KBo 13.29 is a peculiar compilation of animal omens, astrological omens, and rituals concerning situations at births.

• G. Torri – F.G. Barsacchi, DBH 51, 2018: 31-33
• K.K. Riemschneider, DBH 12, 2004: 40f. (Vs. II); id.; StBoT 9; 1970; 83f. (Rs. III)

This tablet was published in copy by H. Otten and edited in two separate parts by K.K. Riemschneider: the reverse in Riemschneider K.K. 1970a: 83–84, and the obverse in Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 40–41. A continuous transliteration was published by Torri G. – Barsacchi F.G. 2018b: 31–33. The nature of the text and its potential links to the ritual tradition have been discussed by Haas V. 2008a: 146–147; Christiansen B. 2006a: 285–307; Kammenhuber A. 1976c: 81–82.

A: A roughly pentagonal piece from the right side of a two-column tablet with parts of the upper margin preserved. A hole with cracks radiating from it and many abraded spots make the reading of some signs on the obverse difficult, while the reverse is mostly destroyed. Altogether, thirty lines of cuneiform are visible in varying degrees of preservation.

A: Middle Script: The text uses old AG, IG, and LI. AḪ‚ E, ḪAR, and ŠA can appear in their old forms, with closed Winkelhaken and internal horizontals for AḪ and ḪAR, and very small verticals almost underneath the lower horizontal for E and ŠA. The versions of AḪ and ḪAR with opened Winkelhaken and ‘escaping’ horizontals are also found, as is E with a raised first vertical, although it does not go beyond the upper horizontal. AL has a ‘flat bottom’.

This mix of old sign forms and newer ones is the reason for Riemschneider’s judgment that it ‘resembles the old ductus’ (Riemschneider K.K. 1970a: 83), meaning that of the Zukraši tablet.

Palaeography and certain spellings suggest a text earlier than the Empire period. Forms such as t[i-i]-⸢e⸣-ez-zi and ú-e-mi-ie-e-ez-zi are usually replaced in later texts by forms in -ia-(az)-zi (Neu E. 1970a: 52–53). The spelling na-a-ú-i, already attested in Old Hittite, is usually replaced in New Hittite texts by na-wi₅. The text writes MÁŠ-ŠU logographically twice and once syllabically as ḫa-aš-ša-an-n[a-aš. Whether the Hittite enclitic possessive, as restored by Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 40; Torri G. – Barsacchi F.G. 2018b: 32, was actually employed remains unclear in the absence of further attestations in the text. The scribe consistently and correctly uses Akkadian case complements with Sumerograms in the genitive. We are therefore probably dealing with a (late) Middle Script manuscript and, perhaps, Middle Hittite text.

A peculiarity is the beginning of obv. II 6, which Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 40 read ta-ap-m[i?]-aš(-)BAD-aš and Torri G. – Barsacchi F.G. 2018b: 32 read ta-um-mi-aš BAD-aš. While both are possible readings and valid interpretations of the signs, I cannot make sense of either. A new sentence starts after BAD-aš. I propose an emendation to ta-⟨me⟩-um-mi-aš for a translation ‘[…] of a foreign lord’, which fits the omen of a bee entering an anthill very well, but which must contend with the fact that there is no attestation for a genitive tameumiyaš.

The nature of the text is not immediately clear, both because of its fragmentary state and because of the untypical combination of animal omens and astrological omens within a single composition. In the sections on the reverse edited by Riemschneider K.K. 1970a: 83–84 as birth omens, the situation seems to me – despite the damaged condition – clearer than on the obverse. The phrase MUNUS-za ḫāši nu=šši=ššan is indeed typical of Hittite translations of Akkadian birth omens (e. g., in KBo 13.35+), and the householder (BE-EL É-TIM) is a standard figure in these omens. However, none of the preserved phrases on the reverse must necessarily be understood as omen apodoses. In fact, the note ‘The ritual (is) likewise’ (SÍSKUR-ma QA-TAM-MA-pát), entirely untypical for Mesopotamian omen lists and their translations, rather suggests that this is a list of hypothetical circumstances during or after birth, to which ritual responses were prescribed.

The same is likely true for the fifth paragraph of the obverse, which shortly before the end reads SÍSKUR-ma IŠ-T[U. This too seems to be a case description. Such case descriptions are typical of the Namburbi (counter-ritual) tradition, but as Birgit Christiansen has shown, they already occur in ritual texts of the Ambazzi tradition (Christiansen B. 2006a: 298–304). These, in turn, may go back to Old Babylonian forerunners (Maul S.M. 1994a: 159). She draws particular attention to the thematic connections between ritual CTH 463 and KBo 13.29: we encounter the bee, the ant, the snake, and the storage vessel (ḫaršiyalli-) in both (Christiansen B. 2006a: 304–307). The case examples in CTH 463, however, are introduced with a single mān=za=kan and then linked together by repeated našma. All ominous events occur within the same paragraph and derive from the natural world (animals and plants). In contrast, paragraphs with animal omens alternate at least once with paragraphs containing astrological omens in KBo 13.29. Even among the compendium tablets from Ḫattuša, which often combine different omen genres in sequence, this is unique. Since SÍSKUR is absent from these paragraphs, it is reasonable to assume that §§1′–4′ of the obverse represent translations from Mesopotamian omen lists, which may nonetheless have served as comparative material for cases to be addressed with rituals. This would at least explain the peculiar eclecticism. For the sequence of cases in CTH 463, Christiansen B. 2006a: 303 suggests that they represent Mesopotamian omen protases, which is quite possible, even if some have not yet been found in Mesopotamia, such as a tree flowering twice or a bee on a wave.

The omens on the obverse deal with deviant behavior of animals and astral bodies: A bee entering an anthill, and perhaps something similar concerning a beehive, sun and moon not rising when they are supposed to, and a snake doing something in front of a storage vessel. The bee’s errand into an anthill leads (perhaps) to the appearance of a foreign lord; the following beehive omen apparently deals with an outsider coming into a household. If our understanding is correct, the connection between protasis and apodosis appears rather straightforward in this case. The sun and moon misbehaving may predict a change of rule, which aligns with what we know from other astral omens from Ḫattuša and Mesopotamia.

Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 40 assumed that the omens were collected together because of their apodoses, which all seem to be about domestic matters. This, however, is only true if we restore a-pa-a-at [É-ri in obv. II, 11 with Riemschneider, which is uncertain. The astrological omen may be about someone becoming ruler in the land, which would be typical of that particular genre. That passages about birth and omens about animals in houses – houses of bees, ants, and men – deal with domestic matters is to be expected. That said, it is difficult to find a good explanation as to why these texts were combined. My best guess is that Hittite ritual cases like CTH 463 were combined in KBo 13.29 with Akkadian omens that seemed similar to known issues in Hittite thought, or due to another perceived similarity. A comparable practice is found in KUB 8.27, an oracle summary (CTH 569) about, among others, Šauškatti and Arma-Tarḫunta, to which the scribe added lunar eclipse omens (arma-) on the margin, although there was space left on the reverse. One omen mentions the deity DGAŠAN (Ištar, Šauška). The link between the two text types seems purely onomastic and is found only in that manuscript of the summary.