The text is an oracle report concerning the king’s winter residence plans and associated potential dangers. Using extispicy (SU) and KIN oracles, the oracle inquiry aims to determine whether the gods approve of the king’s desire to winter in Ḫattuša. Furthermore, it explores several potential threats to the king’s safety during his winter stays, such as human negligence (‘misbehavior of the hand’), a road accident (referred to as ‘misbehavior of a horse’), and a potential epidemic among the standing army (šarikuwa and UKU.UŠ troops). The oracle inquiry investigates whether these threats are caused by divine anger or human factors and explores ways to mitigate risks by placing personnel under a sworn obligation.

Since the oracle inquiry indicates that wintering in Ḫattuša is too risky, the oracle experts also explore other possible winter locations for the king, including Katapa, Ankuwa, and Zitḫara. Judging from the parallel text KUB 5.4+, a further question, unfortunately broken off, presumably addressed a stay in Aleppo. The inquiry seeks divine approval for each option, leading to the gods endorsing Katapa as the king’s winter residence.

An interesting feature of KUB 5.3+ that sets it apart from the report of KUB 5.4+ is that the investigation not only aims to identify potential dangers from divine wrath but also systematically assesses the total number and nature of the gods whose anger leads to the disaster.

• 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 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 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); Beal R.H. 1997a, 207–211; Warbinek L. 2020a, 470-478). 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, combine 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 mostly intact, with only a few missing signs at the beginning and end of some lines in the lower parts of the two columns. In contrast, rev. III is significantly damaged. Certain sections are completely missing (rev. III 1ʹ-10ʹ; 14ʹ-17ʹ), while a few signs are preserved in other parts. Rev. IV is partially damaged in the upper two-thirds, which appear to have been blank. The subsequent inscribed section nearly fully intact.

Layout and graphical features

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

NH, NS (IIIb).

Cf. DI, ḪA, KI and UN which are all attested in the pre-LS variants. Cf. also the IIIb variants of LI, URU and SAR. Other signs are attested in the older variants, such as MEŠ with four Winkelhaken; DA with the middle horizontal wedge broken; IT with the middle horizontal wedge broken; and GI with an oblique stroke instead of a wedge.

In terms of meaning, the phrases ŠU-aš waštul (= keššeraš waštul = ‘misbehavior/sin of the hand’; cf. obv. I 2–3; obv. I 8) and ḪI-IṬ-ṬÙ ANŠE.KUR.RA (‘misbehavior/sin of a horse’; cf. obv. I 7; obv. I 23; obv. I 30; obv. I 34) are notable. The phrase ‘sin/misbehavior of the hand’ is known from several paragraphs of the Hittite Laws (HL) concerning assault and homicide (§3; §4; §II.1; §II.2; §III.3; §V.2; §VI.2; ). Here, the act of killing someone due to a ‘misbehavior of the hand’ is the opposite of killing someone ‘because of šullatar,’ that is, ‘due to willfulness/wantonness’ (§1; §2; §III.2; §V.1; §VI.1). The less severe penalty in the HL for a misdeed of the hand shows that the corresponding acts were considered less severe than the ones done due to šullatar. Nevertheless, even though, according to the phrase, guilt is only attributed to the hand, the consequences of the deed show that also the person to whom the hand belongs is blamed. In the HL, this is evident from the fact that the perpetrator is punished. In KUB 5.3+, this is shown by the fact that the courtiers and the chariot drivers are instructed to avoid such a misdeed of the hand (KUB 5.3+ obv. I 8).

The phrase ‘misbehavior of a horse’ presumably describes a danger posed by a horse that could result in bodily injury or even death.1Cf. also Beal R.H.1997a, 209 with note 29. However, since the focus of the phrase ḪI-IṬ-ṬÙ ANŠE.KUR.RA is on the misbehavior of the animal and a road accident is only one possible result from it, Beal’s translation of the phrase as ‘road accidents’ is, in my view, too narrow in scope. The fact that this danger, when caused by human negligence, is attempted to be averted by instructing court officials and chariot drivers suggests that, in particular, a road accident is implied here. Other linguistic features are discussed in the notes to the transliteration and translation.

The historical context of KUB 5.3+ cannot be precisely determined since the ruler’s name for whom the oracle inquiry is carried out is not mentioned. Also, other information, such as personal names, revealing the text’s historical context is missing. However, based on paleographic criteria we can assume that the text was written down in the later New Hittite period, presumably during the reign of Ḫattušili III or Tutḫaliya.

As detailed in the introduction to CTH 563, there are numerous, sometimes literal correspondences between KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+, as well as with the fragment KUB 52.64. However, there are also clear differences. The same holds true for the relationship with KUB 18.12+ (CTH 564). The content and structure indicate that KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ are reports from two teams that conducted oracle investigations separately but also collaborated for the same purpose, namely the king’s desire to spend the winter in Ḫattuša or alternative locations as second choices. The relationship with KUB 52.64 and KUB 50.11 is difficult to determine due to the poor preservation of the texts. It is also possible that they are copies of KUB 5.3+ meant for archival or educational purposes. The inability to trace the relationship between KUB 5.3+, KUB 5.4+, and KUB 18.12+ back to copying procedures by the scribes is, inter alia, evident from the different oracle procedures used in the investigations (KUB 5.3+: extispicy and KIN oracle; KUB 5.4+: exclusively KIN; and KUB 18.12+: exclusively bird oracle). Furthermore, the oracle procedure of KUB 18.12+ is conducted due to the Hittite king's planned winter stay in Aleppo and the celebration of particular festivals there, while the texts recorded under CTH 563 primarily reflect the king’s desire to winter in Ḫattusa, considering alternative winter quarters only as second choices.

An aspect that distinguishes KUB 5.3+ from KUB 5.4+ is the detailed inquiry concerning the number and nature of deities that might cause an epidemic among the standing army due to their anger. After the oracle confirms that a deity will cause the epidemic, the oracle expert asks whether a new deity will be responsible. Once this is confirmed, the expert inquires if another deity will also be a cause. This question is affirmed as well. Consequently, the inquiry continues by asking whether a deity from Ḫattuša will also cause the epidemic. When this question is answered affirmatively, the oracle experts further ask if only a new deity and a deity from Ḫattuša will instigate the epidemic. After the oracle gods respond positively, additional questions arise regarding the nature of the deities. The oracle reveals that several new deities will cause the epidemic. Among them is one new deity from Ḫattuša and two deities of kingship. One of the new deities of kingship is identified as one residing in a temple, while the other is characterized as a quiver among the gods residing on a wagon. The oracle further reveals that this deity’s anger stems from not yet being set upon the road.

According to Beal R.H. 1997a, 211 and CHD P, 78 s.v. *palšiaḫḫ-), the verb *palšiaḫḫ- is likely used in a figurative sense, meaning ‘to satisfy.’ However, in the present context, a literal meaning ‘to set on the road, to dispatch’ also seems plausible, possibly indicating the sending of the deity’s divine statue. This interpretation is further supported by the oracle inquiry CTH 561. For instance, KUB 5.1+ rev. III 19 states: DINGIR-LIM-tar KASKAL-an-zi DINGIRMEŠ URUšapinuwaiya udanzi, which translates to “they will dispatch the divine statues and bring the gods to Šapinuwa.” Furthermore, the verb’s usage with the local or directional adverb zilan, meaning ‘lengthways’ or ‘flanking’ (see Beal R.H. 1997a, 211), in KUB 5.1+ rev. IV 83-84 suggests a movement: DUTU-ŠI-za DINGIRMEŠ-tar ŠA ḪUR.SAGḫa-ḫar-wa KASKAL-aḫ-zi zi-la-an-na-kán ŠA URUḪAT-TI DINGIRMEŠ-tar KASKAL-aḫ-zi, which translates to, “Will His Majesty set the gods of Mount Ḫaḫarwa on the road? And flanking gods of Ḫattuša?” .

Through this series of questions, the oracle report KUB 5.3+ is a perfect example of how the Hittites conducted oracle inquiries. Additionally, it provides interesting insights into the Hittite religion and the Hittite pantheon. Notably, the text categorizes the gods into various groups: deities of Ḫattuša (likely the older gods, long integrated into the pantheon) and new deities (i.e., those gods assimilated into the Hittite pantheon over time as the Hittite kingdom expanded and annexed other regions). Subsequently, the new deities are classified into deities of kingship and deities of Ḫattuša. Furthermore, the deities of kingship are divided into those residing in temples and those living on wagons.

The deity that takes the form of a quiver among the other deities residing on a wagon remains otherwise unknown. Shaped like a quiver, it is likely a warrior god, which aligns well with the outcome of this deity’s anger, which manifests as an epidemic among the army.