Basis of the edition
The present edition is based on the photographs available at the Mainzer Photoarchiv of the Hethitologie Portal Mainz, as well as the available hand-copies and relevant secondary literature up to 2019. When the original manuscripts have been collated, this is noted in the commentary.
Previous editions: Hazenbos 2003: 55-62.
This large fragment presents many aspects of special interest. First, it is one among few examples of a cult inventory written on a single-columned tablet (Cammarosano 2018: 24). Second, it shows peculiarities in some of the formulae and spellings used (see commentary). Third and most important, this is one of the rare cases where a “parallel version” – or better an inventory of the same region drafted at another time – is known, namely KUB 57.97 (see presently). The tablet shows several scribal mistakes (mostly, these are omitted signs). Editing this tablet is made more complicated by the notorious impreciseness of the cuneiform copies by L. Rost (see e.g. van den Hout 1999: 144); the present edition benefited both from photo-collation and comparison with other texts within the corpus (cf. Groddek et al. 2002: 157-60 and Hazenbos 2003: 55-62, on which see Miller 2005: 310-11).
The lower part of the obverse as well as the upper part of the reverse are preserved. The text is organized in sections and paragraphs, all of which show the same structure. The first paragraph of each section contains the name of the inventoried town, the list of the relevant gods, and the indication that the king arranged (SI×SÁ = ḫandae-) the (construction or restoration of the) cult images and instituted (ME = dai-) the “pithos” – i.e., the seasonal festivals – furnished with a certain quantity of grain. The second and third paragraphs of each sections contain the description of the seasonal festivals of autumn and spring. Differently than in many other inventories, the second paragraph contains the description of the autumn festival and that of the first day of the spring festival, the rest of which is treated in the third paragraph. The description is closed by the formula “the festival has been arranged” (SI×SÁ = ḫandae-, for the use of this verb see Cammarosano 2013: 99-100 fn. 176 and id. 2018: 37 with literature). As usual, the spring festival lasts two days and includes a procession to the stelae shrine outside the town. Exceptionally, in the section pertaining to town [Ḫa]ppinašḫapa? an extra festival is foreseen, namely the festival “of the daughters,” which takes place in spring (§9′, rev. 4-6).
The preserved part of the tablet concerns five different towns: a town the name of which is not preserved (§§1′-5′, obv. 1′-15′), [Ḫa]ppinašḫapa? (§§6′-9′, obv. 16′-rev. 6), Annitešša (§§10′-12′, rev. 7-16), Duirra (§§13′-14′, rev. 17-24; note that the ruling separating Annitešša and Duirra is single instead of double), and a town the name of which is very fragmentary (§15′, rev. 25-27, only the beginning of the section is preserved). It seems likely that the tablet originally treated six towns in total, with the inventory of the first one now being completely lost.
The section on the town Annitešša is paralleled in the preserved part of the first column of KUB 57.97. The text of KUB 57.97 is more detailed than in VS.NF 12.111 and uses verbal forms in the present tense; these features suggest that it represents an inventory compiled at an earlier stage than VS.NF 12.111 (for a detailed analysis of the relationship of these tablets see Cammarosano 2013: 99-100).
Palaeography and orthography: Late UN (obv. 11′; older form in rev. 14). Abbreviated GIŠZAG.GAR-ni in obv. 14′, 19′, 21′, rev. 23 (vs. standard GIŠZAG.GAR.RA-ni in rev. 2, 5, 19; ZAG.GAR is used in KBo 45.254 vi 4 as well, see Groddek 2014b: 158). For the form ma-al-la-zi in obv. 15′ and for the stem form of a GN at the beginning of a paragraph in rev. 7 see commentary.
obv. 3′: It is possible that another deity besides Iyaya was treated here. This hypothesis is supported by the dimension of the gap, since no offering list or the like is expected before the formula DUGḫarši šuḫḫanzi at the end of the line; analogous considerations can be made for lines 5′ and 7′.
obv. 6′: The restoration proposed by Hazenbos 2003: 57 seems not compatible with the width of the gap.
obv. 12′: The form ma-al-la-zi represents a pl.3 form with nasal reduction (already suspected by van den Hout 1999: 150). The restored form ḫarranzi would have been written on the edge. Alternatively, it is possible that the formula consisted here of mallanzi alone.
obv. 15′: The fragmentary GN is compounded with Hattian šḫap “god;” the proposed restoration as Ḫappinašḫapa “(town) rich in gods” (admittedly not attested elsewhere) is based on the extant signs and on the dimensions of the gap.
obv. 16′: The reading AŠ-KU-[UN] “I established” (Hazenbos 2003: 57; cf. Groddek et al. 2002: 158 aš-šu), based on the incorrect copy by L. Rost, is to be corrected (see Cammarosano 2013: 99 fn. 175 and already Hazenbos 2003: 60 fn. 21, who did not have access to the photo).
rev. 1: The traces visible on the photo show quite clearly that the Storm god received one sheep, whereas the mountain god received two. This is extraordinary and even suspect, also in view of the fact that offerings are always listed in descending order. A scribal mistake cannot be ruled out.
rev. 4-5: “And they undertake to perform for them (lit.: for him/her) the festival of the daughters,” for the syntax of the supine construction see Hoffner and Melchert 2017: 4 (with a reading tiēzzi, but the photo favours ti-an-zi). At the beginning of line 4 a reference to the temple to be “cleaned out” may be restored. The festival treated in this paragraph seems to configure a sort of extra spring festival. Both wording and context require DUMU.MUNUSḪI.A to be the name of the festival, not the subject of the verbal form as assumed by Hazenbos 2003: 61. For another case of an “additional” spring festival, see KUB 25.23+ §4′ (Cammarosano 2018: 364-65).
rev. 7: There seems to be place for only one sign in the gap at the beginning of the line. The GN Annitešša is not attested elsewhere (and is also absent from the preserved portion of the “parallel” cult inventory KUB 57.97). Note the use of the stem form for the GN at the beginning of a paragraph (differently in obv. 16′ and rev. 17). For the association of Iyaya and spring Kuwannaniya see van den Hout 1999: 150 with literature.
rev. 10: The parallel KUB 57.97 i 9-10 shows that the one sheep represented a common offering for both goddesses; no further sheep offering is to be restored in the gap (contra Hazenbos 2003: 58).
rev. 18: Note the peculiar formulation for the filling of the pithos “with” (TA) thick bread, for which see Cammarosano 2013: 88 fn. 105 and cf. KUB 17.35 ii 10′ (with šuḫḫa- “to fill”), KUB 51.47 vi 5′ (verbal form not preserved). Differently than in the usual formulation “they pour grain/loaves of thick bread into the pithos,” here the verb išḫuwa- “to pour” takes the pithos as its object (enclitic pronoun -at), perhaps triggered by the analogy with šuḫḫa- “to fill.”
rev. 23: Both Groddek et al. (2002: 160) and Hazenbos (2003: 59) restore ZÍZ at the beginning of the lacuna, thus interpreting “3 BÁN” as an offering. But this would contradict the ratio of the offering lists, which always list first the solid offerings and then the liquid ones. Both the context and the dimensions of the gap show that this is a reference to the capacity of the KA.GAG-vessels, with omission of the usual Akkadian preposition “ŠA.”
rev. 25: The DN might be restored as Warkuwa.
CC BY-SA 4.0 Michele Cammarosano | Produced as part of the research project Critical edition, digital publication, and systematic analysis of the Hittite cult-inventories (CTH 501-530), funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) – project number 298302760, 2016–2020.