adupli(t)-

Amply attested in Hittite festival descriptions, prayers, laws, decrees and palace inventories (from MS until NS).

[E.R.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	TÚGa-du-up-li	KUB 2.6 iv 4	(CTH 598, NS)
		KBo 10.25 vi 9’	(CTH 627, NS)
	a-du-up-li	KBo 18.181 obv. 2	(CTH 243, NS)
		KBo 18.181 rev. 14’	(CTH 243, NS)
		KUB 42.17 r. col. 5’	(CTH 241, NS)
	a-du-⸢up-li⸣	KUB 42.55 rev. 3’	(CTH 246, NS)
	TÚGa-d[u-up-li]	KUB 42.55 obv. 17	(CTH 246, NS)
	TÚGa-tu-up-li	IBoT 1.31 obv. 6	(CTH 241, NS)
stem form	TÚGa-tu-up-li	KUB 13.14 obv. 9’	(CTH 292, NS)
	TÚGa-du-up-li	KBo 6.26 ii 49	(CTH 292, NS)
	TÚGa-t[u-up-li]	KUB 29.39 i 4’	(CTH 269, NS)
	TÚGa-tu]-up-li	IBoT 3.75, 11’	(CTH 269, MS)
gen. sg.	a-tu-up-li-as	KBo 39.217, 5 ’	(CTH 832, MS)
nom.-acc. pl. n.	a-du-up-li-ta	KUB 58.33 iii 26’	(CTH 678, NS)
	TÚG.ḪI.Aa-du-up-li	KUB 17.21 ii 15’	(CTH 375, MS)
	TÚG.ḪI.Aa-d[u-up-li]	KUB 17.21 iii 23	(CTH 375, MS)

Attestations follow Starke 1990a:207f.; cf. also HW 2nd ed. A:571f., HED A/E/I:229, CLL:41, DCL:41.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photos of the Konkordanz. – The attested forms can be explained as outcomes of an underlying Luwian stem in -i(t)-; see under Stem. Not even the spelling ša TÚGad/tupli at KBo 6.26 ii 49 and KUB 13.14 obv. 9’ with the Akkadographic genitive marker constitutes an argument for an Akkadographic reading of the word (thus Starke 1990a:208; likewise Siegelová 1986a:80, 706 on account of the assumed connection with Akk. utuplu; see under Origin), since in the following line in KUB 13.14 obv. 10’ ša is combined with the genuinely Hittite term TÚGiškalleššar; cf. also HED A/E/I:229 and Hoffner 1989a:89.

[E.R.]

Hittite scholarship agrees that the term denotes a garment (since HW:38), more specifically a garment that is used by the king during cult ceremonies (since Götze 1955a:51f.; cf. DLL:35, HW 2nd ed. A:570 with contextual analysis, Starke 1990a:207, CLL:41, HED A/E/I:229, HEG A-K:94, Ünal 2007a:78, DCL:41; unspecified by Miller 2013a:123, Burgin 2022a:431).

[A.B.], [E.R.]

Synchronically, the stem displays the alternation between final -i- in Hittite forms and the nom./acc. sg., and -it- elsewhere, typical of the borrowings of Luwian stems in -i(t)- (for the pattern, see Starke 1990a:151-153).

[E.R.]

There is general agreement that atupli(t)- is a Luwian loanword in Hittite, as shown by its suffix -i(t)- (CLL:41, Melchert 2005a:448, 449, Tischler 2008a:32, DCL:41; for Puhvel’s stance taken in HED A/E/I:229, see below; still undecided DLL:35).

In addition, many scholars adhere to the view that this word is ultimately a loanword from Akkadian atuplu/utuplu ‘(a fabric or weaving)’For the Akkadian word, see CAD U & W:347f. (HW:38; Siegelová 1986a:80, 706, Hoffner 1989a:89; CLL:41; Ünal 2007a:78 [implicitly], DCL:41). A Hurrian intermediary step is assumed by Starke 1990a:208-219, Dardano 2018b:367, Simon 2020a:414f., Burgin 2022a:318.

By contrast, HW 2nd ed. A:571 rejects any connection, and Puhvel (HED A & E/I:229, followed by Schwemer 2005-2006b:225 n. 48) claims that atuplu is only an “alleged variant form” of utuplu, and even if it did exist in its own right and the two words were cognate, they rather originate in “some common culture-word orbit” (and assuming Hurrian transmission to Luwian due to its -it-); cf. also atupalašša(/i)-.

[A.B.], [E.R.]