dūpaduparša-, dupiduparša-

Attested only in colophons as the designation of a Luwian ritual (CTH 759) from MS to LNS manuscripts.

[Zs.S.]

(a)

gen. sg.	˹(SISKUR)˺du-ú-pa-du-pa-ar-ša	KUB 9.6 rev. iv 25’	(CTH 759, LNS)
	(SISKUR)du-ú-pa-du[	KUB 35.37 rev. iv 7’	(CTH 759, NS)
	˹(SISKUR)˺˹du-ú-pa˺[	KUB 35.38 rev. 2’	(CTH 759, NS)
	˹(SISKUR)˺du-ú-˹pa˺[	KBo 44.194, 10’	(CTH 759, MS)

(b)

gen. sg.	(SÍSKUR)du-pí-du-pa-ar-ša	KUB 35.41 rev. iv 2’	(CTH 759, NS)
	(SÍSKUR)du-pí-du-pa-ar[	KUB 35.40 + KBo 29.8 rev. iv 6’	(CTH 759, NS)

Attestations following CLL:234 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:738, Ünal 2016a:550), supplemented by KBo 44.194, 10’ (Roszkowska-Mutschler 2007a:177) and checked against the photos of the Konkordanz (except KUB 35.28 rev., which has no available photo).

It is generally taken for granted that the attested forms show a nom.-acc. sg (with the particle -ša) of an r/n-stem (CLL:234: “not assured, but likely”; Tischler 2008a:204, Tischler 2016a:387) or an r-stem (Starke 1985b:104 points out both possibilities; the distributional pattern of the particle -ša does not help, since it seems to have been assigned on a lexical basis in case of these stem-classes, Jasanoff 2010a:172). The context, however, does not support this view. This word is always attested in the same phrase of the colophons, for instance in KUB 35.40 + KBo 29.8 rev. iv 6’-8’ (transcription following Starke 1985b:117): DUB 9 KAM ŠA ^(SÍSKUR)dupidupar[ša] AWAT ^fŠilalluḫi ^SALŠU.GI Ù ^fKuwattalla ^SALSUḪUR.LÁL, i.e. ‘Ninth tablet of the dupiduparša ritual: the words of the Old Woman Šillaluḫi and the Hierodule Kuwattalla.’ A nom.-acc. sg. is entirely possible here on formal grounds. Nevertheless, the Akkadographic spelling with ŠA requires a genitive and the names of rituals usually appear in the genitive case, i.e. ‘the ritual of X’ (cf. Tischler 2008a:286, Tischler 2016a:554f.). Thus a gen. sg. is expected here too and dupiduparša can indeed be interpreted as the genitive of an a-stem in Akkadographic spelling (alternatively, but rather unlikely, one could think of a nom. sg. in Akkadographic spelling).

More problematic is the different vocalism, which has been neglected by the commentators until now. Since the forms belong to different manuscripts of practically the same text, their identity is beyond doubt. A geographical explanation can be excluded, because they all belong to the same composition. The possibility of a chronological explanation, however, is more complicated. One of the presumed authors, Kuwattalla, is historically attested (KBo 5.7, a land grant from Arnuwanda I, Starke 1985b:79; Rüster & Wilhelm 2012a:231–244 [No. 91]) and the word is once attested in a MS fragment (KBo 44.194, 10’). One may thus assume that the form of this word changed during the tradition for whatever reasons, for instance through folk-etymology (note, however, that the attribution to Kuwattalla is by no means assured: there is a considerable discussion if the scribe’s attribution of a specific ritual to specific experts reflects the reality – there are clear cases that the scribes did not even know the gender of the ritual expert, see the detailed discussion in Miller 2004a:477–479 with refs.). Interestingly enough, ^(SÍSKUR)du-pí-du-pa-ar-ša (KUB 35.41 rev. iv 2’) and ^˹(SISKUR)˺du-ú-pa-du-pa-ar-ša (KUB 9.6 rev. iv 25’) belong to two different scribes, Ziti and Dūwā, resp. However, since the other copies cannot be attributed to any scribe, it remains open if these two different forms reflect the different habits of these two scribes. Although both scribes belonged to the same scriptorium and, according to the colophons, were supervised by the same scribe, Anuwanza (cf. also Torri 2015a:579–581; Gordin 2015a:179f., 197), Ziti is known to have used archaising grammatical features (Gordin 2015a:317f.). This would point to dupiduparša- as the earlier form, from which dūpaduparša- could have been derived, for instance, through folk-etymological reanalysis, i.e. an assumed reduplication, though this does not explain the difference in the length of the first vowel (and note the a-vocalism of the single MS attestation, instead of the expected -i-).

There are two other options: a phonetic / phonological explanation and a morphological one. From a phonetic or phonological point of view, the a ~ i alternation may point either to a so-called empty (i.e. only graphic) vowel or to a third phoneme. However, an empty vowel is not expected in this case: the consistent presence of a vowel despite the availability of the sign up/b suggests a real vowel, as well as the phenomenon that the quality of the vowel (i. e. if it is a or i) seems to correlate with the spelling of the u of the first syllable (see below), which again argues for a real vowel.

As for a third phoneme expressed by an alternation a ~ i, such a phenomenon has not been assuredly attested hitherto in Luwian (neither in Hittite, Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:26–31):

1) Blevins apud Yakubovich 2008b:14 (cf. also Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a:204f., 213, 217 with n. 16) suggested that all Luwian vowels merged after a flap, but, even if this assumption is correct (cf. the cautious remark of Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a:217), it does not apply here.

2) Yakubovich 2015a:44 calls attention to ÇİNEKÖY §7 where the word harnisa- ‘fortress’ is unexpectedly spelled as (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-sà (acc. pl.). This form has not received any explanation yet. However, since this is the only attestation with -a- against more than one dozen attestations with -i- (cf. s.v.), it is dubious if we deal here with a real form and not with a scribal error. Even if this is a real form, it is methodologically dubious to project back a single by-form from the end of the 8th c. into the 13th c.

In other words, there is no assured phonetic or phonological background for such an alternation.

From a morphological point of view, it may be a relatively new compound. The first part can appear in two different forms, without any difference in meaning (all preserved examples write dūpa-/dupi- and duparša- unambiguously in one word, though this is expected in case of compounds). It is a cross-linguistically well-known phenomenon that recent lexicalisations or grammaticalisations can involve alternative forms (cf. e.g. the Hittite postpositions anda(n) ‘in(to)’ or katta(n) ‘with, alongside of, to’). That we are dealing here with two different words is also supported by the distribution of the forms: the “a-stem” appears exclusively with a plene written <ū>, i.e. dūpa-, while the “i-stem” appears exclusively with a simple <u>, i.e. dupi- (although one shall not forget about the limited number of examples at hand).

To conclude, we are probably dealing with a compound, whose first member either has two morphologically different forms or was folk-etymologically reanalysed.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that the word means ‘striking, punishment (vel sim.)’ (CLL:234; Ünal 2007a:738, Ünal 2016a:550 [with question mark in the Turkish version]; HEG T,D:452 [“o.ä.”], Tischler 2008a:204, Tischler 2016a:387, 388; Hutter 2019a:336 [‘striking’], earlier [Hutter 2003a:253] ‘punishment’) or ‘beating’ (Watkins 1986b:324 = Watkins 1995b:335: “must [sic!] mean ‘Ritual of the Beating’”, followed by Gordin 2015a:179 n. 730). Melchert and Tischler based their views only on its assonance with similar sounding Luwian words for ‘to strike’ (*dūpa- ‘strike’ and dūpi-/dūpai- ‘to strike’, resp., see s.v.). Starke 1985b:104 and Watkins 1986b:324 = Watkins 1995b:335 (followed by Gordin 2015a:179 n. 730) support their etymological analysis (dūpi-/dūpai- and “dup- ‘beat’”, resp.) with the content of the ritual as well. Hutter 2019a:337 claims that “the Hittite wording katta walḫuwaš SISKUR corresponds to Luwian SISKUR dūpaduparša”, which would solve the problem, but his claim is incorrect, because the Hittite phrase corresponds to Luwian zanta dūpai- (Goedegebuure 2010a:303f. – this is one of the references of Hutter, the other one is Hutter 2003a:253, where no such equation is given). Contra Goedegebuure 2010a:304, this correspondence does not make “very likely” that katta walḫuwaš is the Hittite equivalent of dūpaduparša: this and the other quoted interpretations are not supported by the preserved parts of the ritual and excluded by the morphology of the word:

According to the colophon quoted above (KUB 35.40 + KBo 29.8 rev. iv 6’-8’), the text of the ritual included at least nine tablets. Out of these nine tablets only the third one is more or less preserved and hardly more than the colophon has been preserved from the first, eighth, and ninth tablets and from an unidentifiable one. Hence, the preserved parts are not representative enough to identify the precise function(s) of the entire ritual and thus the meaning of its name. That said, one must add that these preserved parts belong to the type of purification rituals. Note that the third tablet describes ritual acts involving grits, a mixture of wine, honey, and oil as well as different vessels. Only the fragment of the first tablet refers to some kind of beating action mentioning the nailing of evil things in an unclear context.

Nevertheless, based on similar phrases and topics Starke adduced further fragments to this ritual, he reconstructs three more tablets and connected four more fragments of unidentifiable tablets (see Starke 1985b:104–109 and foldout for a detailed discussion). This reconstruction remains of course hypothetical. Among the three reconstructed and fairly extensive tablets the first one mentions “beaten” body parts (KUB 32.8 (+) 5 rev. iii 12’-14’, 18’-19’, 28’-29’, referring, however, probably to the preparation mode, since these are clay models not yet destroyed, contra Starke 1985b:104 n. 2.; Watkins 1986b:324 = Watkins 1995b:335, and Haas 2003a:596 with refs.), once crushing (KUB 35.117 rev. iv 3’) as well as nailing and a smith (KUB 32.8 (+) 5 rev. iv 21’-24’), the second one mentions once pounding and twice a smith (KBo 29.9 obv. 11’ and KBo 29.9 obv. 13’, KUB 35.14 obv. i 12’), and the third one twice nailing (KBo 29. 6 rev. 4’ and KUB 35.36 r. col. 1’). Among the fragments of the unidentifiable tablets, the first one mentions once striking (KBo 9.145 l. col. 3’), thereafter nailing and nails (4’-5’, 8’), the second one once nails (KUB 32.7 r. col. 5’) and the fourth one once the nailing (KUB 35.78 obv. i^? 6’). In other words, striking or beating is not a central subject of this ritual since these notions appear only in a very small percent of the entire text, but if someone sticks to this interpretation, then the recurrent notion is the nailing and nails, not beating or striking in general. Nevertheless, the terminology of nailing is known and it does not include the name of this ritual.

Watkins 1986b:324 = Watkins 1995b:335 went one step further and claimed that “the action and the verb [i.e. beating – Zs. S.] form a sort of leitmotiv of the ritual”. This is clearly not the case with the assured parts of the ritual. One may argue that his description is true if all the supposed fragments are taken into account, but this is a circular argumentation: these fragments are identified as parts of this ritual because they show this “leitmotiv” – and they show this “leitmotiv” because they are parts of this ritual. Finally, as pointed out above, even if all supposed fragments are taken into account, they are still not enough to characterize this ritual as the “Ritual of Beating”, a title, which is also hard to reconcile with the purificatory function of the ritual. All in all, the context of the ritual does not support the meaning ‘striking, beating, punishment’ or anything similar.

As for its morphology, the exact derivation of this word has been rarely addressed beyond the root etymology. CLL:234 proposed a full reduplication from *dūpa- ‘strike’. This proposal, however, can be safely excluded: First, a full reduplication would have led to †dūpadūpa- and not to “dupadūpar” and the r(/n)-stem remained unexplained. This problem could be, however, solved if it was an r-stem with the derivational pattern of ḫutarlā- ‘servant, slave’: ḫūta- ‘haste, alacrity’ → *ḫutra- ‘*agile, quick’ → *ḫutar- (→ ḫutarlā-, Melchert 2003b:196 with ref.), which gives *dūpadūpa- → *dūpadūpra- → dupadūpar applied to this case. However, this theory does not explain the by-form dupidupar. It becomes even more problematic, if the above identification of the stem as dūpaduparša- / dupiduparša- is correct. The same problems apply to the suggestion of Starke 1985b:104 and HEG T,D:452 from Luwian dūpi-/dūpai- ‘to strike’.

The derivation of Watkins 1986b:324 = Watkins 1995b:335 suffers from similar problems: he assumed “an abstract in -(w)ar from an intensive reduplication of dup- ‘beat’”. First, a reduplication of “dup-” does not lead to either dupidupar or dupadupar and does not explain the different vocalism either. Second, it is seriously misleading to describe the abstract suffix as “-(w)ar”, as if its /w/ were optional or could disappear: its form is unambiguously -war (cf. Melchert 2003b:198) and, accordingly, *dupwar- or *dupawar- do not lead to -dupar-, since /w/ does not disappear in Luwian under these conditions. Goedegebuure’s derivation (Goedegebuure 2010a:304 with n. 27), a verbal substantive *dūpadupar from a fully reduplicated *dūpadupa- faces similar problems: the verbal substantive should be *dūpadupawar (admitted by herself, too), it does not explain the -i-vocalism, and it becomes even more problematic, if the above identification of the stem as dūpaduparša- / dupiduparša- is correct.

All in all, the traditional meaning of dūpaduparša- / dupiduparša- is not supported by the context and excluded by its morphology. The preserved parts of the text show a purification ritual, which should be somehow connected with the meaning of this word

[Zs.S.]

This word is generally assumed to be Luwian (Starke 1985b:111, 116, 117, 118; Watkins 1986b:324 = Watkins 1995b:335; CLL:234; Jasanoff 2010a:172; Goedegebuure 2010a:304; Gordin 2015a:179 n. 730), nevertheless, Laroche 1959a did not include it and Tischler 2008a:204, Tischler 2016a:387, 388 books it both as Luwian and as Hittite (somewhat similarly Ünal 2007a:738, booking it as a Hittite word, treating it, however, in the Turkish version as Luwian [cf. also Ünal 2016a:550, but not listed among the Luwian words]). In fact, since the Luwian passages of this ritual are embedded in Hittite text and the word is attested (until now) only in the colophons, we are dealing either with a Hittite word or with a Luwian loanword / foreign word in Hittite.

The assumption of the Luwian origin is based on its proposed etymology from a Luwian verb meaning ‘to beat, to strike’, as per above (Starke 1985b:104; Watkins 1986b:324 = Watkins 1995b:335; HEG T,D:452; CLL:234; Goedegebuure 2010a:304; Gordin 2015a:179 n. 730). However, as it was demonstrated above, this etymology cannot be correct. Since the meaning and the etymology of this word is unknown (cf. above under Meaning), the only remaining argument for its Luwian origin is that it is the name of a Luwian ritual, which, however, allows both a Luwian and a Hittite origin. All in all, a Luwian origin of this word is possible, but it cannot be proven currently.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 30 June 2020