It is possible that the two senders of this letter to the Queen were the augurs who performed the observation detailed in the letter. Alternatively, they could be two officials reporting the outcome of an observation that the Queen was expecting, and carried out by others. The town of Ḫariyaša is mentioned, which appears to be the place from where the letter was sent and/or the place where the observation of birds took place.

Since the tablet was addressed to the Queen but was found in Šamuḫa, not Ḫattuša, various possibilities exist: the Queen could occasionally be in Šamuḫa, the tablet was never delivered, or it is to be understood as a copy of the official letter.

Partial transliteration (obv. 1-6) in Rieken E. apudMüller-Karpe A. – Müller-Karpe V. 2009a, 212.

Details on the archaeological context are provided by Müller-Karpe, A. – Müller-Karpe, V. (apud Rieken E. 2019a, 10). The tablet was found on 20/9/2007 in the SE corner of Room 7, Building A, Level 3/4 below floor level; the description of the find context suggests the soil in which it was found is a secondary deposition (as a result of stone removal for re-usage).

Autography: E. Rieken (DAAM 1).

Fragment with portion of the first 15 lines of the obverse and the last line (upper edge) of a one-columned letter. Dimensions: 7.2 x 8 x 1.54 cm.

MS (mh.); diagnostic signs: AZ(?), E, LI, TAR, URU.

This text includes two attestations of a new name of bird, unknown in the other Hittite oracle texts from Ḫattuša and elsewhere, the ‘wolf’-bird (written Sumerographically: U]R.BAR.RA; obv.! ´ 9, obv.! 13´). There is no doubt, from context, that this is a specific kind of bird and not a ‘true’ wolf. For a few other cases of oracular birds known through Sumerographic/logographic spellings of other animal names, see Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 348-352, 405-407; Trameri forthcoming.

As discussed in Rieken E. 2009, 213 (apud Müller-Karpe A. – Müller-Karpe V. 2009a) the name Tuwawa is not attested elsewhere, while the name Nani appears in five other Early New Kingdom period tablets (MS) from Tapikka and Hattuša; it is not possible to establish if this can be the same person, however.

The same contribution also includes some remarks on the toponym Ḫariyaša. The possibility that Ḫariyaša was to be identified with Kayalıpınar was excluded therein based on various arguments; today we know that the identification of Kayalıpınar with Šamuḫa is virtually certain (Rieken E. 2019a). It remains possible that Ḫariyaša was in the vicinities of Šamuḫa or in its region, but this depends on the exact location of Durmitta, since Ḫariyaša was a town in its province (KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53, obv. 22´). At any rate, the geographic reference in the letter, in my view, suggests that this is where the birds’ flight was observed (see the notes to the text).