Quick viewing(Text Mode)

KLENGEL, Horst — Geschichte Des Hethitischen Reiches

KLENGEL, Horst — Geschichte Des Hethitischen Reiches

635 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVII N° 5/6, September-December 2000 636

northern Syria and northern , not only during the Hittite Empire, but also in the preceeding and subsequent periods. The decision concerning the time frame is more dif- ficult and is influenced by various considerations. The restric- tion of the scope of the tome to the “Hittite Kingdom” in a way circumvents the problem by limiting Hittite history to five centuries or so, from the foundations of the Old King- dom to the fall of the Hittite Empire. In fact, a history of the should definitely deal with the periods preceding and following the “classical” Hittite age, but the fact that their principal sources are written in languages other than Hittite seems to have limited to a certain extent their integration into general accounts of Hittite history. The formative age of Hit- tite history, the Assyrian Colony Period, has become pri- marily an Assyriological discipline, and only rarely are its sources adequately exploited in Hittitological research. The same applies to the five centuries of Neo-Hittite history doc- umented mainly by Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, which have become sufficiently understood and accessible to non- specialised scholars only in recent years. The author of the volume under review has wisely opted to cover, though sparsely, the earliest chapters of “pre-classical” Anatolian history (aptly designated “Die hethitische Frühzeit”), but to refer only in passing to the continuity of Hittite statehood in Karkamis (pp. 318 f.). Readers who may be interested in learning more about the long epilogue of Hittite history and culture in the Iron Age may be referred to J. D. Hawkins' chapter on the Neo-Hittite kingdoms in the Cambridge HITTITOLOGIE Ancient History (vol. III/1, 2nd ed., 1982) and to the relevant sections in his Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (, 2000). KLENGEL, Horst — Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches. The Introduction of the volume under review presents the (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1, 034). E.J. Brill Publish- geographical arena and the history of research into Cuneiform ers N. V., Leiden, 1999. (24 cm, XXVI, 428, 63 ABB.). Hittite, which, in its first stages, largely overlaps with the ISBN 90 04 10201 9; ISSN 0169-9423. Dfl. 258,- / exploration of Bogazköy. Only a few sentences are dedicated $152.00. to the history of research into Hieroglyphic Hittite/Luwian (p. This volume of the Handbuch der Orientalistik meets 12 f.). The fascinating beginnings of the new discipline, which admirably the long-felt need for a reliable annotated history were obviously dominated by German scholarship, are of the Hittite kingdom.1) There are several general accounts described in much detail, incorporating rare archival sources. of Hittite history and culture, such as O. R. Gurney's excel- Thus, for example, we learn from a postcard sent by Hugo lent pocket-book The Hittites (3rd ed., 1990), to mention but Winckler in December 1907 that he was already aware of the one example. However, the last undertaking towards a com- fact that the main language of the Bogazköy tablets must have prehensive history of Anatolia, provided with references to been Indo-European (p. 8, n. 20). Still, the credit for the first sources and bibliography, was published in the seventies in correct linguistic characterisation of the language of the Hit- the tomes of the Cambridge Ancient History (3rd ed.). Not tites should go to the rarely mentioned monograph of the Nor- only has this important manual long been outdated by the wegian scholar J.A. Knudtzon, Die Zwei Arzawa Briefe; Die accumulation of new data and research, it also lacked in unity ältesten Urkunden in Indogermanischer Sprache, published in of method and presentation, because the topic was divided Leipzig in 1902. In the same year, the illustrious editor of the between several scholars. After a standstill of several Tell el- presented to the Norwegian Academy decades, two important manuals of Hittite history have come in Kristiania his astonishing conclusion that the two Arzawa out almost coinstantaneously at the close of the century: letters (EA 31-32) were written in an Indo-European language. Trevor Bryce's The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford 1998), With the assistance of two of his compatriots, the Indo-Euro- and the volume under review, written by Horst Klengel in peanists Sophus Bugge and Alf Torp, he was able to identify cooperation with three other leading Hittitologists - Fiorella some characteristic case endings, possessive pronouns, and Imparati, Volkert Haas, and Theo van den Hout. the 3rd pers. imp. estu, which left no doubt that his first intu- The first major decision to be taken in such an important ition was correct. Unfortunately, through a series of mislead- undertaking is to set the limits of time and space. With regard ing coincidences (especially the personal name Labbaya), he to the latter, it has long been realised that it is practically came to think that the land of Arzawa was located somewhere impossible to separate the history of Anatolia from that of in Canaan or Transjordan, and that it was inhabited by a group of (Biblical) Hittite settlers. The five chapters covering the Bronze Age history of Ana- 1) The abbreviations used in this article follow those of the Chicago Hit- tolia are structured in the method developed by H. Klengel tite Dictionary, vol. 3/1 (1980), pp. xxi-xxxi; P/3 (1997), pp. vii-xxix. Unat- tributed page numbers refer to the volume under review. in his Geschichte Syriens I-II (1965, 1969), i.e. a full index- 637 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — HETTITOLOGIE 638 ing of the sources relevant to each sub-chapter, divided into in western Armenia, which exhibits some similarities with contemporary sources (A) and later retrospectives (B), fol- Hittite artistic traditions (p. 19). lowed by a historical synthesis. This judicious method pro- The first real historical period in Anatolia, the richly doc- vides not only easy access to the sources and essential bibli- umented Assyrian Colony Period in the first quarter of the ography, but also enables the reader to fathom at once the second millennium B.C.E., is somewhat cursorily covered in density of sources for each individual period. It is somewhat the volume, and leaves some central issues vaguely defined, regrettable, however, that there are very few direct quotations or ignores them altogether. The arduous debate over the from texts, a device which may give the reader, especially exploitation of Anatolian tin deposits at Kestel in the south- the non-professional one, a better notion of the character and central Taurus Mountains is left out,8) and neither are the style of Hittite texts. The sources, the historical synthesis and putative political and economic reasons for the discontinua- the bibliographical references are presented with accuracy tion of the lucrative Assyrian trade discussed. Concerning the and clarity, which in a volume covering hundreds of texts is political relations between the Assyrian merchants and the not an easy task. At any rate, the main purpose of this review local principalities we now have two treaty tablets, unfortu- is not to detect the few errors2) and inconsistencies3) in the nately both partially preserved: an oath formula on a frag- volume, but rather to discuss some basic methodological and ment from Tell Leilan,9) and larger parts of the treaty stipu- thematic issues, and to evaluate its overall achievements. lations and the oath ceremony on a tablet from Kültepe (Kt The historical overview begins with the late third millen- n/ k 794).10) The geo-political situation in Anatolia, as nium B.C.E. (Kap. I.1.). The only written sources which can reflected in the Anum-Hirbi and the texts, is quite arguably be associated with this still illiterate period in Ana- vaguely defined, with references given to relevant studies, tolia are the Mesopotamian literary traditions concerning the without however discussing their conclusions. The unre- northern campaigns of the Akkadian kings Sargon4) and solved question whether and Anitta are Hattian or Naram-Sin. That such stories circulated in Anatolia (at least) Hittite names (p. 27) should not obscure the accumulating as early as the Assyrian Colony Period is shown by the evidence for a basic division of Anatolia into ethno-cultural recently published Kültepe text (Kt j/k 97) which recounts a zones, distinguishable by their onomasticon, pantheon and campaign of Sargon the Great “from sunrise to sunset”.5) To material culture, before Anitta's unification of the land. The these epic texts one may add several Hurrian omina and mag- confrontation between the (mainly) Hattian Halys Basin and ical rituals which include lists of Akkadian kings.6) Contrary the (mainly) Hittite (i.e. Nesite) region extending from Kanis to some early reports, the geographical orbit of the Ebla eastward is now further highlighted by the emphatic distinc- tablets does not extend beyond northern Syria.7) The author tion between “Our God” (siu+summi) of Nesa and “Their maintains that the archaeological record points towards an God” (siu-smi) of in the Anitta text.11) One may of immigration wave at the end of the Bronze Age, perhaps course disagree with this reconstruction of the ethno-politi- caused by an arid period that affected large parts of the Near cal map of early second millennium Anatolia and present East (p. 21). As for the long-standing debate concerning the other interpretations,12) but the issue is too important for the direction from which the Indo-European population groups ensuing development of Hittite history to be simply bypassed. entered Anatolia, he refers to the silver goblet from Karasamb The Old Kingdom has received much closer attention, with a meticulous discussion of the variety of data and their syn- thesis (Kap. II). The most important new sources on the period are the “cruciform seal” (p. 34), which adds strong 2) E.g.: 1) The name of the mountain in KUB 19.27 obv. 8' is not Amanus (p. 138), but rather Ammari[- (RGTC 6, p. 12 f.); 2) Msk 73.1097 support to the historicity of (preceeding Labarna II does not mention Sahurunuwa (p. 175); for a full publication of this Emar = ), and the Labarna (II) letter to Tuniya of Tiku- text and its companion letter from the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem, nani, the only epistolary document of the Old Kingdom (p. see now I. Singer, in the Acts of the Venice Renc. Assyr. Intern.; 3) The 52). This intriguing text, which must be considered in con- sender of RS 6.198 can no longer be identified with the Assyrian official Belu-libur, and is therefore irrelevant to the relations between and junction with the rest of the documents originating from the in the 14th century (p. 198); see W. van Soldt, Studies in the Akka- same lot and with the rich documentation from Mari and dian of Ugarit (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991), p. 28; I. Singer in W. G. E. Wat- other north Mesopotamian sites, opens new vistas in the study son — N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Leiden 1999), p. of Hittite involvement beyond the Euphrates, which clearly 688, n. 284 and p. 689, n. 289. 3) E.g.: 1) The redating of CTH 123 to is accepted on p. 276 [A5], but it reappears as a text of Suppiluliuma II (?) on p. 296; 2) The possibility that was a son of Mursili III/UrÌi-Tesub, which on p. 228, n. 409 “scheint aus chronologischen und historischen Gründen jedoch 8) See K. A. Yener, Antiquity 61 (1987), pp. 64-71; Journal of Mediter- kaum möglich”, becomes a definite possibility on p. 316. ranean Archaeology (JMA) 5 (1992), pp. 99-103; AJA 97 (1993), pp. 262- 4) For a collated re-edition of the “King of Battle” text from Tell el- 264; Geoarchaeology 10 (1995), pp. 139-141; The Domestication of Met- Amarna (EA 359), see S. Izre'el, The Amarna Scholarly Tablets (1997), pp. als: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia (c. 4500-2000 B.C.), 66-75. “It exhibits some linguistic pecularities that can be attributed directly Leiden 2000. Cf., S. Steadman - M. Hall, JMA 4 (1991), pp. 217-234; J. to the Akkadian of Bogazköy, notably consonant doubling in the initial syl- D. Muhly, JMA 5 (1992), pp. 91-98. lable” (ib., p. 71). Could it be that the story was introduced to Egypt by 9) J. Eidem in D. Charpin - F. Joannès (eds.), Fs Garelli (1991), pp. Hittite scribes, who considered it to be part of their own historico-cultural 185-207. heritage? 10) E. Bilgiç in H. Otten et al. (eds.), Fs Alp (1992), pp. 61-66; cf. S. 5) C. Günbatti in S. Alp -A. Süel (eds.), Acts of the IIIrd International Çeçen - K. Hecker in M. Dietrich - O. Loretz (eds.), Fs von Soden (1995), Congress of Hittitology (1998), 261-279. pp. 31-41 (with the refutation of the identification of the word eblum with 6) CTH 775; see A. Kammenhuber, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scien- the place-name Ebla). tiarum Hungaricae 22 (1974), pp. 157 -247 (see esp. pp. 157 ff., 165 ff.). 11) I. Singer in O. Carruba et al. (eds.), Atti del II Congresso Inter- 7) See A. Archi in IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Ankara 1981. I. Cilt. (Türk nazionale di Hittitologia, Pavia 1995, pp. 343-349; see also H. A. Hoffner's Tarih Kurumu Yayınları IX. Diri-Sa-9), Ankara, pp. 165-170. The place- new translation of the Anitta text in W. Hallo (ed.), Context of Scripture I name Ga-ne-is/su attested in several Ebla tablets must be located some- (1997), p. 183, n. 22. where in Syria, and cannot be equated with the central Anatolian city of 12) See, e.g., the characterisation of the period in T. Bryce, The King- Kanis; see A. Archi in Fs Tahsin Özgüç (1989), pp. 11-14. dom of the Hittites, pp. 14 ff. (“Ethnicity in the Middle Bronze Age”). 639 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVII N° 5/6, September-December 2000 640 went far deeper than previously suspected.13) One also seems that the maps of M. Forlanini and M. Marazzi in Atlante eagerly awaits the publication of the intriguing texts from Storico del Vicino Oriente Antico (1986) have usually been Terqa on the Middle Euphrates, which mention clashes with followed,18) which, at least for western Anatolia, do not rep- troops of Îatte/Îattu (p. 66).14) resent a scholarly consensus. The recent decipherment by The so-called Middle Kingdom (the 15th and the first half J. D. Hawkins19) of the Karabel inscription rather confirms in of the 14th centuries) is still the least known period of Hittite broad lines the western Anatolian map drawn by J. Garstang history (Kap. III), but at least its succession of rulers has been and O. R. Gurney some forty years ago.20) considerably clarified in recent decades through the discov- A similar criticism may be raised with regard to chronol- ery of seals and land donation deeds, which have confirmed ogy. In the introduction it is explained that no absolute the existence of dubious kings (Îantili II, Zidanta II, Îuzziya chronology is given because it is still controversial and only II) and added previously unsuspected ones (TaÌurwaili, approximate dates are known (p. xv). This lack is substituted ). Also, the figure of TudÌaliya I as a great con- by a list of direct synchronisms and a relative chronological queror, perhaps the real founder of the Hittite Empire, has table (pp. 388-393). I would generally agree with this view- come into sharper focus in recent years, both through the reas- point, but in some crucial cases one can hardly avoid taking signment of several treaties to him (with , Tunip a stand, or at least explaining the different options and their and Astata) and through the discovery of inscribed cult objects historical consequences. One notable example is the drastic dated to his reign. To the bronze sword with an Akkadian reduction and lowering of 's reign suggested inscription commemorating his campaign to Assuwa (p. 104) by G. Wilhelm and J. Boese,21) now generally accepted, by one may perhaps add the silver fist from Boston15) and a sil- some with minor adjustments.22) According to the chrono- ver bowl in the Ankara Museum which carries a hieroglyphic logical table on p. 393 Suppiluliuma's reign began still within inscription referring to a campaign of a TudÌaliya to the land the rule of Amenophis III, i.e. at least eight years before the of Tarwiza, presumably Taruisa/Troy.16) date proposed by Wilhelm and Boese (1344 B.C.E.). If so, Speaking of TudÌaliya I's campaigns to western Anatolia, EA 17, in which Tusratta reports to Amenophis III about his a remark is in order concerning the maps included in the vol- victory over the Hittites, may indeed fall within the reign of ume and on historical-geography in general. Needless to say, Suppiluliuma (as indicated on pp. 139, 155). But, if the low- the study of history is dependent to a great extent on the recon- ered date of 1344 is accepted, the episode belongs to the reign struction of a reliable map, which in ancient Anatolia is noto- of his father and it can indeed be associated with the rebel- riously difficult. Obviously, the labyrinthine debates over the lion of Isuwa and adjacent regions under TudÌaliya II (pp. relative locations of hundreds of Hittite place-names cannot 129 [B5], 155). One way or the other, the episode is quite be dealt with in a general handbook, but at least some of the important for the history of the Hittite-Mittannian conflict, larger territorial units and the most important place-names and some brief explanation of the different options would could have been briefly discussed for the benefit of the non- have been useful for the non-specialised reader. initiated reader. A notable example is the location/identifica- Naturally, half of the volume is dedicated to the Hittite tion of Wilus(iy)a. Bibliographical references are given to the Empire (Kap. IV) and its collapse (Kap. V), with excellent broadly accepted identification with Homeric Ilion (p. 203, n. coverage of the manifold sources from Anatolia, Syria and 302; p. 212, n. 345), but on map 4 (p. 84) Wilusa appears elsewhere. There are of course many problematic issues south of the Gediz (and, consequently, Assuwa appears south which are still arduously debated among scholars, and it of the Troad), with no explanation offered in the text. The would be futile to elaborate on these in this context. The real same applies to the plausible identification of Millawanda with test of such a comprehensive volume is, on the one hand, to Miletos, which is now supported by archaeological evi- lead the reader along a well-marked path without turning him dence.17) On map 5 (p. 136) Forrer's identification with Milyas into the abundance and complexity of the data, and yet, on in Lycia is preferred, and again, the reader is referred to bib- the other hand, to caution him (possibly in footnotes) about liography (p. 188, n. 222), but no explanation is offered for the principal stumbling blocks of unresolved problems and this preference, which, as in the case of Wilusa, is crucial for scholarly disagreement. It is not an easy task, and in most understanding the relations between Hatti and AÌÌiyawa. It cases it is skillfully managed in the volume. Even the thorny problem of the royal succession in TarÌuntassa, in which the author and two of his collaborators stand on opposite sides 13) For the localization of Tikunani in the region of Diyarbakır, see J.- of the debate, is fairly dealt with.23) Both standpoints (Ulmi- M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari II (1998), p. 81. A geographical-historical re-evaluation of Hattusili's eastern campaigns was undertaken by Jared Miller in his M.A. Thesis (Tel Aviv 1999). See, pro- visionally, his summary in the proceedings of the 4th Congress of Hittitol- 18) See also M. Forlanini, SMEA 40 (1998), pp. 240 ff., reiterating the ogy in Würzburg. Millawanda = Milyas identification. 14) O. Rouault, SMEA 30 (1990), 252. Note in this connection the Old 19) J. D. Hawkins, AnSt 48 (1998), pp. 1-31 (see map on p. 31). Hittite stamp seal found at Terqa/Tell Ashara; M. Kelly-Buccellati - W. R. 20) The Geography of the Hittite Empire (1959), Map 1; see further O. Shelby, Terqa Preliminary Reports 4, Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 1/6 R. Gurney in Fs Alp (1992), pp. 217-221 and F. Starke, Studia Troica 7 (1977), p. 38 f., fig. 18, pl. 4.16; reproduced in D. Bonatz, H. Kühne, A. (1997), pp. 447-487; Der Neue Pauly, Band 5 (1998), map on p. 195 f. Mahmoud, Rivers and Steppes (Catalogue to the Museum of Deir ez-Zor), 21) In P. Åstrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Damascus 1998, p. 100. Colloquium on Absolute Chronology (1987), pp. 105 ff. See further S. de 15) H. G. Güterbock - T. Kendall in J. B. Carter - S. P. Morris (eds.), Martino, La Parola del Passato 48 (1993), pp. 230 ff. The Ages of Homer. A Tribute to E. T. Vermeule (Austin, Texas 1995), pp. 22) E.g., T. R. Bryce, AnSt 39 (1989), pp. 119-30; Journal of Egyptian 45-59. Archaeology 76 (1990), pp. 97-105. 16) J. D. Hawkins, Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1996 Yıllıgı (Ankara 23) H. Klengel, AoF 18 (1991), pp. 224 ff. contra Th. P.J. van den Hout, 1997), pp. 7-24. JCS 41 (1989), pp. 100 ff.; StBoT 38 (1995) and F. Imparati - F. Pecchi- 17) See, recently, Niemeyer, AA 1997, pp. 189-248. For the equation of oli-Daddi, Eothen 4 (1991), pp. 23 ff. For the latest update on the constantly Hittite Millawanda with Ionian Miletos, see now A. Morpurgo Davies apud growing bibliography on the subject, see S. de Martino, AoF 26 (1999), J. D. Hawkins, AnSt 48 (1998), p. 30 f., n. 207. p. 291, n. 2. 641 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — HETTITOLOGIE 642

Tesub is , or he succeeds him) are presented with to Suppiluliuma II actually prove the opposite.29) Even Kuzi- cross-references (pp. 239 [A8]; 276 [A3a]), and the reader Tesub, who probably survived the fall of Hattusa, calls him- can make up his own mind which is the better solution. Such self on the Lidar seal simply “King of Karkamis”. Only his an option was not provided, however, in all controversies. late descendant Runtiya designates him “Great King”,30) and For example, the “General's Letter” from Ugarit is dated in some of the Neo-Hittite kings of Karkamis also assume this the volume to the years following the Battle of Qadesh (pp. title.31) 204 [A8], 216), and though the reader is referred to the mono- The chapter on the fall of the Hittite Empire (Kap. V) char- graph of S. Izre'el and I. Singer (1990), no mention is made acterises perhaps best the fundamental changes in the histor- of its (now broadly accepted24)) conclusion, namely, that J. ical thought of the last decades. Whereas in older studies one Nougayrol's original dating of the text to the Amarna Age often finds simplistic descriptions of an unsuspecting Hittite was correct. state suddenly taken by surprise by a barbaric enemy, the From the numerous difficult problems dealt with in the complex nature of the evidence, with various early symptoms chapters on the Hittite Empire, I have merely picked out two of inner decline and disintegration, is today increasingly important historical statements which are based on question- realised. Due weight is given in the reviewed volume to the able interpretations of fragmentary sources. disastrous effects of inner-Hittite political strife (p. 310), and Though the re-evaluation of the motives for Muwatalli's the final disintegration of the empire is attributed more to transfer of the capital to Tarhuntassa, which may have more economic-administrative than to military causes (p. 311). I to do with religion than with military strategy, is mentioned would merely add in passing that, in my opinion, the huge in the volume (p. 210), the alleged conflagration of Hattusa expenditures in human and material resources directed in the in this period, based on the questionable restoration of a sar- last decades of the Hittite Empire to the erection and embell- castic comment of in her letter to Ramses II, is still ishment of new temples and other cult institutions also played uncritically cited (pp. 222 [B7, 14], 227). Instead of [arha a major role in the weakening of the Hittite state. wa]rnuwan, “burnt down”, referring to the “House of The sources on this late period are usually well covered, Hatti”, I suggested to restore [arha a]rnuwan, “taken away”, with the exception of the Middle Assyrian tablets from Tell “transferred”, obviously referring to the transfer of the royal Chuera (ancient Îurbe)32) and Tell Seih Hamad (ancient Dur- residence to TarÌuntassa.25) Unfortunately, the generally Katlimmu),33) which were published shortly before the clos- accepted textual restoration concerning the burning down of ing of the manuscript in 1997. From these texts, and from the Hittite royal palace (usually attributed to the Kaska tribes) some fragmentary Bogazköy letters,34) we learn about an has already led to a reinterpretation of the archaeological evi- unsuspected turn in the relations between and Hatti in dence from Büyükkale, although no traces of a widespread the last decades of the Hittite Empire. Shortly after defeating fire in this period were found there.26) TudÌaliya's army at NiÌriya, Tukulti-Ninurta I suddenly A flaw which risks to be perpetuated in future studies is turned his aggression towards and resumed diplo- the assumption that the last kings of Karkamis had already matic and economic relations with the Hittites. The sporadic assumed the title “Great King” before the fall of the Hittite references to Hittite diplomats and merchants operating in Empire (pp. 314, 318). In fact, there is not a single unequiv- Assyrian-controlled areas east of the Euphrates are particu- ocal case to support this assumption,27) and in the rich cor- larly valuable because they provide rare limmu datings.35) respondence from Ugarit the clear distiction between the The historical overviews are followed by a useful chapter “Great King” of Hatti and the “King” of Karkamis is scrupu- on the organisation of the Hittite state, written by Fiorella lously maintained, notwithstanding the increasing importance Imparati (Kap. VI). The main institutions of Hittite state and of Karkamis. In dozens of documents and seal impressions society — from the royal family, through high officials, to mentioning Ini-Tesub he is never designated “Great King”, the main labour groups — are concisely defined, with refer- and as stated by J. D. Hawkins, “the powerful Ini-Tesub was ences to further bibliography. The sub-chapter on imperial close to the rank of ‘Great King', but he never assumed the administration and international relations includes overviews title, though on occasion he did take that of ‘Hero'.”28) I do on the various types of state treaties and on the international not see how the fragmentary preambles of the treaty between correspondence of Hatti. Suppiluliuma and Talmi-Tesub (CTH 121) can indicate a The volume is rounded up with chronological tables, state of equality or parity between the contracting parties (pp. selected bibliographies, name indices, a reference list to CTH 301, 318), and the recently rejoined loyalty oaths of Karkamis numbers, and a judicious choice of 63 illustrations on glossy

24) See, e.g., M. Liverani, RSO 66 (1992), p. 221 f.; W. Röllig, ZDMG 29) KBo 12.30 (+) KUB 26.25 (CTH 126.4 + 126.2) and KUB 26.33 (+) 143 (1993), p. 401; S. Lackenbacher, RA 89 (1995), p. 70; I. Márquez KBo 13.225 (CTH 125). See I. Singer in the forthcoming proceedings of Rowe, AuOr 14 (1996), pp. 107-126; J. Freu, Semitica 48 (1997), p. 32. the 4th Congress of Hittitology in Würzburg. 25) KUB 21.38 obv. 10; I. Singer in A. Süel (ed.), Acts of the IIIrd Inter- 30) J. D. Hawkins, AnSt 38 (1988), p. 101. national Congress of Hittitology (Çorum, September 1996), Ankara 1998, 31) J. D. Hawkins in Th. P.J. van den Hout - J. de Roos (eds.), Fs p. 537 f. Houwink ten Cate (Leiden 1995), pp. 73-85. 26) See Ph. H.J. Houwink ten Cate, BiOr 51 (1994), p. 237, with further 32) C. Kühne in W. Orthmann et al., Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuera in references, Nordost-Syrien. I (Saarbrücken 1995), pp. 203-225. 27) The assumption that Ini-Tesub was designated “Great King” rests 33) E. C. Cancik-Kirschbaum, Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall SeÌ on an edict of TudÌaliya, RS 18.06 + 17.365 (PRU IV, p. 138); M. Liv- Îamad (Berlin 1996). erani, RSO 35 (1960), pp. 140 ff.; H. Klengel, Geschichte Syriens I (1965), 34) A. Hagenbuchner, Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter, 2. Teil (Heidel- p. 86. From the damaged rev. 21' only LU]GAL.MES GAL [, “great berg 1989), pp. 245 ff., no. 189; pp. 328 ff., no. 224; J. Freu, Semitica 48 kings”, is preserved, and its relation to TudÌaliya and Ini-Tesub mentioned (1998), pp. 20 ff. in the previous line is not clear. See also Th. van den Hout in the forth- 35) See J. Freu, Semitica 48 (1997; publ. 1999), pp. 18 ff.; I. Singer in coming proceedings of the 4th Congress of Hittitology in Würzburg. W. G. E. Watson — N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Lei- 28) AnSt 38 (1988), p. 104. den 1999), p. 690, n. 291 and in Fs Hoffner (forthcoming). 643 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVII N° 5/6, September-December 2000 644 paper, providing a basic notion on Hittite city planning, archi- too late for Bryce.1) By no means, however, does this tecture, art, script and glyptics. diminish the value of these books. On the contrary, they The few reservations expressed above notwithstanding, this enable every student to quickly familiarize him- or herself book will define the study of Hittite history for years to come, with the course of Hittite history and its problems without and its author(s) are congratulated for their important endeav- getting lost. It is particularly welcome that both books are our. largely complementary in their approach. Whereas Klen- gel's Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches extensively lists Tel Aviv University, I. SINGER all primary sources and their most important secondary lit- July 2000 erature for each king and period followed by an evaluation of that period, Bryce offers an ongoing and often gripping narrative from the early days of king Anitta until the fall of ** the Hittite empire shortly after 1200 BC. The break-up into * small chronological units makes Klengel's book a more “scholarly” work, easy to consult and check whereas BRYCE, Trevor — The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford Bryce's book can be read from cover to cover and offers University Press, 1998. (22 cm, XVI, 464). ISBN 0-19- the most accessible overview. It is also to be welcomed that 814095-9. £ 45.00 (£ 19.99 paperback). Bryce dispenses with the traditional periodization of Hittite It has been almost thirty years since the first and until history into the three phases of Old, Middle and New king- recently only comprehensive Hittite history in book form doms. Although this has proved to be useful from a lin- appeared: Friedrich Cornelius' Geschichte der Hethiter guistic and philological point of view there is no real his- (Darmstadt 1973). However, this work never made it to the torical justification for it. It is even with some status of handbook because it was too controversial. More- understandable reluctance that the author divides Hittite his- over, in the matter of the so-called Rückdatierung of some tory into two periods, an Old and a New Kingdom in order important historical texts from the end of the thirteenth cen- “not to diverge too widely from a long established and gen- tury to the turn of the fifteenth-fourteenth century Cornelius erally accepted convention” (p. 6). soon found himself in the camp of the few who resisted the The first three chapters deal with the coming of Indo- by then fast growing majority in favor of this theory. This Europeans to Anatolia and their split into various linguistic made his book quickly outdated for the two periods subgroups (1), the Hittites' first historic appearance in the involved. Meanwhile the hot and sometimes grim debate records of the Old Assyrian trade colonies of the 19th and over the Rückdatierung and the related question of the early 18th century (2) and the geo-political situation in the proper distinction of Old, Middle and New Ancient Near East during the days of the Hittite empire (3). phases, the steady ongoing stream of new Hittite text mate- The Old Kingdom is then covered in two chapters (4-5) fol- rial, the often spectacular finds like the first major tablet lowed by the New Kingdom in eight (6-13). The last chap- collection outside Îattusa (Ma≥at Höyük), the growing ter is an excurs on the historicity of the Trojan War and importance of Hierglyphic Luwian inscriptions as a source what the Hittite texts might contribute to it. After “A Final for the history of the Hittite empire, and the many aston- Comment” on the role of the Hittite empire in the history ishing finds in the Upper City of Îattusa since the mid-sev- of the Ancient Near East during the second millennium and enties among which the Bronze Tablet, will have made his- its influence on the Iron Age, there follow two useful appen- torians reluctant to enter upon a such as vast project. Yet, dices on chronology and the character of the Hittite and within the last two years two such overviews of Hittite his- Hieroglyphic Luwian sources. A good bibliography and an tory appeared: Trevor Bryce's, The Kingdom of the Hittites index of mostly names conclude the book. Apart from four (1998), under review, and the Geschichte des hethitischen maps there are no illustrations. Reiches by Horst Klengel (in cooperation with Fiorella In the following I will discuss some minor points which Imparati, Volkert Haas and Theo van den Hout, Leiden came up during the reading of the book but which by no 1999). means invalidate the generally very favorable impression. There seems to have been no specific reason for this but In general the textpassages which frequently illustrate the the urge to bring order into a mass of primary sources and historical narrative are adequately translated. Sometimes secondary literature which, certainly for the beginning stu- one might have preferred a slightly different rendering. An dent, is hard to gain a comprehensive view of. Both works interesting example is king Anitta's account of the conquest are primarily a balance drawn up of what is known of Hit- of the city of Nesa/Kanes, modern Kültepe, where he says: tite history up to the moment of publishing. But with the “He inflicted no harm on the children of Nesa but treated rapid and ever continuing stream of primary sources and them as mothers and fathers”.2) Of course, the use of their interpretations the authors are very much aware of the DUMU.MES “children, sons” followed by a geographical temporary status of their work: “Thus now, and probably name as an expression for “inhabitants” is well-known and for many years to come, we can write no more than a pro- Bryce understandably follows Neu's German rendering visional history of this world, taking stock of what infor- mation is available to us at the time of writing, and recog- nizing that parts of such a history may already be in need 1) For the first see J. Seeher, AA 1996, 338-347, and the subsequent of revision by the time it appears in print” (Bryce, Intro- annual reports in the same journal, for Tunip-tessub see M. Salvini, The duction pp. 2-3). The find of grain silos, for instance, on Îabiru Prism of King Tunip-Tessub of Tikunani (Roma 1996). Abbrevia- Büyükkaya and in the Upper City from the days of the end tions used here are those adopted by the Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental of the Empire or the extraordinary recognition of Tunip-tes- Institute of the University of Chicago (CHD), edd. H.G. Güterbock - H.A. Hoffner (Chicago 1979ff.), L-N xv-xxviii, and P vii-xxvi. sub, king of Tikunani, during the reign of Îattusili I came 2) KBo III 22 obv. 7-9 (OH/OS), ed. E. Neu, StBoT 18, 10-11. 645 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — HETTITOLOGIE 646

(“Einwohner”) in translating as such (p. 37). But then a dis- may have been intentional and should not be glossed over. cussion ensues whether the unique phrase about the moth- That the same TutÌaliya may have been a son of Îattusili ers and fathers might point at “close ethnic affinities with another wife before he married PuduÌepa cannot be between the populations of Nesa and ” (p. 38). dismissed (p. 301 n. 32) simply by referring to the Ugarit- Although Bryce is rightly cautious and even sceptical about seal (RS 17.159) identifying him as “[son of Îattusili] … this, it might have been pointed out that the translation and Pudu[Ìepa”.12) The same and even stronger evidence “inhabitants” obscures a more literal “children” which for as TutÌaliya I's son is without much hes- could have given rise to a word play by Anitta. The latter itation accepted as the most logical explanation for the for- is a not infrequent phenomenon especially in Old Hittite lit- mer's being an adopted son (p. 139). erature.3) According to Bryce (p. 332 with n. 26) TutÌaliya IV still Occasionally there are more serious cases of mistransla- reckoned with “the possibility of further conflict with the tion. Obviously wrong is the translation (p. 168) of the pas- pharaoh”. This is based on the passage in the ∑auÒgamuwa- sage taken from the first Plague Prayer (KUB XIV 4+ obv. treaty TutÌaliya concluded with his Syrian vassal accord- 16-19) of Mursili II about the killing of TutÌaliya, Sup- ing to which the Hittite king's enemy should be the vas- piluliuma's (half-)brother. According to this translation sal's enemy and his friend should be his vassal's friend.13) Suppiluliuma “revolted” (dammesÌait) against TutÌaliya, However, it is uncertain how literal this should or may be in what is presented as an engineered quarrel, while interpreted. It is a variation on a legal formula which leads all those in powerful positions sided with the former up to the far more important point of the patent Assyrian- “on the departure from Hattusa” (URUÎattusa=za=kan taken Hittite clashes of recent years. There is no other evidence as URUÎattusaza=kan), whereupon the “conspirators” for TutÌaliya not trusting the Egyptians or of less warm (linkiîantes) killed the latter. Bryce seems to have based relation with Ramses II during his reign. On the contrary, himself on the French translation by René Lebrun4) to the ongoing correspondence between the two courts con- which he explicitly refers. The correct translation can firms the good relations and the marriage of a second already be found in Götze's edition of 19295) where nobody sister of TutÌaliya to Ramses may fit well into this pic- leaves the capital and the linkiîantes are the “Eidgötter”.6) ture.14) The implications of the verb dammesÌait (Götze: Another example of a misleading translation concerns “maßregelte”) are still uncertain but the mentioning of the one of the letters in the divorce dossier of Sausgamuwa's Oath Deities hints at a more complicated situation in which sister, married to Ammistamru, king of Ugarit. In the end Suppiluliuma may have been legitimately fighting his (half-) the woman was returned to her former husband and Saus- brother.7) gamuwa was financially compensated. In one (RS 17.228 = Concerning the length of 's reign Bryce (see PRU IV 141-143) of the three documents pertaining to this p. 209) still adheres to the traditional 27-year time span as final stage of the whole affair Sausgamuwa receives 1400 reconstructed by Götze in his edition to this king's Annals. gold shekels. The text then concludes with the stipulation However, Emil Forrer had already earlier convincingly that if Sausgamuwa is not satisfied with the gold the pre- pleaded in favor of a 22-year period followed by others.8) sent tablet will be proof that he is entitled to the amount Forrer's solution gets rid of an otherwise surprisingly com- mentioned and not a shekel more. In Bryce's translation (p. plete lack of sources for the years 13-18 which go without 347) this becomes: “If Sausgamuwa … happens to say … any comment in Bryce's book (p. 234). ‘This is not enough. Give (me) more gold!’ the present Despite the circumstances of “cumulative stress”, tablet will take it from him”. If anything, the last phrase of “despair and frustration” there is no evidence that Mursili the translation seems to say the opposite of what the Akka- II “suffered a minor stroke” (p. 239). The Hittite expres- dian original wants to convey!15) sion tapusa pai- lit. “to go sideways”, applied in the text Talmitessub, the king of Karkamis in the days of the known as Mursilis Sprachlähmung to the king's mouth, in Hittite king Suppiluliyama was the great-great-grandson a figurative sense simply means “to cease to function”.9) of Suppiluliuma I (not the great-great-great-grandson, What really happened remains for us to guess. p. 384). We do not know whether TutÌaliya IV ever held the title tuÌkanti as Bryce maintains on pp. 299, 301 and 326 with August 2000 Theo VAN DEN HOUT n. 1.10) According to the Bronze Tablet ii 43-44 his father Îattusili III only demoted his “elder brother” from that ** position and subsequently “installed TutÌaliya in kingship” * (LUGAL-iznani tittanut).11) The subtle difference in wording

3) Compare, for instance, G. Beckman, JCS 45 (1995) 31-32, or the remark about “brotherhood” by a Hittite king (Muwatalli II?) in KUB 12) Imprints of the same seal have now been found in Îattusa as well, XXIII 102 i 14-15 (ed. A. Hagenbuchner, THeth. 16, 260-264). see Otten, Zu einigen Neufunden hethitischer Königssiegel (Mainz-Stuttgart 4) Hymnes 199. 1993), 35-40. 5) KIF 167. 13) Ed. Kühne-Otten, StBoT 16, 14-15. 6) See CHD L-N 67-68. 14) Cf. my book The Purity of Kingship (Leiden-Boston-Köln 1998) 85 7) See most recently Ph. Houwink ten Cate, JEOL 34 (1995-1996) 70- n. 48; for the correspondence and its date see E. Edel, ÄHK II 257-258 and 71. van den Hout, RA 78 (1984) 90-91. 8) See J. Sturm, OLZ 38 (1935) 92-94, H. Otten, MIO 3 (1955) 156- 15) The Akkadian (rev. 41) has i-la-e-su (le}u 2 “to win (in a legal 159, and Houwink ten Cate, Anatolica 1 (1967) 56-59. case), to overpower"), cf. J. Nougayrol, PRU IV 143 (“la présente tablette 9) Cf. CHD P 34b-35a. l'emportera sur lui”), W.H. van Soldt, Schrijvend Verleden (ed. K.R. 10) Cf. similarly Houwink ten Cate, ZA 82 (1992) 240. Veenhof, Leiden-Zutphen 1983) 155 (“dan zal dit tablet hem weer- 11) Ed. Otten, StBoT Bh. 1, 18-19. spreken”). 647 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVII N° 5/6, September-December 2000 648

KOSAK, Silvin — Konkordanz der Keilschrifttafeln III/2. 1360/c (s. 637/c): Zum Text vgl. H. Otten — Ch. Rüster, Die Texte der Grabung 1933: 1301/c - 2809/c. (Studien ZA 68, 1978, 152; E. Neu, in FsKnobloch, 1985, 264 Anm. zu den Bogazköy-Texten, 43). Verlag Otto Harrassowitz, 26 (»Niederschrift aus der Zeit um 1400 v.Chr.«); Verf., Wiesbaden, 1999. (24 cm, XII, 395). ISBN 3-447- BiOr 57, 2000, 128 sub 637/c. — Vs. II 4-7, s. J. Klinger, 04158-7; ISSN 0585-5853. DM 86,-. StBoT 37, 1996, 514f. : s. D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 42f. (Nr. 71) mit Mit dem vorliegenden Band wird die Konkordanz der Tafeln 1368/c Anm. 43: »Bearbeitung mit weiteren indir. Anschlüssen in mit dem Sigel…/c abgeschlossen.1) Die Texte dieses Heftes, Planung«. Dupl. 327/b + 330/b = KBo 30.26. die jetzt bis auf wenige Fragmente2) ediert sind, stammen im : + + = KBo 41.105 + = KBo Großteil aus dem Gebäude A auf Büyükkale; die übrigen, im 1372/c 2314/c 2318/c 2108/c 34.174 (D. Groddek); die Fragmente entfallen als eigenstän- Gebäude E gefundenen Texteinheiten wurden vor kurzem dige Nummern; s. auch ders., AoF 27, 2000, 361 (Nr. 95). von S. Alaura, AoF 25, 1998, 193ff., identifiziert, vgl. auch Dupl. zu KUB 27.49 (CTH 692.6), vgl. H. Otten – Chr. Anm. 1 auf S. VII des besprochenen Bandes. Das in frühe- Rüster, KBo XXIX, S. V. ren Konkordanzheften befolgte Prinzip, neue Zusatzstücke : vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 90f., 100f. KBo unter der niedrigsten Grabungsnummer zu erwähnen, wurde 1379/c 21.78 I 7–9 verläuft parallel zu KBo 31.171, s. H. Otten – hier aus praktischen Gründen aufgegeben. Der Verf. wird von Chr. Rüster, KBo XXXI, S. VI. jetzt an jeden neuen Anschluß »bei der ersten sich bietenden : + = KBo 41.77, s. D. Groddek, Gelegenheit« bekanntgeben, wodurch zukünftige Erfor- 1384/c 2418/c Fragmenta XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. 109. 2418/c entfällt als eigene Num- schung sicherlich gefördert wird. Auch der gesamte Tafelbe- mer. stand wird bei jedem neuen Zusatzstück wiederholt. Dies : s. Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 1995, 173, 175. zieht aber einen Nachteil nach sich, daß die Leitzahlen ein- 1401/c (s. ): KBo 20.140 = V. Haas, ChS I/1, 1984, zelner Tafeln sich damit in nächsten Konkordanzen notwen- 1408/c 1207/c Nr. 59. Siehe auch , . digerweise ändern und die gesamten Indices, wie bereits im 1691/c 2723/c : CTH 475, vgl. D. Groddek, Hethitica 14, 1999, besprochenen Band, jeweils ab 1/a gebracht werden müssen. 1415/c 30. Man kann sich gut vorstellen, was für einen Umfang sie bei , s. . weiteren Konkordanzbänden erreichen. Die folgenden Ein- 1420/c 1443/c : zu CTH 534.I. zelbemerkungen wurden um ein beträchtliches durch die Stu- 1421/c , (s. ): s. D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, dien von Herrn Detlev Groddek bereichert, der mir freundli- 1425/c 1733/c 730/c 49-52 (Nr. 80). Ein weiteres Anschlußstück ist = KBo cherweise die neuesten Ergebnisse seiner Joinsuche mitgeteilt 1840/c 31.219 (D. Groddek), das als eigene Nummer entfällt. hat. Dafür schulde ich ihm herzlichen Dank. : vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 98. : (+) 1228/c = KBo 35.140 + = KBo 1426/c 1302/c 1446/c +: CTH 475 c) C, s. D. Groddek, Hethitica 14, 33.169(+?) 1105/c = KBo 33.161(+?)IBoT 4.257. Parallel: 1427/c 1999, 32. + = KBo 35.137, 2/u, 1273/v(?), s. V. Haas, in 1556/c Reli- (s. ): vgl. ders., AoF 23, 1996, 300 (Nr. 33). (OBO 129), 1993, 70 Anm. 1431/c 1150/c gionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen (s. ): vgl. ders., AoF 25, 1998, 241f. (Nr. 19. Dazu weiterhin Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 131 sub 1105/c und 1435/c 1211/c 56). 132 sub 1228/c. , s. . : vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 82–84. Dupl. 1439/c 1577/c 1322/c : Zur Tafel 298/a++ = KBo 15.52 + 152/x = KBo 38/b++ = KBo 17.74, parallel verläuft 109/a = KUB 34.120. 1440/c 16.95 + 132/n = KBo 15.55 (+?) 313/b = KBo 15.64 + 1440/c : s. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 150, 271; G. Torri, 1329/c = KBo 40.62 + 312/c = KBo 35.256 + 314/b + 747/b + 828/c , Roma 1999, 90. Lelwani + = KBo 39.74 (+) 270/a = KBo 34.183 s. M.-C. Tré- Anm: KUB 32.128, bearb. A.M. Dinçol, RHA 27, 1713/c 1341/c mouille, SMEA 40, 1998, 265, 268f. (dort auch eine Join- fasc. 84/85, 1969, 27; s. auch D. Prechel, sÌ (ALASPM I ara skizze der Rs., die im besprochenen Band fehlt). Ein weite- 11), 1996, 126. res Anschlußstück ist = KBo 41.67; Anschluß in I : vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 159. 2448/c 1343/c 29-35, s. D. Groddek, XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. (s. ): Zur Tafel 1356/c = KBo 39.76 + Fragmenta 1356/c 177/c 2303/c 107. 2448/c entfällt als eigene Nummer. KBo 31.174 ist = KBo 41.64 (+) 38/b+++ = KBo 17.74 + 1183/c = KBo Dupl. zu KBo 30.71 III 14'ff., vgl. H. Otten – Chr. Rüster, 30.66 + 1821/c = KBo 34.10 + 177/c = KBo 38.32 s. D. KBo XXXI, S. VI. Groddek, AoF 23, 1996, 302f. (Nr. 35) und XI, Fragmenta : Das Fragment könnte an = KUB 37.185 AoF (im Druck), Nr. 108; weiterhin Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 125 1443/c 1420/c anschließen (Hinweis D. Groddek). sub 177/c. 2303/c entfällt als eigene Nummer. Vgl. ferner , s. . , , , , . 1446/c 1302/c 1695/c 1736/c 1797/c 1821/c 2057/c : vgl. D. Groddek, Hethitica 14, 1999, 147f. : + 764/c = KBo 38.40 (D. Groddek); bei einem 1452/c 1357/c : Zu prüfen wäre ein indirekter Anschluß an 719/c der beiden Fragmente ist die Seitenbezeichnung gegenüber 1518/c = KBo 38.118 (Hinweis D. Groddek). der Edition zu vertauschen. 1357/c entfällt als eigene Num- : vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 137. Siehe auch mer. 1523/c 1927/c. 1538/c: + 2305/c = KBo 41.81 (D. Groddek); bei KBo 38.44 sind die Seiten in der Edition falsch bestimmt. 1) Zu den früheren Bänden der Konkordanzen StBoT 34, 39 und 42 s. : vgl. Rez., BiOr 52, 1995, 738f. sub 165/a. meine Rez. in BiOr 52, 1995, 737–73; 55, 1998, 204–209 und 57, 2000, 1555/c 123–133. 1556/c, s. 1302/c. 2) Vgl. 1344/c, 1409/c, 1438/c, 1442/c, 1449/c, 1466/c, 1559/c, 1625/c, 1562/c: Bearb. H. Otten — V. Soucek, StBoT 8, 1969. 1673/c, 1801/c, 1840/c, 1841/c, 1861/c, 1869/c, 1937/c, 2012/c, 2018/c, Vgl. auch D. Groddek, AoF 23, 1996, 298f. (Nr. 31). 2034/c, 2070/c, 2105/c, 2120/c, 2179/c, 2180/c, 2375/c, 2390/c, 2403/c, : Der Anschluß von = KBo 33.47 an 786/b++ 2500/c, 2589/c, 2628/c, 2741/c, 2808/c. Nicht auffindbar: 1619/c, 2731/cB, 1577/c 1439/c 2802/c. = KBo 20.129 in Vs. II 43–52 ist bei D. Groddek, AoF 23, 649 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — HETTITOLOGIE 650

1996, 305 (Nr. 39) ausgeschrieben. Zum Join KBo 20.129 + zeichnis der Editionsnummern zu verbessern. Siehe auch 1577/c = KBo 40.123 s. ders., AoF 26, 1999, 308 (Nr. 90); 2361/c. vgl. auch V. Haas - I. Wegner, OLZ 94, 1999, 192f. (Nr. 123). 1713/c, s. 1440/c. 1590/c: Dupl. 601/c++ = KUB 33.26++ und KUB 17.10, 1724/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 80. vgl. H. Otten — Ch. Rüster, ZA 63, 1973, 87; weiterhin V. 1733/c, s. 1425/c. Haas, in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen (OBO 129), 1735/c: CTH 170, s. Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 1993, 81 Anm. 74. 1995, 127, 131. 1603/c: CTH 208, s. Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 1736/c, s. 1356/c. 1995, 96. 1754/c: s. D. Groddek, AoF 27, 2000, 361 (Nr. 94). 1604/c: CTH 415.C; s. D. Groddek, AoF 27, 2000, 359 1766/c: Die Zeilen I 1-7 duplizieren 1224/c = KBo 40.257 (Nr. 91); Duplikate zu 1962/cB = KBo 40.167 sind KBo I 3-9 (s. D. Groddek, Hethitica 14, 1999, 150f.; V. Haas — 24.109 + KBo 15.24 III 4-8 (s. StBoT 39, 1995, 61 sub I. Wegner, OLZ 94, 1999, 193), und die Zeilen II 1ff. 685/c 675/b) und 244/s = KBo 13.114 II 22'-26', vgl. H.A. Hoff- = KBo 40.4 II 4'ff. (G.F. del Monte, NABU 1998, Nr. 24). ner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 104. 1224/c, bei S. Kosak, StBoT 42, 1998, 86 zu CTH 832 1607/c: Join D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 39 (Nr. 67). gestellt, und 685/c gehören nach Autopsie der Originale 1611/c, 2435/c (s. 372/b): + 1914/c = KBo 41.117, s. D. durch E. Neu o.A. zu einer Tafel; vgl. auch Rez., BiOr 57, Groddek, Fragmenta XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. 104. 2000, 128 sub 685/c. 1615/c: + 530/d = KBo 41.108 (D. Groddek); vgl. auch 1774/c: Dupl. 1223/u, s. E. Rieken, StBoT 44, 1999, 212. im besprochenen Band, S. 33 Anm. 3. 1779/c: Bearb. H. Kronasser, Die Umsiedlung der 1617/c: Zu CTH 500; s. D. Groddek, AoF 25, 1998, 233 Schwarzen Gottheit (SAW 241/3), 1963. (Nr. 46). 1780/c: OH/NS, s. Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 1995, 1622/c: s. V. Haas – H.J. Thiel, AOAT 31, 1978, 331f.; V. 239. Dupl. unv. Bo 5621, vgl. V. Haas, AoF 5, 1977, 269; H. Haas — I. Wegner, ChS I/5, 1988, 419 (Nr. 98). — Der Verf. Klengel, in FsPugliese Carratelli, 1988, 107. Siehe auch 1992/c. verweist hier auf 81/a = KUB 32.41, was aber unverständlich 1783/c (s. 667/b): (+) 84/b = KBo XXXIX 264, vgl. D. ist, zumal er selbst StBoT 42, 1998, 38 Anm. 2, feststellt, daß Groddek, AoF 25, 1998, 230f. (Nr. 43). nach Photos vielleicht höchstens 1622/c = KBo 27.176 und 1797/c, s. 1356/c. 524/c = KBo 27.117 zur gleichen Tafel gehören könnten. 1813/c: Zur Textgruppe CTH 732 vgl. letzthin O. Soysal, 1629/c: Umschrift bei D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 158. Archivum Anatolicum 4, 2000, 188. Siehe auch 1866/c. 1630/c: s. D. Groddek, AoF 27, 2000, 360f. (Nr. 93). 1821/c, s. 1356/c. 1634/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 253. 1826/c: s. D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 40 (Nr. 68). 1640/c: Join von D. Groddek, SMEA 41, 1999, 85f., und 1834/c: Nach M. Popko, ZA 75, 1985, 147, erinnere Bo AoF 26, 1999, 33f. (Nr. 61) mit Anm. 2, zitiert auch bei Rez. 3069 (= KUB 59.19) an KBo 30.13. — M. Mroziak, BiOr 56, 1999, 403. 1835/c: Der Join in den Zeilen IV 12'-16' ist bei D. Grod- 1641/c: Das Fragment gehört zu einem MUNUSSU.GI- dek, SMEA 41, 1999, 86, ausgeschrieben. Ritual, vgl. V. Haas — I. Wegner, OLZ 94, 1999, 193 (Nr. 1838/c: mh. Schrift, CTH 703, Dupl. zu KBo 11.5 I 20'ff., 126). vgl. H. Otten – Ch. Rüster, KBo XXVII, S. V. – Anm.: Bei 1643/c: s. D. Groddek, AoF 25, 1998, 234f. (Nr. 48). Dupl. M. Hutter, Behexung, Entsühnung und Heilung (OBO 82), 755/b = KBo 39.66 + 809/b = KBo 24.85 (Groddek, l. cit.), 1988, 53, wird nicht dieses Fragment, sondern 2056/c = KBo vgl. auch Rez., BiOr 55, 1998, 207 sub 379/b und 209 sub 29.197 (s. dort) umschrieben. 755/b. 1840/c, s. 1425/c. 1651/c Anm.: Zum Join KBo 40.293 + KBo 14.3 s. D. 1847/c: Umschrift bei H. Otten, StBoT 15, 1971, 34. Groddek, NABU 1998, Nr. 90 und 2000, Nr. 41. Vgl. auch 1851/c, s. 1938/c. H.G. Güterbock, JCS 10, 1956, 76 (Dupl. KUB 19.18 Vs. I). 1858/c: Zu den Huwassanna–Ritualen als CTH 692.7, 1655/c: Das Fragment ist als Teil von KBo 31.4 ediert. Dupl. zu 169/a++ (s. StBoT 34, 1992, 27), vgl. H. Otten – Siehe auch 1963/c. Ch. Rüster, KBo XXIX, S. IV. 1663/c: Bearb. M. Popko, THeth 21, 1994, 138–141. 1866/c: Zur Textgruppe CTH 732 vgl. letzthin O. Soysal, 1675/c, s. 2523/c. Archivum Anatolicum 4, 2000, 188. Siehe auch 1813/c. 1689/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 76, 78. – Im Sei- 1868/c: mh. Schrift; par. zu 1927/c++ = KBo 20.44++ Rs. tentitel der S. 185 ist 1989/c Druckfehler für 1689/c. III 7'–24', s. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 87. 1691/c (s. 1207/c): KBo 33.4(+)KUB 32.22 = V. Haas, 1879/c, s. 1918/c. ChS I/1, 1984, Nr. 42. Siehe auch 1408/c, 2723/c. 1891/c Anm.: KBo 15.37 Vs. II 1-28, s. D. Prechel, IsÌara 1693/c: vgl. J. Klinger, StBoT 37, 1996, 46: »Jh.A«. (ALASPM 11), 1996, 112f. Anm. 239, 240. 1695/c, s. 1356/c. 1896/c: vgl. J. Klinger, StBoT 37, 1996, 46: »Jh.(A)«. 1698/c: + 145/c = KBo 40.34, Join H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1898/c: Bearb. D. Groddek, ZA 89, 1999, 36ff. Vgl. auch 1997 (1999), 104. ders., NABU 2000, Nr. 43. 1701/c: Vgl. D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 38f. (Nr. 66). Ein 1905/c, 1981/c, 1984/c (s. 960/c): + 2326/c = KBo 41.90; weiteres Anschlußstück ist 2474/c = KBo 41.49; KBo 41.49 zur gleichen Tafel gehört auch o.A. 2454/c = KBo 41.92, s. r.Kol. 1 = KBo 27.202 x+1, s. D. Groddek, Fragmenta XI, D. Groddek, Fragmenta XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. 105. 2326/c AoF (im Druck), Nr. 106. 2474/c entfällt als eigene Nummer. und 2454/c entfallen als eigene Nummern. Für den Anschluß KBo 35.200 + KBo 27.202 s. bereits H. 1907/cB (s. 298/a), s. 1440/c. Otten — Ch. Rüster, KBo XXXV, S. VI. 1910/c+: Zur Götterliste in der Rs. IV! 12'ff. s. E. Laro- 1705/c: Vgl. D. Groddek, OLZ 94, 1999, 196 (Nr. 13). — che, RHA 31, 1973, 83ff.; vgl. auch D. Yoshida, THeth 22, KBo 25.77 ist Druckfehler für KBo 25.67, auch im Ver- 1996, 93f., 137. 651 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVII N° 5/6, September-December 2000 652

1912/c: s. bereits die Joinskizze bei H. Otten, HTR, 1958, 2001/c Anm.: Zu KBo 19.161 und KBo 19.163 s. D. Yos- 117. hida, THeth 22, 1996, 134. 1914/c, s. 1611/c. 2019/c: Z. 3'-5', vgl. S. Alp, Tempel, 1983, 308. 1917/c: Zum Join mit 124/m = KBo 8.85 s. D. Yoshida, 2021/c: + 2355/c = KUB 34.76 (D. Groddek). THeth 22, 1996, 98f. 2038/c: D. Groddek, AoF 27, 2000, 364f. (Nr. 99). 1918/c: D. Groddek, AoF 27, 2000, 362f. (Nr. 97). Vgl. 2052/c: vgl. J. Klinger, StBoT 37, 1996, 49: »Jh.A«. 1879/c = KBo 40.141, H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 2056/c: CTH 448.1, Dupl. zu KBo 21.6 Vs. 1-5 und KBo 104. — Im Seitentitel und in der Joinskizze auf S. 214 ist 25.193 x+1-6', vgl. M. Hutter, Behexung, Entsühnung und 1618/c Druckfehler für 1918/c. Heilung (OBO 82), 1988, 11f., 53. Siehe auch 1838/c. 1920/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 179f. 2057/c, s. 1356/c. 1923/c: s. D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 44 (Nr. 73). 2059/c, s. 2387/c. 1927/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 85f. Join mit KBo 2071/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 85, 89. Siehe 40.179 stammt von D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 303 (Nr. 84). auch 1952/c. Folglich hat sich der von H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 2107/c (s. 709/b): Umschrift von 2107/c bei H. Otten, 105, vorgeschlagene indirekte Anschluß von 1927/c = KBo StBoT 15, 1971, 34. 40.179 Vs.? an 1523/c = KBo 21.88 + 224/d = KBo 20.70 III 2108/c, s. 1372/c. als hinfällig erwiesen. — 494/b ist als KUB (nicht KBo) 34.122 2117/c: In der Joinskizze auf S. 239 ist 84/b Druckfehler ediert, auch im Verzeichnis der Editionsnummern zu verbessern. für 64/b. 1932/c: Die Zeilen Vs. I x+1–14' sind bei S. Alp, Tem- 2124/c: Bearb. R. Werner, StBoT 4, 1967, 53–55. pel, 1983, 260f., und Rs. IV 2'–4' bei H. Otten, StBoT 15, 2134/c Anm.: Der Leser soll offenbar auf S. 54 (nicht 34) 1971, 34, ausgeschrieben; ferner D. Yoshida, THeth 22, des Buches von J. Klinger, StBoT 37, 1996, verwiesen werden. 1996, 122f. 2155/c: Umschrift und Übersetzung der Vs. bei Th.P.J. van 1933/c: Zum Join 1933/c = KBo 17.55 (+) 2249/c = KBo den Hout, StBoT 38, 1995, 167f. 21.75 s. D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 304f. (Nr. 86), und für 2190/c: s. R. Werner, StBoT 4, 1967, 73. den direkten Anschluß 775/c = KBo 29.208 + KBo 15.36++ 2208/c (s. 1035/c): vgl. D. Groddek, AoF 25, 1998, 237 ders., SMEA 41, 1999, 86ff. Vgl. auch Rez. — M. Mroziak, (Nr. 52); die Zeilen Rs. IV 4'-10' sind bereits bei H. Otten, BiOr 56, 1999, 403; Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 129 sub 775/c. ZA 75, 1985, 144, ausgeschrieben. Nach D. Groddek, SMEA 41, 1999, 89 Anm. 27, wären wei- 2211/c: vgl. Th.P.J. van den Hout, DMOA 25, 1998, 93ff. terhin auf Zugehörigkeit zu dieser Tafel 683/b = KBo 39.214 2212/c: s. ders., StBoT 38, 1995, 119f. und (o.A.) 1176/c = KBo 29.195 zu prüfen. 2270/c: Bearb. R. Werner, StBoT 4, 1967, 73. 1938/c: + 1851/c = KBo 40.270 (D. Groddek), das als 2272/c: vgl. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 107: eigene Nummer entfällt. »The language is Old Hittite, but the ductus is New Hittite.« 1946/c: Vgl. KUB 58.54 III und Dupl. KBo 20.85 III, s. 2303/c, s. 1356/c. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 105. 2305/c, s. 1538/c. 1950/c (s. 1167/c): vgl. D. Groddek, AoF 25, 1998, 242f. 2314/c, s. 1372/c. (Nr. 57). 2318/c, s. 1372/c. 1952/c: Bemerkenswert ist, daß das Anschlußstück 86/h = 2326/c, s. 1905/c. KBo 25.52 angeblich aus dem Areal K/20 stammt. Da es aber 2329/c (s. 43/b): vgl. D. Groddek, AoF 23, 1996, 106f. direkt an zwei weitere Fragmente aus Bk. A5 anschließt, (Nr. 28). bleibt unklar, warum der Verf. (S. 66 Anm. 1) feststellt, daß 2351/c: s. jetzt I. Klock–Fontanille, in Acts of the IIIrd der von E. Neu, StBoT 25, 1980, 113, 115, sowie von H. International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16– Otten – Chr. Rüster, KBo XXV, S. V, erwogene indirekte 22, 1996, Ankara 1998, 384–386. Join mit 2071/c = KBo 25.51 + 2381/c = KBo 30.31 (vgl. 2352/c (s. 209/b): Zur Umschrift der Zeilen Vs. I 12-16 ferner D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 95 Anm. 29) aus diesem und Rs. IV 27'-32' des damals noch unpublizierten Frag- Grund entfalle. – Das auf die Joinskizze auf S. 225 einge- ments 2352/c s. H. Otten, StBoT 15, 1971, 35. zeichnete Fragment ist 263/e, nicht 86/h. 2353/c: Zur Vs. vgl. unv. Bo 4806 Rs. III?, s. H. Otten – 1961/c: + 2722/c = KBo 41.110, s. D. Groddek, Frag- Chr. Rüster, KBo XLI, S. V. menta XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. 102. 2722/c entfällt als eigene 2355/c, s. 2021/c. Nummer. 2356/c: + 18/k = KBo 7.58, CTH 403.2.A, s. D. Groddek, 1962/cB, s. 1604/c. Fragmenta XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. 101. 1963/c: Das Fragment ist als Teil von KBo 31.4 ediert. 2360/c: s. Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 1995, 204f. Siehe auch 1655/c. 2361/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 114f., 297. Par. 1967/c: vgl. D. Prechel, IsÌara (ALASPM 11), 1996, 113 1705/c(+). mit Anm. 241. 2387/c: + 709/b+++ = KBo 23.1 (s. 709/b). D. Groddek 1973/c: + 225/b = KBo 39.71 (D. Groddek). (Brief vom 26.11.1999) hat mir zu dieser Tafel das Folgende 1981/c, s. 1905/c. mitgeteilt: »Ungeachtet des StBoT 43, 65 Anm. 1, mitge- 1984/c, s. 1905/c. teilten Autopsieergebnisses, daß 2059/c nicht zu 709/b+++ 1991/c, s. 2387/c. gehören könne, scheint mit 2387/c das missing link zwischen 1992/c: Par. zu 1780/c = KUB 29.1 IV 17-19 (CTH 414), 709/b+++ und 2059/c vorzuliegen. Erneute Kollation ist hier s. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 106. unumgänglich. In Vs. II scheint 1991/c die Lücke zwischen 1993/c: s. D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 48f. (Nr. 79). — AnAr 7003 und 2059/c zu füllen.« Vgl. dagegen H.A. Hoff- Dupl./Par. 720/c = KBo 39.165 (vgl. V. Haas — I. Wegner, ner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 106, der 1991/c = KBo 40.307 als OLZ 91, 1996, 574) und 2523/c++ = KBo 35.162++. Dupl. zu KBo 23.1 + ABoT 29 I 11-16 ansieht. 653 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — HETTITOLOGIE 654

2393/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 139f., 294. 2558/c: s. D. Groddek, AoF 27, 2000, 363f. (Nr. 98). 2409/c: KBo 40.314 ist Par./Dupl. zu KBo 19.142 (CTH 2566/c: mh. Schrift. Das Fragment ist als KBo 41.1a, nicht 721) III 1-11, s. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 106. 1b ediert. 2418/c, s. 1384/c. 2567/c, s. 2437/c. 2422/c: I 7–10, s. H. Otten, ZA N.F. 17, 1955, 127. 2585/c: Umschrift des damals noch unpublizierten Frag- 2430/c: Join D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 301f. (Nr. 81); ments 2585/c bei H. Otten, StBoT 15, 1971, 36. vgl. auch Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 132 sub 1215/c. — In der 2587/c, s. 2664/c. Joinskizze auf S. 249 ist die Angabe 1215/c — Stück vom 2593/c: 254/c ist Druckfehler für 254/b. Zum Join 254/b linken Rand der Rs. — ausgefallen, wiewohl das Fragment + 2593/c = KBo 17.15 s. bereits H. Otten, ZA N.F. 17, 1955, eingezeichnet ist. 126. 2431/c: Die Zeilen Rs. III 4–14 sind bei D. Yoshida, 2602/c: CTH 647. Wegen der sonst sehr selten belegten THeth 22, 1996, 219, ausgeschrieben. Dupl. ab III 23 ist HT Schreibung GISE.URUDU ist dieses Fragment wohl in die 40, s. H. Otten – Ch. Rüster, KBo XXIV, S. VII. StBoT 34, 1992, 11 Anm. 5, genannte Textgruppe einzuord- 2435/c, s. 1611/c. nen, vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 145. Siehe ferner Rez., 2437/c: Bearb. H. Otten, HTR, 1958, 66ff. Weitere BiOr 52, 1995, 738 sub 7/a, und BiOr 57, 2000, 131 sub Anschlußstücke, die als eigene Nummern entfallen, sind 1013/c. 2567/c = KBo 41.26 und 24/b = KUB 32. 111, s. D. Grod- 2604/c: Dupl. 263/c + 288/c = KUB 31.115, vgl. E. Rie- dek, Fragmenta XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. 103. — In der Join- ken, StBoT 44, 1999, 218f. skizze auf S. 251 ist 131/o Druckfehler für 313/o. 2612/c: Die Zeilen Vs. II 8–11 und 17–22 sind bei D. Yos- 2448/c, s. 1907/cB. hida, THeth 22, 1996, 263f., ausgeschrieben. 2454/c, s. 1905/c. 2613/c, s. 2544/c. 2470/c: s. V. Haas — I. Wegner, ChS I/5, 1988, 453-457 2625/c: Zum Join mit KUB 6.5 s. H. Otten – Ch. Rüster, (Nr. 111). KBo XLI, S. V. 2474/c, s. 1701/c. 2632/c: Rs. IV/V? dupliziert KUB 10.52 sowie KUB 56.46 2491/c: vgl. D. Yoshida, THeth 22, 1996, 69. + KUB 43.48 + KBo 17.42, vgl. H. Otten – Ch. Rüster, KBo 2492/c: + 1010/c = KBo 40.231, das als eigene Nummer XLI, S. IV. entfällt, s. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 106. — 2634/c: Dupl. 281/b = KBo 20.43 (Hinweis D. Groddek). Umschrift des Fragments 2492/c = KBo 33.170 (ohne 2640/c: mh. Schrift, s. J. Klinger, StBoT 37, 1996, 688 Anschlußstücke) bei I. Wegner — M. Salvini, ChS I/4, 1991, und 704 Anm. 25. 212 (Nr. 39). — Zum unv. Dupl. Bo 7871 vgl. dieselben, ChS 2664/c (s. 745/c): + 2587/c = KBo 41.12 (D. Groddek), I/2, 1986, 66. das als eigene Nummer entfällt. 2493/c: Das Fragment dürfte nach H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 2671/c: Join H. Otten – Chr. Rüster, KBo XXIX, S. V. 1997 (1999), 106, einen indirekten Anschluß an KUB 20.88 2689/c: Umschrift der Rs. bei D. Yoshida, THeth 22, I 1-13 (CTH 647.5) ergeben. 1996, 159. 2494/c Anm.: Zum Dupl. KBo 16.100 vgl. D. Yoshida, 2691/c: CTH 628.10.Tafel.J., vgl. M.-C. Trémouille, THeth 22, 1996, 248f. SMEA 40, 1998, 270. 2514/c: (+) 1030/c = KBo 40.193, s. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 2712/c (s. 710/b): Zu dieser Tafel und den Zeilen Rs. V 49, 1997 (1999), 105. Folglich ist für 1030/c die Datierung 1–16 (vgl. StBoT 39, 1995, 64 Anm. 3) s. bereits H. Otten, mh. entgegen StBoT 42, 1998, 72 Anm. 2, gesichert, vgl. BiOr 8, 1951, 227. auch Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 125 sub 307/c, 131 sub 1030/c. 2722/c, s. 1961/c. Nach J. Klinger, StBoT 37, 1996, 44, zu CTH *649. 2723/c (s. 1207/c): KBo 33.7 = V. Haas, ChS I/1, 1984, 2517/c: s. Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 1995, 173, 175. Nr. 63. Siehe auch 1408/c, 1691/c. 2520/c: (+) 237/b = KUB 32.100, s. L. Mascheroni, 2728/c: Zu dieser Tafel s. D. Groddek, AoF 25, 1998, SMEA 24, 1984, 160f.; Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 232f. (Nr. 45) mit Anm. 40; ferner ders., AoF 26, 1999, 302 1995, 173. (Nr. 82), und Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 128 sub 642/c. Weiterhin 2523/c: Vs. I verläuft parallel zu 1675/c = KBo 35.157. schließt 502/c = KBo 40.311 an KUB 39.14 II 5'-11' an, s. Vgl. jetzt D. Prechel, IsÌara (ALASPM 11), 1996, 107 Anm. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 106. 502/c entfällt als 229: CTH 704; G. Torri, Lelwani, Roma 1999, 103f. Siehe eigene Nummer. auch 1993/c. 2729/c: Der Anschluß 84/d = KBo 34.186 + 2729/c = KBo 2532/c, 2538/c, 2599/c (s. 962/c): Umschrift der damals 21.54 stammt von D. Groddek, AoF 23, 1996, 303 (Nr. 36). noch unpublizierten Fragmente 2532 + 2538/c + 2599/c = 2732/c, s. 2544/c. KBo 27.196 (Vs. II 1-13) bei H. Otten, StBoT 15, 1971, 36 2742/c: CTH 475, vgl. D. Groddek, Hethitica 14, 1999, 30. (dort irrig als Rs. IV bestimmt). — Bearbeitung des Textes 2753/c: Zu CTH 450?, s. H.A. Hoffner, JCS 49, 1997 (ohne das Anschlußstück 962/c) von I. Wegner — M. Sal- (1999), 106. vini, ChS I/4, 1991, 69-74 (Nr. 5). 2758/c: Zitiert von E. Laroche unter CTH 416.2. 2536/c: Join D. Groddek, AoF 26, 1999, 305-7 (Nr. 88); 2764/c: Zum Anschluß von 641/b++ = KBo 16.8 an s. auch Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 131 sub 1081/c. 2764/c = KBo 16.14 s. bereits A. Kammenhuber, Or NS 39, 2544/c, 2732/c (s. 594/b): Zum Text 2613/c = KBo 41.69 1970, 548 = THeth 19/2, 1990, 493; vgl. auch D. Groddek, + 2544/c = KBo 21.72 + 599/b = KBo 30.115 + 594/b = KBo AoF 23, 1996, 102f. (Nr. 22). 39.82 + 152/q = KBo 14.80 (+) 2732/c = KBo 24.113 s. D. 2768/c: s. D. Groddek, Hethitica 14, 1999, 149f.; dazu fer- Groddek, Fragmenta XI, AoF (im Druck), Nr. 110. ner Rez., BiOr 57, 2000, 127 sub 507/c. 2547/c: Bearb. M. Popko, THeth 21, 1994, 130–133. 2777/c: lk.Kol. dupliziert KBo 3.23 I 9-13, s. H.A. Hoff- 2553/c: mh. Schrift, s. J. Klinger, StBoT 37, 1996, 53. ner, JCS 49, 1997 (1999), 107, vgl. auch im besprochenen 655 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVII N° 5/6, September-December 2000 656

Band S. 100 Anm. 1. Zu überprüfen wäre nach Hoffner Zusammengehörigkeit o.A. von KBo 40.371 und KBo 14.41. 2789/c: vgl. Th.P.J. van den Hout, StBoT 38, 1995, 239 Anm. 460. 2794/c: vgl. J. Siegelová, Verwaltungspraxis, 1986, 274f. 2805/c: zum Kult von Arinna (Hinweis M. Popko). Korrekturen zu den Verzeichnissen der Inventar– und der Editionsnummern: »254/c 2593/c« (S. 305) für 254/b; »KBo 10.10 2241/c« (S. 323) für 2242/c; »KBo 24.85 755/b« (S. 331) für 809/b; »KUB 25.23 639/c*« (S. 359) für KUB 25.13; »KUB 35.93 71/a« (zweimal wiederholt auf S. 365). Dem Verf., der durch seine planmäßigen Bemühungen um die Rekonstruktion und inhaltliche Einordnung der Tafeln schrittweise zur Erschließung der (meistens fragmentarisch erhaltenen) Textfunde aus Bogazköy-Hattusa beiträgt, gebührt unser Dank für seine mühevolle, aber in jeder Hin- sicht erfolgreiche Arbeit.

Warszawa, August 2000 Piotr TARACHA

Top View