This text consists of two distinct fragments, certainly belonging to the same tablet with oracle reports. The name of the augur Šapinuwaziti is preserved in two of the reports (§2´, §8´), but it is likely that other augurs contributed to this collection of bird oracles. For instance, in §4´, the name of the augur ends in [...]-ta, suggesting a different name here. On the reverse, some reports (§11´, §13´) include sentences with plural verbal forms (“we observed ...”), possibly indicating that these observations were carried out by more than one augur. However, since first person plural forms are common in the bird oracles’ formulary, this remains only a possibility.

The tablet is probably of early date based on its palaeography, and contains several non-standard or rare forms, which are more frequently found in oracle reports from the pre-Imperial age (see ‘Linguistic characteristics’).

Because the beginning of each preserved line of text is missing, we have limited information about the topics of the oracular questions. One report concerns the king (or the queen; §5´), while another confirms a ‘fever’ through oracles and mentions the ‘arrival’ of someone (§9´, partially also in §10´). Based on their formulations and brevity, it seems that several paragraphs consist of countercheck or control oracles, intended to confirm the previous determination.

Handcopy: A. Walther (KUB 18, Walther A. 1927a; KUB 22, Walther A. 1928a); J.L. Miller (KBo 58, Miller J.L. 2008a).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 621-630.

The similarity between the fragments KUB 18.30 (Frg.4) and KUB 22.3 (Frg.2) was anticipated in A. Walther’s copy in KUB 18 (“ganz ähnlich sieht aus Bo 3997”). The direct joins between Frg. 4 and KBo 58.83 (Frg. 3) and between Frg. 2 and KBo 58.82 (Frg. 1), were found by H. Berman (1984).

A further join listed in the HPM Konkordanz, with A12233 (HFAC 76) (Y. Sakuma, 22.06.2008) does not find confirmation (see also the edition by Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 628, in which they are edited separately).

The fragments can be grouped into two separate portions of the tablet: one containing a central portion of the left column of the obverse (Frg. 3+4), and the other preserving the bottom-left corner of the same column (Frg. 1+2). The reverse sides of these fragments are more poorly preserved. The extent of the gap between these two portions of the tablet cannot be determined.

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs: AḪ, DA, (DU), EN, IK, IT, ḪUR, LI, TAR.

This text includes a few notable technical language choices and spelling conventions.

– A non-standard formula, with few parallels, is found in kolon 21 and probably in k. 50 (SIG₅-anza=war=aš). This probably belongs to the augural response and could be interpreted as equivalent to ḫandaittat=wa (SI×SÁ-at=wa). However, this interpretation is uncertain, as the standard formulation is also present in this text (k. 3, 37). Since the text is largely broken, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the sentence had a different content. Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 65 lists a few other instances of responses featuring SIG₅ instead of ḫandae- (KUB 49.30 rev. 22: [(NU.)S]IG₅-an-te-eš-wa-ra-at “they are (un)favorable”; KUB 18.3 rev.! 13´: NU.SIG₅-wa; and KUB 49.62, 15´: NU.SIG₅-wa-r[a-at]). One can also mention the formula at the end of the letter HKM 48 rev. 33: nu MUŠENḪI.A SI[G₅‑an‑te‑eš(?)] “the birds [are?] favorable” (ed. CTH 188.1).

– Several forms are not written through the conventional abbreviations, but are fully spelled out. Various forms of the verb ḫandae- appear in extenso instead of its Sumerographic alternative SI×SÁ- (ḫa-an-ta-an-du; ḫa-an-ta-i[t-ta-at (kola 26, 59), also in oracular responses (ḫa-an-ta-it-ta-at-wa; k. 37). takšan appears instead of 2-an in the formula “it flew … in the middle” (k. 67, 73, 87) and katta and šara are used in place of their Sumerographic equivalents GAM and UGU, otherwise ubiquitous in bird oracles.

– As for infrequent spellings, note the use of pé-eš-ši-er (typically pé-eš-šer), which has very few parallels (e.g. AT 454 I 35´ and KuT 50 rev. 43; we also find pé-eš-še-er, in a few texts).

– Note the spellings of the acc. sg./adv. form of the technical term GUN as GUN-an (not GUN-li₁₂-an), which is found especially in other early reports, although not exclusively.

– Some sentences describing bird flights feature uncommon descriptions. The sentence in k. 23 [...]‑it MUŠEN‑na ḫar-ta (tentatively translated “and with […] it held the bird”) is difficult to understand, especially since the broken context leaves it unclear whether the subject is another bird or possibly a person. In k. 85 we find [… ā]lliya anda […], which is difficult to analyse as it does not align with any known formulary.

For the possibility that the augur Šapinuwaziti is mentioned also in CTH 573.40 (Groddek D. 2006a, viii), see the edition of the latter.