†ḫankilatar-

This word only appears once in a NS mixed oracle report (according to the Konkordanz this text belongs to CTH 577, for similarities with CTH 569 see van den Hout 1998b:37f.).

[A.B.]

nom./acc. sg. n.

za!(ḪA)-an-ki-la-tar

KUB 16.77 obv. ii 47’

(CTH 577, NS)

The attestation as ḫa-an-ki-la-tar follows Rosenkranz 1950a:191. The form is listed as an error for za-an-ki-la-tar by Rüster 1988a:300, cf. Starke 1990a:441, n.1582; van den Hout 1998b:246 and HEG U–Z:655f. The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[A.B.]

The photo and the hand copy clearly show the sign ḪA, but in line 35’ of the same column the damaged form z]a-an-ki-la-tar shows traces of the ZA-sign.

[A.B.]

The context of KUB 16.77 obv. ii 45’–50’ (transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition the hand copy as well as the transliterations and translations of van den Hout 1998b:246f. and HEG U–Z:655f. have been taken into account) shows:

(45’)[… p]a-ra-a ne-ia-an-zi nu dingirMEŠ a-ri-ia-zi (46’)[… d]a-a-i ezen4MEŠ-ma ku-i-e-eš kar-ša-an-te-eš (47’)[… ḫa-p]u-uš-ša-an-zi gam-an-na za^!(ḪA)-an-ki-la-tar(eras) (48’)[… it]-ti dutu-ši-ma-at ku-it si×sá-at (49’)[… ša é.]gal-lu4 pé-e-da-an-zi ki.min nu igi-zi-iš (50’)[… egir-m]a nu.sig5-du

(45’)[…] they send [ou]t and he queries the gods (46’)[… he t]akes?, but which festivals (have been) neglected, (47’)[… they  ma]ke up for them and subsequently compensation [they give] (48’)[… wi]th? the Majesty, however, it has been constituted (49’)[… of the pa]lace they bring, likewise. The first (50’)[… la]ter (one), however, shall be unfavorable

Rosenkranz 1950a:191 listed the form as ḫankilatar, but it has already been noted by Güterbock 1956a:119 that the intended word must have been zankilatar (cf. Rüster 1988a:300; Starke 1990a:441, n.1582; van den Hout 1998b:246; HEG U–Z:655f. and Tischler 2016a:450: “graphie fautive”) and the scribe who copied it marked the suspicious form with gloss wedges. Güterbock does not explain his claim, but it is evident from another attestation of the same word in line 35’ of the same column. Here the first sign is damaged, but it is visibly a ZA-sign: z]a-an-ki-la-tar.

The context of KUB 16.77 obv. ii 33’–37’ (transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition the hand copy as well as the transliteration and translation of van den Hout 1998b:244–247 have been taken into account) shows:

(33’)[… ez]en4 na-aš-ma ḫa-az-zi-wi5 (34’)[…] nu-uš-ma-ša-at e-eš-šu-u-wa-an (35’)[… z]a-an-ki-la-tar sum-an-zi ma-a-an-ma a-na dingirMEŠ (36’)[… a-pé-e-e]z me-mi-ia-na-az wa-ar-ši-ia-at-⸢ta⸣-ri (37’)[… mušen ḫur-r]i sig5-ru egir-ma nu.sig5-du igi-zi-iš nu.sig5 egir sig5

(33’)[… festiv]al or a ritual (34’)[…] for them [they begin] to perform it (35’)[… co]mpensation they give, but if for the gods (36’)[… by th]at statement is pacified (37’)[… the first? ḫurri-bir]d  shall be favorable, but the later one shall be unfavorable – the first unfavorable, the later (one) favorable.

The Hittite word zankilatar/n- ‘penance, compensation’ (for this lexeme see HEG U–Z: 655f., EDHIL:1013, Tischler 2008a:231, Tischler 2016a:450, Ünal 2007a:815 and Ünal 2016a:603f.) is part of a phrase that appears in this type of oracles: kattann=a zankilatar sum-an-zi “and subsequently they make (give) compensation”. The whole phrase appears in KBo 2.2 (CTH 577, NS) rev. iv 9: kat-ta-an-na za-an-ki-la-tar sum-an-zi. In KUB 16.77 obv. ii 35’ the first part is broken off, but z]a-an-ki-la-tar sum-an-zi remains and in the attestation discussed here, the verb is missing (or has been erased), but kattann=a appears written with the Sumerogram gam-an-na (this variant of the phrase also appears in KUB 50.92 8’ and 12’, cf. Tognon 2005a:163). Accordingly, the ḪA-sign can be emended to ZA. As both signs are similar, they can be confused and are prone to errors of sign similarity (cf. Worthington 2012a:92–96 for this type of error). Among other examples of spellings with ḪA for ZA, the form ḫa-an-ki-la-tar also appears in a list of scribal errors under “Zeichenvertauschung” in Rüster 1988a:300 (cf. Cotticelli-Kurras 2007a:186).

The gloss marker never appears with zankilatar/n- and here it most likely signals the unusual word form. As indicated by Ünal 1978a:22f., some oracle texts might be copies of earlier (sometimes hastily written) drafts. KUB 16.77 represents a long text that includes protocols of different oracle techniques that could have been recorded separately before being combined into one report. Hence, it is possible that the scribe copied his text from a Vorlage (which may have been damaged or difficult to read) and marked the suspicious word with gloss wedges. The details of the emergence of this Glossenkeilwort remain vague, but it seems very clear that the originally intended word in this phrase was zankilatar/n- and not †ḫankilatar-, which is hence classified as a ghost word.

[A.B.]