This sizeable fragment of a one-columned and very orderly written tabletcontains bird oracle reportsby two augurs, Ḫattuš (a tentative reading of m.GIŠGIDRU) and Tarwaški, concerned primarily with the safety of the king. The text is structured as a series of consecutive inquiries, each including its own specific oracle question, the description of the birds’ flight and the augurs’ response.

The individual inquiries have certain structural differences and are variable in length. Some have sub-sections with elements and formulary peculiar only to this tablet and not attested elsewhere.

Although the second, smaller fragment, is an indirect join (KBo 55.196), it certainly belongs to the tablet due to its content and the possibility to position it precisely within the composition (see S. Košak’s Joinskizze on the HPM, and in Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 726).

Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 38-51.

Autography: – (KUB 5), H. Otten – C. Rüster – G. Wilhelm (KBo 55).

The tablet is written in a very regularly formatted script, with well-drawn and orderly paragraph lines, and has the peculiarity to be written continuously from the obverse into the reverse through the lower edge. This characteristic also confirms that the tablet was certainly one-columned. In comparison with other text genres, this formatting is somewhat more common in oracle texts and letters (as observed Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 431), but tablets of this type remain a rare occurrence. For a discussion of the limited number of tablets with these characteristics, see Waal W. 2015a, 63-65.

The tablet is catalogued as LNS (sjh.) according to the HPM,but a palaeographic analysis shows a peculiar combination of only one obvious diagnostic LNS sign and a high number of old forms, namely MS and even OS.

ḪA is the only diagnostic sign for LNS, and other generally NS forms areLI, some instances of DA, but not all transparent (see e.g. an evident old form in obv. 47´, and the consistently old form of IT).

Otherwise, no other typical diagnostic forms of LNS appear (and even for NS), since other forms are quite consistently older variants. Relevant signs are: AḪ (OS/MS, e.g. obv. 20´, that can be compared with possibly late ones, e.g. obv. 33´), AR (with double horizontal, not LNS), E (not LNS), EN (not LNS), ḪAR (closer to MS than OS, but certainly not LNS), IT (MS, with ‘broken’ horizontal), KI (not LNS), NI (not LNS), TAR (MS, with small vertical, not late), UN (not LNS). Secondarily, KAT (not late), ŠA, TA (with tall verticals).

Thus, the dating to the LNS relies essentially on the form of ḪA and to some degree LI (although this form is more generally NS). Of course, even one late sign might be conducive to a late dating, but the particular combination of a consistent collection of early forms, generally compatible with MS, and one/two late signs is peculiar.

The atypical content (and possibly the tablet format) might also point to an early date of the tablet, or at least of the text. Could these peculiarities be explained if this is a late/very late copy of an older document? However, we do not typically have copies of oracular texts, so this explanation is not entirely satisfactory.

The text contains several peculiarities and elements unique to this tablet, or with few parallels:

- Bird oracles usually have two main subsections: the first observation and a second observation, introduced by the formula “Behind the road” (EGIR KASKAL-NI/ EGIR KASKAL). This tablet also contains the “Behind the road” section but also presents atypical sections in some of the reports. At least sections [2], [4], [5], [8], [9] preserve an additional section following “Behind the road”, introduced by “We stood in the west” (iparwašši tīyawen). This recalls to some degree a special section that concludes some oracle reports, in which a bird is observed “in the west” (iparwašši-), if this is the exact meaning of this term (for discussion, see Archi A. 1975e, 163-166, Sakuma Y. 2009b, 229-247). However, the information that the augurs “stand” ‘in the west’, as if the augurs move to a different observation point, is nowhere else to be found in the corpus. It is possible that this particular section constitutes a variation of the more common parallel observation of birds being ‘in the west’. This is also suggested by the reference to “the Sun” in the description of the flights, which strictly correlates with movements of birds being “in the west”.

-In the sections “in the west”, some of the movements of the birds do not follow the standard formulary. Notable is the sentence n=aš=kan … DUTU-un/i arha uwa (obv. 31´, 49´), which we translated “came all the way towards the Sun down(wards)”. Unexpected in this sentence is the usage of the verb uwa- ‘to come’ with the preverb arḫa, which in the standard formulary is attested only with a movement pai- “to ‘to go’ (translated ‘to fly away’).

- Other elements are entirely unique to the text. In the first preserved section [1] the augural response is followed by additional sentences in direct speech, apparently commenting on the oracle outcome or as a follow-up with additional details on the meaning of the observation (k. 20-22). In the middle of the observation in section [5] (k. 108, 111) there are two sentences concerning “wine vessel of ZU.NA wood […]”, both fragmentary. Oddly, these sentences are found within the oracle report proper, so they apparently belong to the description of the birds’ flights. It is difficult to understand how these could have to do with the movements of the birds, and perhaps more likely refer to some actions taken by the augurs, such as placing/moving the vessels within the observation field. These might be understood as ritual acts, as it seems unlikely they have to do with the birds (if these are “wine” vessels, they probably could not hold food to attract or influence the birds, for example).

- Some flight observations include certain details, such as actions or movements of the birds, that are not frequent in other bird oracles. For instance, some descriptions can be quite detailed, like a passage with two birds fighting in mid-air (k. 85-86). The movement of a bird “[…] anda waḫnu-” (k. 105) ‘turning around’/’moving in a circle’(?) is only attested in this text.

- The text also includes some occurrences of rarely attested technical terms/definitions of the oracular birds, such as the birds ‘of concern’ (laḫlaḫḫimaš MUŠENḪI.A ; k. 124). The definition ‘birds of anguish’ (vel sim.), instead, is unique to this text (MUŠENḪI.A pittul[iya]uwaš).

- For the oracular terminology, one notes in this tablet some instances of ‘extreme’ abbreviations, such as GUN (which is however not uncommon) and, rarer,tar-li₁₂ without the expected case/adverbial endings (i.e. tar-li₁₂-an: k.10; 100; pace Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 39, 44, these should probably not be emended).

- Unfrequent spelling pé-eš-š[er] (frg. 1, obv. 9´), usually pé-eš-še-er.

In summary, this text, although fragmentary and difficult to reconstruct as for the topics of the oracle inquiry, presents several elements of interest from the point of view of technical language and oracular practice.