From the traces on the photo, more likely SI than PÉ (p[é-eš-šer).
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 86 (and 94) emends pát-tar-pal-ḫi-uš!. In rev. IV 15 we find the same mistake, with singular and nominative, instead of plural and accusative. While the singular might be used with a plural numeral, the problem remains that the form is expected in the ACC.SG. Remarkably, a parallel sentence with the same kind of inconsistent agreement can be found in another bird oracle, KUB 16.74, 6´: [3 mar-ša-na-aš-š]i-iš tar-li₁₂-an NI-MUR.
See obv. I 11´, 12´, 14´, 17´ and throughout in rev. IV. However, with this restoration we must address the problem discussed in note n. 3. Although an alternative solution would be to consider a different restoration, such as a nominal sentence with pattarpalḫiš as the subject, the parallel case in rev. IV 15 makes this option unlikely.
Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 152 n. 100 proposed a possible restoration [GID]IM. Another possibility is [nu ku-iš ku-i]š (ibid.). Cognetti C. 2021a, 282 n. 860 points out that a sequence ŠA GIDIM DZawalli- is not attested elsewhere, and suggests instead [nu ta-ma-i]š?.
The small gap allows a conjunction nu, or perhaps ma-a-an, but one expects the scribe would rather write it at the beginning of the next line, with the new sentence. It is possible that no text should be restored here.
As in the previous case in obv. I 7´, the form should be emended as ACC.PL (or ACC.SG; see the discussion in note n. 3).
|
Uncertain; in this sentence, we would expect the deity Zawalli to be the direct object, “consulted; determined” by oracle (for the usage of ariye/a- with gods as direct objects, see e.g. also KUB 5.21 obv.? 5). However, the name of the god(s) should be in accusative, since the verb is apparently an active form. We should consider a mistake, unless the Zawalli deity truly is the one who “consults (an oracle); determines (by oracle)”.
For the word order in this sentence, and particularly of the indefinite pronoun and anda, see Sideltsev A.V. 2015b, 224. In context É LUGAL (‘house of the king’) might not mean ‘palace’ (the building): if the Zawalli deities are to be considered personal deities of some sort (whether they have to do with the dead or not), this definition might refer to the royal ‘house’ with the meaning ‘royal family; dynasty’. This seems to be also the opinion of Cognetti C. 2021a, 282 (“ein Zawalli vom Haus des Königs”), with ref. to CHD P, 176-177 a. Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 90 interprets the only word ( SI×SÁ-at) written in the first paragraph of column III as part of the response from the previous paragraph at the end of column II. This is possible, even though, if this text belonged to the “word” of the augurs, one would expect the =wa(r) particle (cf. obv. I 9´, 18´). An interpretation remains difficult.
if one were to restore [GID]IM: “ Of the deceased”. Instead, if the text was [nu kuiš kuiš], the text would read: “ [Which ]ever Zawalli deity was …”. Differently, Cognetti C. 2021a, 283: [nu ta-ma-i]š? “The other Zawalli, who …”. According to Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 91: “ [down from the unfavorable side ]” (‘rules’ of flight directions). |
