This fragment with bird oracles includes nearly complete sections of the tablet, allowing us to read some paragraphs in their entirety. The beginning of the text is lost, but in the surviving portion of the first column we can read how the augur Zella, through oracular investigations, determined that one Zawalli deity within a group of these deities was in anger (kola 6-7, 18). The lost previous paragraphs probably included the previous steps of this oracular inquiry, also carried out via bird oracles (see especially the reference in k. 7). The rest of the oracle investigations, which apparently reaches column IV in the reverse, is dedicated to the determination of “which” Zawalli deity is in anger. From this and other texts where this particular typology of divine beings is attested, we learn that a Zawalli deity ‘belonged’ or was related to a specific person, and the first question (k. 19-21) aims at narrowing down whether the angry Zawalli deity belonged to someone within the royal family, a fact which Zella was able to confirm (k. 39).

After the large text break of columns II and III, of which we can only read fragmentary lines (k. 40-60), the inquiry resumes in column IV with three preserved oracles by Piyammu, apparently dedicated to the same problem. In the first oracle, Piyammu asked whether the Zawalli deity who was angry belonged to a female person whose name is lost (k. 61); the result was negative (see the opposite outcomes in the question, k. 63 and the response, k. 75). In the second oracle, he asks whether the Zawalli belonged to Šaušgatti, a woman whose name appears in several other oracle reports (see Historical context). The oracle established this was the Zawalli who was “confirmed (to be angry” (k. 96). At this point, in the third question, Piyammu asks whether through certain offerings for the deity, this will “make him/her (go) away” for good (k. 97-98), thus undoing his/her negative influence (see Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 155). Unfortunately, the text breaks right before the augural response, thus we do not know whether this solution would have worked.

The well-preserved sections in this text nicely illustrate the logic of a series of oracular inquiries, where a problem is narrowed down through subsequent questions and answers. At the same time, the text provides information on the particular typology of the Zawalli deities (see Other characteristics).

Note that in the text CTH 573.16, which also includes oracles by Piyammu, Šaušgatti is mentioned as well, although in this case we do not find reference to her Zawalli deity, as far as preserved. The two fragments present a very similar script, and even though they probably do not belong to the same text, they might be part of a larger ‘dossier’ of oracle inquiries about this woman, associated in other texts to other notable persons mentioned in several texts (in particular Ḫalpaziti and Arma-Tarḫunta). As Monte G.F. del 1973a, 381 pointed out, this text might show that Šaušgatti had belonged to the royal circles, or the royal family itself, based on k. 39 (dZawalliš ŠA É LUGAL), if one connects the two available sections of this text. However, see the different opinion of Cognetti C. 2021a, 284 (“… muss nicth zwangsläufig gefolgt werden”).

• Ch. Cognetti, THeth 32, 2021: 281-283
• Th. van den Hout, DMOA 25, 1998: 150-155
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 85-95

Handcopy: A. Walther (KUB 16, Walther A. 1926a).

Edition: Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 150-155; Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 85-95; Cognetti C. 2021a, 281-283 (partial edition, commentary; I 1-19, IV 1-20).

The fragment preserves approximately one third of the left column of a two-columned tablet, along with small portions of the right column. On the bottom of obv. I and the top of rev. IV, we can read nearly complete sections of several paragraphs.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: AḪ, DA, E, ḪAR, LI, TAR (all NS).

The text has been catalogued as LNS (sjh.) in the HPM Konkordanz, but no evident LNS diagnostic signs are present; for example, AL, ḪA, KI do not display the distinctive LNS forms.

For the sources referring to Šaušgatti, see the discussion by Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 64-67. The name Šaušgatti is found in a group of documents dating to the 13th century, all probably referring to the same person. Note that an earlier namesake had also existed, to whom other earlier texts should be assigned. The two Šaušgatti mentioned in the group of texts CTH 585 (Vows of Puduḫeba) might also have to be distinguished (Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 65).

For other texts in the oracle corpus concerning Šaušgatti, see the editions of the letters CTH 581.1, CTH 581.3, and the bird oracles CTH 573.16, 573.69 and 573.87.

On the Zawalli deities, see Archi A. 1979b, Wilhelm G. 2017 (RlA 15, 235), Cognetti C. 2021a, 201-298. For other bird oracles referring to the Zawalli deities, see CTH 573.10 and CTH 573.61.

The Zawalli deities, found both as individual gods and as a group, are attested primarily in oracular context, in texts concerned with vows and dreams, and in cult inventories. Especially in the oracle texts, a Zawalli deity appears to be associated to an individual person, usually in reference to members of the royal family. In these contexts, the oracle questions typically focus on determining whether the Zawalli of a particular person is angry, or responsible for bewitching someone. Offerings were provided to the angry Zawalli deities, in the attempt to appease them.

Based primarily on the characteristic connection of these deities with specific individuals, Archi A. 1979b suggested that the Zawalli represented the spirit of a deceased person (“…lo spirito, il genio di un defunto”, ibid. 92), an interpretation followed in many studies (see e.g. more recently Beal R.H. 2002c, 25–26, “the ghost of ...”). In support of this interpretation, Archi pointed out a parallelism and overlap in some texts between the Zawalli deities and Sum. GIDIM (‘the dead; spirit of the deceased’), though making it clear that these terms should not be understood as exact equivalents. This interpretation was questioned by Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 82–83, particularly showing that the textual connection between Zawalli and GIDIM was primarily based on an emended passage, whose reading, he argued, should be revised. According to him, a Zawalli deity “may (…) be redefined as a kind of divine spirit or genius dwelling in people and places or institutions or somehow representing them” and which “(…) may have been considered embodying the essentials of an individual or place” (ibid. 83). The prior discussions on the Zawalli deities and the uncertainty surrounding their nature as deities representing the spirits of the dead were briefly recapitulated in the entry ‘Zawalli’ in RlA (Wilhelm G. 2017). A similar perspective was offered more recently by Cognetti C. 2021a, 296–298, who further emphasized the close relationship between these ‘personal’ deities and the individual. She also highlighted the possibility that this relationship could materialize in representations, such as statues, which simultaneously identified the individual and their Zawalli. Possibly, after a person’s death, such imagery could become identified with the ‘spirit’ of the deceased as well (“Nach dem Tod der betroffenen Person mögen die Zawallis in Form von Statuen eine Art bildliche Darstellung des verstorbenen Menschen selbst gewesen sein (…)”, ibid. 297).