This letter found at Šarišša (Kuşaklı) was sent by an unnamed ḪAZANNU (‘mayor’) to the Chief of the Palace Officials (GAL DUMUMEŠ.É.GAL), one of the highest-ranking officials of the kingdom. It is unclear whether the ‘mayor’ was based in Šarišša, or he had sent the letter from elsewhere (see Wilhelm G. 1998a, 178; Imparati F. 2003a, 238 n. 40). The letter carries news about a series of negative oracle inquries concerning the life of the “daughter of the Priest”.

The report is particularly detailed: the mayor writes that an ‘Old Woman’ Iya had performed four KIN oracles, all of which gave unfavorable results. Due to the repeated negative outcomes, Iya recommended that other inquiries should be carried out, as reported in the letter. This time bird oracles were carried out: the ‘mayor’ reports two separate bird flight observations, certainly on behalf of the augurs who made the inquiries. It appears that the results were again unfavorable, although this is not entirely transparent, as the delivery of the answer is somewhat atypical.

• G. Wilhelm, MDOG 130, 1998: 175-180 (mit Photo)
• H.A. Hoffner, Letters, 2009: 265-269
• M. Marizza, Lettere, 2009: 114-116
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 651-655 ("CTH 580.1/581")

Wilhelm G. 1998a, 175-180, with photograph (no autography); Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 265-269; Marizza M. 2009a, 114-116; Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 651-652.

The present edition has been prepared with the aid of a cast of the tablet, housed in the library of the Department of Altorientalistik at the University of Würzburg.

This perfectly preserved tablet, measuring ca. 6.5x9.5 cm, was written in portrait orientation. It was inscribed beginning on the upper edge and the text ends on the lower edge. The reverse is uninscribed, with the exception of one erased line (but a photo of the reverse is not available; see Wilhelm G. 1998a, 179). The measurement provided in the edition (ibid. 178) are probably in part incorrect: 67x69x22 mm.

The tablet was discovered in 1997 together with another letter, KuT 50, in Building C on the acropolis of Šarišša. A report in Müller-Karpe A. 1998c.

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs DA, E, (KAT), KI, LI.

Wilhelm G. 1998a, 175 discussed the variants of the sign DA in this and another tablet found in the same archaeological context (KuT 50; CTH 190.2).

A critical interpretative problem in this letter is the exact identity of the person for whom the oracular inquiry was carried out. In obv. 4, 14, 23 the sequence DUMU MUNUS SANGA might in fact be understood as DUMU.MUNUS SANGA ‘daughter of the priest’ (Imparati F. 2003a, 237-238; Marizza M. 2009a, 114) or DUMU MUNUSSANGA ‘son of the priestess’ (Wilhelm G. 1998a, 178 n. 10, Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 265). The ductus of the tablet, with a relatively tight writing, does not allow to determine the break of the compound epigraphically.

In some other Early New Kingdom letters (Middle Script) from Šarišša, Šapinuwa, and Tapikka, contemporary or of similar date (ca. early 14th c.), one finds many references to an unnamed SANGA of very high ranking status. With reasonable confidence, this has been identified with Kantuzili, the ‘Priest of Kizzuwatna’, son of Arnuwanda I and brother of Tudḫaliya II/III. An identification of the SANGA in this letter with Kantuzili provides a convincing context for the grave concerns expressed for ‘the daughter’. The ‘priest’ mentioned in several documents of this age can hardly be someone else than Kantuzili, and the same holds true for this letter. For these reasons, the letter is less likely to refer to an unnamed ‘priestess’, whose identity would be obscure (MUNUSSANGA).

Based on this likely identification of the Priest with Kantuzili, it has been suggested that the addressee, the Chief of the Palace Officials, might be Duwa, active either in the late reign of Arnuwanda or in the early years of Tudḫaliya II/III (Marizza M. 2009a, 114-115).

The report and the delivery of the answer are somewhat atypical (a breakdown and analysis of the sequence in Sakuma Y. 2009b, I 436-440). After the negative determination by Iya, there are two separate bird oracle reports, but the reason is unclear, as the question in the first oracle is not explicit. Possibly, this was a preliminary inquiry on the accuracy of the oracle of Iya, to ascertain whether the concerns were founded and the matter should be investigated further. The outcome of the observation is negative (unfavorable), which probably confirms that the worries were justified. The second observation, instead, could be the final question aiming at confirming or excluding that the life of the ‘daughter of the priest’ (obv. 23-24) is in danger.

The lack of a final response for the second question is somewhat surprising: according to Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 430; Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 439-440; and similarly Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 266, the report is unfavorable. Typically, when a question is formulated with a grammatically negative component (e.g. UL), a negative answer is also expected, and this configuration is understood as a favorable sign. According to the basic rule of ‘majority’ of positive and negative flights established by Sakuma (Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 422-423), the response is positive, but due to the nature of the question, this is an unfavorable result. Perhaps the sender did not want to give himself the bad news (Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 440), or he wanted to leave the final interpretation to the receiver, omitting the augurs’ response. The letter must be considered as complete, since the entire reverse of the tablet was left blank.