Mariya and Ḫapiri wrote a letter to the king concerning the task of capturing birds and perhaps other animals along their journey. In the letter, they ask for new instructions for finding some birds which were not yet captured and bring news of a deadly fever spreading in the town of Palḫišna.

The two ‘hunters’ refer to previous instructions for the capture of animals (obv. 11-13) in a difficult passage (obv. 14-17). They say instructions were “not given separately” (if this is the correct interpretation) in the towns of Tiwaliya and Palḫišna, which could mean that the two had been staying in the two different towns, and only later undertook the trip together. Neither of them knew where to search for the “birds” they had to capture (lo. e. 18). Another possibility is that this sentence should be read in connection with the issue of “the road” where the birds are to be captured (obv. 7; lo. e. 19). If Mariya and Ḫapiri hunted for birds in the surroundings of these two towns, but their search was unsuccessful, this might have prompted their request for new instructions “separately from Tiwaliya and Palḫišna”, with the meaning “away from” this location, in another, potentially more fruitful hunting ground.

The end of the letter refers to an oracular inquiry, whose wording implies some concerns regarding a “son” (of the king?). It is unclear whether this report is connected with the dire situation in Palḫišna.

• H.A. Hoffner, FsPuhvel, 1997: 5-21
• H.A. Hoffner, Letters, 2009: 181-184
• M. Marizza, Lettere, 2009: 122
• S. Alp, HBM, 1991: 206-211 (Nr. 48)

Alp S. 1991b, 206-211; Hoffner H.A. 1997c; Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 181-184; Marizza M. 2009a, 122 (translation); Trameri A. forthcoming.

Autography: Alp S. 1991a, n. 48 (= HKM 48); Trameri A. forthcoming (tracing from photographs).

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs AḪ, AK, DA, E, ḪA, IT, KI, LI, MAḪ, URU.

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 place name Palḫišna is attested only in this text. For Tiwaliya, more than one place with this name existed, a few located in the district of Arinna – although the town in HKM 48 might be yet another place with the same name (RGTC 6, 431; RGTC 6/2, 171). On Tiwaliya see also Forlanini M. 1980a, 74-76.

Although the oracular inquiry mentioned at the end of the text was carried out through augury, it is unlikely that the capture of birds, the primary concern of the letter, had to do with oracles: the fact that these birds were presumably rare and difficult to find suggests, instead, that “exotic birds were kept simply because they were beautiful or had interesting calls.” (Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 8).

The reference to capturing large wild beasts, such as a ‘lion’ and a ‘leopard’, indicates even more clearly that the journey of Mariya and Ḫapiri is a hunting trip for capturing animals for other reasons, for example for restocking royal zoological parks (for references see Hoffner H.A. 1997c, 8).

However, the capture of a ‘lion’ and a ‘leopard’ is quite puzzling in context. The authors of the letter in fact only refer to the capture of certain ‘birds’ which could not be found (ll. 18-20). Additionally the task assigned to his servants by the king himself only refers specifically to birds (ll. 7-8).

At least one or both the animals šarmiya- and kūrala- (l. 12) might be the birds that the authors of the letter refer to. Based on the broader context of the letter, and the transparent wording (such as the resumption of the lists of animals in ll. 11-13 in l. 18 with kē MUŠENḪI.A), it seems possible that all the animals mentioned are actually birds. The usage of sumerographic allonyms (namely names of other animals) to indicate specific kinds of birds has a few parallels, well known from bird oracular texts (e.g. KA₅.A, ‘fox’ (bird), PÉŠ, ‘mouse’ (bird), MUŠ and MUŠEN.MUŠ, ‘snake-bird’, UR.BAR.RA ‘wolf’ (bird)). For a detailed discussion of this hypothesis see Trameri A. forthcoming).