In this text, several observations of bird flights happen throughout multiple days, each introduced by the formula lukkatta=ma ‘at dawn; in the morning’. The reasons for the inquiry are unclear from the preserved fragments and were probably stated at the beginning of the tablet. In one of the observations, the text mentions the town of Uda (“from Uda […]”, obv. I 16´), which might suggest that the augurs observed birds through a certain itinerary, moving to a new location each day (see also Linguistic Characteristics).

Concerning the geographic setting of this oracle, it has been suggested that two different towns with the name Uda existed: one in Lycaonia/southern Cappadocia, and one in Kizzuwatna (Forlanini M. 1990a, Lebrun R. 2001a, 330-332). Either might be the Uda referred to in this text (for another bird oracle report with observations in Kizzuwatna, see KUB 50.1+, CTH 573.54). However, see more recently the remarks by Miller J.L. 2014 (apud RlA 14-3/4), 269-270, for the possibility that the sources refer to just one and the same town, located somewhere in SE Anatolia.

Because of its early date, this oracle fragment is of particular interest for the study of the oracular technique and terminologies in a diachronic perspective.

• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 607-610

This text consists of two fragments, for which Otten and Rüster suggested an indirect join in KBo 41, V. This suggestion was followed by Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 607-610 in his previous edition. Although the respective positions of the fragments cannot be reconstructed, the indirect join seems likely, especially in reason of close similarities in content.

Autography: H. Otten – C. Rüster (KBo 24; KBo 41).

It is unclear whether the tablet was two-columned or one-columned (see previously Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 428). Early oracle reports were predominantly written on one-column tablets, with few exceptions (e.g. KUB 50.1+).

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs: E, KAT, SAG, TAR, URU; possibly also KI, EN. For the dating, see previously Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 428, 431-433.

Some formulations in the text are difficult to interpret and are not attested in other bird oracles. Early documents (paleographically MS) frequently differ from the Empire period texts, which were more standardized in formulary and content.

- The meaning of the action performed by the augurs at the beginning of each day, “we took up” (Frg. 2, obv. I [1´], 11´, 16´: [l]ukkatta=ma šarā dāwen) is unclear. Possibly, this idiomatic sentence refers to the augurs moving to another location (see note n. 1 to the translation).

- Within sections describing the flight of birds, the sentence nu DINGIR-LUM EGIR-pa-(pát) ú-[et] “the 'deity' came in the back” (obv. I 7´ (k. 9) and obv. I 18´ (k. 26)) is unique to this text and very puzzling in this context since, apparently, ‘the deity’ is listed alongside birds and moves just like one of them! It is difficult to read the sentence otherwise, such as assuming that a bird (implied) flies/moves towards ‘the deity’, whatever this means (a statue, a feature in the landscape?); this explanation is unsatisfactory, since the nu is self-standing, without subject clitic (e.g. n=aš), thus DINGIR-LUM does appear to be the subject.

- Another interesting element,unique to this document and likewise of difficult comprehension, is the observation of birds in reference to the KASKAL.KURḪI.A(Frg. 2, rev. 1; Frg. 1, 7´, [8´]). The compound recalls somehow the formula “Behind the road” (EGIR KASKAL, KASKAL-NI, etc.), which introduces a specific section of an oracle report, but itcannot be understood as an equivalent. The exact meaning remains obscure. Are the birds flying in the proximities (“behind”, k. 51; “across”, k. 53) of a certain feature of the landscape, such as a crevice or a cave, to which this definition refers?

- Although the text is fragmentary, and its structure as a whole is difficult to reconstruct, it appears that no augural interpretation was provided after each individual observation, as is the case in most other bird oracles. We can assume that the final response was recorded only at the end of the text since the series of observations that happened over several days was understood as a long, unitary procedure of inquiry. A few other examples of bird oracles explicitly structured over multiple days are also of early date, e.g. the oracle report KBo 32.123 (MS) and the letter with oracles HKM 47 (MS). Another text with this structure was found at Ortaköy, still unpublished (Or 90/355; information courtesy A. Süel and D. Schwemer).

- Other terms and phrases have few or no parallels to this text, such as ANA (bird name) kattan tiye- (k. 17) “descended(?) towards (another bird)”, or the use of tepu (k. 39) “(a) little”, perhaps an antonym of mekki-, rarely found in other bird oracles (see note n. 6 to the translation).

- This text features the formula takšan arḫa pai- “(to) fly away in the middle” (obv. I 14´) fully written in Hittite, whereas takšan is commonly spelled 2-an. This is one of the rare occurrences in the corpus and confirms the equivalency of the two readings.