Citatio: B. Christiansen (ed.), hethiter.net/: HDivT (07-05-2026)

The Hittite KIN Oracle

1. Short Description

The KIN oracle belongs to the family of symbol oracles, in which the divine response is inferred from the movement and placement of specific symbols. These symbols or tokens represent a wide range of entities and concepts: gods, human figures, abstract qualities such as ‘life’, ‘well-being,’ ‘illness,’ or ‘anger,’ and concrete realities such as ‘campaign,’ ‘plague,’ or ‘wall’. The term KIN is the Sumerogram for the Hittite word aniyatt-, meaning ‘work’ or ‘procedure,’ and refers to the symbolic operations carried out during the oracle session. The broader Hittite term for an oracular investigation is ariyašeššar, which is derived from the verb ariya-, meaning ‘to inquire by oracle,’ which is often used in KIN oracles – and also oracle consultations with other techniques – to describe the act of performing an oracle investigation.

Unlike extispicy, which the Hittites adopted from Mesopotamia through Hurrian intermediaries, the KIN oracle is – as far as we can tell – an indigenous Anatolian invention with no known source outside Anatolia. It was performed by the ^MUNUŠŠU.GI, literally ‘Old Woman,’ a female ritualist who is also known as an expert in conducting rituals, commonly referred to as 'magical' rituals, for dispelling illness, curses, and restoring well-being. For this reason, the title ^MUNUŠŠU.GI is oftentimes also translated as ‘magician’.

Most of the preserved KIN texts are oracle reports, recording an investigation into a concrete problem – the illness of the king, a planned military campaign, omissions of festivals, or the reasons for a deity’s anger. The question is put to the oracle deity (or deities) through a formal request for either a favorable (SIG₅) or unfavorable (NU.SIG₅) result. Afterwards, the symbolic moves are described, and the final outcome – ‘favorable’ or ‘unfavorable’– is recorded. If the outcome matches the requested result, the divine answer is yes; if they diverge, the answer is no. Symbolic moves involve an active symbol that interacts with one or more other symbols, transferring them to another symbol or placing them within a specific symbol. This process can be represented as: A (active symbol) → P (passive symbol) → R (receptive symbol). For a more detailed description, see section 7.

The reports range from short notes, such as HKM 115 from Mașat Höyük (CTH 572), to long multi-stage inquiries such as KUB 5.1+ (CTH 561), KUB 5.4+ (CTH 563), and KBo 14.21 (CTH 565). Some accounts provide detailed descriptions of the divination process, listing every step, while others offer only a summary. Often, the same text includes both detailed descriptions and summaries. Additionally, some texts reference earlier divination procedures or mention that a divination on a specific topic will occur at a later date (for a detailed discussion of extensive reports vs. summaries, see Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 10–32).

A key feature of KIN, as well as other Hittite oracle techniques, such as SU and MUŠEN ḪURRI, is the tight link between question and request: if one asks ‘Is the deity angry?,’ the oracle formula normally requests ‘let the KIN be unfavorable,’ because an unfavorable result would confirm the unwelcome hypothesis of divine anger. The desired answer – yes or no – therefore depends on the logical pairing of question, requested result, and actual outcome. (for a detailed overview of the process, see Warbinek L. 2020a, 40–43 with further literature). The system of the bird oracles (MUŠEN) is slightly different in its wording, but, in essence, follows a similar logic (for a detailed description, see the introduction to the bird oracles).

2. Research History

The earliest oracle inquiries using the KIN technique in combination with other oracle methods (MUŠEN, MUŠEN ḪURRI, SU) were published in 1916 by H.A. Figulla in handcopies in KBo 2 (KBo 2.2 and KBo 2.6). Between 1922 and 1928, A. Walther published a great number of other texts in handcopies in KUB 5, KUB 6, KUB 16, KUB 18, and KUB 22. Additionally, A. Archi published a significant number of texts between 1979 and 1983 in KUB 49, KUB 50, and KUB 52. Further KIN oracle texts found in Boğazköy (Ḫattuša), Maşat Höyük (Tapikka), Kuşaklı (Šarišša), Kayalıpınar (Šamuḫa), and Uşaklı in central Anatolia, as well as at Tell Atchana/Alalaḫ in Syria appeared in later KBo and KUB volumes as well as other series.

E. Laroche established a foundation for further research on Hittite texts with his ‘Catalogue des textes hittites’ (CTH), which was published in several parts between 1956 and 1975 (Laroche E. 1956h; Laroche E. 1957c; Laroche E. 1958e; Laroche E. 1971c, as well as supplements found in RHA 30 (1972, 94–133) and RHA 33 (1975, 68–71). For KIN oracles, he designated the following numbers: CTH 572 (pure KIN); CTH 577 (combined SU, KIN, and MUŠEN oracles); CTH 578 (combined SU and KIN), and CTH 580 (KIN and MUŠEN). In addition, important inquiries using the KIN technique (alone or in combination with other techniques), are listed among the texts organized by thematic criteria (CTH 561–569). Particularly notable are KUB 5.1+ (CTH 561); KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ (CTH 563); KBo 14.21 (CTH 565). Although Laroche’s classification has its inconsistencies, it is primarily retained in the ‘Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschrifttafeln,’ created and maintained by S. Košak from 2002 to 2022, and continued by Ch.W. Steitler, G.G.W. Müller, and J. Lorenz (hethiter.net/: hetkonk (2.plus).

Despite the diligent efforts of the copyists and Laroche’s catalog, it took many years for the first comprehensive studies on this oracle technique to emerge. A significant breakthrough occurred in 1974 when A. Archi published a systematic analysis of the terminology and structure of the oracle procedure (Archi A. 1974a). In the same year, A. Ünal and A. Kammenhuber released an edition of the oracle text KBo 18.151, considered the oldest KIN oracle text and significantly differing from later texts in several ways. Both authors also provided a broader analysis of the KIN system. Key studies on the technique have been published several decades later by J. Orlamünde (Orlamünde J. 2001b), R. Beal (Beal R.H. 2002f, 76–80), and V. Haas (Haas V. 2008a, 19–22). A milestone was achieved in 2020, when L. Warbinek published his dissertation (Warbinek L. 2020a), which builds on Orlamünde’s research and offers an in-depth analysis of the technique and editions of a great number of texts. For further treatments, including editions of the texts, see the information in the ‘Konkordanz’ and in the editions prepared in the framework of our project.

3. Findspots and Dates

The vast majority of KIN oracle texts date to the New Hittite period, and most can be assigned on palaeographic and contextual grounds to the reigns of Ḫattušili III and Tudḫaliya IV in the second half of the 13^th century BCE. This is consistent with the broader oracle corpus from the final centuries of the Hittite kingdom, a period in which all major divinatory techniques are particularly well documented (for a detailed discussion of palaeographic and contextual dating criteria, see Warbinek L. 2020a, 121–140).

The extent of the KIN oracle’s historical reach remains uncertain. Currently, only a few texts are known that date prior to the New Hittite kingdom.

The oldest known example is KBo 18.151, which already employs a recognizable KIN-style symbolic system, though its symbol inventory and structure differ noticeably from later practice. Many scholars attribute the text to the Old Hittite period, but some consider a Middle Hittite date more likely (for an edition and discussion, see Soysal O. 2000d, 107–116 with further literature).

A securely Middle Hittite text is the oracle letter KuT 49 from Kușaklı (Šarišša). The letter refers to a KIN oracle performed by a ^MUNUSŠU.GI named Iya to find out whether the priest’s daughter would recover. According to the text, the oracle turned out to be negative four times. Interestingly, the oracle findings, i.e., the movements of the tokens, of one procedure are recorded in detail (for details, see the editio princeps by Wilhelm G. 1998a, 175–180 (with photo); for a new edition with an English translation, see A. Trameri (ed), hethiter.net/: CTH 190.

A small cushion-shaped Middle Hittite KIN oracle report on a single question concerning divine wrath has been found in Mașat Höyük (Tapikka) and published as HKM 115 (for discussions see Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 425–426; Rieken E. 2019e, 271–272).

While the exact date of KBo 18.151 in the Old Hittite Period remains uncertain, several indications suggest the KIN technique may have originated during this period or even earlier. One significant piece of evidence is found in the Testament of Ḫattušili I, dating to the 16^th century BCE. In this text, the Hittite king advises a close female relative, Ḫaštayatar, against consulting the Old Women for guidance, but to listen only to him (KUB 1.16 + KUB 40.65 rev. III 64–71; ed. Gilan A. 2015a, 66–103). While it remains unclear whether the king refers to an oracle consultation, it is reasonable to assume this, given the function of the ^MUNUSŠU.GI in later texts (for discussions, see Marcuson H. 2016a, 95–96; 397; Warbinek L. 2020a, 83; Christiansen B. 2026a, 238). In addition, several tokens like the Mother-goddess Ḫannaḫanna (logographically written ^DMAḪ), the deified throne (^DDAG), the Fate-deity (^DGULš-), and the assembly (panku-), and certain Ḫattic features of KBo 18.151 suggest that the KIN technique originated in a Central Anatolian milieu rooted in Hattian traditions (for a detailed discussion, see Marcuson H. 2016a, 71–73).

The scarcity of texts from the period before the New Kingdom is likely because they were not usually preserved for extended periods. Instead, these texts, similar to other oracle texts, were often discarded after two or three generations at most (see, e.g., Warbinek L. 2020a, 121).

Most KIN tablets come from the Hittite capital Ḫattuša, especially from the citadel area of Büyükkale. Building E on the citadel is particularly important: here, a large group of oracle tablets – including many KIN texts and mixed SU–KIN–MUŠEN/MUŠEN ḪURRI reports – was reused as wall-fill, providing a concentrated dossier of late 13th-century court divination. Outside the capital, KIN oracle tablets are attested at Maşat Höyük/Tapikka, Kuşaklı/Šarišša, Kayalıpınar, and Uşaklı in central Anatolia, as well as at Tell Atchana/Alalaḫ in Syria, showing that the technique was practiced not only at the royal residence but also in provincial centers and beyond the core Hittite territories (for a detailed overview, including a table of the findspots and number of tablets, see Warbinek L. 2020a, 107–110).

4. Topics

Like the other Hittite oracle techniques, KIN oracles were used to probe the divine disposition in situations of crisis or when major decisions had to be made. The thematic range of the preserved inquiries is wide, but several clusters recur with particular frequency.

Military strategy and security form the largest group. The major dossiers – such as KUB 5.1+ (CTH 561) and KUB 22.25 (CTH 562) – concern campaigns in the Kaška region and address route choices, wintering locations, the risk of plague among the troops, enemy counterattacks, internal revolt, and the personal safety of the king. Questions include whether the army should take a particular route, whether to bivouac at a certain mountain, such as Mt. Ḫaḫarwa, or whether an alternative winter base would be safer.

Female officials thus played a crucial role in Hittite warfare, a field that was predominantly male. In addition to the KIN oracle, military decision-making also involved consultations performed by men, including augury (MUŠEN), extispicy (SU or flesh oracles), and the MUŠEN ḪURRI (cave-bird) oracle. However, considering the general social status of women and the fact that the Old Women were otherwise responsible for incantation and healing rituals, this situation is quite remarkable.

A second major area concerns cultic neglect and divine anger. Texts such as KBo 14.21 (CTH 565) use KIN oracles to diagnose why a specific god – here Pirwa – is angry. Possible causes investigated include missed monthly or yearly festivals, embezzled offerings, and improperly handled sacrificial animals. Having identified the cause, the inquiry then tests proposals for restitution until the symbolic result signals that the gods are appeased.

Related to this are questions about the king’s health, plague, and long-term well-being. Several dossiers – including KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ (CTH 563) – focus on threats to the king: sickness, fire in the palace, chariot accidents, internal revolt, and the consequences of sin and divine anger. One text, KUB 6.7+ (CTH 572), even preserves a series of questions asking whether the deity ‘sees me perishing in year one, year two … up to year nine,’ turning the king’s future lifespan into an object of systematic oracular scrutiny.

Across all these topics, a single underlying assumption is at work: misfortune and danger arise from divine dissatisfaction, and the KIN oracle serves as a tool for uncovering both the human causes and the divine response.

5. Experts

KIN oracles were, as far as we know, exclusively practiced by the female ritual expert known by the logographically written name ^MUNUŠŠU.GI, literally ‘Old Woman,’ and, in the plural ^MUNUŠ.MEŠŠU.GI ‘Old Women’. This specialist is also known as one of the most important practitioners of incantation and healing rituals (or ‘magical rituals’).

The Hittite term underlying the Sumerogram ŠU.GI is unclear. According to some scholars, the logogram originally stood for the Hittite word ḫaša(u)wa-, ‘midwife,’ suggesting that the professional figure of the Old Woman developed out of an earlier birth specialist (Beckman G.M. 1983, 232–235; Beal R.H. 2001, 76).

This identification is, however, not generally accepted, especially since her role in birth rituals is secondary (for a critical assessment of her role, see Marcuson H. 2016a, 3–20; Warbinek L. 2020a, 75–77). What is clear is that she was one of the most important ritual and oracle practitioners in the Hittite kingdom, who enjoyed a high status at the Hittite court and was frequently consulted to prevent and dispel all kinds of misfortune.

It is also noteworthy that several of these ŠU.GI women were recognized by name for their unique rituals tailored to specific situations, such as family disputes, illness, slander, or witchcraft, which were documented by royal scribes and often passed down through the generations for several centuries.

In the field of divination, the ŠU.GI woman stands out because, as a female practitioner, she conducts one of the most significant and well-documented oracular practices, addressing a wide range of concerns. The only other female divination expert is the ENSI woman, usually translated as ‘seeress, or female seer,’ whose primary role appears to be dream interpretation. However, this practice is attested by far fewer sources and seems to have a more limited scope of application.

Some scholars have assumed that also the snake oracle (MUŠ oracle), of which only ten texts from the New Hittite period have survived, was likewise conducted by the ^MUNUSŠU.GI (see, e.g., Haas V. 2008a, 23; Hout Th.P.J. van den 2003e, 119). However, as Marcuson H. 2016a, 99) has rightly pointed out, this assumption stems from a misunderstanding of a passage in IBoT 1.33 (ed. Laroche E. 1958b). The oracle question pertains to a conflicting outcome from an oracle consultation conducted by a practitioner named Mezzulla and a group of Old Women. It aims to determine whether the statements of these women or the outcome from the snake oracle were accurate.

Another female divination specialist is the ^MUNUSENSI, most commonly translated as ‘seeress,’ ‘female seer,’ ‘prophetess’. There is, however, no evidence to indicate that she performed KIN oracles. Instead, various sources suggest that she worked as a dream interpreter, but the details of her role in divination are still a matter of debate (for a discussion, see Warbinek L. 2019c). However, there is no evidence that she also performed KIN oracles.

The other major divinatory techniques – extispicy on slaughtered sheep, the ḪURRI bird oracle (a kind of extispicy performed on a bird living in caves), and augury (the observation of free-flying birds) – were all carried out by male experts: specifically, the diviner (^LÚḪAL or ^LÚAZU) and the augur (^LÚIGI.MUŠEN / ^LÚIGI.DÙ / ^LÚMUŠEN.DÙ).

The question of whether the KIN oracle was performed by a single Old Woman or by a group of practitioners working together has been addressed in recent scholarship. In most cuneiform tablets, the standard introductory formula names only one woman (IŠTU ^MUNUSŠU.GI ER-TUM QATAMMA-pat nu KIN SIG₅-ru / NU.SIG₅-du “the very same question through the Old Woman: let the KIN oracle be unfavorable”). However, a small but significant group of New Hittite texts uses the plural, and in several passages the Old Women speak in direct speech introduced by the formula UM-MA ^MUNUS.MEŠŠU.GI, “Thus (speak) the Old Women.” On the basis of this evidence, Warbinek has proposed that the KIN oracle was not occasionally but usually performed collectively by a team of Old Women, with each practitioner conducting one of the successive symbolic ‘passes’ that together constituted the full oracular inquiry. The uniform singular in later tablets would then reflect scribal standardization rather than the reality of performance (Warbinek L. 2017a, 111–120; Warbinek L. 2020a, 84–86). However, this remains a hypothesis that cannot be adequately supported by the available sources. In my view, it seems more likely that the ‘Old Women’ worked in teams only occasionally when conducting the KIN Oracle. This aligns with the situation in magical rituals, where typically only one ‘Old Woman’ is mentioned as the ‘author’ and performer of the ritual, though at times, two or more practitioners are mentioned. Furthermore, titles like GAL ^MUNUS.MEŠŠU.GI (‘Chief of the Old Women’), ‘Old Woman of the palace,’ ‘Old Woman of the temple of Ziparwa,’ and ‘Old Woman of the Sun-God’ point to a distribution of tasks and a hierarchical structure within the group (Marcuson H. 2016a, 397–398).

It is striking that the name of the ‘Old Woman’ is almost never mentioned in KIN oracles. This stands in contrast not only to the bird oracles, where the name of the augur or augurs is typically mentioned in the formula ‘thus speaks PN’ or ‘thus speak PN + PN,’ but also to the records of ‘magical rituals,’ in whose incipits and colophons the name of the ‘Old Woman’ is usually given. For the only attested names of ‘Old Woman’ in KIN oracles, see Warbinek L. 2020a, 84–86.

6. Internal Structure

While the exact performance of the KIN oracle remains opaque, the reports’ internal logic is relatively clear. A typical KIN paragraph has four components:

Question: A statement of the issue, framed either as a direct question (“Is Pirwa angry because the monthly festival was omitted?”) or as a conditional clause (“If the king winters in Ḫattuša, will he be endangered by sickness, fire, or revolt?”).

Inquiry formula: A request that the KIN be favorable or unfavorable, chosen so that the desired divine answer – yes or no – corresponds logically to the requested result.

The standard phrasing for a request for a favorable outcome is nu KIN SIG₅-ru / ŠE-ru (lazziyattaru), meaning “let the KIN oracle be favorable.” In contrast, a request for an unfavorable outcome is expressed as nu KIN NU.SIG₅-du / NU.ŠE-ru (kallarešdu), which translates to “let the KIN oracle be unfavorable.”

Symbolic moves: For which see below.

Result: The final outcome – ‘favorable’ or ‘unfavorable’ – is recorded once at the end of the paragraph, after all passes.

7. Symbolic Passes and Their Meaning

7.1 The Different Rounds

A single KIN oracle inquiry consists of one to four symbolic passes, each representing a self-contained unit of divine action. In the texts, these passes are introduced by time markers — literally “first day’ (UD 1^KAM), ‘second day’ (UD 2^KAM), ‘third day’ (UD 3^KAM). These labels likely do not indicate actual days, but rather different rounds of the oracle procedure, which was presumably conducted in a single session. A fourth pass, marked 4 urkiš (‘fourth trace’), is less common. The result — favorable (SIG₅) or unfavorable (NU.SIG₅) — is recorded only once, at the end of all passes. As Warbinek has demonstrated, the combined outcome of all passes determines the verdict; individual passes are not evaluated in isolation (Warbinek L. 2020a, 43–68).

7.2 Symbols as Cosmic Realities

To understand how the KIN oracle produces its results, it is essential to appreciate what the symbols represent within a Hittite worldview. The tokens used in the oracle are not abstract labels; they represent real forces that the Hittites understood as constitutive of cosmic order: divine favor, prosperity, anger, life, sin, well-being, wrath, and plague. These were not merely ideas but active realities that could be held, bestowed, or withdrawn by divine powers.

Within this framework, each pass of the KIN oracle depicts a real divine act. When the oracle records that a deity 'arose, took life and gave it to the king', this is not a metaphor: in the divine sphere, the life-force is genuinely being allocated to the king’s domain. Conversely, when anger is seized and placed elsewhere, divine wrath is actually being redirected away from him. The oracle functions as a window into this divine activity, and its symbolic moves encode the state of cosmic forces with respect to the oracle subject. This relational dimension — who gives what to whom, and from whose sphere things are removed — is the key to understanding how results are reached (Warbinek L. 2020a, 55-68).

7.3 The Structure of a Single Pass

Each pass follows a fixed template. Drawing on the analysis of Warbinek L. 2020a, 43-68), four structural positions can be distinguished:

The active symbol (mover): the entity that initiates the action. Usually a deity, it ‘arises’ (GUB-iš) before acting — a formula that marks divine initiative. Non-divine agents (such as ASSEMBLY, ILLNESS, or ANGER) can also act, but without this formula. Crucially, the active symbol does not contribute to the calculation of the result; it is a cosmic carrier whose own quality is irrelevant to the outcome.

Position A — the taken object(s): one or more passive symbols seized and carried by the mover — such as LIFE, WELL-BEING, SIN, ANGER, LONG YEARS, or the WHOLE SOUL.

Position B — the recipient: the entity to which the taken object is given. This is a new holder: a person, deity, group, or force that now possesses or governs the transferred symbol.

Position C — the final location: an optional spatial or directional qualifier specifying where the transferred object ends up in cosmic space. Unlike Position B, this is not a recipient but a destination: ‘into EVIL,’ ‘behind the KING,’ ‘to the right side of the KING,’ ‘into EMPTINESS.’ A pass may include both a recipient (B) and a location (C).

The distinction between recipient (B) and location (C) is of central importance. Position B describes a transfer of possession: something is given to an entity that now holds it. Position C describes a spatial fate: something is placed into a domain or direction without any specific entity receiving it. In KUB 22.37 obv. 8′–10′, the SUN-GOD OF HEAVEN arises, takes LONG YEARS, LIFE, PROTECTION, the FAVOR OF THE FATE DEITY, the WHOLE SOUL, and HOUSE — all inherently positive symbols — and deposits them ‘into EVIL.’ Every positive force flows into the domain of harm, and no one benefits. The verdict is unambiguously unfavorable (Warbinek L. 2020a, 47-54).

7.4 Absolute and Relative Values

Each KIN symbol carries an inherent value derived from what it represents — what Warbinek calls its ‘absolute value’ (Warbinek L. 2020a, 43-46). LIFE, WELL-BEING, RIGHTNESS, DIVINE FAVOR, LONG YEARS, and PEACE are positive; ILLNESS, SIN, WRATH, EVIL, FIRE, and PLAGUE are negative. A smaller group of symbols has a context-dependent value (marked ‘>’ in the symbol list in section 9.1).

However, absolute values alone are not enough to determine the result of a pass. What matters just as much is the relative value of a symbol: its meaning given the direction and context of the specific transfer. A positive symbol that is being removed from the oracle subject does not represent a gain; it represents a loss. Its relative value in that pass is therefore negative. The same logic applies in reverse: a negative symbol removed from the king’s domain is a burden being lifted, which is good news (Warbinek L. 2020a, 46–55).

The oracle text KBo 2.2 offers a striking illustration. The question concerns whether the king will fall ill. One pass records that the MINOR ILLNESS (GIG.TUR) took the LAND (KUR) and the YEAR (MU) and gave them to the ASSEMBLY (panku-). Considered in isolation, LAND, YEAR, and ASSEMBLY all carry positive absolute values. Yet the oracle is performed on behalf of the king: the LAND and the YEAR are his land and his years of reign. The pass shows illness seizing these things and transferring them away from him into the community’s hands. The king’s vital resources are flowing out of his sphere. Their relative value in this pass is therefore negative, and the result is unfavorable — a portent that the king’s land and years will be lost (Warbinek L. 2020a, 53-55; Archi A. 1974a, 130-131).

7.5 How the Result Is Determined

The result of each individual pass is determined by combining the relative value of the taken object(s) with the value of the recipient (B) or the location (C). The governing principle follows a straightforward sign logic: two same-sign elements produce a positive sub-result; two opposite-sign elements produce a negative sub-result. This logic has been expressed by Warbinek L. 2020a, 55 in plain terms:

A positive thing given to a positive recipient — or placed in a positive location — produces a favorable result: the friend of my friend is my friend.

A positive thing given to a negative recipient — or placed in a negative location — produces an unfavorable result: the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

A negative thing given to a positive recipient produces an unfavorable result: the enemy of my friend is my enemy.

A negative thing given to a negative recipient — or deposited in a negative location — produces a favorable result: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This last rule is especially consequential. A pass in which ANGER, ILLNESS, or SIN is taken and deposited with the ENEMY, or placed into EMPTINESS (SUD-li / šannapili-), can yield a favorable sub-result: the burden has been removed from the king and neutralized. The special function of EMPTINESS as a destination that absorbs and cancels negative content was already noted by Orlamünde J. 2001b, 308 and Marcuson H. 2016a, 143–144, and further exemplified by Warbinek L. 2020a, 65–66).

7.6 Multi-Pass Oracles and the Final Verdict

In oracles with more than one pass, the sub-results of all passes are combined to produce the final verdict. The same sign logic applies across passes as within them: two negative sub-results together yield a positive combined outcome. This means that a single unfavorable pass does not automatically render the entire oracle unfavorable; its charge may be canceled by another negative pass in the sequence. The verdict is always the outcome of the whole oracle, never of any individual step (Warbinek L. 2020a, 56–66).

The tablet KBo 24.126 provides a clear positive example: in the second pass, the favors of the gods are taken and given to the Mother-Goddess ḪANNAḪANNA — a positive object reaches a positive recipient, producing a positive sub-result. When the other passes in the same inquiry follow the same pattern, the combined verdict is correspondingly favorable (Warbinek L. 2020a, 53).

When an oracle is repeated, and each attempt returns an unfavorable result, the finding is treated as confirmed. The oracle letter KuT 49 records a case in which an inquiry was conducted four consecutive times, each time yielding an unfavorable verdict, before the practitioners switched to a different divination method for cross-checking (Wilhelm G. 1998a, 175-180; new edition: Trameri A. (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 190).

7.7 Context-Dependent and Variable Symbols

A number of KIN symbols do not carry a fixed absolute value but are inherently context-dependent or variable (marked ‘>’ or ‘+/-“ in section 9.1). The SUN-GOD OF HEAVEN (^DUTU AN-E) is one such case: listed with a negative value as a recipient, it nonetheless appears as the agent of entirely favorable passes. This reflects the deeper relational logic of the system. When the same deity appears in KBo 18.142 obv. 8–10, taking RIGHTNESS and bestowing it upon the ASSEMBLY, the result is favorable; when it appears in KUB 22.37, depositing all good things into EVIL, the result is catastrophic. The deity’s own quality contributes nothing in either case. What matters is what is moved and where it ends up.

Similarly, symbols such as HIDDEN ANGER (EGIR arḫa karpin) and HIDDEN SIN (EGIR arḫa wastul) are negative in absolute terms, but when they are transferred away from the king and his land to a hostile or neutral destination, their relative value becomes positive. This is consistent with the broader logic of Hittite ritual practice, in which sins and divine anger must be identified, named, and displaced before healing and divine goodwill can be restored.

For a comprehensive treatment of the symbolic calculus, including a full discussion of the individual pass calculation and the combination of multiple passes, see Warbinek L. 2020a, 43–74, who also addresses apparent exceptions and the limits of current reconstruction.

8. Procedure – How was it Really Carried Out?

Despite great advances in our understanding of the KIN oracle’s internal structure and function, the exact physical process remains unclear. Reports describe symbolic operations but do not provide information on the actual handling of hands and objects, and unfortunately, no procedural manual has survived.Scholarly proposals for the physical setting include lot-casting (cleromancy); observation of an animal passing specific marks in an enclosure; manipulation of strings or similar objects; and a board-game-like procedure.

8.1 Lot oracle: The earliest and long-dominant interpretation identified the KIN oracle as a form of cleromancy (Goetze A. 1933a, 140; second edition: Goetze A. 1957e, 155; Kammenhuber A. 1976c, 202). This interpretation has been reasonably dismissed because the Hittite terms used for lot manipulation (pulai-) and for lot itself (pul-) do not appear in KIN oracles. Additionally, the procedural verbs involved – such as taking, giving, and placing – indicate a process different from lot casting (see, Archi A. 1974a, 130; Beal R.H. 2002f, 76 with note 128; for the Hittite evidence for lot-casting, see Taggar-Cohen A. 2002b).

8.2 ‘Maze-experiment’ performed with an animal: Alternatively, Archi A. 1974a, 131 and Beal R.H. 2002f, 77 suggested that the KIN oracle was a kind of animal behavioral oracle similar to the bird oracle (MUŠEN) and the snake-oracle (MUŠ). In this interpretation, a single animal is released into an enclosure and assumes the name of a specific symbol based on the point it crosses or the doorway it enters. The animal then metaphorically ‘takes’ various passive symbols by brushing against them or walking alongside them. The receptacle symbol would be the door through which the animal exits or the symbol it crosses as it leaves.

This hypothesis is attractive given the Hittites’ documented interest in animal behavior, but it faces several problems. Firstly, unlike the bird and snake oracles, the KIN oracle never mentions an animal or indicates that an animal was involved. Secondly, the process would be quite complicated. Given the large number of symbols, the enclosure would consist of many marks that give the animal its name, which are walked along or brushed against and passed through while leaving the field. The unpredictable behavior of an animal does not fit with the standardized and uniform KIN procedure. How can it be that, despite numerous cross-points available, the animal typically ‘takes’ one to three symbols?

8.3 Board game-like procedure: According to Orlamünde J. 2001b, 309–311; Haas V. 2008a, 20–21, and Warbinek L. 2020a, 93–95, the KIN procedure might have resembled a board game, with symbolic counters moved across a defined field according to rules that remain obscure. This model was prompted by the sheer diversity and multitude of named symbols – concrete objects, abstract qualities, divine entities, and entities drawn directly from the oracle question itself.

9. Combination with Other Techniques

KIN oracles were often combined with other techniques, most commonly extispicy on slaughtered sheep (SU oracle), bird oracles (MUŠEN), and ḪURRI bird oracles (MUŠEN ḪURRI). This combination of different techniques was used to verify the oracle results. If both techniques produced the same outcome, the oracle inquiry was concluded or shifted to another issue. However, if the results of the two methods differed, further investigations were initiated.

The king and his advisors strategically employed various methods in their divination practices. They could ask a question in a different way or repeat the same oracle if the previous answer was unclear or unwelcome, always respecting the divine right to provide a response.

10. Difficulties

The study of the KIN oracle faces several intertwined challenges. Many tablets are badly preserved, and in others, only the symbolic moves are preserved without the accompanying questions, making it impossible to reconstruct the underlying scenario. Particularly small tablets are often written in a sloppy cursive handwriting that is difficult to decipher, while larger, more comprehensive tablets often compress the data so heavily that individual steps are difficult to follow.

A further issue is that the texts do not provide information about the KIN procedure itself. We can reconstruct the symbolic grammar of the oracle, but not the material apparatus that generated it. The symbolic calculus also raises interpretive difficulties. Some procedures appear to violate the proposed rules, raising questions about scribal error, deliberate manipulation, or simply a more nuanced system than can currently be reconstructed (Warbinek L. 2020a, 47–74 with further literature).

Due to the scarcity of sources predating the New Hittite period, it is also challenging to trace the development of the technique from the Old Hittite period (or even the pre-Hittite period) onward and to understand how older traditions may have differed from the standard procedures documented in the New Hittite period.

Despite these limitations, the KIN oracle provides valuable insights into Hittite views on decision-making, cult organization, crisis management, and feelings of responsibility and guilt. Its blend of abstract symbolism with specific royal issues gives it an essential role in understanding Hittite culture. The Old Women who mastered this oracle were significant figures in Hittite government, warfare, cult organization, and private matters at the Hittite court.

11. Terminology

11.1. List of KIN Symbols

	Symbol name	English translation	Role & value A = active (mover); B = recipient (passive); C = location; ~ (neutral; joker sign); > relative (value depends on constellation)
1	āššu- / aššuwant- / SIG₅(-want-) / ŠE	GOOD	+
2	utneaš / KUR-eaš / KUR-aš āššu	GOOD OF THE LAND	+
3	parnaš āššu	GOOD OF THE HOUSE	+
4	aššul- / SILIM / SILIM-ul	WELL-BEING	+
5	ḫaštai-	STRENGTH	+
6	innarawatar	VIGOR	+/−
7	(DUG)išpanduz(z)i-	LIBATION (VESSEL)	+
8	kammara-	FOG	−
9	karpi- / TUKU / TUKU.TUKU	ANGER (also in PL. ANGERS)	−
10	memiya- / INIM	WORD	+
11	minumar(ḪI.A)	FAVOR(S)	+
12	DINGIRMEŠ-aš minumar(ḪI.A)	FAVORS OF THE GODS	+
13	DNAM-aš minumar(ḪI.A)	FAVORS OF (THE DEMON/GOD OF DESTINY) NAM.TAR	+
14	DGulš-aš minumar(ḪI.A)	FAVORS OF THE FATE DEITY/DEITIES	+
15	mukeššar	INVOCATION RITUAL	+
16	SISKUR / SÍSKUR	OFFERING / INVOCATION RITUAL	−
17	nakki(-šet)	(HIS) DIFFICULTY	−
18	paḫḫur / IZI	FIRE	−
19	ŠÀ-az/-za paḫḫur / IZI	FIRE FROM WITHIN / FIRE FROM THE HEART	−
20	paḫšanumar / PAP-mar / PAP-numar	PROTECTION	−
21	panku-	ASSEMBLY	+
22	pankur	CLAN	+
23	pituliya-	ANGUISH	−
24	takšul / takšulatar	PACT, PEACE TREATY	+
25	tapašša-	FEVER	−
26	tarnumar	RELEASE	+
27	uwatar / IGI.LÁ	SIGHT	+
28	IGIḪI.A-waš uwatar- / IGI.LÁ	EYE-SIGHT	+
29	DINGIR IGIḪI.A-waš uwatar- / IGI.LÁ/	EYE-SIGHT (OF THE DEITY)	+
30	DINGIR.MAḪ IGI.LÁ	EYE-SIGHT OF ḪANNAḪANNA	+
31	IGIḪI.A-wa SAG.DU-i	THE PERSON’S EYES / SIGHT	+
32	waštul	SIN	−
33	šalli-/GAL waštul	GREAT SIN	−
34	pān waštul	OVERT SIN	+
35	āppan arḫa waštul / EGIR arḫa waštul	HIDDEN SIN	–
36	āppan arḫa karpi- / EGIR arḫa TUKU.TUKU / TUKU	HIDDEN ANGER	–
37	āppan arḫa GÙB-tar	HIDDEN SINISTERNESS	–
38	A.A / muwa-	POWER	+
39	ŠA LUGAL muwa-	POWER OF THE KING	+
40	BÀD / kutt-	WALL	+
41	BAL / šipantuwar	OFFERING	−
42	BAL / wakkariya-	REVOLT	−
43	D/GIŠDAG / Ḫalmašuit-	THRONE / THRONE DEITY	+
44	EGIR-pa D/GIŠDAG	BEHIND THE THRONE	C / +
45	DINGIR.MAḪ / Ḫannaḫanna	ḪANNAḪANNA (MOTHER-GODDESS)	+
46	DUḪ / DU₈ / la(i)-	RELEASE / DEFEAT	+
47	LÚaraš DUḪ	DEFEAT OF THE FRIEND	−
48	LÚKÚR-aš DUḪ	DEFEAT OF THE ENEMY	+
49	EGIR.UD(MI) / ziladuwa-	FUTURE	+
50	ÉRINMEŠ / tuzzi-	TROOPS	+
51	EZEN₄	FESTIVAL	+
52	GEŠPU / taraḫḫuwa-	FORCE	+
53	GIDIMḪI.A	SPIRITS OF THE DEAD	+
54	GIG / ištarni(n)gai-	ILLNESS	−
55	GIG.GAL	MAJOR ILLNESS	−
56	GIG.TUR	MINOR ILLNESS	>
57	GISKIM / šagai-	SIGN	−
58	SA₅	RED	−
59	NU.SIG₅ GISKIM	UNFAVORABLE SIGN	−
60	LÚKÚR GISKIM	SIGN OF THE ENEMY	+
61	GÙB-tar / GÙB-latar	SINISTERNESS	−
62	ANA LUGAL GÙB-za	TO THE LEFT OF THE KING	−
63	ḪUL-lu / ḪUL-luwant- / idalu-	EVIL	−
64	KARAŠ(ḪI.A) / tuzzi-	ARMY	+/−
65	ŠA LÚKÚR KARAŠ(ḪI.A)	THE ENEMY’S ARMY	−
66	KASKAL / palša-	CAMPAIGN / EXPEDITION	−
67	KASKAL LUGAL	THE KING’S CAMPAIGN / EXPEDITION	+
68	LÚKÚR	ENEMY	−
69	EGIR-pa LÚKÚR	BEHIND THE ENEMY	C; +
70	LUGAL	KING (HITTITE)	+
71	EGIR-pa LUGAL-i	BEHIND THE KING	C; −
72	MÈ / zaḫḫai-	BATTLE	+
73	MU	YEAR	+
74	MU(ḪI.A/KAM) GÍD.DA	LONG YEARS	+
75	DNAM(.TAR) / DNAM.TAR-RU	NAM.TAR (DEITY OF DESTINY)	+
76	NINDA.GUR₄.RA / ḫarši-	THICK BREAD	+
77	SUD-li- / šannapili-	EMPTINESS	~
78	anda / ŠÀ SUD-li	INTO EMPTINESS	C; >
79	ŠU	HAND	+
80	TI-tar / ḫuišwatar	LIFE	+
81	kalutaš TI-tar / ḫuišwatar	LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY	−
82	GIŠTUKUL	WEAPON	−
83	D10	STORM-GOD	+
84	Ù	DREAM	+
85	UD(KAM)-aš SAG.KI-za RA-ar	THE FRONTAL BLOW OF THE DAY	−
86	ÚŠ / ḫenkan	DEATH / PLAGUE	−
87	DUTU	SUN-DEITY	+
88	DUTU AN	SUN-GOD OF HEAVEN	−
89	ANA DUTU AN-E	TO THE SUN-GOD OF HEAVEN	R; >
90	DUTU ME-E	SUN-GOD OF WATER	+
91	ZAG	BORDER	+
92	ZAG-tar / kunnatar	RIGHTNESS	+
93	ANA LUGAL ZAG-za	TO THE RIGHT OF THE KING	+
94	ZALAG.GA / lalukkima-	LIGHT	+
95	ZI / ištanzan(a)-	SOUL	+
96	ḫumant- ZI	WHOLE SOUL	+
97	DA.BI(-ant) ZI	WHOLE SOUL	+
98	ADAMMU / ešḫar-	BLOOD	− /+
99	ŠA LUGAL ADAMMA	KING’S BLOOD	+
100	ŠA DUMU ADAMMA	SON’S BLOOD	+
101	UNUTU	IMPLEMENT (CULT OBJECT)	+
102	DZABABA	WAR-GOD	+

11.2 Abbreviations

Abbreviation	Unabbreviated term	Translation
iš	išpantuzzi	‘LIBATION, LIBATION VESSEL’
mimar	minumar	FAVOR
pa	panku-	ASSEMBLY
pa-i	pangaui / pangawi	‘to the ASSEMBLY’
pa-an	panku-	ASSEMBLY
pa-ni	pangawi	‘to the ASSEMBLY’
pa-u-i	pangawi	‘to the ASSEMBLY’
pa-za	pankuš=za	‘the ASSEMBLY (took) for itself’
zi-aš	zilaš	‘oracle result, sign’
DA	DA.BI = ḫumant-	‘WHOLE, ENTIRE, ENTIRETY’
DA-an	DA.BI-an = ḫuman	WHOLE, ENTIRE, ENTIRETY (ACC.SG)
DA-na	DA.BI-n=a = ḫumantann=a	‘and the WHOLE’ (ACC.SG)