Among the bird oracles in this fragment, one offers some insight into the context of the inquiry (§2´). The introductory question refers to the illness of a man named Aparru, and for this matter, Ištar/Šauška of Šamuḫa was consulted. It remains unclear, however, what role the goddess plays in this respect – for instance, whether she was found to be angry and the illness arose from this, or if she was merely involved in the oracular consultation, without any direct influence on the matter of the disease.

The first report (§1´), less well-preserved, contains a fragmentary name of the augur that could be restored as Zapalli or, potentially, Apalli, as this augur’s name is also attested. Zapalli appears in several sources (Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 713), whereas Apalli is found in only one text (KUB 18.66).

We lack knowledge about the Aparru mentioned in the text; obviously, this must be distinguished from the Aparru (a-pár-ru) whose ‘house(hold)’ is referenced in the Old Kingdom land grant CTH 222.22 (obv. 10).

Handcopy: A. Walther (KUB 5, Walther A. 1922a).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 37-38.

Fragment of tablet preserving a central portion of the text, including part of the right edge.

The text has been labelled as NS (jh.) in the HPM Konkordanz. However, there are no unambiguous late diagnostic signs, while a few diagnostic signs instead exhibit early forms: for example, AL shows an early form (thus not NS IIIb/c), ḪAR is closer to the MS than to the NS forms, TAR remains unclear (obv.? 1´), and particularly notable is the early LI in the name ‘Zapalli’; secondarily, the form of IT is also ‘early’. Only the sign E may have a late form.

A palaeographic analysis, therefore, may be inconclusive for dating purposes. As Zapalli is an augural name that appears in other texts with late palaeography, a later date for the tablet could be suggested based on the identity of this augur and the name mentioned in obv.? 3'. However, the name is fragmentary, and might be restored differently, such as ‘Apalli’.