KUB 5.1 + KUB 52.65 is the most comprehensive preserved Hittite oracle report that has survived from the Hittite capital Ḫattuša, consisting of over 400 lines. The text documents a series of divinatory inquiries related to royal military campaigns during the late Hittite Empire. The main focus concerns strategic decisions about attacking Mt. Ḫaḫarwa and neighboring territories, including Tanizila, Nerik, Taptena, Ḫuršama, and other areas in the northern frontier regions. The oracle specialists systematically consult the gods using different oracle techniques – primarily the symbol oracle KIN but also extispicy (SU) and augury (MUŠEN), with the latter only referred to. With the helpf of these techniques, they seek to identify favorable routes, timing, and tactical approaches for the king’s campaigns. Most inquiries follow a structured pattern of proposed actions, the desired oracle outcome, the oracle procedure and findings, and the oracle’s verdict. Based on these, alternative routes or strategies are suggested, which again can lead to either positive or negative outcomes. The text repeatedly addresses specific dangers: defeat in battle, Kaškaean counterattacks, threats to the king’s safety and health, epidemics within the army, and severe weather conditions. Additional risks include border security issues and the potential defection of regions, notably the repercussions for Nerik. The oracle report exemplifies how divination was essential to state-level military planning, with continuous questioning about particular routes, potential threats like plague or enemy counter-attacks, and the need to appease angry gods before proceeding with campaigns. The dating of the oracle report has been a topic of longstanding debate among scholars. Most suggest that the inquiry was ordered either by Ḫattušili III (before or after his accession to the throne) or by Tutḫaliya IV. As will be shown in the section titled “Historical Context,” a thorough examination of the text – considering both historical and religious information – suggests that the report most likely originates from the late reign of Ḫattušili III, during which time Tutḫaliya IV had already been designated by Ḫattušili as his successor.

• A. Ünal, THeth 3, 1974: 129-133
• L. Warbinek, KIN, 2020: 491-507
• R. Beal, Ktema 24, 1999: 41-54
• THeth 4, 1974: 32-102

The publication history of KUB 5.1+ (CTH 561) is marked by an early dissemination of the main fragment (Bo 2007) in a handcopy of the cuneiform text, followed by a much later addition of a small join, and then by a series of editions and partial treatments embedded in broader studies.

The main fragment (Bo 2007) was first published in cuneiform handcopy by Walther A. 1922a as KUB 5.1. The small joining fragment Bo 8040, comprising only 16 fragmentary lines, was published much later by Archi A. 1983c as KUB 52.65.

A first complete edition of the main fragment with transliteration, translation, and commentary has been provided by Ünal A. 1974a, 129–134 and Ünal A. 1974b, 32–102.

An English translation of the text, leaving only the very fragmentarily lines rev. IV 1–39 untranslated, with some philological commentary in footnotes, has been published by Beal R.H. 1999a, 41–54.

A German translation of obv. I 1–18; obv. I 40–42; obv. I 92–94; rev. III 48–50 rev. III 51–60 and rev. IV 70–92 has been provided by Haas V. 2008a, 103–117; 165 as part of discussions on the use of oracles to enquire about planned military operations, as well as the KIN oracle technique and procedure. The KIN technique is also the focus of the study by Marcuson H. 2016a, 102–105 (with translations of some parts) and Warbinek L. 2020a, 491–507, who provides a table of all KIN symbols attested in the text along with their value and constellation to each other.

For further treatments, see the “Notae originalis Silvin Košak” (S. Košak, hethiter.et/: hetkonk (2.plus)), Groddeks Liste der Sekundärliteratur zu Textstellen aus Boğazköy (https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/grodlist/index2.php?n=KUB%205), and infra.

The text is inscribed on a large tablet that is divided into two columns on both sides. Each side contains approximately 100 lines (obv. I: 107 lines, obv. II: 111 lines, rev. III: 100 lines, rev. IV: 92 lines). Additionally, the left edge of the tablet is divided into two columns of brief content. As with many other Hittite oracle reports, the tablet features several blank lines and paragraphs, which are found exclusively on rev. III and rev. IV in this particular text. These blank sections typically appear where only the oracle question is recorded, but the oracle procedure and result are not documented (for instance, see the spaces following rev. III 47, rev. III 100ff., rev. IV 33, rev. IV 59, rev. IV 82, and rev. IV 85). One noteworthy section of the text discusses a question regarding an unnamed "son" (reverse IV 86–92). Interestingly, lines 86–88 are written in a more cursory style compared to the surrounding text, while lines 89–92 are inscribed more carefully and are positioned in a distinct field on the lower right side of the paragraph.

The text is written in New Hittite script, primarily using the IIIa and IIIb sign variants. The only exception is the IIIc variant of ḪA with a single Winkelhaken. This variant became standard during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV, but it is also found in texts from the time of Ḫattušili III and sporadically even earlier (see, e.g. Weeden, in: Heinhold-Krahmer S. – Rieken E. 2020a, 328–330). Therefore, for its own, it cannot be reliably used as a precise chronological marker. The same applies to certain orthographic features that are characteristic of later texts, such as the frequent use of CVC signs, logographic spellings (with or without phonetic endings), and simplified spellings of words – for example, using UL instead of Ú-UL as the Akkadographic representation of the negation.

As mentioned in the section “Tablet Characteristics,” a notable feature of the text is the more cursory handwriting found in lines 86–88, indicating that it was added later by the same or possibly a different scribe.

As is common in oracle reports from the New Hittite period, the texts contains many abbreviations, particularly for the names of KIN symbols and features of the exta. Additionally, entire sentences are often replaced by KI.MIN “ditto”. In cases where the oracle result is self-evident, it may not be recorded (see rev. IV 50; rev. IV 85). Unlike situations where the oracle outcome has not been communicated to the scribe, these instances do not leave a blank space in place of the oracle procedure and/or outcome.

The text includes numerous place names and provides clues about the relative locations of settlements, making it a crucial reference for research on the historical geography of northern Anatolia . However, establishing its historical context is challenging because the king on whose behalf the oracle investigation was conducted is not named. Instead, he is referred to only by the royal title DUTU-ŠI “My Sun”.

However, the text contains some other relevant information about its historical context. Of particular importance is the mention of two military leaders, Temeti (obv. I 7–10; rev. III 77-83; rev. III 84-86; rev. III 87-89 and rev. III 93–95) and Manini (obv. I 43–44). Furthermore, the text includes a reference to a certain “son” (DUMU) in an oracle question (rev. IV 86–88) and features a KIN symbol in the related oracle procedure referred to as the king of tarḫuntašša (rev. IV 86). Additionally, there is a mention of the king’s return from an undertaking in Assyria, referred to by the term KASKAL “road, trip, (military) campaign” (rev. III 77–89) and his appeal to the “Storm-god of Nerik” as his personal protective deity (rev. III 52–56). Moreover, the text mentions further deities associated with specific geographical locations, namely the cedar deities, the Sun-goddess of Ištaḫara, and the “glorious and fearsome Sun-goddess” (obv. II 105–111).

Another key aspect is the references to Nerik and its role in the king’s planned campaigns. Of particular importance is the interpretation of the phrase -za=kan karp-, which refers to Nerik in the accusative (see obv. I 53; obv. I 70; obv. I 78; obv. II 28; obv. II 66; rev. III 28). Various meanings have been suggested in the research literature, including “levy Nerik”, “subdue Nerik,” and “complete Nerik,” the latter implying “to fulfill one’s duties in Nerik.” These differing interpretations have led to distinct historical scenarios. Scholars who interpret the phrase as “to subdue Nerik” believe the text was written when Nerik was not under Hittite control, suggesting that the king’s military campaigns aimed to recapture the city (see, e.g., Ünal A. 1974a, 133; Ünal A. 1974b, 151; Orlamünde J. 2001a, 511). In contrast, those who interpret it as “to complete (one’s duties) in Nerik” argue that the text was created when Nerik was already in Hittite hands, indicating that the military campaigns aimed to secure the city from threats posed by the Kaskaens and to subdue the surrounding areas. (Beal R.H. 1999a, 44 note 17; Christiansen forthcoming).

Discussions of the text’s dating have primarily focused on references to personal names, the king's return from Assyria, and specific place names. In contrast, mentions of particular deities have not received as much attention. Furthermore, while the KIN symbol king of tarḫuntašša has been regarded as a terminus post quem, the content of the associated oracle question has been neglected. Some of the dates proposed can be ruled out from the outset. For example, the mention of the king of Tarḫuntašša as an oracle symbol contradicts the dating to the reign of Muršil II, as Schuler E. von 1965a, 51 suggested. Since Tarḫuntašša only played a role from the reign of Muwattalli onwards, his reign can be considered a terminus post quem (see already Güterbock H.G. 1961d).

Due to the designation of the client of the oracle consultation with the title DUTU-ŠI, it is also very unlikely that the text dates from the time when Ḫattušili was still king of Ḫakmiš. Ünal’s assumption that the reason for this discrepancy might be that the text was rewritten retrospectively is neither backed by text internal evidence nor is it in line with the fact that oracle reports are generally contemporary texts, as Ünal himself admits (Ünal A. 1974a, 133–134).

Along with the paleographical and “orthographical” features of the text, the royal title DUTU-ŠI suggests a date in the reign of Ḫattušili III or Tutḫaliya IV.

KASKAL KUR Aššur: Assyria as a horizon marker, not a fixed point

Orlamünde J. 2001a, who argues for a date during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV, bases her hypothesis mainly on the mention of the ruler's return from a KASKAL in Assyria (rev. III 77–89). Thus, she interprets the statement as referring to a military campaign and equates it with the Battle of Niḫriya, in which Tutḫaliya was involved. However, she fails to note that the return from the KASKAL “road, trip, (military) campaign” in question to Assyria is mentioned in the context of a hypothetical question that revolves around a different topic. It therefore remains questionable whether the undertaking mentioned in KUB 5.1+ ever took place. Furthermore, the logogram KASKAL has a wide range of meanings and can also refer to an expedition or journey to Assyria. In addition, we must keep in mind that our knowledge of the political relationship between the Hittite kingdom and Assyria is very limited. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that there were military undertakings under Ḫattušili that might have been referred to by the term KASKAL.

Historical and geographical setting: Nerik as a threatened cultic and operational zone

For historical classification, the first decisive point is the role Nerik plays in the text itself. As correctly pointed out by Beal R.H. 1999a, 44, note 17, KUB 5.1 does not depict Nerik as a military objective, but rather as a place the king passes in the course of other undertakings or to which he returns, and as a politico-religious reference point whose well-being concerns him during campaigns outside Nerik. This perspective fits a scenario in which Nerik belongs to the Hittite sphere of rule, but remains exposed and threatened by Kaška attacks. The king’s campaigns would then aim above all at securing surrounding regions and stabilizing the frontier. The phrase -za=kan karp- with Nerik in the accusative, therefore, likely is to be interpreted as an elliptical or metonymic shortening, “to complete (the obligations/festivals) in Nerik”. This interpretation can be backed by other attestations of the verb kar(a)p-, karpiya- conveying the meaning “to complete, finish”, in most of which the verb is accompanied by the partical -kan (see Puhvel, HED 4, 91–98 s.v. kar(a)p-, karapp, karpiya-, and HW² 173–182 s.v. karp(iya)-. A close parallel is KBo 16.98 Vs. II 12–14: namma=za EZEN₄MEŠ DÙ-mi GIM-an=ma=za=kan EZE[N₄M]EŠ karpmi nu I-NA URUnerikk=a paimi “I will then celebrate the festivals. When I have completed the festi[vals], I will go to Nerik“. If this interpretation is correct, the picture shifts significantly: Nerik is no longer the object to be overcome, but a site of cultic obligation and a focal point of royal presence.

Relationship to KUB 22.25: close in time, but no simple earlier/later logic

As Güterbock H.G. 1961d has convincingly argued, the mention of the military leader Temeti in both KUB 5.1 and KUB 22.25 is one of the strongest indications that the two oracle reports stand in close temporal relation. In content, however, they differ: KUB 22.25 states that the ruler will go to Nerik and “build (up)” the city (KUB 22.25 obv. I 19: nu INA URUnerik andan paizzi nu URU-an wetezzi) and debates whether the ruler should first strike the enemy or first celebrate the purulli- festival and “bring away” the deity, whereas KUB 5.1 presupposes Nerik as accessible and focuses on its security and cultic well-being during campaigns elsewhere. Whether “build (up)” implies total reconstruction after complete loss or rather partial construction measures in an endangered but functioning city remains the pivotal hinge, since only the first interpretation forces a scenario of prior complete loss of Nerik (see also Beal R.H. 1992a, 208, note 1173).

Yet, the textual evidence itself does not support an early dating of KUB 22.25 “before” Ḫattušili’s accession to the throne, because in KUB 22.25 too the questioner bears the title DUTU-ŠI. The textual evidence does not support an early dating of KUB 22.25 to “before” Ḫattušili's accession to the throne, as KUB 22.25 also identifies the questioner by the title DUTU-ŠI. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that KUB 5.1+ and KUB 22.25+ are closely related in time, but emerge during a phase in which Nerik is already recognized as within the realm of the Hittite Great King, with the "enemy" primarily being sought outside the city, particularly from the Kaška forces in the surrounding area.

The Storm-god of Nerik as a Personal Protective Deity: A key indicator for Ḫattušili III

A strong argument for dating the oracle report to the late reign of Ḫattušili III emerges from the king’s religious self-positioning. In KUB 5.1, the king invokes the Storm-god of Nerik in a particularly urgent passage, referring to him as the “god of my head” (rev. III 52–56). He asks whether the Storm-god will support him in a risky campaign against Tanizila, despite repeated warnings from the oracle gods and ominous dreams predicting defeat.

This personal bond – viewing the Storm-god as an individual protective deity – fits exceptionally well with other sources that depict Ḫattušili III's unique closeness to the Storm-god of Nerik like his “Apology” (CTH 81, ed. Otten H. 1981a), his edict (CTH 65, ed. Martino S. de 2023a, and his royal title “beloved of the Storm-god of Nerik”; cf., e.g., KBo 22.73+ Vs. I 1 (CTH 90) and KBo 6.28 Vs. 1-2 (CTH 88). Although the significance of the Nerik cult is also noted for Tudḫaliya IV, who participated in the priesthood and in cultic-legal regulations, no similarly intimate relationship with a protective deity is documented for Tudḫaliya as it is for Ḫattušili.

Other deities as historical context: Kizzuwatnean and North Anatolian networks

Beyond the Storm-god of Nerik, KUB 5.1 refers in obv. II 105–111 to the “cedar gods,” the Sun-goddess of Ištahara, and the “glorious and fearsome” solar deity, whose mention likewise can be reconciled extremely well with dating the oracle report to the late reign of Ḫattušili III (obv. II 105–111).

Thus, Ḫattušili in his Edict (CTH 65) mentions the transfer of the “cedar gods” that probably originated from Kizzuwatna, in connection with Muwattalli’s measures and the conflicts with Urḫi-Teššub. The places Ištahara and Šamuḫa also play a special role in Ḫattušili’s self-testimonies. The “glorious and fearsome solar deity” (DUTU waliwaliaš muwat[al- in obv. II 110 is certainly to be equated with the “glorious Sun-goddess of the field” ([D]UTU LÍL walliwalliyaš), for whom an extensive cult inventory from Šamuḫa stipulates both daily offerings and offerings to be brought to her within various festivals (DAAM 1.136 rev. IV 1–48). The mention of Ukkura and Mizramuwa in DAAM 1.136 obv. I 23 allows a dating of the cult inventory to the later reign of Ḫattušili III or the early reign of Tudḫaliya IV, which also fits well with dating the oracle report KUB 5.1+ to the late reign of Ḫattušili III, in which Tudḫaliya had already been designated as crown prince (for a detailed discussion of the cult inventory see Cammarosano M. 2019a, 100–102).

The identity of Manini

The personal name Manini is only attested once in KUB 5.1, in an oracle inquiry concerning the possibility of a death within the army: “But if—as (in the case of) Manini—no death (ÚŠ-an) occurs within the army, let the oracle be favorable” (obv. I 43–44). Since the subsequent question distinguishes explicitly between such an individual death and a scenario of mass death/an epidemic (obv. I 46–49; esp. obv. I 47 panku ÚŠ-an), the Manini passage most plausibly refers to a single death and thus very likely to Manini himself. The oracle inquiry would then refer retrospectively to his death in battle, using it as a precedent to probe whether a comparable loss might occur in the forthcoming campaign. This interpretation makes it improbable that Man(n)in(n)i can be equated with Šuppiluliuma II, as suggested by Burgin J. 2022c. However, there are other possible scenarios to consider. For instance, the commander referred to in KUB 5.1+ may be identified with the individual Manninni listed in the offering list KUB 11.7 + Rs. IV 6, who was likely a son of Arnuwanda I (see Christiansen forthcoming for a more detailed discussion).

The “son” inquiry and Tarḫuntašša: dynastic succession in the shadow of northern policy

Another central element is the inquiry “concerning the son” (DUMU) in rev. IV 86–92. It is striking that in this section the “king of Tarḫuntašša” appears as a KIN symbol—a symbol otherwise unattested in the KIN procedure. This points to a significant relationship between the "son" mentioned in the question and the king of Tarḫuntašša that extends beyond the context of the oracle.

This makes it likely that the “son” refers to Tudḫaliya as crown prince and designated successor, and the question would touch on the stability of his enthronement and on possible succession conflicts with Kurunt(iy)a, who, as son of Muwattalli II, could claim his own legitimacy. This further strengthens a dating to the late regnal years of Ḫattušili III: a phase in which (a) northern policy and the securing of Nerik remain urgent, (b) Tudḫaliya’s succession must be prepared and legitimized, and (c) Kurunta is present as a political factor in Tarḫuntašša, providing the best framework for bringing together, in a single oracle report, questions that concern campaign planning, concern for Nerik, and the succession.

Result: why a dating to the final years of Ḫattušili’s III reign fits best

The totality of the historical and geographical indications argues not for a “reconquest of Nerik”, but for a situation of continuing frontier endangerment in which Nerik as a cult place is accessible but must be militarily protected. The reference to the king’s return from Assyria (KASKAL KUR aššur) provides information about the political horizon, but because of the semantic breadth of the Sumerogram KASKAL, it is not suitable for fixing the dating to a specific, externally attested Assyrian conflict. The most informative elements for dating the oracle report are therefore the special role of the Storm-god of Nerik as a personal protective deity of the ruler (rev. III 52–56), the cluster of other deities (obv. II 105–111), and the oracle inquiry concerning the “son” (rev. IV 86–92). Taken together, these yield a coherent picture that is most plausibly placed in the final years of Ḫattušili’s III reign—specifically in a phase in which foreign policy (northern campaigns), cult policy (Nerik and its god), and internal politics (Tudḫaliya’s succession, potential rivalry from Kurunta) are closely intertwined.