The vertical wedge of ANA is written over an erroneously written Winkelhaken. Probably, the scribe first started to write GIG and then realized that it had to be preceded by ANA.
Text A.
Or, NÍG-aš-za as per Beal R.H. 1997a, 209 with note 26. For the grammatical analysis and meaning see the comment on the translation in the present edition. Restored according to obv. I 18 and 50.
Since the broken area offers space for only about 2-3 signs the clause probably ended with GÙB-za. Parallels are, e.g., to be found in KUB 6.27 4ʹ; KBo 2.2 IV 30.
For the reading en-tíš GÙB-aš see KUB 16.29 + KUB 16.81 obv. 16 (en-tíš GÚB-aš ma-zé-ri-eš ZAG-aš EGIR-ŠÚ NU.TUKU "the enti of the left side; the mazeri of the right side, its back is not there") and KUB 22.51 2′: en-tíš GÙB-aš ⸢GAR⸣-[ri "the enti of the right side is placed / is lying"). For the alternative reading en-tíš GÙB-la-aš see KBo 55.204 + KUB 5.9 obv. 24.
Or DINGIR-L[UM?
Restored on the basis of obv. I 54-55 and the parallel text KUB 5.4 II 44.
The restoration is based on other oracle reports. Cf., e.g., KUB 16.39 + obv. 5-6; KUB 18.27 obv.(?) 7-8 (partly restored); KUB 49.46 obv. 1ʹ; KBo 23.117 obv. 89-90.
For the restoration of the verb ari "it arrives" with annaš UD- aš ( šiwaz) as subject cf. the similar phrase in the treaty of Muwattalli II with Alakšandu of Wiluša CTH 76 KUB 21.1 i 64 [A-N]A Malakšandu ⸢ŠA⸣ AMA-KA UD-az ari “ [But when ] for (you), Alakšandu, the day of your mother arrives”. A remarkable feature is the left-dislocation of the ablative phrase IŠ-TU 10 LÚMEŠ 20 LÚMEŠ and its resumption by the relative pronoun in the dat.-loc. pl. kuedas. On the phenomenon of left-dislocation see Hoffner H.A. − Melchert H.C. 2008a, 408f. Or NÍG-aš-za. Both the reading and the meaning of the term remain unclear. Cf. also obv. I 24.
Restoration based on KBo 41.163 l. col. 1′: ]x BAL-kán ŠÀ MU-ti ta-ra-an-za " and KBo 44.222 obv. 6′: nu-kán BE-an ŠÀ MU-ti-ma ta-ra-x[).
Restoration based on obv. I 7; obv. I 22; obv. II 44.
The vertical wedge of MA is missing. For the reading nam-ma-ma see obv. II 24 and 36.
A vertical wedge of the erased sign is still visible. Possibly, the scribe first intended to write the sign MA or TA.
A vertical wedge of the erased sign is still visible. Possibly, the scribe first intended to write MA or TA.
The horizontal wedge was erroneously erased by the scribe.
Possibly the horizontal wedge, rendered here as AŠ, was part of a more complex sign that was erroneously written and afterwards partly erased.
Since, according to obv. II 5-12, the anger of only one deity of Ḫattuša is ascertained, the plural determinative MEŠ is probably erroneous.
Judging from his translation, Beal R.H. 1997a, 210 apparently restores ḫu-eš-wa-an-za after ku-[iš] and reads ŠÀ É DINGIR-LIM-pát kuiš [ ] x-pát ḫu-eš-wa-an-za in obv. II 35-36. However, the fact that the enclitic particle -pát is attached to the first word in obv. II 36 suggests that the latter is the beginning of a new sentence, which is used to exclude other possibilities of divine wrath (see Hoffner H.A. − Melchert H.C. 2008a, p. 387 §28.136). The relative clauses in obv. II 31and obv. II 35 thus both end in kuiš. The first clause in obv. II 36 is then likely to be read [a-pa-a-a]š-pát TUKU-u-wa-an-za. For the shape of TUKU see the second sign in TUKU.TUKU- u-wa-an-za in obv. II 37, for the use of -pát in the conditional clause and namma=ma + negative word + indefinite pronoun in the main clause ("if only ..., but not any other further/nothing else etc.) see, e.g., obv. II 23-24. For the restoration and the reading TUKU-u-wa-an-za see the comment on obv. II 31.
Or ⸢TA⸣?
For this restoration see obv. II 14-15.
Restoration based on obv. I 6; obv. I 11 (both pankuš=za GÙB-tar ḪUL-lu-ia ME-aš); obv. I 22 (pankuš=za GÙB-tar ME-aš); obv. II 43 (pankuš=za GÙB-tar GIG.GAL-ia ME-aš).
In analogy to other passages maybe URUḪAT]-TI-ia or URUKÙ.BABBAR-TI-ia (cf. obv. II 9, 14, 27).
Or i-ia-u-e[n.
Or URUka-a-t[a-pa-ma in analogy to rev. IV 13.
Judging from the parallel passage in KUB 5.4+ rev. III 6, the space was probably left blank.
|
i.e. an unintentional infliction of harm.
The meaning of the phrase remains unclear. Beal R.H. 1997a, 209 reads NÍG-aš-za, interpreting -aš as an enclitic pronoun in the accusative plural and translates the phrase as “the thing(?) took them inside itself”. However, a similar phrase in KUB 16.97 rev. 45 suggests that -aš in the present text is a phonetic complement. Thus, in KUB 16.97 rev. 45 GAR-aš (or NÍG-aš) is to be found in a verbless clause: GAR-aš-ša-an A-NA GAR še-er (or NÍG-aš-ša-an A-NA NÍG še-er) ‘a GAR (or NÍG) is above a GAR (or NÍG)’. GAR (or NÍG) might thus be an equivalent to Akkadian ṣibtu(m) ‘addition’, as has been suggested by Schuol M. 1994a, 266–268 with reference to AHw 1098 s. v. ṣibtu(m) II. This is also supported by the position in which the term is mentioned in the liver oracle. The meaning of SAG.ME is still unclear. Notably, as a feature of the exta, it is primarily mentioned alone. In a few instances, however, it is preceded by other features, such as ZÍ ḫi-li₈ (KUB 22.56 rev.21′); GIŠTUKUL (‘weapon’; KUB 6.19+ rev. ?23′/Rs. ? III 23′); ni, ši, ir-liš (KUB 16.29+ obv. 21); ni, ši (KUB 22.70 rev. 3). In one case it is followed by šuri- (KUB 6.2 obv. 12). If two exta are observed, SAG.ME is always mentioned as a feature of the second one. Furthermore, in all cases in which the outcome is preserved or explicitly stated, it is unfavorable (both when an unfavorable outcome was solicited or unsolicited). See also the preliminary analysis by Laroche ( Laroche E. 1952b, 34; Laroche E. 1970b, 130, 134). Or: “the deity?”
The phrase kattan arḫa [GAR-ru? ] (i.e. kattan arḫa [kittaru], “it [shall be ] disre [garded ]”, or literally, “it shall be put away below”), which on the basis of other texts is likely to be restored here, apparently excludes what is mentioned in the following conditional clause. In other cases, however, the conditional clause stating the exception precedes it (cf., e.g., KBo 23.117 obv. 89-90). A similar construction as in KUB 5.3+ obv. I 44 is to be found in KUB 18.7 obv. 6-7. For an overview and discussion of the usage of kattan arḫa ki- and similar phrases see Zuntz L. 1936a, 47-49. The term ‘day of the mother’ refers to the natural death in contrast to an unnatural death caused by an epidemic (see also Friedrich J. 1930a). Further references Beal R.H. 1997a, 210; CHD Š, 502 s.v. šiwatt- c 1ʹbʹ. The meaning of the verb markišta(i)- and the related verbal substantive markištauwar remains unclear. For a discussion and further literature see CHD L-N, 190. Or, “behind/after that it is šuri”. It remains unclear whether the term designates an area of the liver localized near the gallbladder, or a feature or pathological change of the liver. See Schuol M. 1994b, 287f.; CHD Š, 648-649, s.v. šuri- A. In any case, this finding reverses the result to its opposite.
The restoration is based on obv. II 1-2 which states that the epidemic will be caused by the anger of a deity.
Or, “is kno[wn] (as one) inmidst the year”, i.e. a seasonal one. The enclitic conjunction -ma that in obv. i 58 is attached to ŠÀ MU-ti (or MU-TI) indicates that the conditional clause is part of a double question and expresses an alternative to the question in obv. i 46-48. Since the latter asks if a general sudden epidemic (pankuš markišdauwaš ḫenkaš) will not occur up in Ḫattuša during His Majesty’s winter stay and make the king flee from there the phrase ŠÀ MU-ti (or ŠÀ MU-TI) ta[ran ] apparently defines the epidemic as one that had been predicted earlier in the year or as one that is already known as a seasonal one.
Probably to be emended into a singular “a deity”. Cf. obv. II 5-12.
i.e.not some other deity will be causing it (see obv. II 6).
Presumably, the angry deity was represented by a divine statue that was shaped as a quiver and was carried on a wagon along with other divine statues. The representation by a quiver suggests that it was a warrior deity. According to other sources, the term GIŠMA-AD-NA-NI designates a vehicle with four wheels that was dragged by bulls and was frequently used to transport statues of gods, primarily those of warrior deities. For attestations and discussions see CAD M/1, p. 19 s.v. madnanu A; CAD M/1, p. 116-117 s.v. majāltu; Hagenbuchner A. 2004a; Soysal O. 2019b, 177-178. Naming the deity only by his/her attributes, but not by name, might be because this was considered as potentially dangerous, esp. if it was a war deity. The switch to the 2nd pers. sg. is indicated by the use of the particle - za in the following verbless clause. See Hoffner H.A. − Melchert H.C. 2008a, pp. 362–364 (§ 28.32–28.40), cf. also CHD P, 78 s.v. * palšiaḫḫ-. According to Beal R.H. 1997a, 211 and CHD P, 78 s.v. * palšiaḫḫ-, * palšiaḫḫ- in the present context probably means ‘to satisfy’. Yet, also the literal meaning ‘to set on the road, to dispatch’ fits the context well. Thus, it might refer to the dispatch of the divine statue of the deity. Support for this interpretation is provided by the oracle inquiry KUB 5.1+ III 19: DINGIR-LIM-tar KASKAL-an-zi DINGIRMEŠ URUšapinuwaiya udanzi “they will dispatch the divine statues and bring the gods to Šapinuwa”. Also the use of the verb with the local or directional adverb zilan ‘on this side, lengthways’ (or ‘flanking’ as per Beal R.H. 1997a, 211) in KUB 5.1+ rev. IV 83-84 suggests that the verb refers to a movement: DUTU-ŠI-za DINGIRMEŠ- tar ŠA ḪUR.SAGḫa-ḫar-wa KASKAL-aḫ-zi zi-la-an-na-kán ŠA URUḪAT-TI DINGIRMEŠ-tar KASKAL-aḫ-zi “will His Majesty set the gods of Mount Ḫaḫarwa on the road? And f rom this side the gods of Ḫattuša?”. Restoration based on obv. I 26; obv. I 48, obv. II 11 passim.
Or, “we mad[e]”.
Apparently, the oracle precedure and its outcome have not been recorded.
This is the only inquiry in KUB 5.3+ that, similar to KUB 5.4+ obv. I 2–3; obv. I 17–18; obv. I 27–28 passim, mentions the celebration of the festivals and the congregation of the birds of the season for the king.
|
