|
|
Because of the Mesopotamian parallels, we expect this to be the omen for month one, day 20, so perhaps day 21 was missing or the counting differed.
Cf. for the restoration KBo 8.47 obv., 5′ (day 20), MDP 18.258 obv., 9′ (likely day 20 or 21), and the first-millennium version (day 21). Month two is missing days in most older versions of this text (KBo 8.47, AlT 452, Emar 6.652, and the Old Babylonian witnesses), and this apodosis seems to have shifted between day 20 and 21.
The positioning of the sign traces in the line makes it likely that a number sign instead of the longer ŠA-A-DU was used, which happens at the beginning of a new month.
This was likely an omen about the king falling in battle and not about the king’s weapon as shown by the Akkadian parallels in Old Babylonian (BM 86381 obv. II, 28), in the Emar text (Emar 6 652 obv., 14), and the first-millennium tablets of EAE 22.
Or: ‘The king: His son will […]’, cf. the first millennium version’s šarru māršu ibâršu, ‘The king: His son will revolt against him’.
This reconstruction of the formula is warranted by KBo 34.110+ obv., 11′ and KBo 71.51, 4, confirming the proposal of Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 167. The underlying Akkadian is ana butalluṭi illak. If the proposal by Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 73 is correct and this fragment treats months eight and nine, then walk- it is likely a translation of inaqqar (BM 86381 rev. III, 56) or innaqqar (first millennium EAE 22). This in turn concurs with earlier proposals by Oettinger N. 1979a: 234, cf. HEG IV/U-Z, 266-267. Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 72 follows Weidner’s copy in KUB 8.3 and reads NA₄KIŠIB ḫa-a-ti. The photographs of HPM rather show na-at ḫa-a-ti ( na-at perhaps written over an erasure), which is, however, of little help. It is unclear what is supposed to dry up and why this follows the apodosis about famine.
The text KUB 8.3 is the only witness for the word ašpuzza. From similar texts such as KUB 4.64+, it is likely that its meaning is ‘darkening, eclipse’ (cf. also Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 197). aiwant- is an adjective so far exclusively modifying the moon and marks on the liver (KBo 10.7+ rev. III, 30.IV, 1). I assume it describes either a shade of red, since this color is (with one possible exception) otherwise absent from the Hittite omens, or something like ‘pale, faint, dark’, as in this omen it is first aiwant- and then becomes bright ( pace Maier M.G. 2013a: 14; Soysal O. 2004h: 104-105, who prefer the translation ‘alone’ (Maier), and ‘equal one’ (Soysal)). For details see the commentary and introduction to KBo 10.7+.
That GAL IM is a Hittite logogram for the south wind is evident from the bilingual KUB 29.11+ obv. II, 14 and the Gilgameš passage KBo 6.1 rev. IV, 13ʹ–14ʹ. See Kreitzscheck M. 2023a*: 124-128 for details. The conjunctions =ma, nu=kan, and Ù are difficult to explain here. =ma in B was perhaps used because the apodosis is identical to the preceding one, but in the other witnesses, it looks more like there may have been another apodosis before, which is, however, difficult to fit into the gaps unless parts of the protasis were missing in E and F.
Perhaps du[r-mi-it-ta-aš? See the similar localization in KUB 8.35 (Ḫatti for Akkad).
The association with Amurru is one sign that the ‘rear’ wind is the west wind in Hittite thought. For details see Kreitzscheck M. 2023a*: 129-135. The word for ‘north’, which would fit here because we have Akkad in the apodosis, is similar to tarmaš: IM tarašmena/i- (cf. KUB 29.11 obv. II, 16). But unless this is a mistake, this may be a star constellation. In Akkadian, Sirius is called the ‘arrow’ (šiltāḫu), which would be similar.
The spacing on the tablet implies that a-ra-i is a separate word ( pace Polvani A.M. 1988d: 11-12: NA₄aš-ša-a-ra-ia). The conjunction on NA₄-ašš=a shows that this is part of the protasis. This could be a translation of ŠÈG NA₄DU or abnu izannun or an equivalent, ‘Rain of stones (=hail) will come’. But it may also refer to a star constellation called ‘the stone’, for which no parallel exists, however. For the same use of ḫaršar cf. KBo 3.4+ obv. I, 32-33.
The sign traces clearly do not show ú-eḫ-zi. There is one attestation for wa-aḫ-ḫu-zi in Kikkuli’s horse training manual (KBo 3.5 rev. III, 4), but that does not seem to fit either, unless AḪ was written in its late version with verticals.
|
