The Corpus of Hittite Divinatory Texts (HDivT)

Digital Edition and Cultural Historical Analysis

Birgit Christiansen (ed.)

Citatio: B. Christiansen (ed.), hethiter.net/: HDivT Transliterations KUB 49.60 (2023-11-02)

ANNOTATION STATUS
pre-validated (magenta text)
not validated (gray text)

No matches found.

KUB 49.60

obv. I 1 lost

obv. I 2 lost

obv. I 3 1 ]x[ ]

… ]x[ …

obv. I 4 2 mi-nu-m]ar?flattery:ACC.SG.N;
flattery:NOM.SG.N
TI-[tar(?)life:NOM.SG.N;
life:ACC.SG.N

… mi-nu-m]ar?TI-[tar(?)
flattery
ACC.SG.N
flattery
NOM.SG.N
life
NOM.SG.N
life
ACC.SG.N

obv. I 5 3 kar?]-píanger:D/L.SG GAR-rito put:3SG.PRS.MP 4 S[IG₅]good:NOM.SG(UNM)


… kar?]-píGAR-riS[IG₅]
anger
D/L.SG
to put
3SG.PRS.MP
good
NOM.SG(UNM)

obv. I 6 5 ] tar-liš(oracle term):NOM.SG.C(ABBR) pa-anfrom/on the opposite side:ADV(ABBR) pa-itto go:3SG.PST

… tar-lišpa-anpa-it
(oracle term)
NOM.SG.C(ABBR)
from/on the opposite side
ADV(ABBR)
to go
3SG.PST

obv. I 7 6 ]x-iš

… ]x-iš

obv. I 8 7 z]i-la-anfrom this side:ADV(ABBR) pa-itto go:3SG.PST

… z]i-la-anpa-it
from this side
ADV(ABBR)
to go
3SG.PST

obv. I 9 8 ] 2-antogether:ADV ar-ḫaaway:ADV ⸢pa-it⸣to go:3SG.PST

… 2-anar-ḫa⸢pa-it⸣
together
ADV
away
ADV
to go
3SG.PST

obv. I 10 9 10 UM-MA]thus:ADV GALgrandee:NOM.SG(UNM) IGI.MUŠENbird obsever:GEN.PL(UNM)1 11 SI×SÁ-at-wato arrange:3SG.PST=QUOT


obv. I breaks off

… UM-MA]GALIGI.MUŠEN … SI×SÁ-at-wa
thus
ADV
grandee
NOM.SG(UNM)
bird obsever
GEN.PL(UNM)
to arrange
3SG.PST=QUOT

obv. II 1 12 [

…

obv. II 2 13 [ ]x x x[

… ]xxx[

obv. II 3 14 x x-AB?-ni an-da:POSP [

xx-AB?-nian-da …

POSP

obv. II blank line


obv. II 4 15 IŠ-TU L[Ú]I[GI.MU]Š[ENbird obseverABL ER-TUMoracle inquiry:NOM.SG(UNM) QA-TAM-MA-pátlikewise:ADV=FOC 16 nuCONNn MUŠENḪI.Abird:NOM.PL(UNM)2 17

IŠ-TU L[Ú]I[GI.MU]Š[ENER-TUMQA-TAM-MA-pátnuMUŠENḪI.A …
bird obseverABLoracle inquiry
NOM.SG(UNM)
likewise
ADV=FOC
CONNnbird
NOM.PL(UNM)

obv. II 5 pé-anbefore:ADV(ABBR) ⸢ku⸣-u[š!?unfavourable:ABL(ABBR)

pé-an⸢ku⸣-u[š!?
before
ADV(ABBR)
unfavourable
ABL(ABBR)

obv. II 6 18 pát-tar-pal-ḫi-i[š?-ma(-)

obv. II 7 19 nuCONNn pát-tarwing:NOM.SG.N ar-ḫaaway:ADV iš-ḫ[u?-wa-išto pour:3SG.PST3

nupát-tarar-ḫaiš-ḫ[u?-wa-iš …
CONNnwing
NOM.SG.N
away
ADV
to pour
3SG.PST

obv. II 8 20 na-aš-kánCONNn=PPRO.3SG.C.NOM=OBPk pé-anbefore:ADV(ABBR) ar-ḫ[aaway:ADV pa-itto go:3SG.PST

na-aš-kánpé-anar-ḫ[apa-it
CONNn=PPRO.3SG.C.NOM=OBPkbefore
ADV(ABBR)
away
ADV
to go
3SG.PST

obv. II 9 21 na-ašCONNn=PPRO.3SG.C.NOM ⸢2⸣-antogether:ADV ar-ḫaaway:ADV pa-itto go:3SG.PST [

na-aš⸢2⸣-anar-ḫapa-it …
CONNn=PPRO.3SG.C.NOMtogether
ADV
away
ADV
to go
3SG.PST

obv. II 10 22 [U]M-MAthus:ADV mú-lu-lu:PNm.NOM.SG(UNM) 23 ar-ḫa-[waaway:ADV=QUOT pé-eš-šerto throw:3PL.PST

[U]M-MAmú-lu-luar-ḫa-[wapé-eš-šer
thus
ADV

PNm.NOM.SG(UNM)
away
ADV=QUOT
to throw
3PL.PST

obv. II 11 24 [pát]-tarwing:NOM.SG.N ar-ḫaaway:ADV iš-ḫu-wa-išto pour:3SG.PST [

[pát]-tarar-ḫaiš-ḫu-wa-iš …
wing
NOM.SG.N
away
ADV
to pour
3SG.PST

obv. II 12 25 [ ]x x x D?UTU-⸢ma⸣(-)[


obv. II breaks off

… ]xx x

rev. III blank column with two thin paragraph lines preserved


rev. III breaks off, close to the tablet’s edge

rev. IV drawing of the observation field(?), with a few words inscribed

rev. IV 1′ 26 ] 𒀹 𒀹 𒀹4

…

rev. IV 2′ 27 ] 1?one:QUANcar5 𒀹

… 1? …
one
QUANcar

rev. IV 2′ 28 ]x ⸢tar?-li?⸣stork(?):D/L.SG6 [

… ]x⸢tar?-li?⸣ …
stork(?)
D/L.SG

rev. IV 3′ 29 ]x [ ]x?[ ] ⸢pé!?before:ADV(ABBR) SIG₅!?⸣-zafrom the good side:HITT.ABL7 [

rev. IV breaks off, close to the tablet’s edge

… ]x … ]x?[ … ⸢pé!?SIG₅!?⸣-za …
before
ADV(ABBR)
from the good side
HITT.ABL
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 358 emended GAL IGI.MUŠEN, but should we accept this spelling of the title ‘Great Augur’ as correct?
Based on standard formulary.
See obv. II 11.
Three (or four?) small angular wedges; perhaps, to be read pé? Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 360 commented: “= drei Vögel?”.
A vertical wedge?
The reading tar-li was suggested in Haas V. 2008a, 33, and also provided in the edition by Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 360. The reading of this and the following term has led scholars to interpret the drawing as a representation of the augural observation field (e.g. the scheme in Beal 2002f, 73, based on the tablet’s drawing). However, this reading remains dubious, based on the photographs as well as the handcopy by Archi in KUB 49. It must also be pointed out that the spelling is atypical, as this technical oracular term is always spelled tar-li₁₂(-) (see in fact in this tablet obv. I 6). It should also be noted that the script differs from that of the main text and was incised rather cursorily. An alternative reading, at least equally compelling epigraphically, has been proposed by Sakuma (Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 360), NU.ŠE-du – which has the disadvantage of not being compatible with the current interpretations of the drawing as connected to the augural reports. It should be noted that this tablet also records other divination techniques (KIN oracles, obv. I 3–5; the content of obv. II 1–3 remains unclear), and the text itself may not pertain to bird oracles. However, if the drawing does represent the observation field, is it possible that the text is unrelated to the scheme – perhaps written before the drawing was incised?
The reading of this term is also problematic. pé may have an extra horizontal wedge, and the final angular wedges appear more like horizontal ones as well (compare with the potential pé above). SIG₅, written across the vertical column separator and thus partially obscured, also remains uncertain. Particularly problematic is the last wedge of the sign, which is a single vertical rather than a broken or double vertical (cf. those in the following sign, which are compatible with ZA).