In this fragment with bird oracle reports, the second preserved paragraph (obv. I 13´–17´) is particularly interesting for its direct reference to details from the previous report. The text quotes a specific bird flight described therein (kolon 16), thus it appears that this new inquiry is a follow-up somehow concerned with this particular movement. Is it because this flight may have determined the negative outcome of the previous oracle, or alternatively, because the observation of this movement had not been entirely clear?

• J. Tischler, DBH 52, 2019: 86f.

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

Edition: (only obverse) Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 352-354.

Transliteration: Berman H. 1982b, 120 (obv. I 5´-18´), Tischler J. 2019a, 86-87.

Fragment of the left edge of a tablet, with writing preserved on both the obverse and reverse. A ruling line along the edge was incised on the obverse. This formatting does not apply to the reverse, which consists – as far as preserved – of a single paragraph spanning four lines, located in a central section of the tablet, while the rest of the surface remains uninscribed.

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: ḪAR(?), IK, IT, TAR. Although the HPM Konkordanz suggests a LNS (sjh.) palaeography, no diagnostic LNS signs can be identified.

The augur Mawiri is attested in this text and in a text with combined oracles, KUB 22.45 (extispicy, KIN and augury). Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 431 also read this name in the oracle KBo 24.127 (CTH 573.9), for which we have preferred, instead, the reading Uri; see the text edition of CTH 573.9 for a discussion.