This paragraph offers numerous problems, both in the Akkadian and the Hittite.
mu-ki-il in the Akkadian column of C in all likelihood refers to the
mukīl rēši, a feature found mainly on the lung, but also on the liver (e. g. YOS 10.10, 5; liver model KUB 37.217), and also a word meaning ‘helper, supporter’ in apodoses (
Farber W. 1974a: 92-93). The word can also appear as
mukīl rēš lemutti/
damiqti, mainly in first-millennium liver omen apodoses, but usually as a self-contained statement without further elaboration (e. g.
pān tākalti 6, 87; hence the assumption by
Farber W. 1974a: 92 that it does not mean a demon in those cases). Due to the remaining spacing and the elaborations in the Hittite text, an apodosis
mukīl rēš lemutti is unlikely. It is tempting to assume
mukīl rēši means the liver feature here, because this may help us identify the puzzling
MAŠ-(L)AM in later paragraphs. However, exemplar D shows either
TI-
[ oder
MÁ[Š where we expect the liver part in question, hence the reading
ti-[bi IM/ti-[bi ZAG/
GÙB or
MÁ[Š for
ṣibtu come to mind (for the writing
ti-bi see also he liver model KUB 37.217). This is difficult to harmonize with
mu-ki-il. A transmission error
mukillu ->
DAB ->
ṣabātu ->
ṣibtu (
MÁŠ) is conceivable. In liver and lung omens,
mukīl rēši appears to be interchangeable with
nīš rēši (
Heeßel N. 2012a: 213;
Starr I. 1990a: XLVIII;
Nougayrol J. 1945a: 63). If
tību was used for
nīšu here, the sign could be the beginning of
ti-[ib SAG, but the two terms are usually kept apart in extispicy. Both explanations are ad-hoc arguments. Alternatively
TI/
MÁŠ could describe a part of the
mukīl rēši. KUB 37.217 shows that the
mukīl rēši can have a weapon. Otherwise, we must expect an equivalent of
mukīl rēši, ‘helper’, in the apodosis in the gap after
ḫu-ma-an-da-aš-pa. The words
šardi- and
warri- come to mind, but neither fit the sign traces. The sign ending in the break could very well be
AB, and be the remnant of a literal translation using a form of
epp-/app-, but that would lead to an otherwise unattested form
ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš-pa. In any case, this would lead to a translation ‘A helper will strike all the …’ or the like, for which cf. the gallbladder omen apodosis
mu-ki-il₅ re-e-ši-im LUGAL i-du-ku-ú, ‘helper(s) will kill the king.’ (
Riemschneider K.K. 1965b: 130-131). The string
ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš pa-x[ in the Hittite column of C is also difficult. The sign ending in the break could be
AD,
LA,
AB, or a similar sign. The absence of word spacing implies that the signs belong to one word, but as in §13.2''', where we have to separate words in A although there is no sign space, reading
ḫūmandas-pa-a[t(-) or
ḫūmandas-pa-a[p(-) does not lead anywhere unless we want to propose that this is another disputable instances in which the enclitic
BE/
=pat is actually written
-pa-at (cf. CHD/p 214a-b). Hittite
=(a)pa loses its initial a only after i and e. We can assume a missing sign
-ša-, the use of the Luwian cognate enclitic
=pa (cf. the Luwian loan in §8′), or a word starting
pa-a[p- or
pa-a[t-. The latter does not offer much for the understanding of the omen and is contrary to the word spacing, but does otherwise pose the last problems.
