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: Forlanini 1990: 116-19 (KUB 57.108 only), Hazenbos 2003: 102-107.
Collated (March 2020). Fragment of a thick two-columned tablet (max preserved thickness 40 mm), preserves part of the lower edge (with Randleiste). Fine-grained clay, now of a reddish color. Thin horizontal rulings.
The join between KUB 57.108 and KUB 51.23 was originally proposed by Houwink ten Cate (1992: 140 fn. 42, 143 fn. 51), who thought of a “likely” indirect join. In the edition of Hazenbos 2003: 102-107 it is considered as a probable direct join (marked as “+?”), and in the latest edition by Tischler (2016: 256-59) it was considered a secure direct join. In the meantime the two fragments have been physically joined. The relative position of the two fragments, however, is different from that assumed in the editions by Hazenbos 2003: 102-107 and Tischler 2016: 256-59 (as well as in the Joinskizze by S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.992)), and the present edition differs accordingly. Rieken and Lorenz 2007: 470 propose an indirect jojn with HT 4, which in view of content seems plausible: both fragment have the same structure and formulae, and use the same sign variants (see especially KI, URU, and the peculiar shape of É). However, the end of column in HT 4 does not show a Randleiste, whereas KUB 57.108 ii does. One may assume that HT 4 represents the end of col. iv, still a difference in the use of the Randleisten within the same tablet would be surprising. Additionally, the script of HT 4 does not seems entirely identical to that of the present fragment. For the sake of caution, therefore, HT 4 is considered as a separate text in the present treatment; they may belong to two tablets of the same series, or may just represent two tablets written by the same scribe.
The fragment contains a list of personnel (“households” of transportees) and offerings related to the cults of multiple settlements. The offerings are listed in detail, with analytical lists followed by totals, and additionally with an indication of those offerings which had been instituted by the king (formula DUTU-ŠI=ma=kan kī dāiš). The text refers to investigations still to be carried out by the Palace: INA É.GAL-LIM=at=kan punuššuanzi EGIR-pa GAR-ri “it is up to the Palace to investigate the (preceding) matter” (A1+2 ii 4′/10′, 9′/15′), an expression occurring also in DAAM 1.36 i 50; cf. nutta uwanzi apēdani uddani IŠTU É.[GA]L? ŪL punuššanzi “will it not result in their questioning you on that matter from the (regional) palace?” in HKM 54 23-24, see Hoffner 2009: 199. Noteworthy is the mention of “324 statuettes of gold and silver” and “1000 sheep” which the king is said to supply in line ii 10′/16′.
The section covering paragraphs 2 to 6 is devoted to the cult of Pirwa in a town the name of which is not preserved, and is concluded by the formula pirwaš QATI “(the inventory of the god) Pirwa is completed” (A1+2 ii 11′/17′). The following sections treat the cults of multiple towns; the preserved names of the inventoried settlements are Uda, [Ḫ]aluna?, [A]nzuššara?, Šuwanzana, Anašepa, Wannada, Taparla, [ … -]tiya, and [ … -u]lga?; further geographical names attested in these sections are Ḫarwasiya, Ḫar(i)yaša, Ḫariyašiyašiš, Tedumna, and Zippalanda (this one probably as part of a divine epithet).
According to Lorenz and Rieken 2007: 470, the geographical setting of the inventory is an area of central-norther Anatolia not too far from Zippalanda, but this conclusion is based ultimately on the assumption that the town of Šapinuwa is mentioned in line A1 i 1′ (likely incorrect, see commentary) and on the assumption of a join with HT 4 (which is problematical, see above). A more solid basis for the evaluation of the geographical setting of this inventory is offered by §7, where the cult of Šaḫḫaššara in the town of Uda is treated. Among the suppliers of offerings there is (the community of) mount Šarpa. If this Šarpa is to be equated with mount Šarpa mentioned in the Emirgazi altars and other sources, then the geographical setting of this section is likely in the area of Emirgazi (Šarpa is identified with the Arisama Dağ, see Hawkins 2006: 58, or with another mountain in the nearby). See also Forlanini 2017: 241, who proposes to connect the town Uda mentioned here with classical Hydē to the north of Ereğli (Konya; a homonymous Uda is located by Forlanini in the plain south of the Erciyes Dağı). Even admitting this, however, it is not entirely certain that the other sections of the text refer to the same geographical setting of this paragraph.
Palaeography and orthography: Rather cursive script with verticals leaning slightly towards the left. Late QA (A1 i 11′) and KI (A2 ii 4′ and passim).
A1 i 1′: Lorenz and Rieken 2007: 470 proposed to restore [URUša]pinuwa, but, among dozens of attestations, the plene spelling of /u/ is found only in a MH letter (HKM 58). Note that in HT 4 too, which they consider a possible join, the GN Šapinuwa appears without plene spelling (HT 4 obv. 17′).
A1+2 ii 4′/10′, 9′/15′: See introduction.
A1+2 ii 7′/13′: The form URUḫa-ri-ia-ši-ia-ši-iš is likely to be interpreted as ethnicon, as per Hazenbos 2003: 106. The town Ḫar(i)yaša is located not far from Šamuḫa, see Cammarosano 2019: 66-67 (commentary on DAAM 1.36 ii 43-48) and Miller 2019: 136 (commentary on DAAM 1.56+ ii 25), both with further literature.
A1 ii 15′: Note the use of Akkadian adru(m) “treshing floor.”
A1 ii 18′: The GN is read [URU]u-lu-ú-na in Hazenbos 2003: 104, but the Winkelhaken seems closely connected to a preceding vertical or broken vertical wedge (photo-collated); whereas a GN Uluna is not elsewhere attested, a mountain Ḫaluna is attested in the Ortaköy texts (admittedly without plene spelling).
A1 ii 21′, iii 4, 18: According to C. Melchert (pers. comm.), the gloss word arriya(-), attested only here, may be a unassimilated Hurrian Opferterminus. Despite the geminate -rr-, one may compare a-(a)-ri-(ya) cited by HW2 A 289, cf. BGH 45; any connection with the hapax verb in a lexical text (HW2 295) seems very unlikely (kindly pointed out by. C. Melchert).
A1 iii 5′: Interpretation after RGTC 6/2 156.
A2 iii 3′: The name mGE6.UR.MAḪ is not booked in the available repertoires.
A2 iii 6′: Note the Luwian verbal ending °-iyai.
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.