KBo 14.21 (CTH 565.1) records a series of KIN oracle inquiries concerning the proper conduct toward the horse-god Pirwa, the divine mountain, and Zababa of Ikšuna in connection with specific local festivals and related cultic obligations. The text focuses above all on omissions in the performance of monthly and yearly festivals for Pirwa and on the restitutions and penitence offerings required to restore Pirwa’s favor when regular cultic duties have been neglected.

The text also contains unique information about the Pirwa cult, including a reference to the ‘Festival of the sprout’ (or, according to another interpretation, ‘Festival of drought’ (EZEN₄ lattaš), which is mentioned solely in the present document.

Closely related to the cult inventory IBoT 2.131, the oracle report can be read as its divinatory and reparatory counterpart. While the inventory documents lapsed obligations in an administrative manner and includes statements from cult personnel, KBo 14.21 demonstrates how these failures were investigated through oracle consultations. The investigation also involved interrogating the priest, who had primary responsibility for the cult’s function, as well as inquiries about compensation and penitence offerings.

Furthermore, with its well-structured form, consisting of eleven clearly defined sections, the text is an outstanding example of the Hittites’ structured approach to ascertaining the divine will, organizing the cult, uncovering abuses, identifying and punishing those responsible, and compensating for transgressions.

From a historical perspective, the references to Ḫattušakurunta and Ališarruma are of utmost importance, as they appear in various legal and political documents, including the two Tarḫuntašša treaties (KBo 14.10+ and the Bronze tablet Bo 86/299), and – in the case of Ḫattušakurunta – also the cult inventory IBoT 2.131. These connections not only provide valuable information for dating the text, but also demonstrate that high-ranking individuals were involved in both political and cultic matters, including the obligation to provide offerings for festivals.

The tablet was first published in a handcopy by Hans Gustav Güterbock in 1967 (Güterbock H.G. 1963a, 16–20 no. 21). A full edition with transliteration and English translation has been provided by Hannah Marcuson as part of her study on female oracle and ritual experts (Marcuson H. 2016a, 424–435). A table with an overview of the symbol constellations in the KIN procedure was published in 2020 by Livio Warbinek (Warbinek L. 2020a, 302–307).

A first in-depth study was published by Fiorella Imparati in 1990 (Imparati F. 1990a). Aside from a transliteration and a French translation of obv. I 28′–41′; obv. I 61′–72′; obv. II 55′–75′ and rev. III 60–61, Imparati examined the administrative, historical, and religious contexts of the text, drawing comparisons with the cult inventory IBoT 2.131, which also pertains to the cult of Pirwa and shares many similarities with KBo 14.21. More recently, Michele Cammarosano has provided a new edition of IBoT 2.131 in which he also discusses its relationship to KBo 14.21 as a complementary witness to the problems surrounding the maintenance of the Pirwa cult in the Late Empire period (Cammarosano M. 2021a, 259). For further studies, see infra.

The text is inscribed on a large two-column tablet, measuring about 32 cm in height and 22 cm in width.22 cm. Obv. I is relatively well preserved, though larger portions are missing at the upper edge and in the area of lines 38′–53′. On obv. II, approximately half of lines 1'–11' are damaged. In lines 12'–43' and 55'–75', several signs are missing at the ends of the lines. Rev. III is in very poor condition; the surface in the area of lines 1–43 is so abraded that only some unconnected signs and sign traces have remained. Lines 44–65 also have missing signs at the ends. For lines 67–76, only the beginnings of the lines are preserved, with decreasing extent. Rev. IV is completely uninscribed.

Similar to other extensive oracle reports, the tablet contains several uninscribed lines or paragraphs. With one exception, these are all blank paragraphs, each preceded by a KIN oracle with a favorable outcome and followed by a paragraph on a different topic. This pattern suggests that the scribe intentionally left these spaces empty in case the KIN oracle needed to be verified by a second oracle at a later stage. Since all the oracle outcomes are favorable, such cross-checks apparently turned out to be unnecessary.

The sole exception is the three-line uninscribed space between obv. II 11′ and 12′. In this instance, the blank space follows an incomplete report of the current cultic practice; both the oracle question and the report of the KIN procedure are completely missing. Since, according to obv. II 12′, an omission was confirmed by oracle, the KIN procedure seems to have taken place, but was not recorded. The reason for the incomplete report remains unknown.

The text is written in New Script with the youngest signs belonging to phase IIIb. The palaeographic evidence thus supports dating the text to the early years of Tutḫaliya’s reign, as suggested by the individuals and events mentioned in the text. Notably, some diagnostic signs are attested in both older and IIIb shapes. Cf., e.g., older and younger DA, IT, and LI. The evidence, which the text shares with other oracle texts, demonstrates that the combination of older and newer sign forms does not necessarily indicate that a text is copied from an older source. Instead, this mixture can also be found in texts that are not based on earlier versions. The tablet, similar to other oracle texts, shows several erasures. Overall, the writing appears even. The signs are deeply inscribed into the clay. Word boundaries are typically indicated by clear spaces, and this also applies to the lines. However, in some areas, the line spacing is quite narrow.

From a linguistic perspective, the construction [k]inun=a pānzi … pāi is noteworthy (cf., obv. I 32′–33′; obv. I 36′; obv. I 68′). It resembles the serial construction ‘they will proceed to do …’ or ‘thereupon they will do …’ which appears multiple times in the text as well (cf., e.g., obv. I 8′; obv. I 13′; obv. I 55′). However, in the present construction, the subject changes. In the first clause, [k]inun=a pānzi, the subject is the community, while in the second clause, the subject is the priest, who acts on the latter’s behalf (cf., obv. I 32′–33′ [k]inun=a pānzi uniuš 2 UDU.[NÍ]TA *LÚ*SANGA tamāuš EGIR-pa pāi; obv. I 36′ nu pānzi mpallašš=a 2 UDU.NÍTA A-NA DINGIR-LIM EGIR-pa šarnikzi; obv. I 68′ nu pānzi SISKUR ŠA MU 2KAM [šaku]waššar pāi).

This construction might also be translated as ‘they will continue through the priest … giving’ or ‘they will proceed in that the priest gives …’, which, however, might sound somewhat cumbersome in English. Therefore, they are rendered in the present edition in two clauses: ‘they will proceed (as follows): The priest will give …’.

The text does not mention the person who commissioned the oracle inquiry. However, the historical context can be reconstructed on the basis of palaeography, which points to a date in the second half of the 13th century BCE, see section ‘Palaeography and handwriting’), and contextual aspects. The key contextual elements include the personal names Ḫattušakurunta and Ališarruma, whose identities can be established through references in other texts. Whether this is also true for Palla, the third individual mentioned in the text, remains unclear but not impossible (for a detailed discussion, see infra).

According to obv. II 55′–75′, Ḫattušakurunta (Ḫattuša-DKAL or Ḫattuša-DLAMMA), was responsible for offerings at the monthly festival of Pirwa of Ḫarmigga, but, as the subsequent oracle inquiry and interrogation of the priest establishes, he failed to fulfill his obligations because he had left town, and the omitted festival rites therefore had to be made up together with a penitence offering of bread and beer. In rev. III 55–66, Ḫattušakurunta and his servants are mentioned in relation to a garden made for the deity (i.e., in all likelihood, Pirwa). Unfortunately, the text is only fragmentarily preserved. However, it seems as if the servants took the garden away from the deity and claimed it for their lord. To make up for this offense, they are said to give penitence offerings. This passage is of special interest since a similar passage also appears in the cult inventory IBoT 2.131 and its duplicate CHDS 7.53 10′′. According to IBoT 2.131 rev. 26–30 (// CHDS 7.53 8′′–13′′), an individual named Šantaziti, man of Ḫimuwa, apportioned a vineyard for Pirwa. Afterwards, however, the servants of Ḫattušakurunta, who are specified as men of Gapiliwanta, took possession of it (ḫašper), turned it into a field for themselves, and cultivated it. Despite the different phrasing and the missing specification of the servants of Ḫattušakurunta as “men of the city Gapiliwanta”, the contents of the passages are very similar and might even refer to the same event. Since IBoT 2.131 can be dated to the reign of Tutḫaliya IV on the basis of palaeographic criteria and the mention of the ‘father of His Majesty’, i.e. Ḫattušili III (cf. IBoT 2.131 obv. 9′), it can be assumed that KBo 14.21 dates to roughly the same period. Further support of this hypothesis is provided by the Ulmiteššub-treaty KBo 4.10+, which likely dates to the later reign of Ḫattušili III (ed. Hout Th.P.J. van den 1995c; for the dating, see, e.g., Forlanini M. 2017b, 245 with note 75 and further literature), and the treaty between Tutḫaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša, inscribed on a bronze tablet (Bo 86/299, ed. Otten H. 1988a). In both treaties, Ḫattušakurunta bears the title GAL GEŠTIN and appears in the list of witnesses (see KBo 4.10+ rev. 31 and Bo 86/299 rev. IV 37). Taking all textual evidence together, we learn that Ḫattušakurunta was a high-ranking individual in the later reign of Ḫattušili III and the early reign of Tutḫaliya IV, holding the office of a GAL GEŠTIN, literally ‘chief of the wine’, an office whose core function was military leadership but also included various political, religious, and administrative duties (for a detailed discussion, see Marizza M. 2007b with further literature).

Ališarruma is attested in KBo 14.21 in connection with offerings for Pirwa’s yearly festival. According to obv. I 61′–62′, offerings are usually brought for Pirwa for the yearly festival “from the house of Ališarruma”, namely one ox, eight sheep, beer, moist and dry flour, and barley mash. However, an oracle investigation and a subsequent interrogation of the priest reveal that this obligation had not been fulfilled (obv. I 63′–65′ and obv. I 66′–68′). Imparati had already noted that the name Ališarruma appears in judicial protocols datable to the time of Ḫattušili III, but she did not yet have sufficient grounds to identify that figure with the Ališarruma of KBo 14.21 (Imparati F. 1990a, 185). On the basis of seal impressions from Nişantepe and Korucutepe, Stefano de Martino argued that the individual Ališarruma mentioned in KBo 14.21 is to be identified with the person of the same name who is known from the seals as king of Išuwa (Martino S. de 2010g; for the Nişantepe seal, see Herbordt S. 2005a, 130 no. 98 fig. 8; for the Korucutepe seal, see Güterbock H.G. 1973c, 140, 141 (no. 3); Hawkins in Herbordt S. 2005a, 252; 289). Furthermore, de Martino suggested, on the basis of the Hurrian etymology of the two names, that Ališarruma is not the same individual as Arišarruma, as Itamar Singer considered possible (Singer I. 1991c, 328). Instead, de Martino argued that Arišarruma, who appears among the witnesses in the Ulmiteššub treaty (KBo 4.10 rev. 29, dating from the reign of Ḫattušili III), preceded Ališarruma as the ruler of Išuwa, who ascended the throne at the end of Ḫattušili’s III reign or the beginning of Tutḫaliya’s IV reign (see Martino S. de 2010g, 113). By contrast, Jürgen Glocker suggested that, based on legal and political documents, Ališarruma was the nephew of Ḫattušili III and preceded Arišarruma as king of Išuwa (Glocker J. 2011a). This line of interpretation was later followed by de Martino (Martino S. de 2024e), whereas Silvia Hutter-Braunsar holds the reverse sequence as more likely (for a detailed discussion, see Hutter-Braunsar S. 2025a, 134). In both scenarios, Ališarruma would have been a contemporary of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV.

Palla, finally, is identified in KBo 14.21 as ‘the man of Ankušna’ and belongs to the same group of named persons whose conduct or neglected obligations form the object of the oracle inquiry. Van den Hout’s detailed prosopographical discussion distinguishes several individuals called Palla and includes, among them, a scribe Palla who appears as lord of Ḫurma in the witness list of the Ulmi-Teššub treaty and several other contemporary texts (Hout Th.P.J. van den 1995c, 216–219). Another individual named Palla, described as a goldsmith, was apparently involved in the theft and embezzlement of objects made from precious metals and is mentioned in several legal and oracle texts (Hout Th.P.J. van den 1995c, 219–223). As van den Hout pointed out, there is no indication that the Palla mentioned in our oracle text is to be identified with any of them (Hout Th.P.J. van den 1995c, 223–225). In fact, several reasons argue against such an identification. One reason is the differences in epithets used. Additionally, in the other texts, the name is consistently written with a full spelling of the last vowel, which is not the case in our oracle text. Furthermore, Palla is described in KBo 14.21 obv. 36–37 as actively participating in the slaughtering of two rams, indicating direct involvement in the cultic procedures. In contrast, Ḫattušakurunta and Ališarruma are merely said to be obliged to provide offerings for the deity. However, these considerations do not preclude identifying Palla in the present text with one of the other individuals.

KBo 14.21 shares several features with the cult inventory IBoT 2.131 (ed. Cammarosano M. 2018a, 258–270 and discussed by Imparati F. 1990a); however, the two documents serve distinct purposes within the framework of cult management during the early reign of Tutḫaliya IV. While IBoT 2.131 is an administrative document that records both obligations and their failures concerning the cult of Pirwa, KBo 14.21 identifies these failures through oracle consultations and determines appropriate remedial measures. In the inventory, neglected offerings and festivals are noted with formulaic remarks such as ‘they no longer provide (the offerings)’ or ‘the supplies have been cut off’, often accompanied by temporal references like ‘since the father of His Majesty ruled as king’ or ‘from the days of the father of His Majesty’. However, despite its administrative nature, the text, much like KBo 14.21, also includes quotations from oral interrogations.

A particularly significant point of contact, not discussed by Imparati or Cammarosano is the episode involving Ḫattušakurunta’s servants and a plot of land. Although there are some differences in wording, the description of the situation suggests that both texts likely refer to the same incident involving encroachment on property dedicated to Pirwa. Since IBoT 2.131 can be independently dated to the reign of Tudḫaliya IV based on paleographic analysis and its references to ‘the father of His Majesty’, this alignment strongly indicates that KBo 14.21 belongs to the same time period (for a detailed comment, see section ‘Historical context’).

Overall, the two texts can be understood as complementary to each other. IBoT 2.131 provides a survey that identifies where obligations to Pirwa have lapsed and how local agents have redirected resources. In contrast, KBo 14.21 illustrates the corresponding divinatory and legal processes through which these situations are investigated, responsibilities are clarified, and restitutions are enforced to restore the proper cultic order.

The text is well-structured and can be divided into eleven main sections, each containing an oracle inquiry concerning a specific festival or cultic obligation. At the beginning of each section, the current or planned cultic practice is briefly described. Afterwards, the god is asked by a KIN procedure whether this practice, or a particular compensatory measure, accords with his will, with the request that the KIN oracle be favorable if nothing has been left out. If the answer is unfavorable, which is most often the case, the oracle experts investigate the matter further, usually by questioning the priest about omissions in the celebration of the festival or in the delivery of offerings owed by the priest, local communities, or other responsible persons, some of whom are mentioned by name. The priest’s statements, provided in direct speech, then form the basis for renewed oracle inquiries into the nature and extent of restitutions (ḫapuš- ‘make up for’; šarni(n)k- ‘to replace, restitute’) and penitence offerings (zankilatar), typically involving the making up of omitted festival performances together with additional offerings of bread, beer, moist and dry flour, barley mash, sheep, billy goats, and oxen. If the proposed measures do not satisfy the deity, alternative and usually increased reparations are submitted to the oracle deity once again; only when the KIN oracle yields a favorable result does the inquiry move on to the next issue.

Religiously, the report offers a particularly detailed picture of Pirwa’s cult as a system structured by recurring monthly and yearly festivals, fixed amounts of offerings, and supplementary rites such as offerings to Pirwa’s consort named ‘the Queen’ as well as the Sebettu deities, Zababa, and the divine mountain. Of particular importance is the mention of the ‘festival of the sprout’, (EZEN₄ lattaš), (or, according to another interpretation, ‘festival of drought’, as it is mentioned exclusively in the present text. Unfortunately, the text only mentions the offerings that the priest must provide, but does not contain any information about the festival’s time and place or the specific cultic actions involved.

What stands out is the central role of the priest (LÚSANGA). He is primarily responsible for making offerings to the gods and ensuring the proper celebration of festivals. However, he is also questioned whenever the oracle reveals an omission. Additionally, he bears the burden of compensatory obligations and penitence offerings. Once the omitted rites are performed and the offerings are made, he is explicitly pardoned by the local communities for these lapses.