The fragment consists of two blank lines at the top followed by a paragraph divider and the rests of four inscribed lines with 5-5 ½ preserved signs. According to Y. Sakuma (see the note in S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (2.plus), retrieval date 12/06/2023) the fragment might be an indirect join to KUB 52.64 (CTH 563.3). Both fragments are indeed very similar in terms of the quality of the tablet, the clay color and the writing. However, since the approximate position of KUB 50.11 in relation to KUB 52.64 cannot be determined and since the similar handwriting does not necessarily mean that both fragments belong to the same tablets, both fragments are treated in the present edition separately. Furthermore, some signs show slight differences (see below).

The handcopy was published by Archi A. 1979f. The belonging to CTH 563 was identified by Y. Sakuma, who also proposed an indirect join with KUB 52.64 (August 29, 2005; July 27, 2006). Due to the similar handwriting this join is quite likely. However, the two fragments could also be parts of different texts created by the same scribe. Since the relationship between the two fragments remains unclear, they are treated in the present edition separately.

Dating:

NH / NS (IIIb)

Graphical Features and Paleography:

The fragment shows a careful and even handwriting, with signs deeply impressed into the clay. The sign shapes are very similar to the ones of KUB 52.64 (CTH 563.3) which, according to Y. Sakuma (see the note in S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (2.plus), retrieval date 12/06/2023), might be an indirect join to KUB 50.11. The handwriting of both texts is indeed very similar. Yet, some signs look slightly different. Cf., e.g. RU in KUB 52.64 9′ whose middle vertical is smaller than the other ones whereas in KUB 50.11 4′ they are almost at the same height; cf. also TI in KUB 52.64 6′ with the top of the horizontal at almost the same height as the vertical and the first Winkelhaken crossing the leg of the horizontal whereas in KUB 50.11 1′ the top of the vertical is higher than the one of the horizontal and the first Winkelhaken does not cross the leg of the horizontal. Since the approximate position of KUB 50.11 in relation to KUB 52.64 cannot be determined and since the similar handwriting does not necessarily mean that both fragments belong to the same tablets, both fragments are treated in the present edition separately. In regard to paleography, both fragments show the younger variants of DA and IT without a broken horizontal wedge. The main texts of CTH 563 (KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+), however, have only the older variants of the two signs with a broken middle horizontal wedge. However, this does not necessarily mean that KUB 50.11 and KUB 52.64 have been written at a later stage than KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+. Rather, they might have been written by a scribe who, in contrast to the scribes of KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ used the younger variants of DA and IT.

The fragment consists of the introduction to an individual oracle inquiry, including the occasion for the question, as well as the beginning of it. Similar to KUB 52.64, it shows a closer resemblance to KUB 5.3+ (CTH 563.1) than to KUB 5.4+ (CTH 563.2). Thus, in difference to KUB 5.3+ (except for rev. IV 1-5), the oracle questions of KUB 50.11 (at least as far as the state of preservation reveals) do not mention the king’s intention to celebrate various festivals in his winter quarters or the gathering of birds, as it is the case in KUB 5.4+ (cf., e.g., obv. I 2-3; obv. I 17-18). On the contrary, the present fragment coincides with the introductions and the beginnings of the questions attested in KUB 5.3+ (obv. I 1-4), (obv. I 15-17), and (obv. I 42-43). Yet, despite the similarities to KUB 5.3+ it is not possible to decide whether the text corresponded to a passage in KUB 5.3+ or whether it consisted of an oracle question and procedure that is not to be found in KUB 5.3+. For several possible scenarios, that might explain the existence of the different manuskripts of the oracle report, along with their similarities and discrepancies, see the introduction to KUB 52.64.