This fragment of a bird oracle contains portions of several oracles performed by the augur Armapiya and an unspecified group of ‘augurs.’ Given that he is the only augur named within the group, and considering the significant number of oracles in which he appears, we can assume that he was an augur of some importance.

Among the topics addressed in the oracles, we find concerns for the king’s well-being during the celebration of certain festivals (§2´). We can infer this is the primary concern of this section from close similarities in content and wording to a well-preserved composition (CTH 564, KUB 18.12+, see obv. 1-7). In both texts, there is also mention of the “birds of the season” (likely to be restored in kola 15-16) who “gather” for the king — a description of difficult interpretation.

In the fragmentary question of §3´, there is reference to “the king and the queen” and “the chief of the kitchen personnel” in relation to “fever.” The other oracles seem to focus on concerns for one or more deities and the prediction of dangers or evil, presumably in regard to the king as well (§1´, §6´, §7´).

Handcopy: H.G. Güterbock – H. Otten (KBo 11, Güterbock H.G. – Otten H. 1961a); Ch. Rüster (KBo 40, Otten H. – Rüster C. 1997b); Ch. Rüster (KBo 46, Otten H. et al. 2004a).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 402-410.

Transliteration: KBo 46.116 in Groddek D. 2014c, 88-90.

The join among the three fragments was discovered by Y. Sakuma (19.9.2006).

Note that the handcopy in KBo 46 and the HPM Joinskizze consider the tablet sides in reverse order, thereby inverting obverse and reverse, compared to Sakuma’s edition (followed also by Groddek D. 2014c, 88-90). In our edition, we follow Sakuma, as the beginning of rev. 1 (kolon 47) is unlikely the start of the composition. Apart from this, there are no clear elements favoring one option over the other.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: E, ḪAR, IT, LI. AL is not IIIb-c.

One of the oracles (§4´) has an unusual structure. After the initial description of the birds’ flight, the augurs ‘repeat’ the question within the oracle report (see kolon 57). This repetition, in the middle of the flight description, is atypical, but might be explained by the need for the augurs to disambiguate the result obtained thus far. As discussed in note n. 9 of the text, a single Winkelhaken – which would otherwise require emendation – possibly serves as a marker for this ‘special’ section.

This text also contains several erasures with overwritten text and possibly some errors (e.g., k. 52-53). For instance, the bird name in k. 61, aramnami-, which is otherwise unattested, might be a mistaken form of the well-known aramnant- bird (but see also the fragmentary form in k. 73).

The augur Armapiya appears in several other oracle texts. Aside from this fragment, all other documents in which he is mentioned are oracles with mixed content: KUB 5.23+, KUB 16.52, KBo 44.216+, KUB 16.71+, KUB 49.14+, KUB 50.120 (combined oracles with augury, extispicy and KIN) and KBo 19.99+ (combined oracles with augury and extispicy). The attestations of this name are listed in Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 707.