Colon missing in N. Likely fused into one sentence in the following.
Cf. KUB 34.14+ rev. III, 9′–10′/rev. III, 12′–13′.
When collated, the sign looked more like MEŠ, but the surface is rather abrated, and we expect -zi.
Text: 6.
From -na- on the scribe wrote on the intercolumnium. He apparently wrote the subscript za into or over az, perhaps to avoid the right column.
Cf. KBo 71.51, 4′.
Text: ḫi.
Text: 6
Text: na.
Text: 15.
Text: KUR-SÚ
Text: 5.
Text: uš.
Text: 12.
This omen is spaced out over four lines in KUB 8.1. From l. 7′–8′, we can surmise that the lines in this column contained between 20 and 30 signs. If the reading na-p[a in 2′ is correct, line 1′ would have contained more than 40 signs. Either the apodosis here was shorter or the scribe used more logograms or used the edge or reverse. The same is true for l. 3′.
Text: uš
Text: 9.
Text: 15.
Text: 12.
Cf. BM 86381, 66 and parallels.
Text: uš.
Text: KUR-SÚ. Cf. KUB 34.7 rev. III, 5′: lam-na-aš-ma.
Text: 5.
For the reconstruction UR.MAḪ cf. BM 22696, 67–68 and parallels. The following line is unclear to me, however.
|
We would expect Akkad, but the traces are unclear.
The Old Babylonian witnesses have nīšu iṣeḫḫerā, hence antuwaḫḫaš may mean ‘populace, people’ here.
We expect a translation of ubbuṭu/ḫušaḫḫu. Perhaps this is erroneous for ⟨pit⟩tuliyaš?
The two nouns 'the city, the assembly' are likely a mistranslation of āla kabta; see also Weeden M. 2011a: 283 n. 1303. From the Old Babylonian texts we expect MUL.GAL im-qú-ut in the apodosis. The Hittite scribe seems to have understood this to be a modifying protasis.
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’. The Old Babylonian witnesses (except CUSAS 18.13) then have a day 19, the first-millennium version 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 in 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 rabītu ana māti ṣeḫerti 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.
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 a 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’. Month eight, day fourteen is missing in Ḫattuša.
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 fairly 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. It is difficult to see how the Hittite relates to the Akkadian texts.
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 of ibissû/I.BÍ.ZA. Emar 6.652 and BM 121034 are fragmentary here, but have arbūtu and ubbuṭu, respectively.
Perhaps belonging to month 11, days 16–21? If so, the fragment L is from close to the lower edge.
|
