CTH 549.3 is a Hittite omen collection concerning the ‘position’, ‘station’, or ‘presence’ (KI.GUB; akk. naplastu; manzāzu; hurr./heth.: šintaḫi-). Together with CTH 549.1 it is the most extensively preserved Hittite extispicy text from Ḫattuša.

• K.K. Riemschneider, DBH 12, 2004: 25-3; 32

The hand copies were prepared by H. Otten in KBo 10 and Güterbock H.G. 1965a: 34 (HSM 3645). The only extant edition is Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 25-32, Waal W. 2015a: 384 has treated the colophon in B rev. IV 12-18.

Besides that, the tablet and its individual passages have been discussed or used as example in a variety of contexts, such as the role of Hurrian mediation in the transmission of Mesopotamian divinatory literature to Anatolia (Bachvarova M. 2016a: 157 A. 34; Fincke J.C. 2009c: 113; Koch-Westenholz U. 1993a: 234 n. 14; Kammenhuber A. 1976c: 83f., 110; Torri G. 2011a: 141; Archi A. 1982a: 280), linguistic features that point to a Middle or even Old Hittite date (Starke F. 1996a: 142 n. 8; Boley J. 2000a: 271), divination vocabulary (Laroche E. 1970b: 64; Laroche E. 1961a: 127.131; Laroche E. 1967f: 175; Schuol M. 1994a: 84) or the scribe mentioned in the colophon (de Martino S. 2011a: 56; Koch-Westenholz U. 1993a: 234 n. 14; Waal W. 2015a: 188, 268, 381; Klengel H. 1969c: 20.30).

A: Fragment from the middle obv. of a two-column tablet with a tidy layout.

B: Two-column tablet with Randleiste. There are breaks in obv. I and rev. III and several minor gaps, but for Hattuša standards, it is largely intact. The tablet was written by Kuzi-Teššup, and the layout is very spacious.

A: New Script/IIIa: The fragment has the old LI, but the new AG. AḪ still has the horizontal somewhat in between the Winkelhaken, DA has a broken middle horizontal. The layout is less spacious than in KBo 10.7+, the script is also less cursive, and horizontals are in fact horizontal.

B: New Script/IIIa: The text uses old LI and AG. AḪ tends to have its horizontal still clearly between the Winkelhaken, see esp. obv. II 16‘: RA and E have the head of the first vertical a little lower, ID and DA have a broken middle horizontal. DU has a fourth horizontal instead of a Winkelhaken. The Layout is very spacious, with broad word spaces and free spaces in the paragraphs.

The text occasionally employs Hurrian terms. The last omen entry and the colophon use the originally Hurrian ši-in-ta-a-ḫi for KI.GUB (rev. IV 9.12). In obv. I 7′ we find p]u-u-ku-ul-ta-an-ni 𒀹 ta-⸢ke⸣-e-še, following a suggestion by S. Fischer (personal communication, s. Fischer S., forthcoming), ‘a bright puguldanni.’ Another Hurrian word is ḫa-ta-a-ḫi- in obv. II 32′ and rev. III 10, either in the Hurrian ergative or Hittite nominative. Its meaning is perhaps ‘hole’. For further discussion see the notes on the translation.

CTH 549.3 is the only Hittite collection of extispicy omens that uses Hurrian, which differs strongly from the oracle texts.

The script in both exemplars is New Script, but we can safely say that the better-preserved KBo 10.7+ is a modernizing copy of an older text. How old is difficult to say, though. The text has been called ‘Old Hittite’ in the literature (Kloekhorst A. 2008a: 321.328.333.763.1010; for the problem of terminology and the recent discussion s. Wilhelm G. 2010e; Weeden M. 2016a). And indeed it shows grammatical and orthographic features that are common in Old Hittite texts, such as the proleptic genitive with logograms and phonetic complements LUGAL-wa-aš UDMEŠ-ŠU (I 21′; Yoshida D. 1987a: 31-36), the plene writing ta-lu-ú-ga, the non-logographic writing ši-ú-na-az, or the ablative ne-pí-iš-za (Boley J. 2000a: 271; Watkins C. 1975f: 183f., 186f.; Neu E. 1974a: 48-49). One could add the two instances of Hittite enclitic possessive pronouns (iuwar=šet, rev. III 23.27, possibly also obv. II 9‘), the regular use of the local particle -šan (only found on introductory takku or mān, whereas in the other clauses of the protases and apodoses we always find -kan) and one instance of -ašta (obv. II 38′). KUR-ia an-da in B obv. II 37′-38′ can be understood as an allative. All these features proof, however, is a pre-New Hittite date, and following the proposal by Melchert H.C. 2008b of what distinguishes a Middle from an Old Hittite text, the locative use of anda instead of andan in rev. IV 7 and rev. IV 9 and the lack of non-geminating -a support a Middle Hittite date (also Starke F. 1996a: 142 n. 8). Lastly, the Hurrian loan words and the Hurrian scribe and town mentioned are plausible in the Middle Hittite period (Archi A. 1982a: 280; although Bachvarova M. 2016a: 157 n. 34 claims that one period of Hurrian influence must have been ‘clearly earlier than Middle Hittite’). This may point to a Hurrian Vorlage (Kammenhuber A. 1976c: 83f., 110; Fincke J.C. 2009c: 113).

While Hurrian influence is obvious in light of Hurrian words in the text, such as ḫataḫi- and šintaḫi-, the latter well known from the SU-oracles (Schuol M. 1994a: 84), it is uncertain whether this is due to a Hurrian origin text. In fact, a variety of peculiarities in the Hittite text are very well explained by an Akkadian Vorlage: talūga kulšanza likely goes back to (m)īšariš eṣret (cf. e. g. KAL 5.86, rev. 13-14), iuwar=šet karšzi to alaktāšu ip(p)arras (manzāzu 2, 61-62) the change between A-NA SAG.DU KI.GUB and A-NA KI.GUB SAG.DU-ŠU can be explained by the common alternation of construct state and nominativus pendens in Akkadian omens. Therefore, it is as likely if not more likely that the Vorlage was Akkadian. The scribe does carry a Hurrian name and mentions the Syrian region of Nuḫašše east of Ugarit in the colophon (as he does in the astrological omen text KUB 8.29). But the context is too broken to decide ‘what or who actually came from Nuḫašše’ (Koch-Westenholz U. 1993a: 234 n. 14), and even if the original stems from there, it may still have been Akkadian. The Hurrian terms may betray or expect familiarity with the Hurro-Hittite lingo of the SU-oracles and can be explained by the translator’s native tongue. Individual influence may also explain why CTH 549.3 is the only non-Hurrian extispicy omen text from Ḫattuša that contains Hurrian. Notably, the other KI.GUB texts from Ḫattuša, CTH 549.1-2.4-5, show no signs of Hurrian influence.

The text deals with fat spots, weapon marks, perforations, crosses, and other marks mainly on the top (SAG.DU) of the KI.GUB. Exemplar B is better preserved, with all four columns visible, but substantial damage to the beginning of obv. I and some gaps in obv. II, rev. III and the colophon. Exemplar A only preserves the rest of one column and duplicates KBo 10.7+ obv. II 34′ -rev. III 10. An Akkadian Vorlage is not preserved, the text contains a number of Hurrian words.

Despite its rather good state of preservation, there are no obvious parallels among the other second-millennium manzāzu-collections. However, there are a few striking similarities to the first-millennium tablet two of ‘manzāzu’: obv. I 17!′-23!′ are similar in topic and terminology to manzāzu 2, 39′-40′, although KBo 10.7+ is concerned with fat spots while the first-millennium version speaks of erištu-marks. K.2340+ rev. 11′-12′ (manzāzu 2 or 3; eBl edition, (https://www.ebl.lmu.de/fragmentarium/K.2340, accessed 30.6.2024) parallel KBo 10.7+ obv. II 11′-18′, although the first-millennium protasis is a little more nuanced, and 9′-11′ of the same tablet seem to be a rough parallel to the preceding omen KBo 10.7+ obv. II 5′-10′. KBo 10.7+ rev. III 5-12 parallel K.2340+, rev. 11′-12′ from Nineveh (likely belongs to tablet two of manzāzu, lines 49′-50′), and the apodoses of rev. III 21-28 are identical to those in manzāzu2, 61′-62′, where the protases are destroyed. KBo 10.7+ rev. III 29-rev IV. 8 and manzāzu 2, 66-76 both extensively deal with ṣ/ziḫḫu-marks and their meaning for weather and warfare.