|
|
From the Old Babylonian witnesses, we expect both protases mentioning the king to be about the king of Akkad. The sign traces in C are unclear, but rather point to -uš than URU.
The Old Babylonian witnesses have nīšu iṣeḫḫerā, hence antuwaḫḫaš may mean ‘populace, people’, here.
The Old Babylonian witnesses all have ubbuṭu, the first millennium texts from Ninive have ḫušaḫḫu. The second part of the apodosis about the sale of children is the same and follows logically from ubbuṭu/ ḫušaḫḫu, but not from tuliyaš, ‘assembly’. Perhaps this is erroneous for ⟨pit⟩tuliyaš. Alternatively, the term napḫānu, ‘swelling (from hunger)’ ( George A. 2013a*: 84) may have been mixed up by a translator with napḫaru, ‘totality’. Weeden M. 2011a: 283 n. 1303 translates ‘the city, the assembly, the person’, meaning ‘everyone’. Puhvel J. 2009b: 56 translates the ‘entire city’. panku- is the translation of nakbatu in BoTU 8 III 61-62, and the Old Babylonian witnesses from Babylon have URUKI kab-tam, ‘an important city’. Following Weeden’s correct assessment, that we’d expect an adjective to precede, I assume that the Hittite scribe took kabtam for a noun.
From the Old Babylonian texts we expect MUL.GAL im-qú-ut in the apodosis. It is unclear if the Hittite scribe understood this to be a modifying protasis or an alternative apodosis, both can be expressed with an additional mān.
Day seventeen of month one is only attested here and in AlT 452. Only a single NE is preserved in the apodosis, which in that text is used for zunnu, ‘rain’. In the Old Babylonian witnesses, there follows a day 19, in the first millennium, the ‘regular’ day 20.
This alternative apodosis is not attested in any other witness.
In most instances there is another phrase before mān D30-aš aki, usually written ku-it-ma-an ITU GIBIL ti-i-e-ez-zi.
Thus the extant Old Babylonian witnesses, Emar 6.652, MDP 18.258 from Susa, and the first millennium tablets.
Day 21 of the second month is also absent in AlT 452.
This apodosis is only found in the first millennium version and partially in AlT 452.
From the Old Babylonian witnesses and the tablet Emar 6.652, we know this was an omen about the usurpation of the throne of Subartu by the king’s brother and about rivers drying up. More parts of the Hittite version are perhaps preserved on the fragment Bo 6688, which is supposed to be published by N. Aslantürk.
The Hittite translation of mātu rabû ana māti ṣeḫri ana butalluṭi illak can be restored from this passage together with KBo 71.51, 4, thus confirming the suggestion by Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 167. Month five, day 21 is missing in the Ḫattuša-version, unless it was forgotten and added later (cf. for exemplar E). The Old Babylonian texts, the tablet Emar 6.652, the Middle Assyrian tablet BM 121034, and the first millennium version all deal with a particular type of fish (agargarû) or simply fish (BM 121034) appearing in the rivers while the goods of the sea perish.
Unless arunaz is an otherwise unattested nominative, we are missing an explicit subject for the predicate. The only other extant witness to this passage is Emar 6.652, obv. 28: mi-lu ina ÍD i-sa-dar LU[GAL] ana LUGAL s[a-li-ma i-šap-pa-ar]. The first part fits the Hittite thematically, while the second part differs.
Perhaps: ‘[Copy of s]ingle column tablet’. The parallel exemplar to the obv. of exemplar P, tablet B, is a single-column tablet and has much longer lines. If P was itself single column tablet, it must have been very narrow.
The Akkadian texts all attest to a form of parāsu, ‘to cut off’. Either this is a free Hittite translation or a different version.
As observed already by Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 243, GIŠGU.ZA parā nai- is the translation of Akkadian kussâ ulabbar, lit. ‘he will make the throne old’. Note that while in the Old Babylonian witnesses from Babylonia, there is a negation NU/ ul, whereas in Hattuša, Emar, and the first millennium, it appears as a positive statement. Month eight, day fourteen is missing in Ḫattuša, whereas day fifteen starts similarly to day fourteen in the Mesopotamian tradition but then differs substantially. Day sixteen then contains the same omen as the first-millennium version’s day fifteen, with the last apodosis of the Old Babylonian version’s day fourteen added. Day twenty follows the Mesopotamian witnesses, whereas day 21 thematically is close to Emar 6.652, obv. 45, but still differs. Note that day 21 is different in every extant witness, with the exception of a parallel between the first millennium version and CTH 532.8.
Cf. all extant Old Babylonian witnesses, Emar 6.652, the Middle Assyrian tablet from Aššur BM 121034, and the first millennium version.
The lions are the only more or less certain element of this omen, since they are attested in all extant Old Babylonian and later witnesses. ḫaḫrannaš is so far only known as the gen. sg. of the verbal noun ḫaḫratar, ‘the digging’, which features in the name of a festival, which may explain the genitive here. It is difficult to see how the Hittite relates to the Akkadian texts; we expect a translation of nēšū innaddarūma/išeggûma alakta iparrasū. Either the text is corrupt, or this may be a particular Hittite interpretation of the omen.
The Middle Assyrian witness has ana] DANNA-a i-ḫar-ru-ub, which is not found in the other witnesses. Perhaps the Vorlage of the Hittite text had a similar apodosis.
luri- is usually the equivalent ibissû/I.BÍ.ZA. Emar 6.652 and BM 121034 are fragmentary here, but have arbūtu and ubbuṭu, respectively.
Perhaps to month 11, days 16-21? If so, the fragment L is from close to the lower edge.
|
