This fragment with bird oracle reports includes references to a town, a river, and other locations or features of the landscape, in connection with the birds’ flights. Similar contents are typically attested in early reports, dating to the Early New Kingdom (palaeographically MS). Both the content and a palaeographic analysis suggest, in fact, an early date of this fragment (see also the edition of CTH 573.113 for a discussion of these aspects of early reports).

The text refers to a river (obv. I 6), the town of Laḫina (obv. I 10-11, 15), which is a hapax, and to other locations: the šaliman(i)- (obv. I 12, 16), a place attested only in a handful of Hittite texts, and the DKASKAL.KUR-la (rev. IV 4´, a reading proposed in this text edition).

We derive that the observation happened in the town of Laḫina, or its proximities (“behind Laḫina”, obv. I 10). The references to the šaliman(i)- and the DKASKAL.KUR (‘divine earth-road’/‘underground watercourse’) may describe specific places where the birds were observed, or clarify the directions of the flights described in the report. For another bird oracle featuring the KASKAL.KUR see KBo 24.130(+)KBo 41.186 (CTH 573.14).

• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 603-605

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

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 603-605.

MS (mh.). The text does not include clearly late signs (NS), while all diagnostic signs show early forms: DA, LI, TAR.

The content, with reference to “the river” and other specific locations within the oracle report, has parallels in other documents of early date. On “the river”, see in particular the ed. of CTH 573.113. For another early bird oracle (MS) featuring the term KASKAL.KUR, see CTH 573.14.

The text features one of the few instances of an abbreviated spelling GÚ of the technical augural term GUN, whose meaning and underlying Hittite word remain unknown (see note 7 to the text). Although Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 603-605 (and elsewhere in his corpus) considered this a mistake, thus emended the form in all the instances (gun.! = GÚ.〈UN〉), the fact that all four attestations in this tablet provide the same ‘defective’ spelling (obv. I 19, rev. IV 1´, 3´, 6´) is a strong argument for an interpretation as a true abbreviation of the standard form, and also suggests that the few parallels in other documents should not be considered mistakes either. Precisely the composite nature of the sign GUN (=GÚ+UN) supports an interpretation as abbreviation. Based on the corpus edited by Sakuma, the form is attested in four other texts: KUB 22.51 obv. 5´, 9´; KBo 40.52+ 5´; KBo 40.54+ 1´ and KBo 66.41 r. c. 8´. Another possible instance can be found in KUB 52.21, obv. I 12´.

The text also includes two cases of stem forms without case inflection for bird names: one case is certain (ḫu-u-[w]a, rev. IV 2´), while the other is dubious, as the reading is difficult (⸢ka⸣-ni-i[š]-⸢du⸣-ma(-), obv. I 13, and possibly ⸢ka⸣-ni-⸢iš⸣-du-[...], obv. I 14); however, the interpretation seems the most likely, unless one assumes a mistake. All the instances were emended by Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 604 (see notes 6 and 9 to the text). However, in the corpus of bird oracles at least two other instances of stem forms with bird names exist: KBo 41.154, 7´: ḫu-u-wa tar-liš and KBo 63.58, 8´: [ḫ]u-u-⸢wa⸣ G[UN?-liš] (in both instances a nom. sg. ḫu-u-wa-aš is expected). Interestingly, most of these cases refer to the same ḫuwa- bird, which seems to suggest that this name had a special inflection. In its other attestations, the kanišdu- bird is normally inflected, instead. Although all these cases of defective spellings were considered erroneous by Sakuma Y. 2009b, at least in the case of the ḫuwa- bird, the recursive spelling suggests that the form should be regarded as genuine. An alternative explanation is that this bird name should be regarded as an Akkadogram, and therefore may also be attested without case endings. This possible origin was not considered in HW2 (Ḫ 821 s.v. ḫuwara-, ḫuwa-) but it is mentioned in Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 379. The name would then be a borrowing from Akkadian, where a ḫūa bird is attested (CAD Ḫ 212; ḫūa, ḫūa-iṣṣūru), identified as ‘hoot-owl’, based on the obvious onomatopoeic nature of the name.

If more examples of stem forms can be found with different bird names, one should consider that stem forms of bird names were considered acceptable within oracular technical writing, perhaps as a mean of text abbreviation.

The šaliman(i)- is the name of what appears to be a location or building, typically mentioned in ritual contexts, with characteristics of sacred space (CHD Š, 104-105). This place might have had a specific connection with the cults of the Netherworld (for a discussion, see Trameri A. 2022a, 123, 126-127).

The DKASKAL.KUR, usually translated as ‘underground watercourse’ (‘Quellbecken’, vel sim.), has also been identified as a location of sacred significance, possibly connected with the Netherworld (see Gordon E.J. 1967a, Otten H. 1988a, 33-34; attestations in Gessel B.H.L. van 1998a, II, 679-680). See also Hawkins J.D. 2000a, 293: “(…) a geographical feature, “karsic slot, pot-hole”, conceived also as an entrance to the underworld”.

This translation remains tentative, since the exact nature of this landscape feature is obscure. It is to be noted that an exact parallel probably exists in Hieroglyphic Luwian: (DEUS)TERRA+VIA (=(DEUS)L.202, previously also read (DEUS)VIA.TERRA; Hawkins J.D. 2000a, 292), a term attested in the inscriptions SÜDBURG §18; KARAHÖYÜK(ELBISTAN) §7, §19 (with the variant SCALPRUM+TERRA+VIA), and İSPEKÇUR frg. c §3 (without divine determinative). The equivalency seems likely, although not all contexts where the term appears seem compatible with the interpretation as a geographical feature (notably the two cases in the Karahöyük-Elbistan stele: “I took SCALPRUM+TERRA+VIA”). J.D. Hakwins (Hawkins J.D. 1995c, 44-45; Hawkins J.D. 2000a, 292-293) suggested that the (DEUS)TERRA+VIA mentioned in the Südburg inscription at Ḫattuša indicated the underground monument itself, in this case “an artificial cultic imitation” (lastly Hawkins J.D. 2024a, 54), while prototypically it would be a natural topographical feature. Based on this equivalency with the Hieroglyphic Luwian form, Hawkins’ translation ‘(divine) earth-road’ can be applied to the cuneiform DKASKAL.KUR as well.