Cf. the previous reading URUpal-ḫi-iš-na-za ( Alp S. 1991b, 208, followed by Hoffner in his editions). The sign form of the presumed BAL sign does not conform to the writing of this sign elsewhere in the Tapikka tablets (see the forms collected in Alp S. 1991b, 113) nor to any of the variants listed in Rüster C. – Neu E. 1989a, 90. Thus, as both readings result in a hapax, we prefer the one that is epigraphically more likely (see Trameri A. 2025b, 211). Or: ar-ḫ[a-ia]-an 'separately'? ( Alp S. 1991b, 208; Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183). Neither option can be excluded, although the limited space and a stone inclusion likely impeding writing might favor A — or no sign at all — over IA in the gap ( Trameri A. 2025b, 211-212).
Text ḫu-u-IT-a-a[k].
Cf. Alp S. 1991b, 208 (followed in Hoffner's editions) ku-ú-ra-l[a-an ma?-a?-an? Ú?-U]L, but the available space is not sufficient for this restoration ( Trameri A. 2025b, 214 with fig. 3).
See lo. e. 20, rev. 26.
Photo collation excludes the restoration proposed originally by Alp S. 1991b, GIŠT[IR-ni?], and maintained in the following editions. The fragmentary sign is clearly not one with four initial Winkelhaken (cf. ŠE in rev. 25). A possible reading is GIŠk[i-, but a complete restoration is not possible, also due to the uncertainty of the presence of an-da(?) in the gap, based on the parallel lo. e. 19-20. See Trameri A. 2025b, 214-215 with fig. 4. Based on the parallel in lo e. 21-rev. 23, Alp S. 1991b, 208, followed in Hoffner's editions, suggested that ḫu-u-da-a-ak was also present in the gap before the verb. However, this is certainly not possible given the available space. A shorter sentence, such as the one proposed here, is plausible and fits the space precisely, as confirmed by comparison with the same sign sequences in lines 21 and 23 ( Trameri A. 2025b, 214-215 with fig. 6). Cf. Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183 URUpal-ḫ[i-iš-na-za], but the ablative is not expected here (see Hoffner H.A. 2010c, 135, for āppan with dative). The locative particle =kan might have been present as well.
The restoration in Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183, [še-er MUŠE]N? | laḫlaḫḫi[maš ... ] is less likely, as typically laḫlaḫḫima- precedes MUŠENḪI.A, and MUŠEN in singular does not correspond with the usual formulation either. See Trameri A. 2025b, 216 for a discussion and parallels. |
For the possible connection of this name with the Akkadian ethnonym ḫapirū (Hitt. ÉRINMEŠ ḫapiriyaš) see Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 182. On the possible northern Anatolian origin of the two writers see previously Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 8-9. If dān is an adverb of counting/quantity ( t/dān ‘a second time’), the king is asking to continue the search for certain birds after previous orders. However, Alp S. 1991b, 209 and Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 9 proposed that the form might be interpreted as a PTCP.N of da-, used in combination with the verbal compound anda epp-, a usage somewhat similar to the perifrastic forms with PTCP.N and ḫark- (“nimm die Vögel gefangen”; “take birds captive”). The partial overlap in the meaning and usage of epp- and ḫark- might explain such formation: see HW2 Ḫ, 297 IV for parallel usages of anda ḫark- and anda epp-. Although such a periphrastic form is not attested elsewhere, this interpretation cannot be excluded. Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 182. Cf. Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 6, “gladly/willingly” (discussed in detail pp. 10-11), CHD Š, 278 “willingly”. In this context a neutral meaning “they did well” may be also considered, i.e. "they did a good (job) collecting birds".
Lit. "you did not say". The double emendation to obv. 17 proposed in the most recent edition by Hoffner ( Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183; also quoted in Hoffner H.A. – Melchert H.C. 2008a, 212 n. 133), contra his first edition ( Hoffner H.A. 1997, 7) can be excluded after photo collation. The recently available photographs confirm that the signs partially traced in Alp’s autography are correct (⸢ Ú-UL⸣, although he did not try a reading in his first edition, Alp S. 1991b, 208: x-x-x -te-e-eš). The two signs can be compared to the parallel sequence in obv. 13. Thus, Hoffner was most likely correct in his first edition, with the reading tēš as the expected 2SG.PST of tē- ( Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 13-14), also accepted in Kloekhorst A. 2008a, 857; Kloekhorst A. 2014a, 40. For a discussion of this passage, see Introductio.
The expected form would be ACC.PL.C kūš, since ‘bird’ is common gender. As discussed in Hoffner H.A. 2010c, 129; Hoffner H.A. – Melchert H.C. 2008a, 144, in the Tapikka letters one finds such examples of the demonstratives kē, as well as apē (nominatives), used also for accusative. The meaning of šekkuni- is uncertain. Alp S. 1991b, 333 equated it with šakuni- ‘spring’. Potentially, the form might even be taken as a verb ( šekkuni as defective spelling for šekkuweni “we will know/recognize”; discussed in Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 14-15), but it seems more likely this is indeed a specific location or terrain, whether or not a spring ( CHD Š, 363-364). Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183 also suggested meadow(?).
The sentence likely refers to a son of the king (i.e. “the prince”), as suggested in Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 16. |
