DUMU overwrites mistaken MUNUS.
aš-šu-wa-az written entirely on the rev. side.
Wilhelm G. 1998a, 184 suggests restoring tu-u-wa-〈az〉, but see the same form used in e.g. KUB 31.101 obv. 4´ [pé-r]a-⸢an⸣ tu-[u]-a ku-uš pa-i[t].
Added in on the tablet edge.
|
The ‘Lord’ might be the king ( Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 262) or, perhaps more likely, the GAL.DUMUMEŠÉ.GAL (‘Chief of the Palace Officials’) mentioned also in KuT 49 (after Marizza M. 2009a, 106 and n. 2). For a discussion see Introductio.
The implied meaning is that this is what the queen saw in her dream(s). If the queen saw the daughter〈s〉 being beaten, this is the only possible reading, unless only one daughter was the victim. If this was “a daughter”, in fact, the sentence could be also read as if the latter saw herself in a dream as the victim of violence, and reported this to the mother (as in the interpretation of Wilhelm G. 1998a). While this is possible as well, it seems more compelling that a dream of the queen is the matter of investigation, as it is the case in a number of Hittite oracles (CTH 583-584). The interpretation of Marizza M. 2009a, 106 is quite different: “… a daughter has been haunted by a dream”, with zašḫeit understood as an instrumental proper (lit. “…was beaten with dream(s)”). The usage of the instrumental zašḫeit, however, is well attested with the meaning ‘in (a) dream’, and a different interpretation also requires a phraseologic usage of walḫanna-i. For the passive meaning of the medio-passive verb see Neu E. 1968a, 187; Wilhelm G. 1998a, 185 n. 22. ku(wa)štai- is hapax. The form was read ma-aš-ta-ia-ti by Wilhelm G. 1998a but this reading is quite unlikely epigraphically (already Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 430 n. 41). Instead, this form ( ku-aš-ta-ia-ti) must be identical with the Luw. technical term kuštaiadi, as suggested by Sakuma Y. 2009a, 657. Since this variant is spelled as such four times in the tables, it cannot be considered a mistake; see also Introductio.
This must be interpreted as ara(n)=šan where the enclitic is the POSS.ACC.3SG.C, and not the locative particle -šan.
Perhaps because the bird was “far”? This formulation is non-standard, and is found only in this text.
Lit. “after it happens”.
The meaning is clear, although the usage of ḫatrae- with a person as direct object is unusual (no parallel examples in HW2 Ḫ III, 514-525).
On laḫra- see Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 408. This root can be connected with laḫlaḫima-, ‘concern, worry, agitation’, evidently a reduplicated form, and likewise a descriptor of oracular birds. i.e. gave a negative response.
While this is usually understood a a vessel, ašuša- in other instances most likely refers to something smaller, such as a piece of jewellery ( HW2 A, 537); see in particular KBo 10.45, II 26 (CTH 446), Trameri A. 2022a, 58-59 and 109-110. The resumption with =at here necessarily refers to the gold (NOM-ACC.SG.N), and not to the ašuša- vessels/jewels.
Discussion in Wilhelm G. 1998a, 186 n. 33. šania peda could be either dative/locative and zero-ending locative respectively, or both allative. Potentially, pedi- might be understood with the meaning ‘rank, grade’, as in Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 265: “He will refine it to the same quality”. |
