This text preserves some fragmentary lines of the introductory question (kola 1-14) of a bird oracle, and, better preserved, the oracle report itself, carried out over three days of observations. The flight reports can be read nearly in their entirety, but the fragment breaks during the description of the observations on the third day, thus the concluding report by the augur or the augurs is unfortunately lost.

The readable portions of the introductory question, which takes up several lines of text and appears to be quite elaborate, seem to refer to military activities (k. 4 [gi]mri ‘in the (battle)field’; k. 5 [NAM.R]AMEŠ ‘captives; spoils’; k. 7 šinaḫḫ[aš] ‘in(to) ambushes, traps’; k. 9 LÚKÚR ‘enemy’; k. 13 KASKAL-an ‘road’, here probably with the meaning ‘campaign’; possibly also k. 2 [ta]rḫuwan ‘mighty; powerful’). Possibly, the deity (k. 13) was asked whether some planned military activities would be successful, although the details of this part of the text remain uncertain. The bird oracle follows the standard formulary, although some of its content has few parallels, such as one term with atypical abbreviations and possibly some bird names not attested elsewhere (see Linguistic characteristics).

For bird oracle reports with observations distributed over several days, see the texts HKM 47 (CTH 581.32), KBo 24.130 (CTH 573.14), KBo 32.123 (CTH 573.56), KUB 49.4(+) (CTH 581.21), KUB 18.15 (CTH 573.76), KUB 18.12+ (CTH 564) and the unpublished Or. 90/355. Note that most of the texts with a similar structure are of early date (palaeographically MS), except for the present text (LNS) and the reports in KUB 18.15 (NS) and KUB 18.12+ (NS). Notably, two of these late texts, and potentially the third as well (KUB 18.15 obv. I 5, in lacuna), feature the term ḫuganna- as a descriptor of the oracular birds (see Linguistic characteristics).

• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 95-99

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

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 95-99.

Fragment of the central portion of a single-column tablet, or of an individual column of a two-column tablet. A. Walther, in a note to the handcopy in KUB 16.47, suggested that the position of the left edge should correspond approximately with the maximum extension of the fragment, thus only a few signs are missing at the beginning of each line in the central portion of the fragment (lines 9´-21´). The running text of the oracle report, almost complete, indicates that little is also missing from the end of the best-preserved lines.

LNS (sjh.); primarily based on the late form of ḪA. Diagnostic signs: AḪ, DA, ḪA (LNS), ḪAR, IK, IT, TAR.

The text features a few terms that are uncommon or unparalleled. Unfortunately, most of the names of birds are fragmentary, but since they cannot be positively restored, it is possible that some of them are to be considered hapax (e.g. kolon 21). Very uncommon is the abbreviation of the term taruyali- as tar-an (usually tar-li₁₂-an), apparently only found elsewhere in the fragment with KIN and bird oracles KUB 16.15+.

Somewhat puzzling is the sentence k. 34, [T]I₈?MUŠEN taran tarnaš, “the eagle ‘let’ tar(uyali)an-”, which can be most likely understood as an elliptic form of šeḫur (arḫa) tarnaš ‘let (away) droppings’, rarely attested (see note n. 7 to the translation).

The text is one of the two (the other being KUB 18.12+) which feature the descriptor ḫuganna- ‘(of) conjuration’ for the oracle birds (on this term see Archi A. 1975e, 149-150). Based on the available attestations, this term appears to be complementary to another attribute of birds, laḫlaḫḫima- ‘(of) agitation, concern’, better attested. It can be noted that the birds ‘of conjuration’ appear in oracular questions where the augurs wish for a “positive” confirmation to the question asked. This is expressed in the augural response as “(it) was confirmed” (Hitt. ḫandaittat; SI×SÁ-at(=wa)) (see k. 14). Instead, the birds ‘of concern’ are referred to when the augurs wish for a “negative” response, namely the desire that the oracle will exclude a specific worry expressed in the question. For some examples and a more detailed discussion, see Trameri A. 2025b, 216, 218-220.

The form ⸢ga-pí⸣-ir-ta-na-a[n?] in line 22´ (=k. 35) presents a problem for both the grammatical and semantic interpretation, as discussed in the notes to the text and translation. Whether this ‘mouse’, caught(?) (but the verb is in lacuna) by an eagle during its flight, is an actual mouse (as in our translation), or a kind of bird/bat (Haas V. 2010b, 151-152), the expected ACC.SG.C form would be gapirtan. Although the additional -an should be understood as an enclitic pronoun, this is grammatically not expected. One could consider this as part of the following word (see e.g. HW2, 122, where the form is listed as gapirtan(-)an). Another possibility is that this is a ‘hypercorrect’ form for the expected ACC.SG.C As a solution to this problem, HW2, 115 lists this word under a separate root gapirtan(a)-, of which the attested form would be a regular accusative (cf. however the alternative entry gapirtan(-)an in the lemma gapirt- in HW2, 122). As observed in our text edition, the reading itself is uncertain, and primarily based on the handcopy of A. Walther, while the reading of the sign from the photographs is not clear. This prevents a conclusive discussion of the problem.