The following text from Kayalıpınar contains oracular inquiries which aim to determine the cause of the anger of Šaušga of Šamuḫa, the patron deity of that city. Many potential causes for her anger are suggested, virtually all of which are confirmed by the oracles to be true, so far as the text is preserved. The text starts with a series of liver oracles, each confirmed by the seeress and followed by a KIN oracle, which confirm several combined causes of the goddess’s anger: festivals and rituals, broken objects, sacrilege, šarriya (meaning unknown), blasphemy, the king and the temple. This is then followed by the description of an inquiry with the temple officials as to what exactly these shortcomings are, which consists of the report of these officials. They outline the cutbacks made to provisions for festivals and the lack of offerings which had previously been made regularly. Several times during this account, these particular shortcomings are confirmed by oracles to be the cause of the goddess’s anger. There is then a description of the damage of various sacred precious objects which have become damaged, which it seems has also angered the goddess. A set of liver, KIN, and bird oracles confirm that there is no other specific cause beyond these. The text concludes with a fragmentary group of oracles concerning her anger at the king, though the exact content of these questions cannot be determined.

• J.L. Miller, DAAM 1, 2019: 113-138
• L. Warbinek, KIN, 2020: 507-511 (+ DAAM 1.71)

Handcopies: Rieken E. 2019a.

Full edition: Miller J.L. 2019a, 113-138.

The preserved text comprises of several fragments of a large, two column tablet. Much of the surface of the tablet is not well preserved and so the text is often not very easily legible. Most of the left-hand column of the obverse is preserved, whereas the right-hand column of the obverse and both columns of the reverse are much more fragmented.

The text is written with a neat, compact ductus. The script shows a IIIb ductus ( Miller J.L. 2019a, 114. Diagnostic signs: AG, E, IG, KÙ, LI) though with IIb forms of ID and DA.

As noted by Miller J.L. 2019a, 114, this text contains a number of Luwian words marked with the Glossenkeil, some of which are hapaxes. These include putalliyašša (obv. II 17), anaḫita (obv. II 48′), ašanāya (obv. II 64′), ḫaḫarišša (obv. II 79′), maškūwa (obv. II 79′), impiš (rev. III 57′) and warpalla (rev. III 66′ and 67′).

As argued by Miller J.L. 2019a, 113, this text provides further confirmation of the validity of the identification of Kayalıpınar, where the text was found, with ancient Šamuḫa (see also Müller-Karpe A. 2000a, Rieken E. 2014c, Rieken E. 2019a, 1).

The text contains two references which help us date it to the reign of Ḫattušili III (Miller J.L. 2019a, 114). Firstly, the mention of the statue of Šuppiluliuma I (rev. III 61′) provides a terminus post quem for the text (Miller J.L. 2019a, 135). The mention of the statue of Šuppiluliuma accords with the fact that it was under his reign that there was an increase in the significance of Šaušga of Šamuḫa (Klinger J. 2010a, 165), whose anger is the topic of this oracular inquiry. Acording to the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma (KUB 19.9, 10-11), it was from Šamuḫa that this king regained control over central Anatolia. The continued importance of Šaušga of Šamuḫa under Ḫattušili III is also attested by a royal edict in which the king exempts her sanctuary from levies (KBo 6.29+ and KUB 21.5+, see Martino S. de 2023a). According to his famous Apology, Ḫattušili appointed hias son Tutḫaliya IV as the priest of Šaušga of Šamuḫa, and he himself was appointed to this role by his father Muršili II.

Secondly, the mention of the house of Armatarḫunta, who was Ḫattušili’s rival in the upper land, suggests that the text must also date to the latter part of the former’s life (Miller J.L. 2019a, 135).