This text consists of two separate fragments, for which an indirect join was proposed by Y. Sakuma, based on their similar script and content (1.9.2003); however, the identity of the two fragments remains uncertain. The epistolary nature of the text may be inferred from the occurrence of the verbal form (...=mu) ḫatraeš, “you wrote (to me)”, in KUB 49.4, obv. I 10´.

The first fragment (KUB 49.4) mentions “the daughters” (rev. IV 5´, 9´), who seem to be the main concern of the oracle investigation. There are references to two cities, both fragmentary (Parmina[ ] and Ki[ ]); for the first, Parminašša is a possible restoration. A possible reference to the town of Arinna depends on the preferred reading and restoration (see kolon 1). The sentences “on the second day” and “on the third day” (obv. I 4´, 5´) might recall the content of KIN oracle inquiries, although the following lines clearly contain bird oracles, as well as the reverse of the fragment. A few parallels observation of birds over several days exist (see CTH 573.14, -.56, -.64, -.76, CTH 581.32 and CTH 564), thus this text might include another such example. However, it cannot be excluded that the fragment contains more than one type of oracles.

The second fragment (KUB 49.6) includes further references to a “daughter”, whose safety or health seem to be the concerns of the fragmentary oracle questions (kola 34, 36). This section also mentions other members of her family, such as “her father and [her] grandmother” (k. 37), and the “grandchild” (k. 40). The Fate goddess and the Mother goddess are also mentioned in the same passage (k. 38). The context of these oracle questions remains difficult to interpret.

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

Edition (KUB 49.4): Hagenbuchner A. 1989a, 232-233 (Nr. 177); Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 665-667. Transliteration in Tischler J. 2019a, 7-8.

Edition (KUB 49.6): Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 667-668. Transliteration in Tischler J. 2019a, 10-11.

MS (mh.).

KUB 49.4: Diagnostic signs: old AḪ, DA, ḪAR, IT (possibly AL (unclear), LI (broken); obv. I 3´). ŠA/TA early rather than late. No clearly late signs.

KUB 49.6: Diagnostic signs: AḪ, DA, LI, TAR(?, unclear), ŠA. No clearly late signs.

However, previously considered NS (jh.) (HPM, Sakuma Y. 2009b, Tischler J. 2019a, 7, 11).

The text features the formulation araḫza epp- (KUB 49.4 obv. I 7´), rarely found in bird oracles (see note 1 to the translation for parallels).

Other oracle texts referring to one or more “daughters” seem to involve members of the royal family (see the editions of CTH 188.2 and CTH 190.2) or important officials (the “daughter of the priest” in CTH 190.1; possibly CTH 581.30). In this fragment, this likely applies to the identity of the “daughters”. Since the personal names of the other relatives mentioned in KUB 49.6 are unknown, their identities remain unclear.

The town of Parmina[ssa], if this is the correct restoration of the form (KUB 49.4, obv. I 13´), is attested in a land grant of Tudḫaliya IV for Šaḫurunuwa (CTH 225) and in a cult inventory (KUB 38.27 rev. 7´), based on the attestations collected by A. Kryszeń in HiTop.

Note that in HiTop under the entry Parminiya (a town attested only in the Edict of Telipinu, KBo 3.1 III 31´), a form URUpár-mi-[...] is also listed, found in an oracle for the cult of the god Pirwa (KBo 44.219 rev. 7´). This fragmentary form might be likewise restored Parminašša. It remains possible that both these fragmentary references indicate a different, unattested town.