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.
Collated (March 2020). Fragment of a presumably two-columned tablet (max preserved thickness 20 mm).
Obverse and reverse have been swapped in respect to the copy, based on the absence of a Randleiste on the face of which the top is preserved, and in consideration of the fact that it is normal for cult inventories to start in medias res without introductory preambles. The curvature of the fragment is compatible with this hypothesis.
Based on the curvature of the two fragments, the indirect join with KUB 48.113 proposed by J. Miller (apud S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.992)) seems impossible, KUB 48.113 being remarkably more convex than KUB 56.37. Against the hypothesis of a join speaks also the absence of a Randleiste at the beginning of one face of KUB 56.37 combined with the fact that the reverse of KUB 48.113 is uninscribed. Since the handwriting of the two fragments is indeed identical and the content entirely analogous, it stands to reason that the two fragments may have been written by the same scribe and belong to two separate tablets related to each other (e.g. belonging to a series).
This inventory pertains to an area within the basin of the Zuliya river (probably the Çekerek); the text treats several deities and mentions numerous individuals responsible for the supply of cult offerings.
i 3: Cf. KBo 13.231 obv. 3′, 11′, rev. 8′, KBo 52.94 5′, KUB 38.35 i 2. For LÚ.MEŠEPIŠ MARŠUM “straps makers” cf. TÚGMARŠUM (KBo 18.181 obv. 7, 10, 27, CTH 243.6), and KUŠMARŠUM (Siegelová 1986: 696). This word is attested within the cult inventory corpus only here and in KBo 12.53+ obv. 5′ (q.v.). The contexts of the attestations make it clear that MARŠUM always refers to “thongs” or “straps” independently on whether it is preceded by KUŠ, TÚG, or by no determinative, differently than assumed in CAD M 296-97 (kindly pointed out by J. Burgin).
iv 4′: The GN reads Akuwaniga (with Klengel, KUB 56 X), not Ašuwaniga as assumed in RGTC 6 526, cf. the identical shape of KU in line 8′.
iv 6′: Cf. KUB 48.113 i 6′; for the relation expressed here see Hagenbuchner-Dresel 2002: 50 with fn. 162.
iv 7′: The mention of a ḫekur-building connected with the Hattian deity Kammamma (on which see Steitler 2017: 170-71 with literature) is noteworthy.
iv 8′: On the distinction between Puškuruwa and Puškurunuwa, see Galmarini 2013: 405-409 (non vidi).
iv 9′: The term ḫuwaešna is perhaps a GN. Cf. expressions like “ḫekur Temmuwa,” “É.GAL Gazzimar(a)” etc.
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.