Very little of this bird oracle fragment survives. One notable detail is a single line of text, written upside down within an otherwise blank paragraph, containing an oracular response by the augur Piyama. While it is possible that this line continues a sentence that began on the now-lost reverse side of the tablet – approximately at the tablet’s midpoint – notably the sentence is nearly complete as preserved. Thus, more likely this line was written in its entirety on the obverse. The fact that it appears within a blank paragraph supports this view; otherwise, one would have to assume the coincidence that a text too long happened to be written precisely in correspondence with a blank space on the obverse, where it could be conveniently completed.

In my view, the most plausible explanation is that the available space on the other side of the tablet – likely the reverse – had been filled. The scribe therefore chose to use the empty paragraph on the obverse to record the final sentence of the oracle. By writing it upside down, the scribe likely intended to disambiguate the line’s attribution and mark it clearly as concluding the document.

Based on the distribution of the text on the tablet, we identify the obverse and reverse of this fragment in the opposite way to the transliteration in Tischler J. 2019a, 83. Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 350 does not comment on this detail, and his edition omits the line containing the oracle response.

• J. Tischler, DBH 52, 2019: 83
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 349f.

Handcopy: A. Archi (KUB 49, Archi A. 1979e).

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 349-350.

Transliteration: Tischler J. 2019a, 83.

A fragment preserving portions of two paragraphs containing bird oracle reports, separated by a blank paragraph spanning approximately four lines. One line of text, written upside down, is written within this otherwise empty paragraph.

LNS (sjh.); diagnostic signs: E, IT, KI (LNS).

The oracle report contains some non-standard sentences. The passage at kola 8-9 includes the verb ušket (“he saw”), which is unexpected in a description of bird flights, as well as a reference to the movement of a bird towards ‘wood’ (or, possibly, ‘log(s)’). Both sentences are incomplete, thus an interpretation remains difficult.

The augur mentioned in this tablet, Piyama, is perhaps to be distinguished from another augur, Piyam(m)u, who is attested in several other oracle reports (see CTH 573.8, 573.16, 573.63, 573.80, 573.85, 573.87).