CTH 564 represents a comprehensive and relatively well-preserved Hittite bird oracle inquiry concerning the royal couple’s planned winter residence in Ḫattuša and associated religious observances. It aims to determine whether the gods approve of the king’s and queen’s intention to stay in Ḫattuša during the winter and to perform there the festival of thunder for the Storm-god of Aleppo, the festival of the year, and the AN.DAḪ.ŠUM festival. A further objective of the oracle investigation is to identify potential dangers that might arise during the king’s and queen’s stay in Ḫattuša. The oracle technique used to achieve the divine answers is augury, i.e., observing the flight patterns and other behaviors of birds, such as perching and turning the beak in a certain direction. The oracle is carried out by the two augurs Piḫatarḫunta and Armanani (obv. 14; obv. 49; rev. 4′).

Among the potential dangers are threats from an epidemic, a severe illness of the king, an evil that causes the royal couple to flee, a risk to the king’s person, a revolt, a ‘misbehavior of a horse’ (likely a behavior such as shying that results in bodily injury or an accident on the road; cf. Beal R.H. 1997a, 209, note 29), fire, and heavy rains. Other questions remain unclear due to the text’s fragmentary state of preservation. This is especially true for the reverse, which is far less well-preserved than the obverse. However, the surviving parts indicate that it focuses on a fever of the king, which is attributed to the wrath of the Storm-god of Aleppo. Furthermore, the inquiry investigates possible remedies (cf. rev. 11′; rev. 15′). The text resembles the oracle reports KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ (CTH 563) that also address the king’s and queen’s winter residence, related cultic festivals, and potential threats during their stay. Yet, in contrast to them, the oracle is carried out by augury and not by symbol oracles (KIN) and extispicy (SUMEŠ or TEMEŠ). Another difference from the other texts is the prominent role of the Storm-god of Aleppo in the present text.

• A. Archi, SMEA 16, 1975: 122-124
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 183-202

The main fragment Bo 2806 was published as KUB 18.12 by Arnold Walther (Walther A. 1927a, 17–18). The joining fragment Bo 4429 was published only one year later as KUB 22.15 (Walther A. 1928a, 5). The join was discovered by Laroche E. 1971c, 98 sub CTH 564.

A first partial edition of the text, covering obv. 1–14, was published by Ünal A. 1973a, 42–46 in a study centering on the role of the augurs in Hittite society, but also on the terminology and structure of the bird oracle texts. Another partial edition, covering obv. 1–7 and obv. 15–18, was published by Archi A. 1975e, 122–124, in a study focussing on the technique and terminology of the Hittite bird oracles. It was presented as an example to illustrate the course of a typical bird oracle, with the questions building on each other. An edition of the whole text, including previous literature, has been provided by Sakuma Y 2009b, 183–202, as part of his PhD thesis. This study focuses on the technique of the bird oracles, while other aspects are mainly ignored and only referred to in bibliographic notes.

Partial editions have also been published in several studies focussing on the text’s contents and specific linguistic questions. See, e.g., Haas V. 1996a, 78–81 with an edition of obv. 1–14 and a discussion of the term ḫuek- ‘to invoke, conjure’ in obv. 13; Schwemer D. 2001b, 496–497 with note 4063–4064; 4075; Haas V. 2008a, 46–48.

The tablet is single-columned with the upper part of the obverse (obv. 1–58) and the lower part of the reverse (rev. 1′–30′) preserved. Obv. 1–16 are almost entirely preserved, whereas, from line 17 onwards, the text decreases from line to line. On average, only a quarter and at most half of the lines on the reverse are preserved. The content can, therefore, only be partially understood. Like other Hittite oracle reports, the present text shows some blank lines where the oracle investigation and its results are usually recorded. This applies to obv. 38/12′?–obv. 15′?? and the end of the rev. before the text breaks off.

The text is carefully written, with the signs deeply impressed into the clay. According to the sign forms, the text was written in the New Hittite Period. Applying Klinger’s dating criteria, the signs correspond to phase IIIb (Klinger J. 1996a, 38). Cf. AL with a Winkelhaken between the two verticals; ḪA with two Winkelhaken; IK with one horizontal and two verticals; KI with only one vertical; SAG with the first vertical reaching up to the other two verticals; UN with an unbroken vertical in front of the two broken verticals; URU with the middle horizontal protruding to the left. Other signs are attested in pre-IIIb variants. Cf., e.g., DA (as far as recognizable, with a broken middle horizontal (obv. 21, obv. 24); IT, as far as recognizable, with a broken middle horizontal; MEŠ (written with three Winkelhaken). Notably, some signs are written in two variants. Thus, LI is attested mainly in the older but sometimes also in the younger variant (see obv. 9; obv. 43). Both forms can even appear side by side, as is the case with a-li-li-ia-aš at the beginning of obv. 9.

The text shows the typical terminology and structure of Hittite bird oracles. Many technical terms are abbreviated as in other bird oracles from the New Hittite period. Thus, we find tar-liš and tar-li₁₂-uš as abbreviations of the adjective taruya(l)li-, tarwalli, tarwiyalli- and tar-li₁₂-an as an abbreviation of the adverbial forms taruya(l)lian, tarwallian or tarwiyallian. Further abbreviations are pa-an for pariyawan- ‘diagonally, obliquely, to the other side’; pé-an for peran ‘in front’; zi-an for zilawan ‘lengthways’. The Luwian term kuštaya/i- ‘unfavorable’ is spelled ku-za, representing the Hittite abl. sg. kuštayaz. The technical term GUN-liš, used as the opposite of tar(uya)li- (tarwalli-, tarwiyalli-) is presumably not an abbreviated form.

The oracle questions also show the specific terminology and structure of bird oracles. Thus, the birds are asked either to confirm or exclude something desired or undesired (MUŠENḪI.A SI×SÁ-an-du, i.e., ḫandandu ‘let the birds confirm (it)’ or MUŠENḪI.A arḫa peššiyandu ‘let the birds exclude (it)’.

The clause nu IGI-anda laḫlaḫḫimuš MUŠENḪI.A (obv. 15) referring to the counter-check question is likely a misspelling of the usual wording nu IGI-anda laḫlaḫḫimaš MUŠENḪI.A NI-MUR ‘we observed birds of concern’. The countercheck question itself is missing, as is often the case in bird oracles.

The following sections of the obverse consist of questions whose protases address something undesired in a negative sentence. The apodoses of obv. 17 and obv. 40/17′?? that are not preserved can therefore be restored as ‘let the birds exclude (it)’.

Regarding syntax, it is noteworthy that in obv. 1–2 the verb is found at the beginning of the sentence followed by -ma (SÈD-anzi=ma DUTU-ŠI MUNUS.LUGAL URUKÙ.BABBAR-ši ŠA D10 URUḫa-la-ap). By contrast, the following sentence is not introduced by a clause-linking conjunction but shows the regular word order (ŠA D10 URUḫalap EZEN₄ tetḫešnaš=za apiya DÙ-anzi).

An interesting phrase unique to the present text appears in obv. 13: ḫūgawen ‘we conjured’ (1st pers. pl. pret. of ḫuek- ‘to conjure, invoke’). A similar form ḫuekuwani occurs in a letter from three augurs to the queen (CTH 195, KBo 15.28 obv. 5), though notably this form appears in the present tense despite being part of a bird observation report, which typically employs preterite verbs.

Haas 1996a, 77–82 connects these verb forms to the ‘birds of conjuration’ (ḫūgannaš MUŠENḪI.A) mentioned in obv. 7 of the present text. He proposes that both verb forms refer not to actions performed during the bird observation, but rather to ritual actions undertaken by the augurs to counteract negative oracle outcomes. Haas supports this interpretation by noting the anomalous present tense of ḫuekuwani in the letter, which contrasts with the standard preterite usage in reports of bird observations.

However, the specific context of ḫūgawen in KUB 18.12+ obv. 13 argues against Haas’s interpretation. Here the verb appears within a bird observation sequence designed to confirm a desired positive outcome, not to avert a negative result. The contextual evidence suggests instead that the augurs conjure the birds themselves in order to obtain a favorable response by the ‘birds of conjuration’ mentioned in obv. 7. The verb ḫuekuwani in the letter (KBo 15.28 obv. 5) likely serves the same function – conjuring birds for favorable oracular responses rather than performing countermeasures against unfavorable outcomes.

Regarding the historical context of KUB 18.12+, the names of the two augurs Piḫartarḫunta and Armanani, mentioned in obv. 14, obv. 44 and obv. 50, are of particular importance. Both names are also known from other sources. This, as well as some other considerations, led several scholars to assume that they all refer to the same individuals (Imparati 1987a, 194–195; Hazenbos J. 2007a, 101–102; Marizza M. 2007b, 167–169; Lebrun Ch. 2014a, 112–122; 188–206, all with further literature). However, there are some caveats to this hypothesis.

The name Piḫatarḫunta is attested in several cuneiform texts from Ḫattuša. Most of them are oracle reports (KUB 18.12+ obv. 14; obv. 44; obv. 50; KUB 22.30 obv. 22; KUB 16.60 rev. III 13; KUB 6.40 line 3). A further reference is part of a legal document (the so-called Ukkura law-suit) which mentions a LÚSAG ‘lord’ (or, ‘eunuch’, Hieroglyphic Luwian = EUNUCHUS₂) bearing this name (KUB 13.35+ rev. III 13). Other attestations are to be found in an inventory text (KBo 16.83 rev. III 1), a dream report of the queen (presumably Puduḫepa; KUB 48.118 obv. 22), and a votive text of the queen (likely Puduḫepa) to Ištar of Lawazantiya (KUB 48.123 obv. II 17). In addition, the name Piḫatarḫunta is attested on seals from Ḫattuša (Kennedy D.A 1959a, 160 no. 40; Herbordt S. 2005a, 267–268, no. 305–307). Furthermore, the name is known from several seal impressions from Emar and Ugarit and two sealed cuneiform texts from Emar (for attestations see Lebrun Ch. 2014a, 119–122 with further literature).

If the augur Piḫatarḫunta mentioned in KUB 18.12+ was the same individual as the one mentioned in the sources from Ugarit and Emar, the augur Piḫatarḫunta would have been a son of Upparamuwa and a grandson of Initeššup of Karkamiš. This, however, poses a chronological challenge. Thus, Piḫartarḫunta would have been very young when he was an augur in the king’s service (see Hazenbos J. 2007a, 101). Furthermore, as Herbordt S. 2005a, 268, pointed out, it is doubtful that the prince Piḫatarḫunta (DUMU.LUGAL, REX.FILIUS) mentioned on seal no. 307 is the same individual as the EUNUCHUS₂ (= LÚSAG), mentioned on seal no. 305 and no. 306. since “no secure evidence supports the compatibility of the two titles”. According to Herbordt S. 2005a, 267–268, it seems more probable that the EUNUCHUS₂ (LÚSAG) mentioned on seal no. 305 is the same individual as the one mentioned in the Ukkura lawsuit (KUB 13.35 rev. III 13). In contrast, the augur mentioned in KUB 18.12+ might be the same individual as the seal-holder attested on seal no. 306, bearing the titles AVIS₃+MAGNUS, EUNUCHUS₂, and X.DOMINUS.

The name of the second augur Armanani is also known from seals, whereas the only cuneiform text that mentions the name is the oracle report KUB 18.12+. If the references in the glyptic sources and the one in the oracle report referred to the same person, the augur Armanani mentioned in KUB 18.12+ would have born the titles ‘Prince’ (REX.FILIUS = DUMU.LUGAL, seals no. 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47), ‘Scribe’ (SCRIBA, seals no. 42, 43, 44?, 50?), ‘Scribe (of grade) Two’ (SCRIBA ‘two’, seals no. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49) as well as the titles ‘Great Lord of Ḫatti’ (MAGNUS.HATTI.DOMINUS, no. 47, 48), and ‘Chief of Wine’ (MAGNUS.(BONUS₂)VITIS = GAL.GEŠTIN, seals no. 38, 39, 40, 47). For all references see Herbordt S. 2005a, 118–123 and plate 4).

The fact that the titles ‘Prince’, ‘Scribe’ and ‘Chief of Wine’ are not otherwise attested together might first raise doubts on the hypothesis that all attestations refer to the same individual. However, their joint mention on seal no. 47 proves that one and the same person can indeed bear all titles (cf. also seal no. 48 where Armanani is mentioned with all titles except for ‘Prince’). According to Marizza M. 2007b, 167–169, an explanation for this noteworthy combination might be that Armanani initially served as a scribe under Ḫattušili III and was later, under the reign of Tutḫaliya IV, promoted to the rank of ‘Chief of Wine’. This, however, is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that KUB 18.12+ dates from the time of Tutḫaliya IV, especially if all mentions of the name Piḫatarḫunta on seals refer to the same individual, as suggested by Imparati 1987a, 194–195; Hazenbos J. 2007a, 101–102; Marizza M. 2007b, 167–169; Lebrun Ch. 2014a, 112–122; 188–206.

Moreover, the presence of seals of individuals holding the titles ‘Scribe’ or ‘Chief of Scribes’ and ‘Chief of Augurs’, as well as seals of those with titles ‘Chief of Scribes’ and ‘Chief of Wine’, suggests that the two professions are not necessarily distinct career paths, contrary to the assumption of Marizza M. 2007b, 167–169. Thus, the augur Nanuwa bears the titles ‘Chief of Augurs’ and ‘Scribe’ (seal no. 286, Herbordt S. 2005a, 164–165), whereas Tiwatamuwa bears the titles ‘Chief of Wine’ and ‘Chief of Augurs’ (seals no. 254, 255, Herbordt S. 2005a, 195). Ukkura, again, bears the title ‘Military Scribe (of Rank) Two’ and ‘Chief of Augurs’. For the combination of augury and scribal activity, see also Hazenbos J. 2007a, 106–107.

The name Armanani in KUB 18.12+ and the glyptic evidence might, therefore, very well refer to the same individual. However, it is important to note that in the Nișantepe Archive, Armanani, unlike Piḫatarḫunta, is never called ‘Augur’ (AVIS₃+MAGNUS) or ‘Chief of Augurs’ (AVIS₃+MAGNUS = GAL LÚ.MEŠMUŠEN.DÙ, or, GAL LÚ.MEŠIGI.MUŠEN).

Another important feature for the historical contextualisation of the text is the mention of the Storm-god of Aleppo and his worship in Ḫattuša. Although this god was already known to the Hittites before the New Kingdom period, there is no evidence of his cultic worship in Ḫattuša before this time. The AN.TAḪ.ŠUM festival shows that the god had a temple in Ḫattuša from the reign of Muršili II at the latest (KBo 10.20 rev. III 19-22 // KUB 44.39 rev. IV 7′-10′; see Schwemer D. 2001b, 496-497 with note 3067; Archi A. 2006a, 154). Muwatalli II’s special relationship to the Storm-god of Aleppo is indicated by his Great Prayer to the Assembly of Gods (CTH 381 KUB 6.45 obv. I 51 // KUB 6.46 obv. II 16). Here, the Storm-god is called ‘Storm-god (Teššub) of Aleppo of Ḫattuša’ for the first time (see Schwemer D. 2001b, 495-496 with note 4061).

A seal of Muršili III / Urḫi-Teššub also deserves special attention, which is provided with an image of a Storm-god who, on the basis of the inscription DEUS.TONITRUS.GENUFLECTERE.MI, can be identified as the Storm-god (or, Teššub) of Aleppo (see Hawkins J.D. 2003b). A dating of KUB 18.12+ to the reigns of these earlier kings of the Empire period, seems thus possible. However, the mention of the two augurs Piḫatarḫunta and Armanani speaks rather in favor of a dating to the reign of Tutḫaliya IV.

In KUB 18.12+, the prominent role of the Storm-god of Aleppo is indicated by the fact that the festival of thunder is specified by his name in the genitive case (see obv. 2: ⸢ŠA⸣ D10 URUḫalap EZEN₄ tetḫešnaš). Furthermore, the genitive attribute ŠA D10 in the phrase man=ma=šmaš DINGIRMEŠ URUKÙ.BABBAR-an URU-an ŠA D10 URUḫalap A-NA DUTU-ŠI MUNUS.LUGAL SÈD-w[a]nzi dapiaz tak〈ša〉n malān ḫarteni (see obv. 4, and similarly obv. 6). To my knowledge, this specification of Ḫattuša as the city of the Storm-god of Aleppo is unique among the Hittite sources (see also Schwemer D. 2001b, 496). Comparable is, however, the specification of the Storm-god of Aleppo as the one of Ḫattuša in Muwatalli II’s Prayer to the Assembly of the Gods (see above) and in the oracle text KUB 22.36 rev.? 14′.

In contrast to these references, the ones in KUB 18.12+ obv. 4 and obv. 6 are likely to be interpreted as ellipses of ‘if you, o gods, have (jointly) approved of Ḫattuša as the city for the festival/celebration of the Storm-god of Aleppo’. Similarly, kuitman DUTU-ŠI URUKÙ.BABBAR-ši ŠA D10 URUḫalap in obv. 15 is presumably understood as ‘while His Majesty is in Ḫattuša for the celebration/festival of Storm-god of Aleppo’. In this case, there is also no need to emend the text by adding 〈URU-ri〉 after URUKÙ.BABBAR-ši in obv. 1 and obv. 15 (pace Sakuma Y 2009b, 2, 188).

The text is similar to the oracle reports KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+, and the small fragments subsumed under CTH 563. In contrast to these texts, the inquiry of KUB 18.12+ concerns only Ḫattuša as the intended winter quarter of the king and queen and the dangers they might face there, not alternative winter residences like Katapa, Ankuwa, Aleppo, and Zitḫara.

Another difference is the prominent role of the Storm-god of Aleppo in KUB 18.12+. This is evident from the fact that in KUB 18.12+, the festival of thunder is specified as ‘the festival of thunder of/for the Storm-god of Aleppo’, whereas in KUB 5.4+, such a specification is missing. Furthermore, KUB 18.12+ addresses the anger of the Storm-god of Aleppo (rev. 8′) as a potential reason for the king’s fever (rev. 11′).

KUB 18.12+ differs also from KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ in the oracle technique of the oracle inquiry. Thus, the inquiry of KUB 18.12+ uses bird oracles to receive divine answers to the questions. KUB 5.4+ (CTH 563.2), on the other hand, uses KIN oracles, while KUB 5.3+, KUB 52.64, KUB 50.11, and KUB 18.28+ use extispicy and KIN.

Unfortunately, several oracle questions of KUB 18.12+ are only partially preserved, so it is often unclear which topics they deal with. However, all preserved questions address matters that can also be found in KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+. These are the divine approval of the king’s and queen’s winter stay in Ḫattuša and potential threats from a revolt, a ‘misbehavior of a horse’ (i.e., likely a road accident), fire, downpour, and fever. However, in contrast to KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+, the inquiry in KUB 18.12+ does not contain any questions regarding strategies to prevent potential dangers or the anger of the gods.

Notably, KUB 18.12+ also provides some interesting information regarding the cultic calendar of the Hittites and, in particular, the time of the year when the festival of thunder, the festival of the year, and the AN.DAḪ.ŠUM festival were celebrated. Thus, the text indicates that all these festivals were celebrated in the winter period, i.e., when the king was not on a campaign but staying in Ḫattuša or another city. This is also indicated by the logogram SÈD which means ‘to rest’ but also ‘to winter’ (see HZL, 103, no. 27). Furthermore, we learn from the text that the festival of thunder for the Storm-god of Aleppo came first and was followed by the festival of the year and finally by the AN.DAḪ.ŠUM festival, which marked the end of the winter and the beginning of the new campaign season. Unfortunately, the text does not provide detailed information regarding the time when the festival of thunder and the festival of the year were performed. The same is true for the oracle reports KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+, which contain oracle inquiries carried out for a similar purpose to the one of KUB 18.12+. Surprisingly, the two texts show the reverse order of the festival of thunder and the festival of the year (cf. KUB 5.3+ rev. IV 1–2; KUB 5.4+ obv. I 2; obv. I 16; obv. I 26 passim). According to Houwink ten Cate Ph.H.J. 1992c, 92, this can be explained by the fact that the festival of thunder was an ad hoc festival that had to be performed when a thunderstorm came up. Yet, as Barsacchi F.G. 2017a, 23 pointed out, this argument is not convincing. Instead, the evidence suggests that the festival of thunder, similar to the festival of the year, was a regular seasonal festival integrated into the official state cult calendar (Barsacchi F.G. 2017a, 13–24; Barsacchi F.G. 2019c, 111–119 passim).

However, the question remains during which months of the year the two festivals were celebrated. According to Barsacchi F.G. 2017a, 23, the thunder festival was performed at the beginning of spring when the first thunderstorm occurred. This would mean that in KUB 18.12+ only festivals celebrated in the spring are mentioned. Although possible, this seems, in my view, unlikely. Instead, the wording of KUB 18.12+ suggests that the three festivals span over the winter period, with the festival of thunder celebrated right after the king arrived in Ḫattuša and the AN.DAḪ.ŠUM festival at the end of his stay. The reversed order of the festival of thunder and the festival of the year in KUB 5.4+ and KUB 5.3+ might be due to various local traditions. Thus, the festival of thunder for the Storm-god of Aleppo might traditionally have been celebrated in Aleppo before the festival of the year, i.e., at the beginning of winter. In contrast, in Ḫattuša and other cities, it might have been celebrated after the festival of the year at the end of the winter. If so, it would not be surprising that the Hittites performed the festival of thunder for the Storm-god of Aleppo in Ḫattuša at the same time when it was traditionally celebrated in Aleppo. The assumption that the festival of the year was celebrated in the winter is also supported by the Ten-year annals of Muršili II. Thus, according to KBo 3.4 obv. II 48, the king celebrated the festival of the year at the end of the year in a fortified camp before the beginning of spring (ed. by Goetze A. 1933b, 60–61; for discussions see Cammarosano M. 2018a, 401 with note 411; Barsacchi, F.G. 2019c, 114). As pointed out by Cammarosano M. 2018a, 99–101, the passage in Muršili’s annals and further evidence also suggests that the beginning of the new year was in or around December and not, as assumed by others, in fall or spring (cf., e.g., Barsacchi, F.G. 2019c, 113, according to whom fall lasted from November to December).

The text is well-organized and follows a clear, logical structure. It can be divided into 14 main sections, including the oracle question, the bird observation, and the oracle outcome. However, in some cases, the outcome and sometimes the bird observation are not recorded or may be missing due to the text’s fragmentary state of preservation. When counting all preserved oracle questions, bird observations, and outcomes separately, the text can be divided into 35 subsections.

The text begins with a section explaining the reason for the inquiry, which is the king’s and queen’s winter stay in Ḫattusa and the celebration of certain festivals there (main section 1; subsection 1; obv. 1–4). It is followed by an inquiry whether all deities have approved of the stay and whether there won’t be any dangers from an epidemic, a severe illness, or an evil that might cause the royal couple to flee (main section 2; subsections 2–4; obv. 4–15). Then the inquiry proceeds with the question of whether there might be a risk to the king’s person. The birds also exclude this threat (main section 3; subsections 5–7; obv. 15–22). By contrast, the following inquiry yields a negative result: the birds confirm a certain danger whose nature remains uncertain due to the text’s fragmentary state of preservation (main section 4; subsections 8–10; obv. 15–28′/2′). The next question relates to a danger of revolt that the birds exclude (main section 5; subsections 11–13; obv. 29/3′–obv. 35/9′′). In the following part, the birds are asked to exclude a specific danger whose nature remains unclear due to the fragmentary state of the text. Notably, the oracle investigation and its results are not documented. Instead, three lines are left blank (main section 6; subsection 14; obv. 36/10′?). The next question deals with a danger from a ‘misbehavior of a horse’. Unfortunately, its outcome is not preserved (main section 7; subsections 15–17; obv. 39/16′′??–obv. 44). The same applies to the following inquiry, which asks the birds to exclude a danger caused by fire (main section 8; subsections 18–23; obv. 45–rev. 4′). The following question, which is only very fragmentarily preserved, seems to ask whether the Storm-god will cause the threat (main section 9; subsections 24–25; rev. 7′). This can be inferred from the subsequent inquiry that asks the birds to confirm that only the Storm-god of Aleppo will be angry (main section 10; subsections 26–27; rev. 8′–10′). Unfortunately, the outcome is also not preserved in this case. The same applies to the following inquiry. However, since the next question, which is only partly preserved, probably aims to determine whether the Storm-god will cause a fever affecting the king, the result of the previous question is likely positive, indicating that only the Storm-god of Aleppo is angry (main section 11; subsections 28–29; rev. 11′–14′). The subsequent inquiry apparently asks the birds to confirm that the king’s fever will go away. Similar to the previous sections, only part of the question and bird observation is preserved, while the outcome is broken off (main section 12; subsections 30′–31′; rev. 15′–20′). It is followed by a poorly preserved question or statement concerning a fear of the questioners (main section 13; subsection 32; rev. 21′). The following inquiry appears to address a new threat that the birds are asked to exclude. The bird observation and the introduction of the outcome are preserved, while the actual outcome is broken off (main section 14; subsections 33–35; rev. 22′–29′). The preserved part of the text concludes with three blank lines, showing some traces of erased signs.

In summary, the text documents a well-organized process of divinatory consultation, moving from general to specific, and thoroughly examining the potential threats that could confront the royal couple during their stay. While initial questions address broad dangers that could disrupt the royal household or cause them to flee, follow-up questions focus on clarifying the source and nature of any perceived danger.