One side of this fragment contains two bird oracle reports, but the first is peculiar as it consists only of one line of text with the response of an augur. The second report is almost completely preserved. This side was presumably the obverse since the tablet was most likely one-columned, and the ruled edge on the bottom of the other side suggests this was its conclusion.

The reverse includes a text apparently of a different kind, possibly of historical content, and recounted by a first-person narrator. Largely fragmentary, it mentions troops ([ÉRI]NMEŠ ŠU-TI), the “walls of the encampment”, some movements of the narrator, and the land of Pitama and “the town of” a man called Pipašda; it seems likely that this content refers to military operations. It is impossible to establish whether the two preserved sections of the tablet belong to the same or to two distinct compositions.

The structure of the second part of this text is difficult to grasp, as it is very fragmentary. The peculiar formatting of these lines, which end at different points before the edge of the tablet, also obscures the underlying running text and its syntax to some degree.

None of the names on the tablet can be found elsewhere, namely the augur Uri (if this is the correct reading), a man Pipašda, mentioned in the section without oracular content, and the town Pitama or Pita (see also note n. 7 to the translation).

• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 431f.

Handcopy: H. Otten (KBo 24, Otten H. – Rüster C. 1978c).

Edition: oracular section of the text (obv. 1-13), in Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 431-432.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs DA, ḪAR, IK, IT, URU.

For the interpretation of [ÉRI]NMEŠ ŠU-TI (rev. 3´) as ‘troops of a contingent; detachment’, rather than ‘tribal troops’, according to the traditional reading (ÉRI]NMEŠ ŠU-TI), see the recent discussion in Melchert H.C. 2024a, with reference to the previous literature. The contribution excludes the previous interpretation of the logogram as an Akkadogram referring originally to the “Sutaean” troops, and to be translated as ‘tribal, nomadic troops’. The proposal of reading the logogram with reference to Sum. ŠU ‘hand, arm’, with the military meaning ‘contingent’, instead, was already aired by Alp S. 1979c, 30.

The argument of Melchert is based on the equivalency between [ÉRI]NMEŠ ŠU-TI and the Luwian loanword latti- (see especially Hoffner H.A. 1979a; thus also CHD L-N, 47-49). Melchert shows this term most likely means ‘(ritual) portion, allotment’, based on its usage in ritual texts. In a military context, the term came to be used with the secondary meaning ‘detachment (of troops), contingent’, derived from the base concept of ‘portion’. This finding thus supports the reading of the logographic compound as ŠU-TI (more rarely attested is ŠU-TUM), whose Akkadian equivalent (qātu(m)) had likewise a well-attested meaning ‘share, portion’ (Melchert H.C. 2024a, 255). All these forms must be thus distinguished from the spelling ÉRINMEŠ SU-TE-E (and similar), which are found in Hittite texts only in the account of the Syrian wars in the Deeds of Suppiluliuma. Only the latter forms truly refer to the “Sutean” troops, to indicate ‘tribal/nomadic’ troops.

In the present edition, the name of the augur author of the two oracle reports is read Uri. However, in his previous edition, Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 431-432, read this name [M]auri, which he equated with the name Mawiri, found in two other oracle texts (KUB 22.45 and KUB 49.56). See also note n. 1 to the text.