*dupattar/dupattn-

Attested only in the different manuscripts of a Hittite historical text regarding Ḫantili I but preserved only in NS (CTH 655, not “Festfragmente”, contra Konkordanz v. 1.97, see Beckman 2001b).

[Zs.S.]

gen. adj.

acc. sg. c.	du-pa-at-ta-na-aš-ši-in	KBo 3.63 obv. i 6’	(CTH 655, NS)
		KBo 3.64 obv. i 8’	(CTH 655, NS)
	˹du˺-pa-at-ta-na-aš-ši-in	KBo 3.66 obv. i 4’	(CTH 655, NS)
unknown	tu-pa-at-ta-[	KBo 3.64 rev. iii 4’	(CTH 655, NS)

Attestations following Starke 1990a:477 with n. 1747 (writing KBo 3.64 ii? 4’ instead of KBo 3.64 iii 4’) and CLL:234 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:737, Ünal 2016a:550), checked against the photos of the Konkordanz (no photo of KBo 3.64 rev. is available). Soysal 2005b:135 suggests identifying KBo 3.63, 3.64, and 3.66 obv. as rev. based on KBo 60.116, where the same passage appears on rev. The autograph adds an exclamation mark after the sign tu in KBo 3.64 rev. iii 4’ (followed by Starke 1990a:477 with n. 1747, abandoned by Beckman 2001b:55), but the reason behind remains unclear since its photo is not available. Beckman 2001b:53 suggests restoring ˹du˺^?-[ in KBo 3.64 ii 7’ as ˹du˺^?-[pa-at-na-aš-ši-in], but the text is too fragmentary to verify this.

[Zs.S.]

Although attested only as the epithet of a god, it is generally agreed that it means ‘striking, punishment’, which is based on its assumed etymology from Luwian words with similar meaning (see under Origin) and on the context of its attestation, where a god (presumably the d. Storm-god, but see Soysal 2005b:136: “möglicherweise”) strikes the army which was led into Ḫattuša by the king despite being impure (Starke 1990a:477f.; followed by HEG T,D:448, Tischler 2008a:204, Tischler 2016a:387; CLL:234; Beckman 2001b:56, 57 [Storm-god of Retribution^?]; Hutter 2003a:253, 259 [Storm-god of punishment]; Ünal 2007a:737, Ünal 2016a:550, and Haas 2008a:28 [Wettergott der Vergeltung]), see KBo 3.63 i 4’-12’ (transcription and restorations following Beckman 2001b:52f.):

§2´ natta ^LÚMUŠEN.DÙ kuinki punušta [nu natta t]uzzin parkunut [nu natta E]GIR-pa dupattanaššin ^dU-an ašašta nu=kan tuzzin ^mḪantiliš šarā=pat ḫuittiyat nu=kan INA ^URUḪatti ANA É.GAL^LIM papratar ^mHantiliš šarā udaš

§3´ [^URUKalaš]mašaz EGIR-anda parkunuttati [nu^?] apadda DINGIR^LUM ašēšer tuzzin […]kan^? DINGIR^LUM walaḫta

‘He did not consult any augur. He did [not] purify the troops, [nor] did he reinstall the (statue of the) Storm-god of d. Ḫantili led the troops up (to the capital). Ḫantili (thereby) brought impurity up to the palace in Ḫatti (i.e. in Ḫattuša).
Afterwards [the city of Kalaš]ma purified herself, [and] they reinstalled the (statue of the) deity there. The deity smote […] the troops’ (slightly modified translation following Beckman 2001b:56).

It is only Carruba’s translation that substantially differs, since he translates “Il Dio non colpì l’esercito”, because he restores the line 12’ as “tuzzin [Ú-UL] DINGIR^LUM walaḫta” (Carruba 1988a:204f., “Integrazione in base a spazio e senso”). Though there is indeed enough space for this restoration and the parallel texts (KBo 3.64 obv. i 15’, KBo 3.66 obv. i 10-11’ [Beckman 2001b:53], cf. also KBo 55.257 rev. 4’ [Soysal 2005b:137]) are broken here, there are several arguments against it:

a) The preserved traces of the sign before DINGIR, the head of a vertical wedge, cannot be reconciled with ul (Beckman 2001b:53 suggests kán with question mark).

b) Ú-UL should stand before the verb, known exceptions (constructions with preverbs, indefinite pronouns and adverbs, fronting, contrastive sentences) do not apply here (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:341f.).

c) Although it may indeed seem logical that the Storm-god did not hit the army since his statue has been reinstalled in Kalašma (as implicitly Carruba), the troops remained impure (as emphasized in the next lines as well), thus, a hit by the Storm-god is equally logical.

Although Starke’s interpretation that the unnamed deity who hit the army was the god whose statue has not been reinstalled is logical, strictly speaking it could not have been proven. This changed with a new fragment published by Soysal 2005b:137f., where this god appears as ^dIŠKUR-aš (KBo 55.257 rev. 3’).

The exact meaning of the epithet remains, however, unclear. The fact that this god punished the army has nothing to do with this epithet, since the punishment happened due to the impurity of the army. All that we knew is that the statue of this specific Storm-god was once standing and then re-installed in the city of Kalašma (whose location is unclear, see del Monte & Tischler 1978a and del Monte 1992a, s.v.), thus it may have been the city’s own Storm-god. As such, its epithet may refer to practically anything. Nevertheless, the assonance of his name with Luwian words meaning ‘strike’ may point to a basic meaning, ‘Storm-god of Striking’, i.e. ‘Storm-god of Lightning/Thundering’, which would be the most obvious epithet for a Storm-god (see also Starke 1990a:478f. arguing that the Hittite logogram ^dU RA^IṢ of unknown reading refers to the same deity).

[Zs.S.]

Although this word is identified as Luwian by its suffix -ttar/-ttna- and its genitival adjective form in Carruba 1988a:204f. and Starke 1990a:477–479 (followed by [4687] HEG T,D:448 and [1750] CLL:234; also in [5752] van Gessel 1998a:792; [5886] Ünal 2007a:737, [6717] Ünal 2016a:550; [5872] Tischler 2008a:204, [6412] Tischler 2016a:387), it does not appear in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a.

Its etymology could also support its Luwian origin, but this is not the case yet: Carruba 1988a:204f. and Starke 1990a:478 derive it from the Luwian verb dūpi-/dūpai- ‘to hit, to strike’ (Starke does not quote Carruba, but his paper was probably published too late to be included), but CLL:234 (neglecting Carruba’s paper) rightly points out that this is (formally) not possible. Melchert derives it from *dūpa-, which would be reflected in “dudupa-” and “*dūpadupa-” (but see HEG T,D:448: “wohl unnötig”). Nevertheless, the meaning of dūdupa(-) and dūpaduparša-, dupiduparša- is unknown, as well as their origin, and thus they cannot be derived from a *dūpa- (see s.vv. in detail), which also excludes this derivation of *dupattar/dupattna-. If the meaning ‘striking’ is correct, the stem *dupa- indicated by the suffix -ttar/-ttna- can be identified with the Hieroglyphic Luwian verb tup(a)- ‘to strike’, see s.v.

[Zs.S.]