|
Numerous passages of the two main texts KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ agree almost verbatim. However, there are also some notable differences. The similarities primarily appear in the questions related to potential dangers to the king caused by human negligence (‘misbehavior of the hand’), a ‘misbehavior of a horse’, or an epidemic within the army whereas the oracle findings deviate from each other. Another difference between the two texts is that KUB 5.3+ begins with question nine of KUB 5.4+ (regarding an unintentional infliction of harm referred to as ‘misbehavior of the hand’). The questions concerning potential threats to the king from high fever, internal or external revolts, dangers posed by birds, contaminated water or food, heavy rainfall, or fire are, however, absent in KUB 5.3+.
Furthermore, the oracle inquiry recorded in KUB 5.3+ employs two oracle techniques: KIN and SU, whereas KUB 5.4+ solely uses the KIN oracle. In KUB 5.3+, the SU oracle is usually conducted first and then cross-checked by a KIN procedure. However, in one instance, the KIN procedure takes precedence (obv. I 48–53). Several questions are exclusively answered through a KIN oracle.
Moreover, KUB 5.3+ consists of more follow-up questions aimed at determining whether the threat identified by the oracle is due to human negligence or divine anger, and if the latter is the case, which deities are responsible. Notably, it is only through the follow-up question in KUB 5.3+ obv. I 23-33 that the ‘misbehavior of a horse’ is established as resulting from human negligence rather than divine anger. In contrast, KUB 5.4+ presupposes this, as indicated by the subsequent intervention (obligation of the chariot-drivers; obv. II 37–42).
Last but not least, there are several lines or even paragraphs left blank in KUB 5.4+. In contrast, the corresponding parts in KUB 5.3+ contain reports of an oracle procedure (three lines following obv. I 29 and approximately 11 lines after obv. II 48). Additionally, there is a blank space of approximately 19 lines following KUB 5.4+ rev. III 2. Unfortunately, a comparison with the corresponding part of KUB 5.3+ is not possible due to significant damage in KUB 5.3+ rev. III 1′-46′. These observations suggest that KUB 5.4+ and KUB 5.3+ represent reports from two different teams of experts who conducted their oracles mainly separately during the same year while also cooperating with each other.
It is also noteworthy that the majority of questions in both texts pertain to the king’s winter stay in Ḫattuša, whereas inquiries regarding other locations are reduced to the question whether there is a threat to the king’s life and/or whether the deities approve of his stay. In the case of the stay near the temple of the Storm-god of Aleppo, KUB 5.4+ rev. III 1–2 only provides the outcome of the KIN oracle, omitting the actual oracle question and leaving a blank line instead. In KUB 5.3+, the passage is only partially preserved, making it impossible to determine the level of detail in the question, or even if a question existed at all.
Regarding the stay in Katapa, both texts solely inquire whether it is approved by the gods. According to KUB 5.4+ rev. III 12, the answer is a yes, while the answer is not preserved in KUB 5.3+. Interestingly, in this section, KUB 5.3+ also mentions the celebration of the festivals and the gathering of the birds, which in contrast to KUB 5.4, is otherwise omitted.
Concerning Ankuwa, KUB 5.4+ displays a blank paragraph instead of the oracle question whereas in KUB 5.3+ iv 10, the question is replaced with KI.MIN “ditto”, and only the requested outcome, description of the oracle procedure and findings, and the actual outcome are recorded. Since the oracle indicates that the gods do not approve of a stay in Ankuwa, the absence of further questions is not surprising. Lastly, in the final section of KUB 5.3+, the question is whether the gods approve of a winter stay in Zitḫara, and once again, the answer from the gods is negative. Interestingly, while KUB 5.4+ concludes with the inquiry about Ankuwa, the section about Zitḫara is missing, despite the tablet having sufficient space for it.
KUB 52.64 is a small fragment, almost identical to KUB 5.3+ obv. I 9-18, enabling restoration of broken parts. The first line pertains to the obligation of courtiers and chariot drivers to protect the king from harm caused by human negligence. To assess the measurement’s success, a KIN oracle is first consulted, followed by extispicy for verification. Only the oracle question is preserved. Notably, line 9 of KUB 52.64 mentions examining the exta of one sheep (‘let the exta be favorable’), while KUB 5.3+ notes the exta of two sheep (‘let the first exta be favorable and the second one unfavorable’). It is unclear if this difference results from an error or reflects only partial correspondence between the two texts. However, since the KIN procedure apparently consists of the same symbol constellations, KUB 52.64 may have been copied from KUB 5.3+ for academic or archival reasons, rather than being the product of a different oracle procedure.
KUB 50.11 consists of the introduction to an individual oracle inquiry, including the occasion for the question and its beginning. Similar to KUB 52.64, it shows a closer resemblance to KUB 5.3+ than to KUB 5.4+. Thus, unlike KUB 5.4+ (except for rev. IV 1-5), the oracle questions of KUB 50.11 (at least as far as indicated by the preserved part) do not mention the king’s intention to celebrate various festivals in his winter quarters or the gathering of birds, as is the case in KUB 5.4+ (cf., e.g., obv. I 2-3; obv. I 17-18). Instead, KUB 50.11 aligns with the introductions and beginnings of the questions found in KUB 5.3+ (obv. I 1-4, obv. I 15-17, and obv. I 42-43). However, despite the similarities to KUB 5.3+, it remains unclear whether the text corresponds to a passage in KUB 5.3+ or comprises an oracle question and procedure not found in KUB 5.3+.
Furthermore, the texts categorized under CTH 563 closely resemble the oracle report KUB 18.12+, which E. Laroche assigned the catalog number CTH 564 despite its notable similarity to the texts listed under CTH 563. In contrast to the texts subsumed under CTH 563, KUB 18.12+ focuses on Ḫattuša as the intended winter residence of the king and queen, along with the dangers they may face there, rather than alternative winter locations like Katapa, Ankuwa, Aleppo, and Zitḫara.
Another distinction is the vital role of the Storm-god of Aleppo in KUB 18.12+. The festival of thunder is referred to in KUB 18.12+ as ‘the festival of thunder for the Storm-god of Aleppo,’ while this specification is absent in KUB 5.4+ and KUB 5.3+. Additionally, KUB 18.12+ mentions the wrath of the Storm-god of Aleppo (rev. 8′) as a potential cause of the king’s fever (rev. 11′).
KUB 18.12+ also sets itself apart from KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ by exclusively using bird oracles to acquire divine answers. Unfortunately, several oracle questions from KUB 18.12+ are only partially preserved, which often leaves their addressed issues unclear. However, all the preserved questions cover topics also found in the oracle reports included under CTH 563. Unlike KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+, KUB 18.12+ does not pose any questions concerning strategies to avoid potential dangers or divine anger.
|
|
Concerning Hittite religious thought, it is notable that the dangers addressed in the oracle inquiries can be categorized into two groups: those directly caused by human negligence and misbehavior, which can be controlled, and those largely beyond human control. The first group includes road accidents resulting from human carelessness, contaminated food, unspecified negligence, and fire outbreaks. The second group encompasses diseases and epidemics, downpours, domestic and foreign political revolts, and threats posed by birds, i.e., presumably ominous birds predicting harm or bird attacks, which primarily occur during the nesting period. When dangers are due to human negligence, it is assessed whether they can be avoided through appropriate countermeasures. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the oracle inquiries of KUB 5.3+ and KUB 52.64 utilize both the KIN oracle and extispicy, whereas KUB 5.4+ seeks divine answers solely through the KIN oracle. The oracle method in the tiny fragment KUB 50.11 remains unclear.
Regarding Hittite religion, KUB 5.4+ (and once also KUB 5.3+) provides also interesting insights into the Hittite cultic calendar and, in particular, the time of year when the regular festivals, the festival of the year, and the festival of thunder were celebrated. The texts indicate that these festivals took place during the winter period, reaching from fall to early spring when the king was not on campaign. Moreover, KUB 5.4+ and KUB 5.3+ indicate that in Ḫattuša and Katapa, the festival of the year occurred first, followed by the festival of thunder. Strikingly, KUB 18.12+, subsumed under CTH 564, shows the reverse order of the festival of thunder and the festival of the year (cf. KUB 5.3+ rev. IV 1–2; KUB 5.4+ obv. I 2; obv. I 16; obv. I 26 passim). According to Houwink ten Cate Ph.H.J. 1992c, 92, this may be explained by the fact that the festival of thunder was an ad hoc event that was performed when a thunderstorm occurred. However, as Barsacchi F.G. 2017a, 23 pointed out, this argument is unconvincing. Instead, the evidence suggests that the festival of thunder, like the festival of the year, was a regular seasonal event integrated into the official state cult calendar (Barsacchi F.G. 2017a, 13–24; Barsacchi F.G. 2019c, 111–119 passim). Due to various local traditions, the festival of thunder was likely celebrated in Aleppo in the fall, while in Ḫattuša and Katapa, it was presumably held later in the year. For a more detailed discussion, see the introduction to CTH 564 (KUB 18.12+).
|
