The text is a fragmentarily preserved report of an oracle inquiry using KIN and bird oracles. The purpose of the investigation appears to be the anger of a deity over goods that were taken from the house of Armatarḫunta to the house of Labarna. Additionally, the inquiry seems to concern cultic neglect during the spring and autumn festivals.

• G. Wilhelm, MDOG 136, 2004: 112f. (mit Photo)

The tablet was discovered in 2002 during the tenth excavation campaign in Kuşaklı (Šarišša). It was found alongside two other tablet fragments on the acropolis of Kuşaklı. A photo of the tablet, along with a partial transliteration and translation, was published by Wilhelm G. 2004g, 112–114.

Fragment of a burnt tablet of light-red color whose surface is only preserved on one side. The text consists of 17 lines with both the beginnings and ends are broken away. The sentence particles in lines 6′ and 11′ indicate that in all lines only a few signs are broken away at the beginning of the lines, belonging to about one to three words. The amount of signs missing at the end of the lines cannot be determined. However, judging from the typical oracular formulae, the amount of missing signs was probably less than the one of the preserved part.

As many other oracle texts, the fragment shows several blank lines. The beginning of the preserved part of the text (lines 1′–5′) which apparently recorded the reason for the inquiry is separated from the following oracle inquiry by a double paragraph line, whereas the description of the KIN and bird oracles are separated by a simple paragraph line. Another double paragraph line follows the bird oracle, separating it from the next section which presumably addressed another topic.

The text shows the IIIc variants (LS) of ḪA with only one Winkelhaken, the IIIc variant of KI with two verticals (IIIc) and IIIb variants of IT and DA with an unbroken middle horizontal and URU with the middle horizontal protruding to the left. MEŠ is written in the pre-IIIb variant with three Winkelhaken instead of three horizontals. The signs and lines are written relatively evenly, and the words are regularly separated from each other by spaces. The upper parts of the signs are slightly tilted to the left.

In terms of “orthography” or graphical conventions, the spelling ku-i]t-man at the beginning of line 11′ is noteworthy (if the restoration is correct).

This spelling is also found in some other oracle texts (KUB 54.67 rev. IV 15; KUB 5.1+ rev. III 85; KUB 49.70 rev.? 3′; KUB 6.26 rev. 3′), whereas it is not attested in other text genres.

From a historical perspective, the mention of the house of Labarna and the house of Armatarḫunta is intriguing. The house of Labarna is also referenced in a cult inventory from Kuşaklı (KuT 36 rev. 10′) and in several texts from Boğazköy (for further details, see Wilhelm G. 2004g, 113). As noted by Wilhelm, the house of Labarna likely operated as an institution with extensive administration. Whether the term “Labarna” is used in the texts as a personal name or a title remains unclear.

Armatarḫunta is in all likelihood the nephew of Šuppiluliuma I, who was accused of witchcraft by Ḫattušili III and was expropriated during the reign of Ḫattušilis father Muwattalli. This expropriation, which was eventually reversed, is probably reflected in the oracle inquiry recorded in the present text. However, this does not imply that the text dates back to the time before Ḫattušilis accession to the throne. By contrast, the paleography and information provided by other textual sources suggest a date during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV when the case in question was still remembered. Thus, the inquiry was likely prompted by the belief that the spirit of the deceased Armatarḫunta was causing certain issues at the royal court, such as the king’s illness. Therefore, the oracle inquiry was likely conducted to determine appropriate measures to appease the wrath of the deceased Armatarḫunta.