This version comprises texts long recognized as day-tablets for DAY 4 of the nuntarriyašḫa- festival, supplemented by a newly identified duplicate (KBo 61.122). The identification of the manuscripts is secure, primarily due to their reference to the rites performed at the river in Ḫišurla.

• M. Nakamura, Diss.Würzburg, 1993: 259ff.
• M. Nakamura, PIHANSt 94, 2002: 142

KUB 25.13 was identified as a day-tablet of DAY 4 in Güterbock H.G. 1961d: 90 n. 30. The join between KUB 25.13 and KUB 44.8 was proposed by Laroche E. 1975 (RHA 33, p. 63), although see below. The join with KUB 58.22 and the first substantive treatment of that manuscript was offered by Popko M. 1986b. The most recent edition of multiple day-tablets of DAY 4 can be found in Nakamura M. 2002a: 141–170. Note, however, that Nakamura distinguishes only one version of the text and therefore includes two manuscripts (KBo 11.73 – already recognized by Popko M. 1986b – and KBo 30.110+), which in the present edition are treated as belonging to Version 2 and Version 3, respectively. Although these manuscripts partially duplicate one another, the different distribution of text on each tablet suggests that they could not originally have been identical.

It should also be noted that the presumed join between KUB 44.8 + KUB 58.22 and KUB 25.13, though attractive, is problematic. Available photographs reveal discrepancies in sign shapes and forms (e.g., SAR or KI), and, more significantly, suggest that KUB 25.13 has a wider column. For these reasons, the latter tablet is treated separately in the present edition. Unfortunately, because the tablets are housed in different museums, a collation – which would clarify the situation – cannot currently be undertaken.

All manuscripts (A, B and D), for which the line length can be measured or assessed, exhibit a column width of approx. 6 cm, indicating that they originally belonged to three-columned tablets. Ms. C preserves only the beginnings of the lines in the first and the last columns, including the colophon.

Apart from ms. C, which is too fragmentary for a reliable assessment, all manuscripts of this version were written in the Late New Script (see the IIIc sign forms of ḪA, KI, SAR).