In KUB 49, v, A. Archi suggested the possibility of an indirect join between the fragment KUB 49.19 and KUB 22.30 (“Vielleicht zu KUB XXII 30”). The script and handwriting, along with the content, support this identification. However, it cannot be independently established that KUB 22.30 is a two-column tablet, like the other fragment. Nonetheless, the fragments have been catalogued under the same number CTH 573.80, and are edited here together.

The two fragments contain bird oracles performed by different augurs. Three of their names survive: Uraddu, Zella, and Piyamu, but we cannot exclude the possibility that others contributed to this text as well. The last two augurs appear in both KUB 22.30 and KUB 49.19, and their names are also found in other oracles, including texts where they appear together (see Intertextuality).

I: KUB 22.30. The exact scope of most oracle reports in this fragment is uncertain due to their preservation, but the first reports in KUB 22.30 seem to be dedicated to ascertaining divine approval on various matters. In §2, the text mentions a woman who should be ‘given’, perhaps in service to the deity itself. §3 mentions a Piḫa-Tarḫunta (though the reading remains tentative) and the land of Alašiya (Cyprus). Given the oracular context of this document, this Piḫa-Tarḫunta may be identified with a homonymous ‘Chief of the Augurs’ (see Historical context). One of the oracles in this fragment (section 8) includes reference to the purulli- festival and to the king.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this text stand out for a different reason, since they appear to be incomplete oracle reports. Section 5, which refers to ‘the road of Arinna’, ends with the typical formula ‘let the birds confirm (it)’, but no report follows. However, an erased line follows, possibly two, and we can read here the same phrase from the visible traces (see note n. 3 to the translation). The following two paragraphs (§6´, §7´) likewise contain the introductory oracular formulary without a report. In all these paragraphs, some space was left uninscribed, though clearly not with the intention of adding the oracle reports later, as the available space is clearly insufficient – especially when compared to paragraphs that contain complete oracles.

II: KUB 49.19. The second fragment features a similar structure, with a series of bird oracle reports on various matters. The investigation details are largely lost. Section 12 includes a countercheck or control oracle (see kola 109-110). Although relatively well-preserved, the meaning of the text and the context of the oracle in section 13 remain quite obscure. It mentions the ‘throat’ or the ‘throat artery’ in a description that somewhat resembles the content of extispicy oracles, but it remains unclear how this reference should be interpreted. In k. 137, it is also uncertain whether A-NA IGI 𒑱titi means ‘in front of the breast’ (vel sim.) or ‘for the eyes, the pupils …” (see translation, note n. 9). These difficult sentences precede the reference to what appears to be the main focus of this oracle: a disease in Tarḫuntašša (k. 138). For a possible context of this reference, see Historical context. The last oracles in this fragment are largely lost.

• A. Kosyan, Aramazd 6, 2011: 87-94
• J. Tischler, DBH 52, 2019: 31-33
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 217-222; 273-285

Handcopy: A. Walther (KUB 22, Walther A. 1928a); A. Archi (KUB 49, Archi A. 1979e).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 217-222 (KUB 22.30), 273-285 (KUB 49.19).

Transliteration: (KUB 49.19) Tischler J. 2019a, 31-33.

The text discussed in this edition comprises two separate fragments, possibly from the same tablet. KUB 22.30 is a fragment from the right edge of a tablet, preserving approximately two-thirds of a column of text with around 25 lines on both the obverse and reverse. KUB 49.19 consists of two joining fragments, containing up to 36 lines of rev.(?) III, extending to the end of the column. The other side of the tablet is less well preserved.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: AL, DA, E, ḪAR, IK, IT, LI, TAR.

If the reading of the name in kolon 31 ‘Piḫa-Tarḫunta’ is correct, one might tentatively identify this individual with the augur mentioned in other oracle texts (for the attestations see Hazenbos J. 2007a, 101 n. 26; to be added: KBo 40.53 obv. ii 7). The same augur was probably the owner of one, possibly two seals (BoHa 19.305-306), where he is attested with the titles EUNUCHUS₂, DOMINUS and AVIS₃+MAGNUS, the latter interpreted as the Hieroglyphic Luwian equivalent to the title ‘Chief of the Augurs’ in the cuneiform sources (GAL LÚ.MEŠIGI.MUŠEN and similar; see Herbordt S. 2005a, 94, 168 and therein Hawkins J.D. 2005e, 268). However, the preserved text does not include reports by the ‘Chief of the Augurs’ (cf. e.g. CTH 573.76-78), and the specific context does not suggest that this person is an augur; only the broader oracular context of the document offers a loose basis for this identification.

As concerns the ‘Chief of the Augurs’ Piḫa-Tarḫuna, it has also been suggested that he is the same Piḫa-Tarḫunta who owned another seal (BoHa 19.307), where he holds, instead, the title REX.FILIUS (‘prince’) – a title by which he is also attested in cuneiform sources (Imparati F. 1987a, 193–195). However, following Hawkins J.D. 2005e, 268), this identification is disputable, and the seals most likely belong to two different individuals with the same name (see also the discussion in the introduction to the edition of CTH 564).

As a note on the seal BoHa 19.305, belonging to the ‘eunuch’ Piḫa-Tarḫunta, I believe that a fragmentary sign visible at the right and left edges of this signet seal impression belongs to the sign AVIS₃, rather than to a double-eagle decorative motif (Herbordt S. 2005a, 168: “Möglicherweise ist die Komposition im unteren Bildfeld mit je einem doppelköpfigen Adler gerahmt, wie am rechten Rand an Hand eines erh. Flügels zu vermuten ist”). Thus, the sequence of titles would match the content of BoHa 19.306, which most likely belongs to the same high-ranking official.

The reference to a disease in Tarḫuntašša in k. 138 is cited by Th. van den Hout as a possible reference to a documented period of illness of Kurunta, king of Tarḫuntašša, to which the oracle in section 13 might refer (Hout Th.P.J. van den 1995c, 91 n. 113). We know from letters with Ramses II in Egypt that the Hittite king, Tudḫaliya IV, took interest in the matter and had three Egyptian physicians sent for assistance (on the circulation of doctors among the courts, see Zaccagnini C. 1983a, 250-253, with ref.). As van den Hout already noted, however, there is no element in this text that allows for a secure connection of the oracle to these facts.

Concerning the augurs authors of this text, the augur Uraddu is also attested in the oracle report CTH 573.72. Zella and Piyam(m)u are more frequently attested, in several oracle reports (see Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 711, 713). In particular, they are found together in CTH 573.63, a text containing oracles about the Zawalli deity of Šaušgatti. Zella has also collaborated on several oracle compositions with the augur Zapalli, another well-attested expert (CTH 573.62, CTH 573.69). CTH 573.69 also pertains to Šaušgatti. These prosopographic links allow for dating these documents to the late Empire period, particularly during the reign of Tudḫaliya IV (see also Historical context).