The text is a report of an oracle inquiry concerning the reasons for the illness of the king. The cause of the illness is identified as the anger of the deity of Arušna, who presumably originated in Kizzuwatna. In the oracle questioning, numerous offenses committed by members of the royal palace are ascertained as the cause of the deity’s anger. These include conflicts between various members of the palace and cultic offenses against the deity of Arušna, such as withholding jewelry, neglecting regular cultic care, wearing inappropriate clothes, and curses. The inquiry consists of two parts. The first part explores the offenses that provoked the deity’s wrath, while the second part determines the ritual actions and reparations to be made in order to appease the deity of Arušna. The investigations are carried out by extispicy and the ḪURRI bird oracle. The first one is the primary technique, whereas the latter is mainly used to explore the kind and number of reparations demanded by the deity. The identity of the ruler and the queen remains unclear and is the subject of ongoing debate. According to some researchers, the sick king is likely Muršili II, whereas according to others it is rather Ḫattušili III or Tutḫaliya IV.

• A. Ünal, THeth 6, 1978
• G. Beckman, CoS 1, 2003: 204-206

A cuneiform copy of the text was first published by Walther A. 1928a in KUB 22. According to the heading on p. 46, the copy was made on the basis of photographs (“nach Lichtbild”) stored today in the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin and accessible in digital form on HPM. Despite the fact that the handcopy was not made from the original tablet and in view of the limited level of knowledge of Hittite at that time, the copy is remarkably accurate.

A first edition of the whole text based on the original tablet and photographs was published by Ünal A. 1978a. It includes a transliteration and German translation, as well as a detailed introduction, philological and thematic commentary, glossary, and an index of subjects. Additionally, the edition provides an in-depth analysis of the dating of the text based on linguistic and contextual features, including the individuals referred to in the oracle report.

Partial transliterations and translations have been provided by Kammenhuber A. 1976c, 150-152 (German translation of obv. 12–28 and obv. 41–43); Beckman G. 1997f, 204-206 (English translation of obv. 1–60); Mouton A. 2007a, 172-176 (Transliteration and French translation of obv. 12–74). Further studies discuss the dating and historical background of the text or focus on religious or linguistic aspects.

According to Ünal A. 1978a, 22-23, who has seen the original, the single-columned tablet measures 18.5 cm in width and 31 cm in length. The obverse is only slightly curved and is mostly black or dark gray due to reduced atmospheric conditions during the firing process. The reverse is more curved than the obverse, with the right half burnt black and the left side appearing brown.

Compared to other oracle texts, the lines are very long and sometimes consist of more than 40 signs. The writing is largely careful with most signs deeply impressed into the clay. As is the case with many other oracle texts, the ends of the lines are often left blank. Furthermore, the oracle outcome is frequently singled out from the description of the oracle examination and the findings by a blank space. A particular feature of the text is the use of the PAP sign at the end of the line. In contrast to other texts where it is used to mark illegible signs in a “Vorlage” that is copied by a scribe it obviously has a different meaning in the present text. Since it is always written at the end of a line and is often preceded by a blank space or erasure it probably denotes that no other information follows or was available at that time (cf. obv. 30 where it is preceded by an outcome of a SU oracle and an erasure; obv. 60 where it is preceded by an outcome of a SU oracle and an erasure; rev. 12 where it is preceded by an erasure and a blank space, but no description of an oracle inquiry or information on its outcome; rev. 19 where it is preceded by the words LÚAZU IQ-BI “the diviner said” followed by an erasure instead of the diviner’s words; rev. 30 where it is preceded by a relative clause with the main clause left out; and rev. 34 and rev. 43 where it is preceded by SI×SÁ-at “it was determined”). A different interpretation was provided by Ünal A. 1978a, 23 who suggested that it was used to fill the end of the lines that were not fully inscribed. This, however, is unlikely since there are many other lines that show a blank space at the end but no PAP sign.

The text contains several terms of Ḫurrian and Luwian origin. Terms derived (or likely derived) from Ḫurrian are ḫirindugarri (obv. 66), ḫiriḫ(ḫ)i(š-) (rev. 27), talim (rev. 27), and tūtammitta (rev. 27). All of them are extispicy terms denoting findings of the examination of the exta. ḫirindugarri is mostly attested in the stem form. An exception is the form ḫi-ri-du-KIR-ri-da (KUB 22.56 obv. 21, obv. 27), which might be interpreted as a Ḫurrian directive (see HW², 612 s.v. ḫirindukarri- with further literature). Attestations with KASKALḪI.A ‘paths’ and a designation of the position as ‘to the left’ and ‘to the right’ suggest that it is a term for a part or feature of the exta. Except for KUB 5.3+ obv. I 19, the term ḫiriḫḫiš appears also in other texts in a sequence with talim (dalim), and tūtammitta (dutamitta). The Ḫurrian origin of the word and the interpretation of the final -s as the Hittite case ending of the nominative singular or as part of the stem remains unclear (for references and further literature see HW², 611–612 s.v. ḫiriḫ(ḫ)i-. The meaning of talim and tūtammitta remains unclear (see HEG III, 57 s.v. tali; HEG III 471 s.v. tutamitta).

The Luwian terms, which are mostly preceded by a Glossenkeil, appear in oracle questions or reports on events upon which the oracle inquiries are based. The following terms are attested: 𒀹takkišar- n. (obv. 18, obv. 21, obv. 26, obv. 71); 𒀹atupalašša/i- (obv. 18, obv. 21); (𒀹)pinkit- n. (obv. 20, obv. 71), (𒀹)marušamma (rev. 11, rev. 12); 𒀹walantalamma (rev. 51, rev 54), and 𒀹waštanza (obv. 49).

The word 𒀹takkišar- n. is only attested in the present text in the following forms: 𒀹ta-ak-ki-iš-ra (obv 18); 𒀹ták-ki-iš-ša-ra (obv. 21); 𒀹ták-ki-iš-ra (obv. 26, obv. 71). All forms are nom.-acc. sg. forms. The context indicates that the word denotes a piece of jewelry. Ünal A. 1978a, 11 and Beckman G. 1997f, 205 suggested the meaning ‘inlay pieces’. This, however, remains tentative since information about the material and form of the object and the etymology of the word is missing (see Starke F. 1990a, 420).

𒀹atupalaššan (obv. 18, obv. 21) is to be interpreted as a dat. sg. of the Luwian gen. adj. with the suffix -šša(/i). The adjective is used here as a noun that presumably denotes a container or storage room (‘in the (thing) belonging/related to *atupla-). As such, it is presumably related to Luwian aduplit- n. ‘a ceremonial garment’ and atuplu, utuplu, a word of unknown origin attested in Akkadian texts (see AHw III, 1446 s.v. utuplu ‘ein langer Schal?’; CAD vol 20, U/W, 347–348 s.v. utuplu ‘a fabric or weaving’). If so, *atupla- might denote a container for the storage of these garments (for references and discussions see Starke F. 1990a, 39 with note 51; 207–208; Beckman G. 1997f, 205; AHw III, 1446 s.v. utuplu; CAD vol 20, U/W, 347–348 s.v. utuplu). However, the term might also be associated with utuppu ‘a piece of jewelry’ and utuptum ‘utensil, furniture’ (AHw III, 1446 s.v. utuppu; ut/ṭuptum; CAD vol 20, U/W, 347–348 s.v. utuppu). The terms aduplit- n. ‘a ceremonial garment’ and atuplu, utuplu might then designate garments decorated with precious stones, whereas atupla- might denote a container for the storage of precious stones and jewelry.

*(𒀹)pinkit- n. with the plural form (𒀹)pinkita is presumably related to Akkadian pinku(m) ‘knob, cap, finial, part of a necklace’ (cf. CAD P, 382–383 s.v. pingu A (pinku); Ünal A. 1978a, 112 ‘ein Schmuckstück’; Starke F. 1990a, 217–218 ‘Knauf‘; Beckman G. 1997f, 205 ‘knobs’, CHD P, 268 ‘an ornament’). The occurrence in a list of jewelry makes it likely that 𒀹pinkita in the present text also denotes a piece of jewelry. As the Akkadian word pingu, it might designate a part of a necklace like a pendant or a bead cap. If so, the preceding genitive A-IA-RI ‘rosette’ might be interpreted as a genitive attribute denoting the shape of the object. Ünal A. 1978a, 112 and Beckman G. 1997f, 205, on the contrary, assume that both terms denote different objects and interpret the wedge preceding pinkita in obv. 20 as a number sign 10. The latter is, however, unlikely since the wedge is missing in obv. 25 and obv. 71. The assumption that A-IA-RI and pinkita refer to two different objects is, in general, possible since the Akkadian genitive in Hittite is frequently used in place of the nominative (Hoffner H.A – Melchert H.C 2008a, 436 § 21.21). Yet, since pendants or bead caps often have the shape of a rosette and the number sign before 𒀹pinkita is missing the interpretation of A-IA-RI as a genitive attribute denoting the shape of the pendant or bead cap seems more likely.

𒀹marušamma (rev. 11) is a Luwian participle presumably deriving from Luwian marruwa- ‘to make dark, to blacken’ plus imperfective verbal suffix -šša-), and therefore to be translated as ‘blackened, darkened’ (see Burgin J. 2022a, 345. For the meaning of the set of color words beginning with *maru- see Burgin J. 2022a, 344 with previous literature.

𒀹walantalamma (rev. 51) is probably a denominative adjective in -amma/i of *walantalla/i- ‘mortal’ (see Melchert H.C 1993b, 250. In the context of rev. 51 the term might then be translated as ‘worn out’.

𒀹waštanza (obv. 49, obv. 51) has been interpreted by HEG IV, W–Z, 408, as a Hittite active participle ‘sinner’. However, the form is more likely a Luwian nominative neuter form with the suffix -ša/-za. This analysis is indicated by the preceding Glossenkeil and the agreement with neuter kuit and aššan. Furthermore, the oracle inquiry is rather intended to find out whether any transgression is remaining in the sanctuary and not any wrongdoers (see also Ünal A. 1978a, 71; Beckman G. 1997f, 204; on the passage and active and passive participles in general see Lyutikova E.A. – Sideltsev A.V. 2021a, 104–105).

The participle forms of walḫ- in the nom. pl. walḫanteš (GUL-anteš; obv. 61) and the dat. pl.walḫandaš (GUL-andaš, rev. 44) has been interpreted by most scholars as a passive participle (cf., e.g., Ünal A. 1978a, 75; Goedegebuure P. 2014a, 525; HEG IV, W–Z 249). Yet, other passages of the text speak in favor of an active participle. Thus, the queen complains according to obv. 69–70 and obv. 81, that a ‘strong fist keeps her oppressed’ (obv. 69–70: ammuk=ma=wa KALA.GA-aš GÉŠPU-aš anda tammaššan ḫarzi; obv. 81: KALA.GA-aš=wa=mu GÉŠPU-aš anda damaššan ḫarzi tamaššan ḫarzi. Cf. also obv. 74–75: UNMEŠ-uš kuieš katta walḫanzi A-NA DUTU-ŠI IŠ-PUR “she wrote to His Majesty about the people who are oppressing (her)”. This interpretation is also in line with the theory of Lyutikova E.A. – Sideltsev A.V. 2021a, according to which participles of transitive verbs that are not accompanied by a direct object usually have an active meaning.

zi(zaḫi-) and šuri- are two important terms in the descriptions of the oracle findings. They are to be found in obv. 3, obv. 44, obv. 50, and rev. 32. Both terms appear side by side in a clause following the phrase SUMEŠ SIG₅ ‘the exta (is) favorable’ or SUMEŠ NU.SIG₅ ‘the exta (is) unfavorable’ and are connected to it by the conjunction -ma (zi=ma šuriš). Afterwards, the opposite of the first oracle outcome is recorded, showing that this finding reverses the outcome into its opposite. Whereas the two terms appear also in other texts, KUB 22.70 is the only one in which they are mentioned side by side in one clause. So far, no agreement has been reached on the interpretation of the terms, which are both of Ḫurrian origin. Furthermore, their relationship to each other in the present text remains unclear.

Concerning the term šuri-, it has been discussed whether it designates a normal feature of the exta with a fixed position or a certain feature (or, anamoly) which can be seen in various parts of the exta (cf. Schuol M. 1994a, 287–288). As a third option, it has been considered whether the term is used as an adjective to describe another feature (cf. CHD Š/5, 648–649; Beal R.H. 2002f., 63 with note 54). The latter is, however, unlikely since it is often mentioned directly after the outcome of an oracle investigation. Rather, the attestations suggest that it is a feature that can sometimes be seen on certain parts of the exta whereas othertimes it is missing. Mostly, the word is mentioned in a verbless clause (cf., e.g. KUB 50.44 obv. I 7′ … S]IG₅ EG[IR-ŠÚ] šuriš SIG₅; KUB 5.24+ obv. I 62 nieš=kán ZAG-na pešiat EGIR-ŠÚ šuriš S[IG₅). An exception is KBo 16.97 rev. 8–11 where the šuri- is said to be located on the gallbladder (and) the atanit- (or, on the atananit- of the gallbladder. Alternatively, šuri- might be part of the previous clause n=ašta GÙB-laš išši anda šūrīš ‘and there is (a) šuri- on the left side in the mouth, cf. also CHD Š/5, 649 where the word is rather to be interpreted as an adjective). Often, the existence of a šuri- reverses the oracle outcome into the positive or negative (KUB 5.3+ obv. I 51–53; KUB 5.24 obv. 62–63). Yet, as KUB 16.54 6 shows, this is not always the case (TEMEŠ NU.SIG₅ EGIR-ŠU šurīš NU.SIG₅).

According to Schuol M. 1994a, 281–282, zi(zaḫi-) is presumably a loanword from Ḫurrian with a ḫi- suffix or a Ḫurrian borrowing from Akkadian ziḫḫum ‘blister, cyst’. In Hittite texts, zi(zaḫi-) is frequently attested with the verb GAR-ri (i.e. kittari ‘is placed, lying’; see, e.g., KUB 52.55 obv. 6; KUB 49.103 obv. 8′; KUB 49.103 rev. 13′; KUB 52.58 obv. II 7′). However, in contrast to ziḫḫum in Mesopotamian texts, its outward appearance is not specified as being red, yellow, green, white, black, spotted or sim. Common to both terms is that the exta features they refer to are never said to have anything placed on them.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the phrase zi=ma šuriš in KUB 22.70 obv. 3, obv. 44, obv. 50, and rev. 32 is to be translated as ‘but there is a šuri- on the zi(zaḫi-)’, as suggested by CHD Š/5, 648–649. Furthermore, šuri- would in this case presumably be preceded by A-NA. As stated further above, the translation ‘but the zi(zaḫi-) is šuri-’ (CHD Š/5, 648–649) is also unlikely since several attestations suggest that šuri- is a noun.

Taken all this evidence together, it seems most likely that zi(zaḫi-) and šuri- in KUB 22.70 are two nouns denoting distinct features that are seen simultaneously on the exta. Thus, the clause is probably to be translated as ‘but there (are a) zi(zaḫi-) (and a) šuri-’ (thus also Ünal A. 1978a, 55, 67, 71, 91).

SAG.ME (obv. 6): The meaning of SAG.ME is still unclear. Notably, it is primarily mentioned alone. In a few cases, however, it is preceded by other features of the exta, such as ZÍ ḫili(pšiman-) (KUB 22.56 rev.21′); GIŠTUKUL (‘weapon’; KUB 6.19+ rev.?23′/Rs.? III 23′); ni(pašuri-), ši(ntaḫi-), ir(kipel)li- (KUB 16.29+ obv. 21); ni(pašuri-), ši(ntaḫi-) (KUB 22.70 rev. 3) or followed by šuri- (KUB 6.2 obv. 12). In all cases where the outcome is preserved or explicitly stated, the existence of SAG.ME makes the outcome unfavorable (both when an unfavorable outcome was solicited or unsolicited). See also the preliminary analyses by Laroche E. 1952b, 34; Laroche E. 1970b, 130, 134.

fammat[tall]ašš=a=za=kan kuit DINGIR-LIM IGIḪI.A-wa ēp- (obv. 8): Most scholars consider an idiomatic meaning of this sentence most likely. Thus, Prins A. 1997a, 125–126 note 72 translates “because A. seized the god (by/in) his eyes”, i.e. cheated on him, whereas Beckman 2013c, 291 translates “Ammatalla began to concern herself with the deity”. Dardano P. 2016a, 55–56, on the other hand, beliefs that šakuwa ep-, accompanied by -za or -kan means ‘capture the attention of’, and thus translates “Ammatalla ha catturato l’attenzione della divinità”. By contrast, HED 1, 277 and Christiansen B. 2012a, 70 note 180, consider a literal meaning more likely. Thus, HED 1, 277 s.v. ep(p)-, ap(p)- translates “because A. seized the deity's eyes”, i.e. pulled the wool over the the deity’s eyes while Christiansen B. 2012a, 70 translates “und die Ammat[tal]la die Augen der Gottheit nahm”. Since other parts of the text refer to the withholding of jewelry and precious stone from the deity of Arušna, a literal meaning is indeed more likely than an idiomatic one. Thus, Ammatalla might have removed the eyes from the divine statue in order to get into the possession of the precious stones they were made of. Alternatively, Ammatalla might have removed the eyes from the statue in order to prevent the deity to see what she did not want it to see.

It is not possible to date the text on the basis of personal names, as neither the king, whose illness gave rise to the oracle investigation, nor the queen are mentioned by name, and most of the other personal names are not otherwise attested.

One exception is Pallā, who is apparently accused by the queen of misappropriating cultic implements that she had entrusted to him (cola 104-111, 234-235). A goldsmith of the same name is also mentioned in the court record KUB 13.35 + KUB 3.21 obv. II 36-37; rev. III 20-37 in connection with the embezzlement of valuable equipment and animals, in which he was allegedly involved and therefore had to declare his innocence under oath. Due to the similar contexts, it is likely that both mentions refer to the same person (see, among others, Sommer F. 1932a, 186 with note 1; Ünal A. 1978a, 36-37; Hout Th.P.J. van den 1995c, 217). Further evidence of the name, which probably also refers to the same person, can be found in the inventory texts KBo 18.153 obv. 5′, 22′ (ed. Burgin J. 2022b, 129-143); KUB 42.10+Bo 5166 rev. 1′′ (ed. Burgin J. 2022b, 151-155; for the reference to the same person, see Hout Th.P.J. van den 1995c, 217).

This evidence suggests that the queen mentioned in KUB 22.70+ is Puduḫepa. Other criteria also speak in favour of this dating. Palaeography points to a dating in the 13th century (reign of Ḫattušilis III or Tutḫaliya) and not, as assumed by older research, in the reign of Muršilis in the last third of the 14th century (see Ünal A. 1978a, 36, 40-42). This is also supported by linguistic features such as the use of numerous Luwian words with glosses and words of Hurrian provenance (see section 'Linguistic features' and Ünal A. 1978a, 37-39).

The oracle report stands out due to several unique aspects. These include the broad range of events covered, the involvement of numerous people, and the discussion of diverse types of misconduct, including transgressions by the king and queen. Notably, it also integrates many witness reports presented in direct speech and references dream messages to justify certain actions. Another remarkable aspect is the conflict of interest between the queen and the deity of Arušna regarding the allocation of votive offerings to different sanctuaries. This conflict involves the queen’s desire to adorn her own statue in the Stag-god’s rock sanctuary, conflicting with the deity of Arušna’s wishes for the objects. Additionally, the text’s two-part structure is noteworthy, with the first part focusing on the reasons for the deity’s anger and the second part centering on the offerings and ritual actions to appease it. It is also noteworthy that the offerings are divided into two groups: reparations (šarknikel-) and penalties (zankilatar). With all these features, the text gives insights into different facets of Hittite culture, including social and political relations, as well as religious beliefs and practices.

1. Multiplicity of Events and Individuals Involved

The Hittite oracle report is distinguished by its comprehensive coverage of numerous events and individuals. It addresses a wide array of potential causes for invoking the wrath of the deity of Arušna. The report delves into the transgressions of named members from the king’s entourage, often grouping their misdeeds together due to their interconnected nature. For instance, in obv. 6–10 (cola 23–28), the oracle inquiry discusses four misdeeds committed by three different individuals. These include the queen cursing Ammatalla, Ammatalla taking the deity’s eyes, Ammatalla neglecting regular visits to the deity, and the son of Ammatalla wearing his mother’s clothes (or clothes entrusted to Ammatalla) in the palace. Similarly, the investigation detailed in obv. 12–26 (cola 36–67) addresses the actions of the queen, the king, and the individuals responsible for delivering the religious implements to the rock sanctuary of the Stag-god. It also encompasses individuals overseeing the delivery or otherwise participating in it. For a comprehensive list of the individuals and their respective roles and actions, see section 10.

2. Royal Wrongdoings

The oracle report also addresses the wrongdoings of the king and queen, as well as the reparations and penalties imposed on them. Unlike other texts that often hide or downplay misbehavior by the royal court and especially the king, this report is thus an important testimony that helps to balance this biased portrayal. Furthermore, this emphasis on royal misdeeds highlights the monarchy’s significant role in religious and moral responsibility, illustrating the interconnectedness of political authority and religious obligation. For a detailed list of the transgressions of the king and queen, see section 10.

3. Wide Array of Offenses

The report addresses a wide range of wrongdoings, including neglecting religious and interpersonal responsibilities, not offering help, committing fraud, stealing, disobedience to human authorities and gods, improper conduct in the palace, spreading false information, cursing, and oppressing others. These transgressions offer insights into the moral, religious, and legal standards in Hittite culture and everyday reality. Some transgressions are challenging for contemporary readers to understand or are subject to diverse interpretations. For example, the act of ‘taking the deity’s eyes’ by Ammatalla may refer to the theft of the gemstones comprising the eyes of the divine statue or could be a metaphorical expression (obv. 8, colon 25; obv. 78, colon 251). Similarly, the reference to Ammatalla’s son Pallili wearing ‘clothes in the hand of his mother’ is ambiguous. It could refer to cross-dressing or the use of clothes entrusted to his mother but forbidden to be given to her son (obv. 9–10, cola 27–28; obv. 77–78, cola 249–250; rev. 35–36, cola 379–383).

4. Valuable Objects and Offerings

The report enumerates many valuable objects, some as votive offerings and others as reparations or offerings to be given to the deity as a penalty (cola 53, 164–186, 187–199, 300–308, 378). The conflict between the queen, who wants to keep the objects for her statue in the rock sanctuary of the Stag-God, and the deity of Arušna’s desire for these objects provides an intriguing glimpse into the material culture of the Hittites, shedding light on the value and prestige of various commodities such as precious stones, metals, objects crafted from them, and textiles. Mentioned are the following items:

Precious Stone Items

1. Grape cluster of precious Stone (colon 53)

2. Eyebrows and Eyelids of Precious Stone (colon 53)

Precious Metal Items

1. Golden diadem (cola 38, 42, 47, 58, 59, 60, 232)

2. Golden falcon (cola 53, 232)

3. Silver jug of four shekels (colon 377)

4. A golden implement of two shekels shaped like a morning star (colon 408)

Textiles

1. terma- farments (cola 176, 179, 183, 187, 192, 196, 300, 307, 378)

2. One set of white Ḫurrian shirts (colon 308)

3. One white sash (colon 308)

4. One white gapari- garment (colon 308)

5. One set of white BAR.TE garment (colon 308)

6. One set of dyed black Ḫurrian shirts (colon 308)

7. One set of dyed black karma- garment (colon 308)

8. One set of dyed black gaiters (colon 308)

9. One Garment and one hood (colon 192)

10. Exquisite women’s garments (cola 196, 378)

Jewelry

1. Eight rosette-shaped pendants or bead caps (cola 53, 232)

2. takkiššar- jewelry (cola 49, 55, 232)

5. Ritual actions

The oracle experts consult the deity to determine whether certain ritual actions align with its will. These actions include the king's plea for mercy, purification rites for cultic objects, dedicating a person as a servant to the deity, and transferring cultic items to the deity’s sanctuary in Arušna. The religious rites involve purifying cultic objects by fire and striking them with a kunkunuzzi- stone (cola 434–435, 444–447), passing them through (the two halves of) a billy goat and (two) fires (cola 434, 446), setting aside the objects (colon 435), and laying down the clothes of a cursed or oppressed person at the site where the deed took place (cola 314–315, 318–319). Additionally, the manner and duration of the king’s plea for mercy (cola 414–424) and the words of the woman given to the deity as a servant are determined (cola 474–475). These rites offer valuable insight into the Hittite concepts of religious purity and communication with the divine.

6. Relationships between the cults of different gods and their specific demands

The oracle report delves into the intricacies of maintaining favor with various deities, each with their own sanctuaries and specific requirements. The report specifically addresses the need to appease the deity of Arušna due to its anger, while mentioning the Stag-god only in relation to his rock sanctuary, where the queen’s statue is situated. This may suggest that the queen is primarily focused on adorning her own statue, rather than tending to the interests of the Stag-god (cf. cola 36–41).

The reason for the failure of the individuals tasked by the queen to deliver the golden diadem, takkiššar- jewelry, and gems to the deity of Arušna after her expulsion from the palace remains unclear. The fact that they carried some objects to the sanctuary of the Stag-god may indicate a preference for the Stag-god and his sanctuary, as well as the cult of the queen situated there. It is also possible that the individuals, under the leadership of Zarniyaziti (cf. colon 388), were acting covertly on behalf of the queen. This interpretation could at least be reconciled with a dream in which the queen was supposedly instructed to leave some objects in the rock sanctuary of the Stag-god (cola 123–128).

7. Form of the Oracle Report

Particular features of the oracle report are the incorporation of witness testimonies in direct speech (cola 37–60, 104–111, 261–265), statements from accused individuals or accomplices in direct speech (cola 223–227, 135–141), and references to dreams and their content (cola 124–128, 236–238). Another special feature is the division of the investigation into two parts, with the first focusing on the causes of the king’s illness and the second one centering on the ritual actions and offerings to appease the deity (cola 1–217, 218–486). This structure provides insights into the processes of Hittite communication with the divine.

8. Ongoing Oracle Procedure

Remarkably, the text highlights that the oracle procedure is still ongoing because some transgressions that angered the deity have not yet been discovered. As a result, the investigation concludes by appointing a person to continue and complete the procedure (cola 260-268, 476-481).

9. Process of the Inquiry and Divination Techniques

The report meticulously details the divination process, encompassing extispicy (SU oracle) and the ḪURRI bird oracle. In the case of extispicy, each question is accompanied by a report of the findings and their implications (favorable or unfavorable). If certain signs are found to reverse the outcome, the other findings are sometimes omitted, with only their implications mentioned, which are then reversed (cf., e.g., cola 6–9, 131–133). The ḪURRI bird oracle only documents the outcome (favorable or unfavorable), as is typical for this type of oracle technique.

10. People Involved

The text mentions different groups of people and their involvement in various activities related to the cult and the deity of Arušna. It describes individuals who are accused of neglect or wrongdoing and witnesses who report such failures. Some individuals are both perpetrators and witnesses or accusers, and several people are involved in the same event. In terms of their roles, individuals can be categorized into the following groups:

a) Unnamed individuals using the first person plural to refer to themselves, likely cult members conducting investigations and rituals to appease the deity.

b) Unnamed individuals, referred to in the third person plural, who are tasked with searching for cult objects requested by the deity of Arušna in the house of the treasurer and bringing them to the sanctuary of the deity of Arušna. Additionally, they are required to testify to their actions.

c) People who have harmed or oppressed others. The queen and Pattiya are mentioned as victims of these actions.

d) Individuals who are deemed impure and have come into contact with the sacred implements of the deity of Arušna, thereby rendering the implements impure as well.

e) A person who appears to the queen in a dream and advises her not to give some of the implements to the deity of Arušna, but to leave them in the rock sanctuary of the Stag God.

f) Individuals mentioned by name, some of which are accused of neglect or wrongdoing, while others are witnesses who report such failures.

The following list presents all individuals referred to by their name or title:

The King

According to witness statements and oracle inquiries, the king is entangled in various affairs and has committed several transgressions. As a result, he has incurred the wrath of the deity of Arušna and has consequently fallen ill.

The following statements are made about him:

a) The queen requests him from her exile to ensure that the jewelry she withheld from the deity of Arušna and hid in the treasurer’s house is delivered to the deity. This apparently happens, but the staff seems to have not executed the task correctly.

b) He is also apparently the one who ordered the queen’s expulsion from the palace, although this is not explicitly mentioned.

c) He ignores the queen’s message about individuals who have “beaten her down” (or oppressing her), as well as her plea for help in this matter.

d) He approves of Pattiya’s stay in the palace and does not heed the queen’s request to expel her, thereby angering the queen.

e) He is subjected to penal offerings to appease the deity’s wrath and must also beg the deity for mercy.

f) Possibly, he was married to Pattiya’s daughter by the queen, but this remains unclear (see Ünal A. 1978a, 26).

The Queen

The following statements are made about the queen:

a) She cursed Ammatalla before the deity of Arušna (the reason is not stated).

b) She withheld jewelry from the deity of Arušna: she had a golden diadem made in the temple of the deity of Arušna, apparently to adorn her statue, which is placed in the sanctuary of the Stag-god. When the deity of Arušna demands the diadem for herself, the queen does not hand it over but instead makes two other diadems for the deity. The deity of Arušna is not satisfied and continues to demand the golden diadem that the queen had made for herself. Subsequently, the queen hides the diadem.

c) The queen is banished from the palace and sent to Wuruli (or Utruli) for withholding the jewelry. Only then does she instruct the king to deliver the jewelry to the deity, including the two other diadems and additional jewelry, of which only a part is found.

d) The Queen (allegedly) receives a dream from an unnamed person instructing her to leave some objects in the stone house of the Stag-god. She complies with this request, further angering the deity of Arušna. Possibly, she made up the dream because she wanted to keep the implements for her statue in the stone house of the Stag-god.

e) She is upset that Pattiya remained in the palace.

f) She asks the deity to pursue Pallā because he mishandled the goods she entrusted to him. What happened to the goods and their intended purpose is not explicitly stated.

Ammatalla

The relationship of Ammatalla to other persons mentioned in the text, as well as her role and position in the palace or temple, remains unclear. Ammatalla is accused of taking the eyes of the deity of Arušna and not visiting her temple regularly. Furthermore, she let her son repeatedly wear her clothes (or clothes entrusted to her) and thus enter the palace. Additionally, the text reports that Ammatalla was cursed by the queen. The reason is not given, but presumably it was because of Ammatalla’s misbehavior towards the deity of Arušna. Furthermore, it is reported that the ‘great princess’ secretly brought Ammatalla into the palace and that Ammatalla’s statement has not yet been verified by those responsible for conducting the oracle. Ammatalla is also mentioned in the context of reparations and penal offerings asked by the deity of Arušna. According to the oracle, the king does not have to make a penal offering for Ammatalla’s actions or those of her son. Ammatalla is also not asked to make a penal offering for her son’s actions.

Ammatalla’s Son Pallili

Pallili causes offense in the palace and provokes divine wrath because he wears clothes that belong to his mother or were entrusted to her, and thus enters the palace. The interpretation of this deed remains unclear. Was it just the fact that he was wearing clothes that did not belong to him or that the palace did not want him to wear? Or was it the fact that he, as a boy, wore women’s clothes, in other words, that it was a case of cross-dressing? Ünal A. 1978a, 24 also suggested a third possibility: that Pallili, an innocent child, was instructed by his mother to disguise himself in her clothes, possibly to spy on the queen. However, this scenario seems improbable since such an attempt to deceive would have little chance of success. Additionally, it is improbable that Ammatalla attempted to deceive the palace in this manner more than once, especially after the initial attempt had been discovered.

Pattiya

Pattiya’s position in court remains unclear. She is accused of staying too long in the palace and interfering in palace affairs, apparently with the king’s approval. This angers the queen, who demands that Pattiya be expelled from the palace and handed over to the deity of Arušna as a servant, which eventually happens. Pattiya is also subjected to reparations. However, a woman named Ḫepamuwa claims that Pattiya was cursed and ‘beaten down’ or ‘oppressed’. Therefore, her clothes are laid down at the scene, apparently atoning for the act.

The Great Princess

The text states that she secretly brought Ammatalla into the palace. She also allegedly replaced the cult devices intended for the deity of Arušna with inferior ones and sent these to the deity. Whether the great princess is the instigator of Ammatalla and the leader of the conspiracy group consisting of Ammatalla, Pattiya, and Palla against the queen, as Ünal A. 1978a, 25 suggests, remains questionable. The reasons for secretly bringing Ammatalla into the palace and replacing the deity’s implements with inferior ones are not stated. The relationship to Pattiya and Palla, as well as her identity, remains unclear.

Māla

Māla appears as a witness and reports on the queen’s misconduct concerning the diadem demanded by the deity of Arušna and the subsequent jewelry affair. The great princess, who embezzled jewelry and deceived the deity, is not mentioned in the report.

Nāru

Nāru appears as a witness and reports on Pattiya’s (alleged) misconduct, leading to her expulsion from the palace. Nāru also demands that two women be given to her as reparation and dressed in palace clothes. Nāru was apparently involved in this or another affair, the investigation of which was postponed by those responsible for conducting the oracle. Her statement may have been false. In any case, the postponement of the investigation and Nāru’s statement provoked the deity’s wrath.

Annanza

The oracle designates Annanza, Pirwa’s wife, to escort Pattiya and deliver her to the deity of Arušna as a servant. This suggests that she may have belonged to the cult personnel.

Pirwa

Pirwa, Annanza’s husband, is merely mentioned, and his role in the events remains unclear.

Ubaziti

Ubaziti testifies that the great princess replaced the cult implements intended for the deity of Arušna with inferior ones.

Zarniyaziti

The text states that Zarniyaziti transported the cult implements from the treasurer’s house to the stone house of the Stag-god. Since this apparently happened against the will of the deity of Arušna, the deity demands reparation for his action.

Ziwini

Ziwini is mentioned in connection with his house, but his role remains unclear due to the fragmentary state of the text. Possibly, it is the treasurer in whose house the queen hides the golden diadem from the deity of Aruša (see colon 41).

The Deity of Arušna

A particular feature of the oracle report is the central role of the deity of Arušna whose anger is determined by the oracle as the cause of the illness. This deity is mentioned in several oracle reports (KUB 49.1 rev. 16′; KUB 16.55 rev. IV 7′; KBo 40.53+ obv. II 8′–9′, and KUB 22.70 obv. 1, obv. 3, obv. 7, obv. 13, obv. 15, obv. 17, obv. 41, obv. 42, obv. 46, obv. 84, rev. 48, rev. 58, rev. 60).

Further attestations of the deity are to be found in two prayer texts (Bo 5827 13′ KUB 54.1+ obv. I 55–56), two vow texts of Puduḫepa (KUB 56.1 obv. I 4; KUB 60.118+ rev. IV 2′), a ritual , and one administrative text as the recipient of an ‘eagle weight’ (1 KI.LÁ TI₈MUŠEN; KBo 18.153(+) rev. 12′ // KUB 26.66 rev. III? 3; ed. Burgin 2022c, 136–137).