iiiFnSym 0 1 iiiFnSym 1 2 iiiFnSym 2 3 iiiFnSym 3 4 iiiFnSym 4 5 iiiFnSym 5 6 iiiFnSym 6 7 iiiFnSym 7 8 iiiFnSym 8 9 iiiFnSym 9 10 iiiFnSym 10 11 iiiFnSym 11 12 iiiFnSym 12 13 iiiFnSym 13 14 iiiFnSym 14 15 iiiFnSym 15 16 iiiFnSym 16 17 iiiFnSym 17 18 iiiFnSym 18 19 iiiFnSym 19 20 iiiFnSym 20 21 iiiFnSym 21 22 iiiFnSym 22 23 iiiFnSym 23 24 iiiFnSym 24 25 iiiFnSym 25 26 iiiFnSym 26 27 iiiFnSymT 0 T 1 For the meaning of parā aranza ‘angered, upset, provoked’, lit. ‘risen forth’ see Puhvel J. 1984, 125 with further literature; differently Ünal A. 1978a, 55 ‘ausorakelt’. For the restoration of the beginning of the clause cf. KBo 2.2 obv. II 47. Based on a different restoration of the passage Ünal A. 1978a, 55 translates: “Was dies betrifft, daß der König erkrankt[e …… und die Gotthei]t von Arušna [für die Krankheit des Königs] nicht ausor[akelt worden ist: wenn du, o Gottheit, deswegen erzürnt bist, sollen die ersten Fleischzeichen günstig sein, die letzten aber ungüns]tig sein”. Similar also Beckman G. 1997f, 205 “In regard to the fact that His Majesty (Tudhaliya IV?) became ill, […] have not you, [O deity] of (the town of) Arusna, somehow been provoced [in connection with the illness of His Majesty? If you, O deity are angry about this, let the first extispicy be favorable and the latter] unfavorable.” There is, however, not enough space for this restoration. Furthermore, the following requested oracle outcome “[let the first extispicy be favorable and] let [the second one] be [unfa]vorable” requires an oracle question, to which a positive answer is desired. iiiFnSymT 1 T 2 See also Ünal A. 1978a, 55. Differently, CHD Š/5, 648–649: “but there is a š. on the zizaḫi-” (or, “but the zizaḫi- is š.”). Similarly, Beal R.H. 2002f, 63 with note 54 “if the exta or specifically the zizaḫi was seen to be šuri-, then the result of all the other signs was reversed”. iiiFnSymT 2 T 3 The meaning of SAG.ME is unclear. Notably, it is mostly mentioned as the only oracle finding whose existence leads to an unfavorable outcome. But cf. also rev. 3 where it is preceded by ni(pašuri-) and ši(ntaḫi-). iiiFnSymT 3 T 4 Literally, ‘go forth and back’, i.e. ‘visit regularly, take care’. See CHD P, 306 s.v. peran 12; Beckman G. 1997f, 205. iiiFnSymT 4 T 5 Presumably, the scribe erroneously wrote KÙ.BABBAR ‘silver’ instead of KÙ.SI₂₂ ‘gold’ since obv. 22 (cola 57–60) refers three times to two diadems of gold that the queen had made for the deity of Arušna (of which only one was found). Alternatively, the three attestations in obv. 22 are probably to be emended into KÙ.BABBAR, as Beckman G. 1997f, 205. Yet, since in obv. 12 only one sign instead of three has to be emended, an emendation of obv. 12 seems more likely. This argument is also persuasive in terms of content. The queen does not want to deceive the deity by giving it two diadems that are worth less than the object requested by the deity and are made of a completely different material. Probably she simply does not want to give up the tiara that was made for her own statue. iiiFnSymT 5 T 6 The hapax 𒀹takiššar- n. apparently denotes a piece of jewelry. Based on the context, Ünal A. 1978a, 11 and Beckman G. 1997f, 205 suggested to translate the word as ‘inlay pieces’, which, however, is only guessed from the context (see Starke F. 1990a, 420). iiiFnSymT 6 T 7 The present context suggests that 𒀹atupalašša/i-, which is only attested here and in obv. 21, denotes a kind of container. Given the probable relationship with aduplit- ‘a ceremonial garment’ and utuplu, a word of unknown origin attested in Akkadian text, the container might be specified as a storage container for these garments. For references and discussions see Starke F. 1990a, 39 with note 51; 207–208; Beckman G. 1997f, 205; AHw III, 1446 s.v. ; CAD vol 20, U/W, 347–348 s.v. utuplu and the introduction to the present edition. iiiFnSymT 7 T 8 Differently, Ünal A. 1978a, 112 (“8 Rosetten, 10 pinkita”); Beckman G. 1997f, 205 (“eight rosettes, ten knobs(?)”). However, the wedge preceding the word looks rather like a Glossenkeil than the number sign 10 (cf., e.g., the Glossenkeil in obv. 18 and obv. 21 vs. the number sign 10 in obv. 40; rev. 3). Furthermore, in obv. 25 and obv. 71 the wedge before pinkita is missing. Therefore, the interpretation of the wedge as a Glossenkeil in obv. 20 is more likely (see also Starke F. 1990a, 217–218; CHD P, 267 s.v. (𒀹)penkit- with further literature). In the present context, the word possibly denotes a pendant of a necklace or bead caps. The preceding word A-IA-RI might then be understood as a genitive attribute denoting the shape of the piece of jewelry with the number sign 8 denoting the number of the rosettes. iiiFnSymT 8 T 9 Differently, Beckman G. 1997f, 205 who emends all attestations of GILIM KÙ.SI₂₂ to GILIM KÙ.BABBAR, translating them as “crown of silver(!)” instead of “crown of gold”. For a discussion see the comment on obv. 14, colon 42. iiiFnSymT 9 T 10 i.e. ‘is that the reason for your anger’. iiiFnSymT 10 T 11 Cf. the commentary on colon 53. iiiFnSymT 11 T 12 For similar phrases with maḫḫan as the predicate in the second of two sentences coordinated by mān ‘if’ see CHD L-N, 106 s.v. maḫḫan 4 c. iiiFnSymT 12 T 13 Text: ‘the exta was unfavorable’. iiiFnSymT 13 T 14 Or ‘they did not abandon her deity’. Different translations have been proposed by Ünal A. 1978a, 69: “Weil die Königin sich mit jener Gottheit gepackt hat(?), ist man von ihrer (der Königin) Gottheit nicht weggetreten“; I. Hoffmann apud Ünal A. 1978a, 69 note b: “Und was die Königin von jener Gottheit ergriffen hat, (das) hat man aber nicht für ihre Gottheit weggestellt”; and Beckman G. 1997f, 206: “And although the queen might die because of that deity, they (still) have not put away (that is, satisfied) the deity on her account.” Regarding the subordinate clause, Hoffmann’s translation is probably closest to the meaning, although kuit is more likely to be interpreted as a conjunction. The sense of Ünal’s translation remains unclear to me. Beckman’s translation is problematic insofar as a past potential is normally expressed by the particle man and preterite (see Hoffner H.A. − Melchert H.C. 2008a, 315–316 § 23.13). Furthermore, it seems also unlikely to me for contextual reasons. For the main clause, Ünal’s translation is the most likely, since awan arḫa is often attested with tiya- ‘to step, stand’. There are, e.g., numerous examples in the state treaties where it denotes the defection of the vassal from the Hittite king, who is named in the dative (cf., e.g. KBo 5.3+ obv. II 2-3 našma apēdani imma EGIR-an tiyaši A-NA DUTU-ŠI awan arḫa tiyaši (‘or (if) you stand behind him (i.e., take his side, support him) and step away from His Majesty’ (i.e. abandon the Hittite king and become disloyal to him). By contrast, I am unaware of any evidence of dai- ‘to place, set, lay’. Cf. also Zuntz L. 1936a, 44-45. iiiFnSymT 14 T 15 According to HEG W, 408, 𒀹waštanza is to be interpreted as an active participle ‘sinner’. However, the form is more likely a Luwian nominative neuter form with the suffix -ša/-za. See Lyutikova E.A. – Sideltsev A.V. 2021a, 104–105. iiiFnSymT 15 T 16 The Akkadogram IŠ-TU representing the Hittite ablative is used here and in the following in a partitive sense since they refer to an unspecified quantity of items and thus can be translated as ‘some (precious) stone’, ‘some gold’ etc. (cf. Hoffner H.A. – Melchert H.C. 2008a, 267 § 16.102 who note that they are only rarely used in Hittite). Differently, Ünal A. 1978a, 71–72 “mit (zusätzlichem) (Edel)stein”, “mit (zusätzlichem) Gold”; Beckman G. 1997f, 206: “with precious stones”; “with gold” etc. iiiFnSymT 16 T 17 For the meaning of the serial construction in deliberate questions see Hoffner H.A. – Melchert H.C. 2008a, 328. iiiFnSymT 17 T 18 Literally, ‘has’, referring to an amount of terma- garments. iiiFnSymT 18 T 19 Differently Ünal A. 1978a, 74-75 (“ein kinanta-Gewand der Frau”); Beckman G. 1997f. (“a kinanta- garment of a woman”). However, the form is rather to be interpreted as a nom. pl. neut. participle of the verb kinai- used as a noun. Similarly, rev. 34 colon 378. In contrast to HW² Vol. 5: K, 350 s.v. kinai- II., the plural form suggests that the preceeding TÚG is to be interpreted as a determinative and not as a Sumerogram. iiiFnSymT 19 T 20 Differently, Ünal A. 1978a, 75: “Was aber jenes (Erwähnte) betrifft, daß die Königin (wegen der) niedergeschlagenen Menschen an den König geschrieben hat.” Similarly, Goedegebuure P. 2014a, 525 “as for that (fact) that the queen wrote to the king about the people who were afflicted”. However, other passages of the text make an active interpretation of the participle walḫanteš (GUL-anteš) more likely. Thus, according to obv. 69–70 and obv. 81, the queen complains that a ‘strong fist keeps her oppressed’ (obv. 69–70: ammuk=ma=wa KALA.GA-aš GÉŠPU-aš anda tammaššan ḫarzi; obv. 81: KALA.GA-aš=wa=mu GÉŠPU-aš anda damaššan ḫarzi tamaššan ḫarzi. Cf. also obv. 74–75: UNMEŠ-uš kuieš katta walḫanzi A-NA DUTU-ŠI IŠ-PUR “she wrote to His Majesty about the people who are oppressing (her)”. This interpretation is also in line with the theory of Lyutikova E.A. – Sideltsev A.V. 2021a, according to which participles of transitive verbs that are not accompanied by a direct object usually have an active meaning. iiiFnSymT 20 T 21 The basic meaning of addu is ‘well-being’, ‘salvation’. In the present sentence, it might be used as an adverb or interjection ‘well, all right’. The word also appears in a similar syntactical construction in KUB 14.4 rev. III 16. Differently, Ünal A. 1978a, 69; 101, according to whom it is in both texts erroneously written and therefore to be deleted. iiiFnSymT 21 T 22 Cf. the commentary to colon 53. iiiFnSymT 22 T 23 For the meaning of katta arku- ‘concur’, i.e., ‘affirming or repeating her charges’ see Melchert 1998a, 48. Differently Ünal 1978a, 80: “Der König hat sich aber nicht bei ihr entschuldigt”. iiiFnSymT 23 T 24 See, rev. 1. iiiFnSymT 24 T 25 ḫurtiyaš is a freestanding genitive, thus lit. ‘(matter) of cursing’. iiiFnSymT 25 T 26 Maybe DINGIR-[LIM ‘in the tem[ple’? iiiFnSymT 26 T 27 For the active interpretation of the participle see the comment on obv. 61, colon 200. iiiFnSymT 27 T 28 Differently, CHD Š/5, 448–449 s.v. šuri- “but there is a šuri- on the zizaḫi- (or: the zizaḫi- is š.)”. Cf. also Beal R.H. 2002f, 63: “but the zi(zaḫi)- was seen to be šuri-’”. However, KBo 16.97 rev. 8–11 indicates that šuri- is not an adjective describing the condition or appearance of another characteristics of the liver, like ‘firm’ or sim., but a feature on its own, probably representing an anomaly. In the present case, the existence of zi(zaḫi-), i.e., a ‘tapworm cyst’, and šuri- turn the oracle outcome into the opposite. iiiFnSymT 28 T 29 For the term kinant- ‘assorted, sorted, exquisite’ see the comment on obv. 34 colon 378. The two or three signs following kinanta=ya remain obscure. Since the term in obv. 60 is immediately followed by ŠA MUNUS-TI ‘of a woman’ also an erasure seems possible. iiiFnSymT 29 T 30 For the active interpretation of the participle see the comment on obv. 61, colon 200.