under CTH 760 in Laroche 1971 lack incipits, colophons, or other explicit indications of their attribution. They are subdivided into two main groups: (1) fragments featuring animal substitution rites and (2) fragments featuring manipulations with anthropomorphic figurines and/or hand and tongue made of clay. The best-preserved specimens of the first and second groups are KUB 35.43 and KUB 35.45 respectively. Laroche apparently doubted that these Hittite-Luwian fragments have anything to do with Kuwattalla or *Šilalluhi*, and rather sought to connect them with Hittite fragments, which are now attributed to the Tunnawiya tradition (CTH 409). The parallels between the Hittite incantations of CTH 760 and their Luwian counterparts in CTH 409 are both real and non-trivial; they will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

What Laroche failed to take into consideration is that essentially the same parallels are also attested between the assured incantations of the Great Ritual (CTH 761 according to Laroche) and those of CTH 409. Furthermore, if one considers the relevant incantations in CTH 760 and CTH 761, one arrives at a more ostensive parallel-

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.241

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
ism, simply because they are rendered in Luwian in both cases. For example, the for-
mula KUB 35.43+ ii 16–18 (assigned by Laroche to CTH 760) ‘I made it (animal) run
to his left, so that it took his (the patient’s) sinisterness. I made it run to his right, so
that it took his evil terror’ finds a precise counterpart in KUB 35.20+ obv. 17’–18’
(CTH 761). In contrast, in the Tunnawiya tradition we find only the imperfect Hittite
translation of the same formula ‘I made it run to your left, so that it took his(!) sinis-
terness. I made it run to your right, so that it took your evil terror’ (KUB 9.4+ ii 18–
21, CTH 409.IV).<fnref n="38" />

The inconsistency of Laroche’s approach was noted in Starke 1985, 136, where
additional close parallels between KUB 35.43 and KUB 35.24+ were also cited. This
prompted Starke to affirm the link between the Hittite-Luwian fragments of CTH 760
and the Kuwattalla tradition. Nevertheless, he found new arguments that allowed
him to treat KUB 35.43 as “Tablet X” of a separate “Third Ritual”. This was the frag-
mentary colophon of KBo 10.42, where Kuwattalla is said to conduct the ritual in the
open country, while a hut (GiŠZA.LAM.GAR) and a gatehouse (hilammar) are mentioned
as ritual paraphernalia. Starke (1985, 135–36) compared this passage with substitution
rites involving a sheep and a piglet, which unfold in the vicinity of a hut and a gate-
house in KUB 35.43. Neither hut nor gatehouse, however, are mentioned in connec-
tion with the substitution rites in KUB 35.24+, KUB 35.21, or KUB 32.9(+), belonging
to the same tablet series (called CTH 761.1 in our edition). Neither are they men-
tioned in the preserved colophons of the respective tablets, which establish their at-
tribution to the Great Ritual (Starke 1985, 86–90). This prompted Starke to assume a
contrast between the Great Ritual = “First Ritual” (CTH 761) and the “Third Ritual”,
which is conducted in the specific setting of the open country (CTH 760 according to
his classification).

Yet, the similarities between KUB 35.43+ and KUB 35.24+ / KUB 35.21 / KUB 32.9(+)
are not limited to the formulaic repertoire. As discussed at some length in Marcuson
2016, 290–395, the matching incantations are embedded in parallel substitution rites,
even though the specific animals involved in these rites cannot always be determined
from the contexts. More parallels between the two texts, such as the invocation to the
Storm-god of the Weapon and the reference to “the divine path”, are addressed in
Hutter 2019a, 345–53. The piling up of similarities prompted Hutter to conclude that
KUB 35.43 belongs to the Great Ritual rather than to the “Third Ritual”, although he
stopped short of denying the latter’s existence.

Finally, the hypothesis of “Tablet X” became no longer tenable after Sasseville
(2020b, 116) demonstrated that the ritual conducted by Kuwattalla and/or Šilalluḫi
in the open country was also known as the Great Ritual. Thus, the key passage in
KBo 10.42 iv 6’–8’ can be read as [ma]-a-an ᵈKu-wa-at-tal-[l]a-aš MUNUSSUHUR.LÁ
[ʿši-la-al-lu-ḫi-iš-ša MUNUSŠU.GI a-r]a-aḫ-za gi-im-ri [ša]l-li [a-ni-u-ur a-ni-ia-an-zi]

<footnote n="38">38 The reasons for the original grouping of CTH 760 presumably have to do with the interpretation his-
tory of Luwian cuneiform texts. Since significant advances in the understanding of the better-
preserved Luwian incantations, such as those in KUB 35.43(+), came from their comparison with the
parallel incantations of the Tunnawiya tradition, it was natural to juxtapose the relevant texts at a
time when the restoration of the more fragmentary Luwian parallels had not yet been accomplished.</footnote>
[W]hen Kuwatal[1]a, the female attendant [and Šilalluḫi, the Old Woman perform the Gr]eat [Ritual ou]tside, in the open country', and this reconstruction is now supported through the new fragment KBo 70.54 rev. 1'-3' [ma-a-an] ṛfši-la'-[al-lu-ḫi-iš MUNUSŠU.GI a-ra-aḫ-za gi-im-r]i GAL-li ṛa-ni'-[u-ur a-ni-ia-az-zi] '[When] Šila[lluḫi], the Old Woman, [performs] the Great Ritu[al outside in the open count]ry.' which was not available to Starke. The *tertium comparationis* is KBo 29.12:6'-8' [ma-a-an ṛši-la-al-lu-ḫi-iš MUNUSŠU.GI a-ra]-aḫ-za gi-im-[ri pa-iz-zi nu GAL-li a-ni-u-ur a-ni-i]a-az-z[i] '[When Šilalluḫi, the Old Woman, goes out]side into the open count[ry and perfor]ms [the Great Ritual]'. Thus, the main argument advanced for the existence of the Third Ritual can simply be refuted through the application of the combinatorial analysis. Instead, one has to reckon with the co-existence of versions of the Great Ritual with and without a reference to the open country.

In theory, the adaptation of an existing ritual to an open country setting can either reflect an innovation in the performance or represent a product of scribal ingenuity. Under the first scenario, one of the two practitioners transferred the ritual setting, possibly at her own initiative, while the scribes faithfully recorded the new version. The second scenario removes the direct agency of the ritual specialists and suggests that the scholar-scribes adapted the written text at their disposal. A number of considerations are in favor of the second scenario. First, as noted by Starke, Marcuson, and Hutter, the embedded Luwian incantations of KUB 35.24+ and KUB 35.43+ are strikingly similar: in the instance of a separate new performance one would arguably expect more difference, matching the degree of variation in the Hittite matrix text. Second, the colophon of KBo 10.42 must be restored as referring to the tandem of Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi, while KBo 70.54 apparently refers to Šilalluḫi alone, so it seems impossible to connect the new setting with a particular ritualist. Third, the reference to the performance, in the open country included in the colophon reveals the scribal awareness of the main distinction between the relevant versions of the Great Ritual and their predecessor(s). Fourth, the use of a hut and gate in the open country is independently attested in CTH 409.I (§§ 27–32; Goetze and Sturtevant 1938, 16–21). Thus, the scholar-scribes may have availed of the concept known to them from the Tunnawiya tradition.<fnref n="39" /> At the very least, the texts of the Kuwattalla tradition mentioning the open country do not offer probative evidence for the actual performance of the Great Ritual in the countryside.

It remains to address the second group of Hittite-Luwian texts classified by Laroche and Starke under CTH 760—namely, KUB 35.45 and the related fragments, which feature manipulations with figurines of clay or dough. There is no obvious overlap between this group and the first one in terms of subject matter or style, beyond the fact that both use the set of formulae that characterizes the Kuwattalla tradition in general. Neither is the link between “Tablet X” (the group of KUB 35.43) and “Tab-

<footnote n="39">39 The adaptation of this concept may have been somewhat artificial. The gate (KÁ.GAL), made of various sorts of locally available vegetation, in CTH 409.I is contrasted with *hilammar* ‘gatehouse, portico’ in the Kuwattalla tradition, although the latter is usually taken to represent an element of monumental architecture, and therefore its erection in the open country in the context of an ad hoc ritual appears to be less realistic.</footnote>
let Y" (the group of KUB 35.45) explicated in Starke 1985, 135–41, although the possible duplicates and parallel versions of “Tablet X” and “Tablet Y” are discussed there in considerable detail. The only guess one can make about the reasons that prompted Starke to consider “Tablet Y” as part of the “Third Ritual”, beyond adherence to Laroche’s legacy, is the occurrence of [hī-la]m-na pa-ra-a pé-e-da-i ‘carries to the [gat]ehouse’ in KUB 35.48 iii 32’, while KUB 35.45 and KUB 35.48 are treated as duplicates. There is, however, no evidence that the noun *hilammar* refers in this context to a portico constructed in the open country. Indeed, the form *hī-lam-ni* is also found in KUB 9.6 ii 18 (CTH 759), but in this text it clearly refers to the gatehouse of the residential building where the ritual takes place. The same analysis is also possible for KUB 35.48 and, by extension, to all the other possible occurrences of *hilammar* in “Tablet Y”.

Fortunately, in addition to the negative evidence adduced above, we also have a positive argument for the connection between “Tablet Y” and the Great Ritual. This is the direct join KBo 29.3 + KUB 35.45, first proposed in Kammenhuber 1986, 86.<fnref n="40" /> The incipit KBo 29.3 i 1–4, restored on the basis of the parallel version KUB 35.18 i 2–7, states: *ma-a-an an-tu-uḥ-ši [kat-ta wa-al-ḥu-wa-aš SISKUR] ṛši’-pa-an-ta-aḥ-ḥi na-aš-ta ma-aḥ-ḥ-a-an [I-NA U4.3.KAM kat-ta wa]-al-ḥu-wa-aš SISKUR aš-nu-mi nu-za-an I-NA U4.3.KAM [pa-ra-a GAL-li-pát a-ni-u-u]r e-ep-mi ‘When I perform the sacrificial [ritual of striking down] for a person, once I complete the ritual of [st]riking [down on the third day], I [under]take [further the Great Ritua]l [itself] on the third day.’ This implies on face value that KUB 35.45, the largest available fragment of the alleged “Tablet Y”, belongs to the version that combines the Great Ritual with another performance.

Now, the parallel version KUB 35.18, which, according to its incipit, contains the same double performance celebrated by two ritual specialists, also preserves the colophon. Its key sentence KUB 35.18 iv 3"-6" can be restored as follows: *ma-a-an ṠK[u-wa-at-tal-la-aš MUNUSSUHUR.LA] ṠŠi-la-al-lu-u-ḫi’-[iš-ša MUNUSŠU.GI ...] ma-a-an an-tu-uḥ-ša-a[n] GAL-li a-ni-u-ur a-[ni-ia-an]-rzi’ ‘When K[uwattalla, the female attendant and] Šilalluḥi, [the Old Woman ...]. When th[ey] pe[rform] the Great Ritual for a person’. Its second clause finds a direct parallel in KUB 32.9 rev. 13’ [*m]*a-a-an an-tu-uḥ-ša-*an* GAL-li *a-ni-u-ur* *a-ni-ia-mi* ‘when I perform the Great Ritual for a person’, a clause that assuredly belongs to the colophon of the Great Ritual. This confirms the impression that both KBo 29.3 + KUB 35.45 and KUB 35.18 contain texts related to CTH 761. Since the other fragments of the alleged “Tablet Y” represent parallel versions or duplicates of KUB 35.45, these observations effectively destroy the evidence for “Tablet Y” of the independent “Third Ritual”.<fnref n="41" />

<footnote n="40">40 This join was rejected in Starke 1990, 595 on paleographic grounds and failed to gain general acceptance at the time. Kammenhuber’s discovery, however, was recently replicated by David Sasseville, who also succeeded in demonstrating that Starke’s paleographic arguments had been based on false premises (Sasseville 2020b, 112).</footnote>

<footnote n="41">41 In addition to “Tablet X” and “Tablet Y”, Starke (1985, 137) also lists a number of other fragments tentatively assigned to the “Third Ritual” (“Fragmente unsicherer Einordnung”). It is clear, however, from Starke’s exposition that none of them is used as an argument for a separate “Third Ritual”. These fragments merely display similarities to their counterparts assigned to “Tablet X”, “Tablet Y”, or both (Starke 1985, 141).</footnote>
At the same time, there has been progress in contextualizing the “ritual of striking down”. The suggestion of Goedegebuure (2010a, 304) that this is merely another name of the *dupaduparša*-ritual was recently endorsed in Hutter 2019a, 337 and Sasseville 2020b, 111, fn. 1. Indeed, a number of fragments belonging to the Kuwattalla tradition feature the Luwian phrasal verb /tsanta tub(a)i-(-di)/ ‘to strike down’, the equivalent of Hitt. *katta walḫ-* and the cognate of *dupaduparša/dupiduparša*, a Luwian foreign word in Hittite context. Presumably, both the Hittite and Luwian pre-fixed verbs intensify the meaning of the plain verbs /tub(a)i-(-di)/ and *walḫ-* ‘to strike’, while the Luwian abstract noun /tubadubar-/-/ is derived from the stem with full reduction *tubatuba-* ‘to strike’, which probably also has the intensive meaning.42 But if the Hittite equivalent of the name of the *dupaduparša*-ritual is mentioned in KBo 29.3+ and KUB 35.18, this implies that both incipits refer to the combined performance of a predecessor of the *dupaduparša*-ritual and the Great Ritual. While there is nothing a priori implausible about combining two rituals belonging to the same tradition, such a far-reaching hypothesis requires independent corroboration. This task will be accomplished in the following two sections.

### 3.3 THE GREAT RITUAL AND THE *DUPADUPARŠA*-RITUAL

While Laroche (1971) merely listed the fragments with colophons that mention the *dupaduparša*-ritual under CTH 759, the real attempt to flesh out this ritual was undertaken in Starke 1985. The basic assumption of Starke’s approach is that the rites mentioned in the *dupaduparša*-ritual do not occur in the Great Ritual. Therefore, if a specific rite is attested in a fragment assigned to the *dupaduparša*-ritual by its colophon, then all the other Kuwattalla tradition fragments that feature the relevant rite can also be assigned to CTH 759. This methodology led to treating the manipulations with oil and honey and the rite of nailing down as the exclusive features of CTH 759 on the strength of their occurrence in KUB 9.6+ and KUB 35.37 respectively. Furthermore, the occurrences of the Luwian phrasal verb /tsanta tub(a)i-(-di)/ were seen as indicators that the relevant fragments belong to the *dupaduparša*-ritual. In fact, the Luwian verbs /tarm(a)i-(-di)/ ‘to nail (down)’ and /tsanta tub(a)i-(-di)/ ‘to strike down’ are tentatively analyzed as referring to the same ritual act in Starke 1985, 104.43

<footnote n="42">42 For other examples of Luwian deverbal abstract nouns in -ar, see /wassar/ ‘favor’ (Melchert 1993, 262; Yakubovich 2002, 200) and possibly *xudar ‘haste’ underlying Luw. /xudarl(i)-/ ‘servant’.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 Anticipating the discussion to follow, we regret to say that none of these classification criteria could be fully confirmed by our research. The purification with oil and honey is mentioned in the Hittite-Luwian fragment KUB 35.69, whose precise attribution can be debated, but CTH 759 appears to be precluded by the Middle Script ductus of the relevant fragment, contrasting with the New Script features of all the assured species of CTH 759. The rite of nailing down the *nakkiu*-spirits finds a counterpart in CTH 762 (see Section 3.4). The combination /tsanta tub(a)i-(-di)/ can now be reconstructed in KUB 35.25 rev. 10" (CTH 761). The verb /tsanta tub(a)i-(-di)/ invariably takes the ritual patron as the implied direct object, while evildoers (more precisely, their body parts) or evil spirits function as direct objects of the verb /tarm(a)i-(-di)/.</footnote>
The consequences of such an approach were far-reaching. The fragment KUB 32.8 (+) KUB 32.5, where the verb /tsanta tub(a)i-<sup>(di)</sup>/ occurs particularly frequently, features not only a rite involving oil and honey (column three) but also the šarlatt-sacrifice (column four). The search for other fragments featuring the šarlatt-sacrifice was conducive to assigning more fragments to CTH 759, which in turn yielded more rites belonging to the same complex—for example, the scapegoat rite (nakkušši-rite) and the rite of throwing silver and gold into a pitcher (<sup>DUG</sup>KU-KU-UB) filled with porridge (BA.BA.ZA). The third iteration of the same search for exclusive features yielded more fragments and more rites. The final result of this procedure is presented in Starke 1985, 105, where eighteen fragments are assigned to the dupaduparša-ritual, as opposed to the mere five fragments listed in Laroche 1971, 135.

At the same time, the complementary distribution between the ritual acts of the dupaduparša-ritual and the Great Ritual was never addressed in detail, despite the fact that the rest of the analysis logically depends on this premise. Perhaps this hypothesis was pursued as self-evident, something which naturally follows from the coexistence of several rituals belonging to the same tradition (as opposed to different versions of the same ritual). Yet, there is also a practical consideration that could have led Starke to the same conclusion. The largest fragment attributed to the dupaduparša-ritual—namely, KUB 9.6+—belongs to the third tablet of the ritual according to Starke 1985, 116, while another alleged large fragment, KUB 32.9(+), is assigned to the third tablet of the Great Ritual in Starke 1985, 90. The two fragments do not appear to show any thematic overlap: the former contains a rite featuring manipulations with oil and honey, purification with the gangati-plant, and the beginning of the ikkunawar-rite, while the latter features repeated purifications with water and the taluppi-lump.<fnref n="44" /> This contrast between the two tablets assigned the same number but belonging to two different rituals would indeed confirm the impression that these two tablets have little in common.

This contrast, however, turns out to be based on false premises. According to Laroche 1971, 135, the tablet number in the colophon of KUB 9.6 + KUB 35.39 is either the third or the sixth tablet, while Otten favors the reading ‘sixth tablet’ in his description of KUB 35.39 in the foreword to KUB 35. Our inspection of the photograph of KUB 9.6+ iv 25’ confirms Otten’s impression and yields the reading ‘DUB.6.KAM ŠA’ S[ISKUR] du-ú-pa-du-pa-ar-ša ‘Sixth tablet of the dūpaduparša-r[itual]’, although the restoration of the numeral ‘5’ does not seem impossible either (see Figure 3.1). Whether we are dealing with either the fifth or the sixth tablet (we favor the latter reading), the alleged contrast between the matching tablets of the two rituals simply disappears. This in turn opens an alternative possibility that the dupaduparša-ritual

<footnote n="44">44 The indirect join between KUB 32.9(+) and KUB 35.21, offered by Otten in his edition of KUB 35 and taken for granted by Starke, was refuted through the examination of the relevant tablets in the Ankara museum in the course of the Luwili Project (see the edition of CTH 761.1 in this book). Consequently, the reconstruction of the third tablet of the earliest available version of the Great Ritual, as presented in Starke 1985, cannot be any longer maintained. We do not dwell on this issue here, since there is another way to refute the purported contrast between the two tablets with the identical number, to be addressed immediately below.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_1096.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.1: ‘5’ or, rather, ‘6’ in KUB 9.6+ iv 25’</figcaption></figure>

and the Great Ritual represent different adaptations of the same performance, the so-
lution advocated earlier with reference to the Great Ritual vs. “Third Ritual”.

The positive evidence for the alternative scenario is derived from new joins and
parallel versions, which have come to light in the course of the Luwili Project. It is
appropriate to begin with an analysis of KUB 35.16, traditionally assigned to the
Great Ritual (CTH 761) on the basis of its colophon (Starke 1985, 94).<fnref n="45" /> The fragment
contains the Luwian verbal form *i-ik-ku-na-a-ú-un-ta* (i 6'), which suggests that it
may feature the *ikkunatt-sacrifice*, mentioned in the list of the ritual implements in
KUB 35.18 i 10. This hypothesis finds confirmation in the restoration KUB 35.16 i 14'
[*i-ik-ku*]-[u'-na-at-ta-aš-ši-in 'of the *ikkunatt-sacrifice*'. Furthermore, the Luwian in-
cantation in KUB 35.16 i 7'-13' finds a unique counterpart in KUB 32.8(+) iv 12'-16'
(Starke 1985, 119, fn. 20), which is consistent with the restoration [*ik-ku-na-a*]t-ta-aš-
ši-in in KUB 32.8(+) iv 3'.<fnref n="46" /> The assumed *ikkunatt-sacrifice* is followed by the šarlatt-
sacrifice in KUB 32.8(+) iv (beginning with line 29'), which is in agreement with the
mention of these two rites one after another in KUB 35.18 i 10-11. Nevertheless,
KUB 32.8(+), unlike KUB 35.16, is assigned to CTH 759 in Starke 1985.

Now, the putative ikkunatt-sacrifice features the second Luwian incantation in
KUB 32.8(+) iv 21'-27'. Goedegebuure (2010a, 305-6) has demonstrated that it finds a
counterpart in KUB 35.14 i 7'-15' (see also Melchert 2016a, 209-10). The last fragment
was classified in Starke 1985 as a specimen of CTH 759. The paleographic analysis
suggests, however, that KUB 35.14 and KUB 35.16 are written in the same hand, a
conclusion anticipated by Otten in his foreword to KUB 35. Given that KUB 35.16 i
and KUB 35.14 i contain the description of the same rite, one can go a step further
and suggest an indirect join between the two fragments, with the implication that
KUB 35.14 also belongs to a tablet series containing the text of the Great Ritual. The
proposed join gains further in plausibility through the identification of the šarlatt-
sacrifice immediately following the ikkunatt-sacrifice in KUB 35.14 (see KUB 35.14 i
18' [šar-l]a-a-at-t[a-aš-ši-in], already restored in Starke 1985, 120). It is thus possible
to demonstrate the same sequence of two rites in KUB 32.8(+) and KUB 35.16(+), al-
though these two tablets are classified under two different CTH numbers.

<footnote n="45">45 For the reassignment of this fragment to CTH 760, see Section 3.6 below.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 Starke reconstructed [šar-la-at]-ta-aš-ši-in instead of [ik-ku-na-a]t-ta-aš-ši-in in KUB 32.8(+) iv 3', with the implication that the whole preserved part of column four reflects the šarlatt-sacrifice. This would imply, however, that the unique matching incantations in KUB 35.16 and KUB 32.8(+) belong to two different rites.</footnote>
Since KUB 32.8(+) lacks the colophon, one could attempt to obviate this difficulty by arguing that it must likewise be re-classified as a part of the Great Ritual. Such a solution, however, would break the link between KUB 32.8(+) and KUB 9.6+, an assured specimen of CTH 759 according to its colophon. While the parallels between KUB 32.8(+) and KUB 35.16(+) are closer than those between KUB 32.8(+) and KUB 9.6(+), in the second instance one can also reconstruct the sequence of two rites in common. On the one hand, the purification with oil and honey addressed in KUB 9.6+ i–iii finds a counterpart in KUB 32.8(+) iii. The incantations for the transformation of the miasma into oil and honey represent a particularly close parallel between the two versions.<fnref n="47" /> On the other hand, the recent progress in understanding the derivatives of Luw. /ikkʷar/n- / ‘liver’ leaves no doubt that the *ikkunawar-sacrifice* at the end of KUB 9.6+ corresponds to the *ikkunatt-sacrifice* in KUB 32.8(+) iv.<fnref n="48" /> While the description of the ritual acts in KUB 9.6+ is overall more detailed than in KUB 32.8(+), this is in line with the general tendency of CTH 759 toward expansion (only here one finds a tablet series consisting of at least nine tablets) and in no way contradicts the comparison between the two fragments. Summing up, the fragments KUB 35.16(+), KUB 32.8(+), and KUB 9.6+ form a triad that links the text of the Great Ritual to that of the *dupaduparša-ritual*.<fnref n="49" />

Another overlap became apparent as a result of assigning the fragments KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94, KUB 35.78, and KUB 35.37 to the same tablet, a conjecture that was initially made on paleographic grounds (see Chapter 2). The last of these fragments features a colophon that assigns it to the first tablet of the *dupaduparša-ritual*, but it also contains a reference to the rite of nailing down the *nakkīu-spirits*. The same rite is otherwise attested in KUB 35.13 and, crucially, in KBo 29.6(+) iv 1’–10’. Now, the beginning of KBo 29.6(+) i contains the description of the *šarlatt-sacrifice*, which, as we

<footnote n="47">47 See KUB 32.8(+) iii 26’–29’ *ta-a-in-ti-ia-aš a-a-ia-ru ma-al<-*li>* >-i-ti-ia-*<aš> a-a-ia-ru *za-a[n-da] du-ú-pa-im-mi-i-iš *iš-ša*’-[ri-iš] *iš-aa*’-[d]a du-ú-pa-i[m-mi-iš EME-iš] ‘May they become oil, may they become honey, the downstriking ha[nd] (and) the downstrik[ing tongue]!’ vs. KUB 9.6+ ii 12–13 *ta-a-in-ti-*’-*ia*’-*ta ma-al-li a-i-ia-ru ta-pa-a-ru-wa hi-i-ru-ú-ta ta-ta-ar-ri-ia-am-na ‘May they become oil and honey: judgments, perjuries, curses!’</footnote>

<footnote n="48">48 The discovery of the Luwian heteroclitic stem /ikkʷar/n- / ‘liver’, reported in Sasseville 2020c, 562, can be further confirmed with the analysis of its derivatives. The denominative verb /ikkuna- / in KUB 35.16(+) i 6’ has the literal meaning ‘to treat with liver’, while /ikkunatt(a)- / and /ikkunawar/n- /, the designations of the same rite, function as secondary derivatives, literally meaning ‘treating with liver’. The technical term *ikkunatt-* attested in the Hittite passages of the corpus under study represents a loanword from Luwian. Treating the deity, probably the Sun-god, with liver and heart indeed constituted the essence of the *ikkunatt*-rite, and the Sumerograms for both ‘heart’ and ‘liver’ are attested in the relevant part of KUB 32.8(+). The hypothesis of Hutter 2019a, linking Luwian /ikkunatt(a)- / with Hurrian *egunni* ‘pure’, is less likely on either formal and functional grounds. On the one hand, the fortis *-kk-* and the base form /ikkʷar/ remain unexplained under such an analysis; on the other hand there are no indications that the *ikkunatt*-rite represents a purification rite.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 The conclusion that the *ikkunawar/ikkunatt*-rite is shared between the Great Ritual and the *dupaduparša-ritual* was already offered in Hutter 2019a, 339, but on different grounds. Hutter compares the mention of *ikkunawar* rite in KUB 9.6+ (CTH 759) to the mention of the *ikkunatt*-rite in the incipit of KUB 35.18+ (CTH 760).</footnote>
have seen above, is also attested in KUB 35.16(+).<fnref n="50" /> No less important for the present discussion is the placement of KBo 29.6(+): it cannot belong to the initial tablet of the ritual. As one can see from Table 3.1 below, the presence of the šarlatt-sacrifice suggests its alignment with KUB 35.16(+) and KUB 32.8(+), which are in turn juxtaposed with KUB 9.6(+), definitely not the first tablet of the respective adaptation (see the discussion earlier in this section).

<table><caption>Table 3.1: Overlap between the dupaduparša-ritual and the Great Ritual (case study)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>KUB 35.16(+)</th><th>KUB 32.8(+)</th><th>KUB 9.6+</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>oil and honey rite</td><td>?</td><td>iii 1'-28'</td><td>i 1-iii 11'</td></tr><tr><td>ikkunatt-sacrifice</td><td>i 1'-17"</td><td>iv 1'-29'</td><td>iv 13'-24'</td></tr><tr><td>šarlatt-sacrifice</td><td>i 17"-27"</td><td>iv 29'-36'</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>attribution</td><td>CTH 761 &gt; CTH 760</td><td>?</td><td>CTH 759</td></tr></tbody></table>

How then can one account for the rite of nailing down the *nakkiu*-spirits, co-occurring in KUB 35.37 and KBo 29.6(+)? Part of the answer comes from the fragments sharing the scribal hand with KUB 35.37—namely, KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94 and KUB 35.78. Their content suggests that they belong to the abbreviated version of a Hittite-Luwian ritual. The Hittite instructions there normally consist of just one clause, while the Luwian incantations do not even represent well-formed clauses, being usually cut off after two or three phonetic words. As a result, the overall text must have become several times shorter than the text of other rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition; perhaps it consisted merely of two tablets, or even one and a half. Under such conditions, nailing down the *nakkiu*-spirits at the end of the first tablet of this text is fully compatible with the mention of the same rite further on in KBo 29.6(+). Thus, one can even say that the content of the three fragments provides the much-needed independent confirmation that they belong to the same tablet.

This does not, however, sever the link between KUB 35.37 and the Great Ritual via KBo 29.6(+). Quite to the contrary, the other fragments belonging to the abbreviated version of CTH 759 can only confirm it. The reference to the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice, reconstructed in KUB 35.78 iv 8', links this fragment to another version of the *dupaduparša*-ritual as well as the Great Ritual (see Table 3.1 above). The new indirect join KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94 is no less telling: here we find a mention of breaking the tongue of clay, accompanied by a characteristic Luwian incantation. The relevant passage can be restored as follows: KUB 35.81(+) i 6'-8' 'He [br]eaks [off] the tongue of dough together wit[h the hand (figurine) and (she) say]s: "He is breaking the [e]vil [tong]ue!".' While there are several Hittite-Luwian fragments mentioning the same rite, arguably the best preserved one is KBo 29.3+ iii 13'-19' '[The ritual patron] starts [b]rea[ki]ng [the tongues] of do[ugh] and the hands of [d]ough and then places

<footnote n="50">50 For additional links between KBo 29.6 and the Great Ritual, see Section 3.4.</footnote>
them one by one in the hand [of the Old]ld Woman. [The Old] Woman conjures thus: "The ritual patron is b[re]aking the evil tongue, (the tongue) of curse, perjury, misery, the tongue of the multitudes".' We have seen in Section 3.2 that the incipit of KBo 29.3+ defines this fragment as the combined version of the "ritual of striking down" (presumably a precursor of the *dupaduparša*-ritual) and the Great Ritual.

Thus, the abridged version of CTH 759 contains three separate links to the tablets mentioning the Great Ritual in their colophons. Rather than treating these instances as isolated coincidences, it seems reasonable to acknowledge the connection between the rites of CTH 759 and CTH 761 within the Kuwattalla tradition. This conclusion, as such, is not new. Hutter 2019a, 352 wrote: "But the SISKUR *dūpaduparša* is no ritual of its own, but the sub-ritual performed at the beginning of *šalli aniur*." Previously, however, it was advanced mainly based on the analysis of the incipits, colophons, and formulaic language; now we can flesh it out with structural overlaps. Before we return to the evaluation of this claim, it is appropriate to address additional overlaps that are derived from an analysis of one more version of the Kuwattalla tradition.

## 3.4 INTEGRATING PARIZITI’S VERSION

The colophon found in the New Script fragment KUB 35.33 iv contains the following sentence: ‘[W]hen Šilalluḫi, [the Old Woman], and Kuwattalla, the female attendant, perform [the Great R]itual, [when] they [perfo]rm the [sacrifi]cial [ri]tual *haliyattanza*. According to Starke (1985, 76) the sub-ritual *haliyattanza* represents a part of the Great Ritual, just as is the case of the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš*. Therefore, Starke lists KUB 35.33 as one of the fragments of the “First Ritual”, and the same conclusion was later endorsed in Hutter 2003, 253. This hypothesis deserves re-assessment in the light of a plausible language-internal etymological connection between /xallijattantsa/ and /xallina-(i)/, offered in Hutter 2019a, 351–52. The Luwian verb /xallina-(i)/, which we translate as ‘to absorb impurity (of)’, appears in several fragments, invariably in substitution rites. One of these fragments, KUB 35.24+, can be securely assigned to the earliest attested version of the Great Ritual, and no sub-ritual *haliyattanza* is mentioned in the colophon of the relevant text. Therefore, one can conjecture that the colophon of KUB 35.33 does not reflect the addition of a new sub-ritual but emphasizes one of the pre-existing parts of the Great Ritual.<fnref n="51" />

The initial confirmation of this hypothesis comes from the recent join KUB 35.33 (+) KBo 29.20, made by David Sasseville. The restored fragment of column three yields a new list of body parts linked by the verb /xallina-(i)/, which structurally resembles the list in KUB 35.24+ obv. 11’-13’ and certainly belongs to a substitution rite. The list of body parts, however, is different—for example, KUB 35.33(+) features ‘bones’ and ‘joints’, which otherwise never appear in the *hallinai*-clauses, although

<footnote n="51">51 A possibility of identifying the sub-ritual *halliyattanza* with a part of Starke’s “Third Ritual” is mentioned in Hutter 2019a, 352, even though the grounds for such a hypothesis are not spelled out in this paper.</footnote>
they standardly occur in another Luwian formula, also typical of substitution rites. In other words, the relevant passage produces the impression of a recycled incantation and could easily belong to a late adaptation of the Great Ritual. Naturally, conclusions made on a basis of a single incantation require independent corroboration.

Luckily, the fragment KUB 35.33 (+) KBo 29.20 is written in a very distinct hand, and the paleographic analysis was conducive to identifying more than ten Hittite-Luwian fragments reflecting the same hand (see Chapter 2). One of them revealed the name of the scribe: this is Pariziti, who worked under the supervision of Walwaziti in the mid-13th century BCE. Since there are no other mentions of /xallijattantsa/ in the colophons of the Kuwattalla tradition, the connection between this innovation and Pariziti emerges as the default solution. There are, however, no chances that Pariziti collaborated with either Kuwattalla or Šilalluḫi: both ritual practitioners must have lived in the 14th century BCE.<fnref n="52" /> It is more likely that the addition of the sub-ritual *halliyattanza* and the related modifications in the text of the ritual reflected Pariziti's personal ingenuity, the advice of his superior Walwaziti, or perhaps the preferences of specific clients who were in contact with Walwaziti's scribal circle.

The analysis of the physical features of the fragments attributed to Pariziti suggests that they belong to two separate tablet series. The better-preserved fragment KBo 29.6(+) KUB 35.70 is characterized by much smaller characters than the remaining pieces reflecting Pariziti's hand. The comparison between KBo 29.63 and KBo 29.6(+) ii 18-28 indicates, however, that these two tablet series are either duplicates or very closely parallel versions. The word-by-word parallelism in rendering the manipulations with an empty pot in these two fragments contrasts with a divergent treatment of the same topic revealed by the new join KUB 35.71 + KUB 35.31 (+) KUB 35.30, which belongs to a tablet written in a different hand.<fnref n="53" /> Therefore, although only one of Pariziti's fragments contains the colophon, we will be using both of them as evidence for a distinct adaptation of the Great Ritual. In order to separate it from the other adaptations treated thus far, we are assigning to it the catalogue number CTH 762, which has previously been reserved for unspecified fragments resembling the Great Ritual. The same number will also be assigned to fragments showing a different hand but displaying a particularly close resemblance to Pariziti's adaptation.

After these preparatory remarks, it is time to assess the place of CTH 762 in the Kuwattalla tradition. The comparison between Pariziti's fragments and other texts grouped under CTH 759-763 militates against attributing them to one of the three "rituals" postulated in Starke 1985 to the exclusion of the others. Thus, a specific parallel with the "First Ritual" is the rite of throwing precious metals into a pot with porridge (KBo 29.6(+) i 14'-31', CTH 762), which can also be restored in KUB 35.16(+) ii. The rite of nailing down the nakkiu-spirits (KBo 29.6(+) iv 1'-10') reveals a parallel

<footnote n="52">52 This conclusion is supported, among other things, by the Middle Script tablet KUB 35.18(+), the text of which is attributed to both practitioners.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 We tentatively assign the fragment KUB 35.71+ to the *dupaduparša*-ritual (CTH 759). The principal reason for such a hypothesis is the presence of Hurrian divine names Šawoška and ḫešue. At the same time, the attribution of this Middle Script fragment to CTH 760 cannot be absolutely ruled out.</footnote>
with KUB 35.37, which was attributed to the “Second Ritual”, while the šarlatt-
sacrifice (KBo 29.6(+) i 14’-31’) finds parallels in both the “First Ritual” and “Second
Ritual” (compare Section 3.3). The mention of the white sheep in KUB 35.74:5’ poten-
tially links Pariziti’s version with “Tablet X” of the “Third Ritual” (KUB 35.43 ii 19),<fnref n="54" />
while the ḫallinai-clauses in KUB 35.33 (+) KBo 29.20 iii (CTH 762) connect it to both
the “First Ritual” (KUB 35.24+ obv. 11’-13’) and “Tablet X” of the “Third Ritual”
(KUB 35.43 iii 14’-15’). The fragment KBo 29.5 (CTH 762) features the rite of breaking
the effigies of hand and tongue, which connects Pariziti’s version with both the “Sec-
ond Ritual” (KUB 35.81 (+) KBo 71.94 i 5’-10’) and the alleged “Tablet Y” of the “Third
Ritual” (KUB 35.45 iii 13’-19’).

Only the most striking parallels have been listed above, and their list can easily be
continued. If the hypothesis of three distinct rituals were to be believed, one would
have to make an uncomfortable assumption that Pariziti or his colleagues compiled
together all three.<fnref n="55" /> The independent evidence for the overlap of rites within the Ku-
wattalla tradition significantly simplifies the matter. It is now possible to wonder
whether one particular ritual of this group provided inspiration for Pariziti’s adapta-
tion. In order to narrow down the circle of possible prototypes, it is appropriate to
consider the incantation KUB 32.4 l.col. 3’-7’ (CTH 762), which can be restored as fol-
lows: ‘[Then may these g]ods [not bin]d [bewitchment, judgment, cur]se, [perjury to
his body! § May the bond and bl]ow [not be experienced by him (as) a heavy burden
(or) th]rashing!’ This formula finds a counterpart in a number of passages that belong
to the alleged “Tablet Y” of the “Third Ritual” —for example, KUB 35.48 iii 10’-12’ ‘[In
the future], may the gods not b[ind] to his body bewitchment, judgment, [c]ur[s]e,
perjury! [May] they [not (be experienced)] again by him as a heavy burden! May
they n[o]t be experienced [again by him] (as) [th]rashing!’ In contrast, the fragments
of CTH 761 feature a rather different recurrent incantation against binding, with the
miasma in the nominative. This can be illustrated with the help of the Great Ritual’s
most archaic version: KUB 32.9(+) obv. 7-10 ‘May the e[vil tongue], the evil ha[nd, the
tongue of judgment, curse], the tongu[e] of perjury, [bad year, bad month], the int[eriors]
of the shro[u]ds, [the tongue of the multitudes] not bind the ri[tual] patron!’<fnref n="56" />

Another non-trivial parallel between CTH 762 and “Tablet Y” concerns the con-
structions with the Luwian noun /assiwantattar/ ‘misery’. In KUB 35.11 ii? 1’-3’ one
finds the standard list of miasma extended by this lexeme: ‘the (evil) ha[nd, the evil
tongue, (the tongue) of judgment], (that) [of] cu[rse, (that) of perjury], (that) [of]

<footnote n="54">54 Note, however, that the white sheep in KUB 35.74 is probably made of fat and see the mention of a possible closer parallel in CTH 404.1 (§ 25").</footnote>

<footnote n="55">55 Alternatively, one could theoretically argue for multiple rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition written in the hand of Pariziti. Such a solution, however, would have little to recommend itself, since we have seen that the two assuredly distinct tablet series written by Pariziti show a clear textual overlap.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">56 It is important to observe that the two types of incantation against binding are not in a complemen-
tary distribution with regard to the tablet of the ritual. The crucial evidence comes from the fragment
KBo 13.262, which contains the incantation typical of CTH 761 before the description of the destruc-
tion of the head and tongue figurines, which must belong to the first tablet of the ritual. See the dis-
cussion below in this section.</footnote>
mise[ry, the tongue of the multitudes]’. Although the fragment KUB 35.11 is not written by Pariziti, it displays a very close overlap with KUB 35.12, which shows Pariziti’s ductus; therefore both fragments can be assigned to CTH 762. Now, the noun ‘misery’ is also added to the standard list in the same syntactic position before ‘the tongue of the multitudes’ in KBo 29.3+ iii 17’–19’: ‘The ritual patron is b[re]aking the evil tongue, (the tongue) of curse, perjury, misery, the tongue of the multitudes.’ In contrast, in those instances where ‘misery’ appears in the list of the miasma in CTH 761, the relevant construction is followed by merisms—see for example KUB 35.49(+) iv 11–13 ‘[the tongue] of [judgm]ent, curs[e, perjury], miser[y, of the dead (or) the li]ving ...’.

We have seen in Section 3.2 that the group of fragments assigned by Starke to “Tablet Y” of the “Third Ritual” belongs in reality to Tablet One of the combined version of the dupaduparša-ritual and the Great Ritual. Despite the fact that they are obviously related to CTH 761, the mention of two different sub-rituals warrants their separate treatment, and so does the divergent incantation against binding. We suggest assigning the catalogue number CTH 760 to this group, which is in conformity with their previous allocation as part of the “Third Ritual”. The hypothesis that CTH 762 is particularly close to CTH 760 is not only supported by the common innovations in the incantation repertoire but also compatible with the similar structure of names assigned to the respective compositions (the combination of the Great Ritual and a sub-ritual).

## 3.5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADITION (STATIC APPROACH)

Now that the main versions of the Kuwattalla tradition have provisionally been defined, it is time to turn to their relative chronology. On the one hand, the oldest available tablet series of the Kuwattalla tradition, namely KUB 32.9(+) and the related fragments—belongs to the Great Ritual (CTH 761). On the other hand, all the tablets that can be assuredly attributed to CTH 762 and the great majority of tablets attributed to CTH 759 show the paleographic features of the New Script.<fnref n="57" /> The tablets of CTH 760 occupy an intermediate position: while KUB 35.18(+) is definitely Middle Script, and KBo 29.3+ represents a borderline case, both tablets are clearly younger than the oldest version of the Great Ritual, as was already acknowledged in Starke 1985.

A different consideration that confirms the same relative dating, or at least is compatible with it, is the attribution of different versions to specific ritualists. In the case of CTH 761, we find three different attributions: to Kuwattalla alone (KUB 32.9(+)), to Šilallući alone (KUB 35.28), and to a tandem of the two practitioners. In contrast, all the preserved colophons of CTH 759 attribute the ritual to the cooperation of Kuwattalla and Šilallući (or vice versa), and so does the only preserved colophon of CTH 762. In this case, too, CTH 760 occupies a position in between: KUB 35.18 attrib-

<footnote n="57">57 The only clear exception is KBo 44.194 (CTH 759.5), if the reference to the *dupaduparša*-ritual is completely restored there. The case of the Middle Script fragment KUB 35.71+ (CTH 759.12) is more complicated, since the arguments for the attribution of this piece to CTH 759 are rather indirect.</footnote>
utes the performance to the tandem of both practitioners, while KBo 29.3+ mentions a performer from Ziluna, presumably to be identified with Šilalluḫi (Sasseville 2020b, 113), but no attributions to Kuwattalla alone are found in this group. The distribution outlined above speaks for the gradual stabilization of the tradition: at the beginning the scribes felt free to emphasize the individual performers, perhaps on the basis of their personal contacts, while in the 13th century BCE the tradition came to be universally associated with both specialists, already hallowed by time.

In contrast, it turns out that the names of rituals could be subject to renewal up to the 13th century BCE. The recurrent innovations in this domain would then reflect the impact of scholar-scribes, eager to leave personal imprints on the venerable tradition. Of course, the original name šalli aniur ‘Great Ritual’, found in CTH 761, may be due to the author (Kuwattalla?), who emphasized the length of the ritual or perhaps its royal patients (see šalliš waštaiš “the great anomaly” for designating a royal death). But already its modification yielding CTH 760 with its label katta walḫuwaš SÍSKUR ‘the ritual of striking down’, had possibly come into being in scholarly circles. The advantage of appending the term “ritual of striking down” could be to specify a condition—namely, being “downstricken” by a bewitching act—which the ritual was meant to remove. Regrettably, the lack of information precludes any speculations about the specific individuals responsible for the adaptation in this case.

We are on firmer ground in the case of CTH 759 and CTH 762. The former can be linked to the scribal circle of Anuwanza through the colophons of KUB 9.6+ and KUB 35.41, while the colophon of KBo 34.245+ connects the latter to the scribal circle of Walwaziti (see Chapter 2). The careers of senior scribes Walwaziti and Anuwanza overlapped in time in mid-13th century BCE, although Anuwanza's circle took over certain projects from Walwaziti's circle (Gordin 2015, 169–71). In the case of the Kuwattalla tradition, one can propose that both circles availed themselves of the previous tradition, going back to the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš* followed by the Great Ritual (CTH 760), but either inherited or implemented different adaptations. The version of Pariziti, who worked under Walwaziti's supervision, retained the inherited reference to the Great Ritual but replaced *katta walḫuwaš* with *halliyattanza* (lit. ‘absorption of defilement’). The name of the new sub-ritual no longer emphasized the patient's condition but focused instead on the prescribed treatment. In the versions of Duwa and Ziti II, who belonged to the circle of Anuwanza, the reference to the Great Ritual is removed altogether, while the term *katta walhuwaš* is translated into Luwian as *dupaduparša*.<fnref n="58" />

As noted above, the proposed scenario brings together the structure of the incipits/colophons and paleographic datings. Both the names of the rituals and the paleography place CTH 760 halfway between CTH 761, on the one hand, and CTH 759 / CTH 762, on the other hand. If we are correct in our conclusions, the “named” versions of the Kuwattalla tradition evolved according to the following basic stemma:

<footnote n="58">58 The last change almost certainly predates Anuwanza, since we find a restored reference to the *dupaduparša*-ritual in the Middle Script fragment KBo 44.194. But the elaboration of the extended and abridged versions of the *dupaduparša*-ritual, exemplified by CTH 759.1–2 and CTH 759.3 respectively, may well reflect the activity of Anuwanza’s circle.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_1097.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.2: Filiation of the Kuwattalla tradition</figcaption></figure>

The tree adduced above serves the important practical purpose of helping to assign CTH numbers to the fragments of the Kuwattalla tradition on the basis of their archaic and innovative features. In order to flesh it out, it is instructive to see whether it can also apply to the internal structure of the rituals. The weakest spot here would seem to be CTH 760: according to its working definition offered in Section 3.4, all its fragments belong to the first tablet of the respective ritual (former “Tablet Y”). Yet, the incipits in KBo 29.3(+) and KUB 35.18(+) preserve information about the rites to follow by way of listing the functions of animals assigned to the ritual. In particular, we learn that this version includes the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice, the *šarlatt*-sacrifice, the scapegoat rite, the rite of smearing feet with blood, and the *keldi*-rite. The majority of these rites are also attested as such in the Kuwattalla tradition, where they were traditionally assigned to the “second ritual”. Yet, the incipits also mention one white and one black sheep provided with the epithet *aniuraš* ‘of the ritual’ (KBo 29.3(+) i 5), which in this context presumably implies that they are slaughtered at the time of the Great Ritual.<fnref n="59" /> This supports the association of the sub-ritual of striking down and the Great Ritual proper in the incipit of CTH 760 with different parts of the performance.

It was proposed in the preceding section that the sub-ritual *haliyattanza* was not appended to CTH 762 but rather carved out of the Great Ritual. This claim logically depends on the continuity of the *hallinai*-clauses within the Kuwattalla tradition. A contribution to the empirical verification of this claim comes from CTH 760. The fragment KBo 29.19, assigned to this version based on the construction with /assiwantattar/ ‘misery’, turns out to share the scribal hand with the fragment KBo 29.22 + KBo 57.226, which contains the verbal form *hal-*[*li-na-i*] ‘absorbs impurity’. Despite the fact that most of the signs are broken off, the context leaves no doubt that we are dealing with a substitution rite, where a special object absorbs the patient’s defilement.<fnref n="60" /> Therefore, the joined fragment under discussion draws a bridge between the attestations of the *hallinai*-clauses in CTH 761 and CTH 762, thus supporting the hypothesis that the relevant part of the tradition was transmitted all the way through, naturally with some adaptations.

<footnote n="59">59 The noun *aniur* is always used for the Great Ritual in the incipits and colophons of the Kuwattalla tradition, while the Sumerogram *SISKUR* is reserved for the other rituals. On the differences between the use of *SISKUR* and *aniur* in Hittite texts, see Appendix II.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">60 It is important to distinguish between live ritual carriers and animal figurines, which can also function as substitutes. Although the *hallinai*-clauses are compatible with both types of substitutes, the fragment KBo 29.22(+) refers to an inanimate object called /tissadu-/. While the animal substitution rites cluster in the Great Ritual (CTH 761), this rite may well have belonged to a *katta walhuwaš* sub-ritual.</footnote>
It is now appropriate to enquire whether the same scenario is applicable to the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš* ‘of striking down’ in CTH 760. Since the incipits of KUB 35.18(+) and KBo 29.3(+) state clearly that this sub-ritual is to be performed before the (rest of the) Great Ritual, one must assume that the initial tablets of the respective tablet series address the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš*. In other words, it must include the rites that we previously assigned to “Tablet Y” of the “Third Ritual”. If this material were fully or partially recycled from the previous versions of the Great Ritual, the parallel rites should be available in the tablets classified under CTH 761. There are indeed arguments for such a scenario. On the one hand, KUB 32.10+ refers to untying objects made of dough, which is reminiscent of manipulations with the effigies of hand and tongue (see Section 5.3 for more details). It seems likely on paleographic grounds that this tablet belongs to the oldest available version of the Great Ritual. On the other hand, KBo 13.262 contains a fragmentary reference to the destruction of the evil hand and tongue, and the accompanying incantation. What precedes this rite is the incantation for untying the miasma, which does not show the innovative features of CTH 760 and can therefore be assigned to CTH 761. In the previous sections of this chapter, we saw that the destruction of the evil tongue is also attested in the fragments of CTH 759 and CTH 762, thus representing a ubiquitous feature of the Kuwattalla tradition.

If a portion of the Great Ritual were segmented as the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš* ‘of striking down’, one may wonder what could prompt such segmentation. We agree with Goedegebuure (2010a, 302–4) that the Luwian prefixed verb /tsanta tub(a)i-(-di)/ represents the functional equivalent of Hittite *katta walḫ-. Now, the prefixed participle /tsanta tubaim-m(a/i)-/ is normally used with reference to the evil hand and tongue in our texts. Furthermore, this epithet alternates with /attuwal(i)-/ ‘evil’ in the same formula, as suggested by the contrast between KUB 35.50:3’–6’ ‘the [dow]nstriking [hand, downstriking tongue, the tongue of judgmen]t, curs[e, misery, perjury], bad year, [bad month, the i]nterior [of shrouds, the tongue of] the multi-tud[es]’ and, for example, KUB 32.9(+) obv. 7–10 ‘the e[vil tongue], the evil ha[nd, the tongue of judgment, curse], the tongu[e] of perjury, [bad year, bad month], the int[eriors] of the shro[u]ds, [the tongue of the multitudes].’<fnref n="61" /> The references to the evil hand and tongue permeate the rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition, but the manipulations with the actual effigies of hand and tongue are concentrated in the first tablets of the respective rituals, while the majority of occurrences of /tsanta tubaimm(a/i)-/ are found in the description of the rite involving the vessel filled with oil and honey in KUB 32.8(+). Although KUB 35.50 and KUB 32.8(+) are tentatively assigned to CTH 759, it is entirely possible that /tsanta tubaimm(a/i)-/ was also used in the matching rites of CTH 760. Therefore, one can suggest that the respective sections, which foreground the “downstriking” symbols of witchcraft, were ultimately responsible for the name of the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš*.

<footnote n="61">61 This alternation represents one of the reasons why Luw. /tsanta tubaimm(a/i)-/ is translated here as ‘downstriking’ and not ‘downstricken’, contra Goedegebuure 2010a. For another reason, see the comments to KUB 32.8(+).</footnote>
Yet, if the conclusions of Section 3.2 are valid, the Hittite epithet *katta walḫuwaš* 'of striking down' is notionally related to *dupaduparša*, the term of Luwian origin deployed as the holistic designation of CTH 759. Crucially, this need not involve the shortening of the ritual; on the contrary, the extended versions of CTH 759 appear to be longer than any other ritual of the Kuwattalla tradition, consisting of no less than nine tablets. Therefore, the *dupaduparša*-ritual may also have included some of the ritual acts that are attributed to the Great Ritual outside CTH 759. For example, this may be the case of the purification with the *taluppi*-lump if the fragment KUB 35.71+ is correctly assigned. Thus, our conjecture about this paragraph comes close to the hypothesis of Hutter 2019a, according to which the *dupaduparša*-ritual never existed separately from the Great Ritual.

<table><caption>Table 3.2: Rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition (first approximation)</caption><tr><td>CTH 759</td><td colspan="2">dupaduparša-ritual →</td></tr><tr><td>CTH 760</td><td>Sub-ritual <i>katta walhuwaš</i></td><td>Great Ritual</td></tr><tr><td>CTH 761</td><td colspan="2">Great Ritual</td></tr><tr><td>CTH 762</td><td>Sub-ritual <i>haliyattanza</i></td><td>Great Ritual</td></tr></table>

Pursuing the same analysis to its extreme, one arrives at a scenario, according to which different names given to the rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition corresponded to an identical set of rites, merely reflecting changing emphasis on different facets of the same basic performance. This hypothetical scenario can be illustrated by Table 3.2. We hasten to add that such a radical solution is primarily meant to serve rhetorical purposes, representing an antithesis to Starke’s 1985 hypothesis of multiple distinct rituals. We will try to provide adjustments to our previous arguments and reach the middle ground between these two extremes in the section to follow.

## 3.6 DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADITION (DYNAMIC APPROACH)

Much of the previous discussion in this chapter was devoted to the overlap among rites attributed to different rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition. Now we shall attempt to balance it with a different set of arguments, arguing for the possibility of adding and removing rites in the course of the development of the tradition.

The most straightforward piece of evidence for the removal of rites comes from the fragmentary incipit Bo 4388, identified as part of the Kuwattalla tradition in Huter 2019a, 350. The comparison of this fragment with the better-known incipits of KBo 29.3+ and KUB 35.18(+) shows a number of overlaps in the list of animals: the sheep of the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice, the sheep with whose blood one smears feet, and the scapegoat. The first similarity is particularly important, since the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice is unattested outside the Kuwattalla tradition. Yet, only four sheep are required for this ritual, as opposed to eight sheep mentioned in KUB 35.18(+) and restored in KBo 29.3+. This inevitably implies that the ritual to which Bo 4388 once belonged featured
a smaller number of rites involving sheep than the standard versions of CTH 760. In
fact, the text of the fragment gives a hint that this number was somehow considered
non-standard: in Bo 4388:3' we literally find 4 UDUHĀ-pát 'only four sheep', which im-
plies a contrast with the text of the standard version, perhaps placed immediately
above in the same tablet series. The shorter version was either used for a special pur-
pose (e.g. in the instance of a repeated treatment) or targeted a different type of pa-
tient(s) (e.g. one of modest means). As such, it is not particularly helpful for recon-
structing the evolution of this tradition, except by way of creating a transparent
precedent.<fnref n="62" />

The best argument for the addition of rites within the tradition is a group of in-
cantations mentioning /xaradar-/ ‘offense’ and /waskulimm(a)-/ ‘fault’ instead of the
usual set of miasma (/tabaru-/ ‘judgment’, /tadarijamman-/ ‘curse’, and /xirun/d-/ ‘per-
jury’. It turns out that the pair of /xaradar-/ and /waskulimm(a)-/ is associated with
a specific set of rites—namely, the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice, *šarlatt*-sacrifice, and a rite of fill-
ing a pitcher with porridge and precious metals (KBo 29.6(+) i 14’-31’, restored after
KUB 35.16(+) ii). It is logical to conjecture that this pair represents a secondary inser-
tion. A confirmation of this hypothesis comes from chronological stratification: the
oldest tablets of the Kuwattalla tradition, characterized by the Middle Script sign
shapes and using the spelling *BE-EL* SÍSKUR for ‘ritual patron’, do not feature the for-
mula ‘offense (and) fault’ or any rites associated with it.<fnref n="63" /> Furthermore, this is also
the case of all the tablets attributed to CTH 761. Going somewhat ahead, a further ar-
gument for the secondary insertion is derived from the comparison with Maštigga’s
ritual CTH 404.1, where the relevant passages lack structural counterparts, whereas
most other rites of the Kuwattalla tradition do not (see Section 5.3).

A separate question is the correlation between the changing content and names of
the rituals. On the assumption that the oldest attested version of the Kuwattalla tradi-
tion was known as the Great Ritual (CTH 761), while later the sub-ritual *katta wal-
huwaš* was added to its name, one may wonder whether this change coincided with
the addition of new rites. At first glance, the answer is straightforwardly negative: we
have seen in Section 3.3 that the *ikkunatt-* and *šarlatt*-sacrifices appear in the text of
KUB 35.16 (+) KUB 35.14, which mentions the Great Ritual in its colophon. Yet, there
is an option that previously seems not to have been considered: KUB 35.16 (+) KUB 35.14
may belong to the text of the combined version of the sub-ritual *katta walhuwaš* and
the Great Ritual (CTH 760). Indeed, the colophon in KUB 35.16(+) iv 2"-4" can be re-
stored as [*ma-a-an* ᵃ[*Ku-wa-at-tal-la-aš* [MUNUSSUHUR.LÁ ᵃ*Ši-la-al-lu-u-ḫi-iš-ša* M]UNUSŠU,GI

<footnote n="62">62 A likely common feature of this text and the abridged version of the *dupaduparša*-ritual is the absence of the *šarlatt*-sacrifice. There seems to be no space to reconstruct a reference to this rite after the *ik-kuṇatt*-sacrifice in Bo 4388:4', while the fragment KUB 35.78 likewise lacks the expected reference to the *šarlatt*-sacrifice after the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice. Needless to say, the hypothesis that the colophon under discussion belongs to CTH 759 remains speculative.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">63 For the archaic character of the heterogram *BE-EL* SÍSKUR, see Appendix II. Of particular interest is the Middle Script *BE-EL* SÍSKUR tablet series consisting of the fragments KUB 35.49(+), DBH 46/2.33, KUB 35.82, KUB 35.69, and KUB 35.34, which reflects fairly different parts of the Great Ritual but not any rites associated with the phrase ‘offense (and) fault’.</footnote>
[...ma-a-an an-tu-uḫ-ša-an GAL-l]i a-ni-u-ur [a-ni-ia-an-zi], which would yield an identical result to the restored colophon in KUB 35.18(+) iv 3"-6" ma-a-an ᵈK[u-wa-at-tal-la-aš MUNUS SUHUR.LÁ] ᵈŠi-la-al-lu-u-ʿiʾ-[iš-ša MUNUSŠU.GI ...] ma-a-an an-tu-uḫ-ša-a[n] GAL-li a-ni-u-ur a-[ni-ia-an]-ʿzi'. Both colophons can be translated: 'When Ku-wattalla, the female attendant and Šilalluḫi, the Old Woman, [...]. When they perform the Great Ritual for a person'. While the lacuna in both cases can fit only one, maxi-mum two short words and is definitely not sufficient to accommodate a performance of the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš*, it may contain a paraphrase of this action. In any event, since KUB 35.18(+) definitely belongs to CTH 760, it would be perverse to deny the same attribution to KUB 35.16(+) as long as the two tablets feature identical colo-phons.

Thus, the hypothesis that the available versions of CTH 760 contained more ritual acts than those of CTH 761 emerges as the most plausible solution. This prompts an enquiry into the origin of the additional rites. If they were borrowed from another ritual in a scribal setting, it is logical to look for a text featuring /xaradar-/ and /waskulimm(a)-/ as the main set of miasma. There is indeed a group of Hittite-Luwian fragments, consisting of KUB 35.65, KBo 29.36, and KUB 32.124 (showing the same ductus as KUB 35.68), which contain the requisite pair, while displaying another common peculiarity—namely, the reference to a bull and a ram.<fnref n="64" /> Since the bull is not otherwise mentioned in CTH 759–763, the attribution of these fragments to the Ku-wattalla tradition need not be taken for granted. Yet, there are several considerations in favor of such a solution. First, KUB 35.65 iii 20’ features the form ḫi-i-ru-ú-ta-ti, derived from /xirun/d-/ ‘perjury’. Second, the ritual offering of furniture in KUB 35.68:8’–11’ finds a parallel in KBo 8.129 i 17’–21’ (CTH 759), although a more distant parallel is also found in the Puriyanni tradition (KUB 35.54 ii 20’–22’). Third, the list of body parts associated with the ritual carrier in KBo 29.36 resembles its counterpart in the Great Ritual (see for example KUB 35.43+ ii 12–15). Since KUB 35.65 is a Middle Script text, this ritual cannot be treated as a late innovation.

While the fragments addressed in the previous paragraph were not separated from the Kuwattalla tradition in previous scholarship, the case of KUB 35.8 is rather different. Here we also find a reference to a bovine and an ovid (UDU-iš GU4-iš), but also a fragmentary incipit assigning the ritual to a performer from Kizzuwadna. Ac-cordingly, the fragment was assigned to a special “Kizzuwadna Ritual” in Starke 1985, 42–43. Yet, as long as one identifies the Old Woman Šilalluḫi with the “performer from Ziluna” in KBo 29.3+ i 1, it becomes possible to assign the same identity to the “performer from Kizzuwadna” in KUB 35.8 i 1, since the town of Ziluna was situated on a road from Ḫattuša to Carchemish—that is, within or near the borders of Kizzu-wadna (see Sasseville 2020b, 113). While the references to the identical animal pair unites KUB 35.8 with KUB 35.65 and the related fragments, the prominence of /xaradar-/ ‘offense’ and /waskulimm(a)-/ ‘fault’ supports the attribution of the whole

<footnote n="64">64 More precisely, the specific mention of the male breeding animals is found in only one passage (KUB 35.65 ii 7’), while their counterparts in other texts contain more generic references to ‘bovine and ovid’.</footnote>
group to Šilalluḫi. There is, in fact, a possibility that it reflects the original ritual as-
sociated with the historical Old Woman Šilalluḫi, just as the Great Ritual was origi-
nally associated with the historical female attendant Kuwattalla. The merger between
the two texts, presumably accomplished in scribal circles and yielding CTH 760,
complemented the Great Ritual, targeting the standard triad of the miasma, with por-
tions of a different ritual, treating the effects of ‘offense and fault’.

Indirect support for the proposed hypothesis comes from KBo 9.143. The divine
epithet ‘Father Sun-god’<fnref n="65" /> occurring in this fragment (ii¹ 10’) is otherwise found in
our corpus only in KUB 35.68:16’. The fragment KUB 35.68 shows the same hand as
KUB 32.124 and thus can be assigned on paleographic grounds to the group addressed
in the previous two paragraphs, which in turn prompts the attribution of KBo 9.143
to the same group. It is, therefore, remarkable that KBo 9.143 ii! contains the descrip-
tion of the *šarlatt*-sacrifice, which finds a close parallel in KUB 32.8(+) iv (CTH 759)
and a less articulated parallel in KUB 35.16(+) i (CTH 760). Furthermore, KBo 9.143
features both /xaradar-/ ‘offense’ and /waskulimm(a)-/ ‘fault’ but no triad of /tabaru-
‘judgment’, /tadarijamman-/ ‘curse’, and /xirun/d-/ ‘perjury’, which conforms to the
diction of the *šarlatt*-sacrifice in its other manifestations. This confirms the assump-
tion that the group of KUB 35.8 represents a missing link responsible for the trans-
formation of the Great Ritual (CTH 761) into CTH 760. Nonetheless, the loss of the
performer’s name in KUB 35.8 invites caution. For the time being, we will classify the
fragments of the “Kizzuwadna Ritual” as a special subgroup of CTH 763, in accor-
dance with the traditional assignment of KUB 35.8.

What is more secure is the generalization of the standard triad at the expense of
the ‘offense and fault’ in CTH 759. These two terms are demonstrably eliminated
from the *ikkunatt*-rite in KUB 32.8(+) iii 25’-26’, while the concise presentation of the
same rite in KUB 35.78 features invocations to the Sun-god of /xirun/d-/ ‘oath’, which
provides indirect evidence for the introduction of the standard triad. The negative
evidence consists in the complete absence of ‘offense and fault’ in the fragments clas-
sified under CTH 759, contrasted with several attestations of the pair in both CTH 760
and CTH 762. This development may appear to defy logic: the versions of the Kuwat-
talla tradition that do not make a reference to the Great Ritual appear to have gener-
alized the miasma originally deployed as the dedicated targets of the Great Ritual.
Yet, the hypothesis of scribal interference helps to resolve this paradox: the scholar-
scribes that brought CTH 759 into being presumably had access to a limited number
of versions of the Kuwattalla tradition (or perhaps to just one version) and strove to
unify the references to miasma in the simplest fashion possible rather than to restore
the original state of affairs.

Evidence for the evolution of the Great Ritual in the terminal period of Hittite lit-
eracy is arguably found in CTH 762. The preserved part of KBo 29.6(+) iv ends with a
double paragraph and likely represents the final part of the ritual. Only the leftmost
part of the relevant passage is preserved, but its fifth paragraph contains the hetero-
graphic phrase I-NA U4.Γ3’[.KAM] ‘on the third day’ and then the Hittite adjective šal-

<footnote n="65">65 For a Hittite calque in the Maštigga ritual tradition, see commentary to KBo 9.143.</footnote>
li-i[š] ‘great’ (iv 21’–22’). According to the incipits of CTH 760, the Great Ritual is celebrated on the third day of the combined performance. The subsequent text of KBo 29.6(+) iv contains a reference to two sheep and a scapegoat. The former of the two sheep can be shown to be the one ‘with whose blood they smear their feet’, while the latter may be the sheep of the *keldi*-rite (the rite is not mentioned as such in the preserved part of the fragmentary passage, but the sheep seems to belong there, by method of exclusion, since the description of the relevant rite does not seem to match any other sheep known from the Kuwattalla tradition). The list of sacrificial animals in CTH 760.2 likewise concludes with the sheep ‘with whose blood they smear their feet’, the sheep of the *keldi*-rite, and the scapegoat (KBo 29.3+ i 7-9).

The resemblance between the coda of CTH 762 and the final part of the list of animals in CTH 760.2 is too strong to be ignored, but the paragraphs under discussion obviously contain fewer rites and less information than any of the previous versions of the Great Ritual. The conspicuously missing ritual acts are the sacrifice of white and black sheep, which are defined as *aniuraš* ‘of the (Great) Ritual’ in KUB 35.18(+) i 10 and KBo 29.3+ i 5. Other missing rites commonly attributed to the Great Ritual include the manipulation with the *taluppi*-lump, ablution with water, and a rite involving vegetable soup. The presence of these rites is not limited to CTH 760: they are all mentioned in the free-standing version of the Great Ritual (CTH 761). Therefore, if the final part of KBo 29.6(+) indeed represents the rump of the Great ritual, the distinct innovation of CTH 762 consisted in its radical shortening. A distinct feature of the three rites reconstructed in the paragraphs under discussion (smearing feet with blood, *keldi*-rite, and *nakkušši*-rite) is their distinct Hurrian flavor. One wonders whether this was the actual guiding principle for grouping together certain rites in the final part of CTH 762, separating them from the rest of the Great Ritual.

The observations of this section are summarized in the table below. The length of individual rows is obviously not aligned with the number of signs or tablets in individual versions (in this respect, the extended version of CTH 759 remains by far the longest text), but rather reflects the perceived differences in the quantity of rites. Their number presumably increased in the transition from CTH 761 to CTH 760, and then shrank again in CTH 762.<fnref n="66" /> Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that each group of fragments collected under CTH 759–762 demonstrably contains two or more versions of the respective rituals. It is entirely possible that individual versions introduced rites that were not replicated in other versions. As an example, one can consider the versions of the Great Ritual conducted in the open country, which likely contained the description of constructing the gatehouse and setting up the hut, the two implements routinely mentioned in the relevant texts but seemingly not occurring in the other versions. In this sense, the search for rites serving as markers of in-

<footnote n="66">66 The manipulation with rites in the transition from CTH 760 to CTH 759 is more difficult to assess, in part because its different versions are so distinct from each other. One generalization that can be made is the lack of attested animal substitution rites within this corpus. This may be significant, because such rites arguably constituted the core of the Great Ritual, but the probative value of such negative evidence is limited.</footnote>
dividual rituals or their groups remains a worthwhile enterprise, on a par with the
quest for overlapping passages.

<figure><img src="image_1098.png" /><figcaption>Table 3.3: Rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition (refined approach)</figcaption></figure>

3.7 SUMMARY AND NEW CLASSIFICATION

In the preceding sections of this chapter we outlined a number of parallels among the
available rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition, which prompted us to treat them as
structure-preserving adaptations of one or two proto-texts, accomplished in scribal
circles. In the table below, the parallels are summarized and their list is further ex-
panded. For the discussion of the parallels not treated elsewhere in this chapter, the
readers are referred to the editions of the respective fragments. The table does not
pretend to be exhaustive: in the instance of multiple attestations of particular rites in
tablets corresponding to a specific CTH number, only one passage has been selected.
The more secure parallels are set in a bold script; those that are not are either sus-
pected of being accidental or involve potentially problematic assignments of CTH
numbers.<fnref n="67" />

Despite the uneven value of the comparisons, the sheer number of overlaps
plainly contradicts the hypothesis that CTH 759, CTH 760, CTH 761, and CTH 762
represent four rites composed on different occasions. If we add to this the restricted
circle of their assumed authors (Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi), the same performer
(MUNUSŠU.GI), and the same triad of the targeted miasma (/tabaru-, /tadarijamman-,
and /xirun/d-/), the assumption of one or two basic text(s) further modified in scribal
circles becomes a default hypothesis. Given the fragmentary state of all the texts un-
der discussion, many of the rites attested only once or outwardly limited to particular
adaptations can be regarded as belonging to the Kuwattalla tradition as a whole but
lost in the majority of versions.<fnref n="68" />

<footnote n="67">67 The order of rites listed in the table is only partially based on the considerations addressed in this chapter but will be more explicitly motivated through the comparison between the Kuwattalla and Maštigga traditions in Chapter 5. The purification rites involving the *taluppi*-lump and ablution with water are exceptional in that their place can vary across rituals, and they can also take place multiple times during a single performance, usually one after the other. Therefore, their order in the table merely reflects one of several options.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">68 Within the discourse of the present chapter, this statement may seem purely probabilistic. Compare, however, Section 5.2, where a number of rites attested only once in our corpus, including those identified as its part in the course of the Luwili Project, are assigned their approximate places within the ritual based on compelling external parallels in the Maštigga tradition.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 3.4: Overlaps of rites in the rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>CTH 759</th><th>CTH 760</th><th>CTH 761</th><th>CTH 762</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Relocating evil to distant lands</td><td></td><td>KUB 35.45 ii 1-10</td><td>KUB 45.49 i</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Manipulations with figurines</td><td></td><td><b>KUB 35.45</b> ii 15-30</td><td></td><td><b>KUB 34.245+</b>: 7'-15'</td></tr><tr><td>Tying color threads</td><td></td><td>KUB 35.45 ii 31-34</td><td>KBo 9.147 ii 1'-6'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cutting threads</td><td></td><td>KUB 35.48 iii 14'-22'</td><td></td><td>KUB 32.70</td></tr><tr><td>Breaking hand and tongue</td><td><b>KUB 35.81 (+)</b><br><b>KBo 71.94:5'-10'</b></td><td><b>KUB 35.45</b> iii 13'-25'</td><td><b>KBo 13.262:</b><br><b>10'-12'</b></td><td><b>KBo 29.5:1'-5'</b></td></tr><tr><td>White sheep as substitute</td><td></td><td><b>KBo 29.3 i 5</b></td><td><b>KUB 35.43 ii</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>taluppi-rite</i></td><td><b>KUB 35.81 (+)</b><br><b>KBo 71.94:11'-13'</b></td><td><b>KUB 35.51 ii?</b><br><b>3'-11'</b></td><td><b>KUB 32.9(+)</b><br><b>Obv. 3-14</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ablution rite</td><td></td><td><b>KUB 35.51 ii?</b><br><b>12'-18'</b></td><td><b>KUB 32.9(+)</b><br><b>Obv. 14-16</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vegetable soup rite</td><td></td><td>KUB 35.51 ii?<br><b>19'-29'</b></td><td>KUB 35.21<br><b>Obv.? 6'-21'</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cleansing with oil and honey</td><td>KUB 9.6+ i-iii 11</td><td></td><td>KUB 35.69</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>ikkunatt-sacrifice</i></td><td><b>KUB 35.78</b><br><b>iv 3'-11'</b></td><td><b>KUB 35.16(+)</b><br><b>i 1'-17"</b></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>šarlatt-sacrifice</i></td><td>KUB 32.8(+)<br><b>iv 29'-37'</b></td><td><b>KUB 35.16(+)</b><br><b>i 18"-27"</b></td><td></td><td><b>KBo 29.6(+)</b><br><b>i 1'-6'</b></td></tr><tr><td>Throwing gold into a pot</td><td></td><td><b>KUB 35.16(+)</b><br><b>ii</b></td><td></td><td><b>KBo 29.6(+)</b><br><b>i 14'-31'</b></td></tr><tr><td>Empty pot as substitute</td><td>KUB 35.71+<br>ii 1-11</td><td></td><td></td><td>KBo 29.6(+)<br>ii 18-29</td></tr><tr><td>Scapegoat rite</td><td></td><td>KUB 35.16(+)<br><b>iv 1'-7'</b></td><td>KBo 10.42 iv 4'</td><td>KBo 29.6(+)<br><b>iv 34'</b></td></tr><tr><td>Nailing down the nakkiu-spirits</td><td><b>KUB 35.78(+)</b><br><b>iv 19"-5"</b></td><td></td><td></td><td><b>KBo 29.6(+)</b><br><b>iv 1'-10'</b></td></tr><tr><td>Smearing feet with blood</td><td></td><td>KUB 35.18<br><b>i 13</b></td><td></td><td>KBo 29.6(+)<br><b>iv 16'-19'</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.241

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
This does not imply, however, that all the rites must overlap: the scribes demonstra-
bly added, removed, or relocated individual building blocks of the rituals as part of
their adaptations. Even more common must have been modifications in the descrip-
tion of individual rites, as well as holistic changes adapting the ritual to new settings
(e.g. altering the number of the ritual patrons). All such innovations can be used as
classification parameters, in order both to flesh out the four basic groups correspond-
ing to the CTH 759–762 and to outline finer distinctions among them. Those Hittite-
Luwian fragments that display the features of the Kuwattalla tradition but cannot be
assigned to any of the four basic groups are classified under CTH 763, in accordance
with the convention adopted de facto in Laroche 1971 and the subsequent versions of
the CTH. In what follows, we shall address the criteria for assigning individual Hit-
tite-Luwian tablets or tablet series to CTH 759–763, some of which can be applied
even in the absence of the colophons. Many of the observations made below repeat
and summarize the findings of the preceding sections of Chapter 3. Naturally, this
general discussion cannot exhaust all the individual cases, and therefore the editions
of individual fragments should be consulted for finer points.

CTH 759 is the free-standing version of the *dupaduparša*-ritual, always performed
by the tandem of Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi according to the preserved colophons. One
can assuredly distinguish between its long version, consisting of at least nine tablets,
and its abridged version, probably consisting of one and a half tablets (see Section
3.3). The abridged version is meant for multiple ritual patrons, while the long version
contains a mention of such a possibility (KUB 9.6+ iv 23’–24’) but normally refers to a
single ritual patron. In addition, we tentatively assume the existence of the interme-
diate version, to which we primarily assign KUB 32.8(+). As summarized in Table 3.1,
this fragment plays a crucial role in the comparison between KUB 9.6+ (CTH 759)
and KUB 35.16(+) (CTH 761), although it does not closely follow either of the two
elements of comparison. Our preference for assigning it to CTH 759 is based in part
on its paleographic features and in part on its lexical innovations (see the edition).
This text probably reflects a more archaic stage in the development of the ritual than
both its long and its abridged versions do.

The ritual implements that appear to be attested only in CTH 759 include the *gan-gati*-plant, cedar wood, and wine as purification means, as well as raw sacrificial meat (*hu-i-šu*), sacrificed alongside heart and liver in the course of the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice. No animal substitution rites are attested in the tablets of CTH 759, which may be linked to eliminating the most salient parts of the Great Ritual. The pantheon of the *dupaduparša*-ritual includes several gods of Hurrian origin. The shared feature of CTH 759 and CTH 762 is the presence of the Sun-god of the Oath, and the related incantation ‘whoever perjured himself, whoever enraged the Sun-god’. Among the likely negative innovations are the elimination of the negative concepts ‘offense and fault’ in favor of the ubiquitous triad ‘judgment, curse, and perjury’ and the absence of the *šarlatt*-sacrifice in the abridged version. The long and abridged versions consistently use the short heterogram EN SISKUR for ‘ritual patron’ and favor *memai* ‘says’ as the Hittite verbal form introducing Luwian incantations.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.241
The two versions of CTH 760 are defined on the basis of their incipits, attributing them to the tandem of Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi and to the performer from Ziluna, probably to be identified with Šilalluḫi. The common feature of the two versions is the reference to the start of the Great Ritual on the third day of the performance, after the end of the sub-ritual *katta walḫuwaš*. The new rites added in the transition from CTH 761 to CTH 760 probably include the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice, the *šarlatt*-sacrifice, and the rite of throwing silver and gold into a pot with porridge. On the formulaic level, the texts of this group feature a pair ‘offense and fault’ and a specific incantation for untying the miasma, which is quite distinct from its counterpart in CTH 761 but finds a parallel in CTH 762. Another shared feature of CTH 761 and CTH 762 is the identical construction featuring /assiwantattar/ ‘misery’ in the list of the miasma. A large part of the fragments attributed to CTH 760 belongs to the first tablets of the respective series; in the past many of them were identified as belonging to “Tablet X” of the “Third Ritual”. The main Hittite verbal forms introducing Luwian incantations are ḫūkzi/ḫukkiškezzi.

The colophons of CTH 761 describe it as the free-standing version of the Great Ritual, with no sub-rituals added. The three basic versions of CTH 761 are attributed to Kuwattalla, Šilalluḫi, and the tandem of both ritualists respectively. Judging by the paleographic features, the oldest attribution is to Kuwattalla alone; it is possible that only one tablet series with such an attribution has been preserved. The other two versions both feature references to the performance in the open country, in the main text as well as in the colophons. The two objects that are linked to the outdoor performance are the gatehouse and the hut, to be erected in the open country. One more version arguably belonging to CTH 761 can be set apart owing to the mention of the “ritual patroness” (DBH 46/2.33:10’) alongside the “ritual patron” in KUB 35.34:8’, 13’, with a likely implication that it was designed for a family of patients.

The salient feature of CTH 761 as a whole is the recurrent purification rite involving the *taluppi*-lump and ablution with water (contrast a different set of purification rites prominent in the fragments of CTH 759). A special formula for untying the miasma and a particular position of /assiwantattar/ ‘misery’ in their list set apart the fragments of CTH 761 from those of CTH 760 and CTH 762 (see the previous paragraph). Otherwise, CTH 761 must be treated as a default group, which can be negatively defined as lacking the distinct innovations of CTH 759, CTH 760, or CTH 762, but displays a great deal of variation within itself. In particular, it is impossible to generalize about the common paleographic, orthographic, or lexical features of CTH 761, since the free-standing version of the Great Ritual probably continued being copied and adapted for as long as the Kuwattalla tradition retained its relevance.

The new definition of CTH 762 is extracted from the colophon of KUB 35.33; this is the Great Ritual combined with the sub-ritual *halliyattanza*. The core of this group consists of the fragments attributable to Pariziti on the basis of their ductus. It can be extended through a number of other fragments on the basis of their close overlap with Pariziti’s corpus. For the common formulaic features of CTH 762 and CTH 760, see the discussion of the latter group; on the whole, it seems that CTH 762 represents a closer adaptation of CTH 760 than of the long and abridged versions of CTH 759.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.241

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
An interesting fact about the preserved fragments of CTH 762 is the complete absence of some of the purification rites otherwise attested in the Kuwattalla tradition (but see the incantation arguably accompanying such a rite in KUB 32.4). Some rites attributed to the Great Ritual proper are probably listed at the very end of the text. Furthermore, the group under discussion features several rites with no identified parallels within the Kuwattalla tradition, such as the rite of moving to and fro the objects strung on a thread (KUB 60.36). The tablets of CTH 762 consistently use the short heterogram EN SISKUR for ‘ritual patron’; a common phrase used to introduce the Luwian incantations is *uttār memiškezzi*.

The texts listed under CTH 763 do not form a homogeneous group. On the one hand, one finds here a large group of fragments (CTH 763.2), which assuredly belong to the Kuwattalla tradition but do not yield any cues for their further classification. Two additional fragments (CTH 763.3) display ambiguity between the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla tradition. On the other hand, CTH 763.1 shows a higher degree of coherence. The common feature of this group is the use of a bull as animal substitute, which does not find parallels elsewhere in our corpus. One of the fragments of this group (KUB 35.8) features a fragmentary incipit, which identifies the performer as a person from Kizzuwadna, a toponym that is not attested anywhere in CTH 759–762. While the noun ‘perjury’ appears in this group twice, the group’s default designation of the miasma is ‘offense’ and ‘fault’. The last peculiarity is conducive to suspecting here a precursor of the *katta walḫuwaš* ritual, which predates its merger with the Great Ritual and was originally attributed to Šilalluḫi (Section 3.6). Additional arguments in favor of this hypothesis will be adduced in Chapter 5.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.241

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.
# 4. KUWATTALLA TRADITION AND TUNNAWIYA TRADITION

## 4.1 INTRODUCTION

The ritual texts of Tunnawiya (CTH 409) and those of Kuwattalla (CTH 759–762) have been compared for their closely similar incantations at least since Laroche 1955, 78–81, and these similarities played an important part in the interpretation of Luwian cuneiform texts. The classification of certain texts belonging to the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla tradition as CTH 760.I “Rituel de la ‘Vieille’. Versions hittites” and CTH 760.II “Rituel de la ‘Vieille’. Versions contenant des parties louvites” respectively, found in Laroche 1971, illustrates better than anything else how close the two traditions were perceived by the French scholar. Despite the arguments for separating the two traditions more strictly, which were put forward in Starke 1985 (see Section 3.2), scholars continue to address their close formulaic similarities (see recently Marcuson 2016, 290–308). While Tunnawiya’s incantations, unlike those of Kuwattalla, are mostly transmitted in Hittite, there is compelling philological evidence for their earlier Luwian versions (see the next section).

An important methodological problem, however, is involved in this comparison. As argued in Miller 2004, 452–58 and reaffirmed with more argumentation in Mouton 2015, the rituals of the Tunnawiya tradition stem from the area of the Lower Land, southern part of the Central Anatolian Plateau, situated just south and southwest of the southern bend of the Halys river (modern Kızılirmak). If Tunnawiya’s name etymologically means ‘sent by Tunna (deities)’, this would provide a key confirmation of the proposed localization, since the town of Tunna was demonstrably situated in the Lower Land.<fnref n="69" /> If one treats the parallels between the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions seriously, this is an argument for assigning the latter to the Lower Land, too. Yet, the Kuwattalla tradition was anchored in Kizzuwadna, a region roughly identified with classical Cilicia, in much of the recent scholarship (see Section 1.3). The arguments in favor of such an approach were recently summarized in Kaynar 2017, 190–191 and Kaynar 2019, 108 with reference to the earlier work of other scholars (Hutter 2003, Yakubovich 2010a, Beckman 2011, Melchert 2013b). Most of these arguments have to do with the Hurrian influence on the Kuwattalla tradition, which manifests itself either in the form of loanwords (including theonyms), or through rites of Hurrian inspiration. It is unlikely, however, that the characteristic

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.271

<footnote n="69">69 For the structure of the Luwian names in -wiya, see Yakubovich 2013; for the relevance of Tunna's geographic location for determining the origin of Tunnawiya, see Mouton 2015, 86. Note that Tunnawiya is characterized as 'the Old Woman of Hattuša' in KBo 21.1+ i 1, which probably refers to the town where she performed.</footnote>
features of the Lower Land and Kizzuwadna rituals co-existed in the Kuwattalla tradition from the very beginning, especially if one treats Kuwattalla as a historical person with native ties to a particular region.

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. In Section 4.2, we intend to compile the most relevant ritual features shared by the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions, with the intention to examine in context each of them and determine how far the similarity goes. Since the incantations definitely constitute the main domain of parallelisms between the two corpora, they will represent an important part of this inquiry. In Section 4.3, we intend to contrast these similarities with the Kizzuwadna features of the Kuwattalla tradition in order to argue that the latter are less systematic and therefore can be more easily explained in the context of the secondary adaptation of the tradition. Our investigation is conducive to a conclusion that Kuwattalla's ritual texts share inherited incantations with those attributed to Tunnawiya but reflect more influence from Kizzuwadna, which manifests itself, among other things, in numerous loanwords from Hurrian.

## 4.2 EVALUATING THE SIMILARITIES

The analysis undertaken in this section is organized as a series of small case studies devoted to parallels between specific patterns. One of the clearest similarities observed between the Tunnawiya and the Kuwattalla ritual texts is the incantation concerning an animal substitute (henceforth Pattern 1). It is illustrated below with the help of a Luwian passage from the Great Ritual (CTH 761) and its Hittite counterpart from the so-called Ritual of the Ox (CTH 409.IV).

(4.1) KUB 35.43+ ii 16–18, CTH 761.3.8
i-pa-la-a-ti-du-wa-an ḫu-ri-[n]u-wa-aḫ-ḫa a-du-ut-ta i-pa-la-a-ti-en la-at-ta i-šar-ú-i-la-t[i-p]a-du-wa-an ḫu-u-i-nu-wa-aḫ-ḫa a-du-ut-ta at-tu-wa-li-in ḫ[a-a]t-ta-aš-ta-ri-in la-at-ta
‘I have ma[d]e 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 t[e]rror.’

(4.2) KUB 9.4+ ii 18–21, CTH 409.IV.Tf02
GÙB-laz=(z)an=ta ḫūinunun nu=(š)ši=kan GÙB-latar dāš ZAG-na=ma=an=da ḫūinunun nu=(t)ta=(k)an idālu ḫatugatar dāš
‘I have made it run to your left, so that it took his (!) sinisterness. I have made it run to your right, so that he took your evil terror.’

Clearly, Kuwattalla's version of the incantation is more coherent than Tunnawiya's version. Indeed, the alternation of the second and third person singular in Tunnawiya's version is inconsistent and could even be explained by a misinterpretation of the Luwian enclitic pronoun /=du/, which designates both second and third person singular (Mouton and Yakubovich 2021, 30–31). The scholar-scribe responsible for translating the relevant incantation from Luwian into Hittite in CTH 409.IV was apparently confused by this Luwian pronoun. Nevertheless, the incantation under dis-

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.271

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
cussion is better integrated in context in the Tunnawiya tradition: immediately be-
fore (4.2) we read (in Hittite):

(4.3) KUB 9.4+ ii 15–17, CTH 409.IV.Tf02

ş[arā]=an ḫuittiyanun nu=(ş)ši=kan UZU[...] ēpta «⟨kattan=ma⟩» katta=ma=an
hui[tt]iyanun nu=(ş)ši=kan katta IŞBAT

'I have drawn it up[ward], so that it seized its [...]. I have drawn it downward,  
so that it seized its <...> downward.'

The structure of this passage is clearly reminiscent of the incantation we have just examined, with two groups of clauses including a verb in the first person singular in the first clauses, the verb ‘to seize’ (vs. ‘to take’ in our incantation) in the third person singular in the second clauses, and the opposite movement of the direct object in the first clauses (up and down in (4.3) vs. left and right in (4.2)). We believe that this passage might very well constitute a Hittite translation of the original version of Pattern 1. Kuwattalla’s version would then represent its abridged counterpart. This identification can probably go a step further: in CTH 409.IV, the incantations we have just quoted are matched with the following narrative:

(4.4) KUB 9.4+ ii 10–14, CTH 409.IV.Tf02

[nu] anniškezzi kuin antuḥšan [n=aš=ka]n tapuša neyari [n=aš=ši?] tārāuwar šer ḫūinuzi {x x} [nu=(š)ši=ka]n MUNUSŠU.GI UDU-un šer ēpzi [nu kišša]n tezzi

'The person whom she is treating turns to the side [and she] makes a tarawar-
vase run over [him]. The Old Woman holds a sheep over [him] and speaks [thu]s.'

Note the act of ‘running the vase over’ the patient (*šer ḫuinu*−), which can only be
compared to ‘I have made it run’ of Pattern 1. Finally, it should be emphasized that in
Tunnawiya’s *taknaz da*-ritual (CTH 409.II), we find a parallel passage:

(4.5) KUB 9.34 iii 3’-8’, CTH 409.II.Tf02

[... šar]ā ḫuittiya[nan nu=(š)ši=kan UZU... ēpta katta=a]n ḫuittiyanu[n nu=(š)ši=kan katta ēp]ta § [ZAG]-naza=ma=(š)ši ḫuittinu[n n]u=(š)ši=kan ḤUL [ḥat]ugatar dāš nu=za namma [ki] ḫukmai [ē]pzi nu ḫukkiškiu[wa]n dāi [nu 12] UZUŪRHA QĀTAMMA irḥaiz[z]i

"[I have] drawn [...] upward, [so that it took its ...]. I have drawn[n]it [downward, so that] it [to]ok [its <...> downward]. § I have drawn it to his [right, so t]hat it took its evil [ter]ror." Then again she [ta]kes up [this] conjuration and starts conjuring. She treats [the twelve] body parts one by one in the same way.'

Several elements should be noted here. First, we find here an abridged version of Pattern 1, since only the right side is mentioned, thus creating an asymmetry with the preceding passage mentioning up and down. Second, the verb that is used in this version of Pattern 1 is ḫuittinun ‘I have drawn’ instead of ḫūinunun ‘I have made (it) run’,<fnref n="70" /> thus harmonizing the verb with the preceding passage mentioning up and down. This change definitely separates this version of Pattern 1 from the preceding ritual act as described in the Ritual of the Ox—namely, ‘running’ the vase ‘over’ the patient.

<footnote n="70">70 On this phenomenon, see also Beckman 1990, 51 and Marcuson 2016, 280.</footnote>

<footnote>DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.271</footnote>

<footnote>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.</footnote>

<footnote>© by authors</footnote>
Finally, the continuation of the text shows that, in the Tunnawiya tradition, Pattern 1 serves as a conjuration to treat the twelve limbs of one of the protagonists. We will come back to this point below.

In the Kuwattalla tradition, Pattern 1 is best attested in KUB 35.43+, the modified version of the Great Ritual (CTH 761.3), which is performed in the open country and presumably reflects the impact of the Old Woman Šilalluḫi (or the texts associated with this performer). However, Pattern 1 also occurs with exactly the same words in the earliest available version of the Great Ritual (CTH 761.1),<fnref n="71" /> which shows that it was already part of Kuwattalla’s Great Ritual at its earliest stage. In this text, Pattern 1 is preceded by an incantation that perhaps mentions the ‘[substitute] of the body (and) head’ and is immediately followed by another that describes an animal substitute functioning as a ritual carrier. Reversely, this same incantation mentioning the ritual carrier precedes Pattern 1 in KUB 35.43+ (the open country version). In the latter, Pattern 1 is immediately followed by the matching Hittite narrative:

(4.6) KUB 35.43+ ii 16–23, CTH 761.3.8

i-pa-la-a-ti-du-wa-an ḫu-ʿiʿ-[n]u-wa-aḫ-ḫa a-du-ut-ta i-pa-la-a-ti-en la-at-ta i-
šar-ú-i-la-t-[i-p]a-du-wa-an ḫu-u-i-nu-wa-aḫ-ḫa a-du-ut-ta at-tu-wa-li-in ḫ[a-
a]t-ta-aš-ta-ri-in la-at-ta § nu=ššan MUNUSŠU.GI UDU BABBAR ANA E[N SISKU]R anda
appānna 4=ŠU irhāizzi hantezzi p[alši Z]AG-az EGIR-anda GŪB-laz EGIR-anda
UZUGABA-az EGIR-an[da] iškišaz ḫukkiškezzi=ma QĀTAMMA=pat ŠA UDU [UZUÚRHA]
hūman QĀTAMMA irhānzi

"I have ma[d]e 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 t[e]rror." § The Old Woman holds the white sheep toward the [ritua]l pa[tron] four times in turn, first to the [r]ight, afterward to the left, afterward in front, afterwar[d] behind, and (each time) she conjures exactly in the same way. They treat every [limb] of the sheep one by one in the same way.'

Thus, we can see that the open country version of the Great Ritual treats Pattern 1 closer to its counterpart of the Tunnawiya tradition than CTH 761.1 does, since in both contexts Pattern 1 is explicitly designated as a conjuration of the twelve limbs to be treated one by one. In contrast, the preserved part of KUB 35.24+ (CTH 761.1) does not possess this particular description, and therefore, the ritual function of Pattern 1 in this text is not clearly specified. Although the Tunnawiya tradition does not contain an indication of whose body parts are being treated, the rite preserved in KUB 35.43+ explicitly assigns them to the sheep—that is, to the animal substitute of the patient. This does not make a huge difference in any case, since ‘ritually treating’ the twelve body parts most probably implies an identification between the patient’s limbs and those of his animal substitute.

<footnote n="71">71 KUB 35.24+ obv. 17'–18' (CTH 761.1.c): *i-pa-la-ti-du-wa-an ḫu-i-nu-wa-a[ḥ-ha a-du-ut-ta i-pa-la-a-ti-in la-at-ta] i-šar-ú-i-la-ti ḫu-i-nu-wa-aḥ-ḥ[a a-du-ut-ta ad-du-wa-li-in ḫa-at-ta-aš-tar-ri-in la-at-ta]* 'I have ma[de] it run to his left, [so that it took his sinisterness]. I have mad[e] (it) run to (his) right, [so that it took his evil terror]. For the sake of caution, only the well-preserved occurrences of Pattern 1 are considered in this section, as will be the case for all the studied patterns.</footnote>
Pattern 2 features the notion of ‘overcoming’ impurity. It appears in both Kuwattalla’s version of the Great Ritual and Tunnawiya’s *taknaz da-ritual and can be illustrated by the examples below:

(4.7) KUB 35.24+ obv. 5'-10' (CTH 761.1.c)

[na-a]-ú-wa-ti-ia-ta ḫar-m[a-ḫa-a-ti] mu-u-wa-i na-ú-wa-ti-[ia-ta a-a-la-la-ta-ti mu-u-wa-i] [na]-a-ú-wa-ti-ia-ta ma-an-[n]a-ḫu-un-na-ti mu-u-wa-i n[a-a-ú-wa-ti-ia-ta da-a-u-wa-aš-ša-an-za-ti] [ti]-ti-ta-a-ti mu-u-wa-i ṛUZUʾŠÀ-ti UZU NÍG.GIG-ti 12-ta-a-[ti ḫa-ap-pí-ša-a-ti mu-u-wa-i] § [ḥar]-ma-ḥa-a-ti-ti-ia-ta za-aš mu-u-wa-i a-a-la-la-at-ta-ti-ti-[ia-ta za-aš mu-u-wa-i] [m]a-an-na-ḫu-un-na-ti-ti-ia-ta za-aš mu-u-wa-i da-a-u-wa-aš-ša-[an-za-ti-ti-ia-ta ti-ti-ta-a-ti] UZUŠÀ-ti UZUNÍG.GIG-ti 12-ta-a-ti ḫa-ap-pí-ša-a-ti

'He [n]o (longer) overcomes it with his hea[d]. He no (longer) [overcomes it with his *alalatt*-body part]. He [n]o (longer) overcomes it with his nose. He n[o] (longer) overcomes [it] with the [p]upils [of (his) eyes]. [He (no longer) overcomes (it)] with (his) heart, liver, twelv[e limbs]. § This one overcomes it with its [h]ead. [This one overcomes it] with its *alalatt*-body part. This one overcomes it with its [s]nout. (It overcomes) [it with the pupils] of (its) eyes, with (its) heart, liver, twelve limbs.'

(4.8) KUB 9.34 i 21’-24’, CTH 409.II.Tf02

UL=war=a=za taruḫta SAG.DU-aš [ḫūltaramman ta]rnaššan āḥraman ZI-aš i[mpan NÍ.TE-aš t]aššiyaman ḫaštiyaš melu[liyaš uitrišša U]L=ma=za taruḫta MU-aš ITI-aš wa[lheššar]

'He did not overcome (it), (namely) the [ḥūltaramman-disease] of the head, the pain of the [th]roat, the w[eight] of the spirit, the [h]eaviness [of the body, the wetrišša-disease] of the bones and of the fle[sh]. He did [n]ot overcome (it), the strike of the year (and) of the month (etc.).'

From these two quotations, we see that, this time, the parallel is incomplete. The Lu-
wian verb /muwa-(i)/ seems to be the strict equivalent of the Hittite verb taruḫ-mi ‘to
overcome’ here, with a temporal difference: the Luwian verb is in the present tense
whereas the Hittite verb is in the past tense.<fnref n="72" /> Kuwattalla’s version is also more com-
plete, featuring the positive counterpart of Pattern 2. Kuwattalla’s version focuses on
the body parts that either can or cannot overcome impurity, whereas Tunnawiya’s
version enumerates different kinds of miasma, each of them being associated with
a particular body part.

In Kuwattalla’s tradition, Pattern 2 occurs in the two versions of the Great Ritual
(CTH 761.1 and CTH 761.3.8 respectively). In the more archaic version KUB 35.24+
(CTH 761.1.c), Pattern 2 is preceded by an incantation appealing for the patient’s pu-
rification and is followed by a conjuration of the patient’s body parts along the lines
‘the head absorbs the head(’s) defilement’. In KUB 35.43+ (a version of the Great Rit-
ual performed in the open country), Pattern 2 is introduced by the partly restored

<footnote n="72">72 For the interpretation *taruḫ-* as opposed to *tarb-* , see Kloekhorst 2008, 835–39.</footnote>
Hittite sentence ‘[She treats] all the [bod]y parts [and conjures *thus*].’<sup>73</sup> As in the earlier version, Pattern 2 is followed by the conjuration of the patient’s limbs in the model ‘the head absorbs the head(’s) defilement’ in KUB 35.43+ (CTH 761.3.8).<sup>74</sup>

Turning to the Tunnawiya tradition, Pattern 2 is attested in the second tablet of the *taknaz da*-ritual (KUB 9.34, already quoted above) and in a separate fragment KBo 20.73+, which is now considered as part of the same tradition (Pisaniello 2015, 26 with ref.). The version belonging to the latter fragment is worth quoting at some length:

(4.9) KBo 20.73+ iv 1–9, CTH 458.1.1

kinun=a=war=at kara[pduʔ nuʔ ŠA DUMU.LÚ].U19.LU inan SAG.DU-aš ḫuwaltaraman [anni]škemiʔ tašaššanaš daškupiman KI.MIN IGI[HÀ]-aš [...] inan KI.MIN ḫuwarnapištaš auliyaš inan KI.MIN § [na]tta=at=za taruḫta kāš antuwaḫḫaš 2 GÌRMEŠ=ŠU [n]=at=za ANŠE-aš 4 GÌRMEŠ=ŠU taruḫzi 12 UZUÚRHA=at=za tarruḫzi arha=ma=at tarnandu kēl DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU 12 UZUÚRHA kuiēš šiwanniēš kuiēš ḫatištantiyaš n=at EGIR-an ŠA ANŠE-aš 12 UZUÚRHA pāndu

'Now, [may it] carry it! I am [trea]ting [the mort]al['s] disease, the ḫūltaramman-disease of the head, the cry (of pain) of the throat, ditto. The disease of [...] of the eyes, ditto. The disease of the ḫuwarnapišta-limb (and) of the auli-, ditto. § He did [n]ot overcome it, this person (with) his two legs. The donkey overcomes it (with) its four legs. It overcomes it (with) its twelve body parts. May they let it go away (from) the twelve body parts of this mortal, those who (are) šiwanni-, those who (are) enchanted! Afterward, may it go to the twelve body parts of the donkey!'<sup>75</sup>

In this version, Pattern 2 is both abridged and more explicit, with the specification of who does not overcome impurity (i.e. the patient) and who does (i.e. the donkey, his ritual substitute). The correspondence between the patient’s legs and those of the donkey reminds us of the Kuwattalla version of Pattern 2, where ‘overcoming’ or not was also an act performed by body parts. As is also the case in the Great Ritual, Pattern 2 is surrounded by other incantations in the Tunnawiya tradition, in both the *taknaz da*-ritual and the fragment we have just quoted.

Furthermore, as already noted by Marcuson 2016, 295, the mention of the four legs and twelve limbs of the donkey in the last quoted passage of the Tunnawiya tradition reminds us of an incantation designating an animal ritual carrier in the Kuwattalla tradition. Such a passage is attested in the fragment KUB 35.43+ (CTH 761.3.8) and KUB 34.62+ (CTH 761.2.3), both belonging to the Great Ritual. The better-preserved passage is in the former fragment, where it immediately precedes Pattern 1: KUB 35.43+ ii 12–15 ‘May it [take] it (and) carry it away with (its) four legs, (its) [hea]d, (its) horned forehead, (its) [snou]t, pupils of (its) eyes, [hea]rt, liver, twelve limbs!’

<footnote n="73">73 KUB 35.43+ iii 5': [... UZU]RHA hūmanda ann[iškezzi ḫukzi=ma kišan?].</footnote>

<footnote n="74">74 For the discussion of this formula (*hallinai-clauses*) and its approximate parallel in the Tunnawiya tradition, see Section 1.4.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">75 The fact that the last verbal form is in the plural shows that ‘it’ designates all sorts of impurities that can be considered individually or as a group.</footnote>
In KUB 9.34, Pattern 2 is followed by a long list of ‘evil tongues’, among which one will notice the ‘tongue of the mountain- (or) desert-dwellers’, a pattern that also occurs in the Kuwattalla tradition and therefore constitutes Pattern 3. In both the Tunnawiya and the Kuwattalla traditions, the ‘tongue of the mountain- (or) desert-dwellers’ appears in a list of miasma.

In the extended description of the *dupaduparša*-ritual (CTH 759.1), Pattern 3 is mentioned in the following list: KUB 9.6+ i 26–31 ‘judgments, [perj]uries, [curses] of the dead (or) the living, [of the mother (or) fat]her, of the brother (or) sister, § of the mountain-dwellers (or) desert-dwellers, of the [ar]my (or) assembly, [past (or) pres]ent!’ The wish in this incantation, which is associated with the Old Woman’s pouring of wine, oil, and honey into reed pipes, is that all the aforementioned miasma become oil and honey—in other words, become harmless. This is clearly not the case in the archaic version of the Great Ritual (CTH 761.1). In this text, Pattern 3 is also associated with the tongue ‘of the mother (or) father, of the brother (or) sister’ and ‘of the army (or) assembly’ but, this time, it is enunciated while something is poured into a black pot of vegetable soup. In this context, the beginning of the incantation is unclear and there is no indication that an association with wine, oil, and honey is present.<fnref n="76" /> Clearly, the incantation is being used in a different ritual sequence. In the outdoor version of the Great Ritual, Pattern 3 is closely associated with an incantation wishing for the ritual carrier to carry away the miasma.<fnref n="77" /> Pattern 3 is also present in yet another version of the Great Ritual, where it appears after various sorts of malevolent agents (e.g. the evil tongue, the evil hand, the evil eye, the bad year) and a wish to see impurity burn or be turned into wood.<fnref n="78" /> The ritual acts accompanied by this incantation are not preserved, but Pattern 3 clearly appears in a new context.

Finally, a fragment that probably belongs to the combination of the Great Ritual and the *halliyattanza*-ritual (CTH 762) features Pattern 3 in the following list: ‘[judgm]ent, perjur[y, curse of the mother (or) f]ather, [of the brother (or) sister, of the male (or) female servant, of the mountain-dwelle]rs (or) desert-dwe[l]lers, of the army (or) [ass]embly, [...]*—a list that is very close to that of the *dupaduparša*-ritual we have already seen.<fnref n="79" /> However, the verb associated with this list is different and most probably refers to the ritual act that is being performed while this incantation is being uttered—namely, moving back and forth items (perhaps figurines) strung on a thread. All in all, we see that although Pattern 3 might be associated with similar patterns in the incantations, each of these incantations where it appears accompanies a different rite.

In the Tunnawiya tradition, Pattern 3 occurs three times: once in the *taknaz da*-ritual (CTH 409.II) and twice in the Ritual of the Ox (CTH 409.IV). In the *taknaz da*-ritual, Pattern 3 appears among the miasma that the ritual patron ‘did not overcome’ (see

<footnote n="76">76 KUB 35.21 obv.? 6’-10’, CTH 761.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">77 KUB 35.43+ iii 28’-32’, CTH 761.3.8. Exactly the same association is also present in KUB 34.62+ iii 13’, which also belongs to the Great Ritual (CTH 761.2.3).</footnote>

<footnote n="78">78 KUB 35.49 iv, CTH 761.2.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">79 KUB 60.36 r.col. 8’-12’, restored after KBo 29.58 r.col. 6’-9’.</footnote>
Pattern 2).<fnref n="80" /> In the Ritual of the Ox, Pattern 3 appears once among the miasma to be ‘uprooted’ (*mūdaiddu*)<fnref n="81" /> and once in a fragmentary context.<fnref n="82" />

Thus, Pattern 3 is characterized by its great variability of contexts in both corpora. The miasma with which it is associated vary, and so do the ritual acts.

Pattern 4 concerns another collocation involving the miasma. In both the Tunnawiya and the Kuwattalla traditions, a spitting rite is accompanied by an incantation that describes the function of this rite. It refers to spitting ‘woe and pain’, followed by a list of other negative phenomena. We shall refer to such a collocation as Pattern 4. In the Kuwattalla tradition, such a sequence occurs in KUB 32.9+, a fragment of the archaic version of the Great Ritual, in the following way:

(4.10) KUB 32.9+ obv. 11–13, CTH 761.1
nu MUNUSŠU.GI park[uin taluppin ANA BĒL SÍSKUR parā ēpzi] n=an alla[pahhi nu MUNUSŠU.GI kiššan tezzi a-aḫ-ra-an wa-aḫ-ra-an ta-ap-pa-a-at-ta] ta-pa-ru da-a-ta-ri-ia-a[m-ma-an ḥi-ru-ú-un ma-a-ia-aš-ši-in EME-in] t[a-ap-pa-a-at-ta]
‘The Old Woman holds the pur[e taluppi-lump toward the ritual patron]. [He] spi[ts] (on) it [and the Old Woman says thus: “He spat (out) woe (and) pain, he] s[pat] (out) judgment, curs[e, perjury, the tongue of the multitudes].”’

While in the text we have just seen, the ritual patron spits on a lump of dough, the same gesture, accompanied by Pattern 4, can also occur in different rites. This is illustrated in the fragment KUB 35.43+, belonging to the outdoor version of the Great Ritual:

(4.11) KUB 35.43+ ii 26–30, CTH 761.3.8
[namma]=kan MUNUSŠU.GI UDU ANA EN SISKUR šer a[rha] 3=šU waḥnuzzi [namma]=an=ši parā ēpzi n=ašta EN SISKUR [ŠA U]DU KAXU-i allappahhi [MUNUSŠU.G]I=ma lūili kišan ḫūkz[i § a-aḥ-ra-a]n wa-aḥ-ra-an tap-pa-a-at-ta ta-a-pa-ru [t]a-ta-ar-ri-ia-am-ma-an ḥi-i-ru-ú-un ma-a-ia<-(aš)-ši-in EME-in
‘[Then], the Old Woman waves the sheep three times over the ritual patron. [Then], she holds it toward him, so that the ritual patron spits into the [sh]eep’s mouth. [The Old Woman] conjure[s] thus in Luwian: § “He spat (out) [wo]e (and) pain, (namely) judgment, [c]urse, perjury, the tongue of the multitudes.”’

This time, the ritual patron spits directly into the mouth of a living animal substitute. Later in the same version, we find the following occurrence of Pattern 4:

(4.12) KUB 35.43+ iii 32'-37', CTH 761.3.8
n=ašta ŠAH.TUR [AN]A E[N SIS]KUR šer arha waḥnuwanzi [namma=an t]ūwaza allappahhi MUNUSŠU.GI=ma [kiššan] ḫukzi § [a-aḫ-ra-an w]a-aḫ-ra-an tap-pa-a-at-ta ta-a-pa-ru ḥi-i-ru-ú-un [ta-ta-ar-r]i-ia-am-ma-an ma-a-ia-aš-ši-in EME-in
‘They wave the piglet over the [rit]ual patr[on]. [Then], he spits (on) [it f]rom afar. The Old Woman conjures [thus]: § “He spat (out) [woe (and) p]ain, (namely) judgment, perjury, [cur]se, the tongue of the multitudes.”’

<footnote n="80">80 KUB 9.34 i 34', CTH 409.II.Tf02. The other two passages of the same text in which Pattern 3 occurs are fragmentary: ii 7 and iv 13'-14'.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">81 KUB 9.4+ iv 10', CTH 409.IV.Tf02.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">82 HT 6+ i 18', CTH 409.IV.Tf05.</footnote>
The ritual patron remains at a distance from the piglet and spits on it from afar, as if to avoid further pollution from contact with an impure animal. Since the pig is considered impure in Kizzuwadna (Mouton 2004a) but not in the Lower Land (Mouton 2006, 260), this precaution, which is not attested in the earliest version of the Great Ritual, might reflect Kizzuwadna influence. A close parallel is attested in the Maštigga ritual tradition (see Section 5.2 for a close parallel in the Maštigga ritual tradition).

In the Tunnawiya tradition, the spitting rite, again accompanied by Pattern 4, occurs in the *taknaz da*-ritual and is described as follows:

(4.13) KUB 9.34 iii 20'-23', CTH 409.II.Tf02

namma=an=ši parā appanzi nu=(š)ši=kan KAXU-i anda 2=šu allapaḥḥi MUNUSŠU.GI kišan memai āḥra wahran allapaḥ DINGIRMEŠ karpin pangauwaš EME-an 3=šu 4=šu allapaḥ

‘Then they hold it (i.e., the sheep) toward him, so that he spits twice into its mouth; the Old Woman says: “Spit woe (and) pain, spit three times, four times divine wrath, the tongue of the multitudes!”’

This passage, which also occurs in the same way in the Ritual of the Ox,<fnref n="83" /> is very similar to the one we have examined in the Kuwattalla tradition, with small variations. First, the ritual patron is supposed to spit several times into the mouth of the living animal substitute. Second, the accompanying incantation associates woe and pain with divine wrath rather than judgment, perjury, and curse, contrary to the Kuwattalla’s tradition. The other remarkable passage, which refers to the spitting rite, occurs in the fragment CTH 458.1.1, a recently identified fragment of the Tunnawiya tradition (see earlier in this section):

(4.14) KBo 40.25+ iv 12–15, CTH 458.1.1

n=an=kan arahzanda 3=šu wahnuwanzi INA 4 KASKAL=ma=an parā appanzi n=an 3=šu allapaḥḥi n=an=kan parā pennianzi MUNUSŠU.GI=ma memai āḥran wahran allapaḥ DINGIRMEŠ-aš karpin pangauwaš EME-an 3=šu 4=šu allapaḥ

‘They wave it around three times, but the fourth time they hold it forth, so that he spits (on) it three times. (Then) they drive it out and the Old Woman says: “Spit woe (and) pain, spit three times, four times divine wrath, the tongue of the multitudes!”’

In the passage below, which belongs to Tunnawiya’s Ritual of the Watercouse, ALAM, ḥaštai, and mīlūli designate the three main components of a person’s body: his shape (i.e. probably his silhouette), his bones, and his flesh. We will refer to this collocation as Pattern 5.

(4.15) KUB 7.53+ ii 8–13, CTH 409.I

EGIR=ŠU=ma=(š)ši=kan 2 TIYĀDU šer ēpzi nu kiššan memai kuiēš=šan ALAM=ŠU ḥaštai mīe<lu>li kēz paprannaz tiyanieškir elanieškir kinun=a paprannaš al-wazenaš ALAM=ŠU ḥaštai mīlūli kāša EGIR-pa tiyanieššui elanieškemi nu=(š)šan TIYĀDU paddani dāi

<footnote n="83">83 KUB 9.4+ ii 34–43, CTH 409.IV.</footnote>
‘Then she holds two TIYĀDU-items over him and says: “Those who filled, loaded his shape, (his) bones, (his) flesh with this impurity, now I am filling,”<fnref n="84" /> loading the bewitcher’s shape, bones, flesh back with impurity.” Then she places the TIYĀDU-items in the basket.’

Pattern 5 also occurs in the Kuwattalla tradition, this time in a Luwian incantation. It is easy to see that the order of the elements is different here, and the triad is followed by other body parts and personal attributes.<fnref n="85" /> Still, behind Pattern 5, there hides a particular way of conceptualizing the human body, which seems exclusive to the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla ritual traditions. Instead of describing the person’s body as a combination of nine or twelve main limbs, Pattern 5 seems to focus on the soft tissues vs. the bones, the two concepts that would be somehow summarized by the logogram ALAM rendered by the Luwian /tarud-/' silhouette, bodily shape'.

(4.16) KUB 35.45+ ii 21–27, CTH 760.2
ku-i-ša-an ša-aḫ-ḫa-ni-iš-ša-at-ta ku-i-ša-an ip-pa-tar-ri<iš>-ša-at-ta EN
SÍSKUR-aš-ši-in ALAM-ša mi-i-ša-an-za ḫa-aš-ša ḫal-ḫal-za-ni-in ú-wa-ra-an-
na-ḫi-ša i-ú-na-ḫi-ša ḫa-aš-ša ḫal-ḫal-za-ni-in ú-wa-ra-an-na-ḫi-ša i-ú-na-
ḫi-ša la-al-pí-in ku-wa-an-na-ni-in ma-aš-ša-na-al-li-in KASKAL-an § ma-a-
na-aš ḫu-i-du-wa-li-iš šar-ri-ia-an DUTU-za da-ra-u-id-du ma-a-na-aš ú-la-an-
ti-iš a-an ti-ia-am-ma-aš-ši-iš DUTU-za da-ra-ú-id-du <ta-ta-ri>-ia-am-ma-na-
aš-ši-in ḫi-ru-ta-aš-ši-in EN-an

‘Whoever restrained it, whoever distrained it, (namely) the ritual patron’s shape, flesh, bone(s), joint(s), speech, mobility, eyelash, eyebrow(-hair), divine path! § If he (is) a living being, may the Sun-god above deliver him (to the ritual patron)! If he (is) a dead (spirit), may the Sun-goddess of the earth deliver him (to the ritual patron), (namely) the lord of curses (or) perjuries!’

The formulaic parallels adduced above can be contrasted with three instances of a convergence between the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla tradition, which need not illustrate the reconstruction of exclusive inherited similarities. Pattern 6 concerns purification with wine. Sprinkling with wine can be observed in the Kuwattalla tradition, in a context that clearly refers to purification.

(4.17) KUB 9.6+ ii 19–29, CTH 759.1
n=ašta GIM-an MUNUSŠU.GI [É-ri] andan ari nu IŠTU GANGATI GEŠ[TIN] ištanani
EGIR-pa ANA DINGIRMES menaḫ[handa] papparaškiuwan dāi memiškezz[i=ma
kiššan] § ḫa-la-la-an-nu-uš-ša-an-da-am-ma-aš a-a[d-du-wa-a-al] na-a-nu-
um-pa-am-ma-aš wa-a-šu-wa-aš-ša-an-z[a] ḫa-la-la-an-nu-uš-ša-an-du pu-
ua-ni-[in-zi DINGIRMES-in-zi] a-a-aš-ša-am-ma-aš e-li-el-ḫa-a-an-du ta-a-i-

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ Note the use of the Luwian verbal ending -wi, possibly a vestige of the original Luwian formula, which accidentally escaped the translation into Hittite.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ While the passage cited below belongs to a combined version of the Great Ritual and the ritual of ‘striking down’ (CTH 760), it is worth mentioning that the same list also occurs in KUB 35.43 iii 2’–4’ (CTH 761.3.8), albeit in a less-preserved passage, and is restored in KUB 35.20 rev. 9’ (CTH 761.1). For a possible link between this list of body parts and a specific set of miasma, see the discussion in Section 5.3.</footnote>
na-ti ma-al-li-ta-a-ʿtiʾ § ta-a-i-in-ti-ia-ta ʿa-i’-ia-ru m[a-al-li-ti-ia-ta] a-i-ia-
ru ta-pa-a-ru-w[a ḥi-r]u-ú-[ta ta-ta-ar-ri-ia-am-na]

‘As the Old Woman arrives inside [the house], she starts again sprinkling wi[ne] with a *gangati*-plant at the altar, befo[re] the deities, [and she] speaks [thus]: § “They have purified themselves (from) ev[il]. Now, may all the [gods] purify their goods! May they wash their mouths with oil (and) honey! § May they become oil, may they become h[oney]: judgments, [per]juri[es, curses]!”’

As was already noted in Mouton 2015a, the use of wine for purification is also attested in the Tunnawiya tradition—namely, in the Ritual of the Watercourse<fnref n="86" />—and correlates with the general importance of viticulture in the Lower Land. Nevertheless, it turns out that the use of wine for a lustration is also attested in the *azūri* ritual from Kizzuwadna:<fnref n="87" />

(4.18) KUB 43.58+ ii 34’-44’ and dupl. KUB 15.42 ii 23-33, CTH 491

EGIR=šU=ma=za DUGGAL GEŠTIN d[(āi) g]angati=kan anda [(kitta)] nu GISERIN-yaz Ī.GIŠ LÀ[L (Ī.DŪ)]G.GA tepu dāi n=at=kan ANA DUGGAL GEŠTIN an[(d)]a zap-panuzi namma gangatiaz GEŠTIN š[(ar)]ā DINGIRMES-aš menaḫhand[(a)] 9=šU papparašzi Ṣ n=ašta anda kiššan memai DINGIRMES=za=kan ANA KAXU=KUNU [(parā)] idālauwaz uddānaz linkiaz ḫūrd[(iyaz)] ēšḫanaz išḫaḫruaz ārranteš ēšten nu=za KAXUHĀ=KUNU RĀMA[NI=K]UNU=ya parkuwaēš [(ēšten)]

‘Afterward, he (i.e. the AZU-practitioner) takes a cup of wine. A [g]angati-plant is placed in (it). He also takes a little bit of vegetal oil, hone[y] (and) fine oil with (a branch of) cedar and he makes it drip in the cup of wine. Then, with the *gangati*-plant, he sprinkles wine nine times before the deities. § At the same time, he says: “Gods, may your mouths be washed off from bad words, perjury, curse, blood(shed), tears! May your mouths and bodies be pure (again)! May your temples be pure (again)! May the ritualtron be pure (again) in your presence!”’

This passage shows that it may be premature to take the purification with wine in the Kuwattalla and Tunnawiya traditions as a significant parallel. Alternatively, it may be taken as an independent development, prompted by the importance of wine-making in the regions where the respective traditions came into being.

Pattern 7 concerns collaboration between an Old Woman and a female attendant. This is one of the main characteristics of several versions of the Kuwattalla tradition: Kuwattalla herself is described as an attendant, whereas her partner Šilalluḫi is an Old Woman. Although the Kuwattalla tradition does not link this distinction to specific functions of the practitioners within the performance, the same type of collaboration is explicated in the passage below, which belongs to Tunnawiya’s Ritual of the Watercourse. Although the female attendant is the one performing the ritual act of combing the patient’s body, the Old Woman claims to be the author of this ritual act in the accompanying incantation that she utters.

<footnote n="86">86 KUB 7.53+ ii 21, CTH 409.I, nu=za=kan šU[ہ]A GESTIN-it ārri ‘She washes her hands with wine’.</footnote>

<footnote n="87">87 For the edition, see Strauß 2006, 336.</footnote>
(4.19) KUB 12.58+ ii 61–iii 11, CTH 409.1

n=aš[t]a EN SISKUR warpūwanzi paizzi n=ašta MUNUSŠU.GI 9 GIŠGA.ZUM ŠA GIŠTŪG [a]nda uppāi 1 šēnan IM-aš anda uppāi nu=za šēnan IM-[aš] warpūwanzi kat- tan GĪRMEŠ-aš dāi nu=za šer warapzi GIŠGA.ZUMHĀ=ma MUNUSSUHUR.LĀ <dāi> n=an MUNUSSUHUR.LĀ kuēzziya IŠTU GIŠGA.ZUM: katta 1=ŠU kišāizzi § n=ašta MUNUSŠU.GI anda kiššan memai kāša=kan NÍ.TE ḫūmanda šaḫḫiškemi nu=(š)ši=kan katta kišān ēšdu idalu papratar alwazatar āštayaratar DINGIRMEŠ-aš karpiš: aggan- taš ḫatugatar § kāša GIŠšarran ḫarmi nu=za kuiš 12 UZU[ÚR] idalauwaz papran- naz arḫa šarri[š]ket kinun=a=(t)ta IŠTU 12 UZUÚR idalu papratar alwazatar āštayaratar DINGIRMEŠ-aš karpin aggandaš ḫatugatar awan arha šarriškemi [n=a]t=ši awan arha šarran ēšdu

‘The ritual patron goes to bathe. The Old Woman fetches nine combs of boxwood; she fetches one clay figurine. He (i.e. the ritual patron) places the clay figurine at his own feet for bathing and then he bathes over (it). The female attendant <takes> the combs. The female attendant combs him (i.e. the ritual patron) once with each comb. § At the same time, the Old Woman says: “Hereby, I am cleansing all (his) body parts. May (it) be combed down from him, (namely) evil impurity, bewitchment, āštayaratar, divine anger, terror of the dead! § Hereby, I hold the scraper. Whoever was separating (i.e. disabling) each of (his) twelve body parts through evil impurity, now, I am separating off from each of your twelve body parts evil impurity, bewitchment, āštar- yatar, divine anger, terror of the dead. May it be separated off from him!”’

Several aspects should be emphasized in connection with the Luwian background of this rite. In the Hittite incantation, we observe reversed word order, since the direct objects of the verb ‘to be combed’ are placed after the verb. This should, therefore, be considered as an example of Pattern 8 (for which see below). Furthermore, this incantation mixes the 2sg. and the 3sg., as was also the case in another incantation of the Tunnawiya tradition, which we examined in connection with Pattern 1. Both considerations speak for Luwian being the original language of the incantation under discussion. Furthermore, the combination of nine combs and a šarra-item, perhaps a scraper, finds a counterpart in a Luwian fragment belonging to the Tauriša tradition—namely, KUB 35.88:

(4.20) KUB 35.88 iii 9’–17’ w. dupl. KUB 35.89:10’–14’, CTH 765

D̂Kam-ru-ši-pa-aš a-aš-ša-at-ta wa-na-an-za l[(a-la-a)-at-ta ... 2=ŠU] 9-za GIŠGA.ZUM-za ḫa-la-ta-pa D̂Zu-li-ia-ia-a[n ...] ú-pa-at-ta-pa-wa-du ša-ar-ri-ia- ni-in 2=ŠU 9-u[(n)-za GIŠGA.ZUM-za] an-ta-wa-aš-ta wa-al-lu-na<-(aš)-ša-an wa-a-ni up-pa-an-ta ša-ar-ri-wa-tar DUMU-in wa-al-li-it-ta la-la-a-i-wa [(9- un-za)] GIŠGA.ZUM-za D̂Kam-ru-ši-pa-aš za-an-ta-wa-tar mi-el-ta-an-za ki-ša- am-ma-an a-aš-du SAG.DU-za GIG-za IGIHĀ-za GIG-z[(a)] UZUGEŠTU-za GIG-za UZUKAXU-za GIG-za UZUḥu-ḥur-ta-a[š-ša-an-za] GIG-za ŠUHĀ-az GIG-za nu ÚRHA ḫūmanta irh[(āizz)i]

“‘The goddess Kamrušepa talked to the women. She took [... twice] nine combs and ḫala-ed the god Zuliya [...]. He brought her a scraper (and) twice
nine [combs]. They carried them to the “woman of lifting”. She lifted up the child. Kamrušěpa takes nine combs. May the disease be combed down (from him), the disease of (his) head, the disease of (his) eyes, the disease of (his) ears, the disease of (his) mouth, the disease of (his) throat[t], the disease of (his) hands.” She treats all the body parts one by one.’

Nevertheless, the very fact that this fragment is attributed to the Tauriša tradition, localized in the northern part of Anatolia, and not to the Kuwattalla tradition speaks against the specific character of the observed similarities.<fnref n="88" /> Apparently, the image of the nine combs and the scraper(?) and that of combing or scraping impurities off the patient’s body were a recurrent topic in Luwian incantations regardless of their origin. In contrast, the role division between the Old Woman and her female attendant in Tunnawiya’s Ritual of the Watercourse lacks parallels in Hittite ritual texts known to us and requires explanation.

The non-trivial parallels between the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions observed above add plausibility to the hypothesis that the female attendant (MUNUS SUHUR.LÁ) in CTH 409.I has something to do with Kuwattalla’s title MUNUS SUHUR.LÁ. At the same time, the identity of these Sumerographic expressions need not obfuscate the functional difference between the two titles. The attendant woman Kuwattalla was definitely not a servant of the Old Woman Šilalluḫi, who is not even mentioned in the earliest available version of the Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 761.1).<fnref n="89" /> According to the conclusions of Chapter 3, the rites associated with Šilalluḫi were probably mechanically merged with those associated with Kuwattalla; if so, the two performers may not even have been acquainted with one another in real life. This said, the later versions of the Kuwattalla tradition, where the attendant Kuwattalla is mentioned next to the Old Woman Šilalluḫi, are indeed conducive to misinterpreting Kuwattalla as Šilalluḫi’s female attendant. Furthermore, the prominence of an Old Woman in the ritual procedure is already observable in CTH 761.1, so the omission of Šilalluḫi’s name from this text may have seemed accidental to the later scribes.

The tablet KUB 12.58+ is written in the New Hittite ductus, and such appears to be the case of all the fragments classified as CTH 409.I (Ritual of the Watercourse attributed to Tunnawiya). This contrasts with the preservation of other specimens of the Tunnawiya tradition (CTH 409.II-IV), for which assured or likely Middle Script copies are available. Therefore, one can advance the hypothesis that at least certain narrative aspects of CTH 409.I reflect elaborations undertaken in scribal circles. Their author(s) may have taken the perceived tandem of the Kuwattalla tradition as the starting point to provide Tunnawiya with her own MUNUS SUHUR.LÁ.<fnref n="90" /> Needless to say,

<footnote n="88">88 For the concept of the Tauriša tradition and its localization, see Mouton and Yakubovich 2021, 38–46.</footnote>

<footnote n="89">89 As argued in Section 5.4. below, the lavish land grant bestowed upon Kuwattalla by Arnuwanda I and his wife Ašmu-Nikkal is compatible with the assumption that she occupied a high position as a ceremonial attendant in the royal palace.</footnote>

<footnote n="90">90 For a possible example of a transfer in the opposite direction, compare Section 3.2 for the discussion of a secondary outdoor version of the Great Ritual featuring the construction of a hut and a gate, which is also accomplished in Tunnawiya's Ritual of the Watercourse (CTH 409.I). This argument, however, is to be taken with a grain of salt, given that CTH 409.I may likewise represent a late version of the Tunnawiya tradition.</footnote>
such a secondary transfer of Pattern 7 must be kept apart from the matches between
the incantations illustrated by Patterns 1–5, but the presence of such inherited simi-
larities may have prompted the scribes to consider the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla
traditions together.

Pattern 8 concerns a syntactic feature common to the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions, which obtains a detailed treatment in Appendix I. Several incantations of the Tunnawiya tradition present a reversed word order, where the verb is placed before its syntactic arguments. This can be illustrated by a clause from example (4.19): ‘May (it) be combed down from him, (namely) evil impurity, bewitchment, *āštayaratar*, divine anger, terror of the dead!’ Sometimes, such constructions feature the actual clitic doubling of the subject or direct object, as in the related clause (KUB 12.58+ ii 57–60): ‘Let it go, evil impurity, bewitchment, *āštayaratar*, divine wrath, terror of the dead, *cruelty* of the progeny, let it go!’ (*n*=at arha tarna idalu papratar alwazātar āštar-yatar DINGIRMES-*a*[š]) *karpin aggantaš hatugatar* DUMU-lannaš huipayatan *n*=at arha tarna). The same pattern is abundantly attested in the Luwian incantations of the Kuwattalla tradition, and there are reasons to think that it does not represent a deviation from the norm in the respective Luwian dialect but rather reflects its genuine propensity for scrambling (discourse-driven syntactic permutations). In the instance of Hittite compositions, however, the reversed word order correlates with translated texts, and therefore such a feature of the Tunnawiya tradition can be attributed to its Luwian background. Yet, CTH 409 is not the only Hittite corpus of Luwian inspiration with syntactic inversion in the incantations: the parallel feature is attested in the Maštigga tradition (Rieken 2011, 501). Therefore, once again, Pattern 8 need not be treated on the same level as the exclusive similarities illustrated by Patterns 1–5.

The list of rare but not exclusive parallels identified in the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions can be easily carried forward. One could mention, for example, the reference to the *nakkiu*-spirits (Mouton 2020b) or to the deity Andaliya (Miller 2004, 257, fn. 390). A feature that unites these parallels with Patterns 6–7 and separates them from Patterns 1–5 is that the comparison is made at the level of motives, driven by the structure of the rituals. The methodological stance that derives support from this observation is the reliance on linguistic formulae embedded in the incantations as a particularly stable component of a ritual tradition. Such an approach can hardly be called surprising: the formulaic language represents a salient characteristic of the ritual speech, called to enhance its illocutionary force but also boost the performer’s credentials. Less trivial are its empirical implications: if the Tunnawiya and Kuwattalla traditions share an exclusive set of formulaic expressions, then they must be treated as a cluster of a higher order. Since we can argue on independent grounds that the incantations of the Tunnawiya tradition were translated or adapted from Luwian, the origins of this cluster are probably to be traced to a particular regional variety of Luwian ritual speech. So far as we can see, the formulaic parallels exemplified by Patterns 1–5 do not display any traces of Hurrian influence; therefore, we advance a working hypothesis that they reflect a shared stock of Luwian formulae typical of the ritualists from the Lower Land. It remains to be seen whether this assumption can be reconciled with the observed foreign features of the Kuwattalla tradition.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.271
## 4.3 EVALUATING THE DIFFICULTIES<fnref n="91" />

Now it is time to go back to the foreign features of the Kuwattalla tradition adduced in support of its Kizzuwadna origin, which are summarized in Kaynar 2017 and Kaynar 2019. This list includes the appearance of several Hurrian theonyms, such as Hebat, Šawoška, and Ninatta; the use of the West Semitic loanword /xalal(i)-/ ‘pure’; a reference to purification by blood; and the Hittite technical terms *keldi-* and *nakkušši-*, both of Hurrian origin. We accept the claim that the relevant loans came to central Anatolia from or via Kizzuwadna but submit that they could penetrate the Kuwattalla tradition in the course of its adaptation in Hattuša.

The hypothesis of secondary interference is compatible with what we know on extralinguistic grounds. The incipits or colophons of several texts belonging to the group under discussion attribute them not to the attendant woman Kuwattalla but to the Old Woman Šilalluḫi, or to the tandem of both ritual practitioners. No Hurrian loanwords have been identified within the earliest version of the Great Ritual attributed to Kuwattalla (CTH 761.1), which, of course, does not mean that they could not exist in the lost portions of the relevant tablet series but suggests that they were infrequent. Šilalluḫi’s name certainly has a Hurrian origin; see the Hurrian professional title šilalluḫi (Richter 2012, 375). Furthermore, as argued in Section 3.6, the incipits of KBo 29.3 (CTH 760.2) and KUB 35.8 (CTH 763.1.1) offer suggestive evidence for the Kizzuwadna provenance of Šilalluḫi. Accordingly, it is tempting to hypothesize that certain Hurrian elements were introduced into the Kuwattalla tradition when it was merged with what can be called the Šilalluḫi tradition.

This assumption is indeed sufficient for explaining certain Kizzuwadna features of the Kuwattalla tradition. Thus, the explicit reference to the *keldi*-rite is limited to the incipits of CTH 760.1 (attributed to Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi) and CTH 760.2 (attributed to a performer from Ziluna, probably Šilalluḫi). The reference to the rite of smearing people with blood appears in the same two incipits, in a fragmentary incipit CTH 763.2.1 (which mentions the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice and thus shows awareness of the Šilalluḫi tradition), and in the final part of CTH 762.2 (see the attribution to Šilalluḫi and Kuwattalla in the colophon of CTH 762.1 written by the same scribe Pariziti). The Hurrian goddess Ninatta (KUB 35.71+ iii 3’), Ištar of Nineveh (KUB 35.71+ ii 7–8), and unspecified *İSTAR/Šawoška* (KUB 35.71+ iii 2’) all appear in one and the same New Script fragment belonging to the free-standing version of the *dupaduparša*-ritual (CTH 759). The preserved colophons of CTH 759 invariably attribute this text to the collaboration of Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi (or vice versa), while all the fragments of this group exhibit the innovations of New Script. What is no less important, the formula in KUB 35.71+ ii 6’–9’ exhibits close similarity to the one in KBo 29.6(+) i 20’–21’ (CTH 762.2), but no reference to the Hurrian gods is found in the latter passage, which supports the hypothesis of their secondary insertion.

Several more items of foreign origin are attested in the late *dupaduparša*-ritual. Thus, the best-preserved tablet of this composition contains a mention of the Syro-

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ Much of the discussion in this section is based on Mouton and Yakubovich 2021, Section 2.2, but the emphasis in the treatment of some issues has been shifted.</footnote>
Hurrian goddess Hêpat (KUB 9.6+ ii 6') and the verb /xalalanussa-/ 'to purify', a derivative of /xalal(i)-/ 'pure', on which see below in this section. The fragment KUB 35.83(+) can be attributed to the same ritual, based among other things on the characteristic purification rite involving the *gangati*-plant. This fragment contains the possessive adjective [h]a-am-ri-ta-aš-ši-en-zi (ii 6'), which is derived from Hurr. ḫamri ('type of sanctuary)' and possibly even from the adverb [hur-l]i-li 'in Hurrian' (iii 18'). The paleographic analysis suggests that KUB 35.83(+) belongs to the same tablet series as the small fragments KUB 35.40+ and KUB 35.41, which contain colophons attributing the *dupaduparša*-ritual to the tandem of Šilalluḫi and Kuwattalla.

Nevertheless, there are also fragments of CTH 759-763 where forms of Hurrian origin cannot be as easily accounted for in terms of later additions. This is primarily the case of the Middle Script fragments KBo 9.141 and KUB 35.15 (CTH 761.2), both characterized by the archaic spelling *BE-EL SÍSKUR* for 'ritual patron' (see Appendix II). They contain the description of a *nakkušši*-rite and Luwian incantations featuring the forms /nakkussaunta/ 'we released a scapegoat' and /nakkussaxidi/ 'with the release of the scapegoat', both ultimately derived from Hurr. *nakkošše* 'release'. There are independent reasons to believe that the scapegoat rite was present in the original version of the Great Ritual, which predated the incorporation of the rites associated with Šilalluḫi (see the discussion in Chapter 5). Although the scapegoat rite is not attested in the preserved part of CTH 761.1, this is highly likely to be an accidental loss.

A significant ramification of this case is that the description of the scapegoat rite does not necessarily trigger the use of forms derived from Hurr. *nakkošše* in Hittite-Luwian contexts. The scapegoat is prominent in the Puriyanni tradition (KUB 35.54 ii 46 - iii 11, CTH 758.1), but there it is simply called MÁŠ.GAL 'goat'. Therefore, it remains possible that the Hittite term *nakkušši-* and the Luwian forms /nakkussaunta/ and /nakkussaxidi/ were secondarily introduced in the text of the scapegoat as a result of scribal elaboration. An argument in favor of this suggestion, which shows that it is not an idle speculation, is the parallelism between the formulae KBo 9.141 iv 14', 17' *a-a-ri-in wa-ar-[ma-a-ú-un-ta]* (...) *na-a-nu-um-pa na-ak-ku-u[š-ša-a-ú-un-ta]* 'For a while [we have been performing] conjurations (...). Now, [we] perform[ed] the scapegoat rite.' and KUB 35.16(+) i 5', 6' [*a-ri-in wa-ar-ma-a-un-t]*a (...) [*n]*a-a-nu-ú-un-pa *i-ik-ku-na-a-ú-un-ta* '[For a while we] have been [performing conjurations] (...). [N]ow, we have performed the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice.' The *ikkunatt*-sacrifice belongs to the stratum of the Kuwattalla tradition that reflects Šilalluḫi's impact (see the discussion in Section 3.6), and therefore the formula may have been transferred to the scapegoat rite in connection with the merger between the Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi traditions. Another fragment supporting the transfer hypothesis is KBo 10.42 iv 4' (CTH 761.3.1), where the Hittite form *nakkuššit* 'with the scapegoat' occurs at the very end of the tablet, almost immediately before the colophon. The colophon's restoration suggests that this version of the Great Ritual is attributed to both Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi.

Another potential complication concerns /xalal(i)-/ 'pure', a West Semitic loan-word in Luwian (del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2015, 354–55). This adjective is common to the texts of the Kuwattalla and Puriyanni traditions, including their oldest
versions. It is possible, however, to question the relevance of this lexeme for deter-
mining the geographic background of the respective rituals. In KBo 11.2 i 10, we also
find *ha-la-li-en-zi* as a foreign word in a Hittite text, endowed with the characteristic
Empire Luwian ending acc.sg /-ntsi/ (Yakubovich 2010a, 30). Therefore, in the second
millennium BCE this Luwian lexeme probably functioned as the standard (pan-
dialectal) equivalent of Hittite *parkui-* ‘pure’. The way the West Semitic adjective *ḥl*
found its way into the Luwian language remains to be investigated, but this problem
should be kept apart from the assumed Hurrian borrowings into a specific Luwian dialect.

Finally, there are formulaic isoglosses between the Kizzuwadna rituals and the Kuwattalla tradition, which were not treated by Kaynar, because her research did not focus on phraseology. We will dwell here on those of them that directly concern CTH 761.1 and thus cannot be explained through later scribal adaptations. For example, the notion of a ‘divine path’, securely restored in KUB 32.10+ obv. 10’, finds parallels in the Hurrian-inspired Šalašu ritual (CTH 788) and an oracle question concerning Šawoška of Šamuḫa (Hutter 2019a, 350), which prompts Hutter to conclude that “here we find an element of Hurrian tradition taken up by Kuwattalla in her Kizzuwadnaean surroundings”. The presentation of a pot with vegetable soup in CTH 761.1 is accompanied by the statement that the seeds contained there ‘will not become seed’ (KUB 35.21 obv.? 11’); the same statement is made in connection with the presentation of a pot with dough and black cumin in the Maštigga ritual against the domestic quarrel (CTH 404.1; Miller 2004, 80–81, § 27). The frequent manipulations with the *taluppi*-lump, common to the Kuwattalla tradition (including its oldest version) and the Puriyanni tradition, feature a mention of the ‘pure *taluppi*’, which finds a counterpart in the so-called Ritual of Kizzuwadna (CTH 479.1; Ünal 2017, § 4’–5’).

The isoglosses of the last group arguably constitute the strongest evidence for the
original Kizzuwadna affinities of the Kuwattalla tradition, in view of their formulaic
character. These parallels deserve to be contrasted with those involving the Tun-
nawiya tradition and treated in the previous section. One distinction involves the
precision of comparison: the formulae of CTH 761.1 cannot be matched with a spe-
cific tradition emanating from Kizzuwadna, but rather display a generic “Kizzuwadna
flavor”. A sufficient assumption for tackling such cases would be the continuity be-
tween the rituals of the Lower Land and Kizzuwadna, which is the logical hypothesis
to begin with, given that these two regions of Ancient Anatolia were geographically
adjacent, being separated only by the Anti-Taurus mountain range. But there is also a
different explanation available: we know that the Kizzuwadna culture was held in high
prestige in Hattuša in the early 14th century BCE, during the lifetime of the historical
Kuwattalla (see Section 5.4 below). While the systematic transfer of formulae from a
different tradition is implausible (see the discussion in the previous section), their
eclectic appropriation from the traditions of prestige cannot be ruled out a priori.<fnref n="92" />

<footnote n="92">92 A comparison here can be made with the genetic classification of world languages. While the ration-
ale behind the practice of lexicostatistics is the assumption that the basic lexicon represents the reli-
able indicators of the genetic relationship between languages, there are no basic word lists consisting
of the lexemes that can never be borrowed.</footnote>
It seems appropriate to conclude this section by candidly stating the implications of the two conflicting hypotheses. If we assume that Kuwattalla hails from Kizzuwadna, she must have had particular reasons to adjust her formulaic repertoire to that of the Old Woman Tunnawiya, a Lower Land ritual specialist who probably performed in Ḩattuša. If Kuwattalla, like Tunnawiya, came to Ḩattuša from the Lower Land and relied on the same basic stock of formulaic incantations, she must have adopted certain eclectic Kizzuwadna features into her ritual, presumably bowing to the vogue of time. While the first scenario is not impossible, it requires far-reaching assumptions that are not warranted by the available historical evidence and therefore can be acceptable only as the last resort solution. In contrast, the second scenario agrees well with what is otherwise known about the cultural trends in Ḩattuša in the relevant time period and therefore must be evaluated as the default solution. Luckily, its additional confirmation is derived from the Kizzuwadna influence on the structure of the Kuwattalla tradition, which will be addressed in the following chapter.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.271

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.
# 5. KUWATTALLA TRADITION AND MAŠTIGGA TRADITION

## 5.1 INTRODUCTION

One of the main problems in studying the Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 759–763), which is arguably responsible for the lack of its comprehensive treatment in the previous literature, is the fragmentary character of its preservation. No version is comprehensive enough to qualify as a “pivot” of its philological edition, around which smaller fragments could be arranged as duplicates or parallel versions. Therefore, our abilities to establish the sequence of rites within CTH 759–763 through internal reconstruction are severely limited. Such a state of affairs correlates with the length of the relevant compositions: the earliest available version of the Great Ritual (CTH 761.1) features no less than four tablets, while one of the versions of the *dupaduparša*-ritual (CTH 759.2) was divided into no less than nine. Given the state of preservation of the archives of Hattuša, it would be naïve to expect to find a tablet series all nine tablets of which are reasonably well preserved.<fnref n="93" />

On top of the scarcity of data, there are problems of structural variation and repetition. On the one hand, the density of the narrative and the division of individual rites across tablets is not uniform in different versions of the Kuwattalla tradition. For example, KUB 9.6+ (CTH 759.1, sixth tablet) features the beginning of the description of the *ikkunawar*-sacrifice at the very end of its column four, which apparently runs over into the next tablet. In contrast, the patently related *ikkunatt*-sacrifice is followed by the *šarlatt*-sacrifice in the same column four of KUB 32.8(+) (CTH 759.10.b), while the tablet number in this case is not preserved. Finally, the fragment KUB 35.78, also featuring a reference to the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice, can now be assigned to column four of the first tablet of CTH 759.3 on the basis of our indirect join with KUB 35.37. On the other hand, one may strongly doubt that all the versions of the Kuwattalla tradition preserve the same set of rites. For example, the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice is followed by the *šarlatt*-sacrifice in both KUB 32.8(+) (CTH 759.10.b) and KUB 35.16(+) (CTH 760.3.b), but no reference to the *šarlatt*-sacrifice is found in KUB 35.78 (CTH 759.3), where the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice is followed by a set of purification rites and then a rite dealing with the *nakkiu*-spirits. Finally, there are ritual gestures that can occur more than once: the purification with the *taluppi*-object (a lump of dough) is mentioned at least three times in the preserved part of CTH 761.1, while ablution with water occurs there twice. This means in practice that an isolated fragment fea-

<footnote n="93">93 It is instructive to compare the state of preservation of the Puriyanni tradition. Here we also observe a great deal of variation among versions, but because the text of the ritual fits on just one tablet, it is possible to use its best-preserved fragment KUB 35.54, which is not larger than the best-preserved fragments of the Kuwattalla tradition, as a template for the majority of the remaining fragments.</footnote>
turing either of these acts cannot be assigned any particular place within the larger
composition.

Finally, the Kuwattalla tradition fails to yield abundant numerical clues for estab-
lishing the sequence of its rites. Contrary to the descriptions of festivals, another
genre of notoriously long Hittite texts, the fragments of CTH 759–763 rarely align
ritual acts with specific days for their performance. In the instance of a completely
preserved tablet, its colophon is expected to convey its sequence number within the
series, yet only six colophons with readable tablet numbers belonging to five differ-
ent tablet series of the Kuwattalla tradition are available to date. This is like an equa-
tion with too many variables for an algorithmic solution, especially given the afore-
mentioned lack of consistency in the distribution of rites across tablets. The chal-
lenges addressed here impacted the pioneering work of Frank Starke, who attempted
to reconstruct the rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition on internal grounds but suc-
ceeded in ordering the relevant fragments with respect to each other only in a limited
number of cases (see Starke 1985, 107–8, 138, 140).

Under such conditions, the best chance to reconstruct the structure of the Kuwat-
talla tradition would be to find an external anchor elsewhere. This could be a better-
preserved text, which is attributed to a different ritualist but displays a congruous rite
sequence. It is vital, however, to keep in mind that preconceived ideas about the
structure of the Kuwattalla tradition would lead nowhere. A probative demonstration
of structural parallelism must be based on finding isomorphic comparisons for those
fragments that feature micro-sequences of rites, as well as identifying matches for the
relative order of the few available pieces endowed with tablet numbers. But even
such a procedure cannot guarantee success, because the availability of external struc-
tural parallels can never be taken for granted.

In our case, identifying a requisite Hittite text was a matter of sheer luck. Early on
in the course of the work of the Luwili Project, we began to accumulate parallels be-
tween the Hittite-Luwian passages resembling those of the Kuwattalla tradition,
which stemmed in part from newly identified fragments, and those of Maštigga’s rit-
ual for domestic quarrels (CTH 404.1).<fnref n="94" /> Initially we entertained several competing
hypotheses about the origin of such similarities, including the preservation of a Lu-
wian version of CTH 404.1. Yet, the systematic study of Maštigga’s ritual for treating
a domestic quarrel led us to a different conclusion: the core of this text shows non-
trivial structural similarities to the core of the Kuwattalla tradition, despite differ-
ences in substance. Therefore, its template can be used for ordering the fragments of
the Kuwattalla tradition vis-à-vis each other. Furthermore, we can entertain the hy-
pothesis that the rites of CTH 759–763, which lack parallels in CTH 404.1, represent
later additions to the Kuwattalla tradition.

Certainly, CTH 404.1 is a short ritual, fitting on a single tablet, and it does not
contain Luwian insertions. Its brevity, however, largely correlates with that of its in-

<footnote n="94">94 It is appropriate to single out here the contribution of David Sasseville, who identified the Luwian passages in the fragments KBo 47.136 and KBo 55.99 and promptly alerted the members of the Luwili Project about his discovery. For revealing parallels between these fragments and the specific rites of CTH 404.1, see the discussion in Section 5.2.</footnote>
cantations: they usually consist of one sentence and share the paragraphs with the descriptions of the relevant rites, which frequently yields the alignment between paragraph division and rite segmentation. Since we know on linguistic grounds that the performance underlying CTH 404.1 originally featured Luwian incantations (see Appendix I), the simplest hypothesis is to assume that they were most likely shortened at the point when their text was summarized in the Hittite language. In contrast, the Kuwattalla tradition generally preserves the Luwian incantations, and therefore the texts associated with it span several tablets.<fnref n="95" /> As for the Hittite matrix texts of the fragments attributed to Kuwattalla and Šilalluḫi, they vary in length to a considerable extent. Yet, in the instance of its older versions, the Hittite passages are approximately as concise as those of Maštigga’s ritual for domestic quarrels, which facilitates the comparison between the two traditions.

### 5.2 IDENTIFYING PARALLELS

The presumed purposeful abbreviation of the text of CTH 404.1 in the history of its transmission has favorable consequences for our project. Its oldest tablet has been reasonably well preserved, and its missing parts can usually be restored on the basis of its later copies. This enabled production of the synoptic edition, accomplished in Miller 2004, 61–108 and featuring the restoration and separate treatment of all the paragraphs of the text. Below we will use these as structural units in our search for parallels in the Kuwattalla tradition. Our comparison draws, whenever possible, upon the oldest preserved tablet of the relevant ritual (KBo 39.8, CTH 404.1.I.A).

§ 1 represents the incipit of the ritual, which defines its special purpose. In the instance of CTH 404.1 it is the ritual treatment of quarrelling family members. In contrast, the purpose of the Great Ritual and other rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition is never explicitly stated, although there are no reasons to think that it was the same. For inferential arguments regarding the purpose of the Kuwattalla tradition, see Section 5.5.

§§ 2–5 contains the list of ritual implements. While several items listed here are also deployed in the Kuwattalla tradition, it is appropriate to discuss them under the rites that require their use. As for the structure of the list, it does not resemble that of KBo 29.3+ i 5–16 (CTH 760.2), KUB 35.18(+) i 8–18 (CTH 760.1), or Bo 4388:2’–9’ (CTH 763.2.1), which all begin with sacrificial sheep.

§§ 6–7 introduce the first libation to the Sun-god, accompanied by an incantation. The preparation of the ritual patrons for the first offering to the Sun-god finds a parallel in KBo 29.3+ ii 11–14 (CTH 760.2, first tablet). In CTH 404.1, the offering consists of bread, wine, and cheese, while in the parallel passage it is merely bread and wine. The gesture common to both passages is laying the patient’s hand on the items to be offered. It is to be observed, however, that the preceding context of KBo 29.3+ ii con-

<footnote n="95">95 A partial exception is the text CTH 759.3, likewise containing the abridged versions of the incantations, which are not, however, translated into Hittite.</footnote>
tains an incantation that has no match in CTH 404.1, although it finds a close parallel
in the Ambazzi tradition (see Christiansen 2006, 38–41, § 9). The incantation as such
finds a parallel in KBo 29.3+ ii 11–27, but its content is different: in CTH 404.1 it fo-
cuses on the harmful tongues, while in CTH 760 it concerns the patient’s enemies,
personalized by means of human figurines. Yet, these discrepancies can be offset by a
more general similarity: both CTH 404.1 and CTH 759–763 contain several invoca-
tions to the Sun-deities, which clearly represent the primary divine addressees of
both these performances.<fnref n="96" /> One can contrast here, for example, the Puriyanni ritual,
where the divine counteragent is the Storm-god of the Open Country, or Maštigga’s
ritual for bloodshed (CTH 404.3), where the goddess Apritta appears to play the cru-
cial role. This prompts us to regard the parallels under discussion as significant, al-
though not structural (see the discussion under § 38 below).

§ 8 prescribes setting up anthropomorphic figurines, as well as hands and tongues of dough, at the feet of the two ritual patrons. Although there is no counterpart to these gestures in the available fragments of CTH 759–763, in this case one can reasonably surmise their original presence in the performance of the Kuwattalla tradition. KBo 29.3+ (CTH 760.2, first tablet) refers first to the manipulations with human figurines, symbolizing the patient’s enemies (column two), and then to the destruction of the evil hand and tongue (column three). Since the two sets of rites are connected, it is inherently likely that the evil hand and tongue had been linked beforehand to the evildoers’ figurines. The place of this rite within the sequence of the Kuwattalla tradition may, however, have been different; perhaps it preceded the first offering to the Sun-god.

§ 9 mentions the blue wool and red wool being placed on the ritual patrons. The red wool, yellow wool, and possibly blue wool are also mentioned in a fragmentary passage that immediately follows the first prayer to the Sun-god (KBo 29.3+ ii 31, restored after the parallel version KBo 9.147 ii 7'). In both traditions, the wool strands of different colors are made into one thread. In the Kuwattalla tradition, this thread was apparently tied to the ritual patron, but the purpose of this gesture might have been analogous to placing it on the ritual patron in CTH 404.1.

§ 10 features a rite of cutting the wool thread with a knife and an incantation, which attributes this act to the goddess Andaliya and specifies that it stands for the removal of the evil tongues. Both the rite and the incantation find close parallels in KUB 35.48 iii 14’-22’ (CTH 760.4), where cutting the wool with a bronze knife is likewise attributed to Andaliya and linked to the separation of the miasma. The fragment KUB 35.48 represents a close parallel version of KBo 29.3+ (CTH 760.2); therefore we are assuredly dealing with the first tablet of CTH 760. At the same time, the rite under discussion does not immediately follow the rite of tying the wool

<footnote n="96">96 A systemic exception concerns the animal substitution rites in CTH 761, where repeated invocations are made to /warpall(i)- Tarxunt-/ ‘warlike Tarhunt’ (see Hutter 2019a, 342–45). This deviation correlates with several other intrusive elements in the phraseology of animal substitution rites, as discussed in Section 5.3. There is no mention of the Storm-god in the preserved Hittite parts of the respective incantations.</footnote>
thread to the ritual patron on this tablet; KUB 35.48 iii 5'–13' apparently features an incantation accompanying a purification rite.<fnref n="97" />

§ 11 contains the ritual waving of a fish over the heads of the ritual patrons. The fish is removed from the sea as a metaphor for the detached evil tongues. Although the Sumerogram for ‘fish’ is never attested in the Kuwattalla tradition, a likely parallel to this rite is the fragment KUB 35.23 (CTH 761.1), which features the presentation of a live animal endowed with the epithet a-la-[aš-ša-am-mi-iš] ‘maritime’. Among all the rites of CTH 404.1, only the fish rite is compatible with such a specification. Presumably, the reference to a live fish emphasizes the necessity to resist the temptation of using a dead fish, despite the logistic difficulties of transporting fish alive to Ḩattuša.

§ 12 features the ritual practitioner’s holding an object symbolizing evil speech above the heads of the ritual patrons. The *tiššatwa*-object consists of tallow wrapped around with white wool and black wool. Since it is put in physical correspondence with the patients, most likely it functions as an inanimate substitute absorbing their curses. This passage can be compared to KBo 29.22+ (CTH 760.7), where *tiššatwa* is likewise introduced in the context of a substitution rite. We regard this parallel as significant, because the *tiššatwa*-objects do not seem to be attested otherwise in Hitite rituals.

§§ 13–14 must be considered together. They introduce the rite of (un)twisting tongues made of salt, tallow, sinew, coriander, and wax along with the matching incantation inviting the Sun-god to untwist curses. Now, the tongues are mentioned in the immediate vicinity of the Sun-god in the fragmentary passage KUB 35.48 iii 33’–34’ (CTH 760.4), immediately following the disposal of the bronze knife that was used for cutting the wool (see the parallel version KBo 29.13+ ii 10’–11’). In this case, there is no indication that the tongues are prepared from multiple ingredients; it is possible that they were simply made of dough or paste. Nonetheless, given what precedes and follows, this passage from CTH 760.4 can likewise be interpreted as an invocation to the Sun-god with a request to neutralize evil speech.

§§ 15–17 contain the rites of breaking and then waving the hands and tongues over the patients’ heads, with the accompanying incantation. This passage has several close parallels in the Kuwattalla tradition, but the one of primary interest here is KBo 29.3+ iii 13’–19’ (CTH 760.2, first tablet). This parallel brings us back to the best-preserved fragment of CTH 760 after the lacuna has been partially filled in through its close parallel version KUB 35.48. Summing up the previous observations, the first part of CTH 760, which involves figurines and evil tongues and approximately corresponds to §§ 6–18 of CTH 404.1, seems to have all fitted on the first tablet of the rit-

<footnote n="97">97 An additional parallel beyond the Kuwattalla tradition in the reference to Andaliya’s cutting away the miasma is the Festival of the Storm-god of Kuliwišna (CTH 330, Glocker 1997, 30–31). This passage sides with the Kuwattalla tradition in the specific mention of a knife made of bronze (GIR ZABAR), but the object cut is firewood, which renders the parallel less precise. On the other hand, the Ritual of the Ox belonging to the Tunnawiya tradition (CTH 409.IV) mentions cutting a piece of red wool with a knife as a way of removing the negative miasma but does not mention the goddess Andaliya (Beckman 1990, 43 and 49). All these parallels have already been noted in Miller 2004, 257, fn. 390.</footnote>
ual. The pace of the ritual in CTH 760, however, is slower than that in CTH 404.1: thus, the rite of breaking the hands and tongues must have been preceded there by yet another purification rite, the incantation for which has partially been preserved (KBo 29.3+ iii 1'-12').

§ 18 contains the rite of nailing seven tongues to the ground. While nailing objects is mentioned several times in Hittite-Luwian rituals, only one parallel can be regarded as suggestive. This is KBo 13.264 (CTH 763.2.8), a very badly preserved fragment, which does not have an obvious parallel version elsewhere in the Kuwattalla tradition. Its long Luwian incantation refers to the hostile tongues (EMEHA) a number of times, and on one occasion prescribes their treatment with a copper peg (KBo 13.264 r.col. URUDU-ia-ti [tar-ma-ti], the noun phrase restored after KUB 32.8(+) iv 23'-24'). The verb is lost in a lacuna, but the contextual meaning is either nailing or piercing. While the status of this fragment as part of the Kuwattalla tradition is not assured, there are no obvious alternatives for its attribution.

§ 19 introduces for the first time a lustration involving water and dough. The patients are sprinkled with water, while dough is waved over them. In the earliest available version of the Kuwattalla tradition (CTH 761.1), pressing the *taluppi*-lump made of dough onto the patient's body is followed by ablution with water. The parallel is not precise, because both water and dough are applied to the ritual patrons in two different ways, but still there are sufficient reasons to regard the similarity as significant. On the one hand, the combination of water with objects of dough as purification agents is may seem trivial: one can contrast the Puriyanni tradition, where water is combined with salt for the purification rite, while the *taluppi*-lump is not used there as the purification agent. On the other hand, both rites under scrutiny are used periodically. In CTH 404.1 the purification rites in § 19 and § 31 divide the ritual into three approximately equal parts, the first two of which display structural uniformity, while in CTH 761.1 they are apparently used after every single rite. Thus, although the precise spots where the respective rites occur in both traditions do not match, they share the common purpose of delimiting different segments of the ritual.

§§ 20–21 inaugurates the central part of the ritual, which largely consists of animal substitution rites, with the ritual slaughter of a white sheep. The most straightforward counterpart of this rite within the Kuwattalla tradition is KUB 35.43 ii (CTH 761.3.8), where the white sheep is explicitly mentioned. A gesture shared by both rites is spitting into the sheep’s mouth for the purpose of transferring the misasma to the substitute (this is also a feature of the black sheep and puppy rites in CTH 404.1). One can further compare a substitution rite involving spitting into a sheep’s mouth in KBo 51.220 (CTH 761.3.5.a). Although the sheep is not mentioned as such in the preserved part of KUB 35.21 rev. 1’–14’ (CTH 761.1.d), the parallelism of constructions with KUB 35.43 ii, including spitting into the mouth of the sacrificial animal, opens the possibility that this rite represents a further element of comparison. This is, however, uncertain, since the rite under discussion may have involved another animal that was considered ritually pure (e.g. black sheep or puppy).

§§ 22–23 are devoted to the description of the substitution rite involving a black sheep. Its distinct structural feature is dismembering and burning the slaughtered
animal, as opposed to burying the slaughtered white sheep. Its distinct phraseological trait is the epithet ‘substitute of the head and the whole body’ attached to the black sheep (§ 22). The contrast between the black sheep and the white sheep, both used for the “main” ritual, is explicitly mentioned in the lists of ritual implements belonging to CTH 760 (KBo 29.3+ i 5, KUB 35.18(+) i 9–10), but no rite where a black sheep is mentioned as such has been preserved among the available fragments of the Kuwattalla tradition. The epithet ‘substitute of the head and the body’ is used there with reference to a piglet (KUB 35.43+ iii 19’, CTH 761.3.8).

§§ 24–25 feature a substitution rite involving a piglet, which resembles in many respects the one involving a white sheep. Its most transparent counterpart in the Kuwattalla tradition is found in KUB 35.43 iii and follows there the white sheep rite in KUB 35.43 ii (with a lacuna between the two). Thus, the order of these two rites in KUB 35.43 matches the pattern of CTH 404.1. A distinct feature of the piglet rite vis-à-vis the white sheep rite in KUB 35.43 is spitting at the substitute from afar, not directly into its mouth, presumably because the piglet was considered less pure. Therefore, the animal substitution rite in KUB 34.62+ iii (CTH 761.2.3.b), which likewise resorts to spitting from a distance, probably also features a piglet as its protagonist. Another passage mentioning the piglet—namely, KUB 35.34 iii? 1’–6’ (CTH 761.2.1.c)—refers to its disposal into a pit at the end of the rite, which finds a parallel in § 25 of CTH 404.1. Although the piglet is not mentioned as such in the preserved part of KUB 35.24+ obv. 1’–5” (CTH 761.1.c), the parallelism of formulae with KUB 35.43, including the *hallinai*-clauses, supports the assumption that this rite likewise involves a piglet.

§§ 26–27 interrupt the chain of substitution rites involving animals with the waving of a *hupuwai*-vessel filled with dough and black cumin. The incantation specifies that the black cumin will not become seed again and compares this state of affairs to the irreversible character of removing evil tongues. The counterpart of this rite in the Kuwattalla tradition is the presentation of a pot filled with a vegetable soup, where the Luwian incantation likewise states that one of its ingredients ‘will not become seed’ (KUB 35.21 obv. 6’–21’, CTH 761.1.d). The reverse of the same features an animal substitution rite. The placement of a rite involving “a pot with seeds” among the animal substitute rites represents a non-trivial similarity between CTH 404.1 and CTH 761.1.

§§ 28–29 feature a rite involving a *harziyalla*-animal, which is expected to act as a scapegoat, carrying away the blue wool and red wool. In general, the *harziyalla*-animal does not appear frequently in Hittite rituals: for the list of its four relevant attestations, see Haas 2003, 473–74. It is, therefore, remarkable that a small fragment mentioning this animal, KBo 55.99 (CTH 763.2.12), has recently been identified as a part of the Kuwattalla tradition (Sasseville 2021). The size of the fragment is not conducive to any definite conclusions about the function of the animal in it, but the use of the verbal form *ar-ḫa túḫ-ša-a-an-n[a-i]* ‘cuts off’ (rev. 3’) is at least compatible with the assumption that the detached thread of wool may play there a role.

§ 30 contains a substitution rite involving a puppy, which in many respects resembles the one involving a white sheep. In particular, one transfers the curse onto the puppy by spitting into its mouth. The puppy (or dog) is explicitly mentioned in
Bo 4388 obv. 7 (CTH 763.2.1), as part of an abridged list of ritual implements, which nonetheless clearly resembles the larger lists in KBo 29.3+ i and KUB 35.18(+) i (CTH 760). Furthermore, Luwian /tsuwanis/ ‘dog’ appears to be mentioned in KUB 35.28 i 7' (CTH 761.3.2) and KUB 35.29 i 5' (CTH 761.3.5.b), the parallel versions of the same fragmentary incantation. An additional candidate for a puppy rite, to be considered alongside several others, is KUB 35.21 rev. 1'-14' (CTH 761.1.d). The advantage of such a solution is that the sequence §§ 26-27 > § 30 obtains a counterpart in CTH 761.1.d. See the discussion under §§ 20-21 above in this section.

§ 31 prescribes the second round of double purification with water and dough, of the kind that was introduced in § 19. Here the purification rite is likely to punctuate the boundary between animal sacrifices and the final part of the ritual. Although the rite in KUB 35.21 rev. 1'-14', a possible counterpart of § 30, is likewise followed by the purification with the *taluppi*-lump, this similarity may be regarded as accidental, because the purification rites generally occur more frequently in the Kuwattalla tradition (see the discussion under § 19).

§§ 32–33 introduces the rite of the *išnuri*-vessel filled with oil, where the Old Woman throws the red wool (variant: blue wool, CTH 404.1.I.C, 404.1.II.A, 404.1.II.C₂) and barley. This gesture finds a parallel in KUB 32.8 iii 1’-5’ (CTH 759.10.b), where the Old Woman throws a strand of blue wool into a clay vessel filled with oil and honey. In both instances, we are ostensibly dealing with ways of dispensing with the remaining wool (see the *harziyalla*-rite in §§ 28–29). The manipulations described in KUB 32.8(+) iii 1’-5’ are sequenced shortly before the *ikkunatt*- and *šarlatt*-sacrifices in KUB 32.8(+) iv. This suggests the position within the ritual after the block of animal substitution rites, which matches the location of the paragraph under discussion in CTH 404.1.<fnref n="98" /> The continuation of the rite, however, is different in both traditions, and in agreement with the basic goals of the respective rituals. In CTH 404.1 the vessel is hidden under the *šeknu*-garments of the two ritual patrons and contributes to their reconciliation, while in CTH 759.10 it serves as a container for the contaminated hair and nail clippings collected from the patient.

§§ 34–35 are devoted to the rite of smashing the *hupuwai*-vessels filled with food and throwing bread loaves into the fire. Its counterpart is the small fragment KBo 47.136 (CTH 763.2.13), which only recently has been added to the corpus of the Kuwattalla tradition (Sasseville 2019, 120). Its text mentions both the *hupuwai*-vessels and throwing a variety of items, including seeds, into the fire. It is impossible, unfortunately, to show by philological means how this fragment was ordered vis-à-vis other fragments of the Kuwattalla tradition. The only other reference to the *hupuwai*-vessels in our corpus is found in KUB 35.65 (CTH 763.1.2).

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.289

<footnote n="98">98 The *ikkunatt*-sacrifice of KUB 32.8(+) corresponds to the *ikkunawar*-sacrifice, the description of which begins in KUB 9.6 iv, while the colophon of KUB 9.6 (CTH 759.1) informs us that this is the sixth tablet (or perhaps the fifth tablet) of the *dupaduparša*-ritual. It does not seem likely, however, that KUB 32.8(+) also represents the sixth tablet of the respective tablet series, since the style of presentation here appears to be more succinct. In the absence of a preserved colophon, we are inevitably reduced to speculations about its number, but the fourth tablet would be a fair guess, with the implication that the animal substitution rites were recorded on the second and third tablets.</footnote>
§ 36 features the *nakkušši*-rite, where a sheep is designated as scapegoat and subsequently taken by the Old Woman as a service fee. The *nakkušši*-rite of the Kuwattalla tradition is preserved in the parallel versions in KBo 9.141 iv (CTH 761.2.4), KUB 35.15 ii–iii (CTH 761.2.5), and KUB 35.14 iv (CTH 760.3.b). Typologically, it is not very similar to the *nakkušši*-rite of CTH 404.1: in this instance, the animal designated as a scapegoat is a real goat and not a sheep. Yet, the join KUB 35.16 (+) KUB 35.14 is conducive to establishing a sequence of rites that begins with the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice and ends with the *nakkušši*-rite, while we know from KUB 32.8(+) that the rite involving a strand of blue wool thrown into a pot comes shortly before the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice. This provides a link between the counterparts of §§ 32–33 and § 36 in the Kuwattalla tradition, while the intervening rites, in as much as we can reconstruct them, appear to represent later additions (see Section 5.3).<fnref n="99" />

§ 37 contains a rite of seven copper pegs being pounded into the ground, by means of which the curses, symbolized by the mouth and tongue, are metaphorically pegged below the Sun-god (*PUTU-i kattan*).<fnref n="100" /> A counterpart of this rite in the Kuwattalla tradition is partially preserved in KUB 35.13+ (CTH 762.3.4). Here twenty bronze pegs, twenty wooden pegs, and twenty more pegs of unclear substance are deployed for the purpose of pegging down the evil *nakkiu*-spirits, an action that is followed by a fragmentary Luwian incantation mentioning the Sun-god. The references to *nakkiu*-spirits, not mentioned at all in CTH 404.1, represents a characteristic feature of the Kuwattalla tradition; these spirits also appear in its several other passages, from which we learn that they can be both good and evil (Mouton 2020b). In contrast, the rite of pegging down the evil with multiple pegs accompanied by the mention of the Sun-god appears to represent an inherited feature of both traditions. A parallel version of the same rite can be identified in KBo 29.6 iv 1’-10’ (CTH 762.2), whereas KBo 29.6 i 1’-14’ features the description of the *šarlatt*-sacrifice. Since the *šarlatt*-sacrifice immediately follows the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice, the rite of copper pegs is also likely to be a neighbor of the *nakkušši*-rite in the sequence of the Kuwattalla tradition (see the preceding paragraph).

§ 38 introduces the second offering to the Sun-god, resembling the one described in §§ 6–7 above but accompanied by a different incantation. While we have seen that § 6 of CTH 404.1 corresponds to KBo 29.3+ ii 11–14 (CTH 760.2), the offering does not find a counterpart in this case among the available versions of the Kuwattalla tradition. Conversely, the offering attested in KBo 22.254 iii, shortly after the destruction of the evil hand and tongue in KBo 22.243 ii (CTH 762.3.2), does not find any counterpart in CTH 404.1. It stands to reason that repeated offerings to the Sun-god could easily be inserted into the ritual in the course of the development of the tradition, in a similar fashion to that of the repeated purification rites.

<footnote n="99">99 See also the fragment KBo 10.42 (CTH 761.3.1), which apparently contains the permission for the Old Woman to take the live animals for herself after the ritual, which should logically include the scapegoat. CTH 404.1 and this fragment represent the only Hittite texts known to us where the scapegoat is used as a reward for the services of the ritual practitioner.</footnote>

<footnote n="100">100 For the interpretation of this expression, see Steitler 2017, 340–41 fn. 1092.</footnote>
§§ 39–41 contain the rite involving the *huwaši*-stones. A matching rite involving the *tanid*-stones is accompanied by a Luwian incantation in KUB 35.70 ii 9–17 (CTH 762.2). The Luwian word /tanid-/ represents the equivalent of Hitt. *huwaši-* and is used as its gloss in § 40 (Melchert *apud* Yakubovich 2010a, 279). The details of the two passages diverge to a considerable extent: the stones are placed between fires in CTH 404.1 and before the gates in CTH 762.2, while the miasma are to be toppled like the stones in CTH 404.1 and turned into stones in CTH 762.2. What enhances the significance of this parallel, besides the very unusual use of *huwaši-/tanid*-stones, is the position of the rite under discussion immediately before the substitution rite in both texts.

§ 42 features waving a pot introduced as “the substitute of the head” and subsequently destroyed by the Old Woman. This rite finds a parallel in KUB 35.70 ii 18–29, where the embedded Luwian incantation also features the epithet “the substitute of the head”. Unfortunately, the end of the rite is not preserved either in KBo 29.6(+) (CTH 762.2) or in its close parallel version KBo 29.63 (CTH 762.1.k), so it is not possible to confirm through these fragments that the pot is broken, although the logic of the rite certainly requires it. The confirmation comes from the deviant version of the same rite KUB 35.71+ (CTH 759.12), where the pot undergoes destruction after an additional set of Luwian incantations. It stands to reason that §§ 39–42 must be compared as a block to the relevant passage of KUB 35.70.

§ 43 prescribes purification by means of wiping the bodies of the ritual patrons with “the plant of the Sun-god”. This purification rite can be compared approximately to one involving the *gangati*-plant, which occurs in several fragments assigned to CTH 759. The passage KUB 35.67:10’–11’ (CTH 759.8.c), if correctly restored, implies the consecration of the *gangati*-plant by the Sun-god. Even more interesting is the likely mention of the *gangati*-plant in KUB 35.83(+) iii 15’, which occurs shortly after the mention of a pot in KUB 35.83(+) iii 8’ (CTH 759.2.a). This may be an argument for a sequence that represents a counterpart of §§ 42–43 within the Kuwattalla tradition, although one should also keep in mind that the purification with the *gangati*-plant must have been iterated within the *dupaduparša*-ritual, arguably taking the place there of purification with water and dough.

§ 44 prescribes yet another purification rite involving water and natron. There is no counterpart to this ceremony in the preserved part of the Kuwattalla tradition, where the use of natron is not at all attested.

§ 45 mandates sealing the polluted water remaining from the previous rite into the horn of a bull. Although such a gesture is not attested in the Kuwattalla tradition, the bull horn made of stone is mentioned in the list of *materia magica* in KUB 35.18(+) i 6’ (CTH 760.1). The use of this artefact for sealing up the miasma, as in CTH 404.1, remains the default hypothesis, although we have no way of knowing when exactly this action takes place in the course of CTH 760. There is a possibility that a drinking horn (*siša[watar*]) is also mentioned in KBo 29.15:6’ (CTH 761.1.e), but the form is too fragmentary for any firm conclusions.

§ 46 represents the colophon, which essentially repeats the content of the incipit and therefore lacks parallels in the Kuwattalla tradition.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447119955.2.289

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.