*Hupreh₂-

Hapax in a Luwian incantation of a Kizzuwatna ritual in Hittite (NS).

[Zs.S.]

acc. pl. c.

ḫu-u-up-pa-ra-za

KUB 9.31 ii 24

(CTH 757, NS)

Attestation following CLL:74 checked against the hand copy (the photo of the Konkordanz does not show this part of the tablet). Starke 1985b:53, Starke 1990a:323, 326 corrects the text to ḫu-u-up-pa-ra‹-an›-za (followed by Bachvarova 2013a:141 n. 43 and Görke 2015a:§7) to restore the regular acc. pl. c. ending. This correction is, however, not necessary, since nasals before dentals often remain unmarked in Cuneiform Luwian orthography probably due to the underlying nasalized vowel, (cf. most recently Yakubovich 2010d:324f. with refs., also including this case), e.g. the same tablet shows exactly this phenomenon two more times in the following Luwian passages (u-za-aš [ii 32] and ḫu-u-pal-zi-ya-ti-ya-za [ii 33]).

[Zs.S.]

There are two suggestions regarding the meaning of this word: Starke 1990a:323, 326 proposed ‘Decke, Umhang, Mantel’ (followed by Görke 2015a:§7, none of them mentions the other suggestion, cf. already Schwartz 1938b:341), while Laroche 1954a:123, Laroche 1959a:48 (here as “ḫuppara/i-”) suggested ‘belt’. This is the more widespread translation (see also CLL:74 [‘sash, belt’]; Tischler 2008a:60, Tischler 2016a:104; Yakubovich 2010d:28, 142, 282f.; Giusfredi 2014a:309; Ünal 2016a:958 [as “ḫupparai-”], none of them mentioning Starke’s alternative solution). For Bachvarova 2013a:141 n. 43 it is a “woven thing (…) a piece of cloth that can be twisted up into a sash and tied around the waist” (the claim of being woven is obviously based on its widespread etymology, which is, however, phonologically not possible, see below under Reconstruction).

The basis of both proposals is that the Luwian clause (^dlu-u-la-ḫi-in-za-aš-tar ḫu-u-up-pa-ra-za ku-in-zi ḫi-iš-ḫi-ya-an-ti, KUB 9.31 ii 24, Starke 1985b:53) corresponds to the following Hittite phrase from the same text: ^LÚ.MEŠlūlaḫiyaš=šan ḫupruš kuiēš išḫiyantiš ‘who i.-ed the ḫ. of the mountain-dwellers’ (HT 1 obv. i 31’, Görke 2015a:§7, see there for parallel manuscripts).

This Hittite passage has been translated in quite different ways. HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:737 does not translate ḫupruš and does not specify the verb either: “die (sich) die ḫ. (…) der Lulaḫḫi (…) umgegürtet/umgebunden (haben)” (similarly HED H:386 and Mastrocinque 2007a:201f., latter referring only to Meriggi apud Salvatori 1975a:404, without quoting the existing suggestions). As referred to by HW (2nd ed.), CHD L-N:79 and Collins 2003d:163 translated ḫupruš with “sashes(?)” (“who have bound on (themselves) the sashes(?) of the mountain dwellers”), similarly also Hutter 2007a:403 (with question mark); Yakubovich 2010d:142, 282; Bachvarova 2013a:141 n. 43; and Giusfredi 2014a:309 (differently Beckman 1983a:183: ‘who are bound to the cords^?’ following Gurney 1977a:29). Nevertheless, HW (2nd ed.) later translates this sentence more specifically (I:114): “welche Mäntel der Bergbewohner angezogen (haben)” (similarly Görke 2015a:§7, but following Starke 1990a:326; cf. also Schwartz 1938b:337: “wrapped in huprus garments”). The key to understanding ḫupruš is obviously the precise meaning of išḫiya-: however, only ‘wickeln, einwickeln; Kleider anziehen’ fits perfectly from the many shades of its meanings (further meanings are ‘anbinden, aufbinden, ankleben’; ‘fesseln, (zusammen)binden’; ‘Vertrag schließen’, HW (2nd ed.) I:112–117). Although it is possible to fetter or to bind together with a belt, the above sentence refers to the Innarawanteš demons wearing this specific piece of cloth and not using it as an instrument. Accordingly, ḫupruš rather refers to the outer garment, thus a kind of cloak or coat (perhaps like the chokha of the peoples of the Caucasus). A cloak or coat could be also more characteristic for mountain-dwellers than their belt. Since ḫu-u-up-pa-ra-za is the Luwian equivalent of ḫupruš (and the verb of the Luwian sentence, ḫišḫiya-, cannot contribute to its definition since it is attested only here, cf. CLL:70 and here s.v.), its meaning can be accordingly established as ‘cloak, coat vel sim.’.

[Zs.S.]

Amply attested in Hittite rituals from MS until LNS.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	GADAḫu-up-pa-ra-aš	KUB 15.34 i 4	(CTH 483, MS)
	GADAḫu-u-pa-ra-aš	KUB 29.4 i 38	(CTH 481, NS)
	GADAḫu-u-up-pa-˹ra˺-aš	KUB 29.5 i 22	(CTH 481, NS)
	[GADA?]˹ḫu˺-u-up-pa-˹ra˺-[aš]	KUB 15.33b i 5	(CTH 483, LNS)
acc. pl. c.	ḫu-up-ru-uš	KUB 9.31 i 38	(CTH 757, NS)
		HT 1 i 31’	(CTH 757, NS)
	˹ḫu˺-up-[ru]-˹uš˺	KBo 20.49, rev. 16’	(CTH 780, MS)

Akkadographic spelling:

nom. sg. c.

GADAḪU-U-UP-PÁR

KUB 39.56 i 5’

(CTH 500, NS)

Attestations following HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:737 (cf. also [9006] Çoşkun 1972a:49; [4687] HEG A-K:293; [1850] Starke 1990a:323 n. 1136; [4691] HED H:385f.) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz (except HT 1, where no photo is available). HW (2nd ed.) falsely adds “^GA]DAḫu-u-up-pár-ra-aš” in KBo 35.246 obv. 6’, since it is better to be read as ^[GIŠ]ḫu-u-up-pár-ra-aš (checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz) belonging to ^GIŠḫūppara- ‘ein hölzerner Behälter mit breiter Öffnung’ (Dijkstra 2015a:67). HW (2nd ed.) adds furthermore ḫu-up-ra-aš in KBo 44.194, 11 with question mark.

If ḫu-u-up-pár in KUB 39.56 i 5 (preceded by the number 1) is explained at all in the secondary literature, then it is supposed to be a nom.-acc. sg. n. (HED H:385; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:737; Ünal 2007a:232, Ünal 2016a:202), which, however, does not fit the amply attested other forms of the paradigm (the context is broken off, it cannot help accordingly). Thus, Starke 1990a:323 n. 1136 is followed here, who interprets it as an Akkadographic form (see HW (2nd ed.) s.v. ^(DUG)ḫup(p)ar) for a similar Akkadographic spelling). Note that HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:737 falsely adds ḫu-u-up-pár from KUB 39.48, 2’, since it belongs to ^(DUG)ḫup(p)ar ‘a vessel’ (Kassian & Korolëv & Sidel’tsev 2002a:138f., 800, not included in HW (2nd ed.) s.v. ^(DUG)ḫup(p)ar).

[Zs.S.]

Despite some cautious formulations (HED H:385; Wegner 2004a:101; Ünal 2007a:232, Ünal 2016a:202; Tischler 2008a:55 [but cf. below]), who all translate this word only as ‘a type of cloth’, the most widespread translation is ‘sash, belt’ (CHD L-N:79; Collins 2003d:163; Hutter 2007a:403 (all with question mark); Yakubovich 2010d:142, 282; Bachvarova 2013a:141 n. 43; Giusfredi 2014a:309; cf. already HEG A-K:293, Tischler 2016a:104 [but cf. above]: ‘ein Gewebe oder Kleidungsstück, Gürtel^?’ [thus also HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:737, but see below]), followed by the meanings ‘coat’ (HW (2nd ed.) I:114 [but cf. above] and Görke 2015a:§7, but latter following Starke 1990a:326; cf. already Schwartz 1938b:337: “huprus garments”) and ‘cord’ (Gurney 1977a:29 followed by Beckman 1983a:183 [with question mark]). No translation was provided by Mastrocinque 2007a:201f., but he refers only to Meriggi apud Salvatori 1975a:403f., without quoting the existing suggestions.

For the definition of its meaning see the discussion under Cuneiform Luwian ḫūppara-

[Zs.S.]

Starke 1990a:323 suggested that we are dealing with a Luwian word borrowed into Hittite. This was summarily rejected by CLL:74 (“no basis”), without even mentioning the argument of Starke. It does not appear in the list of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a either. The basis of Starke’s proposal was his claim that the varying spelling -(p)pr- “imitates” the “Cuneiform Luwian orthography” for [ppr]. This variation, however, can be simply explained by the constraints of the Cuneiform orthography in general: geminated consonants preceding another consonant cannot be expressed, only with an empty vowel in between, exactly like in this case. Thus there is no need for assuming a Cuneiform Luwian original and since currently there is no other argument for a Luwian origin, this word cannot be treated as a Luwian loanword. For further different etymological treatments see HEG A-K:293f.; HED H:386; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:737f. and here under Reconstruction.

[Zs.S.]

See the lemma ḫūp(p)ra- under the chapter Luwian in Hittite transmission.

[D.S.]