Most of the information currently available for DAY 13 of the nuntarriyašḫa- festival derives from the fifth tablet of a composition that must originally have comprised at least six tablets. More than 130 clauses are preserved, amounting to over half of a tablet. Even this partial documentation suffices to demonstrate that the festival in Zippalanda was a major event. Numerous functionaries and priests participate, deities are carried through the city, and a wide range of offerings are performed. The king seems first to participate in celebrations in Zippalanda itself, before proceeding to Mt. Daḫa. There, at a ḫuwaši- stele, extended offerings were carried out by the chamberlain (LÚḫamina-), in the presence of the ruler.

Version 1 (CTH 626-DAY13.1) describes the main part of these celebrations and is attested in six manuscripts. Such a relatively large number of duplicates for a single version strongly suggests that some of the fragments may derive from the same original tablets and thus represent direct or indirect joins. Indeed, at least one such connection can plausibly be proposed (see below).

Moreover, given the substantial number of fragments belonging to the fifth tablet of the composition, it seems unlikely that all manuscripts of the remaining tablets have been lost. It is therefore reasonable to assume that some fragments currently assigned to the general Zippalanda corpus (CTH 635) should instead be reattributed to CTH 626.

• D. Groddek, DBH 15, 2004: 68f.
• D. Groddek, DBH 39, 2012: 80-82
• D. Groddek, DBH 40, 2013: 144f.
• M. Nakamura, PIHANSt 94, 2002: 104; 257f.
• M. Popko, SMEA 46, 2004: 260f. (eher zu CTH 626)
• M. Popko, THeth 21, 1994: 206ff.; 234-236
• R. Akdoğan, DBH 32, 2010: 69f.

Most of the texts presented here have previously been discussed or mentioned in scholarship, but were generally classified as belonging to the broader Zippalanda corpus (CTH 635). Nakamura’s identification of KBo 58.119 and KBo 51.132 (Nakamura M. 2002a: 104–107) was only partially accepted by Popko M. 2004d: 260, who rejected the latter fragment but proposed instead the inclusion of KUB 11.30+ (revising his earlier view in Popko M. 1994a: 206ff.)

The present edition accepts all three fragments and incorporates several additional manuscripts, some of which had already been identified as duplicates of KUB 11.30+ in Popko M. 1994a: 206 (KBo 22.184, Bo 3496), Groddek D. 2013a: 144 (KBo 49.226), Akdoğan R. – Soysal O. 2011a: 7 and 26, or Taracha P. 2015b: 58f. (both ABoT 2.143). In addition, KUB 51.42 (ms. B), previously not associated with this composition (Popko M. 1994a: 234–236), is included in the present study.

On the basis of column width and the distribution of text, all manuscripts of this version appear to derive from three-column tablets.

Several manuscripts associated with DAY 13 are written in the Late New Script. In addition, KBo 58.119 and KUB 51.42 show identical handwriting and may therefore belong to the same tablet, although they do not join directly. Shared palaeographic features include: an idiosyncratic placement of TI at the end of words, written higher than preceding signs; identical NA with one Winkelhaken placed directly above the other; ḪA with the upper row of verticals shifted to the right; AN with the horizontal not transecting the vertical; PA occasionally written with the protruding upper horizontal; KI with the large left Winkelhaken and the small upper one; RA with reversed, step-like horizontals; and an elongated KÁN with four forward-shifted verticals.