There are two topics treated in the oracular inquiries recorded in this text: The anger of the gods at a son of Arnuwanda because of the omission of festivals and rites, and the bloodshed of two individuals, Piyaššili and Ḫaittili. Concerning the former, the first oracle question suggests that this has been a problem before, and that the god has once again become angry. It is then determined that the gods are angry only because of certain festivals. The following questions then try to determine how to assuage the divine anger with penitence offerings and the celebration of the omitted rites.

The second set of questions relate to an matter of bloodshed involving Piyaššili and Ḫaittili, apparently unrelated to the matter of the son of Arnuwanda. The questions aim to ascertain how this problem is to be resvoled. It is determined that compensation must be provided, and other solutions are investigated, including the setting up of effigies of the dead, and the carrying out of ritual cleansing.

• L. Warbinek, KIN, 2020: 357-359
• Th. van den Hout, DMOA 25, 1998: 242-253
• Y. Sakuma, Diss., 2009: II 161-166

Handcopy: Walther A. 1926a.

Parital editions: Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 161-166; Warbinek L. 2020a, 357-359.

Full edition: Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 242-253.

This text represents almost the entire right-hand column of a two-column tablet. The left-most part of the column is lost, though it is likely that only a few signs worth of text has been lost. It is possible, though not certain, that this text joins indirectly with KUB 60.52 (see Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 241).

The text is written in a neat, compact script, New Hittite in form (diagnostic signs E, IG, RU, ŠA, TAR; note the mixed forms of ID, LI, DA, and the old forms of GI and UN).

The three individuals involved in the various issues with which these oracles are concerned are very difficult to identify. As Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 77 suggests, the son of Arnuwanda must be a member of the royal family and son of one of the kings of that name.

Piyaššili is known to be the name of the first Hittite king of Carchemish (also known as Šarrikušuḫ), though Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 77 questions whether this is the same Piyaššili as in this text. He does so partly on the grounds that, in this text, Piyaššili and Ḫaittili are said to have been killed violently, whereas Piyaššili of Carchemish is known to have died from an illness. However, the references to the bloodshed of Piyaššili and Ḫaittili are not so clear in this text. Firstly, the crucial ešḫar in rev. III 6 is reconstructed, though likely correctly, based on ešḫar two lines later. Moreover, one possible solution which the oracular questions deal with is that Piyaššili and Ḫaittili should be involved in making an offering with the king and that they (note the plural verb) should set up effigies of the dead, presumably of the victims of the murder (obv. II 60′-62′). This makes it very unlikely that they are dead. It is therefore perhaps more likely that these two individuals are the ones guilty of the murder, rather than its victims. This is arguably suggested by rev. III 37, where somebody, perhaps Piyaššili or Ḫaittili, is said to have harmed many people (see also note to rev. III 5-6). Moreover, it seems that these two individuals, whoever they may be, are closely connected to the king, who has to perform a ritual cleansing of himself. It is possible then that he too gained some kind of ritual impurity by association with Piyaššili and Ḫaittili. If so, it is unlikely that Ḫaittili is to be identified with an indivudal of the same name but a lower social status identified by Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 77 (KUB 31.62, II 15; KBo 16.83+, II 10′).