CTH 532.12 is a collection of omens from lunar eclipses during the different night watches. Although only protases survive, it is obvious that the text is related to tablets 15 and 19 of the later Enūma Anu Enlil series. The text is attested in one Akkadian exemplar (A: KUB 4.64+). The fragment CTH 532.7/KUB 8.6 could belong to the same text. Similar omens in Hittite are found in KUB 8.3 rev., but it is unclear whether they really run parallel.

The text was copied by E. Weidner in KUB 4. A first edition was prepared by Riemschneider K.K. 2004a: 55–56(A), a partial edition can be found in Rochberg-Halton F. 1988a: 168.

A: A piece of the upper left and a fragment from the lower reverse of a single-column tablet without rulings or paragraph lines. The spacing of signs follows Mesopotamian conventions.

A: Middle Babylonian?: Layout and spacing of the tablet follow Mesopotamian conventions rather than Hittite word space. A number of signs only appear late in the Hittite texts but are typical for Middle Babylonian and the Middle Assyrian variant called ‘Assyro-Mittanian’ (Wilhelm G. 1992h; Weeden M. 2012d: 238–248): ḪAR written ḪI+ÁŠ, both KU and SAR with a ‘box’ formed by two close verticals and a horizontal on top, and TA with three equally high verticals, the first two of which separate the horizontals from the last part of the sign (Schwemer D. 1998a: 10–11). Signs starting with two horizontals, such as BA, TA, and Ú, often have the lower one indented, and the final wedges of signs are often lengthened before spacing (Schwemer D. 1998a: 11–12). Note, however, that the verticals lack the typical broad extension to the right found in Middle and Neo-Assyrian, and LUGAL does not have its Assyrian shape but rather the Babylonian form used in Syrian and Hittite texts.

R. Labat collected the Akkadian lexemes of KUB 4.64+ in his treatise on Boğazköy-Akkadian (Labat R. 1932a). However, it is unclear whether this text was written by a Ḫattuša scribe. The layout and some sign forms are foreign, so the tablet may not be suitable for analysis of Boğazköy-Akkadian. While most of the spelling is typical of late Old Babylonian omen texts, the use of AŠ for ina is a post-Old Babylonian feature, as is the use of -šú for the possessive suffix. Unusual is the use of DADAG (UD.UD) instead of ZÁLAG for namāru.

Some astrological omen texts from Ḫattuša are clearly Mesopotamian imports, such as the solar omen collection KUB 4.63. It is difficult to assess, however, whether tablets like KUB 4.63 or KUB 4.64+ were written by foreign scribes in Ḫattuša or written by a Hittite scribe versed in non-Boğazköy script. For each model, there are examples or at least good arguments. Research on tablets in ‘mixed ductus’ points to the existence of scribes who were trained in different languages and their scripts (Devecchi E. 2012b: 50–56). On the other hand, there is ample evidence of foreign scribes at the Hittite court (Weeden M. 2016b: 159–162). A petrographic analysis may help establish where the clay of the tablet stems from (for the method and its possibilities see Goren Y. et al. 2011a).

The text starts with four omens concerning the beginning of an eclipse in the south, west, east, and north, respectively. These four protases are known from the first four omens of the second section of Enūma Anu Enlil, tablet 15 (Rochberg-Halton F. 1988a: 71; Fincke J. 2016a: 90–92), although in a different order (south–north–east–west).

The text continues with quadruplets of omens that begin and end during the first and second night watch. Because the preserved parts of the four protases are identical, they must have continued after igmur, likely providing the direction in which the eclipse cleared. This scheme is known from Enūma Anu Enlil tablet 19, section 2, as already observed by Rochberg-Halton F. 1988a: 167–168, and the differences between the first-millennium protases and the Ḫattuša tablet are purely orthographic. But since the apodoses are destroyed, it is difficult to estimate how close the first-millennium version is in fact to CTH 532.12.