In this fully preserved letter, some augurs inform the King about technical difficulties in observing birds at several locations. Eventually, they could observe bird flights in Tapikka, where they seem to write the letter.

The key to understanding the first lines of the text lies in the interpretation of the compound appa tittanuške- (obv. 6, 9, 11). The context suggests that every attempt to perform the observations had been in vain. Thus, the expression means that the birds “kept refusing/rejecting” the augurs. The sender most likely writes on behalf of a group of them (as shown by the 1PL forms), expressing frustration for their repeated attempts at performing their duty, which kept failing. The situation seems to have halted some military operations because the king awaited a positive oracular response.

The augurs tried to observe birds in the town of Panada while the king was in Kašaša. In Kašaša as well, where the augurs moved after the first failed attempts (to reach the king in person?), they could not obtain a response either. Finally, the augurs returned to Tapikka, from where they sent the present letter. Here, they finally received a response by observing the birds’ flight, and an extensive report covers the second part of the letter: the observation was carried out over three days. The augurs wanted to share all the details of the observation, perhaps because, given the importance of the matter at stake, the king might have wished for a second opinion from other experts on the positive response.

The augurs established that the king would successfully attack the city of Taggašta, and “harvest their crops” (obv. 18-19).

• H.A. Hoffner, Letters, 2009: 178-181
• M. Marizza, Lettere, 2009: 108-111
• S. Alp, HBM, 1991: 202-207 (Nr. 47)
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 638-650

Alp S. 1991b, 202-207; Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 178-181; Marizza M. 2009a, 108-111 (translation); Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 638-650.

Autography: Alp S. 1991a, n. 47 (= HKM 47).

This letter is almost fully preserved but is heavily damaged in some areas, with large cracks across its surface. No doubt, it was exposed to high-temperature fire as one of its sides is vitrified superficially, as visible in the available photographs. As is typical of letters dating in this period, it is quite small, one-columned, and written also across the lower edge, with the beginning of the text (obv. 1) written on the upper edge.

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs AḪ, (AK), AZ (consistently without subscript ZA), DA, E, EN, (ḪA), IK, IT (however also occasionally without broken horizontal, similarly DA), (KAT), SAR, (URU), TAR (MS).

In consideration of the form of AZ without subscript, note a spelling U]RUta-pí-ig-ga-azza (obv. 13) with ZA as mater lectionis.

As in other letters and reports in Middle Script, the oracular section includes a few differences from the later, more standardised texts. These elements include names of birds only found in this letter (wešši-, obv. 24; ḫuranni-, obv. 20, 28, 32; aršintara- (obv. 33 and passim; a variant of arši(n)tatḫi- ?). Another peculiar form is the abbreviation kušti ([ku]-⸢uš-ti⸣, rev. 47) for Luw. kuštayadi.

The text has three remarkable cases of double enclitic chain at the beginning of a sentence: rev. 47 ([… …-t]āra(?)nu=z[(a)] ē[pper]), rev. 50 (n=ašta ḫūšāš=ma=kan ...); rev. 51 (mān=ma āršintaran=ka[n] …).

The corpus of letters from Tapikka (Maşat Höyük) dates to the first half of the 14th c., and might have been written during the late reign of Arnuwanda I or during the reign of Tudḫaliya II/III. Most of them are probably to be dated in the latter’s reign.

Houwink ten Cate Ph.H.J. 1998a, 161 suggested that the group of letters HKM 46-51, based on prosopographic observation and their contents, constitutes the earliest group of documents, potentially attributed to the late reign of Arnuwanda I. Although it is possible that some of these letters were earlier than the bulk of the texts, confidently attributed to Tudḫaliya II/III, the arguments for a finer dating of this group are not conclusive (for a discussion, see previously Hout Th.P.J. van den 2007c, 392, Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 40).

The structuration of the oracle report over more than one day is atypical but has a few parallels in bird oracle reports KBo 32.123 (MS), KBo 24.130 (MS) and a report from Šapinuwa (Ortaköy) (Or. 90/355, still unpublished; information courtesy A. Süel and D. Schwemer).

The present letter contains three separate complete reports (obv. 21 ff.; obv. 27 ff.; obv. 40 ff.). The second report is introduced by the formula “In the second day”, while the last report, much longer and elaborate in the description of the flights, is only introduced by the conjunction namma (‘Furthermore; moreover’). We understand that the latter is a separate report to be distinguished from the previous, thanks to the presence of two sections ‘Behind the road’ (EGIR KASKAL, in obv. 31 and rev. 58) that cannot belong to the same observation. The parallel documents with a similar multi-day structure are reports of observations over three days, which might apply to HKM 47 as well. However, the absence of the formulation “(In the) third day” might suggest that this particular structure for bird oracles was not standardized, and could have variations.