Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:57:49.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The AGRIG in the Hittite Texts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Itamar Singer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

LÚAGRIG, Akkadian abarakku, rendered usually as “major domo”, “steward”, “overseer”, “administrator”, or an office of a similar nature, is attested in the oldest of Hittite documents. In addition to late copies of texts belonging to the Old Kingdom (the Palace Chronicle and the Telipinu Decree) the AGRIG is also found in an original Old Hittite document, the Inandik Tablet, which is probably to be dated to Hattušili I. However, the vast majority of the references are found in later texts or copies.

The Hittite reading of AGRIG is not known. It must be an a- stem as shown by the complemented forms: sg. nom. LUAGRIG-aš (KUB XI 28 III 5′), acc.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 34 , December 1984 , pp. 97 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 HW 264 “Verwalter, Schaffner”. This rendering of abarakku in the Mesopotamian realm has been introduced by Landsberger, B., AfO 10 (1935), 150 n. 48Google Scholar, thus discarding Klauber's, E. “Salbenmischer” (Assyrisches Beamtentum, 1910, 81Google Scholar).

For AGRIG in the non-Hittite sources see CAD A I 32—35. It has since turned up at Ebla (Pettinato, G., Rivista Biblica Italiana 25, 1977, 240Google Scholar). For Ugarit see Ugaritica V (1968), 264 n. 1Google Scholar; Kühne, C., AOAT 17 (1973), 85 n. 421Google Scholar. For the Assyrian (a)barakku, by far the best attested outside Hatti, see also Deller, K., Or 34 (1965), 261Google Scholar; Kinnier-Wilson, J. V., The Nimrud Wine Lists (1972), 105 ff.Google Scholar; Postgate, J. N., Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (1974), 104 fGoogle Scholar.

For the unlikely etymological connection of abarakku with (a) biblical 'abrēk (Gen. 41, 43; Ungnad, A., ZAW 41, 1923, 204 ffGoogle Scholar.) and (b) hbrk in the Phoenician version of the Karatepe inscription (B l; Rosenthal, F., ANET 653Google Scholar n. 1) see the refutations of Redford, D. B., A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (1970), 226 ffGoogle Scholar. and O'Connor, M., Rivista di Studi Fenici 1 (1977), 8 f.Google Scholar, respectively.

2 AGRIG is not attested in the Cappadocian tablets. A functionally similar office is that of the rabi ḫuršatim, “chief storehouse keeper”. Garelli, P., Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (1963), 217Google Scholar; Bilgiç, E., Anadolu 8 (1964), 159Google Scholar.

3 A substantive palaeographical evolution of the sign AGRIG (IGI + DUB) cannot be established. In the Inandik tablet the horizontal wedge of the IGI component crosses the vertical wedge on its left side (Balkan, K., Inandik, 98 no. 20Google Scholar) which contrasts with Late Hittite examples where the horizontal wedge begins to the right of the vertical (e.g. KBo XVI 77 +, 3′, 6′, 11′; cf. also Ch. Rüster, StBoT 20, no. 224 for the evolution of the sign ŠI). However, in KBo XX 4 + I 3, also written in the typical Old Hittite ductus, the AGRIG sign is similar to the late examples.

4 Two Hittite readings suggested for AGRIG both end in -i, and are therefore out of consideration. Cornelius, F., RHA XIII/57 (1955), 58 n. 12Google Scholar suggested the reading telipuri on the basis of VBoT 68 (see §5.3). However, Laroche, E., RA 48 (1954), 48Google Scholar has shown that telipuri is an administrative sub-division—”canton”, “district”, or the like.

Steiner, G., RIA III (1966), 308Google Scholar considered LUurianni- as a possible reading of AGRIG on the evidence of the second section of the Palace Chronicle (KBo III 34 I 5–10), where Papa the LÚurianni- distributes “bread for the troops” (NINDA.ERÍN MEŠ) and a type of beer (marnuan). These products are usually distributed by the AGRIG, hence the suggested equation. However, note especially the occurrence in the same text of the accusative forms LÚuriannin (KBo III 34 I 5) and LÚAGRIG-an (II 11).

5 Singer, I., StBoT 28, cfGoogle Scholar. n. 52!, 62, 92.

6 LÚAG]RIG É NA4KIŠIB URUḪatt[i (758/u, 12′); LÚAGRIG É NA4KI[ŠlB (KBo XXIV 95 rev. 2′); LÚAGR[IG ŠA É NA4KI[ŠIB (KBo XXIV 95 rev. 12′ = Bo 4801 rev. 6′).

7 Singer, I., StBot 27 (1983Google Scholar).

8 KBo XVII 36 revGoogle Scholar. IV 4′ = KBo XX 6Google Scholar, 4′ (festival text) LÚAGRIG.TUR pai; KUB XIII 3Google Scholar IV 9′ (CTH 265 “Instruction for Temple Officials”) LÚA]GRIG.TUR LUGAL-waš.

9 For the LÚNA.KAD as a supplier of provisions see Souček, V.—Siegelová, J., ArOr 42 (1974), 43Google Scholar.

10 CTH 291. The paragraphs are numbered in accordance with the standard edition of Friedrich, J., Die hethitischen (1959Google Scholar).

11 For the verb išḫuna- see Oettinger, N., MSS 35 (1976), 94Google Scholar (”… ihre Kinder stuft man als geringwertig ein”).

12 For this translation see below.

13 For a detailed discussion on these paragraphs see Friedrich, J. in Symb. Koschaker (1939), 7 fGoogle Scholar.

14 Goetze, A., ANET (1955), 195Google Scholar and Hoffner, H. A., The Laws of the Hittites (Doct. Diss. 1963), 111Google Scholar translate “for two years”, “for four years”.

15 Cf. Siegelová, Jana, StBot 14 (1971), 23Google Scholar.

16 Note KUB XXVI 2 rev.Google Scholar (see §§1, 5.2), a list of AGRIGs of various towns among which we find in 1. 5′ LÚAGRIG LÚNA.KAD. Compare also the rab nāqidāte in the Assyrian administration who has the authority over the palace flocks (Postgate, J. N., Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, 1974, 156Google Scholar).

17 Grothus, J., Die Rechtsordnung der Hethiter (1973), 20Google Scholar. However, note that the phrase is also absent in the Old Hittite exemplar of I§35 (see below).

18 See also Gurney, O. R., The Hittites (1981), 92Google Scholar.

19 Could it be somehow connected with the well-known practice of early times to apply a girdle during pregnancy and labour as an aid in childbirth? See Hastings, (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951), VI p. 229Google Scholars.v. “girdle”.

20 Cf. Friedrich, J.,Symb. Koschaker (1939), 7 fGoogle Scholar. for a similar form of marriage in the Roman Law. See also Haase, R., Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 97 (1980), 22 n. 37Google Scholar.

21 Contrary to Neufeld, E., The Hittite Laws (1951), 148Google Scholar who maintains that “the status of the AGRIG and of the SIPAD was the lowest within the class of slaves”. Also Goetze, A., Kleinasien2 (1957), 107Google Scholar.

22 Goetze, A., RHA I (1930), 19 n. 10Google Scholar; Kleinasien2 (1957), 107 n. 2Google Scholar. This is in contrast to the high status of the abarakku outside Hatti, and in particular in Assyria. A Middle Assyrian list of high officials (KAV 135; Schroeder, O., ZA 34, 1922, 165 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.) has the abarakku in the fourth place, preceded only by the king, the crown-prince and the tartānu. He also fills the office of eponym.

23 The space is too small for the restoration pittenuzzi suggested by Friedrich, , HG, 26 n. 6Google Scholar. See photograph in Hrozný, B., Code Hittite (1922), pl. VGoogle Scholar. (H. G. Güterbock, written communication).

24 KUB XXIX 29Google Scholar III 2–4 (q3, Friedrich, J., HG, 78Google Scholar notes 3–5).

25 As suggested by Grothus, J., Die Rechtsordnung der Hethiter (1973), 24Google Scholar; refuted by Güterbock, H. G., JCS 27 (1975), 176Google Scholar.

26 Balkan, K., Eine Schenkungsurkunde aus der althethitischen Zeit gefunden in İnandik 1966 (1973Google Scholar).

27 See also below n. 34.

28 CTH 8. See Güterbock, H. G., ZA 44 (1938), 100 f.Google Scholar,; Hardy, R. S., AJSL 58 (1941), 189 ff.Google Scholar; Kammenhuber, A., Saeculum 9 (1958), 139Google Scholar; Balkan, K., Inandik (1973), 72 ffGoogle Scholar. Gurney, O. R., Hittites (1981), 174 fGoogle Scholar.

29 Partial transliteration of duplicate A in Friedrich, J., Hethitisches Elementarbuch II (1967), 56Google Scholar. For a summary of the passage see Hardy, op. cit. 191 f.

30 KBo III 34Google Scholar has the plural LÚMAŠ which gives little sense. The translation follows the duplicate KBo III 36 which has LÚ-eš; see also KBo III 36 I 10Google Scholar.

31 HW, 342; Erg. 2, 14Google Scholar “Rebhuhn(?)”. See also Hoffner, H. A., The Laws of the Hittites (Doct. Diss. 1963), 159Google Scholar; Tischler, J., Heth. Etym. Glos. Lfg. 3 (1980), 461Google Scholar.

32 The emendation of the first sign to URU suggested by Forrer, BoTU 12A is necessary since ma-an-ku-wa makes no sense. It is not clear why the absolute case is used here instead of the locative, as found in lines 10 and 11.

33 The only other occurrence of this verb is also in a fragment of the Chronicle, Palace, VBoT 33, 9Google Scholar′ pa-ag-nu-e-ir.

34 This is also reflected in the next episode (II 15 ff.), where Aškaliya, still in the post of Lord of, , appoints Išpudašinara, formerly a low functionary, governor of Ulamma. The important post held by Aškaliya before his degradation makes the identification suggested by Balkan, , İnandik, 73Google Scholar with the prince Aškaliya, who appears as a witness in the İnandik Tablet (rev. 24) quite probable.

35 Contrary to Hardy, , AJSL 58 (1941), 192Google Scholar, I interpret the second part of the passage (from šarkuš “mighty” and onwards) as a rhetorical repetition of the former facts and not as a further incident in Aškaliya's career. Thus, the office of AGRIG and Aškaliya's humiliation are intimately connected, a fact not without significance for our subject. The idiomatic closing sentence is not clear, but the distribution of partridges in the town of Kuzuruwa is apparently connected with Aškaliya's former post as Lord of Ḫurma.

36 For similar idioms see Otten, H., StBot 17 (1973), 44Google Scholar. For the translation given here see Starke, F., StBot 23 (1977), 54 fGoogle Scholar.

37 In the first passage the appointment is expressed by accusative + iya- “to make” (LÚAGRIG-an i-e-it; cf. LÚmaniyaḫatallan i-e-it KBo III 34 II 16) and in the second by a denominative -aḫḫ- verb (LÚAGRIG-aḫḫ- cf. GEME-aḫh-, ŠEŠ-aḫḫ-,LÚŠU.GI-aḫḫ-).

38 CTH 19. For a transliteration of the paragraphs dealt with above see E. Forrer, BoTU 23A III 4 ff.; Eisele, W., Der Telipinu-Erlass (Doct. Diss. 1970Google Scholar). None of the extant duplicates of the text is written in the typical Old Hittite ductus (Rüster, E. Neu—Ch., StBoT 21, 1975, p. VIIGoogle Scholar).

39 See Sommer, F., HAB (1938), 140 f.Google Scholar; Güterbock, H. G., Symb. Koschaker (1939), 29Google Scholar; Hardy, R. S., AJSL 58 (1941), 211 ff.Google Scholar; Goetze, A., Kleinasien2 (1957), 109Google Scholar; Gurney, O. R., CAH II3, Part 1 (1973), 664Google Scholar; W. Eisele, op. cit. 41 ff.; Archi, A., Or Ant 12 (1973), 109Google Scholar.

40 Archi, A., OrAnt 12 (1973), 215Google Scholar: approximately Cappadocia and Lycaonia. See discussion below §5.6.

41 See the discussion below, pp. 122 and 125.

42 Ta-ap-pa-aš-pa-aš in III 19 is perhaps located in the Halys Basin, if it is identical with Tạ-pa?-aš-pa in KUB XXXI 68Google Scholar obv. 5′ that must be located not far from Ḫatina in the region of Nerik.

43 Note in this connection CTH 238 (with n. 2).

44 For imiul- “fodder for horses” see HW, 341; Kammenhuber, A.Hip. Heth. (1961), 168 fGoogle Scholar. and n. 4; Goetze, A., JCS 16 (1962), 30Google Scholar; Hoffner, H. A., Alimenta (1974), 70 fGoogle Scholar.

45 The resemblance of the names Dammašḫunaš and Ḫalippaššuwaš (1. 41) with the Syrian towns is merely accidental.

46 For this expression see Sommer, F., HAB (1938), 139 fGoogle Scholar. The Akkadian parallel fragment KUB III 89Google Scholar has here ]ạ-na KUR-tim dam-m[e (IV 2; see HAB, 140 n. 2).

47 For ileššar see HW Erg. 3, 16Google Scholar.

48 Sommer, F., HAB, 140Google Scholar suggests for ḫamenk- the idiomatic meaning “to confiscate”, “to usurp”. For damenk- see note (a) above.

49 See also Sommer, , HAB, 140 n. 2Google Scholar.

50 For LÚMEŠ AGRIG É NA4KIŠIB see n. 6.

51 Riemschneider, K., MIO 6 (1958), 321 ffGoogle Scholar.

52 §§32–34 of the Telipinu Decree; KBo XXV 176Google Scholar (with dupl. KUB X 13Google Scholar) left edge 1 f. Singer, I., StBot 27 (1983), 104Google Scholar.

53 Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th ed. (1974), Micropaedia Vol. VI p. 917Google Scholar.

54 Singer, I., StBot 27 (1983), Ch. VIGoogle Scholar.

55 See also Laroche, , CTH p. 117 n. 1Google Scholar.

56 For this festival see StBot 27.

57 See Haas, V., Der Kult von Nerik (1970), 20 ff., 114 ffGoogle Scholar. in KBo XII 65Google Scholar V 4′ the AGRIG of Nerik figures in a list of persons. It may also be related to the religious administration of Nerik.

58 The absence of the AGRIG from various instruction texts (with the exception of KUB XIII 3Google Scholar IV 9′ in fragmentary context; see n. 8) is rather surprising. One would expect to encounter the AGRIG in texts of a more general nature like e.g. the “Instruction for the Commander of the Border Guards” (CTH 261) which covers almost every aspect of everyday life in a Hittite town—religious, juridical, economic and building activities.

59 Wine is never delivered by the AGRIG (see below §3.2); this also supports the restoration [pí-a]n-zi.

60 LÚZABAR.DIB = Akkad. zabardibbu. Suggested translations: “Weinschalenhalter, Truchsess” (HW, 300Google Scholar), “Kellermeister” (Steiner, G., RIA III, 1966, 308Google Scholar). Hittite reading unknown. Steiner, , RIA III, 308Google Scholar suggests equating it with LÚ.TIN.NA. On the other hand he refutes the possibility of equating it with LÚ.GEŠTIN because of KBo XXI 82Google Scholar IV 15′ (441/c + ). However, in this passage we find LÚ.GEŠTIN precisely where LÚZABAR.DIB is expected—delivering wine and KAŠ.GEŠTIN. Therefore it is very plausible that LÚ.GEŠTIN is an alternate name for the same office.

61 The “wine-supplier” holds a post similar to that of the AGRIG and they frequently appear together in the ration lists. One would therefore expect to find an administrative system of “ZABAR.DIB towns” comparable to the complex system of AGRIG towns (see §4). The only example of a local “wine-supplier” however, is found in KBo X 31Google Scholar IV 15′, LÚZABAR.DIB URUMadilla. This may count in support of the existence of such a system, but is of course insufficient for its confirmation. Considering the large number of local AGRIGs found in the texts, it can hardly be accidental that no more local ZABAR.DIBs are attested, unless we assume that in contexts where a local AGRIG and a ZABAR.DIB are mentioned together (e.g. the KI.LAM ration list KBo XVI 68Google Scholar + ), the latter belongs to the same town as the former. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a possibility. On the contrary, the ZABAR.DIB of Madilla appears in the same passage with the AGRIG of Takiputta. In the “Herald's Lists” VBoT 68Google Scholar, the first list has the gentilicon Matillail. This suggests the possibility that this is a list of “wine-suppliers” (see further §4.3).

62 StBot 27, p. 62Google Scholar. Similar contexts may be found in VBoT 68 (Güterbock, H. G., JNES 20, 1961, 89Google Scholar and §4.3 below) and in KBo XVII 36Google Scholar II 9′ f. … nu 3-ŠU Šu-uk-zi-y[a-il (10…(10′) 3-ŠU ḫal-za-a-i … If our reconstruction is correct, the AGRIG of Šukziya is announced by his gentilic name three times.

63 See Otten, H., StBot 15 (1971), 8Google Scholar.

64 KBo XXI 82Google Scholar IV 10′ Ì.ŠAḪ iš-ḫé-it-ka-aš LÀL. The meaning of the second word is not known.

65 Hoffner, H. A., Alimenta (1974), 38Google Scholar.

66 Hoffner, op. cit., 126.

67 For marnuwan(t), which is already attested in the Cappadocian tablets (von Schuler, E., AOAT 1, 317 ff.Google Scholar), see Otten-Souçek, , StBot 8 (1969), 13, 38Google Scholar. Steiner, G., RIA III (1966), 306Google Scholar identifies it as a type of beer. (See further below.)

68 Not identical with walḫi. (Steiner, op. cit. contra Güterbock, , HW, 343Google Scholar.)

69 KAŠ.LÀL “mead” (Steiner, , RIA III, 306Google Scholar) is supplied by the LÚMEŠ KAŠ.LÀL (KBo XVII 9Google Scholar + II 8′–9′; KBo XX 33Google Scholar + obv. 8).

70 Steiner, , RIA III, 306Google Scholar “a sort of inferior or young wine”. An interpretation “beer (or) wine” (Kammenhuber, A., OrNS 39, 1970, 563Google Scholar; Archi, A., Or Ant 12, 1973, 217Google Scholar n. 57) is excluded because of the clear distinction between beverages supplied by the AGRIG and those supplied by the ZABAR.DIB.

71 The only possible exception is KBo X 30Google Scholar + II 5: x DUG.S[A5KAŠ.GEŠTIN appears in a fragmentary list closed by LÚ AGRIG UR]UTakkipudda pa[i. However, juxtaposition with the parallel passage KBo X 31Google Scholar IV 12–16 makes it almost certain that here too KAŠ.GEŠTIN is supplied by the ZABAR.DIB.

72 Archi, A., OrAnt 12 (1973), 221, 225Google Scholar.

73 There is nothing in the texts, however, to indicate that the wider range of responsibilities entails additional privileges. A “chief steward” (abarakku rabû), as in Assyria (cf. Postgate, N., Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, 230Google Scholar) is not attested in the Hittite material.

74 In the same passage blue and red wool, i.e. dyed wool, is apparently kept in a different store and is delivered by the LÚ É NA4KIŠIB.

75 RHA I (1930), 19Google Scholar with n. 10; Kleinasien2 (1957), 10Google Scholar. Further contexts which substantiate this statement are 758/u, 12′ LÚAG]RIG É NA4.KIŠIB URUḪa-at-t[i; KBo XXIV 95Google Scholar obv. 2′, 12′ = Bo 4801 rev. 6′ LÚAGRIG ŠA É NA4KI[ŠIB.

76 One may compare the treasuries of thirteen Greek towns in Olympia as a distant analogy to this phenomenon.

77 JNES 20 (1961), 85–97Google Scholar.

78 Haas, V., Nerik (1970), 114 ffGoogle Scholar.

79 See also below n. 118 for the storerooms of Maşat Höyük.

80 “The house of Tuwanuwa” (at the end of KBo X 24Google Scholar IV) is missing; “The House of Ḫupišna” is connected with dalugai [ḫatalk]išni(?) (V 9); the “house” of a town whose name ends on -y[a (V 22) must be located in the environs of ḫaniya- gate (V 19); after the “house” of Kattila the procession arrives at the temple of Šura (KUB X 1 I 4 ff.).

81 For a summary on É NA4KIŠIB (Akk. bīt kunukki, Hittite *pir šiyannaš), literally the “house of the sealing” referring to the sealed objects stored in it, see Archi, A., Or Ant 12 (1973), 214 ffGoogle Scholar. with previous literature.

82 É. GAL URUKaraḫna (KUB XXXVIII 12Google Scholar II 9–11); for the “great houses” of Nenašša, Tuwanuwa and Ḫupišna see below. Cf. also Güterbock, H. G., Oriens 15 (1962), 345Google Scholar.

83 É.GAL is used here in the sense of “belonging to the royal estate” (Güterbock, H. G., XIX RAI, 1974, 306Google Scholar).

84 É.GALLIMdāi (KBo XXI 82 IV 9′); LUGAL-wan É-az (KBo XX 74Google Scholar III 7 ff.); IŠTU É.GKLLIM (KUB XXXI 57Google Scholar I 12′).

85 More specific terms for various types of storehouses are É IN.NU.DA “straw barn”, Ékarupaḫi- “granary” (Hoffner, H. A., Alimenta, 1974, 37Google Scholar); É UNUT “house of instruments”; É LÚZABAR.DIB “wine-cellar” (literally “house of the wine-supplier”); É LÚŠÀ.TAM “treasury” (“house of the treasurer”); É NA4KIŠIB imiulaš “storehouse (for horse-)fodder”.

86 For the list of granaries in §§38–39 of the Telipinu Decree see above §2.4. Bread is stored in the É NA4KIŠIB according to KBo VI 34Google Scholar II 33–34.

87 KBo I 14 I 20 ffGoogle Scholar. (Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna, 1940, 27 ff.Google Scholar); Jewellery and other ornaments are often delivered from the “house of the scribes-on-wood” (É LÚDUB.SAR GIŠ, KBo X 30Google Scholar II 33′ f.).

88 KBo XI 14Google Scholar IV 17′ f.; IBoT I 31 obv. 11 ffGoogle Scholar.

89 See also Archi, A., OrAnt 12 (1973), 217Google Scholar.

90 With the possible exception of the “novice AGRIG” (LÚAGRIG.TUR, see §1).

91 Although abarakkū of towns are found in Assyria Postgate, J. N, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire 104 f.Google Scholar), nothing comparable to the complex geographical system of AGRIG towns has turned up yet in non-Hittite sources.

92 The references to the KI.LAM text (marked with an asterisk) are cited according to the line numeration of the transliteration in StBot 28. Duplicates are excluded.

93 We may note in this connection that several AGRIGs who figure in texts written in the typical Old Hittite ductus are also attested in later texts: the AGRIG of Ankuwa, (KBo XX 4Google Scholar + I 3), the AGRIG of Ḫanḫana (Inandik tablet, 1.3), the AGRIG of Nerik, (KBo XVI 72Google Scholar, 4′), the AGRIG of Kaštama, (KBo XVI 73Google Scholar, 5′), the AGRIG of Ḫarḫarna (KBo XVI 84Google Scholar, 3′). However, this is not sufficient to establish a rule, and it is not impossible that some places were added and others excluded during subsequent stages of Hittite history.

94 Or perhaps Ka[š]-t[a!-ma as in I 13′, 22′.

95 Otten, H., KBo XVI p. XIIIGoogle Scholar: Ka-x-annupi[(?). This has no parallels. Among the attested AGRIGs beginning on Ka-, Ka-at-ti-la would best fit the traces.

96 See n. 61.

97 Reference given in Lebrun, R., Šamuḫa (1976), 187Google Scholar. It should probably read Kaš-(Kaštama ?).

98 Obviously a corrupt form. Goetze, A., RHA I (1930Google Scholar), suggests the emendation Šanaḫuitta. Šukziya seems more plausible to me.

99 Güterbock, H. G., JNES 20 (1961), 87 ffGoogle Scholar.

100 ib. 96.

101 ib. 88 f.; Singer, I., ZA 65 (1975), 90 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 For the identification of Tapika with Maşat Höyük see below. Is it a mere coincidence that three places beginning with Ta- follow each other, or is it perhaps possible that phonetical resemblances also play a role in the composition of such lists?

103 Archi, A., SMEA 14 (1971), 221Google Scholar thinks that there is a connection to the “festival of the torches”, EZEN zuparu. For this festival see Haas, V., Nerik (1970), 61Google Scholar; Otten, H., StBot 15 (1971), 9 fGoogle Scholar.

104 Goetze, A., RHA I (1930), 18–30Google Scholar; RHA XV/61 (1957), 92 ff.Google Scholar; Garstang, J.—Gurney, O. R., Geography (1959), 8 ff.Google Scholar; Güterbock, H. G., JNES 20 (1961), 88 ff.Google Scholar; Cornelius, F., OrNS 32 (1963), 237 ffGoogle Scholar.

105 The word is of Hattic origin, consisting of the root pur/wur “country” (Laroche, E., RA 48, 1954, 48Google Scholar) and the elements te = le= of which the second is a plural prefix (Kammenhuber, A., RHA XX/70, 1962, 11, 13, 17Google Scholar; cf. also the possessive prefix te-, ib. 7, 15).

106 RHA XIII/57 (1955), 58Google Scholar n. 12 (cf. also Goetze, A., RHA I, 1930, 29Google Scholar).

107 RA 48 (1954), 48Google Scholar; HW Erg. 1, 21.

108 Further occurrences of the term: KBo XVI 47Google Scholar obv. 28′ ti-li-pu-ri ḪI.A (Otten, H., IstMitt 17, 1967, 55–62Google Scholar); KUB XXVI 51Google Scholar, 10′ te-li-pu-u-r[i.

109 The text seems to have a preference for -iya endings: Zitakpiššiya for usual Zitakpiša; Ḫaggamiššiya for Ḫakmiš; Tapikkiya for Tapika; Karašmittiya for Karašmitta.

110 JNES 20 (1961), 87 ff.Google Scholar; XVII RAI (1969), 179 n. 2Google Scholar.

111 This is now definitely proven by two parallel passages in which the AGRIG's of the different towns are standing, each in the gate of his “house” (Singer, I., ZA 65, 1975, 93 n. 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

112 A town Takipuda is not attested elsewhere, but the “Takiputta-house” in Bo 2956 I 14′ must refer to the same thing nu III UDUḪI.AIŠ-TU É Ták-ki-pu-ut-ti [(after transliteration of H. Ehelolf). Similar cases where the determinative URU is omitted are. the “(great-houses” of Gazzimar(a) and Šulupašši: É.GAL Gaz-zi-mar (KUB II 8Google Scholar V 34), É Gaz-zi-ma-ra(NBC 3842Google Scholar = JCS 10, 101Google Scholar obv.11), É URUGaz-zi-ma-ra(KUB VI 45Google Scholar II 59, KUB XXVI 82Google Scholar, 2); É.GAL Šu-lu-pa-aš-ši (KUB XLII 48Google Scholar obv. 12′), É.GAL URUŠu-lu-pa-aš-ši-ya-aš (KBo X 10 IV 18Google Scholar).

113 See also Archi, A., SMEA 14 (1971), 220Google Scholar.

114 Attested only in the form LÚAGRIG URUḪatti. For the relation between URUḪatti and URUḪattuša see Güterbock, H. G., JCS 10 (1956), 98 n. 0Google Scholar.

115 For the localization of Nerik see Yakar, J.-Dinçol, A., Belleten 38 (1974), 573 ff.Google Scholar, where a more northern localization than the one suggested by Güterbock, H. G., JNES 21 (1961), 93Google Scholar is advocated, on the basis of an archaeological survey of the region. The suggested localization lies north of the line Boyabat—Durağan—Vezirköprü, i.e. on the lowest flow of the Kızıl İrmak after its confluence with the Gök İrmak. See now also Ph. Houwink ten Cate, H. J., Florilegium Anatolicum (Fs. Laroche 1979), 160 fGoogle Scholar.

116 Alp, S., Fs. E. Edel (1979), 13–16Google Scholar suggests identifying Inandik with Ḫanḫana. But cf. E. Laroche in the Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the Turkish Historical Society (forthcoming).

117 Otten, H., StBoT 17 (1973), 58 ffGoogle Scholar.

118 Alp, S., Belleten 164 (1977), 637 ff.Google Scholar; Florilegium Anatolicum (Fs. Laroche 1979), 29 ff.Google Scholar; Belleten 173 (1980), 58 fGoogle Scholar. It is worth noting that the public building excavated at Maşat contains numerous store-rooms with large store-jars (Özgüç, T., Excavations at Maşat Höyük, 1978, 55 f.Google Scholar, 61) a fact which accords well with Tapika's being a store-city, the seat of an AGRIG.

119 According to the list of cult offerings in KBo XII 53Google Scholar rev. 13′–19′ Zapišḫuna is located in the country of Tapika.

120 Goetze, A., Kleinasien2 (1957), 46Google Scholar n. 4 and the references cited in del Monte, G., Répertoire Géographique (1978), 66Google Scholar.

121 Otten, H., Fs. Friedrich (1959), 367 fGoogle Scholar.

122 Laroche, E., Les Noms des Hittites (1966), 267Google Scholar. Singer, I., Journal of Indo-European Studies 9 (1981), 124, 129Google Scholar.

123 The passage in the Telipinu Decree dealing with the “Queen of Šugziya” (cf. Otten, H., StBoT 17, 1973, 14 n. 1Google Scholar) is indicative since it also mentions the town Tegarama probably located at present-day Gürün. The identification of the name Šukziya in the Boybeypınari Inscription, as suggested by Steinherr, F., WdO 2 (1957), 366Google Scholar, is not acceptable. The ethnic name reads Su?-ki-ta/ti-za-sa (Hawkins, D., AnSt 20, 1970, 88Google Scholar; Meriggi, P., Manuale di Eteo Geroglifico II/2, 1975, 73 ff.Google Scholar).

124 Malazziya cannot be located at Malatya as suggested by Cornelius, F., Geschichte der Hethiter (1973), 334, n. 37Google Scholar. It appears in the “Sacrifice List” (KBo IV 13Google Scholar I 31) together with places located in the northern Halys Basin (see also Ph. Houwink ten Cate, H. J., Fs. Laroche, 1979, 158Google Scholar n. 8). Present-day Malatya probably preserves the name of Hittite Maltiya (Ph. Houwink ten Cate, H. J., The Records of the Early Hittite Empire, 1970, 62Google Scholar no. 30), through hieroglyphic Luwian Malizi, Assyrian Malitiya and classical Melitene (Hawkins, J. D.Iraq 36, 1974, 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

125 Probably identical with Zarninuwa, which is listed in the “Sacrifice List” (KBo IV 13Google Scholar I 38) after Pittiyariga, Arziya, and Šamuḫa, and before Kaniš. This gives an approximate location between Kaniš and the bend of the Euphrates.

126 Identical with Kalašmitta, in KBo IV 13Google Scholar I 33 and KUB VI 45Google Scholar III 1 =46 III 38. See following note.

127 This and the previous name appear in the “Sacrifice List” in the same paragraph with Ḫurma, Šallaḫḫašuwa and Šugziya.

128 von Schuler, E., Die Kaškäer (1965), 55 n. 379CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Macqueen, J. G., AnSt 8 (1968), 177Google Scholar fig. 11 identifies it with the Kirmir, a tributary of the Sangarios. See also Ünal, A., TdH 3 (1974), 191Google Scholar; RIA IV (1975), 489 fGoogle Scholar.

129 In the Anitta Inscription the Ḫulanna River appears as the place where the Man of Šalatiwara gathers his troops. (64 ff.) Šalatu/iwar is located according to the Cappadocian tablets in the region of Waḫšušana (E. Bilgiç, AfO 15, 1945–1951, 22Google Scholar and n. 156), i.e. south of the Halys Bend. Note also that the same mountain name, Ḫuwatnuwanta, appears in the Šaḫurunuwa Deed (KUB XXVI 43Google Scholar obv. 28) in close proximity to River Ḫulana, and in the Prayer, Muwatalli (SKUB VI 45Google Scholar II 38 = 46 III 7) in association with River Ḫulaya. Furthermore, in Bo 2750 the same mountain appears near ÍDSÍG “Wool River” (Otten, H., RIA IV, 1975, 489, 529Google Scholar).

130 The better representation in the list of the “Ḫatti Land” in comparison with the “Upper Land” and the “Lower Land” (see discussion below) should not as yet lead to final conclusions.

131 The administrative units in which the AGRIGs reside are the telipuri (see above §4.3). While it would be desirable to compare the system of AGRIG towns with other evidence on the administrative subdivisions of the Hittite kingdom, there is no comprehensive source on this subject and the available material is dispersed and largely unexplored. The following are important sources which provide partial lists of “countries” (KUR) and “districts” (ḪALṢI): the Šaḫurunuwa Deed (CTH 225), the Ulmi-Tešub Treaty (CTH 106), the Lists, Hierodule (CTH 235Google Scholar) and the vow of Puduḫepa, (CTH 585Google Scholar). More precise definitions of the various terms referring to administrative units are necessary before an accurate picture can be reconstructed: e.g. the Šaḫurunuwa Deed seems to distinguish between “Land” and “District” (obv. 32 KUR URUArinna; obv. 34 ḪALṢI URUArinna), whereas the Vow of Puduḫepa has both terms in one compound (II 13): … URUIyakkuriya ŠA ḪALṢI KUR URUx[ -a]ttimuš (Otten-Souček, , StBoT 1, 1965, 24Google Scholar). It is worth noting that none of the districts (ḪALṢI) figuring in the Saḫurunuwa text (Arinna, Ḫalanda, Ḫattena, Šananta) or in the Hierodule list HT 2 (Katapa, Šalma, Kartapaḫa, Paršananḫita, Ulušna) is attested as an AGRIG town.

132 For a general demarcation of the Hittite provinces see Laroche, E., Les Noms des Hittites (1966), 266 fGoogle Scholar.

133 Most of the names in the list are not attested elsewhere. URUKuwanna may perhaps be compared with TÚLKu(wa)nnaniya; Malit[a- may be identical with either Malitaškuriya or with Malita. The latter is located according to Cappadocian texts between Wašḫaniya and Waḫšušana. Kurša[- may be the same as Guršamašša or Kuršawanša, both places located in the same general region of the Lower Land. Šuwanzuwana is probably identical with Šuwanzana in the Muwatalli Prayer.

134 For this list see Gurney, O. R., CAH II 3 Part 1, (1973), 664Google Scholar.

135 Marišta is the last town mentioned before the crossing of the Halys and the attack on Kaneš by the Kaškeans, in Hatt. II 3 ffGoogle Scholar. (Güterbock, H. G., JNES 20, 1961, 96Google Scholar).

136 Alp, S., Anatolia I (1956), 77 ff.Google Scholar; Koşay, H. Z., Belleten 36 (1972), 463 ff.Google Scholar; Lebrun, R., Šamuḫa (1976), 9Google Scholar.

137 Otten, H., ZA 66 (1976), 301 n. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

138 For Šukziya see above n. 123; for Kuššara see Lewy, J., HUCA 33 (1962), 47Google Scholar.

139 Lewy, J., HUCA 32 (1961), 68 n. 210Google Scholar; HUCA 33 (1962), 48Google Scholar; Garelli, P.Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (1963), 111Google Scholar; Laroche, E., Les Noms des Hittites (1966), 269Google Scholar.

140 Laroche, E., RHA XIX/69 (1961), 78Google Scholar.

141 Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna (1940), 65, 70Google Scholar; del Monte, G., Répertoire Géographique (1978), 479Google Scholar (Waštiša II).

142 References in del Monte, G., Répertoire Géographique (1978) 324Google Scholar.

143 This is all the more significant since in another section of the decree, Telipinu reports his victorious campaigns against the Kizzuwatnean towns of Lawazantiya and Zizzilippa (Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna, 1940, 72 n. 281Google Scholar).

144 Archi, A., SMEA 14 (1971), 220Google Scholar.

145 Goetze, A., JCS 14 (1960), 45Google Scholar.

146 A further chronological indication with regard to the formation of the system of AGRIG towns may be provided by the existence of an AGRIG of Nerik. This provides a terminus ante quem before Ḫantili, during whose reign the town was lost to the Kaška according to the historical references of Ḫattušili III and Tudḫaliya IV (sceptically viewed by von Schuler, E., Die Kaškäer, 1965, 23 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and Haas, V., Nerik, 1970, 6Google Scholar). It is very improbable that this post was created at a time when the town was held by the enemy. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the continuity of the office was not interrupted despite the loss of the city, and the AGRIG of Nerik resided somewhere else, perhaps in Ḫakmiš. This tendency not to sever the cult of Nerik is clearly apparent also in other matters concerned with this important religious centre (Haas, V., Nerik, 7Google Scholar, and passim).