Band 38, Heft 1 -

The present paper presents a new Presargonic administrative text housed in the Toppan Rare Books Library of the American Heritage Center (Wyoming). The tablet belongs to the well-known archive with approximately 1800 cuneiform tablets of the institution called é-munus (house(hold) of the woman) or é- d Ba-Ú (temple of the (goddess) Ba’U) and can be dated to the fifth year of the reign of IriKAgina. Structurally it can be compared to similar texts of the so-called še-ĝar-lists (e.g. AWAS 34 and 35).

The Akkadogram EMṢU , meaning “sour” in Akkadian, frequently occurs in Hittite texts either directly before or (more often) after the Sumerogram GA.KIN.AG “cheese”. H. Zimmern proposed as part of a lexical article that in this context EMṢU should be translated as “Hefe”, adding F. Sommer’s tentative suggestion “oder Lab?”. Over the years, for reasons unknown, F. Sommer’s free association became the most accepted translation. The present paper evaluates the plausibility of F. Sommer’s proposal, discussing the related realia and examining the results when applied to Hittite texts of different genres. In taking up H. Zimmern’s suggestion, I propose a broader lexical range of “baking agent”, thus yielding a new translation for the noun EMṢU in Hittite texts, namely “sourdough”.

The present contribution seeks to demonstrate that the composition known as the Festival of Ziparwa (CTH 750) in fact belongs to the multi-day spring and autumn festivals AN.TAḪ.ŠUM and nuntarriyašḫa- . That said, determining which tablets might belong to which festival remains in most cases difficult or impossible, as there does not seem to have been much difference between the spring and the fall versions. Nevertheless, it is clear that the sequence of events described in CTH 750 occurred on the twelfth and thirteenth days of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM festival in the spring, and on the eighth, ninth and tenth days of the nuntarriyašḫa- festival in the fall.

In this article are presented some new joins and duplicates to texts of various volumes of the Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler stemming from the newest text editions, ABoT 2, KBo 59 and KBo 61.

The present paper seeks to differentiate between appositive dislocation and clitic doubling. Appositive dislocation is constituted by a stressed or unstressed pronoun plus a full NP in one clause. The pronoun and the full NP are coreferential, but lexically the full NP is not identical to the antecedent of the pronoun, nor does the full NP possess any discourse function, merely introducing additional information about the referent. Clitic doubling is constituted by an enclitic pronoun plus a full NP and has two varieties. In the first the full NP is not only coreferential with but also lexically identical to the full NP of the preceding clause, thus coding discourse status change of the NP. Clitic doubling of the second type is not only lexically different from the full NP of the preceding context, neither is it coreferential with it. The discourse function in this case is to mark the new topic.

This paper deals with ‘Anatolian archives’ from Kültepe, i.e. groups of tablets written in the Old Assyrian dialect but belonging to Anatolians. It is possible to trace their provenience and sometimes to identify the names of their owners. An analysis of the tablets’ shapes, signs, syntax and grammar as well as the contents of some of these documents allow one to characterize them as tablets written by Anatolians.

The article investigates the meagre textual evidence for Hittite scribal schools outside of Hattusa against the background of new excavations and the questions they raise about the social context of Hittite cuneiform writing. The use of the term é.dub.ba(.a) in Late Bronze Age Anatolia by contrast to Middle Bronze Age Babylonia is briefly touched on, and the institution of the É GIŠ.KIN.TI at Karahna is compared with that at Hattusa.

In the present article the use and possible implications of the phrase ṬUPPU URU Ḫatti in colophons are analyzed. This expression seems strongly connected to the activities of the chief scribe Anuwanza’s team. It always marks copies of older texts and could indicate a particular task of this team of scribes involving the retrieval and copying of tablets (of various derivation and content) already stored in Ḫattuša but for some reason lost or damaged. As the phrase is also present in the colophon of the ritual text KBo 10.34, copied by Ḫanikkuili, who does not record the name of his supervisor, it is proposed that Ḫanikkuili belonged to Anuwanza’s team as well.

This paper discusses the administration of the cult in Emar during the period of Hittite rule over the city. It will be demonstrated that Hittite officials, with the cooperation of Emar citizens, mainly members of the Zū-Baʿla family, were deeply involved in the management of the cult. It will assess the data relating to the distribution of material and human resources, the registration of valuables belonging to temples, duties regarding sacrificial procedures, the installation of cultic personnel and the celebration of festivals and rituals. In conclusion an evaluation of the Hittites’ interest and involvement in the cults of Emar and its satellite cities is offered.