This large fragment of a two-columned tablet is a significant early document in the corpus of Hittite bird oracles. Of interest for the discussion of oracular language, it contains several technical terms of the augural lexicon in their unabbreviated form, as in a few other cases of pre-Imperial period documents (see Linguistic Characteristics).

The document is also of historical interest due to its reference to oracles performed by augurs in Kizzuwatna (Sections 6, 7, 9, 10). Since a palaeographic dating places this text in the Early New Kingdom (ca. 1425-1350 BCE), it provides further evidence of Kizzuwatna’s incorporation into the Hittite kingdom during this period. The oracular question addressed to Ištar (Šavoška) of Nineveh (kolon 44) is also noteworthy, as it can also be contextualized within the recent introduction of ‘foreign’ southern cults into Hittite Anatolia, likely via Kizzuwatna.

Due to the fragmentary state of most of the reports, we cannot associate the augurs mentioned in the text with specific locations where they observed and recorded the birds’ flights. For instance, the augur Nuwašarpa made observations in Kizzuwatna (k. 41), but possibly also in Uda (k. 8), here alongside another augur whose name is lost. An augur [ -i]ya was also active in Kizzuwatna (k. 79), while the names of the augurs are not preserved in Sections 7, 9, 11-14 and 16 (k. 50, k. 67). The augur Ḫuḫašarpa authored several entries, but the location of his observations was not specified. In the fragment KBo 22.263, which probably belongs to this composition, one report was signed by Urawan[da], without indication of where he made observations.

Note that Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 592-603, interpreted these specifications as the places of origin of the augurs, an option which cannot be entirely excluded. However, the D/L form URUkizzuwatni (kola 41, 50) rather suggests a locative meaning, and the stem forms URUuda (k. 8) and URUkizzuwatna (k. 67, 79) may be understood as zero-ending locatives – thus more likely indicating the places where the bird oracles were performed.

As for Uda, a location in the southern Anatolian plateau near the borders of Kizzuwatna, or within its territory, is plausible (discussion in Miller J.L. 2014, 269-271, in RlA 14). For other bird oracles in Uda, see also the edition of KBo 41.186+ (=CTH 573.14).

Handcopy: H. Otten (KBo 22, Otten H. – Rüster C. 1974a); A. Archi (KUB 50, Archi A. 1979f).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 592-603.

Transliteration: (KBo 22.263) Groddek D. 2008c, 252.

The tablet is a two-columned tablet, whose central part of the right column (II in the obverse, and III in the reverse) is preserved for some thirty lines of text. As Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 429 n. 32 pointed out, there are some peculiarities in the paragraph divisions: in two instances (Sections 2-3 and 8-9), a paragraph line divides one bird observation; otherwise, each paragraph contains an individual report, concluded with the formula: “PN (and PN) saw these birds”.

A smaller fragment, KBo 22.263, is likely part of the same tablet, although its precise position within the composition cannot be determined. This indirect join was proposed by Y. Sakuma (19.10.2005).

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs: AḪ, AL, AZ (without subscript ZA), DA, E, IK, IT, LI, (ŠAR), TAR.

The language of the oracle reports in this tablet is interesting for studying the development of the technical formulary, and for some unusual choices.

The use of the bird postdeterminative MUŠEN with bird names, relatively frequent in this text, is atypical in bird oracles, where it is usually omitted; another early text with a similar distribution is the letter KuT 49 (on this topic see Trameri A. 2025b, 222-223). Note that in KUB 50.1(+) the determinative is not used systematically: although frequent, it is not employed with all the bird names (omitted with ḫuwaranni-, kola 5, 7; kaltarši- k. 40; ḫara(n)- k. 46; ḫalliyara- k. 49; kaniešdu- k. 64; ḫalliya- k. 78). In an article discussing some possible Hittite words for ‘bat’, Haas V. 2010b, 153 observed that the omission of the determinative with the names ḫalliya- and ḫalliyara- might be explained with the fact that these animals could be bats, and not birds (“Sollte der Schreiber an der Zugehörigkeit der Fledermaus zur Gattung der Vögel (…) im Zweifel gewesen sein?”). However, since other bird names also appear without it (pace Haas V. 2010b, 153: “(…) alle vorkommende Vögel mit de Determinativ MUŠEN versehen”), this solution cannot account for all the instances.

This text features several unabbreviated augural terms: we find the ablatives aššuwaz and kuštayati, for the ‘favorable’ and ‘unfavorable’ sides of the observation field, taruyali-/taruyalli- (in a few instances with an atypical abbreviation, taruya; k. 45, 49), zilawan. Since this text includes several instances of GUN (e.g. GUN-eš, GUN-iš), these examples may support the argument that GUN is not an abbreviation, but rather a technical term in its own right. We can also observe a preference for Hitt. šara and katta instead of their more common logographic equivalents UGU and GAM in the formulations EGIR šara aššuwaz, and EGIR katta kuštayati.

By contrast, some other choices demonstrate a more concise language: for example, all the verbs of movement in the description of the birds’ flights are omitted (uwa-), with the only exception of a plural form (uēr, k. 27). Some sentences also omit the expected conjunction or introduction chains; see for example k. 23, 25, 46, 49, 57. For divergent uses in similar sentences, compare e.g. KASKAL-ši EGIR-an na-aš-ta a-⸢al⸣-li-ia-a[šMUŠEN …] (k. 31-32) and KASKAL-ši EGIR-an ḫal-li-ia-ra-aš tar-u-ia (k. 48-49).

The standard augural formula EGIR KASKAL-NI, which we translate “behind the road”, appears in this text as KASKAL-ši EGIR-an (k. 31, 62), found as such only in the two letters KuT 49 and KuT 50, from Šarišša-Kuşaklı, also of pre-Imperial age.

This document is one of the few that includes the term warā(i)-, ‘(bird) mate, companion’ (k. 17, 73), found in other early reports (see previously Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 256-258; Trameri A. 2023b, for a comprehensive discussion). This text also includes one of the few instances of the phrase andurza IṢBAT, lit. ‘seized/caught therein’ (k. 64), whose exact meaning is unclear. For this phrase, and its likely contrary araḫza IṢBAT, see the discussion in the edition of CTH 573.113.

Based on the tablet’s palaeography and its content – particularly the references to Kizzuwatna and to Ištar (Šavoška) of Nineveh – the text can be dated to the reigns of the predecessors of Suppiluliuma, between Tudḫaliya I and Tudḫaliya II/III. For details on the incorporation of Kizzuwatna into the Hittite kingdom during this period, see Trameri A. 2024a, 364-371 and 379-391, with references to the previous literature.