This text is not a typical oracle report. It is structured as a list of entries containing “cases” related to family law and customs; in KUB 43, where the handcopy of the tablet is published, Riemschneider K.K. 1972a, V, considered it: “Möglicherweise keine Omina, sondern Vorschriften z. T. familienrechtlicher Art”. These features of the text were also discussed in Ünal A. 1998d, 112-118.

More precisely, the content can be considered pseudo- or para-legal, as it does not aim to establish a normative behavior. Although it describes certain behaviors and their consequences, and is structured in a casuistic style, with protases and apodoses, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ outcomes of these actions and events are predicted based on the observation of birds’ flights, as indicated by some of the best-preserved paragraphs. Nonetheless, the fragmentary state of the text prevents us from determining the full scope of the composition with certainty. Within the text, there are no internal references to its ‘genre’, and typologically it seems to stand at an intersection between oracular practice and normative instructions on interpersonal relations.

As noted by Archi A. 1975e, 126-127, this text, due to its characteristics, provides some traces of the existence of a theory of ornithomancy. Within the Hittite corpus of divination texts, this ‘theoretical’ content aligns more closely with the Mesopotamian theory literature of the omen compendia, than with the typical Hittite oracle reports that record actual observations of bird flights. There are very few examples of texts with similar content in Hittite: for another notable example, see especially KUB 18.1(+) (CTH 557). According to Ünal A. 1998d, 114-115, the use of the Hurrian term ḫuru for māru, (obv. I 13´) wich is unusual in Hittite context, may further suggest dependence on Mesopotamian models.

As analysed by Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 458, the structure of each paragraph includes (at least) two protases. Although not all of them can be fully read, the first protasis describes a specific situation, while the second the movement or position of a bird. The apodosis then predicts a particular outcome, which, presumably, depends on the bird’s sign. In at least one case (§14-15), both positive and negative outcomes are provided, along with the corresponding predictive bird movement or position. All the ‘cases’ presented in the text address certain aspects of legal and familial significance, although most remain difficult to reconstruct.

The first paragraphs in the text (§1-7) deal with various cases of (sexual) unions between a man and young girls, followed, apparently, by circumstances involving their male offspring (§8-11). In one of the few discussions on this composition, Ünal A. 1998d, 114, suggested that the cases involve the union between a free man and women of various social status. However, the focus here seems to be on the age of the girl rather than her social standing. The language is difficult, and several passages are hardly clear (see e.g. §2, and infra, Other characteristics).

On the reverse, one case refers to a man taking a girl in marriage (§13), followed by separate paragraphs describing distinct movements of a bird (§14-15), which the man himself sees or will see (kola 83-84, 87). This part of the composition differs somewhat from the earlier sections. The end of the composition is broken off.

The text also includes a colophon, recording the names of the scribe who wrote the tablet and his supervisor. Unfortunately, the first name is lost, and the second cannot be read with certainty. As Waal W. 2015a, 201 n. 629 observed, the presence of a colophon is remarkable and unusual in divination texts (for a collection of colophons from oracles, see ibid. 387-390). This further underscores the unique nature of the text, which does not conform to standard oracle reports. Several aspects of the text present challenges. First, the state of preservation of the tablet, including its abraded surface in some areas, makes reading difficult, leaving the edition of several passages tentative. Additionally, even in some better-preserved sections, the content is difficult to interpret. Our translation discusses some of these issues in the notes.

Handcopy: H. Otten (KBo 13, Otten H. 1967c); K. Riemschneider (KUB 43, Riemschneider K.K. 1972a).

The join between the two fragments was discovered by Y. Sakuma (7.5.2008), whereas Ünal A. 1998d, 114, 117 considered them to belong to different, partially parallel texts.

A transliteration and partial commentary of both fragments in Ünal A. 1998d, 115-117. A few lines were discussed also in Archi A. 1975e, 126-127. A transliteration of KBo 13.71 in Torri G. – Barsacchi F.G. 2018b, 85-86. Selective discussion of the oracular descriptions of bird flight in Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 458-462. On the colophon see some comments and tentative restorations in Dardano P. 2006a, 36; Waal W. 2015a, 388-389; Gordin S. 2015a, 208.

In the handcopy of KUB 43.22, the fragment is considered part of a two-columned tablet, preserving portions of the first and fourth column. However, it cannot be ruled out this was a one-columned tablet. A colophon is also preserved, written on the left long edge of the tablet. The tablet is orderly written, and features bordered edges, framing the text in a regular layout (Randeleiste).

NS (jh.); diagnostic signs: DA, ḪAR, IK, IT, LI, TAR. AL unclear (frg. 2, obv. I 6´).

Some forms used in the passages with oracular content are not frequent in bird oracles. For example, the spelling of the accusative/adverbial forms of the technical terms tar(uya)li- and GUN-li-, tarlin and GUN-in are atypical (usually tar-li₁₂-an and GUN-li₁₂-an). As it is the case in other bird oracles, in the sentences describing the movements of birds, the verbal form wet (‘it came’) is omitted. Several passages have a non-standard formulary, thus their interpretation is difficult.

Among some peculiarities of the passages with oracular content, we can note the absence of the name of the bird, or even the common noun MUŠEN, as the subject of the sentences obviously describing bird flights. It is possible that the subject was introduced explicitly in the fragmentary lines of the beginning of the text, and that in the rest of the composition the recurring subject would be obvious to the reader. It is doubtful whether the fragmentary form [...]-yaššiš=šan (kolon 3) can be the bird’s name, since we cannot restore it through the available bird names. It is possible that the subject was a generic bird (MUŠEN), and that the flight descriptions would apply to any bird observed in a certain position or flying in a specific way.

One could entertain the option that the two animals mentioned in §8 and §9, namely a ‘wolf’ and a kurala- animal could be birds (for the ‘wolf’-bird see our edition of DAAM 1.21; CTH 581.29), but this is doubtful, especially since in these sections there is no bird oracle terminology, as far as preserved. For the identification of the animal kurala- as a bird (k. 59), see our discussion in the edition of CTH 188.1 and in Trameri A. 2025b. However, see previously Collins B.J. 2003a for a different suggestion, ‘hart’ (male Red Deer).

One possibility is that the ‘wolf’ in this text refers to a quite different context. In the Hittite Laws, §37 (KBo 6.2 II 10; KBo 6.3 II; see Hoffner H.A. 1997a, 44) states: “If anyone runs off with a woman, and a group of supporters goes after them, if 3 men or 2 men are killed, there shall be no compensation: “You (sg.) have become a wolf.” (Hoffner’s translation). The direct quotation at the end is most likely addressed to the person who abducted the woman. Since the laws in §§26–35 are dedicated to matters of family law and various forms of union, it is possible that the reference to ‘wolf’ in the present text should be interpreted in a similar framework – though the meaning of this peculiar statement in this law remains difficult to determine (see a brief discussion in Hoffner 1997a, 187, with earlier literature).

LÚmayananni- (Frg. 1) obv.! 6 (kolon 13), hapax; Tischler J. 1990-1991a, L-M, 95: ‘Knabe, junger Mann’, Kloekhorst A. 2008a, 542: ‘young man(?)’.

Tischler J. 1990-1991a, L-M, 95 understood this form as derived from the oblique stem of a noun *mayatar, possibly with the hypochoristic/diminutive suffix -(a)nni-: ‘(young/little) boy’. The CHD does not discuss this form, which belongs to a group of words derived from the verbal stem mai-/miya- ‘to grow (etc.)’, such as maya- (‘adulthood(?)’), (LÚ)mayant- (‘young man’; ‘mature, youthful’ (etc.)), (LÚ)maya(n)tatar- (‘young adulthood, youth’), etc.

For an interpretation of the sentences in kola 1 and 13, the language is not entirely transparent. In principle, k. 1 might refer to the union of a man with a woman or a girl, but possibly also “a woman (who is) a girl”. The same problem goes with k. 13. Literally, the text seems to imply that a man here unites (sexually) with a woman, (or) a girl, (or) a boy/young man. A different interpretation was provided in Tischler J. 1990-1991a, L-M, 95, credited to Erich Neu: “(…) ‘wenn ein Mann aber (und) eine Frau zu einem Mädchen (bzw.) zu einem Knaben? geht …’ (d. h. Mann zum Mädchen, Frau zum Knaben). This interpretation, however, relies on an unlikely reading of MUNUS-⸢aš⸣ as subject, instead of MUNUS-n[i], which is strongly supported by the parallel clause in the first line of the text.

Unless, we should consider other solutions, such as a reference to the age of the subject of the sentence (see note n. 7 to the translation), or, as discussed for k. 1 as well, to understand the dative mayananni as apposition to MUNUSKI.SIKIL, with the function of a further specification of the girl’s age in the protasis: “If a man goes to a woman (who is) a girl in ‘the prime of age’”. The latter interpretation is possible only if this term did not refer exclusively to a male referent – a point difficult to demonstrate given the use of the determinative LÚ.