This tablet fragment includes bird oracle reports, but also contains some paragraphs with different content – perhaps introductory or explanatory sections providing context for the oracle procedure (e.g., sections 1–3, and possibly 5). Sections 2 and 3 mention ‘items, utensils’ belonging to the Queen and the ‘sons’, presumably princes; however, it remains unclear how this relates to the oracle procedure. The other sections consist of bird oracles and are somewhat more intelligible, thanks to their formulary language. One of the bird oracles was performed by the augur Wanni, and two others by Mašduriandu.

The bird oracle performed by Wanni appears to be a control oracle and is introduced by a standard formula referring to the previous oracular determination. This earlier determination was carried out by the MUNUSENSI, a ‘seeress’, an expert in divination attested in only a small number of oracle reports, when compared to other professionals such as augurs, extispicy diviners, or the “old woman” (MUNUSŠU.GI). Among the bird oracles, the MUNUSENSI is also mentioned in CTH 573.69 and 573.70. On this figure in Hittite divination, see Other characteristics.

Both Mašduriandu and the MUNUSENSI also appear in the fragment CTH 573.70. Palaeographically, the two fragments are similar, though a sign-by-sign comparison reveals some variation. Although they probably do not belong to the same tablet, the fragments involve the same experts and contain oracle inquiries with notable similarities.

• J. Tischler, DBH 52, 2019: 15-17
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 263-266

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

Edition: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 263-266.

Transliteration: Tischler J. 2019a, 15-17.

Fragment of the upper right corner of a two-column tablet, preserving the top and right edge for approximately thirty lines of text.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: DA, E, ḪA (LNS, obv. II 24; cf. obv. III 13´, 14´), IK, IT, LI, UN.

To be noted in the oracle reports is the occasional omission of the verb ue-/uwa- in the standard formulary – a practice that is relatively well attested in bird oracles (kola 27, 52, 55; but see it present in k. 49). The cases in k. 64 and 67 are dubious due to the fragmentary condition of the text.

One also notes the formula arḫa peššer ‘they excluded (it)’ in k. 70, which usually includes the quotation marker =wa(r) (as indeed in line k. 58).

The augur Wanni is only attested in this oracle text. Mašduriandu, instead, appears in a few other oracle texts: bird oracles KUB 16.74, KUB 49.9, KUB 49.32, KUB 49.48, mixed oracles KUB 5.24+, KUB 16.31+ (attestations after Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 710).

The MUNUSENSI appears somewhat rarely in Hittite oracle texts, and always in the context of oracle reports of mixed content. Based on a few texts in which the nature of her divination activity is explicitly addressed, we know that she was devoted – possibly alongside other tasks – to the interpretation of dreams (oracle tablets KUB 48.118, KUB 52.44, and KUB 50.91). References to the MUNUSENSI in prayers are also found in relation to dream interpretation (discussion Warbinek L. 2019c, 70–71).

Therefore, some of the reservations of Warbinek L. 2019c, 71–72, regarding an interpretation of the MUNUSENSI primarily as a ‘dream interpretress’ might be excessive. The fact that only a few sources directly connect this figure with dream interpretation (ibid. 71), while most of the texts do not provide details on her activity/activities, is not a strong argument to exclude that this could be her main occupation; indeed, the positive evidence in this respect confirms that she was active in this kind of divination. Just like other divination experts, it is possible (and perhaps even likely) that the activities of the MUNUSENSI could also have included other tasks, such as the participation in certain festivals (ibid. 67–68), rituals (68–70), and potentially other kinds of divination that are not documented. Thus, even though we might choose to translate her title more neutrally as ‘seeress’, to acknowledge a complexity of her professional dimension, there is a strong case that, in the oracular context, the interpretation of dreams was at least one of her main preoccupations.

Mouton A. 2007a, 52-54 (and n. 87) pointed out that dream interpretation was not necessarily a prerogative of the MUNUSENSI, and that possibly the interpretation of dreams was not confined to a single specialist dedicated primarily or exclusively to this activity. This is possible, although it may also relate to the particular nature of dreams, which – unlike other ‘signs’ – are closely connected to the personal experience of the individual who witnessed them, as opposed to other ‘external’ signs. Due to this nature of dreams, one might expects a higher degree of involvement from the affected individual in the revelation and interpretation of the dream itself (see e.g. KBo 24.128 and KBo 18.142, for the latter see also our edition CTH 581.12).

Whether the MUNUSENSI was involved solely with dreams in the oracular context or also engaged in other types of divinatory activity, the few oracle reports in which she appears indicate that she was consulted among qualified experts in complex oracular inquiries, involving multiple investigative steps and various techniques.