The text is a report of an oracle inquiry that aims to determine the gods’ approval of the king’s proposed winter stay in Ḫattuša while also identifying potential dangers and ways to avoid them. Once the questions about Ḫattuša are addressed, the inquiry explores alternative winter residence locations such as Katapa, Ankuwa, and Zitḫara. Based on the parallel section found in CTH 563.2 KUB 5.4+, it can be inferred that the heavily damaged portion rev. III 1ʹ-46ʹ included an inquiry about a potential wintering of the king in Aleppo, or more specifically, in the vicinity of the temple of the Storm-god of Aleppo (in Aleppo or Ḫattuša). Unlike the detailed inquiry regarding Ḫattuša, the questions about the other locations are limited to whether the gods approve of the chosen place and/or whether the king’s life will be safe there. The inquiry about Ḫattuša delves into greater detail. It comprises a series of questions that address several potential threats, such as a “misbehavior of the hand” (i.e., unintentional harm caused by human action), a “misbehavior of a horse” (resulting in a road accident), or an epidemic within the army.

• A. Archi, BBVO 1, 1982: 283ff.
• B. Christiansen, Kasion 13, 2025: 57ff.
• L. Warbinek, KIN, 2020: 467-484
• R.H. Beal, CoS 1, 2003: 209-211
• R.H. Beal, FsPopko, 2002: 29ff. Anm. 80; 83; 86

KUB 5.3 is one of the earliest Hittite oracle texts accessible to the public through a cuneiform copy provided by Arnold Walther in 1922 (Walther A. 1922a, 17-19). Five years later, Walther published the joining fragment KUB 18.52 and some corrections to the copy of KUB 5.3 (Walther A. 1927a, 40). Despite the limited study of Hittite at that time, Walther’s copies are highly accurate and occasionally reveal parts of the text that are not visible or hardly visible in the photographs.

Despite its good state of preservation and interesting content, the text has only been published in partial transliterations and translations (see Archi A. 1974a, 113–114 (obv. I 23–35); Archi A. 1982a, 283–286 (obv. I 1–44); Warbinek L. 2020a, 467–478; Beal R.H. 1997a, 206–211; Warbinek L. 2020a, 467-484). Whereas Archi transliterated and translated only the oracle questions and oracle outcome, leaving the oracle procedure out, Warbinek, on the contrary, transliterated and translated only the oracle procedures. Beal’s translation, as well as Warbinek’s edition, combines sections of CTH 563.2 KUB 5.4+ with parts of CTH 563.1 KUB 5.3+, using KUB 5.4+ as the main text and switching to KUB 5.3+ when the corresponding passage in KUB 5.4+ is either damaged or was not originally part of KUB 5.4+. A comparative analysis of KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+, including translations of both texts in a synopsis, and a discussion of their relationship, has been carried out by Christiansen (Christiansen 2024, forthcoming).

The present edition is the first to provide the complete text with annotated transliteration, transcription, and translation. Other studies discuss specific linguistic, graphical, or content-related features of the texts (see S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (2.plus), notae originalis, and Warbinek L. 2020a, 467-484).

Preservation

The obverse of the tablet is well preserved, with only a few missing signs at the beginning and end of some lines in the lower part of the two columns. On the contrary, rev. III is heavily damaged. Some sections are completely lost (rev. III 1ʹ-10ʹ; 14ʹ-17ʹ), while a few signs are preserved in other parts. Rev. IV is partially broken in the upper two-thirds, which apparently were blank. The following inscribed section is almost entirely preserved.

Layout and graphical features

The tablet is divided into four columns and 36 paragraphs. Similar to the parallel text CTH 563.2 KUB 5.4+, the tablet contains several blank paragraphs. For instance, §31 at the end of rev. III (approximately 12 lines); the upper two-thirds of rev. IV (around 39 lines), and §36 at the end of rev. IV (about 4 lines). In contrast to CTH 563.2, there is only one paragraph with a blank space at the end (§1, which shows one blank line before the paragraph divider). Like CTH 563.2, the writing is meticulously executed, with signs deeply impressed into the clay. Both texts show, however, a different handwriting.

The text dates into the New Hittite period and is written in New Script (IIIb).

DI, ḪA, KI and UN are all attested in the pre-LS variants. For example, DI is written with only one vertical (obv. I 12, 59; rev. IV 9); ḪA with two Winkelhaken (seen in, e.g., obv. I 9, 10, 13, 35; obv. II 46; rev. IV 13); KI with one vertical (seen in, e.g., obv. I 4, 15, 18, 30; obv. II 6); UN with an unbroken vertical before the broken verticals (obv. I 30). LI, URU and SAR are written in the IIIb variants. Cf. LI with two verticals (obv. I 29; obv. II 4; rev. IV 14); URU with the middle horizontal protruding to the left (seen in, e.g., obv. I 1, 15, 16); SAR with two verticals at the end (obv. I 29, 32). Other signs are attested in the older variants, such as MEŠ with four Winkelhaken (e.g., obv. I 4, 9, 18); DA with the middle horizontal wedge broken (seen in, e.g., obv. I 7, 11, 22); IT with the middle horizontal wedge broken (seen in, e.g., obv. I 2, 16, 18, 43, 54); GI with an oblique stroke instead of a wedge (seen in, e.g., obv. I 3, 5, 21, 26). Therefore, the text was likely written in the middle of the 13th century BCE (around the reign of Ḫattušili III or the first half of the reign of Tutḫaliya IV). When compared to the parallel text CTH 563.2, it can be inferred that both texts were written down during the same period (IIIb), but authored by different scribes. This lends support to the theory that both texts are records of the same oracle inquiry carried out by two separate groups of experts.

Numerous passages of KUB 5.3+ agree almost verbatim with passages of KUB 5.4+. The similarities primarily appear in the questions related to potential dangers to the king caused by human negligence (“misbehavior of the hand”), an accident on the road (a “misbehavior of a horse”), or an epidemic within the army whereas the oracle findings deviate from each other. Another difference between the two is that KUB 5.3+ begins with question nine of KUB 5.4+ (regarding the 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, negative omens or oracle signs from 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 road accident 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+, whereas 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, but 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 separately during the same year while also collaborating with each other.

However, it is 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 here the celebration of the festivals and the gathering of the birds, which in contrast to KUB 5.4, is otherwise omitted.

On the other hand, concerning Ankuwa, KUB 5.4+ displays a blank paragraph instead of the oracle question. In contrast, 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 (no). 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.