Based on the photo, it is difficult to determine how many signs are broken off at the beginning of the lines of the obverse. Judging from the edition of Ünal A. 2019a, 697-698, who saw the original, the photo is displayed at an angle, showing part of the left edge. If so, the beginning of lines 3′–7′ would be preserved, whereas in lines 2′ and 8′ one or two signs were missing. Similarly, in lines 9′–19′, up to three or four signs would be broken off. In view of this, Ünal’s restorations seem imbalanced. Thus, he restores in line 10′ seven signs, in line 12′ 4 ½ signs, and in line 13′ 5 ½ signs, but otherwise only up to three signs. Without access to the original, Ünal's assumptions can hardly be assessed. Ünal A. 2019a, 697 suggests to restore ne-⸢pí⸣-[ša-aš DUTU-aš ]... and to translate “ [What concerns that the Sun God(?) of Hea ]ven [is determined by oracle as angry in his temple ]”. Yet, since the text otherwise deals with oracles concerning the cult of Pirwa this restoration seems unlikely. Rather, nepiš (or some case form of it) might refer to a sky en miniature as a cult object as it is the case in the oracle text KUB 5.7+ rev 22-23 (CTH 574). For this and other references see CHD L-N 453 s.v. nepiš- g. Alternatively, nepi[šaš could be an epithet of the god Pirwa “Pirwa [of the ] sk [y ]”. However, this would be without parallels.
Restoration based on KUB 38.4 obv. 6. See also Ünal A. 2019a, 697; 700 note b. A similar sign sequence is attested in KUB 57.35 rev. III 11 x-an(-)ta-pí-iš. Cf. E. Rieken et al. (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 385.11 (TX 2015-08-26, TRde 2015-06-10), retrieval date: July 39, 2024. Both sequences remain obscure.
The gap is probably to be restored in analogy to KUB 38.4 obv. I 4 ZAG-za ŠU-za 𒑱du-pa-ú-x[ Cf. also Ünal A. 2019a, 697, who suggests to restore ALAMbefore ZAG-za. The restoration is based on KUB 38.4 obv. I 5 (see also Ünal A. 2019a, 697). Presumably, the generic term wattatar ‘(image of) a mountain’ or sim. is to be restored. For other attestations and a discussion of the meaning see Rieken E. 2022c, 345-346. By contrast, Ünal A. 2019a, 697; 700 note g, restores ḪUR.SAGwa-[a-ši-it-ta-aš based on KUB 33.118 obv. 1 (CTH 365.5 Kumarbi myth) and notes that Wašitta- is almost the only mountain name beginning with wa-. Although the preceding determinative ḪUR.SAG may suggest the restoration of a mountain name, the generic word ‘mountain’ or ‘(image of) a mountain‘ fits the context better.
Probably to be restored by pu-[nu-uš-šu-u-en or pu-[nu-uš-šu-un. Cf. also 〈SP_f_AO_3a_-LIT〉Ünal A. 2019a〈/SP_f_AO_3a_-LIT, 697; 699, who restores p[u-nu-uš-ša-an-zi. Although this is, in general possible, the 1 c="st"/> pers. pl. pret. is more often attested in oracle reports.
Ünal A. 2019a, 697 restores [nu-mu 1 ALAM]. If, however, no signs are missing at the beginning of lines 5′ and 6′, the space in line 8′ seems too limited for Ünal's restoration.
Maybe SI×SÁ-at(?) is to be restored after G[Ú.È.A as per Ünal A. 2019a, 697. Ünal A. 2019a, 697 suggests to restore [na-at A-N]A DPí-ir-wa [pí-iḫ-ḫu-un(?)]. However, the space at the beginning of the line seems too small for 3 ½ signs.
Cf. also the restoration by Ünal A. 2019a , 698 ( Z[I.KIN.BAR URUDU SI×SÁ -at), which, however, remains uncertain. Ünal A. 2019a, 698 restores [1 ZI.KIN.B]AR. Yet, if the broken sign is indead BAR, also other words such as ZABAR ‘bronze’ or AN.BAR ‘iron’ are possible.
The restoration by Ünal A. 2019a, 698 [1 ZI.KIN.BAR(?)-i]a seems rather unlikely because with pins, usually no plating is mentioned but only the material of which they are made. Maybe p[u-nu-uš-šu-un or sim. as in obv. 6′. Cf. also Ünal A. 2019a, 699: p[u-nu-uš-ša-an-zi])..
Ünal A. 2019a, 699 suggests to restore the otherwise unattested form [ne]-e?-at-t[a? followed by ku-iš(?).
Ünal A. 2019a, 699 reads -mar! and notes that the sign looks like MA or KU. The form of the latter is, however, elsewhere different (cf., e.g., obv. 18′; rev. 3′).
|
The form of nepiš- ‘sky’ probably refers to a sky en miniature, i.e. a baldachin. See the comment on the transliteration.
Possibly to be restored in analogy to KUB 38.4 obv. I 6 [2?] ˹a˺-šu-ša-aš AN.BAR GE₆ (erasure) ḫ[ar-zi ‘[He] h[as 2?] ašuša- of black iron’. In general, ašuša- presumably denotes a kind of ring (sometimes more specifically earrings). In the present context it might refer to earrings of the god, but also to rings that are part of the horse tack or rider’s equipment.
Probably to be restored in analogy KUB 38.4 obv. I 4 ‘in the right hand he holds a dupau-x …’, i.e. ‘a striking weapon’.
Probably to be restored in analogy to KUB 38.4 obv. I 5′ KÙ.BABBAR ‘of silver’.
Cf. the comment on the transliteration.
The hapax karzana- probably denotes a stick-shaped object. As an implement belonging to the equipment, it might be a weapon such as a sword or a rod worn by the deity as insignia. Differently Ünal A. 2019a, 699, who apparently equates the form with the neuter stem karza(n)-, translating it as ‘weaver’s utensil’. For a detailed discussion see the introduction. i.e., probably as an offering to the deity.
Maybe the verb was followed by another sentence.
Maybe the verb was followed by another sentence.
Or, ‘gold’.
Or ‘knob’. For attestations and the meaning see HW² III/2, 701–702.
Maybe [Concerning the fact th]at …
In analogy to rev. 6′–7′, possibly one or two cola are to be restored after ‘[let it be] unfa[vorable]’ with the first one stating that an oracle outcome was obtained and the second one stating the outcome.
|
