Based on the content of the letter, which includes bird oracle reports, one might assume that the sender, Ḫalpaziti, is the augur who personally carried out the observations. However, it is more likely that Ḫalpaziti only ordered the oracles and is reporting the results to his overseers.

As in the case of another letter from Šarišša, stemming from the same find spot (KuT 49), this text concerns one or more “daughters”, likely princesses of the royal family. The queen had a dream in which one of the girls was beaten. Thisnightmare required oracle inquiries, and the letter contains the report of the observation ordered to Ḫalpaziti by the court through a palace attendant, Ḫandapi.

An additional report has to do with “the road”, apparently a further inquiry connected with the first observation. This section of the letter is somewhat unclear due to the difficult language and formulations. It appears that multiple augurs are required to observe “the road”. Some observations are yet to be completed (obv. 26-28), while others have been partially carried out (rev. 38-40) but need to be continued or repeated at a later time (rev. 39-40).

As a whole, the additional reports still refer to the dream of the queen (rev. 41). Although the communication of the result is very elliptic as well (rev. 41-43), and it is not transparent whether the response of the augurs was favorable or unfavorable, the content of these lines seems to suggest that the birds – so far – excluded that the “daughter(s)” were in danger.

In the last part of the letter, Ḫalpaziti refers to a previous discussion concerning a gold cup and the management of some other gold items, apparently to be delivered to a certain Walwalli (likely a goldsmith) for further works.

• G. Wilhelm, MDOG 130, 1998: 181-187 (mit Photo)
• H.A. Hoffner, Letters, 2009: 262-265
• M. Marizza, Lettere, 2009: 105-108
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 655-663 (CTH 573/581")

Wilhelm G. 1998a, 181-187 (with photographs, no autography); Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 262-265; Marizza M. 2009a, 105-108; Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 655-663.

The present edition has been prepared with the aid of a cast of the tablet, housed in the library of the Department of Altorientalistik at the University of Würzburg.

This perfectly preserved letter was written beginning at the upper edge of the tablet, with the writing continuing from the obverse to the lower edge and onto the reverse (measures: 56x83x20 mm).

The tablet was discovered in 1997 together with another letter, KuT 49, in Building C on the acropolis of Šarišša. A report in Müller-Karpe A. 1998c.

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs AḪ, DA, (DU), E, ḪAR, IT, (KAT), LI, TAR.

Wilhelm G. 1998a, 175 pointed out the use of two different variants of the sign DA in this and another tablet found in the same archaeological context (KuT 49; CTH 190.1).

The form read ma-aš-ta-ia-ti by Wilhelm G. 1998a is unlikely epigraphically (already Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 430 n. 41) and should be read insteadku-aš-ta-ia-ti. As already pointed out by Sakuma Y. 2009a, 657, the form is presumably identical to the Luwian technical term kuštaiadi (ubiquitous in bird oracles). It is possible this is a different spelling of the same form if -aš- is employed for spelling /s/, e.g. Hitt. kar-aš-zi “he/she cuts” vel. sim. (suggestion I. Yakubovich, pers. comm.). On the other hand, the form might also be considered a genuine variant if the segmentku-aš- represents a realization /kwas-/. In Luwian, alternation of /kwaCC-/ and /kuCC-/ is indeed plausible (see KUB 35.45 II 4, kur-ša-aš-ša-an vs. KUB 35.48 III 9', ku-wa-ar-[ša-aš-ša-ti], or KBo 29.6 I 29', ku-un-zu-ni-in-du vs. KUB 35.15 III 5, ku-wa-an-zu-ni-im-ma-an; I. Yakubovich, pers. comm.). Although one would expect, in this case, a spelling *ku-wa-aš-ta-ia-ti, there are a few examples of both word initial /ku-aC/- for /ku-wa-aC/ (e.g. ku-at-ka₄, KUB 23.1+ II 23; NS) and word internal (in OS/MS this seems to be the normal spelling, with many attestations: e.g. Hitt. Laws, KBo 22.62+, rev. III 49, ša-ku-aš-ša-ra-[an]). The regular form kuštayadi, when compared to this variant ku(a)štayadi, could either be seen as the result of syncope or reflect ablaut, both attested phenomena: cf. e.g. uštul-/waštul- and ulkiššara-/walkiššara- (for these examples C. Melchert, pers. comm.).

The bird oracle reports in this text are particularly concise, due to the systematic omission of the verb ue-/uwa- in the sentences where this is expected (pa(i)-, instead, is never omitted). In terms of oracular formulary, the text has other occasional peculiarities, such as the position/movement ‘far’ (tūwa) within otherwise typical descriptions of the flight (obv. 17), and other elements unique to this text discussed in the text edition. These features are somewhat typical of the earliest bird oracles, whose content appears to be more variable or less standardized than the documents from the late Empire period.

According to Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 262 the letter was addressed to the king. Marizza M. 2009a, 106 and n. 2, in my view correctly, pointed out that even though on occasion letters can refer to the king or the queen without their proper titles, in the address field an adequate titulary is expected: a letter to the king from a subordinate individual would be addressed to “His Majesty” (DUTU-ŠI). Since another letter found at Šarišša in the same archaeological context (KuT 49; discussed in Müller-Karpe A. 1998c, 102) provides the same address formula with extended form, and it includes the title GAL.DUMUMEŠ É.GAL (‘Chief of the Palace Officials’), it is likely that the belûm in KuT 50 is precisely this high-ranking official in service in Šarišša.

The author of the letter, Ḫalpaziti, might be identified with the homonimous GAL GEŠTIN listed among the witnesses of the land grant KBo 5.7 (obv. 51), issued by Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikal. In support of this identification is the fact that another person mentioned in the land grant is likewise mentioned in this letter, and with the expected title, the DUMU.É.GAL Ḫandapi (KBo 5.7, obv. 27, 33, 39).

Based on this prosopography, the letter would be roughly contemporary with the land grant, but potentially somewhat later if Ḫalpaziti was not yet GAL GEŠTIN at the time of writing and only later raised to this high ranking-post. Thus, it cannot be entirely excluded the letter dates to the reign of Tudḫaliya II/III, if both officials were still active at that time.

Another person mentioned in this letter, Ḫattušili, might be an important official active in Tapikka (see HKM 10, HKM 27, HKM 28, HKM 52, HKM 53, HKM 80; Alp S. 1991b, 58-59); however, in the present letter he is only a palace employee (DUMU É.GAL), so this identification is less compelling and would require further clarification of the relative dating of the various documents.