Y. Sakuma (29.4.2007) suggested an indirect join between this fragment and the two fragments KUB 22.23 (CTH 573.78) and CHDS 6.116 (=Bo 4565; CTH 573.77) (see Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 202). This determination is highly likely, both palaeographically and based on content. Significantly, all these bird oracles were conducted by the ‘Chief of the augurs’, and specific writing conventions of this tablet include the spelling ME.EŠ for the plural determinative. Two fragments also feature identical formulations in the oracular question, allowing for their mutual restoration (see kola 13-15). As the precise position of the fragments in the tablet cannot be ascertained, they have been edited separately; however, the current discussion also takes their content into account.

The oracles investigate military matters and mention the king's participation in certain battlefield actions (k. 47), his safety (k. 1 in the fragment CTH 573.78), and the mobilisation of troops and chariots (k. 49; also k. 15 in CTH 573.77), likely referring to the Hittite armies. Ensuring their safe return appears to be one of the concerns of the oracular inquiry (k. 5: ‘he will bring those back in good order’). The oracle reports present several interesting formal and content elements (discussed in Other characteristics).

A fragmentary oracular question refers to the town of Taruga/Tarukka, likely in the context of the king's military movements. This town is situated in the northern plateau, as it is listed among the territories conquered by the Kaskeans during the reign of Arnuwanda I (see Monte G.F. del – Tischler J. 1978a, 408-409).

Handcopy: A. Walther (KUB 18, Walther A. 1927a).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 202-207.

Fragment from the left edge of a one(?)-column tablet, featuring approximately twenty lines of text on the obverse and reverse (the latter is largely damaged). As for the presumed indirect joins to this fragment, KUB 22.23 is a small piece containing minimal portions of a few lines of text, whereas CHDS 6.116 comprises the second half of around ten lines, positioned at the beginning of a column, thereby preserving a section of the right edge and either the upper or lower edge of the tablet.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: E, DA, IT, TAR. AḪ, ḪUR are not distinctively late forms.

Among a few notable characteristics of the scribe’s handwriting, note: the writing ME.EŠ for the plural determinative (with EŠ occasionally written with four Winkelhaken); the sign Ú written with four vertical wedges (in at least one case five, obv. 13´) – but not on the reverse (!), where the sign appears consistently with three verticals; finally, at least one instance of logographic INA (=AŠ) (obv. 9´).

Infrequent, yet with some parallels, is the structuring of the oracle inquiry as an observation of birds ‘over three days’ (kolon 6). Some examples of this kind of inquiry exist primarily in tablets of early date (palaeographically MS; e.g. CTH 581.32, CTH 573.14 and Or. 90/355) but also one late example (LNS; CTH 573.64).

An action performed by the augurs during the observation has no parallels. In k. 24, the augurs say nu GIŠla-aḫ-ḫur-nu-zi wa-aḫ-nu-me-e[n], which we have translated as "we shook the tree branches (all around)”. CHD L-N, 16-17 (f) translates it as "we waved the mat/foliage”, an interpretation followed by Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 203, “Wir wendeten die Matte”, suggesting it is a ‘carpet’ of leaves and branches shaken by the augurs. However, the meaning of this action would remain quite unclear in the present context. It is possible, instead, that the augurs physically shake the trees, presumably to get birds to fly out. Supporting this interpretation is perhaps the verb at the beginning of obv. 16´, which might show that other birds were indeed observed after the ‘shaking’ (coming out of the trees?). Otherwise, the missing part of the sentence remains difficult to reconstruct, whether it is related to the augurs’ action or not.

Finally, this text is among the few to use a special designation for the oracular birds, called the birds ‘of concern’ (laḫlaḫḫimaš MUŠENḪI.A; k. 28). Based on this description, we can propose a partial restoration of the lacuna in the previous paragraph, referring to the ḫugannaš MUŠENḪI.A, the birds ‘of conjuration’, as in one exact parallel in the text KUB 18.12+ (CTH 564) obv. 1-7 and 15-22. For a discussion of these definitions of the oracular birds, see Trameri A. 2025b, 216, 218-220.