dupiyal(a/)i-

The word is attested in NS inventory texts listing metals, tools, and weapons. Furthermore, it appears in one LNS text (KBo 18.172) listed under “cult inventories” in CTH. Yet, considering the content, this fragment is rather to be classified as a temple inventory because “neither divine nor place names occur in the preserved part of the tablet” (cf. Cammarosano 2013a:84). A doubtful instance among the Glossenkeilwörter may also represent a form of dupiyal(a/)i-, see under GIŠra-in.

[A.B.]

nom. sg. c.	URUDUdu-pí-ia-⸢liš⸣	KBo 16.83 ii 12’	(CTH 242, NS)
nom. pl. c.	URUDUdu-pí-[ia]-liš	KUB 40.95 ii 3	(CTH 242, NS)
	du-pí-ia-[liš]	KBo 18.172 obv. 15’	(CTH 522, LNS)

Attestations following HEG T, D:452 and Ünal 2007a:738, Ünal 2016a:550 (cf. also CLL:235) checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The exact reading of the last sign (li₁₂ was suggested by Siegelová 1986a:262, 268 only to be neglected by later commentators except for HEG T, D:452) depends on the morphological analysis:

The agreement rules of Hittite require a singular after all cardinals in case of neuter nouns and plural after 2-4 but singular after 5 and higher numbers in case of inanimate common gender nouns (cf. Rizza 2012b; Rieken 2013a). Since we are dealing with a weapon (cf. under Meaning), i.e. with an inanimate noun, and it is preceded by the number 6 in KBo 16.83 ii 12’, it must be singular regardless of its gender. It is preceded by the number 2 in KUB 40.95 obv. ii 3 and by the number 4 in KBo 18.172 obv. 15’, thus allowing both plural and singular interpretations in both cases (note, however, that an irregular usage of singular is also attested precisely in the inventory texts, Rieken 2013a:331).

Starke 1990a:313 n. 1083 derives this word from a nomen actionis *dupiya- ‘hit, strike’, while CLL:235 cautiously left open the question (dupiyal(l)a/i-), both assuming common gender (as well as Tischler 2008a:204, Tischler 2016a:388 [but with question mark in HEG T, D:452]; Ünal 2007a:738, Ünal 2016a:550; and cf. Siegelová 1986a:624). In fact, in terms of suffixes, nom. sg. c./n. du-pí-ya-liš/li12 may represent (1) a Luwian instrumental noun in -al- from a verbal base borrowed into Hittite as a common gender stem with either a-stem inflection (with i-mutation) or i-stem inflection; (2) a Hittite substantivized adjective in -ala- from a noun, a verb, or an adverb with i-mutation and thus common gender (for such cases see Rieken 1994a:47); (3) a borrowed Luwian noun or a substantivized adjective in -alla/i- from another noun, being neuter since it refers to an object (for all these possibilities see Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:54f.). Solution No. (3) can be excluded due to the i-vocalism of this form (since i-mutation does not appear in nom.-acc. sg./pl. n.). The remaining scenarios require common gender (and a single -l-), and thus the form in KBo 16.83 obv. ii 12’ should be read as du-pí-ya-liš. Therefore, since it is an inanimate common gender noun, the forms in KUB 40.95 obv. ii 3 (preceded by 2) and in KBo 18.172 obv. 15’ (preceded by 4) should be in plural, if they are regular, as per above (they must represent contracted forms attested in case of NH i-stem common gender nom. and acc. plurals, Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:87 with ref.). The reading li12 would be possible only in case of collective forms, which, however, requires the spelling “number + TAPAL / TA + object” (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:159f.). That is not the case here, and therefore these are not collective forms and should be read with liš.

[Zs.S.], [A.B.]

The first commentators suggested ‘javelin’ (since it is mentioned between spears and arrows, Kempinski & Košak 1977a:91 with n. 7 (“perhaps”); Košak 1982a:89; Siegelová 1986a:624 “ein Typ des Speeres”) and ‘hammer’ (Mascheroni 1979a:356 n. 17). Later a meaning ‘club, mace vel sim.’ was also suggested based on the assonance with the Luwian verb dūpi-/dūpai- ‘to hit, to strike’ and the context as it is followed by ^GIŠBAN ‘bow’ (Starke 1990a:313 n. 1083, followed by CLL:235; Tischler 2008a:204, Tischler 2016a:388); cf. also the cautious definition of HEG T,D:452 (“Gegenstand aus Kupfer, Art Speer^?”) and Ünal 2007a:738, Ünal 2016a:550 (‘javelin’ in the Turkish and English version [here adding “copper implement”], but with question mark in the German version adding “Keule” with question mark). Starke 1990a:313 n. 1083 also entertained the possibility to identify it with CLuw. ^GIŠNÍG.GUL-in ‘hammer’, but abandoned the idea due to the context of dupiyal(a/)i-.

A more precise definition can be given only if its assonance with the Luwian verb dūpi-/dūpai- ‘to hit, to strike’ is real (cf. also under Origin). If this is correct, it represents an argument against the meaning ‘javelin’ (which is not used for hitting or striking), but does not assure the meaning ‘club, mace vel sim.’ either, since it may also denote a type of axe. The latter one is even more probable considering that KUB 40.95 is a list of raw materials and objects to be given to real persons, i.e. the weapons mentioned must also be real (and it may have been given to a smith, see Siegelová 1986a:268 n. 2): ‘club, mace’ was not used in the Hittite army and appears only in cultic contexts (cf. Lorenz & Schrakamp 2011a:138).

[Zs.S.]

A derivation from the Luwian verb dūpi-/dūpai- ‘to hit, to strike’ was suggested first by Carruba apud Mascheroni 1979a:356 n. 17. Nevertheless, while dupiyal(a/)i- is treated as Luwian in CLL and in Tischler 2008a:204, Tischler 2016a:388, it is not included in the survey of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a. Based on the considerations under Forms, this derivation and thus its Luwian status are possible, but cannot be assured since its meaning is unknown (in other words, its assonance with the verb dūpi-/dūpai- ‘to hit, to strike’ may be incidental), hence it cannot be excluded that we are dealing with a genuinely Hittite word.

[Zs.S.]