Several portions of this tablet are poorly preserved, and the reading of some passages is tentative. In this edition, some restorations proposed in Sakuma’s edition have been accepted, while others cannot be verified based on the available photographs.

The text comprises a series of bird oracles by at least three augurs. The specific topics investigated remain somewhat unclear, but in the fragmentary questions we find references to ‘troops’ (obv. 1, 21) and ‘fighting’ (obv. 21). Further in the inquiry, the focus is the safety of the king (rev. 20´, 25´). Otherwise, most of the text consists of quite detailed bird oracle reports. These present several points of interest, mainly due to their non-standard formulations and the unusual structure of certain sections.

Two short sections, added immediately after the augur’s response (which is typically the conclusion of an oracle report) are particularly notable. In §1, following the report by the augur Ḫašalli, there is a brief comment regarding a specific movement of one of the birds. Additionally, a ‘diviner’ appears to be present at the location and is described as undertaking some actions, the nature of which remains quite unclear. The augur (?) also speaks in a direct citation, describing an action performed by the diviner. An addendum also follows the next oracle report (§2), which similarly includes a direct quotation regarding one of the birds' movements. More details about this flight appear to be described, although much of the text is lost. None of the reports written on the reverse contain similar additional content to the oracles proper.

The reports in the obverse also include uncommon terminology and formulations. For example, the meaning of ḫatku- ‘close, hard, difficult’ (§1 and §2), describing one of the movements of a bird, is not entirely transparent (see Linguistic characteristics and Other characteristics).

It is noteworthy that some unusual sections can also be found in the text KUB 50.100 (=CTH 573.109), where we encounter the augurs Mudda and Ura together once more. Here, similar addenda to the oracle report discuss a previous movement of a bird (e.g. kolon 11: “that one (bird) which flew…”). Should we consider some of the peculiar characteristics of the present text as habits or idiosyncrasies of these augurs’ reports, with some variations from the standard forms?

• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: I 451f.; II 387-396

Handcopy: A. Archi (KUB 52, Archi A. 1983c).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 387-396; I 451-452 for a short discussion of obv. 10-11.

The tablet consists of three joined fragments, approximately corresponding to the tablet's upper half. It is a one-column tablet, and both the beginning and the end of the text are preserved; the last few lines were inscribed along the upper edge. The state of preservation is poor, particularly on the obverse and in a large area of the reverse, which is completely damaged, apparently due to fire, making the reading of the text difficult in several passages.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: DA(?), IT, TAR. However, due to the state of the tablet, a palaeographic analysis remains difficult, thus a dating based on palaeography cannot be considered entirely reliable. It is not altogether clear from the photos whether ḪAR and AḪ should be regarded as NS forms, for example.

Nonetheless, a dating in the Empire period is corroborated externally by the presence of the same augurs in texts with more reliable palaeographic dating (see Historical context).

The text displays several deviations from the standard formulary of bird oracles, and a degree of internal variation, such as differing spelling choices. Differences from the typical bird oracles also manifest in the structure of some oracle reports, which include additional content following the augural determination (see Other characteristics).

Among the atypical formulations, we can observe:

- obv. 6: the sequence EGIR GAM paer is unexpected with the verb pai- (this movement is otherwise always attested with ue-/uwa-).

- several elliptic sentences, lacking the formulary referring to the “favorable” and “unfavorable” sides/directions of flight: (obv. 9) [na]-aš-kán DUTU AN-E EGIR-an UG[U] 〈SIG₅-za〉 ú-⸢et, where we expect ‘the favorable side’, omitted (see translation, note n. 3); four sentences (rev. 17´, 18´, 22´ 23´) in which ‘unfavorable side’ is omitted (e.g. rev. 17´: [... EGI]R-an GAM 〈ku-za〉 wer (see translation, note n. 7).

– the augural response arḫa peššer (obv. 19, rev. 19´, 24´, 32´), without the particle =wa(r) of direct/reported speech (which is, instead, found in at least one instance; obv. 10).

The bird names in this text particularly stand out for some unusual inflections and spelling conventions. Most of these bird names are -i- stems, and the inflectional endings appear with some uncommon vocalisms. Notably, the nom sg. appears systematically as -i+eš (instead of the more frequent ending -iš) and, quite curious, accusative forms apparently based on these -ieš nominative endings, appearing as -ien (with a few instances of -i+an as well). For clarity, we collected the attestations for the following names:

ḫašdapi-: ḫašdapieš k. 9, 23 (sg. nom.), ḫašdapien k. 4 (sg. acc.; note also the rare spelling with CVC sign ḪAŠ), ḫašdapiuš k. 70 (pl. acc.) (vs. usual ḫaštapiš, ḫaštapin)

ḫalwašši-: ḫalwašien k. 11 (sg. acc.); but cf. also ḫalwašian k. 92 (sg. acc.) (vs. usual ḫalwaššin)

iparwašši-: (adj. meaning ‘(being) in the west’, vel sim.) iparwaššien k. 18 (sg. acc.) (vs. iparwaššin)

pattarpalḫi-: pattarpalḫien k. 18 (sg. acc.) (vs. pattarpalḫin)

arantatḫi-: arrantatḫien k. 100 (sg. acc.) (vs. arrantatḫin)

[ ]-ḫien(?): k. 53 (sg. acc.)

kaltarši-: kaltaršian k. 85, 88 (sg. acc.) (vs. kaltaršin)

šalwini-(?) or šaluwa-: šalwayan k. 15 (sg. acc.)

One notes that some of these spellings are inconsistent throughout the text. Could these divergences also have to do with reports gathered from different augurs, and possibly different pronunciations/dialectal renderings of the same terms?

Among the unclear forms, we can mention maršanuaš (obv. 17). This may be connected with the bird maršanašši-, but the word order is peculiar here, and the presence of the logogram MUŠEN (usually absent with bird names) suggests that this might be a genitival form, as in our translation “birds of maršanu-” – whatever its meaning (cf. Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 387, “maršanu-Vögel”).

A few uncommon spelling conventions can also be noted, such as the spelling NÌ-MUR with the sign NÌ (=NINDA, NÍG), instead of the usual NI-MUR. Also unusual is the use of PEŠ in peš-ši-an-du (rev. 21´), which is typically spelled with the CV-VC sequence pé-eš-. The text shows some freedom in the choice of spelling variants, generally speaking; for example, one encounters both pé-eš-še-er (rare) and pé-eš-šer, which is more common in bird oracles. One can also mention the uncommon tar-lì-an (e.g. obv. 22; rev. 22´, 28´, 29´), which is, in some other instances, spelled with the expected sign LI₁₂, the standard choice in this oracular term. However, in this case, as the signs LÌ (=LIM) and LI₁₂ are similar, and considering the poor state of the tablet, some of the readings might be questionable.

The augurs Mudda and Ura are attested in another text, KUB 50.100 (CTH 573.109). Mudda is also present in a few other tablets with oracle reports from multiple techniques (see the references in Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 711). The augur Ḫašalli is only attested in this text.

One of the bird movements (§1 and §2) is defined ḫatku- ‘close, hard, difficult’. Sakuma Y. 2009b, 388 translated it as ‘eng’ (‘close’), whereas HW2 Ḫ, 513 translated it as ‘knapp(?).’ (‘short, scarce’). This movement or mode of flight appears to hold some significance for the oracle, as the addendum of §1 focuses explicitly on the “ḫaštapi- bird that came ḫatku-” (obv. 11). Shortly thereafter, the diviner is described as ḫatkišnu-, which has been translated as ‘to corner (it)’ (i.e. the bird); however, this form (cf. also obv. 1) necessitates emendation, thus the reading as proposed in previous editions is to be considered tentative.

Since the context of these passages remains unclear, the proposed translations might be reconsidered. One wonders whether this verb should, instead, be connected with the form ḫatku- itself, since the two passages are clearly linked, suggesting that the diviner’s action here might relate to the bird moving ḫatku-. Otherwise, we might also consider whether this root has something to do with ḫatug-, the basis of the ḫatuga- birds, the ‘terrible’ birds, mentioned in the ritual of the augur Ḫuwarlu against negative bird signs (CTH 398; ḫatugaēš/ḫatugauš MUŠENḪI.A obv. II 32, obv. I 16, 18; ed. Bawanypeck D. 2005a, 21-50).