The Babylonian Summa Immeru Omens: Transmission, Reception and Text Production (Dubsar) 9783963270420, 396327042X

Citation preview

dubsar 9 Cohen • The Babylonian šumma immeru Omens

www.zaphon.de

The Babylonian šumma immeru Omens Transmission, Reception and Text Production

Yoram Cohen dubsar 9 Zaphon

dubsar-9-Cohen-Cover---Berlin-Ram.indd 1

27.08.2020 15:08:22

The Babylonian šumma immeru Omens Transmission, Reception and Text Production

Yoram Cohen

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

dubsar Altorientalistische Publikationen Publications on the Ancient Near East Band 9 Herausgegeben von Kristin Kleber und Kai A. Metzler

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

The Babylonian šumma immeru Omens Transmission, Reception and Text Production

Yoram Cohen

Zaphon Münster 2020

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Illustration on the cover: Sumerian, Ram’s Head, Uruk Period, Uruk. © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin–Vorderasiatisches Museum. Foto: Olaf M. Teßmer. Illustration on page iii: Sumerian. Head of a Ewe, c. 3200 B.C. Sandstone. 5 3/4 × 5 1/2 × 6 1/8 in. (14.6 × 14 × 15.6 cm). AP 1979.38. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas.

The Babylonian šumma immeru Omens. Transmission, Reception and Text Production Yoram Cohen dubsar 9

© 2020 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany. Printed on acid-free paper. ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 ISSN 2627-7174

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Table of Contents List of Figures

xi

Acknowledgements xiii Preface xv Abbreviations xix Abbreviations for the šumma immeru Omens xxii The šumma immeru Omens Textual Sources

xxiii

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

Part I: Research and Publication History of the šumma immeru Omens

1

1. The Standard Version (ca. 1880s–1940s; 1980)

2

2. The Assur Manuscripts (1930s; 2012)

8

3. The Old Babylonian Version (ca. 1940s–1950s)

12

4. The Late Bronze Age Version (1970s–Present)

13

5. The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript (2013)

13

6. General Discussions and Related Sources

14

Part II: An Introduction to the šumma immeru Omens 16 1. Mesopotamia––Land of Sheep and Wool

16

2. Sheep Terminology and the Terms for the Sacrificial Animal in Divination 19 3. How did Extispicy Omens Come About?

20

4. Divination Literature, Omen Compendia and the šumma immeru Omens 24 5. How to Read the šumma immeru Omens? 26 6. The Name of the šumma immeru Omen Compendium Part III: The Extispicy Ritual

28 31

1. The Ritual Purity of the Diviner

32

2. Finding the Right Sheep for the Extispicy Ritual

33

3. Placing the Oracle Question in Front of the Gods

35

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

vi

Table of Contents

4. The Slaughter of the Sacrificial Animal

39

5. “Reading” the Sheep

40

6. “Reading” the Liver

42

Chapter 2 The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version 47 1. Edition and Translation

47

2. Commentary

67

3. Discussion

80



The Manuscripts

80



The Relationship between the Manuscripts

82

Chapter 3 The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version 85 1. Edition and Translation

85

2. Commentary

99

3. Discussion

105



The Emar Manuscripts

105



The Relationship between the Emar Manuscripts

109



The attuša

110



Reconstructing and Dating the Late Bronze Age Version

113

Chapter 4 The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens 117 1.Intermediate Version 1 (= IMV1) 118

1.1 Edition

118



1.2 Commentary

122



1.3 Discussion

125

2. Intermediate Version 2 (= IMV2) 128

2.1 Edition

128



2.2 Commentary

130



2.3 Discussion

131

3. Intermediate Version 3 (= IMV3) 132

3.1 Edition

132



3.2 Commentary

136



3.3 Discussion

137

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Table of Contents

vii

4. An Extract of an Intermediate Version of the Series (= IMV4) 140

4.1 Edition

140



4.2 Discussion

143

Chapter 5 The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

145

1. Edition

145

2. Commentary

173

3. Discussion

181



The Manuscripts

181



The Nineveh Colophons

183



The Uruk Colophons

185



The Content and the General Stucture of the Standard Version

189



The Structure of the Standard Version

192



Differences and Variants Among Manuscripts and the Use of Logograms

195

Chapter 6 The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version 199 1. The Uruk Commentary 1

201



1.1 Edition

201



1.2 Commentary

206

2. The Uruk Commentary 2

214



2.1 Edition

214



2.2 Commentary

218

3. The Late Babylonian Commentary

222



3.1 Edition

222



3.2 Commentary

226

4. Discussion

229



The Structure and Content of the Uruk Commentaries

229



The Uruk Colophons and the Native Designation of the Commentaries

229



The Archival and Social Context of the Uruk Commentaries

231



The Late Babylonian Commentary

233



Table of Correspondences

235

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter 7 Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

237

Part I: Divination Literature

238

1. The Sealand Dynasty Omen Compendium

238



1.1 Identifying the Compendium

238



1.2 The Structure and Content of the Sealand Dynasty Manuscript 240



1.3 Characteristic Features of the Sealand Dynasty Manuscript

242



1.4 The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript and Other Sealand Dynasty Omens

243

2. The Assur Bone Omen Compendia

244



2.1 KAL 5 2

244



2.2 KAL 5 3 (KAR 432)

244



2.3 KAL 5 4

245

3. The Emar Bone Omen Compendia

245

4. The Bārûtu Series and Related Sources 4.1 Bārûtu Ch. 1 and its Commentary

246 246



4.2 KAL 5 1 (KAR 423)

248



4.3 K 6788––A Nineveh Fragment Relating to the Lower Parts of the Sheep

248



4.4 Tablets Relating to the Sheep’s Stomach

249

5. Omen Reports and Queries

250



5.1 Old Babylonian and Kassite Omen Reports

250



5.2 Neo-Assyrian Oracular Queries and Extispicy Reports

252

6. Bird Divination

253



6.1 Bird Divination Compendia: Sources and Distribution

253



6.2 Bird Divination Omens and the šumma immeru Omens 255

7. An Omen Compendium of Severed Hooves and Fetlocks

256

8. Tablet 41 of the šumma ālu Omen Series

257

9. The šumma izbu Omen Series

258

10. Omens from a Ewe Confined Overnight

259

11. The Hittite šašta Oracles

262

Part II: Manuals, Vocabularies and Lexical Lists

264

12. The Ritual of the Diviner

264

13. A Manual of Sacrificial Procedure

266

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Table of Contents

ix

14. Vocabulary Lists and Lexical Lists

266



14.1 An Old Babylonian List of Sheep Body Parts (BM 29663)

266



14.2 An Akkadian-Hittite List of (Sheep) Body Parts (KBo 1.51)

269



14.3 The 15th Tablet of the ur5-ra=ḫubullu Lexical List

272



14.4 The Practical Vocabulary (The Assur Version)

273

Chapter 8 The Sheep Body Parts

275

1. The Head Region

276

2. The Hind Area of the Animal

278

3. Areas of the Abdomen and Rib Cage

285

Chapter 9 Discussion and Conclusion

291

Part I: The Apodoses of the šumma immeru Omens—Past, Present and Future 291

1. The Past: The Presence of the God during the Extispicy Ritual



2. The Present: The šumma immeru Formula—Let Go of the Sheep! Kill the Enemy! 295



3. The Future: What Will the Exta Look Like?

Part II: The Structure, Content and Development of the šumma immeru Omens

293

299 305



1. The Old Babylonian Version and Related Texts

305



2. The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript

309



3. The Late Bronze Age Version and Related Texts

311



4. The Intermediate Versions 1–4

314



5. The Standard Version and the Bārûtu Series

315



6. The Commentaries of the Standard Version

318



7. A Crosscut Comparsion between the šumma immeru Versions

318

Part III: Text Production, Transmission, and Reception

329



1. Text Standardization or Canonization?

329



2. Text Production of Omen Collections

340



3. From Old Babylonian Extispicy Collections to the Bārûtu

354



4. The Many Lives of the šumma immeru Omens

361

Bibliography

373

Indices 395 © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

List of Figures Fig. 1.

Page 200 of Bezold’s Catalogue, vol. I

4

Fig. 2.

Page 21 from Boissier’s Choix

5

Fig. 3.

CT 28, pl. 14

6

Fig. 4 .

Reclining Ewe; Late Uruk Period (YBC 2261)

18

Fig. 5.

The sacrificial sheep in the assyrian camp

38

Fig. 6.

The sacrificial sheep after its slaughter

38

Fig. 7.

The sheep liver and its parts

43

Fig. 8.

Ram’s Head Shaped Vessel

46

Fig. 9.

Manuscript B (YOS 10 48), Reverse

81

Fig. 10.

Emar Manuscript A, Obverse

106

Fig. 11.

Emar Manuscript A, Reverse

107

Fig. 12.

Emar Manuscript B, Obverse

108

Fig. 13.

Emar Manuscript B, Reverse

109

Fig. 14.

Hattuša Manuscript H, Obverse





111

Fig. 15.

Hattuša Manuscript H, Reverse





111

Fig. 16.

BM 86429, Obverse

142

Fig. 17.

BM 86429, Reverse

142

Fig. 18.

Manuscript A, Obverse and Reverse

190

Fig. 19.

Manuscript F, Obverse and Reverse

190

Fig. 20.

The LBC Manuscript

234

Fig. 21.

The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript, Obverse

240

Fig. 22.

The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript, Reverse

240

Fig. 23.

The talus

280

Fig. 24.

The tarsal calcaneus

280

Fig. 25.

The metatarsus bone

282

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

List of Figures

xii

Fig. 26.

The metatarsus bone as situated in the sheep’s leg

282

Fig. 27.

The phalanges bones

284

Fig. 28.

Ewe and Lamb, Middle Assyrian Cylinder Seal

372

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Acknowledgements I became interested in the šumma immeru omens many years ago, when I was conducting research on the scholarly materials of the Late Bronze Age city of Emar (Cohen 2004 and 2009). After I had discovered that the Hattuša and Emar manuscripts of this composition were basically identical (Cohen 2007), I decided to embark on a full-scale study of this neglected omen collection in order to write its literary history. The process of writing this book was slow but rewarding. Throughout the years, I have been exposed to the rich remains of Babylonian divination literature and many other texts of different genres from almost every phase of cuneiform writing. The task of assembling, reading and understanding these sources would not have achieved without the constant support and encouragement of my friends and colleagues and it is to them I offer my utmost gratitude. The specifics of my acknowledgements follow. Ulla Koch has agreed to serve as the academic consultant of the book and it is because of her wisdom and intimate knowledge of the genre of Babylonian divination literature that I was able to write this study with confidence. Abraham Winitzer was always there for me as friend and colleague, helping me with every question on divination and extispicy I have had at any time of day. Andrew George offered me his editions and copies of many texts from CUSAS 18 prior to their publication. My debt to his generosity is evident in Chapter 7 of this study. Jon Taylor and Irving Finkel at the British Museum were always most obliging to allow me to study the remains of the šumma immeru omens from Kuyunjik and from elsewhere during my numerous visits to the study-room. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum, I publish here many previously unpublished (or partly published) tablets from the Museum. They are presented throughout the chapters of this book. Eckart Frahm as Keeper of the Yale Babylonian Collection, with the kind assistance of Ulla Kasten, enabled me to study YBC 4641, YBC 5035 and YBC 5024, or as they better known, YOS 10 47, 48 and 49, during Fall of 2015. The Yale tablets are edited in full for the first time in Chapter 2. Enrique Jiménez and Uri Gabbay were instrumental in deciphering the difficult commentaries of šumma immeru. Chapter 6 would not have been written without their many hours of dedication. Nicla De Zorzi was always helpful in providing me with her own photographs, and notes on various unpublished and difficult omen materials––izbu and others. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

xiv

Acknowledgements

Jeanette Fincke assisted me in many ways in London: reading tablets with me, helping with photographs, identifying texts in the British Museum and much more. Lidar Sapir­‑Hen patiently assembled sheep bones for my inspection and advised me in their identification. Shai Gordin, my post-doctoral researcher for 2011–2012, collected and provided the basic text editions of the Hittite šašta oracles. He also steadfastly read with me throughout YOS 10 and other extispicy collections. Netanel Anor, during his stay as a Tel Aviv University post-doctoral researcher in Spring Term 2017 worked with me on a variety of omen compositions and contributed to my views on the development of divination literature. Takayoshi Oshima graciously offered collations and photographs of tablets from the Berlin vorderasiatisches Museum and Joost Hazenbos kindly provided me with important information regarding the Hittite šašta oracles from the files of the Hethitisches Wörterbuch at LMU Munich. Research for the book was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant no. 360/12) for the years 2012–2014. Additional support for the formatting of the book was graciously offered by the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv November 2019

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Preface The šumma immeru omens are concerned with the behaviour of the sacrificial sheep before it is opened apart, with some of its outer body parts, and later when it is opened, with some of its inner body parts––all this before the examination of the exta and liver by the diviner. This collection of omens is named šumma immeru after the first two words which open almost all of the omens and it is by this name that it was known in antiquity. The name of the omen collection is translated usually as ‘If a Sheep’, but upon the realization that the sheep refers specifically to the sacrificial animal, as will be seen in Chapter 1, it is better to translate its name with the definite article as, ‘If the Sheep’. The omens collect a variety of signs based on the observation of the sheep, such as the position of the animal upon its slaughtering or the flow and colour of its blood after its slaughter, and the observation of the sheep’s many body parts (around forty). For example, a typical omen reads, ‘If the sheep bites its right hoof, the attack of the enemy regularly upon my country’, or ‘If the sheep – its mucus is runny – the flood will arrive’. The formulation of the individual omen entries in the šumma immeru omens is the same as is met throughout all omens attested in the long history of Mesopotamian divination literature: the first part of the omen, called the protasis, gives the description or condition of the object observed and the second part, called the apodosis, gives the prediction, which is (generally speaking) either positive or negative. The implication is that the first part of the statement necessitates, or at least implies, in the mind of the believer the outcome expressed by the second part. The literary history and the transmission of the šumma immeru omens is long and convoluted. The šumma immeru omens are attested from the Old Babylonian period to almost the very end of cuneiform civilization at Seleucid Uruk. Manuscripts of the omens and of their commentaries arrive from Babylonia, Assyria, Anatolia and Northern Syria. However, as expressed by Leichty (1993: 239), “(t)his genre of divinatory texts (i.e., the šumma immeru omens) has not been carefully studied and is not clearly defined. There is even some reasonable doubt as to which texts belong to the genre”. This statement, written over more than twenty-five years ago, is still valid. The šumma immeru omens have only been dealt with in passing, gaining a handful of citations throughout the volumes of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Hence, by its very © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

xvi

Preface

nature, the book fulfills a gap in ancient Near Eastern scholarship by studying a long-neglected omen type. The aim of this book is two-fold. My first aim is to study the šumma immeru omens throughout their long history by offering complete text editions and textual commentaries of the omens and their ancient commentaries. A large number of these texts have never before been published, or at least not fully published. My second aim is to place the šumma immeru omens within the broader context of textual production in Mesopotamia and specifically, of divination literature. The combination of both aims, so it is intended, will sharpen for us the broader question of transmission, reception and canonization, or to use a more accepted term, standardization of ancient texts. Although not directly addressed, at the background of this investigation stands the question of how texts, and not only literature, were formed in Mesopotamia and how they reached a “canonical” status or a standard version that had become immune, so to speak, from changes. A considerable advancement to the scholarly discussion regarding this problem can be provided by the study of the šumma immeru omens. Although this collection is considered minor in comparison to other omen collections and omen series, it is fitting for this purpose because of two reasons. First, unlike the great omen series such as the Enūma-Anu-Enlil astronomical omens or the omens of the Bārûtu series, the šumma immeru omen collection never grew into huge proportions, therefore it is manageable for study. Second, in spite of its size and minor role, the collection has had a long transmission and reception history that can be followed with some success across time and geographical space. My original intention was to provide with the study of this omen collection a paradigm for the way texts reach their final and fixed version. However, perhaps as expected, my study of the omens reveals, as will be evident in my discussion, the complexity of the history of transmission and reception of ancient divination literature, therefore, a definitive model or paradigm is still distant. Nonetheless, this study can reveal how a genre, which was basically concerned with transmitting knowledge for its ancient users, changed, evolved and even developed through a variety of considerations. As such, my study provides a solid enough basis to continue and discuss the standardization and text production of scholarly materials in Babylonia and the ancient Near East. By doing so, it will hopefully join the debate and discussion of these issues that have stood at the forefront of Assyriological and ancient Near Eastern research for the past twenty years or so. The structure and contents of the book are described as follows. Chapter 1 offers the introduction to the book, consisting of three parts. Part I is a history of research dedicated to expose the reader to the various stages, some rather surprising, of the publication of the šumma immeru omens from the first days of Assyriology in the late 19th century to our present times. Part II of the introduction lays out preliminaries regarding the šumma immeru omens so that when the texts are presented throughout the rest of the book the reader will understand their place in Babylonian divination literature and extispicy. Part III is concerned with the ritual or sacrificial procedure that involves extispicy and which is the context where the šumma immeru omens are to be placed. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Preface

xvii

Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 present editions of the šumma immeru omens according to their versions: the Old Babylonian version (here OB version), the Late Bronze Age version (LBA version), the Intermediate version (IMV1-4) and the Standard Version (SV). Let us briefly elaborate. Chapter 2 presents the earliest version––the Old Babylonian version––attested by three tablets, originally published as autographs and not edited before (YOS 10 47, 48 and 49). This version is to be considered a composition which is representative of the omen collections of divination literature, chiefly extispicy, during the Old Babylonian period. Chapter 3 deals with the Late Bronze Age version of the omens. At the peak of the spread of Mesopotamian literature outside its homeland, during the Late Bronze Age (14th–12th centuries BCE), the šumma immeru omens, like other Mesopotamian omen compositions, made their way to Hattuša, the Hittite capital in central Anatolia, and to contemporary Emar on the Euphrates, in modern day Syria. Chapter 4 represents the intermediate stage of the development of the omens. It brings together disparate manuscripts that stand between the Old Babylonian version of the omens and the Standard Version. Two manuscripts come from Assur; the third manuscript from Nineveh (although originally from Kalḫu/ Nimrud); and the fourth is an unprovenanced fragment from the British Museum. Chapter 5 reconstructs the Standard Version from a large number of manuscripts, although only two are in a satisfactory state of preservation. Most manuscripts arrive from Nineveh, hence dated to the 7th century at the latest. Two manuscripts are from Late Babylonian Uruk. Chapter 6 is concerned with the final representation of the omen collection dated to the very late flowering of cuneiform culture in Seleucid Uruk and Babylon. Though not in the best state of preservation, three manuscripts brought in this chapter are commentaries which explain, clarify and exegete the šumma immeru omens. They demonstrate the survival of the compendium at this last stage of cuneiform writing, when the interest in extispicy was waning and Babylonian divination techniques were perhaps considered less relevant to the Hellenistic and later Parthian rulers of Babylonia. Chapter 7 expands the book’s horizons by bringing about a variety of compositions related to the šumma immeru omens. At the center of the chapter is a Sealand Dynasty omen compendium (dated to ca. the 16th century), which deals with a few sheep body parts. Also included are bone omen compendia from Assur and Emar (from the second-half of the second millennium) and the great Bārûtu series (whose earliest copies are from the first millennium Assyrian scribal centers). Other compositions are reviewed and assessed, including an Old Babylonian List of Sheep Body Parts and an Akkadian-Hittite List of (Sheep) Body Parts. The Hittite šašta oracles, thought to be related to the šumma immeru omens, will be introduced. However, their full treatment will be given elsewhere for two reasons: first, as I will demonstrate, they are not as close to the šumma immeru omens as previously thought and second, a full treatment of this genre demands a long and detailed presentation that lies outside the scope and objectives of this study. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

xviii

Preface

Since, after all, the šumma immeru omens are concerned with the body parts of the sheep, Chapter 8 dedicates space to discussing the rich anatomical terminology (over forty body parts) found in the omens, as well as in related materials. Some body parts whose meaning is not certain are discussed, as possibilities for their anatomical identification are brought forth. The last part of the book is the concluding Chapter 9, consisting of three parts. Part I deals with the šumma immeru omens and their relation to the practice of extispicy during the extispicy ritual; and their use of a unique formulation (which we will be call as the šumma immeru formula). Part II discusses the structure, content and development of the omens. Part III will offer some observations on textual production and standartization and suggest how the case-study presented in this book can assit us to think about the different “lives” of a text in the ancient Near East. This study follows the modern terminology established by Koch (2015: 6–7, and 32). This means that I call the composition under discussion the šumma immeru omens. Collected together the omens form a compendium or collection in its various manifestations. Each manifestation of the compendium, which is generally differentiated according to a chronological frame, is a version: thus we have in this study four basic versions: OB, LBA, IMV1-4 and SV. A version can be considered as a ‘forerunner’ (Vorlage) of the standard version. The terms are used in a historical sense, when the ‘forerunner’ is seen to anticipate, in one way or the other, the later stages of the text, as it becomes canonized, or better, standardized. A series, according to Koch, is a compendium that is written on more than one tablet; hence our omens do not qualify for this title (although see Chapter 7).The large extispicy series called bārûtu, is capitalized in this book thus Bārûtu, in order to make clear that the intention is to the text itself and not to the arts of the diviner, the simple translation of the term bārûtu. A commentary is an exegetical textual genre that comments on a base text. In this book, Chapter 6 is dedicated to three commentaries of the SV šumma immeru omens, which is their base text. My method of editing and presenting the texts basically adopts the one used by Koch (e.g., Koch 2000 and 2005) and George (George 2013 = CUSAS 18): I provide the Akkadian reading of the many logograms present in this technical genre. Where the text is largely syllabic (in the OB, LBA and IMV versions), I supply a transliteration. Where one finds among the syllabic spellings many logograms, I provide a fully normalized Akkadian sentence just below the transliteration. When quoting from the šumma immeru omens and other Akkadian compositions throughout the book, I provide the text as fully normalized. I believe that such a presentation of the materials makes them easier to process and understand, and when the occasion calls for it, to appreciate the qualities of the Akkadian language. This is not to claim that omens are poetic works, but to highlight the fact, sometimes passed over in reading texts which are only transliterated (with the logograms intact), that a full understanding of the genre in question is to acknowledge the occasional play between sounds (as well as signs) met in the protasis and apodosis. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Abbreviations A Assur Find Number AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AHw Akkadisches Handwörterbuch AMD Ancient Magic and Divination AMT Campbell-Thompson (1923) AO Museum siglum of the Louvre, Paris AOAT Alter Orient und Alter Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschungen ARM Archives royales de Mari AuOr Aula Orientalis Bagh. Mitt. Baghdader Mitteilungen BBR Zimmern (1901) BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BM Museum siglum of the British Museum, London Bo Bogazköy/Hattuša Liver Model Omens; De Vos (2014a) Boissier DA Boissier (1905) BRM Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan BSA Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago CBS Siglum of the University Museum, U Pennsylvania CCP Cuneiform Commentaries Project; https://ccp.yale.edu/ CDLI Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative; https://cdli.ucla.edu/ CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East ChS Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmaler CNI

The Carsten Niehbuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies

CT CTH

Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Catalogue des Textes Hittites © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

xx

Abbreviations

CUSAS CUSAS 18 DBH DCCLT DT EA EAE Emar ePSD ETCSL GKAB HdO Hh HPM HSM HSS HUCA JAOS JCS JESHO JMC JNES JSS K KAL KAL 5 KBo KUB LKU MAH MARI MDP

Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology George (2013) Dresdner Beiträge der Hethitologie Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts; http://oracc. museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/ British Museum Siglum The El-Amarna Tablets Enūma Anu Enlil Arnaud (1985–1987) The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary; http://psd.museum. upenn.edu/ Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature; http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk The Geography of Knowledge in Assyria and Babylonia; http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cams/gkab/ Handbuch der Orientalistik Lexical Series ur 5 -ra=ḫubullu (MSL 5–11) Hethitologie Portal Mainz; http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HPM/ Tablets in the Collections of the Harvard Semitic Museum Harvard Semitic Series Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Le journal des médecines cunéiformes Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Semitic Studies British Museum Siglum (Kuyunjik Tablets) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts Heeßel (2012) Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk Museum siglum of the Musée d’art et d’histoire, Geneva Mari, Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires Mémoires de la délégation en Perse

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Abbreviations

MLC Msk MSL MZL NABU O OLZ Or P PIHANS PNA RA RlA Rm SAA SAAB SAAS SpTU StBoT TCL TCS TDP THeth TIM TuL UET UF UM VAT W WVDOG WZKM YOS ZA

xxi

Morgan Library Collection, Yale Babylonian Collection Tablet siglum of texts from Meskene/Emar Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon Borger (2010) Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires Museum sigla: Antiquités (orientales), Musée du cinquantenaire Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia CDLI number; https://cdli.ucla.edu Publications de l’institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire; Radner et al. (1998–2011) Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Reallexikon der Assyriologie British Museum Siglum State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Studies Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Textes cunéiformes du Louvre  Texts from Cuneiform Sources Labat (1951) Texte der Hethiter Texts in the Iraq Museum Ebeling (1931) Ur Excavations, Texts Ugarit-Forschungen Tablet siglum of the University Museum, Philadelphia Vorderasiatische Abteilung. Tontafeln Field numbers of tablets excavated at Warka Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Yale Oriental Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Abbreviations for the šumma immeru Omens IMV LBA version LBC OB version SLD SV UC

Intermediate Version(s) Late Bronze Age Version Late Babylonian Commentary Old Babylonian Version Sealand Dynasty Manuscript Standard Version Uruk Commentary/Commentaries

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

The šumma immeru Omens Textual Sources AMT, pl. 101, no. 1 = Holma (1923), pl. 8 = F, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) Bagh. Mitt. Beiheft 2, no. 63 = H, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) BM 48239 (+) BM 48561 = LBC, Ch. 6 (Commentary) BM 86429 = IMV4, Ch. 4 (Intermediate Version) CT 28, pl. 14 + CT 30, pl. 27 = C, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) CT 30, pl. 48 + CT 30, pl. 32 = D, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) CT 31, pl. 30–33 = A, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) CT 41, pl. 9 = B, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) CT 41, pl. 10 = F, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) CT 41, pl. 12 = IMV3, Ch. 4 (Intermediate Version) Emar 685, Msk 74135m = K, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) Emar 698, Msk 731077a+b (+) Msk 74261c = A, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) Emar 698, Msk 74101w = D, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) Emar 698, Msk 74104c (+) Msk 74212 = B, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) Emar 698, Msk 74203a = E, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) Emar 699, Msk 74132e = G, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) Holma (1923), pl. 14 = E, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) KAL 5 83 = IMV1, Ch. 4 (Intermediate Version) KAL 5 85 = IMV2, Ch. 4 (Intermediate Version) © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

xxiv

The šumma immeru Omens Textual Sources

KBo 36.47 = H, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) KBo 42.116 = L, Ch. 3 (Late Bronze Age Version) SpTU 1 72 = UC1, Ch. 6 (Commentary) SpTU 4 143 = UC2, Ch. 6 (Commentary) TCL 6 7, pl. 18 = G, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) YOS 10 47 = A, Ch. 2 (Old Babylonian Version) YOS 10 48 = B, Ch. 2 (Old Babylonian Version) YOS 10 49 = C, Ch. 2 (Old Babylonian Version)

Unpublished Sources BM 48239 = LBC, Ch. 6 (Commentary) BM 48561 = LBC, Ch. 6 (Commentary) BM 86429 = IMV4, Ch. 4 (Intermediate Version) K 2180 = F, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) K 6756 = F, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) K 6939 = F, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) K 8912 = F, Ch. 5 (Standard Version) K 14855 = F, Ch. 5 (Standard Version)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 1 Introduction Part I: Research and Publication History of the šumma immeru Omens (Chor:) “[Herr,] seine [Ohren] sind aufgerichtet, seine Augen voll Angst, die Haare seines Leibes stehen! Sein Schwanz zittert!” (Gott:) “Laß, ich will den Feind töten!” (Ebeling 1931, Tod und Leben, no. 9) Part I of the introduction will trace the history of the publication, research and discussion of the šumma immeru omens and some related materials. It will show how, when and where the omens were identified, and sometimes were misidentified––as the epigraph of this chapter taken from one of the first editions of the omens by Ebeling (1931) demonstrates. The discussion is arranged according to the modern treatment of the various versions of the omen compendia. As will be seen, each version of the omens is mostly associated with the collection of a particular museum or with an archaeological expedition. Consequentially, the publication history of each version can be roughly placed within a specific decade of the past 150 years of Assyriological research. Hence, we can begin with the publication of the Standard Version of the šumma immeru omens, which is associated with the first cataloguing and publishing efforts undertaken in the British Museum from the time the tablets arrived from Mesopotamia in London in the 19th century until their official publication in the 1940s. We continue by discussing the publication history of the manuscripts from the city of Assur throughout the early 1930s, when the materials recovered from the site were published in Berlin. The discussion then follows the publication and treatment of the Old Babylonian šumma immeru version in the late 1940s. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2

1. Introduction

It rounds up with a presentation of the materials published from the 1970s to the present: from Boǧazköy/Hattuša, Emar and the latest published tablet of omens related to the šumma immeru omens from the Sealand Dynasty. The final part of the discussion is devoted to wider presentations of the omens and related sources.

1. The Standard Version (ca. 1880s–1940s; 1980) The Standard Version of the šumma immeru omens is the first to be treated here because it is made up almost exclusively of Neo-Assyrian tablets found in Kuyunjik in the 19th century. The tablets are now housed in the British Museum: below is a table of the museum siglum, publication information, and manuscripts and versions found in this study. (See also Chapter 5). Siglum

CDLI Number Manuscript

Version

1883-1-18; 410 CT 31 30–33

P452673

A

SV

K 959

CT 41 9

P393849

B

SV

K 2180+

unpublished

P394240

F

SV

K 4106+

CT 41 10

P394240

F

SV

K 4125

CT 41 12

P395413

IMV3

IMV

K 5876+

CT 30 27

P365995

C

SV

K 6756+

Holma (1923), pl. 8

P394240 F SV

K 6939+

unpublished

P394240

F

SV

K 6983+

CT 41 10

P394240

F

SV

K 8044+

CT 30 48

P397457

D

SV

K 8345+

CT 41 10

P394240

F

SV

K 8912+

unpublished

P394240

F

SV

K 9094

Holma (1923), pl. 14 P397908

E

SV

K 9166+

CT 28 14

P365995

C

SV

K 14855+

unpublished

P394240

F

SV

Sm 1257+

CT 30 32

P397457

D

SV



Publication

Sources for the šumma immeru Omens in the British Museum

The earliest mention of the tablets of šumma immeru omens can be found in Carl Bezold’s first volume of his Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum, published in 1889. Tablet K 959 (= SV ms. B) is duly recorded and considered to be part of an omen text by Bezold (1889–1899, © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

3

vol. I: 200). The typical incipit of the Standard Version manuscripts is given: the lines of the tablet all start with be udu (i.e., šumma immeru, ‘If the sheep’); this beginning is written however not in Latin transcription but by a special typographical font devised to render the cuneiform script, as was customary in the first days of Assyriology; see Fig. 1. Some forty years later, in 1931, K 959 will be published as CT 41 9. In subsequent volumes of Bezold’s Catalogue, more tablets belonging to the omens were registered and indeed explicitly recognized as being similar to K 959. For example, K 4125 (later CT 41 12, here IMV3) was identified by Bezold (1889– 1899, vol. II: 597) as a “Copy of a text with omens derived from observations of victims”.1 The first citation of the šumma immeru omens, without the recognition of their exact nature, was probably by Bezold himself in his 1893 book Oriental Diplomacy (p. xxxiii, n.2)––the first translation and presentation of the Amarna Letters in the British Museum. In a footnote he quotes line 5 of K 9166, which in our edition is SV §5 (ms. C), in order to explain a verbal form in the Amarna corpus. The first publication and indeed recognition of the nature of the šumma immeru omens, although not of their history, was by one of the first Assyriologists to find interest in the rich omen materials of the Ashurbanipal Library. In his Choix de textes relatifs à la divination assyro-babylonienne published in 1905, Alfred Boissier called attention to the tablet 1883-1-18; 410 and its duplicate K 959 (later published respectively as CT 31 30–33 [ms. A] and CT 41 9 [ms. B]), telling the reader that these two tablets are of the utmost importance for studying sheep omens. Boissier (1905: 14) continued thus: “Il s’agit vraisemblablement ici de l’animal au moment où on va la sacrifier”. He then provided a translation and basic transcription of 18821-18; 410: some nineteen lines of the obverse (in our edition SV §§1–18; see Chapter 5) and twenty-one lines of the reverse (in our edition SV §§86''–110''), along with Tablets considered similar to K 959 and K 4125 that were listed in the Catalogue are: K 4106 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. II: 595) = CT 41 10 = ms. F; K 6983 + K 8345 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. II: 823) = CT 41 10 = ms. F; and 1883-1-18; 410 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. IV: 1888) = CT 31 30–33 = ms. A. Registered as omen texts, but not identified as belonging to the former group, are: K 2180 = Bezold (1889, vol. I: 418; “Forecasts”), which was later identified and joined to ms F of the Standard Version; K 5876 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. II: 747; “Forecasts concerning z[é] and šu.si”) = CT 30 27 = ms. C; K 6756 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. II: 808; “Omens concerning a man’s eyes”) = ms F; K 6939 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. II: 820; “Forecasts”) = ms. F; K 8044 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. II: 891; “Forecasts concerning z[é] and šu.si”) = CT 30 48 = ms. D; K 8912 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. III.: 971; “Part of an omen-text”) = ms. F; K 9094 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. III: 984; “Omens derived from the condition of various parts of the [human] body”) = Holma (1923), pl. 14, identified by Kraus (1950: 144, n. 13) = ms. E; K 9166 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. III: 990; “Omens derived from the condition of various parts of the body”) = CT 28 14 = ms. C; a line from the tablet was quoted by Bezold (1893: xxxiii, n.2); see main text; Sm 1257 = Bezold (1889–1899, vol. IV: 1473; “Part of a text containing forecasts concerning zé and šu.si”) = CT 30 32 = ms. D. An additional šumma immeru tablet mentioned in the British Museum catalogues is K 14855 = King (1914: 137, no. 1402; “Ashur-bani-pal’s single-line colophon”) = ms. F. 1

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4

1. Introduction

Fig. 1. Page 200 of Bezold’s Catalogue, vol. I, entrying K 959. a typographic rendering of the cuneiform script; see Fig. 2. By following Bezold’s remarks in his Catalogue, Boissier also recognized that K 4106 (later published as CT 41 10) and K 4125 (later published as CT 41 12) are relevant, because they describe the movement of the sacrificial sheep (ibid.: 23–24). Boissier’s preliminary identification of the nature of the texts brought about two additional translations and discussions—the first of J. Hunger and the second by M. Jastrow. In 1909 in Babylonische Tieromina nebst griechisch-römischen Parallelen Johannes Hunger, on the basis of Boissier’s work, provided a German translation along with some notes, at times with corrections, of 1883-1-18; 410 (CT 31 30–33 = ms. A).2 This was part of his section on the subject of sheep (ibid.: 66–82), among the many other animal omens he studied, naturally most of them from the šumma izbu and šumma ālu omen series. Morris Jastrow dedicated a chapter to the subject of oil, animal, and birth divination in his second volume of Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens   J. Hunger had at his disposal the first half of second volume of Jastrow’s Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens but not the second half (published in 1912), which contained a translation of the same text; see below. 2

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

5

Fig. 2. P. 21 from Boissier’s Choix, illustrating the typographical font used to reproduce the tablet 1883-1-18; 410. Boissier apologized for not being able to reproduce the closing lines of the text, because “quelques signes ne sont pas très nets”. published in 1912.3 In his discussion of extispicy, he translated and supplied many philological notes to the same passages translated by Boissier, along with his own   By the time Jastrow had published his book, CT 28 had appeared. He also made use of a transliteration of K 959 which was supplied to him by Arthur Ungnad; see Jastrow (1912: 813, n. 8). 3

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6

1. Introduction

Fig. 3. CT 28 14 (K 9166) = ms. C interpretation of the text that demonstrated his understanding of the underpinnings of the Babylonian divinatory methods (ibid.: 813–819). As we can see, the šumma immeru omens generated interest at the infant stage of Assyriology and in particular when the study of Mesopotamian divination had just begun. Although their nature was understood, much remained to be properly analysed and translated. After Bezold’s Catalogue and Boissier’s preliminary identification of the nature of the texts, came the publication of several hand-copies of the British Museum tablets: they appeared in the series Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, or as commonly abbreviated, CT. CT 28 was published in 1910. The hand-copies of the volume were prepared by Percy S. P. Handcock and corrected and revised by Leonard W. King.4 Plate 14 included the tablet fragment K 9166 (later joined to CT 30 27); see Fig. 3.5 Like many other tablets in the volume, as put forward in the Description of Plates, it was described as a text consisting of “omens from births”. The following year, 1911, saw the publication of CT 30, which included three more fragments: K 5876 (CT 30 27; see above), and Sm 1257 (CT 30 32) and its join K 8044 (CT 30 48).6 These tablets were characterized as “omens derived from the liver”. The copies were the result of Handcock’s work.7   Borger (1967: 173–174).   According to Fincke (2015), the fragments were joined sometime between 1935–1960. 6   The join between the two tablets was made (at the latest in 1933) by Gadd, probably following E. Weidner’s suggestion; see Meissner (1933–1934: 329) and the discussion below. The fact that Sm 1257 (= CT 30 32) and K 5876 (= CT 30 27) are duplicates was recognized by Boissier (1914: 6, n. 1), as cited by Meissner (1933–1934: 330). 7   Borger (1967: 175). 4 5

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

7

The first of the two largest tablets of the omens (1883-1-18; 410, which was already catalogued by Bezold) was published in 1911 in the subsequent volume, CT 31. The copies of the tablet, prepared by Handcock, stretched over four plates (CT 31 30–33). Like many tablets collected in the volume, the tablet was identified as including “omens from the liver”. CT 41 was published in 1931 by Cyril J. Gadd, who prepared the copies and wrote the introduction. In the introduction he remarked that plates 9–12 of the volume constitute omens from the sheep.8 He recognized that CT 41 9 (K 959, which, as mentioned, was the first tablet to be recognized by Bezold) was akin to CT 31 30–33 and CT 28 14; and that CT 41 10 (K 4106 + K 6983 + K 8345 = ms. F), the second largest tablet of the Standard Version, was likewise similar to CT 31 30–33.9 Gadd also mentioned that CT 41 12 (K 4125! = IMV3 ) “is independent of other texts; it concerns the movement of the sheep when about to be sacrificed”. He did not fail to acknowledge Boissier’s citation of the texts in his Choix. In addition to the British Museum publications, the Louvre Museum contributed its small share to the publication of the omens. In 1922 François Thureau-Dangin published a collection of some fifty-odd Seleucid period tablets that arrived from the Temple of Anu at Uruk and were purchased by the museum in 1913.10 This collection appeared as Textes Cunéiformes, volume 6 (i.e., TCL 6). One fragment, no. 7, which was provided with a hand-copy, was identified by Thureau-Dangin as “Omina du mouton de sacrifice”. Acknowledging Boissier’s identification and discussion of such omen texts, he recognized that TCL 6 7 duplicates CT 31 30–33 and CT 41 9. (More Uruk tablets were published later, see below). The only treatment of the šumma immeru omens (in what we call here its Standard Version), in fact up to our study, was provided for by Bruno Meissner. In his 1933–1934 short article (barely five pages long) Omina zur Erkenntnis der Eingeweide des Opfertieres, published in Archiv für Orientforschung 9 under the rubric of Kleine Mitteilungen, Meissner brought the opening section of the Standard Version (in our edition §§1–20). While acknowledging the pioneering work on the   Borger (1967: 138). Note, however, that CT 41 11 (= Rm 83) is an extract of šumma ālu Tablet 41; see Freedman (2017: 1 and 33) and Leichty (1970: 166 and 174). 9   The tablet (SV, ms. F) is now made up of multiple joins. According to Fincke (2015), joins were made already before 1891, and then in 1903, 1934, 1980 (Starr), and 1992 (Leichty and Reade). An additional fragment that joins the tablet, but published independently of the CT series is K 6756. It was published by Reginald Campbell Thompson in his Assyrian Medical Texts in 1923 as pl. 101, no. 1, without any comment. The fragment was also published in the same year by Harri Holma in his Omen Texts, under pl. 8. Holma in his preface characterized the text as belonging to “omina derived from various parts of the body”. The fragment was misread and consequently misidentified as belonging to medical omens by René Labat in his 1951 Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux (as ms F, ibid.: 45, n. 83, and 52). Another fragment––K 9094––was published by Holma as pl. 14. It, however, was recognized as belonging to the šumma immeru omens only much later by Kraus (1950: 144, n. 13). See nn. 1 and 23. 10   Borger (1967: 574). 8

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8

1. Introduction

texts by Boissier, Hunger and Jastrow, Meissner nonetheless thought the time was ripe to produce a new edition and translation of the available sources. He supplied a composite edition of the text with variants given in the notes, utilizing the five sources that were recently published in the CT volumes and TCL 6.11 In a followup to his article in the same journal (pp. 329–330), at the suggestion of Ernest Weidner, Meissner was able to add the three more pieces published in CT 30 (pls. 27, 32 and 48), and consequently to offer a few corrections and improved readings. After Meissner’s study, apart from citations in the two Akkadian dictionaries––the CAD and the AHw––the Standard Version remained abandoned. The only additional source to supplement the Standard Version since Meissner’s article was a fragment recovered from the 1959–1960 Uruk excavations of the Anu Temple. It was published by Jan van Dijk and Werner R. Mayer as no. 63 in Texte aus dem Rēš-Heiligtum in Uruk-Warka (published only in 1980). The authors recognized that it is a duplicate of CT 31 30–33. Another tablet, related to the omens, and also from Uruk, was recovered in the 1969 excavation season. It was published by Hermann Hunger in Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil I (1976).12 Hunger designated the tablet as no. 72 and provided it with a copy, an edition and a short commentary. He recognized that the tablet is a Late Babylonian commentary of the šumma immeru omens.13 Also from Uruk and related to the omens is another commentary (recovered during the 1969/1971–1972 seasons). It was published by Egbert von Weiher in Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil IV (1993) as no. 143. He identified the tablet as a commentary to 1883-1-18; 410 (CT 31 30 –33 = ms. A), although he mistakenly classified it as a commentary on šumma izbu.14 A copy, edition and a short commentary were provided, but the parallels to the Standard Version were not thoroughly recognized, hence the edition remained lacking. Additional unpublished commentary texts will be discussed in Chapter 6.

2. The Assur Manuscripts (1930s; 2012) Somewhat before Meissner’s 1933–1934 article, Erich Ebeling dealt with a selection of textual remains from the city of Assur. In his 1931 book Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier under no. 9 (pp. 41–44), Ebeling edited two pieces which he realized were connected––the first was VAT 9518 and the second, unlabeled, was A 468: one fragment is housed in the Berlin

  He also recognized the catch line of the omens in an izbu tablet that was published by Falkenstein (1931, no. 124); see pp. 259, 352, and 369. 12   Clancier (2009: 43–44). 13   The commentary was later treated by Rutz (2014) and Cohen (2016). 14   This was put right by De Zorzi (2014: 248), who correctly identified it as a commentary of šumma immeru. 11

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

9

Vorderasiatische Museum and the other in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.15 (See Chapter 4). Ebeling titled the two Assur pieces as Bruchstücke aus dem Textbuche eines kultischen Dramas. However, as will explained below, these two fragments belong to the šumma immeru omens and have no relationship whatsoever with a “cultic drama text-book.” I reproduce the text of the Assur pieces as closely as found in Ebeling’s edition and translation (without citing his notes): [be-lu] i-na te-ḫi-ka iṣ-ri-id ša-ra-at zu-um-ri-šu iz-zi-iz ana pân rubî ] niqê amêli(?) ilu im-ḫu-ur [be-lu uznê(me]š)-šu tar-ṣa i-na-šu pa-ar-da ša-ra-at zu-um-ri-šu iz (!) -za-az-za ]si(!)-ba-zu ú-na-ra-aṭ uš-še-ir lu-du-uk nakra (Chor:) “[Herr], als du nahtest, erschauderte er, die Haare seines Leibes standen (zu Berge) vor dem Früsten.” ] Die Opfer des Menschen nahm der Gott entgegen. (Chor:) “[Herr,] seine [Ohren] sind aufgerichtet, seine Augen voll Angst, die Haare seines Leibes stehen! Sein Schwanz zittert!” (Gott:) “Laß, ich will den Feind töten!” Ebeling had supposed that the text was a cultic drama––a dialogue between a priestly chorus and the divinity. But the actual translation of these lines runs as follows: ‘[If the sheep…] – upon your approaching – farts (and) its fleece bristles […], the god will have accepted the client’s prayer. [If the sheep] – its [ear]s are upright, its eyes are frightened, (and) its fleece bristles hairs, (and) it shakes its tail, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy! [If the sheep – af]ter it was dedicated – bleats (and) shakes its ears, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy!’ Obviously, any connection between the Assur fragments and a “cultic drama” fails to materialize. But how did this error occur? Unfortunately, Ebeling misidentified the text in front of his eyes. The lines of the omens invariably open with the signs b e and u d u : they are logograms (𒁁 and 𒁳) which are to be read as šumma immeru. Ebeling, however, read the two signs phonetically: b e was read as be and u d u as lu (the sign u d u , ‘sheep’ also has a phonetic value lu).

  These two pieces originally were part of the same tablet; they were later re-edited by Heeßel (2012); the text is called here IMV1. Ebeling’s tablets were mentioned by Ernst Weidner (1952–1953: 200) in his attempt to reconstruct the so-called Library of TiglethPileser I. They are designated as ‘w’ and ‘x’, along with other tablets considered to be part of that royal library. See also Olof Pedersén (1986: 37 and 39, no. 28), who discussed the contents of the so-called Library of Tigleth-Pileser I, re-named as M2; see pp. 125 and 347. 15

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

10

1. Introduction

The result was be-lu for bēlu, ‘lord’. From this error stems the rest of his textual reconstruction and translation. The first reviews of Ebeling’s book basically followed the author’s interpretation of the text. Georges Contenau gave a short notice of Tod und Leben in Revue d’Assyriologie 29 (published in 1932). He mentioned in passing texts as being representative of “drames sacrés”, doubtlessly thinking of Ebeling’s no. 9. Walter Baumgartner in the Archiv für Orientforschung 8 (1932–1933) briefly made notice of the text (“Kultdrama??”; p. 234). More detailed in his description of the text was Arnold Gustavs in his review of Ebeling’s book in the Theologische Literaturzeitung of 1932. He spoke of Ebeling’s no. 9 as a cultic-drama, “aus dem man entnehmen kann, daß an den großen Festen die Fest-Mythen nicht nur pantomimisch dargestellt, sondern auch in mehr oder minder ausfürlichen Dialogen zwischen den Hauptgestalten und einem Chor den frommen Zuschauern verständlich gemacht wurden”.16 The true nature of this “cultic drama” was revealed, however, when the reviews written by Wolfram von Soden appeared: the first in 1934 and the second in 1936. The first review of eight-and-a-half columns appeared in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 37. Generally it spoke of Ebeling’s mistaken methodological approach to the world of Babylonian rituals (as supposedly the precursors of the Hellenistic mysteria), as well as his lack of attention to the basic rules of textual reconstruction, which led to fanciful reconstructions. No. 9, our text, stood as a prime example as to where Ebeling’s understanding of the ritual texts in his book could bring us. It is worth quoting in full von Soden’s remarks (ibid.: 416): Den schlimmsten Streich hat E.(beling) seine Fantasie aber bei Nr. 9 gespielt: Hier deutet er zwei bisher unveröffentlichte Bruchstücke aus Assur als “Textbuch zu einem kultischen Drama”, in dem abwechselnd der “Chor der Priester” and der “Gott” reden soll. Daß bei dieser Deutung der Inhalt der Texte geschmackloser Unsinn ist, hat E. offenbar nicht gestört. In Wirklichkeit enthalten diese beiden Stücke – Opferschauomina, ist doch statt be-lu an den Zeilenanfängen selbstverständlich überall šumma immeru “Wenn ein Schaf …” zu lesen! This misunderstanding and mistaken transliteration and translation can serve as an example, for what von Soden saw, and I paraphrase, as Ebeling’s desire, perhaps unconsciously, to find cultural elements of “indogermanischer Völker” in Babylonian religion. In light of the Zeitgeist of the 30s and in the wake of the BableBibel controversy, Ebeling’s wish, although naïve, may seem understandable. The second review stretching over twenty pages, and which apparently was written under the supervision or assistance of Benno Landsberger, appeared in the Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 43.17 The review, ending with the words “Schlußteil   No mention was given to no. 9 of Tod und Leben by three other reviews of the book: Sayce (1932), Dhorme (1933) and Nötscher (1931). 17   Von Soden (1934: 413) and id. (1936: 252). 16

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

11

folgt”, was announced to be the first part of two, but the second part never appeared. This time, following his partial examination of some of the tablets first hand or through photographs, von Soden was able to supply more detailed philological remarks and comments than were afforded in his 1934 review, giving additional attention to the composition which he termed as Ebeling’s “phantastische Auffassung” (ibid.: 253–254).18 He also pointed out the relationship between Ebeling’s texts, the British Museum tablets and the Louvre text. Ebeling’s reaction to von Soden’s scathing reviews is unknown to us, but it is possible that even prior their publication, he had already recognized his mistake. In the Archiv für Orientforschung of 1933–1934, Ebeling provided an edition of an extispicy compendium of the gallbladder (VAT 8611 = KAR 150 = KAL 5 30). In the first note of the article, Ebeling made clear that he now understood the true nature of the Assur texts and readily admitted to his mistake. He corrected his reading of be-lu to šumma immeru and consequently amended other erroneous readings in Tod und Leben, no. 9. Many years passed since Ebeling’s preliminary publication of the text until its modern edition appeared. In 2012, Nils Heeßel published the second volume of Divinatorische Texte in the series Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts (KAL 5).19 It was dedicated to extispicy compositions (Opferschauomina) found in the city of Assur and included 117 text editions. The volume, as the introduction explains, greatly expanded the corpus of extispicy omens previously known from the city. To the forty-eight extispicy texts published by Ebeling in the two volumes of Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (KAR), eighty-one new texts were added.20 Heeßel’s volume included a complete edition of KAR 423 (KAL 5 1), a much-cited but never fully published large excerpt tablet of the great Bārûtu series. Other texts found in the volume were various ‘forerunners’ of the Bārûtu series, gallbladder compendia, lung omens, omen commentaries, and bird divination omens (see Chapters 7 and 9, Part III). Two texts were editions of the šumma immeru omens. KAL 5 83 was a new and full edition of the two Tod und Leben pieces of 1931. A short textual commentary with some previous discussion on individual lines of the text was provided by Heeßel. KAL 5 85 was an edition of an unpublished fragment of the šumma immeru omens based on a photograph   Von Soden thanked Hans Ehelolf and Hans Gustav Güterbock for leading him to the photographs, mistakenly numbered, so he claimed, by Ebeling. 19   The introduction was written by Stefan Maul. For the contents and objective of the omens, see the introduction by Maul in Heeßel (2007: ix–xi). Heeßel (2007) deals with the šumma ālu series, physiognomic omens, šumma izbu, dream omens, and other divinatory genres. In his review of the volume in Bibliotheca Orientalis (vol. 71, 2014), Marten Stol states that “… we have here, at last, the full edition of VAT 9518, many years after the faulty edition by Ebeling in Tod und Leben …”. Stol also briefly discusses one of the typical phrases of the omens (and see further discussion in Part III and Chapter 9, Part I). The omens also benefited the attention of Ulla Koch in her Zeitschrift für Assyriologie review (2013: 243 and n. 16, and 244, n. 22). Heeßel (2012) was also reviewed by De Vos (2014) and Gysembergh (2014), although with no mention of the šumma immeru omens. 20   Including a gallbladder compendium that was found in the renewed excavations at Assur in 2001. 18

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

12

1. Introduction

of the tablet. This was the first addition to the šumma immeru omens, since the publication of the Emar manuscripts by Arnaud (1985–1987); see under 4.

3. The Old Babylonian Version (ca. 1940s–1950s) In 1947 Albrecht Goetze published three tablets of the omens, along with additional sixty-three texts in the Yale Oriental Series, vol. 10, given the title of Old Babylonian Omen Texts. The three šumma immeru omen tablets were numbered as nos. 47, 48 and 49 and described in the catalogue as “omina dealing with the behavior of the sacrificial lamb”.21 (See Chapter 2). The three šumma immeru omen tablets were part of a collection of tablets which included clay models of the liver and of the coils of the colon, omen reports, liver and lung omens and other inner parts, oil omens and izbu omens. Somewhat related to šumma immeru tablets were omens dealing with the carcass of the sacrificial bird (listed as nos. 51–53); see Chapter 7.6, pp.253–256. Like most of the tablets in this collection, the provenance of the šumma immeru tablets is unknown. Later, it was argued that the provenance of the collection is from south Babylonian, specifically Larsa.22 Most of Goetze’s short introduction to the collection deals with the liver parts compendia, but a few lines are dedicated to our omens: Goetze (ibid.: 10–11) remarked that nos. 47, 48 and 49 augment Ebeling’s Tod und Leben, no. 9, as well as materials listed by von Soden in his 1936 review, that is to say, the British Museum and Louvre tablets. Fritz R. Kraus in his review of Goetze’s book in Journal of Cuneiform Studies (1950) referred to the three manuscripts as the first known and published Old Babylonian version of the šumma immeru omens.23 Since then the situation has remained the same: we do not have at our possession any additional Old Babylonian manuscripts, although Kraus (ibid.: 144, n. 13) remarked that the Assur tablets were copies of Old Babylonian originals.24 More will be said about this in Chapter 4.   Goetze assumed that the tablets with YBC numbers (including our texts) were part of the Yale Babylonian Collection at least as early as 1913. 22   See already Kraus (1950: 142) and Koch (2015: 87). 23   Kraus also identified K 9094, published by Holma (1923), pl. 14, as belonging to the šumma immeru omens; see nn. 1 and 9. 24   The first published review of YOS 10 was by Adam Falkenstein (1949), who made no comment about the šumma immeru omens, but for one parenthetical reference. Goetze’s YOS 10 was also reviewed twice by Jean Nougayrol. In the first review, published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 70 (1950a), the omens were only fleetingly mentioned (ibid.: 110). The second review, published in the same year (1950b) was integrated in Nougayrol’s ongoing study of omen literature appearing in the Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale. Only particular points of the šumma immeru omens regarding orthography and passing comparisons to other omen compendia were studied (ibid.: 21–22, 24, 37, n. 2, 39, n. 3, etc.). 21

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

13

4. The Late Bronze Age Version (1970s–Present) The Late Bronze Age version consists of manuscripts arriving from Tell Meskene/ Emar and Boǧazköy/Hattuša. (See Chapter 4). Various omen compendia make up a large part of the many scholarly and school texts excavated at Emar during the early seventies of the 20th century. They were all edited and published by Daniel Arnaud (1985–1987) in his four-volume Recherches au Pays d’Aštata (Emar VI).25 Among these omen compendia are found several fragments that belong to the šumma immeru omens. They were identified by Arnaud as Présages tirés du mouton au moment du sacrifice and edited as nos. 698 and 699.26 These Emar remains were treated by Yoram Cohen in his 2007 article Akkadian Omens from Hattuša and Emar: The šumma immeru and the šumma ālu Omens. The article demonstrated that the Emar remains parallel the šumma immeru fragment from Hattuša (see below), thereby establishing the existence of a Late Bronze Age version of the omens. Subsequently, Matthew Rutz briefly treated the Emar manuscripts in his 2013 monograph that dealt with the reconstruction of the Emar archives and libraries. He provided some important observations regarding the relationship of the various fragments to each other (ibid.: 250–251), categorizing the omens under the broad (but mistaken) definition of Behavioral Omens. Two fragments of the šumma immeru omens were found in Boğazköy/ Hattuša. The first fragment was published as no. 47 in a hand-copy in KBo 36, and its obverse was identified by Gernot Wilhelm (1991: v–vi) as an omen text relating to the behaviour of the sacrificial sheep, in other words as a šumma immeru omen compendium. Wilhelm also offered a partial transliteration and translation of the obverse of the tablet. The reverse of the tablet was identified by Cohen (2007) as containing šumma ālu omens. The second fragment, much smaller, was published in KBo 42 as no. 116 by Heinrich Otten, Erich Neu and Christel Rüster (2001), who classified it as an omen text; it was identified to specifically belong to the šumma immeru omens by Cohen. Both Hattuša fragments were edited and compared to the Emar manuscripts by Cohen (2007).

5. The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript (2013) The Sealand Dynasty manuscript, CUSAS 18 22, which is related to the šumma immeru omens, is the latest addition to the history of the omens. (See Chapter 7.1) A single manuscript, held in a private collection, was published by Andrew   The publication has gained many reviews, but mention is given here only to those which touched upon the scholarly textual materials and in particular omens: Biggs (1994), Civil (1989), Dietrich (1990), and George (1990). 26   The šumma immeru omens were already identified and compared to Ebeling’s texts by Arnaud in his preliminary presentation of the Emar materials in the report of the École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses of 1975–1976 (p. 222). 25

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

14

1. Introduction

George in his monograph Babylonian Divinatory Texts chiefly in the Schøyen Collection (2013). Under no. 22, George brought forth an edition of “Omens from the Carcass of the Sacrificial Animal”, recognizing the text’s relationship to the šumma immeru omens. This manuscript and a few other divinatory compositions were grouped by George under a chapter titled Divinatory Texts from the Sealand Dynasty. Apart from the šumma immeru-related manuscript, we find omen compendia concerned with parts of the liver, lung, intestines and the misformed foetus. They can be dated on account of their colophons and other criteria to the Sealand Dynasty in the 16th century, following the fall of Babylon. This group of omen literature is just a part of the growing corpus of texts belonging to the Sealand Dynasty that includes a few literary texts, lexical lists and a large archive of mainly administrative documents.27 Apart from the Sealand Dynasty omens, two other omen compendia, from the Upper Tigris kingdom of Tigunānum/Tikunani which were published by George (as Appendix, nos. II–III; ibid.: 288–293), will require our attention: Omens Taken from a Ewe Confined Overnight and Omens from Severed Hooves and Fetlocks; more will be said about these texts and their relation to the šumma immeru omens in Chapter 7.7, p. 256 and 7.10, pp. 259–262.

6. General Discussions and Related Sources We close this part by briefly mentioning some important general discussions of the šumma immeru omens that were made for the purpose of illuminating the art of divination in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. I. Starr (1983) recognized the importance of the Old Babylonian version of the omens in his study of YOS 11 23 (then known as HSM 7494)––the Ritual of the Diviner (ibid.: 29 and e.g., 71, 77, and 96). Erle Leichty (1993) offered a few remarks on the omens in his overview of ritual, sacrifice and divination in Mesopotamia. He commented (ibid.: 239), as remarked in the Preface of this study, that the omens were not studied or defined properly.28 Leichty was the one of the first to draw all the available evidence together in a publication that was aimed at a more general audience rather than specialists in omen literature. Jean-Jacques Glassner dealt with the šumma immeru omens in three important articles. The first (2009) was concerned with the textual production of omens in the Old Babylonian period, hence the Old Babylonian version was discussed. The other two (2008 and 2011) attempted to explain the symbolic or structuralist meaning of sacrifice and divination in Mesopotamia, hence part of the discussion was devoted to the omens because of the object of observation— the sacrificial sheep. Stefan Maul (2013) has recently laid out a thorough socio-historical analysis of Babylonian extispicy and divination practices. He describes in detail the rituals   George (2013: 129–131).   Leichty (1993: 239, n. 7) confessed that his remarks were based on an unpublished paper presented by Ulla Jeyes at the 32nd Recontre Assyriologique Internationale (Münster) in 1985. 27

28

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

15

and prayers leading to the slaughter of the sheep, and the examination of the liver and exta. The šumma immeru omens are treated (ibid.: 49–50) as a source for illuminating the actual procedures undertaken in order to obtain the desired results from divination. His analysis lays the basis of Part III of this introduction. Ulla Koch (2015: 144–145) in her monograph dedicated to Mesopotamian divination texts, devotes space to the omens, explaining their function and part in the seer’s art. Finally, Hittite sources related to the omens should be mentioned. Harry Jr. Hoffner (1993) compared the Hittite šašta oracles (sometimes referred to in the literature as “Clinomancie” or “Bed-oracles”) to the šumma immeru series.29 Hoffner’s study was supplemented by Stefano de Martino (2010). More will be said about the Hittite oracles in Chapter 7.11, pp. 262–264, but because these texts are in fact not translations of the šumma immeru omens they will not be treated at length here. A place for their full presentation will be found elsewhere. What appeared to be a Hurrian translation of the series was published by Stefano de Martino as nos. 1–2 in the Corpus der Hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler: Die mantischen Texte (1992). The two fragments, however, are actually Hurrian translations of the šumma izbu series; see Cohen (2017).

  The comparison between the šašta oracles and the series was made somewhat before Hoffner’s study, although not in an explicit manner, by Howard Berman (1982: 125) and by Annelies Kammenhuber (1976: 13). 29

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

16

1. Introduction

Part II: An Introduction to the šumma immeru Omens immeru tīrānū šamnu u iṣṣūru [qēmu u qutrinnu] imannu ‘(The apprentice diviner) will recite (the omens), “(If) the Sheep”, “(If) the Coils of the Colon”, “(If) the Oil”, and “(If) the Bird”, [“(If) the Flour”, and “(If) the Incense”].’ (BBR nos. 1–20: 8–9; Anor 2015, II: 13) Part II of the introduction lays out preliminaries regarding the domestication and exploitation of sheep in Mesopotamia and the terminology and nomenclature of sheep in Akkadian and Sumerian. It then discusses the rise of divination by extispicy and then briefly explains the principles by which the šumma immeru omens were formulated and generated. It considers the relationship between the šumma immeru omens and extispicy compendia. It explains how the šumma immeru omens are to be read and understood by readers of this book. Finally, the name of, and reference to the šumma immeru omens as a compendium or collection are discussed.

1. Mesopotamia—Land of Sheep and Wool Mesopotamia is a land poor of natural resources, such as stone, timber, metals or minerals, and its basic economy depends primarily on agriculture and animal husbandry. While the success of agriculture on the Mesopotamian alluvium is much celebrated in the general literature, the place of the domesticated animals, and in particular, the sheep, in its economy, is relegated to second place. However, its centrality is not to be underestimated.30 The domesticated sheep stood at the core of animal exploitation for economic purposes: it was used for its meat, hide, milk and its by-products, and, especially, wool––an extraordinary natural fibre.31 The production of wool-products, such as felt or woven fabrics, was central throughout the history of Babylonia and was one of the country’s hard currencies, when the demand for “Akkadian” clothes spread throughout the ancient Near East.32 For the   The manipulation of caprine (i.e., its exploitation for food by stabling, at the very least) is evidenced in Cappadocia and the Upper Euphrates already at 8500–8200 BC; Stiner et al. (2014). At Nevali Çori, the transition from hunting to herding is dated to 10,500BP, with the herd consisting mainly of sheep; Zeder (2011). 31   Ryder (1993). According to McCorriston (1997), wool-bearing sheep were being bred in Mesopotamia from around the Uruk period (the second half of the 4th millennium). 32   Waetzoldt (2016); Völlig (2016), both with plentiful literature; Kozuh (2014: 7–13). 30

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

17

Eanna Temple in Neo-Babylonian Uruk, which owned huge flocks, the main cash income was from the sale of wool.33 Part of its flocks was also exploited for meat, intended for the temple sacrifices.34 The practice of herding, producing two main commodities, fleece and meat, was always considered in relationship to agriculture and its products. The tension between the two economic domains, which finds its most forceful and known expression in the biblical story of Abel and Cain, existed probably from the very beginning of agricultural-based settlements in Mesopotamia. It is considered to be reflected in historical as well as in a few literary sources, which afford us a glimpse at the encounter between the city-dwellers and the herders (in Ur III sources and later in Mari sources). In the Mesopotamian disputation poem Ewe and Grain, Ewe and Grain are both viewed as personified commodities that are created in the beginning of time by the gods for the benefit of mankind, when people were still at a primitive stage, without clothes or bread.35 Ewe and Grain dispute among themselves who is more beneficial for mankind, with Ewe singing her own praises: she provides white wool for royal clothes, sinew for bowstring and sling, hide for waterskins, sustenance for workers, and sacrifice (as she herself). At the end of the disputation, after Ewe has voiced its benefits, the gods decree that Grain is more important than Ewe. In modern-day eyes, we tend to view sheep as stupid and meek, or, at best, innocent and passive. However, the sheep is a very resourceful animal. The individuals flock together as their protection is in their numbers. The flock can be led by one of their own members (and not solely by dog or shepherd)––contrary to one’s own prejudice––by the mature ewe. The sheep direct their gaze at anyone approaching to warn other members of the flock of danger and are capable of communicating with each other by a variety of signals through their movements.36 They possess a scientifically-proven facial recognition ability, which is by far superior to other farm animals: tests reveal that sheep can correctly recognize photographs of sheep faces and human faces.37 The ewe is particularly fond of her lamb and good at caring for it, actually providing a behavioural pattern for other members of the flock to follow.38 In the economic domain, the proper management of sheep leads to a successful herd, bringing prosperity to its owner. Thus, in   Jursa (2010: 28 and passim); Kleber in Jursa (2010: 601–623); Kozuh (2014).   Kozuh (2014: 1) says that about 4,300 lambs were sacrificed by the Eanna temple; see also Waerzeggers (2010). The distribution of sheep (and goat) meat parts for consumption can be seen in CUSAS 18 43, to which should be added similar texts edited by Leichty and Guinan (2014). Note that Leichty and Guinan (2014) is not related to the practice of divination; see George (2013: 281–284). 35   ETCSL 5.3.2; Vanstiphout (1997: 575–578). 36   Armstrong (2016: 41–53). 37   Knolle et al. (2017). 38   Consider a few lines from a city lamentation (UET 6/2: 403; Gabbay and Wasserman 2005: 71), ll. 7'–11': ‘My ewe cries from the enemy land, my lamb bleats, they have taken away my ewe and her lamb; my ewe, when crossing the river, left her lamb on the other bank.’ For the sake of illustration, see the beautifully emotionally moving reclining ewe, Fig. 4, p. 18 and the seal impression of the ewe and lamb, Fig. 28., p. 372. 33 34

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

18

1. Introduction

metaphorical terms, the early Mesopotamian ruler became to be thought of as the ‘faithful shepherd’ (rē’û kīnu), and the people of the alluvium were nick-named as ‘black-headed’ ((nišū) ṣalmāt qaqqadi, ‘(people) black of head’)––a metaphoric term for humans borrowing its imagery from the black-headed sheep.39 To fully spell out the metaphor, the king, as a shepherd, took care of the people––a flock of sheep, for the benefit of its owners––the gods. The qualities of the animal and its close relations with humans, have led, one can conclude, to the symbolic identification of the animal with humans. This may even have stood at the core of the raison d’être of the sacrifice, if we subscribe to the view that the sacrificial animal serves as a surrogate for the human, without necessarily assuming a reality of actual human sacrifice; see p. 23.40 To Isaac’s question, “Where is the offering lamb?” (‫)איה השה לעלה‬, Abraham answers “God himself will provide the lamb for the offering” (‫ ; אלהים יראה לו השה לעלה‬Genesis 22, 8). This proves, so one can argue, the very point.

Fig. 4. Reclining Ewe; Late Uruk Period (YBC 2261) © Yale Babylonian Collection, Yale University; Photo: C. Kaufman.

  Ryder (1993: 14). The black colour is not a reference to the colour of human hair, pace CAD/Ṣ: 76, but to the colour of the sheep’s head; compare the expressions rî ṣalmāt qaqqadim, ‘shepherd of the black-headed (people)’, ana rē’ût ṣalmāt qaqqadi, ‘for shepherding the black-headed (people)’, and ṣalmāt qaqqadi tere’i kīma a[sl]āti, ‘you shepherd the black-headed like sheep’ (cited in CAD/A2: 336), which strengthen the metaphor between the ‘flock’, i.e., the people, and its ‘shepherd’, i.e., the god or the king. 40   E.g., Burkert (1998); Girard (1977); see McMahon (2003). 39

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

19

2. Sheep Terminology and the Terms for the Sacrificial Animal in Divination With the sheep so central to the country’s economy, it is not surprising to encounter many terms for sheep and sheep types.41 The general umbrella term for the genus is immeru/udu, which also stands for the male animal. The male animal can be designated in Sumerian as udu.níta, whose Akkadian equivalent in lexical sources is zikaru, ‘male(-sheep)’. The terms u d u and u d u . n í t a are used throughout the šumma immeru omens and their commentaries, always written ideographically. The ram is the puḫālu/udu.amaš, a term also used for other animals meaning ‘stud, breeding animal’. The ram was also the (j)ābilu, a West Semitic word in origin (cf. Heb. yubal). A poetic form was aslu, ‘young male sheep’. Another form, possibly poetic, was šu’u, ‘ram’ (cognate with Heb., se’) and šuātu (or šâtu), ‘ewe’.42 The female sheep or ewe was the immertu or laḫru/u 8 (or laḫar/ganam 4 ). The word laḫru also serves as a term for ‘flock’. In Assyria, (a)gurratu was the term for the ewe. The lamb is the puḫādu/sila 4 or kalūmu, with the female counterparts, the ewe lamb, puḫattu and kalūmtu.43 Cognate to Hebrew keves is the kabsu, a young male sheep, and the kabsutu, its female counterpart. The suckling lamb is ša šizbi, literally, ‘one of the milk’ and the weaned animal is the parru and parratu. The lexical sources provide many terms for particular types of sheep. Notable is Tablet 3 of the OB lexical list Ura: it is dedicated to listing domestic animals (262 entries) and in particular sheep and goat (170 entries), wild animal and ‘meat-cuts’, or more precisely, bovidae body parts.44 The list opens with udu niga, ‘fattened sheep’, and goes on to give the various conditions one may meet in the animal (fatten, ill, fleeced, diseased, plucked, etc.), its colours (white, black, brown, ‘yellow’, and speckled), and its purposes (for a presentation for the palace, as a dowry, and as a gift to the barber). Sheep for the purposes of divination are termed as follows: udu máš.šu.gíd. gíd/immer bārî, ‘the sheep for the diviner’; and [imm]eri šá pîšú mesû, ‘the sheep whose mouth has been washed’ (i.e., made ready for sacrifice; see below).45 An animal selected as a medium for divination is designated sila 4 .kin.gi 4 .a.46   Following Postgate (2009); see also Steinkeller (1995: 54–55) and Kozuh (2014: 60–64).   CAD/Š/III: 417 and 168. See below, p. 34 and n. 100. 43   Kozuh (2014: 63) suggests that (in the Neo-Babylonian documentation) kalūmu is the term for a castrated lamb. 44   DCCLT, Old Babylonian Thematic Word Lists, OB Nippur Ura 03 = MSL 8/1: 79–88; See also the standard bilingual version, ur 5 -ra=ḫubullu (here, for short, Hh) Tablet 13 = MSL 8/1. Ura 8 is the Middle Babylonian numbering of the tablet; DCCLT, Middle Babylonian Thematic Word Lists, MB Ura 08. In the standard version, the wild animals are listed in Hh 14 = MSL 8/2; and the meat cuts are found in Hh 15 = MSL 9. The meatcuts tablet is discussed in Chapter 7, .pp. 272–273. 45   Hh 13:70 (= MSL 8/1: 13); OB Ura 03, l. 46 (= MSL 8/1: 83); Hh 13:54 (= MSL 8/1: 11). 46   OB Ura 03, l. 154 (= MSL 8/1: 86); Heimpel (1993: 131–133). 41

42

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

20

1. Introduction

In our omens, we find the term udu sískur/immer niqê, ‘the sacrificial sheep’ in IMV3. The breeding condition of the ewe is also noted in the Ura list: whether it is pregnant, had mated, had a misscarriage, given birth to a lamb, goes along with its lamb, or has abandoned its lamb. The breeds of sheep are known from a variety of sources and the different types are documented notably in Ur III sources (eight breeds), as well as in Hh Tablet 13.47 However, in the šumma immeru omens and commentaries, only udu or udu.níta is used. The only mention of other types of sheep is in Section 1 of the SV––the gukkallu sheep and the ṣuppu sheep.48 Other animals, including caprids, are mentioned in Section 1 of the SV.

3. How did Extispicy Omens Come About? The need for knowing the future is universal, but the ways of revealing it are cultural-specific. In Mesopotamia, the oracle question, ‘What will the future hold for me?’ is usually formulated as a question regarding the well-being of the seeker of the answer, or the client.49 The answer which was given related to the immediate future, as a reply to a current concern: its validity was limited in time, and hence not an answer which gave assurance into the distant future.50 The oracle question could relate to various interests, such as the well-being of the king and his army, as well as concerns of the ‘everyman’, as this passage from the extispicy ritual reveals. It tells us that the oracle may be asked for:51 ana šulum šarri ana sakāp nakri ana šulum ṣabê ana ṣabāt āli ana epēš ṣibûti ana zanān šamê ana šulum marṣi ana ṣummirāti … ‘For the well-being of the king, for the destruction of the enemy, for the well-being of the army, for seizing a city, for fulfilling a need, for rain, for the recovery of the sick, for an enterprise … ’ The answer to the question is primarily revealed by four types of divination techniques, which are: 1.) astronomical omens, 2.) terrestrial omens, 3.) teratology and, 4.) extispicy.52 The omens were collected into multi-tablet compendia, called series (in the first millennium) dealing with: 1.) the position and movement of the celestial bodies and weather phenomena (in the omen   Steinkeller (1995).   Steinkeller (1995: 51) and CAD/Ṣ: 249. 49  See Koch (2011). 50  Heeßel (2010a); Koch (2015: 120–122). 51  BBR nos. 79–82, 15–25; and restored where missing by KAL 5 70 (KAR 151), rev. 49–51; see also CAD/Z: 42. 52   For the most recent survey and evaluation of the sources of Mesopotamian divination, see Koch (2015). A thorough introduction is Maul (2013). A shorter discussion is van de Mieroop (2016: 87–140). 47 48

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

21

series Enūma Anu Enlil), 2.) the ominous features of the urban and the country side environment (in the omen series šumma ālu), 3.) the form and features of rejected foetuses of man and beast (in the omen series šumma izbu), 4.) and extispicy, which is the examination of the organs of the sacrificial animal (in the omen series Bārûtu).53 The concern of this study is a sub-group of omens related to the fourth category of divination techniques––extispicy. The šumma immeru omens observe the animal as it is led to its sacrifice, slaughtered and opened apart. Later, the extispicy procedure begins, as the inner organs of the animal are inspected and omens are adduced. How did extispicy omens come about? The interest in the sheep as a medium of divination may lie at the very start of the domestication of the animal. As we have discussed above, life among the herds brought about an intimacy with the habits of the sheep. Because the sheep earned a livelihood to many a family in Mesopotamia, its well-being was of acute concern. The shepherd was on the constant lookout for predators and aware of any diseases that infected the herd. Attention was given to the proliferation of the herd. The number of lambs lost was probably very high and much higher than today.54 The loss of lambs at prepartum or postpartum was closely followed, with the numbers of the herd tallied. This close observation of animal life, coupled with a religious significance attributed to a life-form, which seemingly miraculously arrives from the womb, are what probably led to consider the phenomenon of stillborn lambs (and other births) as ominous.55 The malformed foetuses were the materials out of which the great omen series šumma izbu, ‘If a (miscarried) foetus’ was made. The series deals with the form and special features of defect or miscarried births of various animals. However, there is good reason to

  1.) Enūma Anu Enlil: not yet fully edited; see for a survey of the literature, Koch (2015: 163–182); 2.) šumma ālu: not fully edited; Koch (2015: 233–258); Freedman (1998), (2006) and (2017), according to which the series is cited in this study; see Chapter 7.8, pp. 257–258; 3.) šumma izbu: De Zorzi (2014), according to which the series is cited in this study; Koch (2015: 265–273); see Chapter 7.9, pp. 258–259; and 4.) Bārûtu: not fully edited; Koch (2000), (2005) and (2015: 83–122); see Chapter 7.4, pp. 246–250 and Chapter 9, Part III, pp. 354–361. 54   In modern UK flocks, up to 15% of the lambs may be lost, born dead or dead within a few days. There can also be a loss of up to 50%, if the weather conditions are harsh; Winter and Clarkson (2012: 61). 55   Modern herders are advised to look out for signs among the dead lambs to discover the circumstances for their premature death: decomposition, clouding of the cornea, lung aeration, food in the stomach, subcutaneous oedema (swelling tissue), haemorrhaging and ruptures; Winter and Clarkson (2016: 61–63). Similar signs seem to be described in the Babylonian šumma izbu omens (see below), but of course they are interpreted differently. 53

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

22

1. Introduction

believe that the first focus of the šumma izbu omens was on the still-born lamb.56 Projecting back from the time of the first written attestations of the šumma izbu omens (in the Old Babylonian period), we can assume that even before the omens were committed to writing, the foetus of the animal (Akkadian izbu), as well as that of the human (also izbu, but sometimes designated as kūbu), was considered, I surmise, to carry a message from the gods, because it was the product of the divine forces.57 The foetus was planted in the womb by the gods, an inner and dark place, conveying a message from beyond to the present. In Mesopotamian religion, the foetus was represented by Izbu and Kūbu––two numinous forces in the netherworld, a place where the future was formed by Šamaš and his assistants, the ‘dream-gods’.58 By a very much similar reasoning, as we will demonstrate in detail below, in specific ritual proceedings, which culminated in the sacrifice of the sheep, the liver of the sacrificial animal was granted an ominous meaning: the largest organ in the body, and hence of obvious importance, was situated deep in the body, hidden by other organs. After the ritual slaughter and the question put before the gods, once exposed to the eye, the liver revealed its dark secret: a divine response sent by the gods. The šumma immeru omens, as we will show, stood at the side of this ritual procedure, providing an interpretative tool to the movements of the sacrificial animal at the time of its slaughter and, once opened apart, to some of its body parts which surround the liver. Hence, to conclude, the purpose of extispicy was to reveal the liver and other organs in order to view and “read” signs, so as to gain understanding of what stands for the client in the future, especially when his or her god was not placated. Consider the report relayed to the seeker of the oracle question after performing an extispicy on his behalf:59

  The earliest testimonia of the šumma izbu series are Old Babylonian manuscripts that are ‘forerunners’ of Tablets 5–17 of the standard version; they are concerned with the izbu of the ewe, and therefore are regarded to represent the first stage of the series, before it included births of humans and other animals; George (2013: 50) and Koch (2015: 265, 267–268). Tablet 5 opens throughout with the phrase šumma laḫru … ulidma, ‘If the ewe gives birth to (such and such an animal) and … ’. Tablet 41 of the šumma ālu omen series is concerned with the behaviour of the sheep in the environment of man, but there is no evidence that the omen collection began its life with the observation of this animal; see further Chapter 7.8, pp. 257–258. 57   See the discussion by Stol (2000: 10–16), for the god responsible for the embryo, and id. (95–98), for horoscopes; and by Steinhart (2017), for the symbolic and iconic connection between impregnation and the divine; note that usually the cow in labour, and not the ewe, is the animal used metaphorically for poetic expressions of human birth. This is not to claim that the ancients did not understand the connection between the male sperm and pregnancy but that the biology behind it was completely obscure, and hence related to forces greater than man. 58   Steinkeller (2005: 34–37); see below. Further, De Zorzi (2014: 2). 59   Koch (2002: 135, no. 15, rev. 2–5). 56

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

23

têrtum immer ezzim šalmat mimma la tanakkud ‘An extispicy – the sheep for an angry (personal god) – was favourable. Do not fear anything.’ The close intimacy with the animal and its sacrifice in a cultic setting, is what gave rise to extispicy, so one can imagine, but, as far as can be told, all this probably lies back in proto-history, at the Neolithic period, if this is when the sacrifice of domestic animals began. Nonetheless, and although never explicitly mentioned in our sources, the context of sacrifice may imply a relationship of projection between the seeker of the oracle question and the sacrificial animal: the animal in its death is a gift from the sacrificer and, to go one step further, the well-being of the animal frame and inner parts are ominous indications of a promised wellbeing of the client.60 The analogy between the sacrificer and victim, however, cannot be pushed much further. We know that other methods of divination in Mesopotamia were utilized and no sacrifice of any sort was involved in them. And yet they proved to be very popular (for example the šumma izbu series and the šumma ālu series) and some even superseded extispicy. The discussion brought about a suggestion regarding the possible socioreligious background of extispicy. But what do the written sources tell us about its rise, development and proliferation? There are a few textual allusions to the practice of extispicy in early Mesopotamia (including Ebla), and the Ur III Kingdom.61 However, it appears as a fully formed branch of knowledge not before the Old Babylonian period. There is evidence of over one-hundred written omen compendia, containing altogether at the very least two-thousand omen entries. And supplementing this rich corpus, there is a substantial group of extispicy reports, written by the experts either for study purposes or as documentation of the procedure for their clients during the course of their duty. To what extent the omen compendia relied on oral traditions is not that clear.62 What is evident that the compendia, already from their earliest written attestations, display a highly articulate, organized and systematized body of knowledge. There is no evidence of an evolution of divination literature, let us say, from the simple to the complex, or from the collection of several omens to the compilation of compendia holding hundreds of omens. How can this be explained? Winitzer (2017) posits that at the background of this sophisticated written articulation stood a theoretical recognition (although never expressed) of the

  Maul (2013: 50–51); Burkert (1998).   Koch (2015: 59–62 and 68–69); for Ebla, see Archi (2010) and Marchetti (2009) (Middle Bronze period). For the Ur III period, Michalowski (2006) and Richardson (2010). 62   Koch (2000: 13–15, 63). 60 61

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

24

1. Introduction

genre’s generative and paradigmatic characteristics.63 Thus, Winitzer abandons the futile search for the ‘source’ or evolution of extispicy literature. Instead of assuming that the omen collections arose from folkloristic or oral traditions, historical events or real-life situations, he offers us the way to understand how the omen collections came into being, as if out of nothing.64 If a theoretical underpinning to extispicy literature is assumed, we can understand how omens were formed or generated on the ground of certain (unexpressed) principles. They can be viewed as formed and arranged, by ways of analogy, in the same way one would string beads on a necklace according to the shape, size, colour or stone-type. In the šumma immeru omens, for the sake of illustration, the protases are arranged according to the progress of the inspection of the sheep’s frame: from top to bottom, that is, head, neck, chest, behind, etc. And each body part (in principle) generates a protasis that deals with its right side and left side, its top and bottom, its colour, its size and other contrasting qualities (such as relaxed or taut). Thus, when we speak of a development in divination literature, as we will do in this study, we realize that the generative scheme and interpretative mechanisms of the genre already existed at its very inception. The development or evolution that we will trace in the šumma immeru omens is of scope, organization and systematization, elaboration of the generative principles, textual standardization, intratextuality (with the extispicy compendia and related materials), and finally of interpretation.

4. Divination Literature, Omen Compendia and the šumma immeru Omens It is important to stress that the šumma immeru omen collection is not to be viewed in isolation. It is to be assessed in relationship to the extispicy omen compendia. As this study will argue, the history of the šumma immeru collection is linked to the history of the transmission, reception and standardization of extispicy compendia, as well as other omen collections.65 Already at the Old Babylonian period, the šumma immeru omen collection was part of a large, although undefined, collection of various omen compendia, which brought together omens according to different subjects. Many of the compendia deal with parts of the liver, as well as other parts of the exta. Others are concerned with oil divination and bird extispicy. There are 116 collections of Old Babylonian extispicy

  See Richardson (2010) for providing a socio-historical background that, according to him, provided the impetus to writing divination literature; and see futher discussion in Chapter 9, Part III, pp. 342–343, and passim. 64   In other terms, there is no need to assume that the omens were collected following an empirical observation of various phenomena; see also Rochberg (2010: 20ff); Glassner (2012a) and Koch (2015: 14–15). 65   For a survey of the history and development of the genre, see Koch (2015: 60–66). 63

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

25

omens (with a total of about 2,000 individual omen entries).66 A considerable part of these compendia, including our omens, may have come from a house of a highranking individual in Larsa.67 Others stem from Sippar, Mari and elsewhere.68 Hence, we can group the omens according to putative locations and also arrange them according to other criteria, such as language and sign-usage. The development of divination literature in the Late Old Babylonian period and the Post Old Babylonian period is now better known than ever before thanks to the publication of a collection of texts dated to the First Sealand Dynasty (the 16th century).69 The šumma immeru omens are not directly represented in this new collection, although one composition is related: a tablet of omens dealing with the inner body parts of the sheep (which we will call SLD; see Chapter 7.1). It brings to the discussion an otherwise unknown chapter of the development of the šumma immeru omens after the Old Babylonian period. The Late Old Babylonian omen compendia from the upper Tigris kingdom of Tigunānum, also recently published, attest to the dissemination and development of omen literature outside of Babylonia: some of its compositions contribute to our discussion regarding the spread of the omens under discussion, as we will show in Chapter 7.70 The evidence from the so-called Western Periphery, or to use a more balanced term, from the western reaches of cuneiform culture, well illustrates what happened to the compendium after the Old Babylonian period. The remains of the šumma immeru omens from Hattuša and Emar, meager as they are, join a whole range of extispicy compendia and other omens (oil, astronomical, šumma izbu, šumma ālu and others).71 The LBA šumma immeru version and other omen compositions from the western reaches of the cuneiform world (esp. Emar) are indicative of things to come with the standardization of divination literature. Manuscripts from Assur and Nineveh (one originally from Kalḫu/Nimrud) of the šumma immeru omens (brought together in Chapter 4) are representative of an intermediate phase, which saw the transition of the omens from the Old Babylonian version to the SV. They join many other omen compendia found in Assur, some identified as Middle Babylonian and others as Middle Assyrian (based on script and format). These manuscripts are considered as ‘forerunners’ (with all their differences) to the standard versions of omens found in first millennium copies.72 Towards the end of the second millennium, during the Kassite period and with the transition into the first millennium, under the Isin II dynasty in Babylonia, there are some indications of a standardization process of divination literature   Koch (2015: 84–88) and Winitzer (2017: 16).   Michalowski (2006a). 68   Winitzer (2017: 16–20), with literature. 69   George (2013) = CUSAS 18; Koch (2015: 88–89). 70   CUSAS 18, nos. 17–21. 71   There is as yet no modern full treatment of divination literature of the Late Bronze Age; for Hattuša, see Riemschneider (2004), Haas (2008); for Emar, Cohen (2009) and Rutz (2013); for Ugarit (the alphabetic sources), Dietrich (1990). 72   Koch (2015: 90–91). 66 67

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

26

1. Introduction

taking place (although this could have happened somewhat earlier; see Chapter 9, Part III). The desire to concentrate knowledge from various sources to one center is attributed to the Kassite king Nazi-marrutaš (1307–1282), who assembled a collection of tablets of a learned nature, so we can assume, from seven Babylonian cities.73 An effort for standardization can be identified thanks to the documentation left by Esagil-kin-apli, who lived in the 11th century, and who was the scholar (ummānu) of King Adad-apla-iddina of the Isin II Dynasty.74 But surely this scholar was not the only person involved in this proces of standardization. He and others, so it can be assumed, are responsible for the fixed or standard texts we have from the Assyrian libraries and later from the Neo-Babylonian cities in Babylonia. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru omens represents this stage. Its various manuscripts (from Nineveh and Uruk) are almost identical, although there are indications of possibly somewhat different recensions. The SV holds some relationship, as will be seen, with the final product of extispicy omens, when they were collected into one large series, known in antiquity as Bārûtu. The complete Bārûtu series consisted of over 100 tablets.75 One of the features of late scholarly text production is the appearance of a new genre of texts called a commentary.76 The commentary was meant to provide the diviner and other professional experts with interpretative tools in their strive to correctly interpret the huge amount of data collected by many manuals and compendia throughout the centuries. There are various types of commentaries meant to explicate different types of texts, such as rituals, incantations, medical texts, and for the chief part, divination literature. The commentaries of the Bārûtu, called mukallimutu, had an objective of collecting similar but variant omens found throughout the great extispicy series, according to its various chapters.77 The commentaries, however, of the šumma ālu and šumma izbu series were devoted to explain difficult logograms or Akkadian lemmata. The three commentaries of the SV šumma immeru omens also have the same objective. As will be seen in Chapter 6, they are representatives, in this sense, of the latest reflective and exegetical side of divination literature and cuneiform literature in general, at the last breaths of Mesopotamian civilization.

5. How to Read the šumma immeru Omens? In section 3 of the introduction we have spoken about the rise of Babylonian extispicy literature and its formation by way of what Winitzer termed generative or paradigmatic principles. In this section, we will explain briefly how the šumma immeru omens are   Heeßel (2010); Frazer (2013) and (2016). See p. 334.   Heeßel (2011a); Lenzi (2008). See pp. 335–336. 75   Koch (2015: 94­–115); Heeßel (2012: 7–8). We capitalize the name of the series (like Koch) in order to differentiate it from the term bārûtu, or ‘the art of the diviner’, i.e., the field of extispicy and related divinatory techniques. 76   Frahm (2011); more will be said about commentaries throughout the study and esp. in Chapter 6. 77   Koch (2015: 115–117). 73 74

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

27

to be read and understood. Note that what is said here is valid not only for the omens under investigation, but also for other Babylonian divination methods. At the root of Babylonian divination literature, to describe it succinctly, lies a binary structure of a positive field or negative field, very often, labelled as the directions right and left.78 Generally, this binary structure holds the tenet that the right field is the pars familiaris, or ‘my side’ and the left field is the pars hostilis or ‘my enemy’s side’: a favourable sign in ‘my side’ is a good omen for the client (which is how the seeker of the oracle question is called in the literature) but a bad omen for his adversary, usually called the/my/your/his enemy. And a favourable sign in ‘my enemy’s side’ is a bad omen for the client but a good omen for the enemy. However, multitude considerations could upset this neat division, and each sign or omen had to be evaluated separately: colours, sizes, and directions influenced the value of the sign.79 The sum of positive signs against the sum of negative signs is what determined the outcome of the oracle question.80 Consider this set of omens (from the OB version, Chapter 2): §40 + If the tail twitches from right to left, you will repel the enemy by force. §41 – If the tail twitches from left to right, the enemy will repel you by force. §42 – If the tail – its thick part is dark, downfall of a well-known person. §43 – [If the tai]l – its thin part is dark, downfall of the diviner. §44 – [If the] tail – its [rig]ht side is dark, downfall of (my) army. §45 + If the tail – its left side is dark, downfall of (my) enemy. §46 – If the tail – it is dark all over, fire will devour (my) city. In §§40–41, the right-left principle is at work, with the apodoses giving results as expected: positive for the right side and negative for the left side. In §§42–43, and 46, the darkening of the tail, in its thick or thin part or all over, is bad news. In §44, the right side, which is positive, is darkened and this means a negative result for my side. If, however, the same feature, which is basically negative, appears on the enemy’s side (§45, the left side), it is a positive result for me. The way that the omens were formulated was always the same throughout the entire corpus of Babylonian divination literature, regardless of the genre, place or time period of the text in question. The sign was articulated by a bipartite conditional sentence, ‘If … then’: the first sentence, called by us nowadays the protasis, is opened by šumma, ‘If’: it is concerned with the description of the observed sign. The second sentence, the apodosis, is not marked and follows directly the first sentence: it gives the result or the interpretation of the sign.   Koch (2015: 12–15 and 82); Glassner (2012b). Other opposing fields are, e.g., top– bottom, dark–light, present–absent, concave–convex, taut–relaxed, etc. 79   Koch (2000: 42–43). 80   Maul (2013: 56–57 and 101–102) and Koch (2015: 83). 78

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

28

1. Introduction

The interpretation is either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’, with the exception of an indication of an ambiguous omen (by special terminology), as we will see later. The relation of the apodosis to the protasis is not always easy to understand: the apodosis can be seen as an interpretative statement of the protasis, sparked by analogy and a variety of associations (verbal, symbolic, metaphoric), obviously thought of as necessary and not arbitrary for the diviner.81 I give two examples (OB version, §§10 and 13). Metaphoric analogy and sound association (alliteration between lexical elements of the protasis and the apodosis) in §10: šumma immerum isāšu ira’ubā urbāšum eli ummāni ima[qqut] ‘If the sheep – its jaws quiver, shivers of fear will fa[ll] upon (my) army.’ And in §13, a symbolic association (gnashing teeth → opening of the genitals): šumma immerum šinnīšu ikaṣṣaṣ aššat awīlim inīakma ˹i˺[na] bītim uṣṣi ‘If the sheep gnashes its teeth, the client’s wife will fornicate and she will leave the household.’ On certain occasions, like the examples brought above, we can understand the relationship between the protasis and the apodosis, but there are times when the tie is not clear, and indeed, may have not been clear to the diviner himself, who would have resorted to the commentaries for a learned explanation. At any rate, the actual meaning of the apodoses was immaterial: what matters is whether the sign gave a positive or negative result. Regardless, the apodoses were always kept in Babylonian divination literature.82

6. The Name of the šumma immeru Omen Compendium The last thing we need to consider in this part is the name of the omens we are studying. The name of omen collection šumma immeru derives from the two opening words of the composition, and it is by this name that the collection was known in antiquity. The name is not given in the compendium itself or in any other compendia. However, it is mentioned by name once. The colophon of a commentary devoted to the SV (see Chapter 6.1), explains that it supplies words and their explanations for the šumma immeru omens (šá be udu.ní[ta]). One may consider another reference to the series in the extispicy ritual (brought as the epithet to Part II of this chapter), where one learns that the apprentice diviner had to study four types of divination techniques:83   Koch (2015: 14, 83) and Winitzer (2016) with many examples.   In Hittite oracle procedures, such as the šašta oracles (see pp. 262ff.), the apodosis was not articulated and each sign was simply valued as either ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable’. 83   BBR nos. 1–20: 8–9; Jiménez (2014: 105), Lambert (2016: 186) and Koch (2015: 21). 81 82

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

… [ … ] immeru(udu.níta) tīrānū(šà.nigin) šamnu(ì.giš) u iṣṣūru(mušen) [qēmu u qutrinnu … ] imannu

29





‘(The apprentice diviner) will recite (the omens) … “(If) the Sheep”, “(If) the Coils of the Colon”, “(If) the Oil” and “(If) the Bird”, [“(If) the Flour” and “(If) the Incense”].’ We see that the apprentice diviner had to master the šumma immeru omens; then he learned the omens taken on the basis of the observation of the coils of the colon. In the great Bārûtu series, an entire chapter, consisting of eight tablets, deals with the coils (Bārûtu Ch. 2). The oil omens are another technique he has to master: these are signs which are taken and interpreted following the pouring of oil upon water in a bowl and its formation on the water surface.84 The bird omens are a special type of extispicy: like the šumma immeru omens, signs were taken from the carcass of a bird.85 An oblique reference to the diviner’s art of interpreting the behaviour of the sacrificial animal is seen in an esoteric type of commentary text (termed by Koch as dub ḫa.la):86 ša immeri ikkillašu rigimšu alaktašu […] ‘Regarding the sheep: its wailing, sound, (and) behaviour […].’ Because the passage is broken, the exact meaning remains unclear, but the context is over all obvious. It refers to the scholarly abilities of the diviner in making calculations and interpretations in order to achieve a proper result. Part of this knowledge consisted of the correct interpretation of the sheep’s movements prior to its sacrifice. External evidence of the šumma immeru omens arrives also by the mention of the collection in the so-called Assyrian Library Records. These are records which list learned compositions collected from individual scholars for the benefit of Assurbanipal’s great library at Nineveh. In one fragmentary tablet, two entries (§§1 and 54') from the SV are cited:87 [1? be u]du.níta geštu 2 kur-ri [1? be udu].níta im-ba-a il-si

  The locus classicus is Pettinato (1966); see now Anor and Cohen 2018.   Maul (2013: 131–153); see Chapter 7.6, pp. 253–256. 86   Koch (2005, no. 91, A8/B9); cited in Koch (2015: 145). 87  Parpola (1983a: 24–25, no. 4) = SAA 7 52. Parpola (1983: 25, nn. 4–5) correctly identified the entries of the library record as šumma immeru omens, but note our new positioning of the SV entries in Chapter 5. Parpola (1983: 19 and 23 for 11') suggested to see one entry in an Assyrian Library Record tablet as referring to the šumma immeru omens, but the collation of the tablet shows that this cannot be maintained; Fales and Postgate (1992: 65). 84 85

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

30

1. Introduction

‘[1? (tablet) of “If the sh]eep, its ears are short.”’ ‘[1? (tablet) of “If the she]ep, it bleats.”’ These lines mean that a certain scholar during the Neo-Assyrian period (his name is lost) studied the omen collections as they are known to us from the SV. Other compositions, such as the great astronomical series Enūma Anu Enlil, the šumma izbu series and its commentary are also mentioned in this tablet. The importance of this list will be discussed in the conclusion to our study; see pp. 369–370. And lastly, it is to be noted that the šumma immeru omens, as far as can be seen, are not cited by name in extispicy reports and letters, although some of the sheep body parts are mentioned in them, described in a very similar way to that seen in the šumma immeru protases; see Chapter 7.5, pp. 250–252.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

31

Part III: The Extispicy Ritual puḫāda ella qudduša ša minâtušu šalmā tanakkis ‘You will slaughter a lamb––pure and sacred whose limbs are perfect.’ (BBR, nos. 98–99: 7) Part III of the introduction is a description and analysis of the sacrificial procedure which was tied with the actual practice of extispicy: the procedure is nowadays called the extispicy ritual. First we will present the way in which the whole ritual was set up: how the sheep was chosen, what happened in the ritual, and how the sheep was slaughtered. This is crucially important because this is the religious and cultic context in which the šumma immeru omens, and indeed the entire corpus of extispicy literature, are to be situated. Secondly, following this presentation, we will explain the mythological foundations that lie behind the examination of the sheep and its inner parts, in particularly the liver. Lastly, we will briefly introduce the principles behind the liver’s interpretation: they will prove to be decisive when we move on to present the editions and commentaries of the šumma immeru omens in the rest of the book. The extispicy omens along with the šumma immeru omens, which we have discussed in Part II, are not to be assessed solely as textual artifacts in a pure scholarly framework, but are to be understood as compositions which directly engage with a particular ritual setting (but see pp.362ff.) They are to be considered the tools of interpretation that follow a complex ritual––called in the modern literature the Ritual of the Diviner or the extispicy ritual––enacted with the help of prayers called ikribu (‘benediction’) prayers. The following participants took part in the extispicy ritual: the sacrificial animal, the diviner, acting on behalf of his client (either a private person or the royal figure), the diviner’s assistant(s), the client (either present or symbolically represented by a personal item), and the gods, in front of whom the oracle question was placed. The objective of the extispicy ritual, ending with the sacrifice of the sheep and the exposure of its inner parts, was to receive the ominous signs sent from the gods as a reply to the oracle question. A step-by-step reconstruction of ‘How to Perform the Extispicy Ritual’ can be achieved by the close study of the ikribu prayers.88 The most elaborate Old Babylonian example of this genre is the text called the Ritual of the Diviner, which opens with a prayer of the diviner (ll. 1–21), when the sheep is sacrificed in preparation of putting forth the oracle question (known as the tamītu).89   Koch (2015: 72–74). For the definition of the genre, see Starr (1983: 45–46) and Lenzi (2011: 46–49). 89   Starr (1983). Shorter ikribu prayers, partly duplicating the longer prayer and ritual, are also known; see Starr (1983: 122–126), Appendix A, as Texts B and C = Nougayrol (1941: 87 and 85–86). 88

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

32

1. Introduction

Later (Standard Babylonian) ikribu prayers, no doubt preserving older traditions, further elaborate on the ritual procedure and its purpose.90 Each ikribu prayer was to be uttered during the course of the ritual action, when, for example, the setting of the ritual was layed out or the purification rites were undertaken. The detailed descriptions found in the ikribu prayers speak of an elaborate and lengthy ritual, leading one to suspect that perhaps it was not as systematically enacted upon each and every occasion as prescribed.91 We bring hereby a concise description of the extispicy ritual, as can be reconstructed by chiefly the ikribu prayers, which contain descriptions of the procedures. First to be discussed is the setting of sacrificial scene: the purity of the diviner and the choice of the sacrificial animal. Then the procedure of the extispicy ritual will be described, as the various gods are evoked, and the oracle question is put in front of Šamaš and Adad. The final procedures of the ritual will close our description, when the sheep is slaughtered and its ominous signs ready to be observed and interpreted.92

1. The Ritual Purity of the Diviner As the person performing the extispicy ritual, unsurprisingly, the bārû––the diviner––had to fulfill the conditions of purity and sanctity.93 The diviner had to be devoid of physical defects and be of perfect stature, for otherwise he would not have been seen as fit to receive the true answer of his oracle question from the gods:94 mār bārî ša zārûšu la ellu u šū ina gatti u minâtišu la šuklulu zaqtu īnī ḫesir šinni nakpi ubāni iska dir.kur.ra malê saḫaršubbê ḫisgalû šubakilu pilpilānu la nāṣir parṣī ša Šamaš u Adad ana ašar ša Ea Šamaš Asaluḫi

  The Standard Babylonian ikribu prayers were edited by Zimmern (1901) = BBR. The structure and order of these prayers are yet poorly understood, because most have not been provided with a full and modern edition. On the relation between the Ritual of the Diviner and the Standard Babylonian ikribu prayers, see Starr (1983: 26). 91   Maul (2013: 36–37). 92   My overview of the extispicy ritual (as described in BBR and additional sources) is mainly based on Starr (1983), Steinkeller (2005), Fincke (2009), Maul (2013: 29–109), Koch (2015: 123–124) and Anor (2015, II). See also Lenzi (2008: 55–58). 93   Koch (2011: 463). The term bārû is a nominal derivation of the verb barû, ‘to examine, to check’. See CAD/B: 115–118 and 121–125. For this expert (and other experts engaging in other fields of divination), see Koch (2015: 18–24). The socio-historical background of the diviner will be discussed throughout the study, where required; see recently, Koch (2015: 70–76) and Charpin (2011). 94   BBR no. 24: 30–38 = Lambert (2016: 191, 193), whose translation is followed; and BBR nos. 1–20: 4–6 = Jiménez (2014: 105–108) and Anor (2015, II: 11–12). The three figures in the passage are probably ‘third-gender’ cultic performers. Is šu-ba-ki-lu (otherwise not mentioned elsewhere) a corrupt form for *šū-pilakki, ‘He of the spindle’? 90

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

33

u Bēlet-ṣēri šasukkat šamê u erṣetim minûtu atḫêša ana purussê bārûti la ‹i›ṭeḫḫe tāmit pirišti ul ipattūšu ‘The diviner, whose begetter is not pure, and who himself is not perfect in form and frame, (either) blind, (or) missing teeth, with a cut-off finger, a crushed testicle, full of disease, a ḫisgalû, a šubakilu, (or) a pilpilānu, not privy to the cults of Šamaš and Adad, will not approach the place of Ea, Šamaš, Asalluḫi and Bēlet-ṣēri, surveyor of Heaven and Earth, beloved by her brothers, for the oracular verdicts. They will not open before him the oracle question.’ Before the ritual began, the diviner had to ensure his own personal purity:95 ina šērim lām Šamši napāḫi bārû egubbâ irammuk ana libbi šamni ḫalṣi imḫur-līm inaddima ippaššaš ṣubāta zakâ iltabbaš ‘At morning break, before the sun rises, the diviner will bathe in the holy water basin; he will put the imḫur-līm-plant into pressed oil and anoint himself; he will then wear clean clothes.’ Such purity regulations are rather obvious and appear in other ritual contexts. Other details, however, are specific to the diviner.96 It is said that he had to be of pure and ever-lasting descent, coming from a family of diviners, and (mythologically speaking) to be an offspring of Enmeduranki––the legendary diviner-king, who received the knowledge of divination from the gods.97 The diviner also had to undergo schooling in the secret arts of divination, acquiring the knowledge of different types of extispicy and divination techniques, as well as mastering the art of interpretation.98

2. Finding the Right Sheep for the Extispicy Ritual The physical surroundings of the ritual and the animal were also to be kept pure. The sheep was not to be touched by an impure person (see Chapter 5, SV §78'', pp. 165–166) and its way to the place of the sacrifice was not to be obstructed. The sheep was not to be handled by any person who wore soiled garments, who has eaten, drank or anointed himself or herself with anything unclean.99   BBR no. 11, rev. etc.: 2–5 and BBR nos. 1–20: 30; following CAD/R: 113.   Lambert (2016: 183–199) = Lambert (1998). 97   BBR no. 24 (The Enmeduranki Legend): 23–29 = Lambert (1967: 132). 98   Jeyes (1991–1992: 23–25) and Lambert (1998). See pp. 28–29. 99   The information is disclosed by the ‘Disregard!’ (ezib) formulas of the Neo-Assyrian oracle questions before Šamaš. The ‘Disregard!’ formulas were uttered by the diviner as a sort of standard disclosure precaution against all kinds of bad and unplanned actions and conditions that could harm the perfect extispicy ritual; Starr (1990) = SAA 4, xxiv and, e.g., no. 110, rev. 1–5. 95 96

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

34

1. Introduction

The sacrificial animal itself had to be a male lamb (puḫādu) or sheep (immeru),100 a pure animal, free of any physical blemish, innocent of the act of mating, and upon which the human hand has not been laid. 101 Its fleece, white, was not yet shorn. Consider the descriptions of the animal in the ikribu prayers:102 Šamaš bēl dīnim Adad bēl ikrībi u bīrim našiakkunūšim šâm māri šâti ellam tiqqiam puḫādam barmam/namram ṣuppam ṣuppuram šīpātim ellam ša ina pūqu šâti ittabku ša rē’ûm itiqšu imittam u šumēlam la issuḫu anassaḫkum itiqšu ša imittim u šumēlim ašakkankum ina za’im qiri ilī rabûtim za’um u erēnu liqriākunūtima ina têrti eppušu ina ikrib akarrabu kittam šuknān [ina dī]n? ša annanna māri annanna ina puḫād akarrabu kittam šuknam … ‘Šamaš, lord of judgment, Adad, lord of extispicy Rituals and divination, I bring you a ram, offspring of an ewe, a pure, tiqqu-coloured lamb, speckled/ bright, a ṣuppu-sheep, purely dressed-in-wool, which was discharged from the “behind” of a ewe. Whose fleece on the right and the left no shepherd plucked I will pluck for you, Whose fleece on the right and on the left I will offer you, With resin invite the Great Gods! May resin and cedar-wood invite you(pl.)! In the extispicy which I will do, in the ikribu ritual which I will perform, place the truth. [In the ca]se? of so-and-so, son of so-and-so, place the truth in the lamb which I will offer … ’ [Šamaš bēl dīni Ada]d bēl bīri anaššikunūši akarrabkunūši [puḫatta] mu1-kam ša aslu la išḫiṭu eli‹ša› riḫut Šakkan [la im]quta ana libbiša ekkal šammē ina bamâte ištanatti mê māḫāzi ellūti ‘[O Šamaš, lord of judgment, O Ada]d, lord of divination, for you I bring and to you I dedicate a yearling [ewe lamb] no ram has mounted, into which the semen of Šakkan (i.e., the god of the herds) has [not] entered.’ It eats grass on the plains, drinks only pure pool water.’   Cf. Prayer to the Gods of the Night (Dossin 1935: 181), l. 38: immeri Adad puḫādi [Šamaš], ‘(I offer) the sheep for Adad, a lamb for [Šamaš].’ In a niṣirti bārûti (Secret of the Extispicy) composition (which is a sort of learned manual for the professional diviner), the sacrificial animal is called once šu’u, ‘ram’; Koch (2005, no. 90, 1–2). 101   See Durand (1988: 36ff.) and Maul (2013: 29ff.). According to Jeyes (1991–1992: 33), the ‘pure lambs’ were used in atonment rituals to appease the gods when things went wrong in the extispicy rituals and the omens were negative. 102   Text 1: The Ritual of the Diviner (Starr 1983: 30–31, 37), ll. 1–7; Text 2: BBR no. 100: 35–38. The translation of Text 1 is based on Starr (1983: 37), but also on the citations in the CAD and the imporant comments by Durand (1988: 36–37); cf. BBR no. 100: 13. The translation of Text 2 follows Foster (2005: 756). 100

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

35

The entire frame (minâtu) of the sheep, a term which we will meet in the SV of the šumma immeru omens, had to be perfect:103 puḫāda ella qudduša ša minâtušu šalmā tanakkis ‘You will slaughter a lamb––pure and sacred whose frame is perfect.’ Perhaps through trial and error, it was seen that a healthy-looking animal, especially when young, would not exhibit, when opened, diseased organs. As will be discussed below, these would have been seen as negative signs for the client, but as positive for his adversary.104 Although there was a priority to a male lamb,105 female sheep were not shied upon and were also sacrificed. Other animals were not used for the purposes of extispicy.106 A nice illustration for this is found in a Sumerian proverb: ‘Using a donkey instead of the sheep will not allow you to recognise any omens.’107 The exception was a bird: extispicy was practiced on the carcasses of birds; see Chapter 7.6, pp. 253–256.

3. Placing the Oracle Question in Front of the Gods The extispicy ritual is held at a specially assigned place which is purified, and on a favourable day (ūmu magru), especially chosen.108 The ritual begins before sunset with offerings being arranged. With Šamaš and Adad called upon and offerings presented to them and to Adad’s assistants, the gods Kittu, ‘Truth’ and Mišāru, ‘Justice’, the whole scene is set as if in a courtroom.109 The client (bēl niqê), on whose behalf the oracle question will be posited, is considered the defendant. The diviner sits upon the judge’s chair, awaiting to judge a case of truth and justice, whose verdict, however, Šamaš and Adad will pronounce.110

  BBR nos. 98–99: 7. For the term minâtu, see pp. 174, 316 and 365.   Koch (2016: 18) and ead. (2015: 82). 105   Kozuh (2010) demonstrates that the majority of sheep intended for sacrifice in the Eanna temple of Neo-Babylonian Uruk were male. 106   Maul (2013: 29). 107  ETCSL 6.2.3, UET 6/2 234. 108   The days chosen were those when the moon was visible. Fifteen days per month (or less) were favourable with a strong preference for the 15th day (according to Neo-Assyrian reports); Maul (2013: 35); Pongratz-Leistein (1999: 172–176); and Jeyes (1991–1992: 30–31). The crucial text is KAL 5 70 (= KAR 151, with duplicates), rev. 52–64; Koch (2005: 295–296), no. 32. 109   BBR nos. 1–20: 144–145; Fincke (2009: 549) and Maul (2013: 39 and 59–60). 110   BBR nos. 1–20: 122–126. 103 104

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

36

1. Introduction

At this stage the sheep is brought in,111 held by the client, while the diviner performs purification rites.112 The oracle question is spoken to the left ear of the animal so that it may reach, Šamaš, ‘lord of judgment’ (bēl dīni(m)) and Adad, ‘lord of divination’ (bēl bīri).113 They, as the two oracle gods of Babylonia, should proclaim their judgement over the case. The god Šamaš was considered the supreme judge of the Mesopotamian pantheon. He traverses the sky by day and by night visits the netherworld to judge the dead.114 There he sits along with a host of netherworld deities. It is he who writes the outcome of his verdict of judgement for the client by inscribing his say on the liver and other internal organs which are located inside the sheep:115 ina libbi immeri tašaṭṭar šīra tašakkan dīna ‘Inside the sheep you write (the verdict), (in) the flesh you place (your) judgement.’ While the role of Šamaš in the extispicy ritual is clear, the function of Adad is less obvious. It has been suggested that Adad is present because of his role as the god of wind, responsible for conveying, as Šamaš’ helper, the decrees from the netherworld.116 The evidence to support this explanation may be valid, but it may have been no more than a later etiology for explaining what Adad is doing in such rituals (and mentioned with Šamaš in curses and oaths). The reason in fact may have been historically motivated. The omen texts from Tigunānum (dated from the mid- to the end of the 17th century) expose us to an old tradition of divination whose origin was not Babylonia, but Halab, a city whose chief deity was Adad.117 I do not claim that extispicy or other divinatory techniques were born in Syria and imported

  BBR nos. 98–99: 8; Fincke (2009: 554). Jeyes (1991–1992: 28) considers this sentence not referring to the sacrifical animal intended for the sacrifice, but to another sheep which is dedicated solely to Šamaš and Adad. Fincke (2009: 544 and 554) argues that BBR nos. 1–20: 75 (merdītu ana nikis immeri tareddi, ‘you make the merdītu-offering at the slaughtering of the sheep’; CAD/M2: 20b) describes the moment of the slaughter of the sheep. It is difficult to identify precisely amidst the various descriptions of the ritual the exact timing of the slaughter of the client’s sheep. It was, however without doubt, near the break of dawn, as the sun arose; see below. 112   The presence of the client could also be assured by proxies (such as the hem of his garment); Maul (2013: 45). 113   Gabbay (2015: 196–197). 114   Cf. the Ritual of the Diviner (Starr 1983: 30, 37 and 50). Also Steinkeller (2005) and Lambert (2007: 1–5 and 8–10). 115   Starr (1983: 51) and Maul (2013: 48). The citation is from the Prayer of Šamaš-šumukīn, as brought by Steinkeller (2005: 15–16). 116   Steinkeller (2005). 117   George (2013), and further discussion in pp. 261–262. 111

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

37

to Babylonia, but that already in the Old Babylonian period, Adad’s position was recognized as the decider of fates.118 Hence his special position in the ritual. Other participants in this nightly courtroom are the Gods of the Night. The gods are evoked by the ikribu prayers at night time, when they appear as stars (and sometimes named explicitly as such).119 The gods, residing in the netherworld, are invited to sit as judges and assist in the judgement of the client. The role of the Gods of Night was to protect the client’s life when his fate is being decided, as Sin and Šamaš descended to the netherworld to decree judgement. Thus, the Gods of the Night act as mediators between the client and the fate-deciding gods.120 Hence, their presence at the extispicy ritual was crucial, because they had an influence over the outcome of the extispicy.121 Here we understand why weather conditions had to be favourable when the extispicy ritual was held: the sky was not to be obscured by rain or clouds, so that the Gods of the Night, as stars, would have been visible.122 Along with Šamaš, Adad and the Gods of the Night, the personal god or goddess of the client (il amēli or ilāt amēli) had to be present.123 It is the personal god’s presence during night time that is crucial for a positive outcome of the extispicy trail. And it is the personal god (or goddess) who puts the question before Šamaš, who then reveals it to the diviner:124 izzaz ilšu Šamaš ušalla ana Bunene [ … ] inaddin Šamaš ana mār bārê pirišta Šamaš u Adad ‘His personal god, being present, asks Šamaš through Bunene [ … ], Šamaš gives the diviner the secret of Šamaš and Adad.’

  See also Maul (2013: 334, n. 114).   Following Steinkeller (2005: 38–39), citing CBS 574 = Horowitz and Wasserman (1996); Maul (2013: 39–40); Fincke (2009: 530–535 and 547–550). 120   Thus Steinkeller (2005). In the extispicy ritual, the client is dependant on the appearance of the Gods of Night: he must think of them so that he will obtain a positive outcome; Horowitz and Wasserman (1996: 59–60); Fincke (2009: 533, n. 73). According to Fincke (2009: 540 and 552), the role of the Gods of the Night is to protect the client from evil spirits that can harm the entire procedure. Fincke (2009: 552–553) further suggests another important role of the Gods of the Night: to remove unfavourable signs in the procedure of the ritual, which may have fallen upon the client. They are called to this role in apotropaic rituals (namburbû). 121   Maul (2013: 41–42), citing Dossin (1935); see also Foster (2005: 207–208). 122   Maul (2013: 33), citing a letter from Mari, which relates how extispicy was not undertaken because of rain; Durand (1988, no. 143); adverse weather conditions are also mentioned in the ‘Disregard’ formulas; Starr (1990: xxii and lxix, n. 34). 123   The client’s personal god was offered an incense burner and an offering table, as were the other participating deities; BBR nos. 1–20: 57–58, 63, 65 = Anor (2015, II: 33–36). In one of the ikribu Prayers, the client is explicitly called as ša ilšu ittišu, ‘the one whose personal god is with him’; Horowitz and Wasserman (1996: 59–60); Fincke (2009: 533, n. 73). 124   BBR no. 88, rev. 17'–18', as cited by Jeyes (1991–1992: 25). 118 119

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

38

1. Introduction

Fig. 5. The sacrificial sheep after its slaughter (after Layard 1853, pl. 36)

Fig. 6. The sacrificial sheep at the Assyrian camp (BM 124548) ©Trustees of the British Museum © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

39

The personal god must be manifest as a star during night time, although which particular star or god people chose is not made explicit in the ikribu prayers.125 Otherwise, the act of extispicy undertaken for the client will be invalid, for without a protector god the individual is cursed.126 In fact, it is the personal god who is responsible for the oracle procedure––the têrtum. In this capacity the personal god is named as bēl têrtim, a term which can be translated as ‘the one responsible for the oracle outcome’.127 The sheep that contained the message from the gods was the animal dedicated to the client’s personal god. It was the first animal to be inspected. In case the first response was negative or unclear, a second sheep was inspected––this was the sacrifice offered to Šamaš and Adad and the divine assembly––in order to verify or uphold the verdict of the gods.128

4. The Slaughter of the Sacrificial Animal Just before sunrise a set of rituals was enacted by arranging offering tables to Šamaš, Adad, Aya, the consort of Šamaš, and Bunene, his vizier. Four pure lambs were offered to these deities.129 Then towards daybreak the animal was prepared for slaughter.130 The slaughter of the sheep was simply called niqû, ‘offering, sacrifice’. The sheep was slaughtered by the diviner himself.131 How exactly the sheep was slaughtered is not specified, but reliefs from the Neo-Assyrian palaces show us two scenes of the animal placed high on a table. In the first scene (Fig. 5), we see the animal opened with a knife, presumably by which its neck was cut.132   This is inferred by extispicy reports held for individuals. Steinkeller (2005: 40–42) suggests to identify the personal god with one of the Gods of the Night. In Fig. 27, p. 372, it can be argued that the personal god is depicted as a star above the lamb and ewe. 126   Consider one of the injectives uttered against one of the enemies of the Assyrian king (Bēl-ēṭir): urdu ša ili [m]īte, bītu ša kakkabša in šamê ḫalqu, ‘servant of a dead god, (member of) a household whose star disappeared from the sky’; SAA 3 30:3. We understand here the personal god to be manifest as a star (kakkabu); recall how ZimrīLim king of Mari is called by his family members as kakkabī, ‘My Star’. 127   Steinkeller (2005: 39). The omen message itself was called têrtu(m), ‘instruction, directive’, and eventually came to be a synonymous term of the liver itself; Maul (2013: 33). 128   Jeyes (1991–1992: 28–29); Maul (2013: 53 and 89–90). 129   BBR nos. 1–20: 106–108 = Anor (2015, II: 49–50). 130   BBR nos. 1–20: 69 and 149: ina Šamaš šāt urri niqâ liqqi, ‘Let him sacrifice in the sunlight of the morning watch’ (CAD/U-W: 245); Maul (2013: 46 and 49). The šumma immeru omens do not give any indication of the time of slaughter; however, see the two compositions which are concerned with the observation of a sheep at night time; Chapter 7.10 and 11, pp. 259–264. 131   BBR nos. 1–20: 115: ana il amēli niqâ tanakkas, ‘you will slaughter the offering for the client’s personal god.’ The same verb (nakāsu) is used in the šumma immeru omens. Another description of the animal’s slaughter is found in a witchcraft text (KAL 2 21 = KAR 26, l. 42), cited by (Jeyes 1991–1992: 24), where the action is described as ḫiniq immeri, (lit. ‘sheep strangling’), probably simply its execution and not specifically death by strangulation. 132   Maul (2013: 50, and Fig. 3). 125

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

40

1. Introduction

And in the second (Fig. 6), in which the diviner inspects the inside of the animal with the help of his assistant, the animal is shown without its head.133 Once the sheep was slaughtered, the head was separated from the body and a libation was poured over it.134 The mouth of sheep was also washed, as in a mīs pî ritual (‘washing the mouth’) ritual.135 Glassner (2011) assumed that this ritual is similar to the ritual of the animation of the divine statue. The analogy, although illuminating, is limited because in the case of the sacrificial sheep, no animation was involved, since the animal was for all purposes already dead. Hence, the similarity is perhaps limited to the notion of sacredness with which washing the mouth is associated and not much beyond. This is a procedure that the diviner himself undergoes during the ritual in order to confront the holy.136

5. “Reading” the Sheep Going back to the mythological setting of the ritual, we saw that the time the divine trial was held was during the night, when the Šamaš descended to his court in the netherworld to render justice and write the verdict upon the tablet, or the liver, crucially before the animal was opened apart and its inner part still in the dark.137 Let us explain this mythical scene in the extispicy ritual. In the ritual, the sheep itself was considered to be a sacred envelope in which was deposited a tablet––the inscribed liver.138 The ominous sign was understood to be written upon the tablet:139 ina šiknat ilī rabûtim ina ṭuppi ša ilī takaltum lišib   Maul (2013: 58–59, and Fig. 6).   Maul (2013: 51); BBR nos. 84–85. See Fig. 8, p. 46, a vessel perhaps used in such rituals. 135   BBR no. 100: 27; Dick (2005: 581). See also Cooper (1972: 74 and 76), where the mouth of the pure sacrificial animal (niqû ellu), i.e., the sheep, is washed. 136   Maul (2013: 37); Dick (2005) shows that the mouth washing ritual was applyed to statues, animals, humans, and sacred objects. 137   Steinkeller (2005: 33–34); Fincke (2009: 555) differently. 138   Steinkeller (2005: 30, n. 43). The liver, as will be seen below, was the main organ of extispicy. The association between it and a cuneiform tablet was partly formed by the shape of the liver––a rather flat two-sided organ (esp. its smooth diaphragamatic surface, which was never “read”); see Maul (2013: 338, n. 192). 139   The Ritual of the Diviner (Starr 1983: 30), l. 16, following Steinkeller; see note above. Steinkeller translates šiknat ilī rabûtim as ‘the creation of the great gods’, but this sense for šikittu, although possible, is not particularly compeling; CAD/Š/II: 430–431. Lambert (1998: 147) understands that the takaltum (and reading the difficult ta-ka-altím), ‘liver’, stands in apposition to ‘the tablet of the gods’, thus: ‘Let (truth: kīttu) be present in the tablet of the gods, the liver’. This is supported by BBR no. 24, ll. 8, 14 and 16 (The Enmeduranki Legend), where ṭuppi ilāni stands in apposition to takalta. But Lambert’s reading of the Ritual of the Diviner demands us to pose an unexpressed subject (kittu) and read takaltim, instead of the obvious takaltum. See the discussion by Starr (1983: 53–55), Gabbay (2016: 198, n. 59); Winitzer (2010: 180–181). 133 134

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

41

‘According to the decree of the great gods, may an omen be present in the tablet of the gods.’ The tablet or liver was closed inside an envelope––the sheep––and only Šamaš knew its contents, as this Hymn to Šamaš sings to the god:140 ṭuppa arma la petâ tašassi ina libbi immeri (udu.níta) tašaṭṭar šīra (uzu.meš) tašakkan dīna ‘You read out an unopened case-enclosed tablet, Inside the sheep, you write the omens, you place (your) judgement.’ The omen was placed in the sheep while still alive, as this line from an omen commentary tells us explicitly:141 tertû(uzu.kin) ina libbi (šà) immeri(udu.níta) balṭi(ti.la) kī šaknat(gar) ‘The omen is placed thus inside the living sheep.’ But after the verdict was written, what happened in practice? After the head was cut off from the animal body and the blood drained, select pieces of the animal were offered and the omentum was removed, as well as other parts of the stomach.142 Then the intestines were taken out in order to be inspected: the coils of the colon were counted, because the number of coils were deemed ominous.143 Finally, the liver was taken out of the body and then it too was thoroughly inspected.144 The examination, so it is clear, happened at daylight, when the sun was up. The šumma immeru omens are exactly concerned with this moment of the extispicy ritual. As the Ritual of the Diviner informs us, first the right side of the sheep was inspected and then its left side. A prayer was forwarded to the gods that favourable signs be present in the right side organs of the sheep and unfavourable   Hymn to Šamaš 1 (Mayer 1976: 505), ll. 110–111, cited by Steinkeller (2005: 15–16). Another clue regarding the sheep as a receptable for messages may come from its equation with the tukkannu, ‘a leather sack’ in BBR no. 74; see Glassner (2011) and (2008). The liver itself was also called takaltu(m), ‘a pouch, pocket’; see the note above. 141   Koch (2000), no. 19 (Bārûtu Ch.3, Commentary 1), §26. 142   Maul (2013: 51–52). BBR nos. 1–20: 52 and 109 (and see CAD/S: 266) mentions only the following parts: uzuimitta uzuḫimṣa uzušumê uzusilqu, ‘the shoulder, the omentum, roast meat, boiled meat’, but the Manual of Sacrificial Procedure (Chapter 7.13, p. 266) brings many more parts, some of which are mentioned also in the šumma immeru omens. Note that a different terminology is employed for the anatomy of the butchered parts of the animal (meant for consumption); see Chapter 8. 143   Maul (2013: 61–62) and Temple (1982). 144   The sequence of removing the inner parts down to the liver can be seen in the Manual of Sacrficial Procedure; Chapter 7.13, p. 266; Maul (2013: 47ff., 57–58). 140

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

42

1. Introduction

signs found in the left side organs.145 In the šumma immeru omens, ominous signs were reported from the behaviour of the sheep at the time of its slaughter: its general movement and its body parts at the time of death, basically from its head towards its hind part, the flow and colour of the blood, features of the animal’s outer body parts and then features of its inner organs leading to and surrounding the liver. As Maul explains (2013: 49–50), the observations recorded preliminary signs sent by the gods, which were of significance to the outcome of the extispicy and the well-being of the client. Certainly, this is the case, but one can add, that because some of the sheep body parts were given as offerings to the gods they were considered media suitable for extispicy, as were other foodstuffs and materials that were given as offerings. Oil and flour also could be observed for signs, as well as the smoke coming up from the burnt cedar, which served as incense for pleasing the gods. Hence, this is the reason for the interest of the diviner in these body parts, as will be demonstrated. On certain occasions, however, the sheep was not opened and its innards not “read”. A reoccuring phrase, which we will term here as the šumma immeru formula (Chapter 9, Part I), instructs the diviner to release the sheep. Its outer omens were considered to be so positive that no further investigation of its frame or exta were required. As one of the versions informs us (IMV1 §3):146 [šumma immeru i]štu karbu imba issi uzunšu unarraṭ! uššer immera dūk nakra ‘[If the sheep––af]ter it was dedicated––bleats (and) shakes its ears, let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’

6. “Reading” the Liver As we will see later on in our study, many of the signs taken at the time of sacrifice and reported by the šumma immeru protases were interpreted by the apodoses as the conditions one will meet later in the procedure, when examining the inner parts of the animal, especially the liver. In the example below, a link is made between the colour of the sheep’s blood and the condition of the liver (or in general the omen), which is to be observed at a later stage, once the sheep will be opened (OB §22):   The Ritual of the Diviner enumerates the entire sequence of the right body parts and left body parts (ll. 22–73: ikrib imittim, ‘ikribu prayer for the right side’) and vice-versa (ll. 77–132: ikrib šumēlim, ‘ikribu prayer for the left side’). The šumma immeru omens do not cover the whole range of right and left body parts, and sometimes make do with the observation of the right or positive side. The results of the left or negative side must be implied by the practitioner. The order of the body parts and their number is not identical between the two compositions; see further Chapter 7.12, pp. 264–265. 146   As Stol (2014: 187) in his review of KAL 5 states, von Soden (1936: 253) had already understood that the phrase means that ‘the king should cancel the extispicy because he can attack the enemy without further investigations’; see p. 295, n. 8. The sheep was already dead at this stage, so the call is not to save its life. 145

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

43

Fig. 7. The sheep liver and its parts, after Koch (2000: 45): a = ‘Position’, b = ‘Path’, c = ‘Good Words’, d = ‘Strength’, e = ‘Palace Gate’ f = ‘Well-being’, g = gallbladder, h = ‘Finger’, i = ‘Yoke’ and j = ‘Increment’. šumma [immerum] ina ṭabāḫišu damūšu summū têrtum ša libbi immerim šal[m]at ‘If [the sheep] – when it is slaughtered – its blood is deep red, the liver/ omen (taken) from the sheep’s inside will be favourable.’ Hence, we need to inquire about the stages that continued beyond the initial inspection of the sheep frame and the outer body parts in order to gain a full understanding of the purpose of the šumma immeru omens. As the example below shows us, the objective of the extispicy was to detect that the signs situated in ‘my side’ are favourable. The request of the diviner was that first and foremost the internal organs be intact:147 ina libbi immeri annê ša teppušu šīrū šalmātu uṣurātu liškunā ‘May the exta be wholesome (and) the signs be present inside this sheep which you will sacrifice.’ The main focus of the extispicy was the liver organ (amūtu or têrtu). It was usually not considered as a whole, but as a body part made up of many components, each 147

  BBR no. 1–20: 72; Anor (2015, II: 37–38). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

44

1. Introduction

worthy of a detailed examination down to the very minute details.148 The only other organ in the sheep’s body which received considerable attention (although less from the liver) was the animal’s lungs. How was the liver “read”? The liver was always examined on its visceral (or internal) surface (called in Akkadian pan takalti, ‘the upper part of the pouch’). The topography of the visceral surface was the outcome of the impressions made on the organ by the stomach parts and the kidneys. Once turned on its back to be “read”, the liver was imagined to be a model of a terrain of one’s kingdom, complete with a river, path and palace gate, as the names of its parts testify.149 Hence, it was read as a sort of a map of an imagined and symbolic territory. The diaphragmatic surface, a smooth and even surface, was never examined. The liver was oriented with its ventral side (bottom) facing away from the viewer and the dorsal side (top) facing towards the viewer.150 Thus, the left side of the liver (lobus sinister) became the right side and the right side (lobus dexter) the left side. However, because the liver was rotated when read, the left-side and right-side (and top-bottom directions) for each area and zone were different: the inscribed clay models assist us, as they assisted the novice diviners of the ancient Near East, in determining the direction in which the observed area is to be “read”.151 The uneven visceral surface of the liver was divided into areas, and within the area into zones.152 These areas, which nowadays can be identified with confidence with actual physical features of the sheep liver, were examined according to a fixed order, starting from the right-side and running counter-clockwise along the surface of the organ. The areas were divided to two groups: the physical parts of the liver were called šīru, ‘flesh’ and the grooves and impressions were called uṣurtu, ‘drawings, plans’.153 Some of these areas are mentioned in the apodoses of the šumma immeru omens; see Chapter 9, Part I. We describe here the more important areas of the liver; see Fig. 7. The first part of the liver to be examined was the naplaštum, ‘Viewing’, also called manzāzu, here translated as ‘Position’ (a) (and sometimes translated as ‘Presence’ or ‘Station’), an area identified with a groove on the left lobe of the liver (but the right side of the diviner). The absence of the manzāzu meant that the question put forth to   The description here is brief and simplified: it is based on the following studies, which the reader should consult for further information: Meyer (1987), Jeyes (1989), Leiderer (1990), Starr (1990), Koch (2000), Maul (2013) and De Vos (2014). 149  This idea was expressed by Andrew George in the Cuneiforum meetings in London 2010–2011, during which he introduced the omen materials in his then forthcoming monograph, CUSAS 18. 150   Although see Koch (2000: 39–40). 151   There were also ‘orientation’ tablets, which depend or at the very least, are closely related to the liver models; Koch (2005: 66–72; nos. 107–109), ead. (2015: 122) and Maul (2013: 90–94). The locus classicus is Nougayrol (1968). For liver models, see Koch (2015: 70) and Meyer (1987); and for liver models specifically from Hattuša, see De Vos (2014). 152   Koch (2000: 38) and Maul (2013: 71–72). 153   Koch (2005: 38). 148

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

1. Introduction

45

the gods was rejected, because the personal god of the client was not present. As we will see, in the šumma immeru omens, there are some apodoses which relate to the presence or absence of the personal god at the time of the sacrifice. The inspection then followed with the padānu, ‘Path’ (b) and the pû ṭābu, ‘Good Words’ (c) (both identified with a top groove on the left lobe), the dānanu, ‘Strength’ (d) (the round ligament), and the bāb ekalli, ‘Palace Gate’ (e) (the fissure or cleft that lodges the round ligament). The ‘Palace Gate’, as will be seen, is mentioned in the šumma immeru apodoses. The inspection continues with the šulmu, ‘Well-being’ (f) (the quadrate lobe). The gallbladder, called martu (g) (lit. ‘bitter’) is also viewed as part of the liver inspection, although it is a separate organ. It too is of importance in the šumma immeru omens. After a few more parts, comes the ubānu, ‘Finger’ (h) (the caudate process), the nīru, ‘Yoke’ (i) (the impressio omasica) and the ṣibtu ‘Increment’ (j) (the processus papillaris). The many parasites which infect the sheep liver leave their marks on its surface. The various marks, whose cause was obviously unknown, sometimes resembled in their appearance scribblings, hence were imagined to look like actual (archaic) cuneiform signs to be “read” by the diviner.154 The marks are called in the literature ‘fortuitous marks’, and since a few are found in the šumma immeru apodoses, it is worth the while to provide here a few details. The šīlu, ‘hole’, caused by parasites, appeared, as an unfavourable sign on the naplaštum/manzāzu.155 Tapeworms may infect the liver and cause on its surface white spots, which are called pūṣu.156 The sign called diḫḫu/ṣiḫḫu, ‘pustule’ was also a mark probably caused by parasites.157 The erištu, ‘Furrow/Request’, was a mark (of undetermined features), which could bring about positive apodoses, so long that it was normally-sized and not dark.158 Another common mark was the kakku, ‘Weapon’: it was a peg-shaped mark in the shape of the (archaic) cuneiform sign kak, appearing on the various areas of the liver.159 The observation of the liver was positive when the proper fortuitous marks were well placed in its various areas. In the following example from an ikribu prayer, when the exta and liver will be found to be intact, the ‘Weapon’ will be placed to the right in the various liver areas.160 ša puḫādi šuātu šumma šīru u takaltu ištalmū manzāzu padānu danānu šulmu u ṣibtu kakku imnika ‘Regarding this lamb: If the exta and liver are intact, there will be a “Weapon” to your right (at) the “Position”, “Path”, “Strength”, “Wellbeing”, and “Increment”.’   Frahm (2010) and Maul (2013: 64, 75–77).   Leiderer (1990: 32). 156   Leiderer (1990: 45), Maul (2013: 76) and Koch (2000: 62). 157   Koch (2000: 47–48) and Maul (2013: 77). 158   Koch (2000: 48). 159   Koch (2000: 48–51). 160   BBR nos. 1–20: 36–37; Anor (2015, II: 21–22). 154 155

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

46

1. Introduction

The value of the marks (i.e., positive or negative) depended on the side of the zone they appeared and on their colour and texture. The apodoses which follow in the wake of their mention display some regularity. For example the ‘Weapon’ brought about apodoses concerned with war, while the ‘pustule’, because of being filled with fluids, invited apodoses dealing with rain. The way the areas and within, their zones, and further, the fortuitous marks in these zones was interpreted is a complex system, which, however, basically follows the rules we have already articulated above (pp. 26–28). The description given here is of course highly theoretical. In real-life situation, the diviners had to determine here and now how to read the exta and liver, and when features were not certain, further sheep were opened for a second inspection, called a piqittu(m).

Fig. 8. Ram’s head shaped vessel, 8th–7th century; Assur (VA 8177) ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin–Vorderasiatisches Museum; photo: O. M. Teßmer

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 2 The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version šumma immerum ištu ṭabḫu ‘If the sheep – after it was slaughtered’ (OB §1) This chapter discusses the Old Babylonian šumma immeru version of the omens (henceforth, the OB version). It is the earliest documented version of the omens and naturally was the version upon which, although not directly, later versions depended and from which they developed. The OB version is known from three manuscripts, all housed in the Yale Babylonian Collection. From these sources we can reconstruct the OB version running to 111 omen entries. The omen compendium opens with the line quoted above as the epigraph of this chapter, ‘If the sheep – after it was slaughtered … ’. It observes the sheep’s body parts, starting from its eye to various outer body parts and inner parts of the animal’s stomach cavity.

1. Edition and Translation Text Sigla A = YOS 10 47 (YBC 4641) B = YOS 10 48 (YBC 5035) C = YOS 10 49 (YBC 5024) Literature and Previous Editions and Discussions Goetze (1947) = YOS 10, nos. 47, 48 and 49 (copies only). Nougayrol (1950a) and id. (1950b), reviews of Goetze (1947). Glassner (2009), discussion of particular aspects.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

48

§1

(obv.)

A1 A1a



šumma(diš) immerum(udu) iš-tu ṭa-ab-ḫu-ú [ … ]x-˹ri?˺-tam [ … ]x-x If the sheep – after it was slaughtered – [ … ] …

§2 A2 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) i-ni-šu i-ma-ḫa-a[ḫ … uṣ]-ṣí

If the sheep – its eyes are suffused (with tears?) [ … out of the … he/she will de]part.

§3 A3 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) i-na-šu ri-a-te a-[na awīlim(lú lim) i]lum(dingir lum) ˹i˺-[na ni-qí-im iz-z]i-iz

If the sheep – its eyes are fixed, fo[r the client: the go]d [will have been pres]ent at [(his) sacrifice].

§4 A4 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) uz-na-šu im-ta-na-˹qú-ta˺ awīlum(lú) i-na ba-l[um o-o] x-x-[o]-x i-ta-na-aš-ši



If the sheep – its ears droop down, the client with[out … ] … will (not?) … support. §5 A5 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) pi-i-šu ip-te-ni-it-te-e ri-ig-mu-ú

If the sheep opens wide its mouth, clamour (of the army).

§6 A6 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) li-ša-an-šu uš-te-ni-ṣi-a-am ni-ib-ru-ú

If the sheep sticks out its tongue in and out, hunger.

§7 A7 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) li-ša-an-šu iš-ta-na-da-ad a-na šarrim(lugal) a-wa-tum da-mi-iq-tum i-ma-qú-ut If the sheep extends out its tongue, good news will befall the king. §8 A8 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) li-ša-an-šu a-pi-ir a-wa-at awīlim(lú lim  ) i-qá-al-li-il If a sheep – its tongue is coated, the client’s case will be discredited.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

49

§9 A9 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) i-na libbi(šà) li-ša-ni-šu ši-rum na-pi-iḫ-ma a-na «i-na» i-mi-tim ù šu-me-˹lim ka˺-pi-iṣ A9a a-a-ú-um-ma a-na šarrim(lugal) i-te-bi-ma ú-sà-ar-šu-ma [i-da-a]k-šu §10

(‘10’)

If the sheep – in the middle of its tongue a piece of flesh is inflated and it is curled to the right and to the left, someone will rise against the king and encircle him and [defea]t him.

A10

šumma(diš) immerum(udu) i-sà-šu i-ra-ḫu-ba ḫu-ur-ba-šum e-li um-ma-ni i-ma-[qú-ut]

If the sheep – its jaws quiver, shivers of fear will fall upon (my) army. §11 A11 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) e-ṣi-im-tu-um ša i-sí-šu ša i-mi-tim pa-al-ša-at ḫu-ša-[ ḫu-um]

If the sheep – the bone of its right jaw is perforated, fam[ine].

§12 A12 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) i-sà-šu ki-la-lu-un pa-al-šu bi-ir-ti šarrim(lugal) a-na lú nakrim(kúr) ú-[sà-ḫ]a-ar

If the sheep – both its jaws are perforated, the king’s fortress will tu[rn o]ver to the enemy.

§13 A13 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) ši-in-ni-šu i-ka-aṣ-ṣa-aṣ aš-ša-at awīlim(lú lim ) i-ni-a-ak-ma ˹i˺-[na] bītim(é) uṣ-ṣí

If the sheep gnashes its teeth, the client’s wife will fornicate and she will leave the household.

§14 A14 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) ap-pa-šu ik-ta!-na!-li-iṣ awīlum(lú lum) i-bi-sà-a-am i-[im]-mar

If the sheep wrinkles its nose very much, the client will experience financial losses.

§15 A15 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) ap-pa-šu i-ta-na-aš-ši bīt(é) awīlim(lú lim) is-sà-pa-[aḫ] If the sheep lifts up high its nose, the client’s household will be depleted. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

50

§16 A16 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) di-i-ma-tu-šu i-la-a-ka-a ša-mu-ú-um i-za-nu-[un]

If the sheep – its tears run, the sky will rain.

§17 A17 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) ú-pa-ṭù-šu i-la-a-ka-a mi-lum i-la-ka-[am]

If the sheep – its mucus runs, the flood will arrive.

§18 A18 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) na-ak-ka-ap-ta-šu ša i-mi-tim tar-ka-at mi-qí-it-ti um-ma-ni-˹im˺

If the sheep – its right brow is dark, the fall of the army.

§19 A19 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) ku-ta-la-šu ta-ri-ik be-el immerim(udu) pu-ur-sà-sà-am i-ni-ir-[r]i-iš §20

(‘10’)

If the sheep – its nape is dark, request for a wig (for a divine statue) from the sacrificer.

A20

šumma(diš) immerum(udu) li-is-sú-ú ša i-mi-tim tar-ka-at be-el immerim(udu) as-sí-nu-ú-tam i-pi-e-eš

If the sheep – its right cheek is dark, the sacrificer will perform the assinnu-service. §21 A21 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) iš-tu ṭa-ab-ḫu-ú ú-ur-ḫu-sú-ú i-si-i ri-ig-mu-um ša ma-ru-uš-tim i-na bīt(é) awīlim(lú) ib-ba-aš-ši

If the sheep – after being slaughtered – its larynx sounds, there will be wailing of difficulty in the client’s house.

§22 A22 šumma(diš) [immerum(udu)] i-na ṭa-ba-ḫi-šu da-mu-ú-šu su-um-mu te-er-tum ša libbi(šà) immerim(udu) ša-al-˹ma˺-at

If [the sheep] – when it is slaughtered – its blood is deep red, the omen (taken) from the sheep’s inside will be favourable.

§23 A23 šumma(diš) [immerum(udu) it]-ti da-mi-im pa-ar-ša-am ú-wa-ši-ra-am ri-ig-mu awīlum(lú lum ) i-bi-sà-am i-mar

If [the sheep] discharges gore together with blood, clamour; the client will experience financial loss. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

51

§24 A24 šumma(diš) [immerum(udu)] pa-ar-ša-am ma-da-am ú-ta-ab-ba-ka-am na-as-pu-uḫ bīt(é) awīlim(lú lim) If [the sheep] discharges plenty of gore, destruction of the client’s household. §25 A25 šumma(diš) [immerum(udu)] ir-ḫu-um-ma ṣú-pu-ur i-mi-ti-šu il-te-e-te ka-ab-tum in-˹na˺-bi-it

If [the sheep] shakes and by so splits its right nail-hoof, a dignitary will desert.

§26 A26 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) ˹ir˺-ḫu-um-ma i-mi-ta-šu it-ru-uṣ-ma ṣú-pu-ur šu-me-li-šu il-te-e-te ri-ig-mu i-na bītim(é) iš-ša-ka-an

If the sheep shakes and stretches out its right (leg) but splits its left nail-hoof, there will be wailing in the (client’s) house.

§27 A27 [šumma(diš) immerum(udu) rēšašu] iš-ši ilum(dingir lum ) i-na ni-qí-im iz!-zi-˹iz˺ [If the sheep] lifts [its head], the god will have been present at the sacrifice. §28 A28 [šumma(diš) immerum(udu) rēšašu it-t]a-na-aš-ši ri-iš awīlim(lú lim ) in-na-aš-ši-e

[If the sheep] lifts [its head] way up, the client will receive attention (from his god).

§29 A29 [šumma(diš) immerum(udu) š ]u-bu-ur-ri-šu ú-ši-im-ma im-ta-qú-ut na-ka-ar ṭe-e-mi-im [If the sheep] sits on its behind and falls overs, change of loyalty. §30

(‘10’)

A30 šumma(diš) [immerum(udu) it]-ta-zi-iz a-wa-at awīlim(lú lim ) iz-za-az!

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

52



2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

If [the sheep] stands still, the client’s case will prevail.

§31 A31 šumma(diš) [immerum(udu)] is-ḫu-ur-ma a-šar in-na-ak-sú ki-ša-as-sú iš-ta-ka-an ilum(dingir  lum ) e-li awīlim(lú lim ) di-il-ḫa!-am i-na-di If [the sheep] turns and places its neck where it has been slaughtered, the god will bring confused (omens) upon the client. §32 A32 šumma(diš) ˹immerum(udu) da˺-ku-uk-ma i-mi-ta-šu da-‹ma›-am ma-li-ma šu-me-el-‹šu› da-ma-am lu-pu-ut a-na šarrim(lugal) da-mi-iq-tum

If [the sheep] prances about and its right side is full of blood and ‹its› left side is splattered with blood, good tidings to the king.

§33 A33 šumma(diš) ˹immerum(udu) da˺-ku-uk-ma šu-me-el-šu da-ma-am ma-li-ma i-mi-ta-šu da-ma-am lu-pu-ut a-na šarrim(lugal) na-ḫi-is

If [the sheep] prances about and its left side is full of blood and its right side is splattered with blood, the king will be despised.

§34 A34 šumma(diš) [immerum(udu)] la-a-ma te-ep-tu-ú-šu i-ta-ru-ur ḫa-a-tum e-li um-ma-nim i-ma-qú-ut

If [the sheep] starts to quiver before you open it (for inspection), fear will fall upon the army.

§35 A35 šumma(diš) ˹immerum(udu)˺ ni-˹im˺-šu-šu ša i-mi-tim du-un-nu-nu ša šu-me-lim ša-ak-nu te-er-tum ša libbi(šà) immerim(udu) ša-al-ma-at

If the sheep – its sinews at the right side are tense, those of the left are afflicted, the omen inside the sheep is favourable.

§36 A36 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) zi-˹ib˺-ba-as-sú ú-na-sà-as bīt(é) awīlim(lú lim ) is-˹sà˺-pa-aḫ If the sheep – it wags its tail, the client’s household will be depleted. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

53

§37 A37 šumma(diš) immerum(udu) zi-[ib]-ba-as-sú i-na-aš-ši i-ta-ra- ak šarrum(lugal) um-ma-an lú nakrišu(kúr˹šu?˺)˹ú˺?-ta-[x-x]-at If the sheep – it lifts its tail and switches it, the king will … his enemy’s army. §38 A38 šumma(diš) zi-[ib]-ba-[as-sú] a-na x-x-x [ x-x-x-x] x-x-x-x [a]-na šarrim(lugal) x[o]-x If its tail [goes] to the … for the king …



§39 A39 šumma(diš) ˹zi˺-ib-ba-a[s-sú x-x-x] x-u?-ma?˹ i-la-a˺-k[a!] x-[o-o]- ul ? i-šu?-a-[x] If its tail –– [its …] goes …

§40

A40

šumma(diš) ˹zi˺-ib-ba-[tum iš-t]u i-˹mi ˺-tim a-na šu-me-lim i-ma-ḫa-aṣ i-na giš [kakkim(tukul)] lú nakram(kúr) ta-sà-ki-ip



If the tail twitches from right to left, you will repel the enemy by f [orce].

(‘10’)

§41 A41 šumma(diš) ˹zi-ib˺-ba-tum iš-tu šu-me-lim a-na i-mi-tim i-ma-ḫa-aṣ i-na giš [kakkim(tukul)] ˹lú ˺nakrum(kúr) i-sà-ki-ip-ka

If the tail twitches from left to right, the enemy will repel you by f [orce].

§42 A42 šumma(diš) ˹zi-ib-ba˺-tum ku-bu-ur-ša ta-ri-ik mi-qí-[it]-ti we-e-di !-im If the tail – its thick part is dark, the downfall of a well-known person. §43 A43 [šumma(diš) zi-ib-ba-tu]m qu-tu-un-ša ta-ri-ik mi-qí-it-ti ba-˹ri ˺-im

[If the tai]l – its thin part is dark, the downfall of the diviner.

§44 A44 [šumma(diš) zi-i]b-ba-t[um i-mi]-ta-ša ta-ri-ik mi-qí-it-ti ˹um˺-ma-ni

[If the] tail – its [rig]ht side is dark, the downfall of the army. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

54

§45 A45 šumma(diš) [zi]-ib-ba-tum šu-[me]-el-ša ta-ri-ik mi-qí-it-ti lú nakrim(kúr im)

If the tail – its left side is dark, downfall of the enemy.

§46 A46 šumma(diš) [zi]-ib-ba-tum ˹ka-lu˺-ša tar-ka-at a-lam i-ša-tum i-kal

If the tail – it is dark all over, fire will devour the city.

§47 A47 [šumma(diš) u]du zi-ib-ba-t[um x-x-x] na-ka-ar a-li ṣe-eḫ-ru-tim

[If the sh]eep – its tail is [ … ], the estrangement of small towns.

§48 A48 [šumma(diš)] qí-in-na-tum iš-ta-na-da-ad aš-ša-at awīlim(lú lim) šu-ṣú-tum a-na bītiša(é ša) i-ta-ar

[If] the anus keeps contracting, the client’s wife who was driven out will return to her house.

§49 A49 [šumma(diš)] qí-in-na-tum ˹pi ˺-i-ša ip-t[e-ni ]-te ù zi-ib-ba-tum pi-i-ša i-[i]t?-a-a[k] (‘10’) A49a [x-x-x]-x u[ṣ?-ṣí-ma o-o aš-ša-a]t awīlim(lú im) i-na ni-a-ki-im iṣ-ṣa-ba-at [If] the anus keeps op[ening] its mouth and then the tail fornicates with its mouth, [ … ] …will lea[ve and the wif]e of the client will be caught in the act of fornicating. §50 A50 [šumma(diš) na-ag-la-bu-um p]u-lu-uš  lú ‹nakrum›(‹kúr›) ˹mātam(kalam)˺?-ma x x [x-x-x] [If the hip bone is per]forated, the ‹enemy› … the country and … will … [ … ].

§51

rev.



A51



˹šumma(diš) na˺-[ag-l ]a-bu-[um i-mi-ta-šu] ˹pa ?-li ?-iš ?˺ lú? x-x ˹mātam(kalam)˺?x-x [x-x-x-x-x-x-x] [If the hi]p bo[ne] is perforated [at its right] … the country [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

55

§52 A52 [šumma(diš) na-ag-l]a-bu-u[m šu-me]-el-šu pa-li-iš šarrum (lugal) ˹mātam(kalam)˺? x-x [x-x-x-x-x-x]

[If the hip b]one is perforated at its [l]eft, the king will … the country [ … ].

§53 A53 [šumma(diš) qá-r]a-an na-˹ag˺-la-bi-im ša i-mi-tim ta-ri-ik x-[x-x-x-x-x]

[If the rid]ge of the right hip bone is dark … [ … ].

§54 A54 ˹ šumma(diš)˺ qá-ra-an ˹na-ag˺-la-bi-im ša šu-me-lim ta-ri-ik din[gir x-x-x-x-x]

If the ridge of the left hip bone is dark, the go[d … ].

§55 A55 šumma(diš) qá-ra-an [na-ag]-la-bi-im ša i-mi-tim pa-ṭe4-ir a[r-bu-ut um-m]a-nim

If the ridge of the right hip bone is loose, the f[all of the arm]y.

§56 A56 šumma(diš) qá-ra-an na-ag-la-bi-im ša šu-me-lim pa-ṭe4-ir ar-[bu-ut lú nak]rim([k]úr  im!)

If the ridge of the left hip bone is loose, the fa[ll of the ene]my!.

§57 A57 šumma(diš) qá-˹ra˺-an na-ag-la-bi-im ša i-mi-tim a-na 2 pa-ṭe4-ir ṣi-bi-˹it-tum˺ ib-ba-la-ka-at If the ridge of the right hip bone is loose twice, the prison will revolt. §58 A58 šumma(diš) qá-ra-an na-ag-la-[bi ]-im ša šu-me-li-im a-na 2 ‹pa›-ṭe4-ir na-ṣi-ir-ti lú nakrika(kúr  ka) te-le-qé-e

If the ridge of the left hip bone is loose twice, you will loot your enemy’s treasure.

§59 A59 šumma(diš) qá-ra-an na-ag-la-[bi ]-im ša i-mi-ti a-na 3 pa-ṭe4-ir a-la-ni-ka lú nakrum(kúr) i-ma-aš-ša-aḫ

If the ridge of the right hip bone is loose three times, the enemy will plunder your cities. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

56

§60

(‘10’)

A60

šumma(diš) qá-ra-an na-ag-[la]-bi-im ša šu-me-lim a-na 3 pa-ṭe4-ir māt(kalam) lú nakrika(kúr ka) ta-ma-aš-ša-aḫ!



If the ridge of the left hip bone is loose three times, you will plunder the land of your enemy.

§61 A61 šumma(diš) du-ur na-ag-[la]-bi-im pa-li-iš bi-ra-at a-lim i-pa-ṭa-ra-nim

If the blade of the hip bone is perforated, the city’s fortified outposts will desert.

§62 A62 šumma(diš) du-ur na-ag-[la]-bi-im i-mi-tam ka-pi-iṣ mātum(kalam) a-na mātim(kalam tim) i-pa-ḫu-ur If the blade of the hip bone is bent to the right, the lands will unite. §63 A63 šumma(diš) du-ur na-ag-l[a-b]i-im ša i-mi-tim la i-ba-aš-ši ša-aḫ-lu-uq-ti mātim(kalam) iš-ša-ka-an

If the blade of the right hip bone is missing, the ruin of the country will come about.

§64 A6 šumma(diš) du-ur na-ag-l[a-b]i-im ša šu-me-lim la i-ba-aš-ši d iškur i-ra-ḫi-iṣ obv.

B1 šumma(diš) du-ur ‹nag›labim(‹gír›.šu.i) šu-me-lim la i-ba-aš-ši d iškur i-ra-ḫi-iṣ

If the blade of the left hip bone is missing, Adad will trample down (the grain).

§65 A65 šumma(diš) ki-ṣa-lum ša ˹i-mi ˺-tim pa-al-ša-at aš-ša-at awīlim(lú lim) a-na ḫa-ri-mu-tim uṣ-ṣi B2 šumma(diš) ki-ṣa-lum ša i-mi-tim pa-‹al›-ša-at aš-ša-at lú a-‹na› ḫa-ri-‹mu›-tim uṣ-ṣí If the right carpal bone is perforated, the client’s wife will become a prostitute.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

57

§66 A66 šumma(diš) ki-ṣa-lum ša š[u-me]-lim pa-al-ša-at na-ṣi-ir-ti lú nakrika(kúr  ka) te-le-qé-e B3 šumma(diš) ki-ṣa-lum ša šu-me-lim pa-‹al›-ša-at na-ṣi-ir-ti lú nakrika(kúr  ka) te-le-qè If the left ankle bone is perforated, you will take the treasure of your enemy. §67 A67 šumma(diš) i-na ki-ṣa-lim ša [i ]-mi-tim e-ṣi-im-tu wa-ta-ar-tum i-ta-ab-ši a-pil ! šarrim(lugal) giš kussiam(gu.za) i-ṣa-ba-at B4 šumma(diš) i-na ki-ṣa-lum ša i-mi-tim e-ṣi-im-tum wa-ta-ar- tum it-ta-ab-ši a-pil šarrim(lugal) giš kussiam(gu.za) i-ṣa-ba-at

If an extra bone is present in the right carpal bone, the king’s heir will seize the throne.

§68 A68 šumma(diš) i-na ki-ṣa-lim š[a š ]u-me-lim e-ṣi-im-tu wa-ta-ar- tum i-ta-ab-ši la be-e‹l giš kussêm(gu.za)› giš kussiam(gu.za) i-ṣa-ba-at B5 šumma(diš) i-na ki-ṣa-lum ša šu-me-lim e-ṣi-im-tum wa-ta-ar- tum it-ta-ab-ši B5a la be-el giš kussêm(gu.za) giš ku‹ssiam›(gu.‹za›) i-ṣa-ba-at

If an extra bone is present in the left carpal bone, a person with no right to the throne will seize the throne.

§69 A69 šumma(diš) e-eṣ-me-tum ša ˹sí ˺-in-ga-ga-ri-tim ṣe-eḫ-ḫe- re-tum ša i-mi-tim pu-ul-lu-ša mārat(dumu.munuš) šarrim(lugal) a-na ḫa-ri-mu-tim A69a uṣ-ṣí B6 šumma(diš) e-eṣ-me-tum ša sí-‹in›-ga-ga-ri-tim ṣe-‹eḫ›-ḫe-re- tum ša i-mi-tim pu-‹ul›-lu-ša B6a mārat(dumu.munuš) šarrim(lugal) a-na ḫa-ri-‹mu›-tim uṣ-ṣí §70

(‘10’)

If the small bones of the right metacarpal are pierced, the king’s daughter will become a prostitute.

A70

šumma(diš) la-ar-sí-nu [o] ša i-mi-tim pa-al-ša-at aš-ša-‹at› awīlim(lú lim) i-ni-a-ak

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

58

B7 šumma(diš) la-ar-sí-nu ša i-mi-tim pa-‹al›-ša-at aš-ša-at awīlim(lú) i-ni-ak

If the right hoof is perforated, the client’s wife will fornicate.

B8 = A83

§71 A71 šumma(diš) irtum(gaba) a-na mi-š[a]-ri-i-ša le-e-ti-‹at› ša du-ri-im ú-ṣi-am-ma a-na ša ur-pa-tim i-ša-tam i-na-an-di B9 šumma(diš) irtum(gaba) a-na mi-ša-ri-ša le-te-at ša du-ri uṣ-ṣí-ma B9a a-na ša ur-pa-tim i-ša-tam i-na-an-di

If the breast is split across its length, the fortress dweller will come out and set fire to the tent dweller.

§72 A72 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-s[ú ] ˹i ˺-mi-tam ta-ri-ik mi-qí-it-ti a-li-ik pa-ni um-ma-nim (‘10’)

B10

šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ta-ri-ik mi-qí-ti a-li-ik pa-ni um-ma-nim



If the xiphoid is dark on the right side, the fall of the vanguard.

§73 A73 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-[sú ] šu-me-lam ta-ri-ik mi-‹qí›-it-ti a-li-ik pa-ni um-ma-an lú nakrim(kúr) B11 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú šu-me-lim ta-ri-ik mi-qí-ti a-li-ik pa-ni um-ma-an lúnakrim(kúr) If the xiphoid is dark on the left side, the fall of the enemy’s vanguard. §74 A74 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-[sú ] i-mi-tam ka-pi-iṣ a-na lú nakrika(kúr  ka) tu-ud-da-na-an-na-an B12 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ka-pi-iṣ a-na lú nakrika(kúr  ka) tu-da-na-an

If the xiphoid is bent on the right side, you will vie for superiority over your enemy.

§75 A75 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-˹sú ˺ šu-me-lam ka-pi-iṣ lú nakirka(kúr ka) ú-da-na-an-na-kum B13 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú šu-me-lam ka-pi-iṣ lú nakirka(kúr ka) ˹ú-da-na-na-ku˺ © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version



59

If the xiphoid is bent to the left side, your enemy will vie for superiority over you.

§76 A76 šumma(diš) ka-as-˹ka˺-sú i-mi-tam na-pa-ar-qú-ud ar-bu-ut um-ma-nim B14 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam na-pa-ar-qú-ud ˹ar˺-[bu-ut um-ma-nim]

If the xiphoid lies to the right side, the fall of the army.

§77 A77 šumma(diš) ka-as-˹ka˺-sú šu-me-lam na-pa-ar-qú-ud ar-bu-ut lú nakrim(kúr im) B15 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú šu-me-lam na-pa-ar-q[ú-ud ar]-˹bu- ut˺ [lú nakrim(kúr im)]

If the xiphoid lies to the left side, the fall of the enemy.

§78 A78 šumma(diš) ka-˹as-ka˺-sú i-mi-tam ka-pi-iṣ šu-me-lam na-pa- ar-qú-ud e-li lú nakrika(kúr ka) ta-az-za-az B16 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ka-pi-[iṣ š ]u-˹me-lam˺ na-pa-ar-qú-[ud e-li lú nakrika(kúr ka)] B16a ta-ta-za-[az]

If the xiphoid is bent to the right side (and) lies back on the left side, you will prevail over your enemy.

§79 A79 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú šu-me-lam ka-pi-iṣ i-mi-tam na-pa-ar- qú-ud lú nakirka(kúr ka) e-li-ka iz-za-az B17 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú šu-m[e-lam k]a-pi-iṣ i-mi-tam na-pa- ar-qú-ud lú nakirka(kúr˹ka˺) B17a e-li-ka i-ta-za-az

If the xiphoid is bent to the left side (and) lies back on the right side, the enemy will prevail over you.

§80

(‘10’)

A80 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lam ka-pi-iṣ at-ta ù lúnakirka(kúr  ka) tu-ud-da-na-an-na-na B18 šumma(diš) ka-[as-ka-sú] ˹i-mi ˺-tam ù šu-me-lam ka-pi-iṣ at-ta ù lú nakirka(kúr ka) B18a tu-da-na-an-na-na

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

60



If the xiphoid is bent both to the right side and left side, you and your enemy will vie for superiority over each other.

§81 A81 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lam na-pa-ar-qú-ud at-ta ù lú nakirka(kúr ka ) a-ḫu i-na pa-ni a-ḫi-im ú-da-pa-ar B19 ˹šumma(diš) ka-as˺-ka-sú i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lam na-pa-ar-qú- ud at-ta ù lú nakirka(kúr ka) B19a a-ḫu i-na pa-ni a-ḫi ú-pa-da-ir

If the xiphoid lies back both to the right side and the left side, you and your enemy will withdraw from one another.

§82 A82 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lam pa-ṭe4-er pi-it-ru-uš-ta-an

B20 (‘10’)

šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lam pa-ṭe4-er pi-it-ru-uš-ta-an

If the xiphoid is split both to the right side and the left side, two ambiguous omens. §83 A83 šumma(diš) ki-ša-du-um up-pu-uq mi-li-i ir-tim awīlum(lú lum) i-da-ni-in B8 šumma(diš) ki-ša-du up-pu-uq mi-li ir-tim awīlum(lú) i-da-ni-in

If the neck is massive, success; the client will grow strong.

§84 A84 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša i-mi-tim pa-li-iš lú nakrum(kúr) mātka(kalam ka) ú-pa-la-aš-ši B21 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša i-mi-tim pa-li-iš lú nakrum(kúr) mātka(kalam ka) ú-pa-la-aš If the right rib cage is perforated, the enemy will breach your land. §85 A85 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša šu-me-lim pa-li-iš māt(kalam) lú nakrika(kúr ka) tu-pa-la-aš-ši B22 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša šu-me-lim pa-li-iš māt(kalam) lú nakrim(kúr) tu-pa-la-aš © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

61

If the left rib cage is perforated, you will breach your enemy’s land. §86 A86 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša i-mi-tim da-ma-am lu-pu-ut i-na giškakkim(tukul) lú nakrum(kúr) i-sà-ki-ip-ka B23 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša i-mi-tim da-ma lu-pu-ut i-na giškakkim(tukul) lú nakrum(kúr) i-sà-ki-ip-ka If the right rib cage is spattered with blood, the enemy will repel you by force. §87 A87 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša šu-me-lim da-ma-am lu-pu-ut i-na giš kakkim(tukul) lú nakram(kúr) ta-sà-ki-ip B24 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša šu-me-lim da-ma lu-pu-ut i-na giš kakkim(tukul) lú nakram(kúr) ta-sà-ki-ip

If the left rib cage is spattered with blood, you will repel the enemy by force.

§88 A88 šumma(diš) ṣi-lum ša i-mi-ti ù šu-me-lim ištēn(1) da-ma-am lu-pu-tu-ú i-na giš kakkim(tukul) um-ma-˹nu˺-um mi-it-ḫa-ri-iš i-ma-qu-ut B25 šumma(diš) ṣi-lu ki-la-lu-un da-ma lu-pu-tu i-na giš kakkim(tukul) um-ma-nu B25a mi-it-ḫa-ri-iš i-ma-a-at A

If the right rib cage and left rib cage are both likewise spattered with blood, each of the armies will perish.

B If both rib cages are spattered with blood, each of the armies will die. §89 A89 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ša i-mi-tim 3 i-na qablišina(múru ši-na) ti-iṣ-bu-ta-ma mu-ḫa-š[i-na l]a mi-it-ḫa-ar ˹šarrum(lugal)˺ [a-la-nu-šu] A89a ib-ba-l[a-ka-tu-ú-šu] B26 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ša i-mi-tim 3 i-na qablišina(múru ši-na) ti-iṣ-bu-ta-ma mu-ḫa-ši-˹na˺ B26a la mi-it-ḫa-ar šarrum(lugal) a-la-nu-šu ib-ba-la-ka-tu-˹ú˺ [o] If three right ribs are attached in their middle and their top part is not parallel, the king – his cities will revolt against him. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

62

§90

(‘10’)

A90 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ša i-mi-tim 3 i-na qablišina(múru ši-na) ti-iṣ-bu-ta-ma mu-ḫa-ši-na mi-it-ḫa-ar [a-na šarrim(lugal) a-l]˹a-nu-šu˺ A90a na-ak-ru-tum i-tu-ru-ni-e-šu B27 ˹šumma(diš) najja˺[bātu(ka[k.ti]) š]a i-mi-tim 3 i-na qablišina(múru ši-na) ti-iṣ-bu-ta-ma mu-ḫa-˹ši-na˺ B27a [mi-i]t-ḫa-ar a-na šarrim(lugal) a-la-nu-šu na-ak-ru-tu i-tu-r[u-ni-iš-šu] If three right ribs are attached in their middle and their top part is parallel, the king’s cities that revolted against him will return to him. §91 A91 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ša šu-me-lim 3 i-na qablišina(múru ši-na) ti-iṣ-bu-ta-ma mu-ḫa-ši-na la mi-it-ḫa-ar a-na šarrim(lugal) A91a a-la-nu-ú ša lú nakrim(kúr) ib-ba-la-ka-tu-ni B28 [šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti)] ša šu-me-lim 3 i-na qablišina(múru)ši-na ti-‹iṣ›-bu-ta-ma mu-ḫa-˹ši˺-[na] B28a [la mi-i]t-ḫa-ar a-na šarrim(lugal) a-la-nu ša lú nakrim(kúr) B28b ib-ba-la-ka-tu-ni-i[š-šu]

If three left ribs are attached in their middle and their top part is not parallel, the enemy’s cities will revolt against the king.

§92

rev.

B29 [šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) i-d ]i e-ṣi-im-ṣí-ri ti-iṣ-bu-ta- ma i-di irtim(gaba) a-ḫ[i] B29a [i-bi-ša i]lum([dingir lum]) i-kal d nin-giš-zi-da ma-tam i-qá-lu obv.

C1 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) i-di e-ṣi-im-ṣi-ri-im ti-iṣ-bu-ta- ma i-di irtim(gaba) a-ḫi-e i-bi-ša ilum(dingir lum) i !-kal d C1a nin-giš-zi-da ma-tam i-qá-al-lu §93

(‘10’)

If the ribs are attached to the side of the spine but recede from each other at the sternum, the god will devour (the land); Ningišzida will burn the land.

B30

šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ki-ma sí-ka-ti iz-za-az-za ma-tum a-na bé-li-ša uk-ta-˹pa-al ˺

C2 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ki-ma sí-ik-ka-tim i-iz-zi-za mātum(kalam) a-na šarriša(lugal ša) uk-ta-pa-al

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

63

If the ribs stand upright like a peg, the country will gather against its B lord / C king. §94 B31 šumma(diš) najjabtu(kak.ti) ša i-mi-tim la-ri-am ir-ši ti-la-tu-ka i-pa-ṭa-ra-ka C3

šumma(diš) najjabtu(kak.ti) ša i-mi-ti la-ri-a-am ir-ši ti-il-la-tu-ka i-pa-ṭa-ra-ka

If the right rib has a branching, your auxiliary troops will desert you. §95 B32 šumma(diš) najjabtu(kak.ti) ša šu-me-lim la-ri-am ir-ši lúnakrum(kúr) ti-la-tu-šu i-pa-ṭa-ra-šu C4 šumma(diš) najjabtu(kak.ti) ša šu-me-lim la-ri-a-am ir-ši lúnakrum(kúr) ti-il-la-tu-šu i-pa-ṭa-ra-a-šu If the left rib has a branching, the enemy’s auxiliary troops will desert him. §96 B33 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ša irtim(gaba) i-na ša-ma-ṭi-ka ‹a-na› ši-na ti-iṣ-bu-ta ma-tum i-ṣa-˹ba-at˺ B33a i-ta-ka-al C5 šumma(diš) najjabātu(kak.ti) ša irtim(gaba) i-na ša-ma-ṭi-i- ka a-na 2-na ti-iṣ-bu-ta mātum(kalam) iṣ-ṣa-ba-at i-ta-ka-al

If the ribs of the breastbone, upon you tearing (them) out, are both joined, (the people of ) the country will fight one another and devour each another.

§97 B34 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú ša najjabāti(kak.ti) ti-iṣ-bu-tu um-ma-an šarrim(lugal) a-na um-ma-ni B34a na-kar-tim i-na šu-ub-ti i-še-ir C6 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-su-um ša najjabāti(kak.ti) ‹ti-iṣ›-bu-ú-tu um-ma-an šarrim(lugal) a-na um-ma-ni na-kar-tim i-na šu-ub-tim i-ši-ir

If the xyphoid of the ribs – (its parts) are joined, the king’s army will charge against the hostile army in its camp.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

64

§98 B35 šumma(diš) ku-nu-uk e-ṣi-im-ṣi-ri 2 ki-is-li i-mi-tim šu-me-lam! i-ti-iq B35a e-li lú nakrika(kúr)ka ta-ta-za-az C7 šumma(diš) ku-nu-uk e-ṣi-im-ṣi-ri-im 2 ki-is-li i-mi-tim šu-me-lam i-ti-iq e-‹li› lú nakrika(kúr ka) ta-˹az-za˺-az

If there are two vertebrae – the right transverse process exceeds the left, you will defeat your enemy.

§99 C8 šumma(diš) ku-un-uk e-ṣi-im-ṣi-ri-im 2 ki-is-li šu-me-lam i-mi-tam i-ti-iq lú nakirka(kúr ka) e-[li-k]a i-za-az B36 šumma(diš) ku-un-uk e-ṣi-im-ṣi-ri 2 ki-is-li šu-me-lim i-mi-ta i-ti-iq lú B36a nakirka(kúr ka) e-li-ka i-ta-za-az

If there are two vertebrae – the left transverse process exceeds the right, your enemy will defeat you.

§100 B37 ˹ šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um˺ i-mi-tam ta-ri-ik mi-qí-ti ka-ab-tim C9 šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um i-mi-tam ta-ri-ik mi-qí-it-ti ka-ab-[tim] If the šutqum is dark on the right, the downfall of a dignitary. §101

B38

˹ šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um šu-me-lam˺ ta !-ri-ik mi-qí-ti we-di-im ša lú nakrim(kúr)

C10 šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um šu-me-lam ta-ri-ik mi-qí-it-ti we-di-i[m ša lú nakrim(kúr)] If the šutqum is dark on the left, the downfall of a famous person of the enemy. §102 B39 šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um i-mi-tam na-wi-ir um-ma-nu a-šar illaku(du) ša-al-ma-at C11 šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um i-mi-tam na-wi-ir u[m-m]a-nu-um ˹a˺-[šar illaku(du) ša-al-ma-at ] If the šutqum is bright on the right, the army will be safe wherever it goes.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

65

§103

(‘10’)

B40

šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um šu-me-lam na-wi-ir lú nakrum(kúr) it-ti-ka in-na-ma-ar

C12 šumma(diš) šu-ut-qú-um šu-me-lam ˹na-wi ˺-[ir lú nakr]um ([k]úr) ˹it-ti ˺-[ka in-na-ma-ar] If the šutqum is bright on the left, the enemy will confront you. §104 B41 šumma(diš) ba-am-tum i-mi-tam la-ap-ta-at-ma li-pi-sà ra-bi ta-zi-im-ti B41a ṣí-˹bi-ti ˺ a-na šarrim(lugal) C13

šumma(diš) ba-am-tum i-mi-tam la-ap-ta-at-ma [li]-pi-sà ra-bi ta-az-zi-˹im-ti ˺ [ ṣí-bi-ti a-na šarrim(lugal)]



If the ribcage is constricted on the right and its spot is large, outcry from the prison to the king.

§105 B42 šumma(diš) ba-am-tum i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lam lu-pu-ta-at mi-qì-ti ḫu-up-ši-im C14 šumma(diš) ba-am-tum i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lim lu-up-pu-ta-at mi-qí-it-ti [ḫu-up-ši-im] If ribcage is constricted right and left, the downfall of the ḫupšu-class. §106 B43 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim na-am-ra-at um-ma-nu a-šar illaku(du) B43a ša-al-mu-sà i-tu-ra C15 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim na-am-ra-at um-ma-an-ka a-šar illaku(du) ša-al-mu-[sà i-tu-ra]

If the right šuptum is bright, B. the army / C. your army will come back in peace from wherever it will have went.

§107 B44 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim ki-di-sà na-am-ra-at a-ḫi-tu-˹ka˺ ˹ša˺-[al-ma] C16 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim ki-di-sà na-am-ra-at a-ḫi-a-tu-ka ša-[al-ma]

If the right šuptum – its outer surface is bright, your province borders will be sa[fe]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

66

§108 B45 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim qé-er-bé-nu na-am-ra-at mar-ṣu iballuṭ (ti.la) C17 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim qé-er-˹bé ˺-nu-um na-am-ra-at mar-ṣu ibal [luṭ ](ti.[la])

If the right šuptum is bright inside, the sick person will recover.

§109 B46 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim ta-ar-ka-at i-na šu-ub-ti-ka lú B46a nakrum(kúr) uš-ša-ab rev.

C18 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim tar-ka-at i-na šu-ub-ti-ka l [ ú nakrum(kúr)] uš-ša-ab!

If the right šuptum is dark, the enemy will sit in your camp.

§110 B47 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim ki-di-sà ta-ar-ka-at a-ḫi-ti-ka lú B47a nakrum(kúr) i-le-qè C19 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim ki-di-sà ˹tar˺-ka-at a-ḫi-a-ti-ka lú nakrum(kúr) i-le-eq-qé

If the right šuptum – its outside surface is dark, the enemy will take your province borders.

§111 B48 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim qé-er-bé-nu ta-ar-ka-at na-ṣi-ir-ta-ka (‘8’) B48a lú nakrum(kúr) i-pa-la-at C20 šumma(diš) šu-up-tum ša i-mi-tim qé-er-bé-nu-um tar-ka-‹at› na-ṣi-ir-ta-ka ˹lú nakrum(kúr)˺ [i-pa-la-aš ]

If the right šuptum is dark on the inside, the enemy will break into your treasury.

Colophon A: ki 1 First tablet. Colophon C: ki ! 2

Second tablet.

Colophon B (after double ruling line): šu+nigin 48 mu-bi-im

A total of 48 lines;

1-kam First tablet. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

67

2. Commentary §1 This is the line that opens the omens. Unfortunately, it is broken and cannot be restored from other sources of the šumma immeru omens. The collocation ištu tabḫu, ‘after it was slaughtered’, implies that it be understood for the rest of the entries of the compendium. In Akkadian the verb ṭabāḫu, ‘to butcher’, is invariably used for animals; if humans are intended, then it is with a metaphoric use in mind. In later versions of the omens, the verb is written with the logogram šum (‘to butcher’). The sign š u m was originally a pictogram of a knife or cutting instrument. The butcher is the ṭābiḫu (in Sumerian lú.gír.lá, given the Akkadian equivalent of nāš patri, ‘the carrier of the sword’; or lú.šaḫ.šum.ma, ‘pigslaughterer’); see CAD/Ṭ: 1–4, sub ṭabāḫu, and 6–8, sub ṭābiḫu. A slaughtered sheep was imagined to thrash around. A diagnostic text reads as follows: qātēšu šēpēšu talammašu kīma immeri ṭabḫi inappaṣ ‘(if the patient) thrashes about his hands, feet, and torso like a slaughtered sheep.’(STT 89, 142; cited according to CAD/T: 92–93). Hence, such, as one can imagine, was the behaviour of the sheep. §2 Following CAD/M/1: 50a. The verb maḫāḫu means to suffuse or dissolve with water. Since the eyes are the logical subject of this omen, it stands to reason that they are suffused with tears. The apodosis is partly missing but enough survives to understand that someone is leaving from somewhere. The metaphor is clear to see here: just as tears leave the eyes, so will the client leave. Hence, perhaps simply understand it as a common apodosis such as, the client will leave his city/house, or something of value will leave the household. Compare §13. §3 According to CAD/R: 299a, the writing ri-a-te is possibly a mistake for ri-te-a from retû, ‘to set, fix’. The apodosis is restored according to §27; see there. §5 The analogy between the open mouth and clamour is clear. The term rigmu, ‘noise, clamour, cry’, can be either positive or negative. Depending on the context, it can mean a cry of distress or the clamour of the army; see Jeyes (1989: 115). Consider this apodosis in oil omens (Pettinato 1966: 65, l. 51): ana marṣim rigm[um] ana ummān ḫarrānim rigmum, ‘For the sick-person – cry of distress; for the army on campaign – the battle cry’. §6 The word ni-ib/ip-ru-ú is not clear. Was the intention of rendering nipru, ‘offspring’? This is unlikely. The plene writing speaks against this option, hence perhaps we should consider it related to barû ‘hunger’ and nibrītu ‘hunger, famine’, which is found also in omen apodoses; see CAD/N2: 203. So nibrû can mean something like ‘hunger’. In this case, the apodosis is negative. The tongue © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

68

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

extended from the mouth would then stand as a metaphor for hunger, triggering the apodosis in front of us. Compare the similar omen LBA §18: šumma immerum lišanšu ittanandi ṣū[mu … ] ‘If the sheep continuously extends out its tongue, thi[rst … ].’ §7 In the former omen (§6) the sheep had its tongue out (Štn of waṣû) and here the sheep again manipulates the same organ. It is not exactly clear what the result is and how it differs from its previous action. Perhaps ištanaddad (šadādu, ‘to extend, stretch’ in the Gtn stem) means here ‘to loll’. The same apodosis with a slightly different protasis is found in the SV, where the lips appear. However, it is obvious that both body parts relate to human speech, hence the apodoses. Compare SV §100'': šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šaptīšu ištanaddad amātu damiqtu iṭeḫḫâ/i ‘If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – continuously stretches out its lips, a good tiding will arrive.’ §8 A covered tongue in the protasis means in the apodosis disregard for the client’s case, when he appears in front of the gods in the extispicy ritual. The association is clear for all to see. In Old Babylonian oil omens, if the oil spot is covered the apodosis is negative. Consider this omen entry (Pettinato 1966, § 1): šamnam ana mê addima šamnum iṭbi iliamma u mêšu ḫapir ana ḫarrānim tībi lemuttim ana marṣim qāti ilūtim qātum danna[t] ‘I threw the oil into the water, it sank and rose and was covered with water, for the campaign, an evil attack; for the sick, the hand of the divine; a miserable hand.’ §9 A negative apodosis whose actions mirror the protasis, namely, ‘a piece of flesh is inflated (napiḫ)’ with ‘someone will rise (itebbe) against the king’; and ‘it (the flesh) is curled (kapiṣ) to the left and right’ with ‘(someone) will surround (ussaršuma) him (the king).’ §10 The apodosis is the result of the action (ra’ābu, ‘to tremble’) and includes a playful alliteration between isāšu ira’ubā, ‘its jaws quiver’ and (ḫ)urbāšum, ‘shivers of fear’. The spelling with the sign ḫ u (in i-ra-ḫu-ba and ḫu-ur-ba-šum) represents the aleph. The dictionary entry ḫurbāšu (CAD/Ḫ: 248–249) can be realized as urbāšu. The Post Old Babylonian spelling with the sign ḫ u r may as well be transliterated as ur 5 in order to yield, likewise, urbāšu. §11 The term ḫušaḫḫu, ‘famine, hunger, lack’, is common enough in omens, but it could have been triggered in the apodosis because of the mention of the jawbone © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

69

in the protasis. The jawbone of the right side is perforated, hence a negative omen. The damaged organ responsible for chewing food sparks an association of lack of food or hunger. The word ḫušaḫḫu, written logographically as s u . g u 7 , is also found in the apodosis of LBA §33, p. 93. §12 The verb of the apodosis is partly broken. The broken sign before the final sign ar looks like the sign ḫa with a prominent right wedge, but its identification is not certain. I restore ú-[sà-ḫ]a-ar, ‘will turn around to’ (sahāru, ‘to turn around’), although the verb in the D stem is transitive or least demands an inner object (such as panišu). Usually with birtu(m) we expect to find a verb like târu, ‘to return’, or paṭāru, ‘to loosen’. §13 As in other omens relating to fornication, as we will see, revealing inner parts, here the teeth, is symbolically taken to denote the exposure of the genitals, hence, sexual intercourse. See CAD/N/1: 198. The same action (gnashing the teeth), performed by a pig in šumma izbu Tablet 22 (De Zorzi 2014: 874), §108, results in the financial ruin of the household (cf. šumma ālu Tablet 49, 11, 14, and 31'): šumma šaḫû šinnātišu ikaṣṣaṣ bīt bēlišu issappaḫ ‘If a pig gnashes its teeth, the house of its owner will be depleted.’ However, when a pig opens its mouth, the apodosis records the same result as in our omens. Compare šumma ālu Tablet 49, 34: šumma šahû ana pani amēli pîšu iptenette aššassu ittanâkū ‘If a pig holds its mouth wide open in front of the client, (everybody) will fornicate with his wife.’ §14 The wrinkled nose prompts a negative apodosis of a future hardship. Compare šumma izbu Tablet 4 (De Zorzi 2014: 444), §24: šumma sinništu ulidma ullānumma kaliṣ abašu dannatu iṣabbat ‘If a woman gives birth and (the new-born) is already curled up, hardship will seize its father (i.e., the client).’ The šumma izbu commentary explains that kaliṣ equals ḫummuru, ‘shrunken, crippled’; see De Zorzi (2014: 439). §15 The apodosis possibly relies on the interpretation of a physical gesture. The idiom appa qaqādu, ‘to bow (down the nose), prostrate’ (CAD/Q: 45) is a gesture of humility. Could it be that appa našû ‘to lift the nose’ by the sheep was interpretated as a sign of impertinence that signals disaster? §§16–17 The two omens are the result of the association between tears and mucus, and rain and flooding. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

70

§20 In recent years there has been considerable debate regarding the definition and role of the assinnu; e.g., Peled (2014) and Assante (2009). What is meant by performing the assinnu-service (assinnūtu) is not clear, but apparently it refers to the role of the assinnu in the cult of Ištar. For the CAD/B: 198a (published back in 1965) the apodosis meant that the client ‘will practice sodomy’. Because the right side of the cheek is dark, the omen is obviously negative; see Henshaw (1994: 284) and Starr (1983: 21). An omen in the šumma ālu series (Tablet 104; CT 39 45: 32) states that if the client will have sexual relations with an assinnu, his troubles will disappear; see Guinan (1997: 469, 474, no. 13 and 479, n. 40). The association between the cheek in the protasis and the assinnu in the apodosis is not clear, but an infected darkened cheek may have symbolized weakness, which in turn may have been associated with sexual passivity. According to CAD/L: 150, the idiom lēssu / lētīšu nadû, ‘to let down one’s cheek(s)’, means a gesture of lassitude. A healthy full and shinning check was a sign of vitality. Consider Gilgameš, who after reaching Ur-šanabi the boatman, is told that he has eaten-out cheeks: aklā lētāka, ‘your cheeks are eaten out’; Gilg. X: 113 = George (2003: 684–685). And on the other hand, consider Nergal’s cheeks: they flash as lightening: kīma birqi ittanabriq lētašu, ‘his cheek flashes like lightning’; Hymn to Nergal, ll. 10 and 12, cited according to CAD/B: 105a and L: 149b. §21 The collocation ištu ṭabḫu, ‘after being slaughtered’ is repeated, as if a new section begins, although there is no dividing line. It is not clear why a similar expression, ina ṭabāḫišu ‘upon its slaughtering’ is given for the immediate next entry (§22), although it can denote a different time frame, when the animal is cut and its blood spurts out (till §33). The association between the larynx of the protasis and wailing in the apodosis is obvious enough. The sound emitted from the larynx was of importance also in the sacrificial bird omens. Compare YOS 10 52, 4–6 (CAD/Z: 150): šumma ḫu-ur-ḫu-ud iṣṣūri(mušen) ašṭūtam uwašširma ziz issi nēšum ina ḫarrānim išeḫḫiṭ

‘If the larynx of the bird relaxes its stiffness and makes a hissing sound (zizzu), a lion will attack upon a journey.’

Additional discussion is found in Chapter 7.6, pp. 253–256. For the apodosis, cf. George (2013: 166, §37'). §22 In later versions, the colour of the sheep’s blood will gain importance and several omens will be offered to the subject; see Chapters 3 and 5. Compare also §35 where an omen from inside the sheep is favourable. §23 This omen has two apodoses but they are not marked with the b e sign or the Glossenkeil, as sometimes seen. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

71

§24 The discharge of gore (parsam tubbukum) is reflected in the apodosis as the squandering and ruin of the client’s house. §26 There is spillover of this line to the reverse of the tablet, instead of creating a newly indented line, as can be seen in obv. A1a. §27 The apodosis refers to a past moment in the extispicy ritual: if the sheep lifted its nose, this was an indication that the god was present (izziz) at the time of sacrifice when the sheep was slaughtered. Also above (and partly restored) § 3. See Chapter 1, Part III and Chapter 9, Part I. §28 The idiom rēšu innašše, ‘the head will be held high,’ means to be honoured, but in the context of the extispicy ritual, it means to receive attention at the audience in front of the gods; see CAD/N/2: 108a. §§27–28 have in their protases the lifting of the head, which results in a positive outcome in the apodoses. §§29–30 The sheep’s fall after sitting on its behind evokes the negative association found in the apodosis. But when the sheep stands still in the next omen, it yields a positive apodosis. Following CAD/Ṭ: 94b. §§30–31 The subject of the two omens is the extispicy ritual: in the first omen, the client will be successful in his trial before the gods held at night during the ritual. See Chapter 1, Part III, pp. 36–37 and Chapter 9, pp. 292ff. The second omen is negative: it predictes that the personal god of the client will send the client confused signs. Cf. Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, Tablet I, (Lambert 1960: 32–33), l. 51: dalḫā têrētua, ‘My omens were confused.’ §§32–33 A typical pair of left–right omens. Reading following Ulla Koch’s suggestion (private communication), da-ku-uk → dakāku, ‘to gambol, romp’; CAD/D: 33–34. §33 For the interpretation of na-ḫi-iṣ from nâṣu ‘to scorn’, see CAD/N/2: 53. §34 The association between shaking (arāru) and fear, terror (ḫattum) is clear, hence the apodosis. The observation is of the whole of the sheep’s body, prior to its opening by the diviner for the inspection of the inner part. This means that the following omens, which almost all concentrate on the frame and bones of the animal, are based on observations taken after the sheep was slaughtered, but prior to the removal of the inner parts—the intestines, the stomach area and the liver. §35 Since the sinews on the right side are dunnunū, ‘very strong’, or ‘very thick’ (with the CAD/D: 186b), those on the left must be something opposite, hence, šaknū is © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

72

perhaps to be translated as ‘afflicted’ in some unclear way, and obviously not to be related to the verb šakānu, ‘to place’. §36 With CAD/T: 204a. The movement of the sheep’s tail to all directions may have evoked the image of the depletion or scattering of the client’s household. §§36–47 These omens that deal with the tail are structured like gallbladder omens; see discussion and commentary below, §§42–43. §37 The verb of the apodosis is broken and its restoration is difficult. §§38–39 The restoration of these broken enteries is basically ad sensum, although some signs seem to correspond with what is suggested here. §§40–41 Following CAD/M/2: 100b. The movement of the tail—either from right to left or left to right—is what determines the outcome of the apodoses. The two pairs of omens can be compared with gallbladder omens, where the gallbladder swells from one direction to the next with the suitable apodoses for the client’s army and the enemy’s army; see a Middle Babylonian gallbladder compendium, the Tablet Carré (Jeyes 2000: 351, 360), obv. 35–36. §§42–43 The sequence of the two protases (kubburša and qutunša) is reminiscent of omens dedicated to the inspection of the gallbladder. The inspection starts with the head (rēšu = sag), continues to the middle part (qablu = múru) and ends at the thin part or ‘neck’ (qutnu = sig) of the anatomical part; Jeyes (1989: 62). The personae found in the apodoses of the šumma immeru omens, the famous person and the diviner, are similar to those in the gallbladder omens; see Jeyes (2000: 366). Compare both sequences: Gallbladder omens

Persona

šumma immeru

Persona

1

‘head’

prince

–––

–––

2

‘middle part’

one’s peer or prince over his noblemen

‘thick part’

famous person

3

‘thin part’

diviner

‘thin part’

diviner

In the šumma immeru omens, the negative outcomes are the result of the dark colouration (tarik) of the tail in the protasis. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

73

I argue that the similarity of the construction of the tail omens and gallbladder omens is the result of the similar shape of both organs: both are long and flat. See below §§42 and 44–45. § 42 The thick (kubbur) tail points to the outcome of the apodosis. Akkadian kubburu can be rendered by Sumerian gur 4 , written by the sign lagab (CAD/K: 4). A famous or notable man in Akkadian is wedûm. In the lexical tradition this term is equated with the Sumerian lagab. Hence gur 4 /lagab shares the semantics of kubburu and wedûm (‘thick’, ‘heavy’ and ‘important’), and although implicit in this case, it provides the tie between the protasis and apodosis. This does not contradict what was stated above: the mention of various office holders or notables in these omens was perhaps influenced by, or structured like, the gallbladder omens. §§44–45 The two omens can be compared to the following two omens from the Middle Babylonian gallbladder compendium, the Tablet Carré (Jeyes 2000: 352, 361), obv. 45–46: šumma martum imittašu idkuš miqitti ummāni ‘If the gallbladder – its right is swollen, the fall of the army.’ šumma martum šumelšu idkuš miqitti ummān nakri ‘If the gallbladder – its left is swollen, the fall of the enemy’s army.’ §47 Following CAD/N/1: 162b. §48 The opening and contracting, or some similar action, of the anus (the Gtn of šadādu is not entirely clear; see §7) invite an omen regarding the client’s wife. The wife is said to be a šūṣûtum ‘the one driven out’ (CAD/T: 252b), but one wonders if one can be more specific here. Perhaps she was driven out to prostitution. Consider §§49 and 69. A lexical list (UM 55-21-9; cited in ePSD and in CAD/Ḫ: 101) provides an equation between [k a r. k i d ], ‘prostitute’ and [w]a-ṣi-tum ‘she who goes out’. When the anus contracts and is closed, the woman will return to her house. §49 The anus opens as the tail enters it. The verb is corruptly written. The signs read i-[i]t-a-a[k] or less probably i-[d]a-a-a[k]: reconstructing idâk, ‘(it) will kill’, is out of the question because the verb is senseless. One may consider the form as a mis-writing for i-ti!-a-ak for the (Assyrian) perfect form ittīak ‘fornicated’, ‘raped’. The perfect form, however, is difficult for the protasis. Hence, another option is simply to read i-[n]i!-a-ak, (it) will fornicate’. One suspects that a Gtn form was intended. Compare with the following form in this omen, CT 6 1–3 (Babylonian Liver Model), case 42 (cited in CAD/N/1: © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

74

198): šagûm ēnam i-ta-na-ia-ak, ‘the priest will continuously have intercourse with the en-priestess’. The apodosis of §49, part of which is missing, deals with the client’s wife, who has been caught in the act of fornication. Perhaps it is to be completed along the lines of §13. Consider also the following apodosis from Bārûtu Ch. 7 (ubānu), Tablet 6, 18:1 aššat amēli ina nâki uṣṣi ‘The client’s wife will leave in order to fornicate.’ A somewhat similar omen can be found in šumma ālu Tablet 49, 58': šumma šaḫû ana pani amēli zêšu izzi aššat amēli innâk ‘If a pig defecates in front of the client, the client’s wife will fornicate.’ Note, however, that when other animals (a dog and a cat) defecate in front of the client in the šumma ālu series, the apodoses are different and are not concerned with sexual relations. §50 We translate naglabum as the hip bone and not the shoulder blade (per U. Koch’s suggestion): this fits the region of the examination of animal at this point–– between the anus and tail and the leg parts. §55–60 The loosening of the hip bone is a negative omen if it happens on the right side, but a positive omen if it occurs on the left side. §57–58 The relationship between the two apodoses is that they deal with places of restricted access: the first deals with a prison house (negative) and the second with the enemy’s treasury (positive). What promoted this shared imagery in the apodoses is the verb paṭāru, ‘to untie, unfasten’ in its narrow sense: hence an undoing of some attachment of the ridge of the hip bone will result with the prison gates forced open or the treasury doors of the enemy broken into. See also §104. The loosening of the right side results in a negative omen; the left side with a positive omen. That is because the loosening of body parts and other ominuous parts was considered negative. §57 The same apodosis appears in YOS 10 11 (liver compendium), ii 27–30:

šumma ina išid māt ubānim kakkum šakinma eliš iṭṭul ṣibittum ibbalakkat ‘If the “Weapon”(-mark) is situated at the base of the “Country of the Finger” and looks upwards, the prison will revolt.’

1

  BRM 4 12, 18; cited in CAD/N/1: 198a; see Koch (2015: 107). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

75

§63 The absence of a bone or an organ of the inner parts is considered a negative sign, usually of a major catastrophe. §64 The reading ‹gír › . š u . i follows CAD/N1: 120. A positive apodosis is expected but here the sense is negative. For raḫāṣu, see recently, George (2013: 62–63). §§65–66 The perforation of the right bone leads to a negative apodosis: the hole evokes prostitution of the client’s wife. Compare the sexual acts in §§69–70, where likewise the bones are perforated. The opposite omen, in which the left bone is perforated, is positive. The act of penetration or forming a hole is the image that stands behind the looting of the enemy’s treasure. Furthermore, the treasure house can be considered a metaphor for the kept wives of the ruler. Consider this sentence in a letter from RibAdda, the ruler of Byblos, to the Pharaoh, where the association between women and the treasure house is rather clear (EA 84: 13–21; acc. to CAD/U–W: 252b): u iṣallul ana bīt [urši bēli]ja u ipette ašar niṣi[rti bē ]lija, ‘And now he (i.e. the enemy) sleeps in the [bedchamber] of my [lord] and opens the treasure room of my lord.’ Hence, I argue, there is a logical link between the two apodoses of these omens. §68 In manuscript A, in la be-e‹l›, only the left part of the el sign is written out. §§69–70 The perforated bones (of the metacarpal and the right hoof) invite apodoses concerned with improper sexual behaviour of women – the king’s daughter and the client’s wife. §71 The burning of tents was a topos in omen literature. See Durand (1995), whose translation is followed, and CAD/U-W: 237. No doubt, it reflects warrior life on the Mesopotamian steppe. I take mišāriša to mean ‘across its length’. Cf. CAD/M/2: 116a and 119a. Note the spelling i-na-an-di with nasalization. The question is what prompted the apodosis for this particular bone part? Was it the breast split length ways that was imagined to be a fallen down tent? Or did the breast symbolize the fortress: split open with blood oozing out may have prompted this unique image of city-dwellers rushing out with burning torches. Compare this omen where the colour red, i.e., blood enclosed within the intestines, prompted the image of tent-burning in the apodosis of a ziḫḫu compendium (Nougayrol 1971: 73), l. 32: šumma qerbū ˹suma˺ ṣarpū urpāt ummānija išātum ikkal ‘If the intestines are coloured red, fire will devour the tents of my army.’

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

76

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

§§72–82 This set of omens deals with the xiphoid process. For §§72–79 (eight omens), the sequence is: (– +), (+ –), (– +), and (+ –). §§74–75 The association between the kaskasu bone and the verb danānu, ‘to be strong’ (here in the rare Dtr/R stem; see below), may lie in the confusion or folk etymology of kaškaššu ‘overpowering’ (CAD/K: 290a). In the lexical tradition the word is equated with dannu ‘strong’; see malku=šarru I (Hruša 2010: 32), 47. Hence, the association probably worked along the lines that the kaskasu, ‘breastbone’, must be ‘very strong’. Two apodoses of the kaskasu omens are remarkable because of the appearance of the very rare Dtr stem (sometimes called the R stem) of danānu; Kouwenberg (2010: 442–443). The Dtr stem of the very same verb appears in the Ritual of the Diviner, as noted already by Starr (1983: 67), in the line that describes the very same bone we are concerned with, the kaskasu. Ritual of the Diviner (Starr 1983: 29), l. 38: ka-as-ka-su-um i-mi-it-tam a-na qé-er-bi-nu-um li-ik-pi-iṣ li-da-na-an-ni-in The breastbone on the right-side will be bent towards the inside and be of equal thickness. Note that only manuscript A uses the Dtr stem form, whereas B simplifies it; see pp. 82–84. See also CAD/D: 86b and Whiting (1981: 18, 31, and 34, n. 123). §§78–79 Manuscript A utilizes the G Durative form, tazzaz/izzaz (‘you/he will prevail’), but manuscript B has the Gt Durative form, tattazza[z]/ittazzaz (‘you/he will prevail’). §§80–82 These three omens have ambigious results because the xiphoid process possesses the same features on both its sides. §81 The condition described in the protasis is found also in an oracle query (SAA 4 306): be kak.zag.ga 15 u 150 na-pár-kud, ‘If the xiphoid lies back to the right and the left’. The apodosis speaks of a parting or withdrawal of the client and the enemy (atta u nakirka aḫu ana pani aḫim udappar). The verb is in the 3rd person sg. because it relates to aḫu as its proper subject. Manuscript B19a writes ú-pada-ir, but this is obviously a mistake for ú-da-pa-ar (→ duppuru, ‘to withdraw’). Since in the next omen we find the term pitruštān, ‘ambiguous omen’, we can consider the apodosis of §81 as the equivant of an apodosis containing the term nanmurtu, ‘meeting, encounter’, although this technical term does not appear in it. In apodoses, the terms pitruštān and nanmurtu appear as a pair, one after the other. See CUSAS 18 22 (the SLD), §§21–22, and discussion there. §82 The term pitruštān is the dual form of pitruštu ‘an ambiguous omen’; see above §81. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

77

§83 The expression mīli irtim, literally, ‘fullness of breast’, means ‘success’, ‘courage’; see CAD/I–J: 185. Glassner (2009: 29) assumed that this entry is mistakenly placed here and that it should have appeared directly after §70, dealing with the hoof (larsinnu). This is the sequence represented by manuscript B (B8). However, it is probably manuscript B which is mistaken, having removed §83 from its place and situated it between the hoof (§70) and the breast (§71). The sequence of organs in manuscript A is as expected. The diviner goes down to the hoof (§70). Then there is an inspection of the lower chest (§71; irtum) that climbs up to the xiphoid (§§72–82; kaskasu), then a stopover at the lower neck (our §83). After that come omens relating to the rib cage. See discussion below. §88 The adverb mitḫāriš means here that both the client’s army and the enemy’s army will perish; see CAD/M2: 133b. Manuscript B presents a somewhat different formulation of basically the same omen. §§89–92 These four omens probably deal with three last ribs of the animal. Three omens (§§89–91) treat the ribs, but one omen (of the left side) is obviously missing out of this originally double-paired set (right side: §§89–90; left side: §91 and missing). Compare KAL 5 3, a rib bone compendium, where instead of tiṣbutā we find nenmudā, ‘are joined to each other’ (rev. 1', 8'–9'). And for muḫḫašina we have suḫuš-ši-na (rev. 8'–9'). For this text, see pp. 244–245. §90 Manuscript A exhibits a peculiar spelling, probably mistaken: i-tu-ru-ni-e-šu for iturrūniššu. §92 There are two apodoses in this omen; both are negative; see CAD/S: 246b. The god Ningišzida is associated in omens with the plague, death or fire; see, e.g., CAD/A/1: 96a and CAD/M/1: 252; see further Wiggerman (1998–2000). §93 I have choosen here to understand kak.ti as the logogram for the rib(s), sometimes understood as the floating rib(s), the najjabtu (sg.) or najjabātu (pl.), rather than sikkat ṣēli, although the meaning of both Akkadian words is probably the same. My choice depends on the OB List of Sheep Body Parts (Chapter 7.14.1), where following the kaskas[um], the na-a-a-ba-at appears (entries 16 and 17). Since in the OB version the kaskasum is followed with kak.ti, the najjabtu/najjabātu seems the logical choice. C2 has a-na šarriša(lugal ša ); B30 has a-na bé-li-ša. There is no apparent reason for this change, but one can assume, as the discussion below will reveal, that manuscript C is superior to B. In addition, C2 has i-iz-zi-za in the preterite, but B30 provides us with iz-za-az-za, the same verb but in the durative tense.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

78

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

In regard to the verb in the apodosis, uktappal, the literal meaning of the verb kapālu in the Dt stem is ‘to be entwined’. The choice of kapālu in the apodosis is not accidental but prompted by the sikkatu, ‘peg’, of the protasis. Consider this omen from a Commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 8 (kakku), B (CT 31 10 [K.2086+], obv.! ii 6–7; cited in CAD/K: 174): ‘If the “Weapon”(-mark) … kīma [sikkati] išissu ilammima ikappilma, ‘like [a peg], surrounds its base and coils around it’. In the context under discussion, the sikkatu is to be understood as a part of the lock, rather than simply a ‘peg’. Hence in §93, the rib bones (najjabātu) stand like some part of the lock (kīma sikkatim). Therefore, in the apodosis, the country encoils itself around the king, like the ‘peg’ in a lock. §§94–95 The rib has a branching (larû), which invites the verb in the apodosis, paṭāru, in this case, in the sense of ‘to desert’. §96 Although the organ is written as a singluar (kak.ti), it must be taken as a collective plural, hence the translation ‘ribs’. For the reciprocal sense of the verbs in the apodosis, see Kouwenberg (2010: 265, no. 31). §97 Manuscript C has the form ka-as-ka-su-um, in the singular This bone part and the ribs (ša k a k . t i ) are taken as plural, ad sensum, with the grammar somewhat disjointed. See CAD/K: 244 and Ṣ: 34–35. The ribs joining the xiphoidal bone (tiṣbutū) suggest immobility. The positive apodosis speaks about attacking the enemy in its camp, prior to it being able to make a move. §§104–105 Two omens deal with the bamtum, the rib cage. The imagery that the rib cage evokes in the first omen is that of a prison (this is the second apodosis that mentions the prison; see §57). The constriction on the right, along with a fortuitous sign, the ‘spot’ (liptu; see CAD/L: 202) provokes a negative omen: there will be an outcry or revolt from the prison. The constriction of the rib cage on both sides brings about a negative omen: the fall of the ḫupšu class (and compare §88). The ḫupšu social class were free citizens, who, however, were obliged to perform corvée duties for the palace. Some of them were on military duty, hence their ability to revolt. Consider the following examples: KAL 5 42, 23, ‘forerunner’ to Bārûtu Ch. 8 (kakku), Tablet 3: ‘If the weapon faces upwards, the revolt of the ḫupšu-class against the prince (nabalkut ḫupši ana rubê).’

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

79

KAL 5 61, 8'–9', Lung omens: ‘If the lung is filled with red paste and there is a hole in the right lung, the ḫupšu-class will revolt and will [kill] the king (ḫupšu itebbima šarra [idâk]).’ ‘If the lung is filled with red paste and there is a hole in the left lung, the ḫupšu-class will revolt but the king will kill th[em] (ḫupšu itebbima šarru idâkšu[nu]).’ In §105, this work force perishes. It is not clear why the association with the rib cage. Perhaps the ḫupšu work force was held together in some single facility or structure that was imagined to resemble the rib cage. There is no proof for this conjecture, but consider the following omen YOS 10 17 (naplaštum compendium), l. 88: [ … ] u šēpum nadi ˹x˺ miqitti ḫupšim miqitti gagîm ‘[ … ] and a “Foot”(-mark) appears … , downfall of the ḫupšu-class; downfall of the gagûm cloister.’ Both the ḫupšu and the gagûm are mentioned as the apodoses of the same omen. It is unfortunate that the protasis is missing, but one can assume that they were mentioned one after the next, because some similarity between the two was conceived. To ask the question more pointedly: can we assume an assembly place for the ḫupšu work force that was perhaps restricted, just like the gagûm cloister? §§106–111 The next six omens deal with the šuptum: three positive and three negative in a row. While the apodoses of §107 and §108 mirror §110 and §111, there is no connection between the apodoses of §109 and §112. For the identification of the body part, see Chapter 8, p. 287. §106 Similar apodoses are known from other omen compendia; see CAD/U–W: 105. Note that in the apodosis, B simplifies the form ummānka (thus in C) to um-ma-nu. §107 The word ahīatu means here ‘border provinces’; see CAD/A/1: 191a. §111 The reading of the last sign of the apodosis causes difficulties. Nougayrol (1950a: 111) considered the sign as è š , with an incorrect vowel (for ipallaš). However, upon quoting this line, CAD/P: 59b, notes that the copy reads the last sign as a t (resulting in *ipallat). Collation has indeed revealed that this is the case. The origin of this simple error is difficult to understand, but it may have been a result of a dictation mistake.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

80

3. Discussion The Manuscripts Manuscript A is a large single column tablet (9.4 × 20 cm). The manuscript is almost complete but some damage occurred to its upper and lower extremities. Its obverse and its lower edge contain fifty-three lines and its reverse contains forty-four lines. Every tenth omen entry is marked off on the left edge of the tablet by a single wedge, the sign u for the number ten.2 The final line of the reverse is demarcated with a bold line, after which comes the colophon (see below). About 3cm of blank space remain. Manuscript B is a large single column tablet, although it is a bit smaller than manuscript A (7.1 × 13.5 cm). It also contains fewer lines. The tablet was broken into two pieces along its middle. Although these pieces are now joined, some irrevocable damage occurred to the mid-right edge of the obverse. The obverse and the lower edge have forty-one lines. The reverse has thirty lines, after which comes a double ruling line, followed by the colophon, just like manuscript A. And like manuscript A, every ten omen paragraphs are marked with a single wedge. However, at the close of the tablet to the left of the double ruling line, the number eight is written (see Fig. 9). This is the number of omens left from the last single wedge that marks the fortieth omen. Indeed, as the colophon informs us, the tablet holds forty-eight omens. Manuscript C is a small, rectangular single column tablet with the script written along its longer horizontal axis. It has the shape of excerpt tablets and reports (u’iltu). It is a bit wider than manuscript A and thus resembles it, although it is much shorter in length (10.6 × 7.6 cm). There is some damage to the right edge of the obverse and minor breaks on the reverse but otherwise the tablet is complete. The obverse has eighteen lines and the reverse only three. After the end of the text comes a double ruling line with the colophon; there remains a blank space of approximately 5cm. Manuscript C employs the single wedge to mark off its first ten lines. Line twenty, however, is not marked:3 was it because it simply was the last line of the tablet? The signs of all manuscripts are overall similar (although see the discussion below, as manuscript B displays different sign shapes on occasion). They have been defined by Goetze (1947) as of a mixed nature, exhibiting both archaic and younger forms. By ‘archaic’, Goetze meant signs like those found in documents dated to Rim-Sin of Larsa, and by ‘younger’, to those in documents dated to Hammurabi. Kraus (1950: 143) argued against using such paleographic criteria for dating, but agreed that the tablets in YOS 10, our manuscripts included, fall sometime between the times of Rim-Sin and Hammurabi.

2

  A comparable example, as noticed by Riemschneider (1965: 137), is Scheil (1930), Text B (an Old Babylonian gallbladder compendium), which has ‘10’, and ‘20’, and should have had expectedly a ‘30’ mark, but this last digit remained un-marked, at least according to Scheil’s copy. 3   Glassner (2009: 29). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

81

Fig. 9. Manuscript B (YOS 10 48), Reverse. ©The Yale Babylonian Collection All manuscripts open the protasis with diš (for šumma), which is assumed to be a characteristic of texts from south Babylonia, specifically Larsa; see pp. 12 and 25; Koch (2015: 88) and Jeyes (1989).4 Additional logographic writing considered typical of southern traditions are kalam (mātum, ‘country’; passim) and lú kúr (nakrum, ‘enemy’; passim). The use of logograms both in the prostasis and apodosis is fairly limited compared to later versions. The object of inquiry, the sheep, is only written logographically (udu, immerum). Other body parts written logographically (in the protasis) are: gaba (irtum, ‘breast’; e.g., §71), ‹gír›.šu.i (naglabum, ‘hip bone’; §64, manuscript B only), kak.ti (najjabtu, najjabātu, ‘rib(s)’), múru (qablum, ‘inside’, ‘middle’), and šà (libbum, ‘inside’, ‘heart’; e.g., §9). 4

  Additional texts from YOS 10 open with diš (for šumma); see the list provided by Kraus (1950: 152, no. 2). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

82

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

In the apodosis one finds only two predicates written logographically: du (illak(u), ‘(the army) will go’; §§102 and 106) and ti.la (iballuṭ, ‘(the sick client) will recover’; §108). Other logograms appearing in the apodosis are (alphabetically): dingir (ilum, ‘god’), dumu.munuš (mārtum, ‘daughter’), é (bītum, ‘house’), giš gu.za (kussû, ‘throne’), kalam (mātum, ‘country’), lú kúr (nakrum, ‘enemy’), lú (awīlum, ‘man, client’), lugal (šarrum, ‘king’), and giš tukul (kakkum, ‘weapon’, ‘force’). The Relationship between the Manuscripts Manuscript A contains omens §§1–91; manuscript B holds §§64–111 (fortyeight omens), and manuscript C, §§ 92–111 (twenty omens). It is obvious hence that manuscripts A and C are the same composition made up of two tablets. The two tablets have 111 omens in total. This information is included in both their colophons. The colophon of A states that it is k i 1. It is known that the sign ki in many types of scholarly texts denotes ordinal numbers, hence k i 1 is simply ‘the first’.5 As Glassner (2009: 26) correctly understood, in colophons of the extispicy texts found in YOS 10 (and elsewhere), the writing k i 1 denotes that it is first tablet, hence manuscript C is the second tablet of the two, because it is designated in its colophon as k i ! 2.6 The work hence can be considered as complete, made up of two tablets. Also in regard to its content, it is clear that the whole sequence starts at the head of the animal and ends at its rear or stomach, the šuptum. There may have been another manuscript dealing with more body parts prior to the inner parts inspection. This will be discussed further in Chapter 9, Parts II and III; see also pp. 238–242. Manuscript B is the second tablet of two original tablets that made up the entire composition. Note that ms. B enters at ms A §64 and ends exactly where ms. C ends. The colophon of B informs that it contains a total of forty-eight lines, which parallel our count of omens from §64 to §111, i.e., forty-eight omens. The first tablet of B is now lost. It would have carried omens §§ 1-63. Hence, the lost first tablet of B, which we can call *B, and B itself, like A and C, would have together contained a total of 111 omens. The notation 1-kam appearing in the colophon of B is perplexing in this sense: is the numeral ‘1’ a mistake for ‘2’?; or is it that the work as considered as ‘1’ , even if stretched on two tablets?7 As argued, manuscripts A and C should in fact be considered one composition. B and its lost tablet would have made up another manuscript of this composition. Many spelling traits and sign formations of A and C further strengthen their 5

 A discussion about the ki– and –kam notations is given in pp. 239, 305, 355, and 357.   Manuscript C includes an incomplete sign in the colophon, which looks like šu, but is in fact ki, as in manuscript A, and in other omen texts. Contrary to Glassner (2009: 26), as argued here, A and C are of the same composition. 7  The colophon has been transliterated at times thus 1-kam.˹a˺ or 1-kam.˹ma˺. A close inspection of the tablet reveals just two (probably) accidental scratches to the tablet, hence read only 1-kam. Note that Glassner (2009: 26, n. 59) inadvertently provides a colophon, which is obviously not the one of manuscript B. 6

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

83

relationship, leaving little doubt that they were written by the same scribe. Despite the mistakes that manuscript A exhibits (and manuscript C), it is not an inferior copy that was based on a faulty exemplar, as Glassner (2009: 29) supposes. On the other hand, manuscript B is clearly different than manuscripts A and C: the spelling is more modern, and less attention is given to doubling or plene spelling. Usually, however, the retention of mimation is found both in manuscript B and the two other manuscripts. Compare the following features of the three manuscripts by examining select items: 1

§108

C17

qé-er-˹bé ˺-nu-um

B45

qé-er-bé-nu

2

§66

A66

te-le-qé-e

B3

te-le-qè

3

§94

C3

la-ri-a-am

B31

la-ri-am

4

§70

A70

i-ni-a-ak

B7

i-ni-ak

5

§110

C19

a-ḫi-a-ti-ka

B47

a-ḫi-‹a›-ti-ka

6

§69

A69

ṣe-eḫ-ḫe-re-tum

B6

ṣe-‹eḫ›-ḫe-re-tum

7

§69

A69

pu-ul-lu-ša

B6

pu-‹ul›-lu-ša

8

§72

A72

mi-qí-it-ti

B10

mi-qí-ti

9

§105

C14

mi-qì-it-ti

B42

mi-qì-ti

10

§92

C1a

i-qá-al-lu

B29a

i-qá-lu

11

§§84–85

A84–85

ú-pa-la-aš-ši

B21-22

ú-pa-la-aš

12

§§84-85

A84–85

tu-pa-la-aš-ši

B21-22

tu-pa-la-aš

13

§93

C2

i-iz-zi-za

B30

iz-za-az-za

14

§106

C15

um-ma-an-ka

B43

um-ma-nu

15

§63

A64

na-ag-l[a-b]i-im

B1

‹gír›.šu.i

16

§93

C2

kalam

B30

ma-tum

The differences between manuscripts A and C and manuscript B can be pointed out as follows: mimation (1); plene spelling (2–5); doubling of consonants (6–10); simplified or changed forms (11–14); and syllabic versus logographic, sometimes in B and sometimes in C (15–16). In addition, some signs (such as n u , z u and m ú r u ) are also written differently between the two texts. A noticeable simplifying of a rare verbal form––a D stem doubled final radical (Dtr or R stem)––occurs in manuscript B. In manuscript A74–75, the full form is given, tu-ud-da-na-an-na-an/ú-da-na-an-na-kum, but in manuscript B12–13 we find tu-da-na-an/ ˹ú-da-na-na-ku˺. Later, though, manuscript B gets the form correct (§80). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

84

2. The Old Babylonian šumma immeru Version

There is a case that seems to indicate that the scribe of manuscript B copied from manuscript A without giving much attention to what was in front of him. In §88, while A88 gives i-ma-qu-ut, B25a has i-ma-a-at. Perhaps a similar case can be made for §93, where C2 has a-na lugal ša but B30 reads a-na bé-li-ša. It is not clear why in §111 the simple verbal form i-pa-la-aš is found in manuscript B48a as i-pa-la-at; see p. 79. Text simplification is also found in B. In §88, while A88 gives ṣēlum ša imīti u šumēlim ištēn dāmam lupputū,‘If the right rib cage and left rib cage are both likewise spattered with blood’; B25 reads ṣēlū kilallūn dāma lupputū, ‘If both rib cages are spattered with blood’. Another case of simplification can seen in the above table, entry 14: the form ummānka was simplified to ummānu. Overall, when one needs to evaluate manuscript B against manuscripts A and C, it is inferior. Although manuscripts A and C contain many mistakes, manuscript B has many mistakes in sign formation and non-standard or simplified spellings. One remarkable example is seen in §§65 and 69 of manuscript B. For some reason it seems as if the scribe of B refused to write the word ḫarimūtum ‘prostitution’ properly, misspelling the word twice the same way, thus ḫa-ri-tim, omitting the mu. Such blatant mistakes are found elsewhere in the YOS 10 corpus and therefore are not unique to manuscript B. For example, in YOS 10 50 (a šēpum compendium), the word for the footmarks on the liver (šēpētum)––an auspicious sign––is spelt almost throughout the text as ši-e-tum, instead of ši-pi-tum. Whatever cause for this mistake, it is a clear sign of the scribe’s complete misunderstanding of the type of text that was in front of him. This implies that somewhat contrary to what Glassner suggested (2009: 29), manuscripts A (YOS 10 47) and C (YOS 10 49) are superior copies, and furthermore that the scribe of B relied on A and C or a similar copy to produce his manuscript.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 3 The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version muššer immeramma dūk nakra ‘Let go of the sheep and kill the enemy!’ (LBA §8) The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru version (LBA) consists of two contemporary or near-contemporary sources––from Emar and Hattuša. The LBA represents a Post Old Babylonian stage of the composition. However, it is clearly some distance away from the Standard Version (SV) and discussion is to be afforded regarding its relationship to the OB version and the SV. It is also the first version to include an apodosis which is characteristic of the omens, and which is given as the opening quote of this chapter. In this study we will call this re-occurring phrase the šumma immeru formula. The chapter will offer an edition along with a textual commentary of the relevant sources in view of bringing about a reconstruction of the LBA version. It will then discuss all available manuscripts, as well as their relationship to each other. Finally, the composition will be viewed as a whole and an attempt will be made to date it.

1. Edition and Translation Text Sigla Emar manuscripts A= A (+) F = Msk 731077a+b (+) Msk 74261c B = B (+) C = Msk 74104c (+) Msk 74212 D = Msk 74101w E = Msk 74203a G = Msk 74132e = Emar 699 K = Msk 74135m = Emar 685 © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

86

Hattuša manuscripts H = KBo 36.47 L = KBo 42.116 (edited separately; see pp. 112–113) Edition and Discussions Arnaud (1985–1987, no. 698(; Cohen (2007(; de Martino (2010); Rutz (2013: 250–251(. §1

obv. i

A1 A2

diš udu e-nu-ma ta-kar-ra-bu ip-pa-šar ki.tuš ne-eḫ-tù : dingir ki.za silim-im

obv.

B1

[be udu e-nu-ma ta-kar-ra-bu ip-pa]-šar šu-ub-tu4 ni-iḫ-tu4 [dingir] ki.za silim-im





šumma immeru enūma takarrabu ippašsar šubtu neḫtu ilu ittika salim If the sheep – when you dedicate it – will be relaxed, peaceful dwelling; the god will become reconciled with you. §2

A3

diš udu i-de4-e-ep dumu ugu a-bi-šu i-ma-haṣ



B2

[be udu i-de4-e-ep dumu ugu a-bi-šu i-ma]-ḫaṣ

šumma immeru iddêp māru eli abišu imaḫḫaṣ

If the sheep will be pressed down, the son will strike his father.

§3

diš udu ka×erín.meš-šú i-kaṣ-ṣa-aṣ ki.gub d utu ana ḫul-ti : be dingir šub.ba

A4 A5

B3 [be udu ka×erín.meš-šu i-kaṣ-ṣa-aṣ ki.gu]b d utu ana ḫul-ti be dingir šà.dib.ba šumma immeru šinnātišu ikaṣṣaṣ mazzāz Šamaš ana lemutti A be ilu inaddi; B be ilu šabus If the sheep gnashes its teeth, the position of Šamaš will be for the bad; A the god will abandon (the client); B the god will be furious (at the client).

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§4

A6

diš udu ka×u-šú ip-te-ne-et-te ki.gub d utu ana sig 5 -ti



B4

[be udu ka×u-šu ip-te-ne-et-te ki.gub d ut]u ana sig 5-ti

87

šumma immeru pîšu iptenette mazzāz Šamaš ana damiqti If the sheep opens wide its mouth, the ‘Position’ of Šamaš will be for the good. §5

A7 diš udu ka×u min eme it-ta-na-an-di A8 : lú kúr ina sag a.šà-ia ki.tuš i-na-an-di



B5

[be udu ka×u min eme] it-ta-na-an-di [lú kúr] ina sag a.šà-ia ! {šu?-ub} erasure

šumma immeru pîšu min (iptenette) lišana ittanandi nakru ina rēš eqlija šubta inandi

If the sheep (opens wide) its mouth and extends its tongue all the way out, the enemy will establish its camp at my destination. §6

A9

diš udu á.gar.gar-šu šub-di i-na gur-ri šu-ub-tu4

B6 [be udu á.gar.gar-šu šub-di i-na gur]-ri šu-ub-[tu4 …] a-di x-gi šap-li-ma šumma immeru piqannašu iddi ina turri šubtu; B […] … If the sheep drops its dung pellets, an ambush upon retreat; B (unclear). §7 A10 diš udu ši-na-te-šu iš-ti-en pu-luḫ-tu4 ugu um-ma-ni A11 : šub-ut zi.ga ana lugal zi.ga ina gur-ri ki.tuš B7 [be udu ši-na-te-šu iš-ti-en pu-luḫ-tu4 ug]u um-[ma]-ni-ia šub-ut B8 [zi.ga ana lugal zi.ga ina gur-ri šu-ub]-tu4 šumma immeru šinātešu išten puluḫtu eli ummāni; B eli ummānija imaqqut tību ana šarri itebbe ina turri šubtu If the sheep urinates, fear will fall upon the army; B upon my army; an uprising against the king will rise; an ambush upon retreat.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

88

§8 A12 diš udu geštu.ḫi.a-šú ana igi-šu tar-ṣa dingir-lu4 ina-aṭ-ṭal muš-šìr A13 : udu-ma du-uk lú kúr B9

[be udu geštu.ḫi.a-šu ana igi-šu tar-ṣa dingir-lu4 ina-aṭ-ṭal ] muš-šìr udu-ma du-uk lú kúr qa-x-ma



šumma immeru uznāšu ana panišu tarṣā ilu inaṭṭal muššer immeramma dūk nakra; B …

If the sheep – its ears are drawn to its front, the god will look (favourably upon the client); Let go of the sheep and kill the enemy!; B (unclear). §9

A14 diš udu gestu.ḫi.a-šú a-na egir-šú tar-ṣa pu-ṭú-ur A15 : la-a ta-al-lak li-ʾ-it lú kúr

B10

[be udu gestu.ḫi.a-šu a-na egir-šu tar-ṣa pu-ṭú-ur la ta]-a-lak li-it lú kúr

šumma immeru uznāšu ana arkišu tarṣā puṭur la tallak lī’it nakri

If the sheep – its ears are drawn to its rear, disband (the forces)! Do not go (on campaign)! The victory of the enemy.

§10

A16 diš udu geštu zag-šú ana gùb-šú i-da-ak A17 : giš tukul še-e-di ù d lamma



B11

[be udu geštu zag-šu ana gùb-šu i-da-ak giš tukul še-e-di] ˹ù˺ la-ma-as-sí : ḫul



šumma immeru uzun imittišu ana šumēlišu īdak kakki šēdi u lamassi; B lumnu



If the sheep covers with its right ear its left one, the ‘Weapon’(- mark) of the protective deities Šedu and Lamassu; B grief.

§11

diš udu geštu gùb-šú ana zag-šú i-da-ak ti-bi lú kúr

A18

B (missing) šumma immeru uzun šumēlišu ana imittišu īdak tībi nakri If the sheep covers with its left ear its right one, attack of the enemy.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

89

§12 A19 diš udu igi zag-šú ik-ta-na-at-‹tù›-ut qú-lu4 ugu um-ma-ni šub-ut B12 [be udu igi zag-šu ik-ta-na-at-tù-ut qú-lu4 ugu um-ma-ni-i]a šub-ut

šumma immeru īn imittišu iktanattut qūlu eli ummāni; eli [ummānij ]a imaqqut



If the sheep – its right eye drops down all the time, deathly silence will fall upon the army; B [upon m]y [army].

§13

diš udu igi gùb-˹šú ˺ min ugu um-ma-an lú kúr šub-ut [diš udu igi gùb-šu min ugu um-ma-an] lú kúr šub-ut

B

A20 B13



šumma immeru īn šumēlišu min (iktanattut) (qūlu) eli ummān nakri imaqqut



If the sheep – its left eye likewise (drops down all the time), (deathly silence) will fall upon the enemy’s army.

§14

diš igi zag-šú i [p-ta-na-si ]-il qí-it pa-ri-ri-ia [ … ] si si li pa-aš-ḫa ul da da

A21 B14



šumma īn imittišu i [ptanass]il qīt parīrīja; B [ … ] … pašḫā …

If its right eye turns around, downfall of my dispersed force; B […] (unclear) … will be appeased ? … §15

A22 B15

diš igi gùb-‹šú› ip-[ta-na-si-il qí-it p]a-ri-ri lú kúr l ú [… ] kúr

šumma īn šumēli‹šu› ip[tanassil qīt p]arīrī nakri If ‹its› left eye tu[rns around, downfall of] the enemy’s dispersed forces. §16

A23 diš igi.ḫi.a-šú ana d utu [ … ] A24 : giš tukul d àlad u d [lamma … ] B16 [ … ]x x[ … ]



šumma īnūšu ana Šamaš [ … ] kakki šēdi u [lamassi … ]

If its eyes [are turned] towards Šamaš, the ‘Weapon’(-mark) of the protective deities Šedu and [Lamassu … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

90

§17

A25

diš udu di-ma-tù-šu du-ku ana x[ … ]

šumma immeru dimātušu illakū ana … [ … ]

If the sheep – its tears flow, to [ … ].

§18

diš udu eme-šú it-ta-na-an-di ṣu-[mu … iṣabbat]

A26



šumma immeru lišanšu ittanandi ṣū[mu … iṣabbat ]



If the sheep continuously extends out its tongue, thi[rst will seize … ].

§19

A27 diš udu gú zag-šú ú-na-aš-ša-ak kaskal [ti-bu] A28 : la-a ú-šal-lam5

šumma immeru kišād imittišu unaššak ḫarrāna [tību] la ušallam §20

If the sheep bites its right-hand neck, [the attack] on the campaign will not be successful.

A29 diš udu gú gùb-šú min kaskal ti-bu ú-[šal-lam5] A30 : lú kúr gaz-ak

šumma immeru kišād šumēlišu min (unaššak) ḫarrāna tību u[šallam] nakra tadâk §21

If the sheep likewise (bites) its left-hand neck, the attack on the campaign will be successful, you will defeat the enemy.

A31 diš udu eme-šú ša zag ul-te-ni-iṣ-ṣi A32 : pa-ri-ri lú kúr a-ṣa-bat



šumma immeru lišanšu ša imitti ulteniṣṣi parīrī nakri aṣabbat



If the sheep stretches out its tongue to the right, I will capture the enemy’s dispersed forces.

§22

diš udu eme-šú ša gùb min : pa-ri-ri-ia lú ‹kúr› i-ṣa-bat

A33



šumma immeru lišanšu ša šumēli (ulteniṣṣi) parīrīja na‹kru› iṣabbat

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§23

91

If the sheep stretches out its tongue to the left, the ene‹my› will capture my dispersed forces.

A34 diš udu sag.du-sú ša zag-‹šú› ú-tar-ra-ak um-ma-nu A35 : a-šar du-ku si.sá šumma immeru qaqqassu ša imitti‹šu› utarrak ummānu ašar illaku iššer



If the sheep jerks its head to ‹its› right, the army will charge straight wherever it goes. §24 A36 diš udu sag.du-sú ša gùb-šú min kaskal nun pùš-qá-tu4 dib.[ba … ]

E1'

[be] udu [ … ]



šumma immeru qaqqassu ša šumēlišu min (utarrak) ḫarrān rubê pušqātu iṣabbatā

If the sheep jerks its head to its left, difficulties will seize the campaign of the prince. §25

A37 diš udu ḫu-ur-ḫu-us-sú i-ḫar-ru-ur um-ma-nu A38 : a-šar du-ku nam.r[a ú-še-ṣí ]

E2'

[b]e udu […]

šumma immeru ḫurḫussu iḫarrur ummānu ašar illaku šall[ata ušeṣṣi] If the sheep – its larynx rumbles, wherever the army will go it will [plunder] boo[ty]. §26

A39 A40

diš udu sag.du-sú ana egir zag-šú ú-sa20-aḫ-ḫi-ir [: ding]ir [ki].za silim-im



E3'

[b]e udu s[ag.du-sú … ]

H1'

[be udu sag.du-sú a-na egi]r ˹zag˺-šú ú-s[a20-aḫ-ḫi-ir … ]

obv. ii



šumma immeru qaqqassu ana arki imittišu usaḫḫir [il]u ittika salim

If the sheep turns back its head to the right, the god will become reconciled with you.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

92

§27

A41

[diš] udu sag.du-sú ana egir gùb-šú min dingir ki.za šà.dib



E4'

[b]e udu sa[g.du-sú … ]



H2'

[be udu sag.du-sú] a-na egir gùb-šú ú-s[a20-aḫ-ḫi-ir … ]

[šumma] immeru qaqqassu ana arki šumēlišu usaḫḫir ilu ittika šabus §28

[If] the sheep turns back its head to the left, the god will be angry with you.

A42 diš udu gìr zag-šú ú-na-aš-ša-ak ti-bi lú kúr A43 : sa-ad-ru ana kur-ia

E5' [b]e udu gìr [ … ] H3' [be udu gìr zag-š]ú ! ú-na-aš-ša-ak ti-bi l [ ú kúr … ] šumma immeru šēp imittišu unaššak tībi nakri sadru ana mātija If the sheep bites its right foot, a continuous enemy attack against my country. §29 A44

diš udu gìr gùb-šú min ti-bi um-ma-ni-ia ‹sa-ad-ru› ana kur lú kúr

E6' [b]e udu gìr […] H4' [be udu gìr gù]b-šu ú-na-aš-ša-ak ti-bi ér[in-ia … ]

šumma immeru šēp šumēlišu unaššak tībi ummānija ‹sadru› ana māt nakri



If the sheep bites its left foot, a ‹continuous› attack of my army against the enemy’s country.

§30

A45

diš udu ba-ma-at zag-˹šú i ˺-[il-lak … ]



E7'

be udu ba-[ma-at … ]



H5'

[be udu ba]-ma-at zag-šu i-il-lak tuš [érin-ia]

obv. ii

šumma immeru bamat imittišu illak šubat [ummānija] If the sheep – its rib cage is displaced to its right, ambush [of my army]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§31

A46

diš udu ba-ma-at gùb-šú min [ … ]



E8'

be udu ba-[ma-at … ]



D1'

[ … ] tuš lú kúr-˹ia˺



H6'

[be udu b]a-ma-at gùb-˹šu˺ i-il-lak tuš l [ ú kúr]



93

šumma immeru bamat šumēlišu illak šubat nakrija

If the sheep – its rib cage is displaced to its left, ambush of my enemy. §32

A47 A48



E9' be sag.du [udu … ] E10' : ina idim ! t[ar … ]



D2'

[ … ] ˹udu˺ ina na-ka-[si-ka … ]



H7' H8'

[be sag.du ud]u a-na na-ka-si17-ka úš nu tuku a-n[a … ] [o-o-o]x érin ṣux-mu i-ṣa-bat  be ina gur [ … ]

diš sag.du udu ina na-ka-si-k[a … ] : a ! .zi.ga ina idim tar be sa[g.du … ]

šumma qaqqad immeri Aina / Hana nakāsika damē ul išû an[a … ] mīlu ina nagbi ipparras be qaqqa[d immeri … ]; H [ … ] … ummānu ṣūmu iṣabbat  be ina turri [ … ] If the sheep’s head – upon your slaughtering – has no blood, to the … [ … ] : the flood water will be cut off at its source; or: [the sheep’s] head [ … ];H [ … ] thirst will seize the army; alternatively, upon the return [ … ]. §33

A49

diš sag.du udu min úš.meš-šú ša-b[u-lu … ]



E11'

[b]e sag.[du udu … ]



H9'

[be sag.du ud]u úš-šu ša-bu-lu su.gu 7 la x[ … ]

šumma qaqqad immeri A min (ina nakāsika) damūšu šābulū ḫušaḫḫu la … [ … ] If the sheep’s head – A likewise (upon your slaughtering) – its blood is dry, a famine … which is not … will [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

94

§34

A50

diš sag.du udu min úš.meš-šú ana z[ag … ]



E12'

[b]e sag.[du udu … ]



H10'

[be sag.d]u udu úš-šu ana zag du.du-ku x[ … ]

šumma qaqqad immeri A m i n (ina nakāsika) damūšu ana imitti ittanallakū x[ … ]

If the sheep’s head – A likewise (upon your slaughtering) – its blood flows to the right, … [ … ].

§35

A51

diš sag.du udu min úš.meš-šú ana [gùb … ]



E13'

[b]e sag.[du udu … ]



H11'

[be sag.d]u udu úš-šu ana gùb du.du-ku x[ … ]



šumma qaqqad immeri A min (ina nakāsika) damūšu ana šumēli ittanallakū x[ … ]



If the sheep’s head – A likewise (upon your slaughtering) – its blood flows to the left, … [ … ].

§36

diš sag.du udu min úš.meš-š[ú … ]

A52

E14' [b]e sa[g.du udu … ] H12' [be sag.d]u udu úš-šu bábbar ˹lum? ˺-[nu ? … ] šumma qaqqad immeri A min (ina nakāsika) damūšu peṣû lum[nu? … ] §37

If the sheep’s head – A likewise (upon your slaughtering) – its blood is white, misfor[tune … ].

A53 diš sag.du udu min ú[š.meš-šú … ] A54 : ina x[ … ]

H13' [be sag.d]u udu úš-šu sig 7 .sig 7 an.ta.lù x[ … ] šumma qaqqad immeri A m i n (ina nakāsika) damūšu arqū attalû x[ … ] … ina x[ … ]

If the sheep’s head – A likewise (upon your slaughtering) – its blood is yellow, an eclipse … [ … ] … in … [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§38

A55 A56

95

diš sag.[du udu min … ] :[…]

H14' [be sag.d]u udu úš-šu du-u’-ʼu5-mu ri.ri.ga érin a-[na … ]

šumma qaqqad immeri [A min (ina nakāsika)] damūšu du’ūmū miqitti ummāni a[na … ]



If the sheep’s head – [A likewise (upon your slaughtering)] – its blood is very dark, the fall of the army t[o the … ].

§39 A57 [diš sag.d]u udu min [úš.meš-šú sa 5 … ] A58 : gar dingir-lì um-ma-[an lú kúr … ] H (missing) [šumma qaqq]ad immeri min (ina nakāsika) [damūšu sāmū …] šakin ili ummā[n nakri … ]

[If the sheep’s hea]d – A likewise (upon your slaughtering) – [its blood is red … ] … is placed; the god of the arm[y of the enemy … ].

§40

diš sag.du udu min u[š ! .meš-šú … ]

A59

H (missing) šumma qaqqad immeri min (ina nakāsika) da[mūšu … ] If the sheep’s head – likewise (upon your slaughtering) – its bl[ood … ]. §41 A60 [diš] sag.du udu min ú[š.meš-šú … ] A61 [: ana me]-e i-[tu-ru … ]

H15'

[be sag].du udu úš-šu a-na me-e i-tu-ru gig x[ … ]



šumma qaqqad immeri A min (ina nakāsika) damūšu ana mê itūrū marṣu x[ … ]



If the sheep’s head – A likewise (upon your slaughtering) – its blood will turn into water, the sick person will … [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

96

§42

H16'



[be sa]g.du udu úš-šu gim šu.si ‹ ... › a.za.lu.lu x[ … ] šumma qaqqad immeri damūšu kima ubāni ‹ ... › tenēštu x[ …]

If the sheep’s head – its blood, like the ‘Finger’ ‹will curl› the population … [ … ]. §43

H17'

[be sa]g.du udu úš-šu a-na ì.udu i-tu-ru x x [ … ]

[šumma qa]qqad immeri damūšu ana lipî iturrū … [ … ]

If the sheep’s head – its blood will turn into fat, … [ … ].

§44

[be udu e-nu-m]a ta-ak-ki-is-sú x[ … ]

H18'

[šumma immeru enūm]a takkisu x[ … ]

[If the sheep, wh]en you will have slaughtered (it) … [ … ]

(Textual break of about twenty-nine or thirty omens) §73' G1' [be sag.du udu ina na-ka]-˹sí ˺-[ka … ] [šumma qaqqad immeri ina nakā ]si [ka … ] [If the sheep’s head – upon your slaugh]tering [ … ]. §74'

G2'

[be sag.du udu ina n]a-ka-sí-ka x[ … ]

[šumma qaqqad immeri ina n]akāsika … [ … ].

[If the sheep’s head – upon] your slaughtering … [ … ].

§75' G3'

[be] sag.du ‹udu e-nu-ma› ta-na-ka-sú it-[ … ]

[šumma] qaqqad ‹immeri enūma› tanakkasu it[ … ]

[If] ‹the sheep’s› head ‹when› you slaughter (it), it will … [ … ]

§76'

[be sag.du ud]u ina na-ka-sí-ka 1 ka×u-šu [ip-te-ma … ]

G4'

[šumma qaddad imme]ri ina nakāsika 1 pîšu [iptema … ]

[If the sheep’s hea]d – upon your slaughtering – [opens] its mouth once … [and … ]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§77' G5' rev.

97

[be sag.du udu ina n]a-ka-sí-ka 2 ka×u-šu [ip-te-ma … ]

B17' [ …

]xxx[…]

[šumma qaqqad immeri ina n]akāsika 2 pîšu [iptema … ] [If the sheep’s head – upon] your slaughtering – [opens] its mouth twice [and … ]. §78'

K1'

G6'

be [sag.du udu … ] […

] ki.min 3 ˹ka×u˺-[šu ip-te-ma … ] ina m]a-az-za-zi lú [kúr azzaz]

B18' [ …

šumma [qaqqad immeri] ki.min (ina nakāsika) 3 pî [šu iptema … ina m]azzāzi na[kri azzaz ] If [the sheep’s head] – likewise (upon your slaughtering) – 3 times [opens its] mouth [and … I will occupy the ene]my’s military position. §79'

K2'



G7' [ …



B19' [ …

be s[ag.du ? udu … ] k]i.min [ … ] ina ma]-az-za-zi-ia l [ ú kúr izzaz]

šumma qa[qqad immeri ki.min (in]a nakāsika) [x pîšu iptema … ina m]azzāzija na[kru izzaz] If the sh[eep’s head likewise (upon] your slaughtering) [opens its mouth x times … ] the enemy [will occupy] my military position. §80'

K3'



G8' [ …



B20' [ … ] ˹ka×u˺-šu ip-te-ma ana x[ … ]

be ˹gú˺ ? [udu … ] ] ki.min [ … ]

šumma ˹kišād˺? [immeri] ki.min (ina nakāsika) [x] pîšu iptema ana x[ … ]

If [the sheep’s] ˹neck˺? likewise (upon your slaughtering) [and so and so times] opens its mouth and to … [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

98

§81'

K4'



G9' [ …



B21'

be gú udu [ … ] [

] ki.[min … ] … ]x lú maš.en.dà nun igi-šu x[ … ]

šumma kišād immeri ki.[min (ina nakāsika) … ]x muškēnu rubû panišu x[ … ] §82'

rev. iii

If the sheep’s neck like[wise (upon your slaughtering]) …] the poor man … the prince … his face … [ … ].



A62' diš ˹gú˺ [udu … ] A63' : um-ma-[ni-ia ana kur lú kúr]



K5'



B22' [ …

be gú [udu … ] ] um-ma-ni-ia ana kur lú kúr

šumma kišād [immeri … tībi ] ummānija ana māt nakri If [the sheep’s] neck [ … an attack] of my army against the enemy land. §83'

A64'

diš gú udu ana? [ … ]



K6'

be ki.[min … ]



B23'

[…



] um-ma-an lú kúr ana kur-ia

šumma kišād immeri ana? [ … tībi] ummān nakri ana mātija

If the sheep’s neck to the … [ … an attack] of the enemy’s army against my country. §84'

A65' diš gú udu ugu [ … ] A66' : da-na-an [ … ]



K7'

˹be˺ ki.[min … ]

B24' [ … iš?-tap?-la

da-na]-a-an lú-lì iš-ša-ak-ka-an : ˹uzu˺ ? mud

šumma kišād immeri muḫḫi [ … ] danān amēli iššakkan : (unclear) ištaplā?

If the sheep’s neck against [ … ] the client’s power will be established; … were low.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

99

Colophons rev. iii A man be [man … ] šu md iškur-[ma-lik dumu d iškur-ur.sag] lú dub.sar lú [ḫal ša dingir.meš uru E-mar] “cryptic colophon” The hand of Baʽal-[malik, the son of Baʽal-qarrad] scribe, the div[iner of the gods of the city of Emar]. rev.

B

[ … ] man man [ … ] [ … ] lú ḫal

“cryptic colophon” [ … ] the diviner. rev. iii

H

[…] [ … ] šu+nígin 60+20 ! +4 ‹mu›.šid.bi



[…] [ … ] its total is 84 ‹l›ines.

2. Commentary §1 The state of the sheep’s body after the slaughter indicates the outcome in the apodosis: the body is relaxed, one can imagine, in respect to its muscles. IMV1 seems to open with the sheep in an agitated condition; see the textual commentary ad loc, p. 122. The collocation enūma takarrabu, ‘when you dedicate (it)’, is structured differently than what is seen in other versions. Compare the closest expression found in IMV1, §3, p. 118: ištu karbu, ‘after it was dedicated’. §2 The form i-de4-e-ep (de 4 = te) is to be normalized as iddêp (N stem) from da’āpu ‘to push, press’ (CAD/D: 1; AHw: 146). This verb may be seen as the opposite of pašāru, where the sheep’s body is relaxed. So one can imagine that the sheep’s muscles are tight, or perhaps that the sheep’s whole body is knocked over. The apodosis is negative. §3 In OB §13, p. 49, the same protasis of gnashing of the teeth brought about a different apodosis that was related to sexual behaviour: the client’s wife will fornicate. However, the apodoses of either versions are negative. There are two varied apodoses (manuscripts A and B), although both convey the same idea. §4 The wide open mouth of the sheep’s body is a positive sign. Cf. OB §5, p. 48. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

100

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§5 The sumerogram m i n (for ‘ditto’) is used in manuscript A in the protasis, either for its predicate, or for the repetitive phrase, ina nakāsika, ‘upon your slaughtering’. In §13, min covers the predicate as well as the first word of the apodosis. Fragment G writes ki.min (§§79'–81') for the same purposes. In manuscript B we see šu?-ub erased, probably an attempt to write šubtu (now lost in the break), as in A (although written ki.tuš). The expression rēš eqlija, literally, ‘the head of my field’, means ‘my destination’; see CAD/R: 287–288. Manuscript B writes a.šà uru. The origin of this mistake is not clear; see Arnaud (1985–1987: 323, l. 8). §6 This protasis appears in SV §48', p. 160 and UC1, 18'–20', p. 203. The apodosis seems to be negative. Compare this omen in šumma ālu Tablet 41, 41': šumma laḫru in erši amēli lu piqanna lu šīnāti itbu[k], Ištar lilû ina [bīt/ erši] amēli i[šakkan?] ‘If the sheep discharges either droppings or urine in the client’s bed, Ištar will p[lace (vel sim.)] a Lilû-demon in the client’s [house/bed].’ The general negative association with sheep droppings can be seen further in šumma ālu Tablet 41, 32': šumma immerū aḫu piqanna aḫi īkulū būlu ḫušaḫḫa imma[r] ‘If sheep eat the droppings of each other, the herd will experience famine.’ Manuscript B seems to add something that is not found in manuscript A. Following Arnaud (1985–1987: 323, l. 9), one can read a-di ˹tib/tab˺-kí šapli-ma, which perhaps translates to something like, ‘through (its) lower surge’, referring to the exit place of the sheep dropping. Note that this interpretation is tentative. §7 Cf. the similar omens in SLD (Sealand Dynasty manuscript), §§1–2 (Chapter 7.1): §1 [šumma immeru … ša … imitta tar]kā mê ušerred ummānu ašar ˹illaku˺ [imaqqut] §2 [šumma immeru … ša … šumēla tar]kā mê ušerred ummān nakri ašar illaku [imaqqut] §1 [If the sheep, whose right so-and-so are da]rk, will release its urine, my army, wherever it will go, [will suffer a defeat]. §2 [If the sheep, whose left so-and-so are dar]k, will release its urine, the enemy’s army, wherever it will go, [will suffer a defeat]. As in the SLD manuscript, the apodosis of the LBA version is negative. The act of urinating was understood perhaps as a physical reaction to fear—whether of man or animal. In the šumma ālu series, the act of urinating could have negative © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

101

consequences (and see above under §6). Šumma ālu Tablet 45, 32' warns of a cat urinating at the client’s window: it is portend of death. However, a few omens down, in entry 40', if a cat urinates directly on the client––good fortune. One can assume a folk belief behind such an omen. The subject of urinating is treated in the Assyrian Dream Book, where some of the apodoses are positive. In the majority of cases, the negative act of ‘real-life situations’––urinating in the street, drinking own’s urine, etc.–– is assumed to be a positive portent in one’s own dream. See Oppenheim (1956: 264–266; 309–311). §8 The apodosis brings here the šumma immeru formula, to be found in other versions and related texts. It calls to end the extispicy ritual; see Chapter 9, Part I. A similar omen is found in IMV1 §7, p. 119, which, even if positive, however, is missing the call to release the sheep. B9 adds three signs that are senseless to me: qa, ˹kul˺ ? , or some other sign followed by a Glossenkeil and ma. §9 An imperative form in the apodosis is rather rare; the translation follows George (2013: 156) and ibid., for more examples. See the discussion in Chapter 9, Part I. §10 The verbal form i-da-ak (and also in §11) perhaps derives from the verb edēḫu/ edēku, ‘to cover with patches’ (CAD/E: 24–25), which is exactly what the sheep is doing with one ear over the other. The use of /k/ for /ḫ/ in this verb is well documented, e.g., in omen literature, YOS 10 42 (a heart extispicy compendium), iv 39: šīrum e-di-ik-ma, ‘the flesh is patched’. Another option is to consider the form derived from the verb etēqu ‘to pass along’. In both cases the theme-vowel is incorrect. Arnaud, who transliterates the verb as i-tá-ak, presumingly takes the form from the verb atāku (‘se recroqueville’, on the basis of AHw: 86a, ‘sich kümmern’), but this verb apparently does not exist; see CAD/A/2: 481a. The apodosis of this omen means the presence of the ‘Weapon’(-mark). Cf. IMV1 §19', p. 120, and CUSAS 18 24, §20; Richter (1994, and esp. p. 226). B11 adds ḫul (lumnu), ‘grief’. It probably refers to the next apodosis, because the mark should be considered as positive. The importance of the individual’s protective deities is well expressed by the wisdom composition Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi Tablet I (Oshima 2014: 80–81), ll. 45–46: islit šēdu dunqu ša idija iprud lamassima šanamma iše’u ‘The favourable šēdu who was at my side split away, The lamassu took fright and sought someone else.’ For the apodosis, compare Bārûtu Ch. 3 (manzāzu), Text 2 (Koch 2000: 116), 5' and Ch. 5 (pan takalti), Tablet 9 (Koch 2000: 369), §§127 and 131. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

102

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§12 The apodosis is also known from a rib bone compendium, KAL 5 3 (KAR 432), rev. 2; and from a ‘Weapon’ compendium, MDP 57 6, ii 37. §§14–15 The turning or twist of the eye (if one accepts Arnaud’s restoration of the verb in the protasis) brings about the downfall of the parīrū. This rare word (and see also below §§21–22) is now also attested in another omen collection. The Sealand Dynasty ‘Weapon’ compendium (CUSAS 18 26), §§15–17, includes in its (broken) apodeses references to the client’s and the enemy’s ba-ri-ri. The word here is the same, only with a different spelling. The term also appears twice in Emar 701, which is possibly a fragment of the series, as [pa-r]i-riia and [pa-ri]-ri; see further under discussion. I follow George (2013: 182) in his analysis and interpretation of the word. Derived from the verb parāru, ‘to disperse, shatter’ (CAD/P:161–164), the parīrū (mas. pl.) can be understood as a group of warriors which for some reason broke off from the main body of the army. Compare the following entry in oil omens (Pettinato 1966; CAD/P: 162– 163), Text 2, l. 64: ina ḫarrānim ummānam uparrarūnim, ‘they will disperse the army during the campaign’. In §14, B14 adds [...] si-si-li pa-aš-ḫa ul da da. What this sentence means and how it fits into the apodosis remains unclear. §16 For the ‘Weapon’, see §10. If the sacrifical sheep will turn its eyes to Šamaš, the outcome is positive, because Šamaš is the god of divination; see Chapter 1, Part III. §17 Compare the OB§ 16: šumma immerum dimātušu illakā šamûm izann[un] ‘If the sheep – its tears will flow, it will rain.’ §18 The association between the tongue in the protasis and thirst in the apodosis is obvious. Compare OB §6, p. 18, and IMV2, §12, 129. §19 Arnaud (1985–1987: 319, l. 28) read lim as lam 5 , in order to give the verb ušallam in the durative tense. The value can be found in OB omen literature; see Richter (1999: 402), citing YOS 10 11 (a liver compendium), i 8: šumma padānum i-mi-ittam šu-me-lam5 ipšuq, ‘If the ‘Path’ became constricted on the right and left sides’. See CAD/P: 235a. The restoration and translation of this entry and the next are tentative. §20 Although written logographically with a phonetic compliment, gaz-ak must be understood as the second person sg., because the omen is favourable. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

103

§§21–22 Compare §§14–15. §23 The meaning of the verb turruku follows CAD/T: 205a, suggesting ‘to jerk’ (?). For si.sá = ešēru in omen literature, see CAD/E: 353–354. §25 A similar protasis brings about a negative apodosis in OB §21: šumma immerum ištu ṭabḫu urḫussu issi rigmum ša maruštim ina bīt awīlim ibbašši ‘If the sheep – after being slaughtered – its larynx sounds, there will be wailing of difficulty in the man’s house.’ In the version in front of us the apodosis is positive: the sound emitted by the sheep predicts the plundering of booty. The use of the verb (w)aṣû in the Š-stem, ušeṣṣi, means literally, ‘it will bring out booty’. The apodosis is restored on account of many similar formulations found in omen literature; see CAD/Š/1: 251b. §26 The verb suḫḫuru, ‘to turn away’ is spelled here with ša (sa 20 ), instead of typical za (sà). The theme vowel for the durative tense is /a/ (usaḫḫar) and not /i/. §§32–43 These omens all deal with the appearance of the sheep’s blood. This topic was awarded only two omens in the OB version (§§32–33), but in this version it gains eleven. In the SV the topic is still of central concern. See Chapter 5, p. 194. The Emar manuscripts open this section with the phrase ina nakāsika, ‘upon your slaughtering’. The Emar manuscript A from this point onwards marks every protasis (§§33–41) with min ‘ditto’ in order to avoid repeating this phrase. The Hattuša manuscript has ana nakāsika at §32 and then throughout the blood section refrains from repeating this phrase. §32 The lack of blood, once the sheep is slaughtered, brings about an apodosis that is concerned with the cutting of the flood water at its source or thirst. H8' must be read as ṣux-mu → ṣūmu, ‘thirst’; see SV §103'', p. 172. The lack of blood flowing from the animal was considered a negative sign; see Maul (2013: 104), discussing STT 231, a ritual against negative outcomes of extispicy. §33 The dried out blood (damūšu šābulū) is a portend for famine (ḫušaḫḫu). §§36–39 These omens are structured around the standard palette of colour in Mesopotamian thought that is reflected in divination literature as in the lexical tradition:

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

104

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

§36: bábbar (peṣû, ‘white’) §37: sig 7 .sig 7 (arqū, ‘green’, ‘yellow’) §38: du’ūmū (‘dark’, ‘black’) §39: [sa 5 ] (sāmū, ‘red’) The reconstruction of this sequence allows us to understand that manuscript H is missing one entry, the last colour, red. Emar manuscript A contains the omen, but the colour itself is broken off. §§38–39 In H14' the sign after é r i n looks like a , therefore perhaps a-[na]. Cf. OB §18, p. 50. The next entry is broken, hence the restoration and translation tentative. §40 It is not clear what the quality of the blood in the protasis was. According to the reconstruction offered here, manuscript H is missing this entry. §42 The entry is probably missing the predicate of the protasis. §44 and §75' The conjunction enūma is restored on the basis of §1. The verb in H18' is in the preterit in the subjunctive mood, written (incorrectly) with a doubled third radical: ta-ki-is-sú → takkisu. Emar manuscript G 3' (§75', restored after §1) has the verb in the durative, although its theme vowel is incorrect. It should be /i/ → tanakkisu. After this omen there comes a textual break of ca. thirty missing omens; see below. §§76'–84' The omens are only partly preserved. They seem to move from the head to the neck. For the reconstruction, see 3. Discussion. §§78'–79' B18'–B19' are restored according to similar apodoses found under manzāzu, CAD/M/1: 237a. §81' The apodosis here is unfortunately broken with only muškēnu, ‘poor man’ and rubû, ‘prince’ left. The muškēnu appears in IMV3, §§8 and 17, pp. 133–134; and in other omens, see CAD/M/2: 274–275. §84' Compare the apodosis with OB §83: šumma kišādum uppuq mīli irtim awīlum idannin ‘If the neck is massive, success; the man will grow strong.’ Manuscript B adds some signs after the apodosis but the sense escapes me. The last signs are not surely read: if the sequence iš-tap-la is read correctly, it may mean ‘they (fem.pl.) were down, inferior’. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

105

3. Discussion The Emar Manuscripts All the remains from Emar were found in the ‘Temple of the Diviner’. They were published by Arnaud (1985–1987) as nos. 698 and 699, and to which possibly are to be added nos. 701 and 703; see discussion below. There seems to be at the very least two incomplete manuscripts. The first manuscript, called here A, consists of two fragmentary pieces, A (Msk 731077a+b) and F (Msk 74261c). Fragment F joins A at its obv. col. ii, at §39. The tablet, when complete would have measured approximately between 25 to 20 cm; see Figs. 10–11. Ms. A runs from the very start of the series through two columns of the obverse. It hold omens §1 to §41 (A1–A61). Column i is completely preserved; it has twenty-nine omens (§§1–29; A1–A44). However, column ii consists of only twelve omens (§§30–41; A45–A61). Hence, we can assume that column ii is missing something between eighteen to twenty omens. Note that although ms. A ends at §41, ms. H from Hattuša supplies us with §§42–44, after which is a textual break in our reconstruction of the LBA version. Column iii of ms. A is only partly preserved. It has only five lines that make up according to our reconstruction §§82'–84'. Then comes a colophon naming Baʽal-[mālik] as its copyist. We can assume that the manuscript had approximately forty lines on each column of the obverse and somewhat less on rev. iii. Since there is a colophon at the near end of rev. iii, rev. iv was probably left uninscribed. The omens in ms. A all begin with diš for šumma. Each omen or a group of omens (up to three) is separated by a single dividing line. In cases where the text of a single omen continues to the second line, that line is marked with a Glossenkeil (appearing in the transliteration as ‘:’). The Glossenkeil appears once in mid-line (A33; §22) to mark the apodosis, but otherwise, it is always found to the left of a new line, as a tab mark. In many instances, the Glossenkeil seems to mark the beginning of the apodosis. However, because there are cases where the Glossenkeil appears in middle of the apodosis, one must conclude that it serves a double duty: either to mark new lines of the same omen or to mark the beginning of the apodoses. Ms. B originally was a single column tablet; see Figs. 12–13. It is made up of fragments B (Msk 74104c) and C (Msk 74212). We can estimate its width— around 20 cm, but not its height. The obverse has sixteen lines which include §§1– 16. The omens §§14–16 may have been formulated slightly different. The reverse has only eight lines (B17'–B24'; §§77'–84') after which comes a double ruling line. Within are two b e signs. After that follows a partially preserved colophon reading lú ḫal, ‘diviner’; the copyist’s name is broken away. As far as can be seen, ms. B reverse resumes at §77' and parallels ms. A until the last omen, §84'. Hence out of the reconstructed eight-four omens, ms. B has only twenty-four omens. When complete it would have carried about forty lines on each side, like ms. A of the OB version. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

106

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

Fig. 10. Emar Manuscript A, Obverse

Unlike ms. A, ms. B does not have line divisions. The use of the Glossenkeil is found only twice (B11 and 24') and seems to be limited to introducing alternative apodoses (or possibly commentaries; see below). Although the left side of the tablet is broken, it is not likely to have used the Glossenkeil, like ms. A, to mark cases in which the omens continued to the second line. It is not known if šumma in ms. B is written as d i š or as b e . The latter is perhaps more likely, because fragments E and K, which open with b e , very likely belong to ms. B. Fragment D (Msk 74101w) contains a few signs from the apodosis of §31 and the protasis of §32. It probably joins fragment E, in spite of the fact that the arrangement of the lines seems to be slightly different. The apodosis of D1' is to be placed between E8' and E9' in order for us to imagine that the two fragments indeed join. Fragment E (Msk 74203a) opens with b e , marking it as a different recension than ms. A. It runs through §§24–36. It may have been a part of ms. B, but this cannot be demonstrated with complete confidence. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

107

Fig. 11. Emar Manuscript A, Reverse

Fragment G (Emar 699 = Msk 74132e) contains very partly preserved parts of the protasis. Fragment G possibly joins ms. B rev. to its left: while G4'–6' have 1/2/3 ka×u-šu, ‘its mouth, once, twice, thrice’, B20' contains […]˹ka×u˺-šu ipte-ma. Since the position of ms. B is fixed at §82' with ms. A, counting backwards places its meeting with G at §77'. Fragment K (Emar 685 = Msk 74135m) belongs to the series, following the suggestion offered by Rutz (2013: 251). Rutz had remarked that the opening signs of Emar 685, which were read by Arnaud as be alam, ‘If a statue’, and assumed by him to have belonged to the omen series Alamdimmû, are actually to be read as be gú, ‘if the neck (of the sheep)’. Thus, fragment K can be placed at §78', and considered a join with fragment G, which in turn was suggested to join to ms. B. There is some uncertainty as to its exact placement, because it depends on the number of gú omens in ms. A. In other words, there may be a divergence between the number of omens in ms. A and the reconstructed ms. B, leading to a possibly incorrect placing of manuscript K. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

108

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

Fig. 12. Emar Manuscript B, Obverse It is possible that Emar 701 (Msk 731075z) is part of the series, belonging either to ms. A or B, because in ll. 6'–7' it mentions [pa-r]i-ri-ia and [pa-ri]-ri lú [kúr]; see §§14–15. However, presently it cannot be joined or matched with what is remaining.1 We need to consider if the fragment Emar 703 belongs to the Late Bronze Age šumma immeru version or to the k a k . t i series. One side of the tablet has seven protases opening with be eme-ma [ … ], ‘If the tongue and [ … ]’. The other side opens with be kak.ti. The Emar manuscripts of šumma immeru end the series with gú (kišādu, ‘neck’; §§80'–84'). According to the OB version, after the neck (i.e., gú/kišādu, §83) arrive the ṣēlum, ‘rib cage’, and the najjabātu (kak.ti), ‘ribs’: hence, it could be that the Emar 703 continues as the second tablet of ms. A. This would require us to assume that the entries opening with be eme are on the obverse of the tablet and come earlier than be kak.ti. However, the LBA version we have reconstructed enters eme, ‘tongue’, only three times (§§18, 21–22) and its formulation is different. Hence, perhaps it is better to assign Emar 703 to the kak.ti series, of which there are a few remains 1

  Arnaud (1985–1987: 325); Rutz (2013: 251). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

109

Fig. 13. Emar Manuscript B, Reverse in Emar (Emar 682, 683 and 684). In this case can we assume that the ‘tongue’ mentioned in Emar 703 is an organ near or belonging to the k a k . t i ? 2 That is equally uncertain, hence we may be facing a somewhat different LBA version represented in a very fragmentary way by Emar 703; see the following discussion about ms. L from Hattuša. The Relationship between the Emar Manuscripts Following our reconstruction we can establish with a high degree of confidence two manuscripts of the Late Bronze Age version in Emar. As far as can be seen, both manuscripts A and B were written in the so-called Syro-Hittite script; it follows that additional fragments we associated with ms. B were also written in the same script. Too little remains to form a definite conclusion. We can assume that the two manuscripts are parallel in regards to their contents and probably included more or less the same number of omens. However, there 2

  The kak.ti has a ‘head’ and can have ‘branches’ (KAL 5 3; Emar 684; see Chapter 7, pp. 244–245). Consider Emar 703 as part of Emar 684 (and possibly a join?). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

110

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

are some differences between ms. A and ms. B and its joining fragments, D, E, G and K. First, the layout of the manuscripts is different: whereas ms. B is probably a single column tablet containing the whole of the text on its obverse and reverse, ms. A is a double column tablet holding the text across columns obv. i, ii and rev. iii. We have already seen that while ms. A opens with diš for šumma, E and K open with be. Ms. B also employs phonetic spelling, while ms. A may use more logographic spelling: šu-ub-tu4 vs. ki.tuš (§1 but see §6); la-ma-as-sí vs. d lamma (§10); ma-az-za-zi vs. ki.gub (§78); iš-ša-ak-ka-an vs. [gar-an] (§84'). There also is a notable difference in the use of the syllabary: ms. A employs throughout -šú, whereas ms. B (and its possible fragments) use the more conservative -šu (e.g., §§80–81). Note the particular spelling with the aleph sign in ms. A li-ʾ-it vs. li-it (§9). This spelling is found elsewhere in Emar: copy A of the lú=ša lexical list, belonging to Šaggar-abu, the brother of the copyist of manuscript A, Baʽal-malik, exhibits several entries that are likewise spelled with the aleph sign.3 Apart from these differences, ms. B exhibits complementary apodosis and what Arnaud (1985–1987) in his edition judged to be glosses or commentaries. They are found at §§ 6, 8, 10, 14 and 84', but they are not replicated in ms. A. What are we to make out of these differences? Without going to much into details, we can postulate that ms. A of Baʽal-malik is an updated version of ms. B and its related fragments. Its more extensive use of logograms and use of -šú instead of -šu point to its more ‘modern’ look. Further, its tabulation into two columns per side and the marking of new lines with the Glossenkeil suggest a re-organization of the text.4 In conclusion we can state that the šumma immeru version in Emar exists in probably not more than two very similar manuscripts. The disparity, however, between them has led us to understand that at some stage the text of manuscript B and its fragments underwent a re-organization and an orthographical updating, manifest in ms. A, Baʽal-malik’s copy. The Hattuša Manuscripts Fragmentary remains of two separate manuscripts were recovered at Hattuša. The first is KBo 36.47, which we call here ms. H. It was edited together with the Emar remains; see Figs. 14–15. The tablet is what is termed in the literature as a Sammeltafel, because in addition to the šumma immeru omens it contains a few omens that can be identified as belonging to the šumma ālu series; see below. The second fragement, much smaller, is KBo 42.116, here ms. L.  Emar 602, ll. 177', 178', 207' and 373'.  This is not the only case in Emar where we can identify a scholarly work that exists in two versions. The Emar Lunar Signs exists in two versions: one single-column tablet written with the older Syrian signs and syllabic spelling and another two-column tablet written with the Syro-Hittite signs and updated logographic spelling. See Cohen (2009: 144 and 241) and Rutz (2013: 233–236 and 325). 3 4

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

Fig. 14. Hattuša Manuscript H, Obverse

Fig. 15. Hattuša Manuscript H, Reverse © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

111

112

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

Ms. H was found at Büyükkale, in the environment of ‘Building M’.5 The fragment measures approximately 9 × 7 cm, but the original tablet was much larger. Because its colophon gives the total of omen entries (see below), we can reconstruct ms. H. It was a two-column tablet, its left side now totally missing. What has remained of the tablet is a fragment of the upper obverse col. ii and the lower reverse col. iii. The lost obverse col. i would have been the beginning of the šumma immeru omens (§§1–ca. 24). Col. iii would have seen the end of the omens (not preserved). All that remains, however, on col. iii is the line count of 84 omens and the beginning of the šumma ālu omens. Col. iv, had it been preserved, would have continued with the collection of the šumma ālu omens. The figure of the reconstructed tablet given here is of course open to modifications, because the placing of the fragment is not secure. Ms. H preserves eighteen incomplete lines on its obverse and some ten lines equally incomplete on its reverse. The omens enter at §26, so over twenty-five lines at least, if not more, are lost (mostly on col. i). It ends at §44, but note that it is missing two entries (§§39–40). The omens, as said, would have continued to the lower part of col. iii, where only the line count survives. After the line-count, come partly preserved šumma ālu omens (rev. 3'–11'); see Chapter 7.8. The layout of the tablet, when complete, was somewhat similar to ms. A from Emar. The colophon of ms. H gives a line count of the total omens: 60+20+4 lines. Note that unlike Wilhelm’s copy, the photograph of the tablet shows that after the diš sign (60) two ‘u’ (‘10’) signs are impressed, almost on top of each other. Apart from the SLD manuscript, which is related to the šumma immeru omens (Chapter 7.1), this is the only line count of the šumma immeru omens we have, but it is highly important because it allows us to understand the length of the LBA version and restore accordingly the manuscripts and fragments available to us. The second manuscript from Hattuša is ms. L, which was found in the Büyükkale region.6 This very small fragment preserves the opening of fifteen protases all beginning b e u d u ‘If the sheep’. The organs enumerated are the sheep’s eyes (igi.meš-šu) and tongue (eme- šu). More, however, is not preserved. The number of omens entered for the tongue is more than the reconstructed LBA version, which has three entries; compare Emar 703, pp. 108–109. And the number of eyes entries is four, as opposed to one in the LBA version (§16). Hence, this fragment may represent a different and more expanded LBA version of the omens. Note that this is a single column tablet, because the eyes are followed by the tongue on the reverse. If it were a multi-column tablet, the reverse of the tablet would have brought a section more advanced in the series. Hence, obviously, it does not belong to manuscript H. Here follows the edition of the tablet. Because of its poor preservation a translation is not warranted. 5

  HPM, Konkordanz, KBo 36.47: ‘Büyükkale w/19, aus Kiesschicht über Geb.(äude) “M”  NW unter phryg.(ischer) Turm.’ 6  HPM, Konkordanz, KBo 42.116: ‘Büyükkale, Südost. Nordwestl. der hethitischen Bastion im alten Ausgrabungsschutt.’ © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

Obverse 1'

113

b[e … ]

2'

be u[du … ]

3'

be udu igi.me[š … ]

4'

be udu igi.meš-šu [ … ]

5'

be udu igi.meš-šu [ … ]

6'

be udu igi.meš-šu [ … ]

Lower Edge 7' ˹ be˺ udu eme-šu [ … ] 8'

be udu eme-šu [ … ]

9'

be udu em[e-šu … ]

Reverse 10'

be udu e[me-šu … ]

11'

be udu x[ … ]

12'

be udu [ … ]

13'

be udu [ … ]

14'

be [ … ]

15'

b[e … ]

Reconstructing and Dating the Late Bronze Age Version As seen, all manuscripts from Emar and Hattuša are quite fragmentary. Nonetheless, we can reconstruct the LBA version well enough to read more than half of its contents and understand its length. This can be done for two reasons: first, because the same text with a high degree of conformity is found among all main manuscripts and secondly, because the Hattuša manuscript provides us with a line count of the series. Forty-four consecutive omens can be reconstructed on the basis of the Emar and Hattuša manuscripts. Then comes a textual break, after which arrive additional twelve omens, reconstructed on the basis of the remains from Emar. In sum, we have fifty-six omens of the LBA version.7 Ms. H from Hattuša gives us a line count of eighty-four omens; because it is missing two omens (at the least), the Hattuša version may have been somewhat shorter than the Emar version. In spite of this uncertainty, it can be confidently stated that the reconstructed LBA version is missing around twenty-eight or possibly a few more omens.   The meeting place of the Emar mss. G and B is not firmly secure. Because of the breaks, it is possible that the number of the Emar omens is somewhat higher, although no more than three to four additional entries. 7

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

114

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

What can be said about the dating of the LBA version? The Hattuša manuscripts cannot be dated but a general Late Brone Age context can be safely assumed. As for Emar, we can be more specific: ms. A bears the colophon of the diviner of the gods of Emar, Baʽal-malik of the notable Zu-Bala family, who lived at the end of the 13th century. The other manuscript and fragments, found at the same find-spot (‘Temple M1’ or ‘Temple of the Diviner’) should probably be dated to the same period. All this tells us when the manuscripts were produced, but can more be said about the time when the LBA version was composed? The manuscripts display conservative Old Babylonian features, alongside more modern chracteristics. Ms. H5'–6' (§§30–31) has i-il-lak, a typical Old Babylonian spelling. Defectively spelled Old Babylonian forms are found in: A3 (§2): i-maḫaṣ; A32'–33' (§§21–22): a-ṣa-bat, i-ṣa-bat; H8' (§32): i-ṣa-bat. Spelling alephs with Ḫv signs is a vestige of an Old Babylonian spelling convention: H14' (§38): du-uḫ-ḫu-mu or du-u’-̓u5-mu (du’umū); A37 (§25): ḫu-ur-ḫu-us-su (ur’udu; cf. OB §21, p. 50: ú-ur-ḫu-sú-ú). Post Old Babylonian features can be noticed in the syllabary, which employs a more extensive use of CVC signs, typical of Middle Babylonian and Late Bronze Age spelling conventions; e.g.: A3 (§2): ḫaṣ (tar); A4 (§3): kaṣ; A12 (§8): ina (as a syllabic component, ina-aṭ-ṭal); A15 (§9) lak; A36 (§24) pùš (gir); and A12 (§8): šìr. The phonology carries traits of Post Old Babylonian or Middle Babylonian: A12, B9 (§8): muššer (cf. IMV1 §2, p. 118: uš-še-er); and A31 (§21): ulteniṣṣi. All body parts of the sheep are written logographically, but for two: A45 (§30): ba-ma-at and A37 (§25): ḫu-ur-ḫu-us-sú. Another feature is also spelled phonetically: A25 (§17): di-ma-tù-šu. Some formulations written phonetically will find fuller logographic expression in the SV (§§32, 44 and 73–77). Verbs written logographically are found in both protases and apodoses. All in all, there is wider and more extensive use of logographic writing than seen in the OB version. Logograms appearing the protases are: á.gar.gar (piqannu, ‘dung pellet(s)’; later versions: a.gar.gar), bábbar (peṣû, ‘white’) du-ku, du.du-ku (illaku, ‘go’, ittanallakū, ‘proceed’), egir (arku, ‘back’), eme (lišānu, ‘tongue’), geštu.(hi.a) (uznu, uznā, ‘ear(s)’), g a r (šakānu, ‘to place’), g i g (marṣu, ‘sick’), gìr (šēpu, ‘foot’), gim (kīma, ‘like’), gú (kišādu, ‘neck’), gùb (šumēlu, ‘left’), ka×erín. meš (šinnātu, ‘teeth’), ka×u (pû, ‘mouth’); ki.min (‘ditto’), ì.udu (lipû, ‘fat’), igi.(ḫi.a) (īnu, īnū, ‘eye(s)’), min (‘ditto’), nu (ul, ‘not’), [s a 5 ] (sāmū, ‘red’), sag.du (qaqqadu, ‘head’), sig 7 .sig 7 (arqu ‘yellow’), šu.si (ubānu, ‘Finger’), šub-di (iddi, ‘it threw’), tuku (išû, ‘there is’), úš.(meš) (damu, damū, ‘blood’), and zag (imittu, ‘right’). And in the apodoses we have: a.šà (eqlu, ‘field’), an.ta.lù (attalû, ‘eclipse’), a.za.lu.lu (tenēštu*, ‘population’), a.zi.ga (mīlu, ‘flood water’), dib.[ba] (iṣabbatū, ‘they will seize’), dingir (ilu, ‘god’), d u-ku (illakū, ‘they will go’), dumu (māru, ‘son’), érin (ummānu, ‘army’; only H), gaz-ak (tadâk, ‘you will defeat’), gur, gur-ri (turri, ‘to return’), ḫul/ḫul-ti (lumnu, ‘grief’, lemutti, ‘bad’), idim (nagbu, ‘source’), kaskal (ḫarrānu, ‘campaign’), ki.gub (mazzāzu, ‘position’), (ki.)tuš (šubtu, ‘camp’), ki.za (ittika, ‘with you’), kur © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

3. The Late Bronze Age šumma immeru Version

115

(mātu, ‘country’), lú kúr (nakru, ‘enemy’), lugal (šarru, ‘king’), lú maš.en.dà (muškēnu, ‘poor man’), nam.ra (šallatu, ‘booty’), nun (rubû, ‘prince’), ri.ri.ga (miqittu, ‘downfall’), sag (rēšu, ‘head’), si.sá (iššer, ‘charge straight’), silim-im (salim, ‘be at peace’), su.gu 7 (ḫušaḫḫu, ‘famine’), šà.dib.ba (šabus, ‘furious’), sig 5 -ti (damiqti, ‘good’), šub.ba (inaddi, ‘will desert’), šub-ut (imaqqut, ‘will fall’), ugu (eli, ‘against’), zi.ga (tību, ‘attack’), tar (ipparras, ‘be cut off’), and giš tukul (kakku, ‘weapon’). Some features are typical of scribal conventions of the so-called Western Periphery. In manuscripts A39 and H1'–2' (§§26–27), the spelling of the verb saḫāru/suḫḫuru with ša, here is normalized as sa 20 in order to give usaḫḫir: this spelling is especially typical of the Akkadian of Hattuša; Labat (1932: 35). Some logograms are written in a way typical of Emar and Hattuša: ka×erín.meš (šinnātu, ‘teeth’) and ka×u (pû, ‘mouth’).8 Truncated or short-form logograms are typical of Hittite scribal habits: uš for uš.meš and tuš for ki.tuš. To conclude, the LBA version in many respects exhibits a clear departure from the Old Babylonian šumma immeru version. It also features a few traits common to the time frame and geography of its tablets. Although we cannot pinpoint when this version was composed, it obviously was put to writing after the OB version.

8

  Weeden (2011: 32, 262–263). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 4

The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens ṭuppi mdNabû-zuqup-kēna mār Marduk-š[uma-iqīša ṭupšarri] [līp] līpi mGa[bbi-ilānī-ēreš rab ṭupšarrī] ‘Tablet of Nabû-zuqup-kēna, son of Marduk-š[uma-iqīša, the scribe], [de]scendant of Ga[bbi-ilānī-ēreš, chief of scribes].’ (IMV3, colophon of the scribe Nabû-zuqup-kēna ) This chapter deals with the intermediate versions of the šumma immeru omens. It discusses four sources (henceforth, IMV1, IMV2, IMV3 and IMV4), each different, but sharing with each other some characteristics. The sources are definitely the products of the Post Old Babylonian period, but it is difficult to provide a more definite date for the time of their composition. On the one hand, they seem to continue the textual tradition we met in the OB version. On the other hand, they clearly depart in some ways and represent different re-worked versions of the OB version, anticipating things to come. That said, they have not reached the stage which we call the SV of the omens, typified by the first millennium manuscripts of Nineveh and Uruk. The first two manuscripts introduced in this chapter––IMV1 and IMV2 ––are from the city of Assur; the third––IMV3––is from Nineveh, although, as will be shown, it is does not belong to the later SV. It was written, as the quote in this chapter’s epigraph shows, by the illustrious scribe from Kalḫu, Nabû-zuqup-kēna. The fourth and last text––IMV4––is a short extract of the šumma immeru omen compendium at its intermediate stage, rather close to the three other sources we will introduce here. It is unprovenanced, and housed in the British Museum. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

118

1. Intermediate Version 1 (= IMV1) Text VAT 9518 (+) A468 Previous Editions and Discussions Ebeling (1931, no. 9); Heeßel (2012: 261–264) = KAL 5 83

1.1 Edition Obverse §1 1 [šumma(be) immeru(udu)…] i-na ṭe4-ḫe-ka iṣ-ri-it ša-ra-at zu-um-ri-šu iz-zi-iz [ … ]x 2 suppê(sískur) amēli(lú) ilu(dingir) im-ḫu-ur [If the sheep … ] – upon your approaching – farts (and) its fleece bristles [ … ], the god will have accepted the client’s prayer. §2 3 [šumma(be) immeru(udu) uzn]āšu(geštu.meš šu) tar-ṣa i-na-šu pa-ar-da ša-ra-at zu-˹um˺-ri-šu iz !-za-az-za 4 si-ba-sú ú-na-ra-aṭ uš-še-er immera(udu) du-uk nakra (kúr)

[If the sheep] – its [ear]s are upright, its eyes are frightened (and) its fleece bristles (and) it shakes its tail, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy!

§3 5 [be immeru(udu) i]š-tu kar-bu im-ba !-a is-si uzunšu(geštu šu) ú-na-ra-aṭ ! uš-še-er immera(udu) du-uk nakra (kúr)

[If the sheep – af]ter it was dedicated – bleats (and) shakes its ear, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy!

§4 6 [šumma(be) immeru(udu)] ˹i ˺-na īnišu(igi šu) ša šumēli(gùb) i-ba-ki uzunšu(geštu šu) ša imitti(zag) šumēla(gùb) ú-ma-ḫa-aṣ uš-še-er immera(udu) du-uk nakra(kúr)

[If the sheep] sheds tears out of its left eye (and) twitches its right ear to the left, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy!

§5 7 [šumma(be) immeru(udu)] da-mu-šu ki-ma il-lu-ri sa-a-mu rubû(nun) giškussâšu(gu.za šu) ú-la-bar 8 a-na giškakki(tukul) libbi(šà) immeri(udu) la tu-ba-a uš-še-er immera(udu) du-uk nakra(kúr) [If the sheep] – its blood is red like a red flower, the prince will secure the continuity of his throne; do not inspect the exta of the sheep in order to find out about the (outcome of) war. Let go of the sheep, kill the enemy! © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

119

§6 9 [šumma(be) imm]eru(udu) li-ša-an-šu šumēla(gùb) ú-na-ša-ak ù da-mu-šu ki-ma il-lu-ri sa-a-mu 10 uš-še-er immera(udu) du-uk nakra(kúr)

[If the sh]eep bites its tongue on the left and its blood is red like a red flower, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy!

§7 11 [šumma(be)] immeru(udu) i-na ka-ra-bi-ka uznāšu(geštu. meš šu) tar-ṣa ilu(dingir) i-na-ṭa-al

[If] the sheep – upon your dedication – its ears are stretched, the god will look (favourably upon you).

§8 12 [šum]ma(be) immeru(udu) a-na niqê(sískur) uzun(geštu) imitti(zag) šumēla(gùb) im-ḫa-aṣ giš kakkija(tukul ia) x x [o-o] x x

[I]f the sheep – upon the sacrifice – twitches its right ear to the left, my weapon … [ … ].

§9 13 [šumma(be) imme]ru(udu) a-na niqê(sískur) uznā(geštu. meš) a-na pa-ni niqê(siskur) tar-ṣa ummānu(érin) [ … ] [If the sh]eep – upon the sacrifice – its ears are stretched facing the offering place, the army … §10 14 [šumma(be) immeru(udu) a-n]a ˹niqê(sískur) uznā(geštu. meš) a˺-[n]a ˹arkišu˺ ? (egir šu) x x [ … ]





[If the sheep – up]on the sacrifice – [ … ] its ears to the rear [ … ]. (gap of about a line)

§11' 15' [šumma(be) immeru(udu) a-n]a niqê(sískur) ˹uznā ˺(˹geštug. meš˺) x x [ … ]

[If the sheep – to]wards the offering its ears are turned … [ … ].

§12' 16' [šumma(be) imm]eru(udu) īnēšu(igi.meš šu) ú-za-qá-pa uznā(geštu.m[e]š) x x [ … ] 17' a-na ummāni(érin) x [ … ]

[If the sh]eep – its eyes are protruding, its ear[s] … to the army … [ … ].

§13'

šumma(be) immeru(udu) i-na niqê(sískur) is-si [ … ]

18'



If the sheep – upon the sacrifice – cries … [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

120

§14' 19' šumma(be) immeru(udu) i-na ka-ra-bi-ka is-si [ … ]

If the sheep – upon your dedication – cries … […].

§15' 20' šumma(be) immeru(udu) a-na niqê(sískur) ša-ra-at imittišu(zag ˹šu˺ ) i-na [ … ] 21' ˹a˺-na i-maš-šar ? x[…]

If the sheep – upon the sacrifice – the fleece of its right side in … [ … ] … to the … over the … it/he will drag (it) [ … ].

§16' 22' šumma(be) immeru(udu) i-na niqê(sískur) ša-ra-at šumēlišu(gùb šu) i-na na-x-x [ … ]

If the sheep – upon the sacrifice – the fleece of its left side in … [ … ].

§17' 23' šumma(be) immeru(udu) ka-bu-su id-di be x [ … ]

If the sheep drops its excrement; … [ … ].

§18' 24' šumma(be) immeru(udu) i-na niqê(sískur) re-ši-šu iš-ši-ma iš-pu-uk x [ … ] 25' pad da? [ … ] If the sheep – during the sacrifice – lifts its head and then renders (it) limp … [ … ], … [ … ]. §19' 26' 27'

šumma(be) immeru(udu) re-ši-šu iš-ši-ma pa-ra-su ú-ta-t[u-uk … ] giš kakku(tukul) [ … ]



If the sheep lifts its head and is thoroughly spatter[ed] by its own gore … [ … ], the ‘Weapon’(-mark) … [ … ].

§20' 28'

šumma(be) immeru(udu) re-ši-šu iš-ši-ma da-ma ú-ta-t[u-uk …]



If sheep lifts its head and is thoroughly spatter[ed] by its own blood … [ … ].

§21' 29' [šum]ma(be) immeru(udu) iṣ-ṣa-ri-it [pi]-ri-iš-ti [šarri uṣṣi]

If the sheep farts, [se]crets [of the king will be revealed].

§22' 30' [šumma(be)] immeru(udu) i-na niqê(siskur) ú-ṣa-ra-a[t x-x] xx[…]

If the sheep – upon sacrifice – farts several times … [ … ]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

121

Reverse §23' 1 [šumma(be) immeru(udu) iṣ]-ṣa-ri-it x [ … ] 2 [ … ] a-na x [ … ]

[If the sheep f]arts … [ … ] … to … [ … ].

§24' 3 4

[šumma(be) immeru(udu) … ] x x x [ … ] [ … ]-ú du? [ … ]



[If the sheep … ] …

§25' 5 6

[šumma(be) immeru(udu) … ] […]x[…]



[If the sheep … ] …

§26' 7 8 9

[šumma(be) immeru(udu) … ] te [ … ] […]xx[…] [ … ] lú bi? [ … ]



[If the sheep … ] …

§27' 10 [šumma(be) immeru(udu) … ] ˹a-na x-x x x sag ? i-na-ar-ru-uṭ iš-t[a-na-as-si … ] 11 ù si-ba-sú imitta(zag) ù! šumēla(gùb) ú-ma-ḫa-aṣ [ … ]

[If the sheep … ] … to … the head, it shakes … and it keeps cr[ying], and twitches its tail both to the right and left … [ … ].

§28' 12 šumma(be) immeru(udu) ḫi-pí ka-li-su i-né-ṭe4-er [ … ]

If the sheep (broken) its kidney was removed … [ … ].

§29' 13 šumma(be) immeru(udu) ḫi-pí x-šu is-si ri ?-i[g ?-mu … ]

If the sheep (broken) its … emits a cry, cl[amour … ].

§30' 14 [šumma(be) imm]eru([u]du) a-na ˹niqê ˺(˹sískur˺) iš-ta-na-as-si

ri ?-[ig-mu … ]



[If a sh]eep – upon the sacrifice – keeps crying, cl[amour … ].

§31' 15 [šumma(be) immeru(udu)] a-na niqê (sískur) iš-ta-na-as-si ù x[…]

[If the sheep] – upon the sacrifice – keeps crying and … [ … ]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

122

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

§32' 16 [šumma(be) immeru(udu)] ˹a˺-na niqê(sískur) i-na x [x] x [ … ] 17 (traces only)

[If the sheep] – upon the sacrifice – at … [ … ].



(one to two lines missing)

§33'' 18' [šumma(be) immeru(udu)] iš-˹tu˺ na-˹ak-su˺ 2-šu ˹3-šu˺ [it-ru-ur ku 4 nam.ra ana é.gal] 19' [o] te-re-tu-ka ša-al-ma [o-o-o]

[If the sheep] – after the slaughter – [quivers] twice (or) three times, [the entry of the captives to the palace]. Your omens will be favourable. [ … ].

§34'' 20' [šumma(be) immeru(udu)] ˹iš ˺-tu imitti(zag) a-na šumēli(gùb) it-ta-ba-˹lak-ka˺-at te-[er-tu … ] 21' [o] te-er-ta-ka la-ap-ta-at niqê (sískur) x [ … ] [If the sheep] turns over from right to left, the o[men will be …], your omen is unfavourable; (your) sacrifice will … [ … ].

§35'' 22' [šumma(be) immeru(udu) sibb]assu([k]un sú )] 3-šu it-ru-uk i-na libbi (šà) immeri(udu) kàr-šum imitta(zag) ˹ta-ri-ik˺

[If the shee]p – it beats its tail three times, inside the sheep the stomach will be dark on the right side.

Colophon 23' [o] 40 ˹mu˺.bi



40 lines

1.2 Commentary §1 The version opens with the diviner approaching the sheep to slaughter it (ina ṭeḫêka, ‘upon your approaching’). It is not yet slaughtered but its reaction is one of fear (and see the next omen as well). This behaviour is seen as an indication of the divine presence. After all, the divine presence indeed generates fear (cf. puluḫtu, ‘fear’, palāḫu, ‘to fear (the god)’). The god accepts the man’s sacrifice, which is considered a positive result. Note the use of the preterite in the protasis and the apodosis: the apodosis refers to past time, when the presence of the personal god was sought after. See Chapter 1, Part III and Chapter 9, Part I. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

123

§2 Following CAD/P: 183b. The diviner is instructed to let go of the sheep and kill the enemy. This action is repeated four times according to various conditions fulfilled in the protasis. §3 The action taken here is after the blessing uttered by the diviner over the animal. The form karbu is to be taken as a 3rd person sg. stative of the verb karābu in the subjunctive. It refers to the sheep. See CAD/K: 198a, where the omen is cited but left without translation. Heeßel (2012: 263, 5) considers im-me-a as a scribal mistake for im-ba-a, a form that is found in SV §54'. See also CAD/I–J: 106 and von Soden (1936: 253), for correcting Ebeling’s reading; see Chapter 1, Part I, p. 10. Another form in this line apparently written incorrectly is ú-na-ra-ba, a mistake for ú-na-ra-aṭ !; see von Soden (1936: 253) and later Heeßel (2012: 263, 5). §4 The left eye crying and the right ear twitching to the left both suggest a positive outcome. The result here is the order to let go of the sheep and advance to the victorious battle. §5 The section dealing with the colour of the sheep’s blood will be fully developed in the SV. Compare with the OB version, whose outcome is also positive. §22 šumma [immerum] ina ṭabāḫišu damūšu summū tērtum ša libbi immerim šal[m]at ‘If [the sheep] – upon its slaughter – its blood is deep red, the omen (taken) from the sheep’s inside will be favourable.’ The redness of the sheep’s blood is compared to the colour of the flower of the illuru plant. The flower is probably the anemone, following Campbell-Thompson (1949: 140–141); see also Landsberger (1967: 17, n. 52). The illuru plant was a red flower or berry that was used in medicine. Its association with blood, perhaps even specifically of the sacrificial lamb, may have prompted its medical usage to treat the abnormal flow of a woman’s blood, as seen in medical compendia; see Steinert (2012: 12). The rest of the apodosis speaks about the inspection of the sheep: it specifies that there is no need for further examination in order to reveal how the campaign will turn out; see Heeßel (2012: 263) and CAD/B: 363a. Ebeling (1933: 326) understood thus, ‘Nach der Waffe (Leberteil) im Schafe sollst du nicht suchen.’ §8 The signs show giš tukul and i a but there is a difficulty of reading here kakkija, ‘my weapon(s)’, unless we assume a scribal mistake. §11' Cf. SV §§31'–34', pp. 157–158. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

124

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

§15' The apodosis, only partly preserved, is possibly corrupt. After ana we expect a substantive, but what appears here seems to be a verbal form i-maš-šar → imaššar, ‘it/he will drag around over the ground(?)’; CAD/M/1: 359–360. Cf. SV §77", p. 165. §18' For the form išpuk → šapāku in the sense of ‘to render limp’, see CAD/Š/1: 419. §19' The form restored as ú-ta-t[u-uk], already by von Soden (1936: 254, following Landsberger) is a Dtn stative of natāku; see AHw: 766a; CAD/P: 206a; Kouwenberg (2010: 470). §21' The apodosis is restored on the basis of IMV3 §17. See pp. 134 and 137. §27' Following Heeßel (2012: 264), although CAD/Z: 54b still cites Ebeling’s (incorrect) reading. §§28'–29' The protases of the two omens are stated to be ḫi-pí, ‘broken’, presumably in the copy from which the scribe was copying. §28' Heeßel is followed here and see also id. (2014: 68, n. 7), but the sense is obscure. CAD/K: 75b and E/: 402a bring the citation, but without a translation. §29' The line is said to be broken (ḫepi). Heeßel reads here and in the omen below the sign ri as opening the apodosis. If the sign is read correctly, then consider restoring ri ?-i[g ?-mu], ‘cl[amour]’. §30' This entry and the above omen are tentatively restored on the basis of OB §21: šumma immerum ištu ṭabḫu urḫussu issi rigmum ša maruštim ina bīt awīlim ibbašši ‘If the sheep – after its slaughter – its larynx sounds, there will be wailing of difficulty in the client’s house.’ §33'' The slaughter of the sheep is referred to as ištu naksu ‘after it was slaughtered’. In OB §1 we saw ištu ṭabḫu. The omen is partly cited by CAD/T: 365b. The omen can be restored, as seen by Heeßel, according to IMV3 §16: šumma immeru ina nakāsišu 2-šu 3-šu itrur erēb šallāti ana ekalli têrētuka salmā tīr[ānū … ] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

125

‘If the sheep – upon its slaughter – (its flesh) quivers twice (or) three times, the entry of the captives to the palace; your omens will be favourable; the coils of the intestines … [ … ].’ §34'' The line is cited in Nougayrol (1945: 65), in his discussion of the verb nabalkutu. §35'' This entry, following a separation line, is the catch line to the next tablet (which is lost to us). The following omens, however, are preserved in IMV3 §§18–22, p. 135. Note that the word ‘tail’ is written with a logogram and not with a syllabic spelling, as elsewhere in this version (§§2 and 27). 1.3 Discussion The Manuscript The manuscript of IMV1 is made up of two pieces, VAT 9518 and A 468. Both pieces were joined by Heeßel and found in Assur.1 VAT 9518 was found in the southwestern Stadtmauer in the eB10III square.2 Several hundred meters north, A 468 was found in the eA5V square at the southern corner of the (presumably western) ziggurat of the Anu-Adad temple. A 468 can be associated with the M2 library.3 When whole, the joined tablet would have measured 12.5 × 9.8 cm. Some Middle Babylonian tablets in the Assur libraries are written on a landscape format tablet, so they are wider than high (e.g., KAL 5 2 and 8). The Middle Assyrian tablets, on the other hand, are narrow and longer and could be multi-columned (e.g., KAL 5 4, 21, 25, 37, 38, and 63). Our manuscript is longer along the vertical axis than the horizontal axis, hence its format is like the Middle Assyrian manuscripts from Assur. However, unlike the Middle Assyrian manuscripts, it had a single column on each side and contained no more than thirty lines per side (compare with KAL 5 23, a Middle Babylonian manuscript from Assur). The tablet VAT 9518 is the upper piece of the manuscript. Its obverse contains fourteen lines, almost all complete. Throughout, it is missing the very opening of the protases: either the opening b e is gone or both b e and u d u are lost. The reverse of the tablet has six lines; the penultimate line is the catch line to the next (and missing tablet), and the final line is the colophon, which gives only the line count. The tablet A 468 is the lower part of the manuscript. Its obverse contains sixteen lines, but only their first half is preserved because the tablet is broken 1

  The relation between the two pieces was recognized by Ebeling (1931: 41 and note a); see Heeßel (2012: 28, under no. 83). 2   Weidner (1952–53: 200, w). 3   Weidner (1952–53: 200, x), Pedersén (1986, vol. I: 37 and 39, no. 28) and Heeßel (2012: 28, no. 83). See p. 347. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

126

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

right in the middle. The reverse of the tablet is very poorly preserved: it holds seventeen lines, but only a few can be satisfactorily reconstructed. The colophon (on the reverse of VAT 9518) gives a total of forty omens. In the reconstructed text we reach the count of thirty-five, or thirty-four omens if the catch line is not included. Hence we can infer the number of omens in the text’s small gap. Note that the number of omens are being counted, not the actual lines formed on the tablet. There is no wedge marker for every ten lines, as seen in the OB version and SV ms. A. The catch line is found before the colophon, indicating that there existed a second tablet which continued the collection. If this lost tablet similarly contained around thirty-five omens, we can surmise that there was also a third tablet, if we want to reach the approximately hundred omens contained on the Old Babylonian version. Note, however, that the IMV1 was already sufficiently distant from the OB version, hence its size and/or organization could have been substantially different. Dating and Formal Criteria The script of the manuscript was defined as Middle Babylonian by Heeßel (2012: 11). It is not the only manuscript to be written in this script within the Assur omen collection: there are various extispicy tablets relating to the tīrānū (‘coils of the colon’), martu (‘gallbladder’), and ubānu (‘Finger’), among others, written in the Middle Babylonian script.4 The manuscript is not dated, but on the basis of other pieces of omens and other texts from the Assur collection, it can be assumed to have been stored in the Assur libraries during the reign of Tiglathpileser I (1114–1076).5 It is far from certain, however, that it was copied in Assur and there is a good probability that, like other Middle Babylonian omen tablets found at the Assyrian capital, it was brought from Babylonia to Assyria, perhaps in the wake of Tukulti-Ninurta’s campaign against Kaštiliyašu IV; see Chapter 9, Part III. Von Soden (1936: 253) assumed on account of the syllabic writing found in this version that it is based on an Old Babylonian forerunner. However, with the knowledge that the OB version gave us (published in 1947), it can be seen that IMV1 already had departed from Old Babylonian writing conventions. It contains logographic writing that do not appear in the OB version; and mimation has been lost (e.g., §§5 and 20). In addition, it does not seem to reveal typical Old Babylonian features, such as those found in a few other omen texts written in the Middle Babylonian script from Assur. The following list identifies a selection of Old Babylonian features in Assur omen texts (the

4

  See Heeßel (2012: 11, n. 131), from which no. 80 should be deleted (Assyrian script) and no. 85 be added (IMV2 = the second Middle Babylonian manuscript of the šumma immeru omens from Assur; see below); Weidner (1952–1953: 200). 5   Heeßel (2012: 10). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

127

numbers are according to KAL 5) in order to accentuate the difference between them and IMV1: Uncontracted forms no. 2 (Bone omens), obv. 2: i-te-bi-am-ma; obv. 4, na-di-a-at- ma; no. 48 (Lung omens), obv. 10: e-ni-a-at-ma Initial and medial wa no. 2 (Bone omens), obv. 3: wa-aš-ba-ta; obv. 13: a-wa-at; no. 90 (Omens, unclear), obv. 3': wa-ar-ka-at; obv. 9': a-wa-at; no. 8 (‘forerunner’ to Bārûtu Ch. 2 [tīrānū], Tablet 8); rev. 2': il-wi; no. 64 (Stipulated term omens), rev. 21: la-wi-a-ta Mimation no. 48 (Lung omens), obv. 5: re-qí-i[m]; no. 86 (‘Foot’[- markings]), obv. 15: su-ma-am; no. 93 (Extispicy, unclear), obv. 4: u4-ma-am,6 obv. 5: ú-še-ṣi-a-am It is clear that such features should be used with caution when coming to date omen compositions, but nonetheless, they can indicate a more direct reliance of KAL 5 2, 48, 86, 90, and 93 given just above on Old Babylonian ‘forerunners’ than IMV1 on the OB version of šumma immeru. It should be kept in mind that the state of preservation of IMV1 is rather pitiful hence the conclusions are tentative. Logograms appearing in the protasis, apart from b e and udu, are (alphabetically): egir-šu (arkišu, ‘its behind’), geštu(.meš) (uznu, uznā, ‘ear(s)’), gùb (šumēla, ‘left’), igi(.meš) (īnu, īnā ‘eye(s)’), kun (sibbatu, ‘tail’), sískur (niqû, ‘sacrifice’), and zag (imittu, ‘right’). In the apodosis we find: dingir (ilu, ‘god’), egir ? (arku, ‘behind’), érin (ummānu, ‘army’), giš gu.za (kussû, ‘throne’), kúr (nakru, ‘enemy’), lú (amēlu, ‘client’), nun (rubû, ‘prince’), šà (libbu, ‘heart’), sískur (suppû, ‘prayer’) and giš tukul (kakku, ‘weapon’). No verbs are written logographically either in the protasis or apodosis. The omens of this version all begin with b e standing for šumma. In the OB version, the protases were marked with d i š . The opening with b e is considered to be an indication of a northerly tradition of Babylonian omen literature, but this should not be considered a binding criterion.

6

 Note that this stands for ūmam, ‘today’; Stol (2014: 188). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

128

2. Intermediate Version 2 (= IMV2) Text A 463 = Ass 22647 Previous Editions and Discussions Heeßel (2012: 267–268) = KAL 5 85. A photograph of the tablet is given in Heeßel (2012: 453). There is no copy. 2.1 Edition §1 1' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) … ] xxxxx[…]

[If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter … ] … [ … ].

§2 2' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) nak]su(kud su) ˹ap-pa-šu˺ ittanašši(íl.íl) ḫi-pi imitta(zag) x [ … ] [If the sheep’s head – after] its [slaughter] – it lifts its nose high up, broken on the right … [ … ]. §3 3' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu)] ˹ištu(a)˺ naksu(kud su) ap-pa-šu ú-na-ap-pa-aḫ ūm[ī(u 4 .meš) rubê(nun) rūqūti(gíd.da.meš)]

[If the sheep’s head] – after its slaughter – it blows its nose, the [prince’s] reign (lit., days) [will be long].

§4 4' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu)] ištu(a) naksu(kud su) ina šaptišu (nundum šu) il-ta-na-ap-pi-it rāk[ib imēri(u 5 anše) … ]

[If the sheep’s head] – after its slaughter – it continuously seizes its lip, the cour[ier … ].

§5 5' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu)] ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šapassu(nundum su) elīta(an.ta) ana imitti(zag) iš-šu-uk rāk[ib imēri(u 5 anše) innabbitma(záḫ ma) pirišta(ad.ḫal) ušteneṣṣi(è.meš)] [If the sheep’s head] – after its slaughter – it bites its upper lip at the right side, the cour[ier will desert and will reveal all the secrets]. §6 6' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu)] ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šapassu(nundum su) elīta(an.ta) ana šumēli(gùb) iš-šu-uk piri [štu(ad.ḫal) uṣṣi(è) … ]

[If the sheep’s head] – after its slaughter – it bites its upper lip at the left side, … the sec[ret will be revealed … ]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

129

§7 7' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu)] ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šapassu(nundum su) elīta(an.ta) iš-šu-uk pa x [ … ]

[If the sheep’s head] – after its slaughter – it bites its upper lip … [ … ].

§8 8' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) imme]ri([ud]u) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šapassu(nundum su) šaplīta(ki.ta) iš-šu-uk pa x […]

[If a shee]p’s [head] – after its slaughter – it bites its lower lip … [ … ].

§9 9' [šumma(be) rē]š([sa]g) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šaptēšu(nundum.meš šú ) ú-tar-ra-aṣ uz-[zi ili (dingir) ana amēli (lú)] [If] the sheep’s [he]ad – after its slaughter – it stretches out its lips, the an[ger of the god will be directed against the client]. §10 10'

šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šaptēšu (nundum.meš šú ) it-ta-na-˹aš-ši ilu(dingir)˺ [ana amēli (lú) izziz(šúr  iz )]



If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – it lifts high its lips, the god [will be angry with the client].

§11 11' šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šaptēšu (nundum.meš šú) iš-ta-na-da-ad amātu(inim) [damiqtu iṭeḫḫi]

If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – it stretches out is lips, [good] news [will arrive].

§12 12'

šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šaptēšu (nundum.meš šú) i-lam-ma-am ilu(dingir) ik[kal(gu 7 )]



If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – it chews its lips, the god will de[vour (the land)] (i.e., pestilence).

§13 13' šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šapat(nundum) x šapat(nundum) x x [ … ]

If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – the lip … the lip … [ … ].

§14 14' šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) ˹šapassu˺(˹nundum su ˺) imitta(zag) šumēla(gùb) su mātk[a?(kur k[a]?) [ … ]

If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – its lip … right (to) left … yo[ur?] land … [ … ]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

130

§15 15'

šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su) šapassu(nundum su) šumēla(gùb) imitta(zag) su [ … ]



If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – its lip … left (to) right … [ … ].

§16 16' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su)] šapat(nundum) x x [ … ]

[If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – ] the lip of … [ … ].

§17 17' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a)] ˹naksu(kud su)˺ sapat(nundum) x [ … ]

[If the sheep’s head – after] its slaughter – the lip of … [ … ].

§18 18' [šumma(be) rēš(sag) immeri(udu) ištu(a) naksu(kud su)] xx[…]

[If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter] … [ … ].

(Break) 2.2 Commentary §1 The signs a and kud su are probably to be read as ištu naksu or perhaps ištu takkisu. The reading receives its confirmation from one of the commentaries of the omens (see Chapter 6). UC2, l. 26, p. 216, reads as follows: a kud : tak-ki-si-ma, ‘a kud means ‘‘you have slaughtered (it)’’’. Additional support for the reading of a kud su as ištu naksu comes from the IMV1, §33, p. 122: [šumma immeru] iš-˹tu˺ na-˹ak-su˺, ‘[If the sheep] – after its slaughter’. Consider also LBA, §32, p. 93: šumma qaqqad immeri ina nakāsika, ‘If the sheep’s head – upon your slaughter’. Von Soden (AHw: 1490a, sub (w)ātaru(m)) read the sequence a t a r (= k u d ), as *atar, ‘(If the sheep’s head) is *very big’. Von Soden’s reading must be rejected in light of the above; see also Heeßel (2012: 267­–268). The SV has the sequence: ta kud su → ištu naksu. The logogram ta is to be equated with ištu (as the conjunction ‘when’) and this equation can be supported by the lexical list tradition.7 §2 Compare this omen to OB §15: šumma immeru appašu ittanašši bīt awīlim issappa[ḫ] ‘If the sheep lifts up its nose, the client’s household will be scattered.’ The logographic writing íl.íl stands for the verb našû in the Gtn stem. What comes after the verb is a problem: Heeßel reads ḫi-pi. Although usually written 7

  CAD/I–J: 284 and 285b. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

131

ḫi-pí, ‘broken’(and in the šumma immeru omens, see IMV1 §§28–29p. 128), one wonders if nonetheless this was the intention, i.e., to write ‘broken’. §3 Restored by Heeßel, following SV §102'': šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu appašu unappaḫ ūmē rubê irrikū ‘If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – will blow its nose, the prince’s days will be prolonged.’ §§4–18 There now come fifteen omens dealing with the sheep’s lips, actually till the tablet’s break. Only some, however, can find correspondence with omens of the SV. IMV2 §§5 and 9–12 correspond with Section 9 of the SV. In OB §§6–9, p. 48–49, instead of the lips, the tongue is observed. §9 Following CAD/T: 213a. §11 Compare OB §7: šumma immerum lišanšu ištanaddad ana šarrim awātum damiqtum imaqqut ‘If the sheep extends out its tongue, good news will befall the king.’ §12 The relation between the protasis and apodosis is clear: chewing will result in a negative omen of devastation or pestilence. Compare OB §6, where the drawing out of the tongue results in a negative apodosis: šumma immerum lišanšu ušteniṣṣiam nibrû ‘If the sheep sticks its tongue in and out, hunger.’ §§14–15 The appearance of the sign su is left unexplained and without translation in Heeßel’s edition. Since it clearly represents a verb, one wonders if there was a confusion between two verbs that led to an erroneous or perhaps playful use of su. The logogram su is usually employed for the Akkadian verb râbu, ‘to replace, repay’; see CAD/R: 53a. However, consider that in the present case behind su stands the homophonous verb râbu, ‘to tremble, to quake’ (CAD/R: 55–57). This may give us the resulting protasis: sapassu imitta šumēla *ura’ib ‘it shakes its lip right (to) left’. 2.3 Discussion The Manuscript The tablet A 463 is only partly preserved and its right side is broken away; it currently measures 6.75 × 7.3 cm. The obverse includes eighteen incomplete lines: two entries deal with the nose and the rest with the lips of the slaughtered sheep. The protases © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

132

are partly preserved and the apodoses are almost completely broken away. They were restored on the basis of parallels found in the OB version and the SV. The tablet was found in Assur, in the fE5I square of the Old Palace.8 The text was first published by Heeßel (2012) as no. 85. Only the obverse was published on the basis of a photograph that was included in Heeßel’s book (p. 453). The reverse (documented only as an inferior photograph) was not clear enough to merit an edition. Heeßel (2012: 29) informs that it is possible, on account of the similar script, that A 627 (unpublished) may join A 463. Dating and Formal Criteria It is difficult to date this fragmentary tablet. According to Heeßel (2012: 267), the tablet was written in the Middle Babylonian script. However, some elements of this version depart from the IMV1 while also exhibiting writing conventions and formulations of protases and apodoses that are very similar to the SV. The protases include a wider use of logographic writing as is typical of 1st millennium omen compendia; and notably in comparison to the OB version, we encounter the logographic writing of verbs. In the protases we find the following logograms that were not met in the OB version: a (ištu, ‘after’), an.ta (elīta, ‘top’), gùb (šumēla, ‘left’), ki.ta (šaplīta), kud su (naksu, ‘slaughtered’), nundum (šaptu, ‘lip’), sag (rēšu, ‘head’) and zag (imitta, ‘right’). In the apodoses we see: gu 7 (ikkal, ‘will eat’), íl.íl (ittanašši, ‘will lift high up’), inim (amātu, ‘word’), u 4 .meš (ūmū, ‘days’), u 5 anše (rākib imēri, ‘courier’). Some of these logograms will appear in the SV. To conclude, IMV2 has some innovations not yet seen in IMV1, hence it can be seen to represent a somewhat later version of the omens.

3. Intermediate Version 3 (= IMV3) Text CT 41 12 = K 4125; P395413. Editions and Discussions: no edition; the text is mentioned by Guinan 2002: 15. 3.1 Edition Obverse §1

1'

[be udu sísku]r ki.min geš[tu.meš-šu tarṣā … ]

[šumma immer niq]ê ki.min uz[nāšu tarṣā … ]

[If the sacrifical shee]p (likewise) [its] ea[rs are upright … ].

§2

be u[du sísk]ur ki.min im-b[a-a is-si-ma … ]

2'

šumma im[mer niq]ê ki.min imb[ā  issima … ]

If the sac[rifical shee]p (likewise) bl[eats and … ].

8

  Pedde and Lundström (2008: 116, no. 1110). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

§3

3'

133

be udu ˹sískur˺ ki.min ina igi-šú šá 15[0 ibakki … ]

šumma immer niqê ki.min ina īnišu ša šumēl[i ibakki … ] If the sacrificial sheep (likewise) [weeps (tears)] out of its le[ft] eye [ … ]. §4

4'

be udu sískur ki.min ṣil-bu i[na? … ]

šumma immer niqê  ki.min ṣilbu i[na? … ]

If the sacrificial sheep (likewise) crosswise in … [ … ].

§5

be udu sískur ki.min a.gar.gar-š[u izarrar … ]

5'



šumma immer niqê ki.min piqanniš[u izarrar … ]



If the sacrificial sheep (likewise) [drops it]s droppings [ … ].

§6

be udu sískur ki.min ir-b[i-iṣ] ˹sískur˺ x [ … ]

6'



šumma immer niqê irb[iṣ] niqê … [ … ].





If the sacrificial sheep (likewise) lie[s down], the sacrifice [ … ].

§7

7'

be udu sískur ki.min i-ša[p-pi-i ]l  kur ki.tuš š[ub-di]



šumma immer niqê ki.min iša[ppi ]l mātu šubtu in[naddi]



If the sacrifical sheep (likewise) bow[s dow]n, the land – (its) territory will be ab[andoned].

§8 8'

be udu gú-su ana 15 ú-te-e[r] ˹x˺-ti-šu ana maš.e[n.dà … ]

šumma immeru kišāssu ana imitti utē[r] ˹x˺-ti-šu ana muškē [ni … ] If the sheep turns its neck to the right, its … for the poor m[an …]. §9 9'

be udu gú-su ana 150 ú-te-er [ … ]



šumma immeru kišāssu ana šumēli utēr [ … ]



If the sheep turns its neck to the left … [ … ].

§10 10'

be udu sískur u-ṣa-rat érin-ni ina giš tukul [ … ]



šumma immer niqê uṣarrat ummānī ina kakki [ … ]



If the sacrificial sheep farts several times, my army by the force (of) … [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

134

§11 11'

be udu ana igi sískur di-ma-tu-šú du.meš-ka z[u-un-nu ibaššû ]



šumma immeru ana pani niqê dimātušu illikā z[unnu  ibaššû]

If the sheep in front of the sacrifice – its tears flow, [there will be] r[ain]. §12

12'

be udu ta i-ku-nu it-ru-uṣ ina šà udu.níta uzu.kin [ … ]



šumma immeru ištu ikūnu itruṣ ina libbi immeri têrtu [ … ]



If the sheep stretches (its limbs) after it has come to rest, inside the sheep there will be an omen that is … [ … ].

§13 13'

be udu ina ka-ṣi-šú ú-te-ḫi-ir uzu.kin ši-i [ … ]



šumma immeru ina kâṣišu utteḫḫir têrtu šî [ … ]



If the sheep upon being flayed, wheezes, that omen … [ … ].



§14 14' be udu ta i-ku-nu kur-si-na-šú ana gú-šu šub-ut uzu.kin ši-˹i ˺ [ … ] šumma immeru ištu ikūnu kursīnašu ana kišādišu imqut têrtu šî [ … ]

If the sheep, after it had come to rest, its hock is thrown towards its neck, that omen … [ … ].

§15

be udu ni-ki-is-su 1-šu it-ru-ur é na bir 2 šà.nigin x-[ … ]

15'



šumma immeru nikissu ištīššu itrur bīt amēli issappaḫ šitta tīrānū x[ … ]



If the sheep – its cut-off flesh quivers once, the client’s house will go to ruin; there will be two coils of the colon [ … ].

§16 16' be udu ina na-ka-si-šú 2-šú 3-šú it-ru-ur ˹ k u­4 ˺ nam.ra ana é.gal uzu.kin.meš-ka silim.meš šà.[nigin … ]

šumma immeru ina nakāsišu šinīšu šalāšīšu itrur erēb šallāti ana ekalli têrētuka salmā tīr[ānū … ]



If the sheep upon its slaughter, (its flesh) quivers twice (or) three times, the entry of captives to the palace; your omens will be favourable; the coil[s of the colon … ].

§17 17'

be udu ta kud-su iṣ-ru-uṭ ad.ḫal è ana maš.en.dà i-[ … ]



šumma immeru ištu naksu iṣruṭ pirištu uṣṣi ana muškēni  i[ … ]



If the sheep – after it has been slaughtered – farts, the secret(s) will be revealed; for the poor man … [ … ]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

135

§18 18' [be ud]u kun-su 2-šú 3-šú it-ru-ur ina šà udu kar-šú [šá 15 tarik] [šumma imm]eru zibbassu šinīšu šalāšīšu itrur ina libbi immeri karšu [ša imitti tarik]

[If the shee]p – its tail quivers twice (or) three times, inside the sheep, the [right] stomach [will be dark].

§19 19' [be ud]u ina šùd-k[a (šub-ma) gìr 15-šu] ki i-ḫi-pi-ir dingir ina sískur [gub-iz] [šumma imm]eru ina karābik[a (nadima) šēp imittišu] qaqqara iḫepper ilu ina niqê [izziz] [If the shee]p upon your dedication [(falls and)] scrapes the ground [with its right foot], the god [will have been present] at the sacrifice. §20 20' [be udu ina šùd-ka (šub-ma) gìr 150-šu] ˹ k i ˺ i-ḫi-pi-ir dingir ina sískur [nu gub-iz] [šumma immeru ina karābika (nadima) šēp šumēlišu] qaqqara iḫepper ilu ina niqê [ul izziz]

[If the sheep upon your dedication, (falls and)] scrapes the ground [with its left foot], the god [will not have been present] at the sacrifice.

§21 21' [be udu ina šùd-ka (šub-ma) gìr 15-šu k]i i-ṣer en sís[kur i-ba-lu-uṭ ? ] [šumma immeru ina karābika (nadima) šēp imittišu qaq]qara iṣṣer bēl ni[qê iballuṭ ? ]

[If the sheep upon your dedication, (falls and) its right foot] draws (a drawing) [on the gro]und, the sacrific[er will live ?].

§22 22' [be udu ina šùd-ka (šub-ma) gìr 150-šu k]i i-ṣer ina bar id-d [u- … ] [šumma immeru ina karābika (nadima) šēp šumēlišu qaq]qara iṣṣer ina bar id-d [u- … ]

[If the sheep upon your dedication, (falls and) its left foot] draws (a drawing) on the gro]und, in the … will … [ … ].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

136

Reverse 1 [a]l.til ki-i ˹ka˺ ṭup-pi ša igi.kár-šú la ‹šaṭ›-ru ú [ … ] 2

ṭup-pi md ag-zu-qu-up-gi-na dumu

3

[šà].bal.bal mGa[b-bi-dingir.meš-kam-eš lú gal dub.sar.meš]

1

[Fin]ished. According to a tablet whose collation was not ‹re›corded and … [ … ].

2

Tablet of Nabû-zuqup-kēna, son of Marduk-š[uma-iqīša, the scribe],

3

[De]scendant of Ga[bbi-ilānī-ēreš, chief of scribes].

md

amar.utu-m[u-ba-šá lú dub.sar]

(Break) 3.2 Commentary §1 The opening words u d u sískur (restored on the basis of §3 and following) qualifies the sacrificial animal here and is not a general term for niqû, ‘sacrifice’; see, e.g., an Old Babylonian omen report, Nougayrol (1967a: 220): 1 udu siskur, ‘un mouton sacrifice’. §2 Restored after IMV1 §3, p. 118 and SV §54', p. 161. §4 I read the signs n u n and b u as the word ṣilbu, which means ‘crosswise arrangement’, according to the CAD/Ṣ: 187. Hence it could refer here body parts crossing one another. Cf. SV §81'', p. 167: šēpāšu maḫrāti arkāti kīma 4 kīsi ītgurā, ‘its forelegs and its hind-legs are intertwined like four (strings) of a pouch’. §5 Restored according to LBA §6, p. 87, SV §48, p. 160 and UC1, obv. 18', p. 203. §7 The reading of the apodosis is not certain; cf. Commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 9 (ḫašû), A (CT 31 39 [P394129]; CCP 3.4.9.A; CAD:N/1: 99), ii 16: mātu šubassa innaddi, ‘the country – its territory will be abandoned’. §8 The apodosis gives a prediction for cases in which the client is not an awīlum/ amēlu but a muškēnu(m), ‘inferior class of person’; cf. the formulations found in CAD/M/2: 274b. The content of the second protasis is lost. The muškēnu(m) is mentioned in LBA §81 in a broken omen, whose protasis, like the present omen, is concerned with the sheep’s neck. See also IMV3 §17. §10 Compare IMV1 §22: [šumma] immeru ina niqê uṣarrat, ‘[If] the sheep farts several times during the sacrifice’. The apodosis of the omen is lost. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

137

§11 The reading of the apodosis is tentative. See OB §16, p. 50 and LBA §17, p. 90. §12 The sheep stretches (itruṣ) one of its body parts, so we must understand on the basis of OB §26; see also CAD/T: 210 and K: 160, where the omen is quoted. §13 The verbal form ú-te-ḫi-ir is difficult, but one can suggest a Dt or Dtn Pret. (unattested) form utteḫḫir from naḫāru ‘to snore’ (see CAD/N/1: 128). This would not be a unique case of descriptions of sounds that the sheep emits at the time of slaughter. §15 Translation follows CAD/N/2: 232. §16 Compare IMV1 §33, p. 122. §17 The omen helps us restore IMV1 §21, p. 120. The association between the protasis and apodosis is clear: releasing wind from the inside of the sheep is like releasing official secrets from the palace. See CAD/P: 399. §18 The omen can be restored on the basis of IMV1 §35, p. 122 (as recognized already by Heeßel 2012: 264). §§19-20 The omens are completed thanks to SV §§21–22, p. 135. Note that ina šùd-ka follows the SV manuscript H1 (from Uruk): arki karābi[ka]. 3.3 Discussion The Manuscript The tablet is not complete and its beginning is missing; it measures 7.62 × 7.62 cm. A comparison of similarly formatted tablets of the same scribe shows us that the obverse (basically the whole text, since the reverse holds only the colophon), which has twenty-two lines, could have contained around twentyfive to thirty lines. We may surmise that the present tablet is missing between three and seven lines from its beginning. The tablet, although recovered in Nineveh, does not represent the SV of the series (known from other Nineveh tablets), rather it stands closer to other intermediate version manuscripts, although it is not identical to them. Compare between IMV3 §§ 1'–2' and IMV1 §§ 2, 3, 7, pp. 118–119 or IMV3 § 17' and IMV1 § 1, p. 118. Once compared to

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

138

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

the SV, it is seen that IMV3 is still some way from the expanded omens typical of the Nineveh manuscripts.9 For logograms, the protasis have: du.meš-ka (illakā, ‘they flow’), gú-su (kišassu, ‘its neck’), igi (pani), ki (qaqqaru, ‘ground’), ki.min (‘ditto’), kun-su (zibbāssu, ‘its tail’), sískur (niqê, ‘sacrifice’), šub-ut (imqut, ‘it fell’), sùd-ka (karābika, ‘your dedication’), ta (ištu, ‘after’), tar-su (naksu, ‘cut’), 15 (imitta, ‘right’), 150 (šumēla, ‘left’). The apodosis have: ad.ḫal (pirištu, ‘secret’), a.gar. gar-šu (piqannišu, ‘its dung-pellets’), bar (?), bir (issappaḫ, ‘will disperse’), dingir (ilu, ‘god’), é (bītum, ‘household’), è (uṣṣi, ‘goes out’), é.gal (ekallu, ‘palace’), en (bēlu, ‘master’), érin/-ni (ummānu/ī, ‘(my) army’), geštu.meš (uznā, ‘ears’), igi-šu (īnīšu, ‘its eyes’), ki.tuš (šubtu, ‘territory’), ku 4 (erēbu, ‘enter’), kur (mātu, ‘country’), maš.e[n.dà] (muš[kenû], ‘commoner’), na (amēlu, ‘client’), nam.ra (šallātu, ‘captives’), silim.meš (salmā, ‘favourable’), sískur (niqû, ‘sacrifice’), šà (libbi, ‘inside’), šà.nigin (tīrānū, ‘coils of the colon’), šu[b-di] (inn[addi]), giš tukul (kakku, ‘weapon’), udu.níta (immeru, ‘ram’), uzu.kin (têrtu têrtu, ‘omen’), and 150 (šumēli, ‘left’). The Colophon, Origin and Dating of the Manuscript The colophon of the tablet informs us that the tablet was written by Nabû-zuqupkēna, the scribe and scholar who was active in Kalḫu during the times of Sargon and his son Sennacherib.10 He mentions his father in the colophon, Marduk-šumaiqīša,11 and his ancestor, the scribe Gabbu-ilānī-ēreš, an ummânu of kings TukultiNinurta II and Assurnaṣirpal II.12 Nabû-zuqup-kēna was a very prolific scribe with over a hundred works assigned to his production. He was very interested in Babylonian divination, especially celestial omens, but also extispicy. After his death, his tablet collection was moved to Nineveh (and hence the K siglum, i.e., Kuyunjik), but it remains unclear whether it was integrated with the rest of the Assurbanipal collection or kept separate. The tablet is not dated (as far as can be seen, although a date may have been provided, now broken). It is not the only tablet copied by Nabû-zuqup-kēna whose date is not specified.13 However, it may be possible to assume that this tablet was written close to a time when he was studying the art of extispicy.14  Guinan (2002: 15) supposes that IMV3 (i.e., K 4125) is related to K 11716+, a šumma ālu tablet of Nabû-zuqup-kēna, but that is not the case. Neither is K 11716+ related to other šumma immeru manuscripts, as claimed. The similarity is only superficial. 10   Lieberman (1987: 204–217), PNA: 912–913, Guinan (2002), Frahm (2011: 265–267) and Koch (2015: 57). 11   PNA: 732–733. 12   PNA: 414–415. 13   Lieberman (1987: 204, n. 222). 14   Such time estimates have been put about regarding other types of Nabû-zuqup-kēna’s works. See Lieberman (1987: 206), who considers 718–701 BC the time-frame in which Nabû-zuqup-kēna copied the Enūma Anu Enlil series, and Guinan (2002), in the footsteps of Lieberman (1987: 207), who tries to locate the production of the šumma ālu tablets of Nabû-zuqup-kēna to about 708–705 BC. 9

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

139

His tablets of extispicy are Bārûtu Ch. 9 (ḫašû), Tablet 3,15 and Tablet 13.16 In addition, he was much concerned with the commentaries of the Bārûtu. He produced the following: multābiltu Commentary 4;17 Commentary 1 of Bārûtu Ch. 1 (išru);18 Commentary 1 of Bārûtu Ch. 3 (manzāzu);19 Bārûtu Ch. 6 (martu) and Bārûtu Ch. 7. (ubānu), F;20 and Bārûtu Ch. 7. (ubānu), E.21 In addition, he had a tablet in his collection that both contains ikribu prayers and (very partially preserved) extracts from bird divination (ornithoscopy; see p. 254).22 Koch (2005: 267) has observed that his multābiltu Commentary 4 was written in 711 BCE (or Sargon’s 11th year), as were his other tablets that dealt with extispicy, such as Bārûtu Ch. 9, Tablets 3 and 13 (mentioned above). Hence, we can assume that IMV3 was also copied around this time, but of course not necessarily so.23 The colophon of IMV3 does not include any designation regarding the work that was being copied or studied.24 It does say, however, that the tablet is complete ([a]l.til or qati, ‘finished’) and that it was copied according to a tablet whose collation was not recorded (literally ‘not ‹wr›itten down’).25 It is most likely that the tablet itself relied on a copy of an older tablet or “original” tablet. This assumption is supported by a number of Nabû-zuqupkēna colophons, which are more detailed than that of IMV3 and explicitly refer to knowledge imparted from older texts. His Bārûtu tablets are said to be based on old or original tablets (kī pî gišlē’i labīri, ‘according to an old/ original tablet’). The origin or source of some of the tablets of Nabû-zuqup-kēna are at times explicitly said to be arriving from Babylon or from Borsippa.26 Sometimes there is 15

  K 2692+ [P394608]; Koch (2015: 109, n. 281); Hunger (1968, no. 297).   K 2678 [P394597] and K 2683+ [P394601]; Koch (2015: 111, n. 291); Hunger (1968, no. 297). 17   CT 30 28 = K 8014 [P397438]; Koch (2005, no. 28). 18   K 6075 [P238579]; Frahm (2011: 171); for the colophon, see Jiménez (2013). 19   CT 30 25 = K 3068 [P365993] = Koch (2005, no. 19, 132–150); Frahm (2011: 174– 175); the tablet is dated to 704/xii/22; Hunger (1968, no. 294). 20   CT 30 41–42 = K 3946+ [P366008]; Frahm (2011: 181). 21   K 3797+ K 6764 [P395236]; Frahm (2011: 181). The assignment of K 12648 [P399962] = Koch (2005, no. 78), a commentary of Bārûtu Ch. 5 (pan takalti), to Nabû-zuqup-kēna’s output is also possible according to the CCP. 22   Rm 222+ [P426362] = Koch (2015b). Apart from the texts mentioned here and the šumma immeru tablet, Leiberman (1987: 208, n. 243) brings three more omen texts of Nabû-zuqup-kēna: K 2680 [P394599], K 10967 [P399001], and Sm 1239 [P425823]; they are all very fragmentary. 23   Note that according to Frahm (2011: 181), Bārûtu Ch. 6 (martu) and Ch. 7 (ubānu), F (= K 3946) could have been written between 704 to 681 BC. 24   Entered as no. 306A in Hunger (1968: 94). A similar colophon (no. 306B) is K 5285 [P395978], which is a colophon (all that remains of this tablet) of a šumma ālu omen tablet. 25   See Hunger (1968: 3). 26   Lieberman (1987: 54–55, nn. 262–263); Hunger (1968, no. 293); Fincke (2003–2004: 128, n. 138). 16

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

140

some information regarding the person who provided the source of the tablet. The colophons of his Bārûtu tablets claim to have been copied according to the tablet of Amēl-dib -li-ia, son of Esagila-iddin, the diviner. This person was presumably a Babylonian, judging from his patronym. Another tablet of possible Babylonian pedigree is K 75+, a commentary of Enūma Anu Enlil dated to 694: it was copied according to ‘[a writing board, a manuscript from Babyl]on’; it was perhaps written by a student or collaborator of Nabû-zuqup-kēna, a person called Nabûnāṣir, son of Ea-pattāni, of Babylon.27 It is here we need to note that IMV3 contains some Babylonian signs.28 The time period in which these compositions were redacted before being transmitted to Kalḫu and copied by Nabû-zuqup-kēna is not known. But one composition among Nabû-zuqup-kēna’s work may provide a clue for a rough dating. Consider a tamītu or oracle question from the tablet collection of this scholar: Lambert (2007, no. 5), the only one of this genre in Nabû-zuqup-kēna’s collection. In this tamītu we find the mention of the Sutu and Ahlamû tribes and a few non-Akkadian, presumably Aramaic terms. On the basis of this circumstantial evidence, Lambert (2007: 68–69) considers it to be dated to the turn of the first millennium. This tamītu therefore may provide a general date for the materials from Babylonia in the collection of our scribe. Hence, to conclude this point, IMV3, although missing much information that is found in other colophons of this scribe, may also have been put into its current version in Babylonia at the end of the second millennium or the beginning of the first millennium, and then transmitted to the Assyrian city by travelling scholars or perhaps brought as booty, where it was copied and studied by Nabû-zuqup-kēna.

4. An Extract of an Intermediate Version of the Series (= IMV4) Text BM 86429 Edition and discussion: None. Nougayrol (1967b: 33, n. 6) mentions the tablet and relates it to the šumma immeru omens. 4.1 Edition Transliteration Obverse 1 be udu iš-tu ˹sag.du˺ [na-ak-su … ] 2 be udu iš-tu [sag.du na-ak-su … ] 3 be udu iš-tu s[ag.du na-ak-su … ] 4 be udu iš-tu sag.d[u na-ak-su … ] 5 be udu iš-tu sag.du ˹na-ak-su˺ [ … ] 6 mi-l[um i-il-lak … ] 27

  Frahm (2011: 139, 267 and 305); Frazer (2016b); Hunger (1968, no. 305).   Consider l. 6': -i]l, kur and tuš.

28

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

141

7 be udu iš-tu sag.du na-ak-su i-na-šu ra?-a[p?-ša … ] 8 be udu iš-tu sag.du na-ak-su ˹ú ˺-pa-ṭù-šu i-i[l-lak … ] 9 a-na be-el udu.níta  ? i?-[ … ] 10 be udu iš-tu sag.du na-ak-su ši-in-na-š[u … ] 11 ur.maḫ ? a-n[a … ] 12 be udu iš-tu sag.du na-ak-su ši-in-n[a-šu … ] 13 be udu iš-tu sag.du na-ak-su ši-i[n-na-šu … ] Edge 14 [b]e udu iš-tu sag.du n[a-ak-su … ] 15 [o] ša x-x [ … ] Reverse (Mostly lost but for a few single signs; contains some twelve lines that seem to open the same as the obverse) Translation Obverse 1 If the sheep – after ˹(its) head˺ [is cut – … ]. 2 If the sheep – after [(its) head is cut – … ]. 3 If the sheep – after (its) he[ad is cut – … ]. 4 If the sheep – after (its) hea[d is cut – … ]. 5 If the sheep – after (its) head is cut – [ … ], 6 the flo[od will arrive]. 7 If the sheep – after (its) head is cut – its eyes wi[den … ]. 8 If the sheep – after (its) head is cut – its mucus g[oes … ]. 9 To the client … [ … ]. 10 If the sheep – after (its) head is cut – its teeth [ … ]. 11 a lion t[o … ]. 12 If the sheep – after (its) head is cut – its tee[th … ]. 13 If the sheep – after (its) head is cut – its te[eth … ]. Edge 14 15

If the sheep – after (its) head i[s cut – … ]. [ … ] … [ … ].

Reverse (lost)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

142

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

Fig. 16. BM 86429, Obverse. ©Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 17. BM 86429, Reverse. ©Trustees of the British Museum © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

4. The Intermediate Versions of the šumma immeru Omens

143

4.2 Discussion This small tablet (6.5 × 7 cm), badly broken and defaced, especially on its reverse side, is an extract of šumma immeru omens; see Figs. 16–17. It is in the format of an u’iltu tablet, although note that it is not an oracle report.29 It is difficult to date such a tablet, but we can assume that it is either Late Old Babylonian or Post Old Babylonian on account of its format, script and contents. It is housed in the British Museum and has a BM number; its origin is not recorded. The protases of the tablet are partly preserved. The apodoses are lost but for a few cases in which they continue in an indented line, below the protasis, not in alignment to the left side of the tablet. Unlike the OB version which opens the omens with diš , IMV4 opens with b e, which will be typical also of the SV. The extract represents the intermediate stage of the transition of the series. The phrase ištu sag.du naksu is not found in the OB version we have, but it is present in IMV2 and some sections of the SV. The spelling is mixed––syllabic and logographic, hence not yet at the stage of the SV: as can be seen, some of the body parts are spelled syllabically like the OB version and IMV1, and not logographically. One observable feature (upāṭu, ‘mucus’) will not be met in omens of later versions; it only appears elsewhere in OB §17. Compare ll. 5–8 to OB §17, p. and l. 7 to SV §86'', p. 168. The purpose of the tablet is not given, as it does not contain a colophon, but we can suppose that it was probably used for instruction in the art of divination. Schooling or instructions tablets in this field of knowledge are very difficult to identify, but see the discussion in Chapter 3 regarding the Emar manuscripts of the LBA version, and Chapter 9, Part III.

29

  The tablet was kindly brought to my attention by Ulla Koch, who also supplied me with her preliminary transliteration. The tablet is listed in the BM Collection Online website, but without a photo or any treatment. It is defined as ‘Part of a clay tablet with fifteen and twelve lines of inscription; omens; Old Babylonian’. For the tablet typology, see Koch (2015: 55). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 5

The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens šumma immeru šikitti ajali šakinma qarnāšu kurrâ šalāš marrātušu šalāš ubānātušu ‘If the sheep resembles a deer and its horns are short, its gallbladders will be three; its “Fingers” will be three.’ (SV §16) This chapter will present the latest and last version of the omens. It is called here the Standard Version of the šumma immeru omens (henceforth, SV) and for a reason. At this stage the omens became “canonized” or with the use of a less loaded term, standardized. The many manuscripts that represent this stage are identical or near-identical, furnishing proof that the text before us underwent no more changes. The opening section of the SV compendium, from which a sentence is translated as our header, is novel and not seen in previous versions or other omen collections.

1. Edition Text Sigla Kuyunjik manuscripts A = CT 31 30–33 = 1883-1-18; 410 [P452673; no photo] B = CT 41 9 = K 959 [P393849] C = CT 28 14 + CT 30 27 = K 9166 + K 5876 [P365995] D = CT 30 48 + CT 30 32 = K 8044 + Sm 1257 [P397457] E = Holma (1923), pl. 14 = K 9094 [P397908] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

146

F = AMT, pl. 101, no. 1 = Holma (1923), pl. 8 = K 6756; CT 41 10 = K 4106, K 6983 + K 8345; unpublished joins: K 2180 + K 6756 + K 6939 + K 8912 + K 14855 [ P394240] Uruk manuscripts G = TCL 6 7, pl. 18 = AO 6468 [P363680] H1 = Bagh. Mitt. Beiheft 2, no. 63 obv. = W 20030/102 [P363327 no photo] H2 = Bagh. Mitt. Beiheft 2, no. 63 rev. = W 20030/102 [P363327 no photo] Section 1 §1 A1 [be udu geš]tu 2 ˹kur˺-˹ri ˺ ? [ka] ˹geštu 2 ˺ ḫu-˹uṭ˺-˹ṭím˺-mi kin-ṣi u umbin ge 6 15 šà.ni[gin.meš-šú ] B0 (line missing) C1 [be udu geštu 2 ] ˹kur˺-ri ka geštu 2 ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi kin-ṣi u umbin.meš ge 6 15 šà.nig[in] D1 [be udu geštu 2 kur-ri ka geštu 2 ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi ] kim-ṣu u ṣu-pur ge 6 15 šà.nigin.meš-šú E1 [be udu geštu 2 kur-ri] ka geštu 2 ḫ[u-uṭ-ṭím-mi kin-ṣi u umbin ge 6 15 šà.nigin-šú ] G1 [be udu geštu 2 lúgud.meš ka geštu 2 ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi kin-ṣi u umbin] ge 6 14 šà.˹nigin˺.[meš-šú ] [šumma immeru uz]nā kurrî pû uznā ḫuṭṭimmi kinṣi ṣupur ṣalim 15 (C, G: 14) tīrānūšu [If the sheep, (its) ea]rs are short (and) it is black in regards to the mouth, ears, snout, hocks, and nail-hoof(s), it will have 15 (var. 14) coils of the colon. §2 A2 [be udu] geštu 2 ! gíd.da.meš ka geštu kin-ṣi u umbin ge 6 10 ša.nigin.meš-šú B1 be udu geštu.meš ar-ra-ak-ka igi.meš ge 6 ki-im-ṣa ù ṣú-up- ri [ge 6 10 šà.nigin-šu] C2 [be udu geštu 2 gí ] d.da.meš ka geštu 2 kin-ṣi u umbin.meš ge 6 10 šà.nigin D2 [be udu geštu 2 gíd.da.meš ka geštu]2 kim-ṣu u ṣu-pur ṣa-lim 10 šà.nigin-šú E2 [be udu geštu 2 gíd].da.meš k[a geštu 2 kin-ṣi u umbin ge 6 10 šà.nigin.meš-šú ] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens



G2

147

[be udu geštu 2 gíd.da.meš ka geštu 2 kin]-ṣi u umbin ge 6 10 [šà.nigin.meš-šú]

šumma immeru uznā arrakā pû uznā (B: īnū) kinṣū u ṣuprī ṣalim 10 tīrānūšu [If the sheep], (its) ears are long (and) it is black in regards to the mouth, ears (var. eyes), hocks, and nail-hoofs, it will have 10 coils of the colon. §3 A3 [be ud]u gú ka-bar igi.meš-šú sa 5 .meš 14 šà.nigin.meš-šú B2 be udu gú ka-bar igi.meš-šu sa5 [14 šà.nigin.meš-šu] C3 [be udu gú] ka-bar u igi.meš-šú sa 5 .meš 14 šà.nigin D3 [ … ]x man geštu 2-šú sa 5 ˹14˺! šà.nigin-šú E3 [be udu gú] ka-bar u igi.m[eš-šú sa 5 .meš 14 šà.nigin] G3 [be udu gú ka-bar] igi.meš-šú sa 5 .meš 14 š[à.nigin.meš-šú ] šumma immeru kišādu kabar (C, E: u) īnāšu sāmā 14 tīrānūšu If the sheep, its neck is thick (var. and), its eyes red, it will have 14 coils of the colon. §4 A4 [be ud]u umbin.meš rit !-kub múru-šú sig 18 šà.nigin. meš-šu ina ur 5 kar-tu ˹gar-át˺ ? B3 be udu umbin u 5 .u 5 [múru-šu sig 1]6 ? šà.nigin i-na ur 5 munus kar-[tu4 gar] C4 [be udu um]bin rit-kub múru-šú sig 15 šà.nigin.meš ina ur 5 kar-tu4 gar D4 [be udu ṣu-pur ri-it-ku]-ub múru.meš-šú qat-nu D5 [15 ? šà.nigin.meš] ina ur 5 .úš kar-tu4 gar-át E4 [be udu u]mbin rit-kub ˹múru˺-[šú sig 15 šà.nigin.meš ina ur 5 kar-tu4 gar] G4 [be udu umbin.meš rit-kub] múru-šú sig 15 šà.nigin.meš- šú ina ur 5 ˹ k ar˺-[tu4 gar-at ] šumma immeru ṣuprī ritkub qabalšu qatin 18 (C: 15) tīrānūšu ina amūti nēkemtu šaknat If the sheep, its nail-hoofs lie on top of each other, (and) its waist is thin, 18 (var. 15) coils of the colon; an atrophied mark will be placed in the liver.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

148

§5 A5 [be ud]u mi-na-a-ti gup-pu-uš igi 2 .meš-šú za-ar-ri-qá síg udu.ḫúl-šú ˹bit-rum šà.nigin.meš-šú ˺ A6 nu tuku-ši B4 be udu mi-na-a-ti gu-up-˹pu˺-˹uš ˺ [igi.meš-šu za]-˹ri ˺-qa ša-ra-at ku-uk-kal-[li] B5 bi-it-ru-um [ o o ] šà.nigin nu tu[ku] C5 [be udu mi]-na-a-ti gup-pu-uš igi 2 -šú za-ar-ri-qa síg udu.ḫúl bit !-ru-um šà.nigin n[u tuku] D6 [be udu mi-na-ti gup-p]u-uš igi 2-šú za-ar-ri-qa D7 [síg udu.ḫúl bit-ru-u]m šà.nigin nu tuku-šu E5 [be udu m]i-na-a-ti gup-pu-uš igi 2-šú za-ar-[ri-qa síg udu.ḫúl bit-ru-um šà.nigin nu tuku] G5 [be udu mi-na-a-ti gup]-pu-uš igi 2 .meš-šú za-ar-ri-qá síg udu.ḫúl bit-ru-um š[à.nigin.meš-šú  nu tuku] šumma immeru minâti guppus īnāšu zarriqā šārat gukkallišu bitrum tīrānūšu ul išu [If a shee]p – its size massive, its eyes sparkling, (and) (its) fleece brindled (like that of) a gukkallu-sheep, it will not have coils of the colon. §6 A7 B6 C6 D8 E6 G6

[be udu š ]i-kit-ti a-ra-an-di gar si.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 14 šà.nigin.meš-šu be udu ši-kit-ti a-ra-an-dì gar si.meš-šu ku-˹ur-ra-a˺ ˹14˺ ˹šà˺.nigin-šu [be udu š ]i-kit-ti a-˹ra-an˺-di gar-in si.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš ˹14 šà˺.[nigin-šú ] [be udu ši-kit-ti a-ra-an-d ]ì gar si.meš-šú ! lúgud.meš 14 šà.nigin-šú [be ud]u ši-kit-ti a-ra-an-di gar-i [n si.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 14 šà.nigin-šú ] [be udu ši-kit-ti] a-ra-an-di ! gar-in si.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 14 [šà.nigin.meš-šú ]

šumma immeru šikitti arandi šakin qarnāšu kurrâ 14 tīrānūšu

If the sheep appears like a wild ass, (and) its horns are short, there will be 14 coils of the colon.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

149

§7 A8 [be udu] síg ur.gi 7 gar ḫu-‹uṭ›-ṭím-˹mi ˺ ge 6 zé nu tuku-ši B7 be udu ša-ra-at ur.gi 7 gar ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-[mi ] ṣa-[lim] ˹zé˺ ˹nu˺ [tuku] C7 [be udu] síg ur.gi 7 gar ˹ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi ge 6 ˺ zé nu [tuku] D9 [be udu síg ur.gi 7 gar ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-m]i ṣa-lim zé nu tuku E7 [be ud]u síg ur.gi 7 gar ḫu-u[ṭ-ṭi-im-mi ge 6 zé nu tuku] G7 [be udu síg ur.gi 7 ] ˹gar˺-in ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi ge 6 zé [nu tuku] šumma immeru šārat kalbi šakin ḫuṭṭimmi ṣalim martu ul iši

If the sheep has a fleece of a dog, (its) snout is black, it will not have a gallbladder.

§8 A9 [be udu] ši-kit-ti maš.dà gar síg-su síg ṣú-up-pi maš-lat šu.si nu tuku-ši B8 be udu ši-kit-ti maš.dà gar ša-rat-su a-na ša-rat ṣú-up-pí ma-aš-la-at š[u.si nu tuku] C8 [be udu] ˹ši-kit-ti ˺ [maš.dá gar síg-su síg ṣu-up-pi maš]-lat šu.si nu [tuku] D10 [be udu ši-kit-ti maš.dà gar síg]-su síg ṣu-up-pi maš-lat šu.si nu tuku E8 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti maš.dà gar síg-s[u síg ṣu-up-pi maš-lat šu.si nu tuku] G8 [be udu ši-kit-t]i maš.dà gar-in síg-su šá síg su-up!-pi maš-lat šu.si [nu tuku-ši] šumma immeru šikitti ṣabīti šakin šārassu (B: ana; C: ša) šārat ṣuppi mašlat ubānu ul iši

If the sheep appears like a gazelle, (and) its fleece looks like the fleece of a white sheep, it will not have a ‘Finger’.

§9 A10 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar síg bit-ru-um zé u šu.si nu tuku-ši B9 be udu ši-kit-ti ku-uk-kal-li gar ba-al-ta-am bi-it-ru-u[m] B10 zé ù šu.si nu tu[ku] C9 [be udu ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar síg bit-ru-um zé u] šu.si nu [tuku] D11 [be udu ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar síg bi]t-ru-um zé u u nu tuku E9 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar u síg b[it-ru-um zé u šu.si nu tuku] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

150

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

G9 [be udu ši-kit-t]i udu.ḫúl gar u síg bit-ru-um zé u šu.si [nu tuku-ši ] šumma immeru šikitti gukkalli šakin šārtu (var. B: baltam) bitrum martu u ubānu ul iši If the sheep appears like a gukkallu-sheep, and (its) fleece (var. coat) is brindled, it will have neither a gallbladder nor a finger. §10 [(‘10’) ] A11 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl [gar] ˹gìr˺.meš-šú ana mi-na-ti-šú gíd.da.meš ˹igi˺ anše.kur.ra gar 2-ta 2 zé.meš-šú B11 be udu ši-kit-ti ku-uk-kal-li gar-ma gìr.meš-šú a-na mi-ni-a-ti-šu lal.meš B12 igi anše.kur.ra gar 2 zé-šu C10 [be udu ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar gìr.meš-šú a-na mi-na-ti-šú gíd.da.meš igi anše.kur.ra] gar 2 zé.meš-[šú] D12 [be udu ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar gìr.meš-šú a-na mi-na-ti-šú gíd.d]a.meš u pa-an is-si-i gar 2-ta zé.meš-šú E10 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti udu.ḫul gar-ma gìr.meš-šú [ana mi-na-ti- šú gíd.da.meš igi anše.kur.ra gar 2 zé.meš-šú] G10 [be udu ši-kit-t]i udu.ḫúl gar-ma gìr.meš-šú ana mi-na-t[i-šú ] G11 gíd.da.meš igi anše.kur.ra [gar 2 zé.meš-šú ] H2 1' [be udu ši-kit]-ti [udu.ḫúl gar gìr.meš-šú ana mi-na-ti-šú gíd.da.meš igi anše.kur.ra gar 2 zé.meš-šú ] šumma immeru šikitti gukkalli šakin (B, E, G: šakinma) šēpāšu ana minâtišu arrakā (D: u) pan sīsî šakin šitta (A šina) marrātušu

If the sheep appears like a gukkallu-sheep, (var. and) its feet are abnormally long, (var. and) it has a horse’s face, its gallbladders will be two.

§11 A12 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti udu.ḫ[úl gar] ˹gìr˺.meš-šú ana mi-na-ti-šú ma-ʼ-˹ṭa˺ u kun-su gíd.da-at 3 zé.meš-šú B13 be udu ši-kit-ti ku-uk-kal-li gar ù kun a-rik 3 zé-šu C11 [be udu ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar gìr.meš-šú ana mi-na-ti-šú ma-ʼ-ṭa u kun]-˹su˺ gíd.da-at 3 zé.[meš-šú] D13 [be udu ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar gìr.meš-šú ana mi-na-t]i-šú ma-a-ṭa D14 [u kun-su gíd.da] 3 zé.meš-šú E11 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti udu.ḫúl gar-ma gìr.meš-šú ˹ana˺ [mi-na- ti-šú ma-ʼ-ṭa u kun-su gíd.da-at 3 zé.meš-šú ] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

151

G12 [be udu ši-kit-t]i udu.ḫúl gar-ma gìr.meš-šú ana mi-na-ti-[šú] G12a lúgud-a ù!  k un-su gíd.da-at 3 [zé.meš-šú] H2 2' [be ud]u ši-kit-ti ! udu.ḫ[úl gar-ma gìr.meš-šú ana mi-na-ti-šú lúgud-a  ù kun-su gíd.da-at 3 zé.meš-šú] šumma immeru šikitti gukkalli šakin (E, G: šakinma) šēpāšu ana minâtišu maʼṭâ (G: kurrâ) u zibbassu arkat šalāš marrātušu If the sheep has the appearance of a gukkallu-sheep, (var. and) its feet are abnormally short and its tail long, its gallbladders will be three. §12 A13 be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭ[ím-mi ] ˹ur˺.gi 7 gar-ma umbin.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 2-ta šu.si.meš-šú B14 be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-mi ur.gi 7 gar umbin.meš-šú ar-ra-[ak-ka 2 šu.s]i-˹šú˺ C12 [be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi ur.gi 7 gar-ma umbin.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 2-ta] šu.si.meš-[šú ] D15 [be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi ] ur.gi 7 gar-ma D16 [umbin.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš] 2-ta šu.si.meš-šú E12 [be udu] ˹ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-mi ur.gi 7 gar-ma umbin˺.[meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 2-ta šu.si.meš-šú ] G13 [be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi] ur.gi 7 gar-ma umbin.meš lúgud !.‹da›.meš 2-ta šu.si.[meš-šú ] H1 1' [be udu ḫ]u-uṭ-ṭím-m[e ur.gi 7 gar-ma umbin.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 2-ta šu.si.meš-šú ] H2 3' [be ud]u ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-[me ur.gi 7 gar-ma umbin.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 2-ta šu.si.meš-šú ] šumma immeru ḫuṭṭimmi kalbi šakinma ṣuprāšu kurrâ (B: arra[kā]) šitta ubānātušu If the sheep has a dog’s snout and its nail-hoofs are short (var. lon[g]), its‘Fingers’ will be two. §13 A14 be udu ḫu-˹uṭ-ṭím˺-mi ur.gi 7 gar-ma igi 2-šú sar-ri-qa 3 šu.si.meš-šú B15 be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-mi ur.gi 7 gar igi.meš ˹sig 7 ˺.[meš 3 šu.si.meš] C13 [be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi ur.gi 7 gar-ma igi.meš-šú sar-ri-qa 3] šu.si.m[eš-šú ] D17 [be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi] ur.gi 7 gar-ma © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

152

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

D18 [igi 2-šu sar-ri-qa] 3 u.meš-šú E13 [be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi ur.gi 7 gar]-˹ma˺ igi 2-šú [sar-ri-qa 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] G14 [be udu ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi]-ma ur.gi 7 gar-ma igi 2-šú sar !-ri-qa 3 šu.s[i.meš-šú ] H1 2' [be udu] ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-me-ma [ur.gi 7 gar-ma igi 2-šú sar-ri-qa 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] H2 4' [be ud]u ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-[me-ma ur.gi 7 gar-ma igi2-šú sar-ri-qa 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] šumma immeru ḫuṭṭimmi (G, H: -ma) kalbi šakinma īnāšu sarriqā (B:arqā) šalāš ubānātušu If the sheep has a dog’s snout, and its eyes are speckled (var. are yellow), its ‘Fingers’ will be three. §14 A15 ˹be udu ši ˺-kit-ti dàra ! .maš gar-ma igi.meš-šu sig 7 .meš 2 šu.si.meš-šú B16 be udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš gar-ma igi.meš [sig 7 .meš 2 šu.si.meš-šú ] C14 [be udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš gar-ma igi.meš-šú sig 7 .meš] ˹2˺ šu.si.[meš-šú ] D19 [be udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš gar-ma igi.meš-šú sig 7 .meš] 2 u.meš-šú G15 [be udu ši-kit-t]i dàra.maš gar-ma igi 2.meš-šú sig 7 .meš 2! šu.s[i.meš-šú ] H1 3' [be udu] ši-kit-ti dàra.ma[š gar-ma igi 2.meš-šú sig 7 .meš 2 šu.si.meš-šú ] H2 5' [be ud]u ši-kit-ti dar[à.maš gar-ma igi 2.meš-šú sig 7 .meš 2 šu.si.meš-šú ] šumma immeru šikitti ajali šakinma īnāšu arqā šitta ubānātušu

If the sheep resembles a deer and its eyes are yellow, its ‘Fingers’ will be two.

§15 A16 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti dàra ! .maš gar-ma si.meš-šu gíd.da.meš 3 šu.si.meš-šú B17 be udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš gar-ma si.m[eš gíd.da.meš 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] C15 [be udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš gar-ma si.meš-šú gíd.da.meš 3] šu.si.[meš-šú ] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

153

D20 [be udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš gar-ma si.meš-šú gíd.da.meš] 3 u.meš-šú G16 [be udu ši-kit-t]i dàra.maš gar-ma si.meš-šú gíd.da.meš 3 šu.[si.meš-šú ] H1 4' [be] udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš [gar-ma si.meš-šú gíd.da.meš 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] H2 6' [be ud]u ši-kit-ti dàr[a.maš gar-ma si.meš-šú gíd.da.meš 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] šumma immeru šikitti ajali šakinma qarnāšu arrakā šalaš ubānātušu If the sheep resembles a deer and its horns are long, its ‘Fingers’ will be three. §16 A17 [be ud]u ši-kit-ti dàra ! .maš gar-ma si.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 3 zé.meš-šú 3 ˹šu˺.si.meš-šú B (omits) C (omits) D21 [be udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš gar-ma si.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 3 zé.meš-šú ] 3 u.meš-šú G17 [be udu ši-kit-ti] dàra.maš gar-ma si.meš-šú ˹lúgud.da.meš˺ [3 zé.meš-šú 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] H1 5' [be] udu ši-kit-ti dàra.maš [gar-ma si.meš-šú lúgud.da.meš 3 zé.meš-šú 3 šu.si.meš-šú ] H2 (omits) šumma immeru šikitti ajali šakinma qarnāšu kurrâ šalāš marrātušu šalāš ubānātušu

If the sheep resembles a deer and its horns are short, its gallbladders will be three; its ‘Fingers’ will be three.

§17 A18 [be ud]u ˹si˺ ùz gar-ma u babbar na-gi-il bà-su kak-si-e diri-át (rev.) B18 be udu qar-ni [ùz gar-ma u babbar na-gi-il bà-su kak-si-e mal-at] C16 [be udu si ùz gar-ma u babbar na-gi-il bà-su kak]-si-e mal-[at] D22 [be udu si ùz gar-ma u babbar na-gi-il bà-su ka]-˹ak˺-si-e diri

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

154

H1 6' [b]e udu si ùz gar-ma u babbar n[a-gi-il bà-su ka-ak-si-e diri] H2 7' [be ud]u qar-ni ùz gar-ma ‹u› babbar [na-gi-il bà-su ka-ak- si-e diri] šumma immeru qarnī enzi šakinma u pūṣa nagil amussu kaksê malât If the sheep has the horns of a goat and it is spotted white, its liver will be full of ‘Arrow-head’(-marks). §18 A19 B19 C17 D23 H1 7' H2 8'

be udu si ùz gar-ma síg-su ge 6 -át ki.tuš kur [o-o] i-ka-an be udu qar-ni [ùz gar-ma síg-su ge 6 -át ki.tuš kur i-ka-an] [be udu si ùz gar-ma síg-su ge 6-at ki.tuš] ˹kur˺ i-k[a-an] [be udu si ùz gar-ma síg-su ge 6-a]t ki.tuš kur gub-a[n] [b]e udu si ùz gar-ma u síg-[su ge 6-át ki.tuš kur i-ka-an] [be ud]u qar-ni ùz gar-ma sí[g !-su ge 6-át ki.tuš kur i-ka-an]

šumma immeru qarnī enzi šakinma šārassu ṣalmat šubat māti ikân

If the sheep has the horns of a goat and its fleece is black, the territory of the land will be secure.

§19 A20 be ˹udu umbin.meš-šú˺ : x-x ˹mi˺-na-ti-šu gíd.da.meš ù? x-x-ta ˹šà.nigin˺.‹meš› 2-ta B20 be udu ṣú-up-[ra … ] B21 ù x[ … ] C18 [be udu umbin … mi-na-ti-šú gíd.da.meš … š]à.nigin 2-[ta] D23 [be udu umbin … mi-na-t]i-šú ! gíd.d[a.meš … šà.nigin 2-ta] H1 8' [b]e udu umbin.meš-s[u …] H2 9' [be ud]u ṣú-up-ra-a-su mi-x[…] šumma immeru ṣuprāšu: (H2: ṣuprāssu) … minâtišu arrakā u ? … tīrānūšu šitta

If the sheep, its nail-hooves are … its … are long in regards to its shape and … the coils of the colon will be two.

§20 (‘10’) A21

be ˹udu˺ ši-kit-ti ˹udu.ḫúl gar˺ i[gi 2-šú] ˹sar ?-ri ?˺-iq-qa-a u gìr.meš-šú x.meš ˹udu ur 5 -tu4 ana siskur˺ ! nu dù-uš A22 x x [ … ]x-šú gar-un gim dingir su-up-pi-šú ˹x-at ? ˺ kúr-ka siskur © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens



B22 be udu ši-[kit-ti … ] B23 gìr.m[eš x.meš … ] B24 gar-x [ … ] B25 x[ … ]



C19 [ … ud]u ur 5 -tu4 ana sis[kur] C20 [ … ]-ka ta-˹kar˺-[rab]



D24 [ … ] x [ … ] D25 [ … ] x x [ … ]

155

H1 9' [b]e udu ši-kit-ti udu.ḫu[l gar-ma … ] H1 10' ˹ina? siskur˺ nu dù-uš gar gim ! din[gir … ] H2 11' [ … x].meš udu šu-a-tu a-na x[ … ] H2 12' [ … ] gar-an gim dingir su-[up-pi-šú … ] šumma immeru šikitti gukkalli šakin ī[nāšu] ˹sarr˺iqā ? u šēpāšu x.meš immera šuātu ana niqê la tēppuš (only A: [ … ]x-šu) šukun (H2: tašakkan) kīma ili suppîšu ˹x-at ? ˺ kúr-ka takarrab If the sheep appears like a gukkallu-sheep, its eyes are sparkling and its feet are … Do not sacrifice that sheep. Place his prayer, like (his) god (would) (in front of the great gods); dedicate … of your enemy … Section 2 §21 A23

be udu šub x-x-x [o-o-o gìr 1]5-šú ki i-ḫap-pir šùd ˹lú˺ dingir iš-me



C21

[be udu šub … gìr 15-šú ki i-ḫap-pir šùd] lú dingir i[š-me]



H1 11' [b]e udu egir ka-ra-bi-[ka … ]



šumma immeru nadi … (H1: arki karābi[ka]) [ … šēp imi]ttišu qaqqara iḫappir ikrib amēli ilu išme If the sheep when fallen … (var. after [your] dedication), [ … ] its right [foot] scrapes the ground, the god will have accepted the client’s prayer. §22 A24 be min gìr 150-šú ˹ k i i-ḫap-pir ˺ ana giš tukul šub-˹ti ˺ érin kúr C22 [be min gìr 150-šú ki i-ḫap-pir ana giš tukul] ˹šub-˹ti ˺ [érin kúr] H1 12' [b]e min gìr 150-šú ki [i-ḫap-pir ana giš tukul šub-ti érin kúr] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

156

šumma min šēp šumēlišu qaqqara iḫappir ana kakki miqitti ummān nakri If likewise, its left foot scrapes the ground, the fall of the enemy’s army in battle. §23 A25 be ˹min˺ gìr.meš-šú ki i-ḫap-pi-ra ina sískur lú dingir nu gub-iz ˹ š ùd lú dingir nu˺ iš-me H1 13' [b]e min gìr ! .meš-šú ki [i-ḫap-pi-ra ina siskur lú dingir nu gub-iz šùd lú dingir nu iš-me] šumma min šēpāšu qaqqara iḫappirā ina niqê amēli ilu ul izziz ˹ikrib amēli ilu ul ˺ išme

If likewise, its feet scrape the ground, the god will not have been present at the client’s sacrifice; the god will not have heard the client’s prayer.

§24 A26 be ˹min igi˺.meš-šú ana igi sískur tar-ṣa šùd ˹lú dingir˺ iš-me H1 14' [be] ˹m i n˺ igi2-šú ana [igi siskur tar-ṣa šùd lú dingir iš-me] šumma min īnāšu ana pan niqê tarṣā ikrib amēli ilu išme If likewise, its eyes are extended towards the sacrifice, the god will have heard the client’s prayer. §25 A27 ˹be˺ min igi 15-šú bad-at igi 150-šú dul-at kur-ti šu-mu érin-ni ḫa.la kú H1 15' [be min i]gi 15-šú [bad-at igi 150-šú dul-at kur-ti šu-mu érin-ni ḫa.la kú] šumma min īn imittišu petât īn šumēlišu katmat kišitti qātija ummānī zitta ikkal

If likewise, its right eye is open, its left eye is covered, my conquest; my army will have its share.

§26

be min igi 150-šú bad-at igi 15-šú dul-at kur-ti šu kúr érin kúr ḫa.la kú

A28

šumma min īn šumēlišu petât īn imittišu katmat kišitti qāt nakri ummān nakri zitta ikkal

If likewise, its left eye is open, its right eye is covered, the enemy’s conquest; the enemy’s army will have its share. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

157

§27 A29

be min igi.meš-šu kàt-ma dingir ina sískur lú nu gub-iz šib-šat dingir ana lú gál.meš



šumma min īnāšu katmā ilu ina niqê amēli ul izziz šibsāt ili ana amēli ibaššû



If likewise, its eyes are covered, the god will not have been present at the client’s sacrifice; there will be divine anger against the client.

§28 A30

be min igi 15-šú ér ú-kal ér ana é lú ku 4 -ub

šumma min īn imittišu dīmta ukâl bikītu ana bīt amēli irrub If likewise, it holds tears (in) its right eye, crying will enter the client’s house. §29

A31

be min igi 150-šú ér ú-kal ér ana é ˹en inim-šú ku 4˺-ub

šumma min īn šumēlišu dīmta ukâl bikītu ana bīt ˹bēl amātišu irr˺ub §30

(‘10’)

If likewise, it holds tears (in) its left eye, crying will enter to ˹the house of his adversary˺.

A32

be min ˹igi 2˺.meš-šú ér ú-kal ki.ḫul ina é [lú gál-ši ]

šumma min īnāšu dīmta ukâl kiḫullû ina bīt [amēli ibašši ]

If likewise, it holds tears (in) both its eyes, mourning rituals [will be held] in the [client’s] house.

§31 A33

be ˹min geštu˺ 15-šú ana igi sískur tar-ṣa-at dingir ina sískur [lú gub-iz šùd lú dingir iš-me]

šumma min uzun imittišu ana pan niqê tarṣat ilu ina niqê [amēli izziz ikrib amēli ilu išme]

If likewise, its right ear is stretched towards the sacrifice, the god [will have been present] at the [client’s] sacrifice; [the god will have heard the client’s prayer].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

158

§32 A34

be min geštu 150-šú ana igi sískur tar-ṣa-at dingir ina sískur [lú nu gub-iz  šùd lú dingir nu iš-me]

šumma min uzun šumēlišu ana pan niqê tarṣat ilu ina niqê [amēli ul izziz ikrib amēli ilu ul išme]

If likewise, its left ear is stretched toward the sacrifice, the god [will not have been present] at the [client’s] sacrifice; [the god will not have heard the client’s prayer].

§33 A35 be ˹min˺ geštu 2-šú ana ki.min dingir ina sískur [lú gub-iz šùd lú dingir iš-me] šumma ˹min˺ uznāšu ana ki.min ilu ina niqê [amēli izziz ikrib amēli ilu išme] If likewise, its ears likewise (are stretched) toward (the sacrifice), the god [will have been present] at the [client’s] sacrifice; [the god will have heard the client’s prayer]. §34 A36

˹be min geštu 2-šú ana egir-šú ki.min dingir ina sís˺[kur lú nu gub-iz šùd lú dingir nu iš-me]

šumma min uznāšu ana arkišu ki.min ilu ina ni [qê amēli ul izziz ikrib amēli ilu ul išme] If likewise, its ears likewise (are stretched) to the back (of the sacrifice), the god [will not have been present] at the [client’s] sacri[fice; the god will not have heard the client’s prayer]. (Textual break) §35'

F1'

[be min …

]

§36'

F2'

[be min …

]x

§37'

F3'

[be min …

]x

§38'

F4'

[be min …

]x

§39'

F5'

[be min …

]x

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

159

§40'

F6'

[be min …

]-na?

§41'

F7'

[be min …

]-ru

§42'

F8'

[be min …

]-ri?

§43'

F9'

[be min …

]-lu

§44' F10' [be min … dingir ina sískur lú (nu) gub-iz šùd lú (nu) dingir iš]-me [šumma min … ilu ina niqê amēli (ul) izziz ikrib amēli ilu (ul) iš]me [If likewise, … the god will (not) have been present at the client’s sacrifice; the god will (not) have he]ard [the client’s prayer]. §45' F11' [be min … dingir ina sískur] ˹lú gub-iz šùd lú dingir iš ˺-me [šumma min … ilu ina niqê ] amēli izziz ikrib amēli ilu išme

[If likewise, … the god] will have been present at the client’s [sacrifice]; the god will have heard the client’s prayer.

§46' F12' [be min] x x x x [dingir i]na sískur ˹lú nu ! gub-iz šùd lú dingir nu iš ˺-me [šumma min] x x x x [ilu i]na niqê amēli ul izziz ikrib amēli ilu ul išme [If likewise,] … [the god a]t the client’s sacrifice will not have been present; the god will not have heard the man’s prayer. §47'

F13'

[be min … ud]u ? [o-o-o] ˹izi˺.gar tas-ri-ir-ru šub-ti érin-ni

[šumma min … imme]ri ? ˹niphu˺ tasrirru miqitti ummāni [If likewise, … of the shee]p … unreliable omen; falsehood; the fall of the army. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

160

§48' F14' [be min a.gar.gar]-˹šu˺ i-zàr-ra-ar ˹dingir˺ ina sískur lú gub-iz šùd lú dingir iš-me F15' [x-x]-x dumu lú i-šab téš-mu-ú u silim-mu ina kur gál-ši [šumma min piqanni ]šu izarrar ilu ina niqê amēli izziz ikrib amēli ilu išme [x-x]-x mār amēli išâb tešmû u salīmu ina māti ibašši [If likewise,] it drops its [droppings], the god will have been present at the man’s sacrifice, the god will have heard the man’s prayer; [alternative]ly the client’s son will grow old; there will be compliance and well-being in the land. §49'

F16'

be min ia-as-su ina šà udu.níta ur 5 .úš silim-át

šumma min iassu ina libbi immeri amūtu šalmat If likewise, it gurgles, the oracle inside the sheep will be favourable. §50'

F17'

be min igi 2-šú ana na.ne ú-tar-ra-aṣ u iṣ-ṣa-na-aḫ ana érin-mu dingir.meš-šá gur.meš-ši

šumma min īnēšu ana qutrīni utarraṣ u iṣṣannaḫ ana ummānija ilānūša iturrūši

If likewise, it turns its eyes towards the censer and it voids itself, to my army – its gods will return to it.

§51' F18' be min igi 2-šú ana igi sískur tar-ṣa-ma dingir-la11 ˹igi˺.meš šùd lú dingir iš-me šumma min īnāšu ana pan niqê tarṣāma ila īmurā ikrib amēli ilu išme If likewise, its eyes are turned to face the sacrifice and they see the god, the god will have heard the client’s prayer. §52' F19' be min igi 2-šu ú-zaq-qa-pi geštu 2-šú igi 2-šú gaz.meš érin-ni érin kúr gaz-˹ak˺ šumma min īnēšu uzaqqap(i) uznāšu īnāšu ḫepû ummānī ummān nakri idâk

If likewise, it protrudes its eyes; its ears and its eyes tremble, my army will kill the enemy’s army. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

§53' F20'

161

be min igi-šú šá 150 ér geštu 2-šú šá 15 u ˹150˺ sìg.meš-aṣ bar udu gaz kúr

šumma min īnšu ša šumēli ibki uznāšu ša imitti u šumēli umaḫḫaṣ uššur immera dūk nakra

If likewise, its left eye cries; it waves its right and left ears, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy!

§54' F21' be min im-ba-a is-si-ma ku-tal-la-˹šú˺ u-nar-raṭ bar udu gaz kúr šumma min imbâ issima kutallašu unarraṭ uššur immera dūk nakra If likewise, it bleats and shakes its back, let go of the sheep, kill the enemy! Section 3 §55' F22' be udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú gim ú.nínda sa 5 .meš ina šà udu.˹níta˺ ur 5 .úš silim-át giš tukul ul-lu-uṣ šà-bi érin-ni šumma immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu kīma illuri sāmū ina libbi immeri amūtu šalmat kakki ulluṣ libbi ummāni If the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is like a red flower, inside the sheep the extispicy will be well; a ‘Weapon’(-mark) (equals) joy for the army. §56' F23' be udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú babbar.meš lu-úp-nu é lú dib-bat šumma immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu peṣû lupnu bīt amēli iṣabbat If the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is white, poverty will seize the client’s household. §57'

F24'



˹be˺ udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú sig 7 .meš [o] ki.ḫul ina é lú šub-di ˹šumma˺ immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu arqū kiḫullû ina bīt amēli inaddi

If the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is yellow, mourning will take place in the client’s house. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

162

§58' F25' [be] udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú ana a gur.meš lú ina ˹ b ir-aḫ é-šú ˺ ˹i-ma-át˺ [šumma] immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu ana mê iturrū amēlu ina sapāḫ bītišu ˹imât˺ [If] the sheep is slaughtered and its blood turns into water, the client – upon the squandering of his household – will ˹die˺. §59' F26' [be] udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú ana uzu.ì.udu gur.meš gaba.rá ina é lú ˹gál˺-ši

[šumma] immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu ana lipê iturrū rapās irti ina bīt amēli ibašši

[If] the sheep is slaughtered and its blood turns into sheep fat, there will be “pounding of the breast” in the client’s house. §60' F27' [be] udu šum-ma úš.meš-šu ana ugu gur.meš kur bad 4 dib-bat [šumma] immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu ana muḫḫi iturrū mātu dannatu iṣabbat

[If] the sheep is slaughtered and its blood returns to the top (of its head), a disaster will fall upon the land.

§61' F28' [be] udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú babbar ina udu sa 5 ! ina šà udu.níta ur 5 .úš silim-át [šumma] immeru ṭabiḫma damū peṣû ina immeri sāmū ina libbi immeri amūtu šalmat [If] the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is white, (but) inside the sheep it is red, inside the sheep the oracle will be favourable. §62' F29'

[be] udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú babbar u sa 5 bal-lu gaba-raḫ-ḫu

[šumma] immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu peṣûtu u sāmūtu ballū gabaraḫḫu

[If] the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is mixed with white and red, rebellion. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

§63' F30'

163

[b]e udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú babbar u ge 6 bal-lu šà.ḫul

[šum]ma immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu peṣûtu u ṣalmūtu ballū lumun libbi

[I]f the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is mixed with white and black, grief.

§64'

be udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú nu gál.meš taq-ti-it bal-e

F31'

šumma immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu ul ibaššû taqtīt palê If the sheep is slaughtered and there is no blood, the end of the dynasty. §65' F32' be udu šum-ma úš.meš-šú babbar šá ú-taš-ši-ra lú i-bí-za igi-mar šumma immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu peṣû ša utaššira amēlu ibissâ immar

If the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is white, although he was released (from debt), the client will experience loss.

§66' F33' be udu šum-ma ta re-še-ti ana še-pi-ti it-˹ta˺-bal-kit dingir ina su lú ú-da-ap-par šumma immeru ṭabiḫma ištu rēšēti ana šēpīti ittabalkit ilu ina zumri amēli udappar

If the sheep is slaughtered and it turns itself over from head to feet, the god will leave the client’s person.

§67'

be udu šum-ma ki kun-su gar gú-su gar nun kur-su bal-su

F34'

šumma immeru ṭabiḫma ašar zibbassu šaknu kišāssu šakin rubû māssu ibbalakkassu If the sheep is slaughtered and it places its neck where its tail is located, the prince – his country will revolt against him. §68'

F35'

be udu šum-ma bal-it ši-ni-it umuš-mi



šumma immeru ṭabiḫma ibballakit šinīt ṭēmi



If the sheep is slaughtered and turns around, change of plan. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

164

§69'

F36'

[be udu] šum-ma it-ru-ur ḫat-˹tu4˺ ana šà uru šub-ta

[šumma immeru] ṭabiḫma itrur ḫattu ana libbi āli imaqquta [If the sheep] is slaughtered and it quivers, fear will fall upon the city. Section 4 §70'

F37' [be udu ta kud-su gìr.meš igi igi.me]š it-ru-ṣa-˹ma˺ [egi]r.meš ˹ik-nu-uš-ma˺ ip-pu-uṣ sag-su F38' [ … ]x x x[ … m]e.ni ne-pil-ku ! silim ka-bi-i[s !]

[šumma immeru ištu naksu šēpā pan īn]ē itruṣāma [ark]āti iknušma ippuṣ qaqqassu [ … bāb e]kalli nepelku šulmu kabi [s] §71'

[If the sheep after its slaughter, (its) feet] stretch [towards (its) ey]es and it bends backwards and kicks its head. [... the ‘Palace g]ate’ is wide open; the ‘Well-being’ is effac[ed].

F39' [ …

]x-ap?-ti g u 4 -u d -iṭ-k[a?]

[ …

] … šiḫiṭk[a?]

[ …

] … your attack …

§72' F40' [ …

ku]n-su 3-šú! kun-šu ip-p[u-uṣ]

[ …

zibb]assu šalāšīšu zibbassu! ipp[uṣ]



F41'

[…

] x x

[o]

[ …

] its [ta]il; three times it thras[hes] its! tail [ … ] …

Section 5 §73' F42' [ …

]x ka-bi-[is]

[ …

]x kabi[s] ]x is effac[ed].

[ … §74' F43'

[…

[ …

n]u/k]úr téš.bi ? [… ] ]…[…]

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

§75' F44'

165

[…]xx

[ … (Textual Break)

]…

Section 6 §76''

(rev.)

A7' ˹ be udu˺ [ta kud-su … ] A8' ur 5 babbar-át [ … ] A9' ina ur 5 qú-lum um eg[ir? … ] ˹ šumma immeru˺ [ištu naksu … ] amūtu peṣât […] ina amūti qūlum [ … ] ˹ If the sheep˺ [ – after it has been slaughtered … ] The liver is pale [ … ] In the liver, there is a (mark of) ‘Silence’ … [ … ] §77''

(‘10’ )

A10' be udu ta kud-su tu-maš-šar-šu [ … kal u] A11' silim kab-su ki-šu-nu giš tukul 150 [ … ] A12' kak.zag.ga ina kal-šú gam !-iš 15-iš nigin ana x x [ … ] šumma immeru ištu naksu tumaššaršu [ … danānu u] šulmū kabsū ašrišunu kakku šumēla [ … ] kaskasu ina danānišu pališ ! imniš saḫir ana … [ … ] If the sheep – after it has been slaughtered – you let go of it, … [ … the ‘Strength’ and] the ‘Well-being’ will have been obliterated; from their place the ‘Weapon’ to the left is … [ … ] (and) the breastbone will have been pierced at its ‘Strength’; it will have turned to the right; to the … [ … ]. §78'' A13' be udu ta kud-su úš.meš-šu nu è.meš til.la ip-pu-uṣ s[ag-su … ] A14' nu kù sískur tag-ut kak-su-ú gar la ta!-ta-kal me ! -a n[u gar-an … ] šumma immeru ištu naksu damūšu la aṣû baliṭ ippuṣ qa[qqassu … ] la ellu niqê ilput kaksû šakin la tatakkal ! qabâ ! l[a tašakkan … ]

If the sheep – after it has been slaughtered – none of its blood comes out, and while still alive, it kicks [its] he[ad … ], © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

166



an impure person has touched the sacrificial animal; an ‘Arrow’(-mark) is placed; do not trust (any of the favourable signs)! [Do] n[ot make] a prediction!

§79'' A15' be udu ta kud-su úš.meš-šu gim ga-am-‹li› ú-sar-ra-aḫ zú.meš ˹ú˺-[kaṣṣaṣ … ] A16' 3-šú ip-ti egir.meš-šú i-raq-qu-da igi.meš-šú tar-ṣa u su tag.tag ina šà-š[ú … ] A17' sal.la du 8 im kar kar zé záḫ šu.si dar-at u 12 šà.nigin silim gig x [o] šumma immeru ištu naksu damēšu kīma gam‹li› usarraḫ šinnī ˹u˺[kaṣṣaṣ … ] šalāšīšu ipte arkātušu iraqqudā maḫrātušu tarṣa u zumru lupput ina libbiš[u … ] ruqqi piṭir šāri nēkemtu ekmet martu ḫalqat ubānu šatqat u 12 tīrānū šulum marṣi … [ … ]

If the sheep – after it has been slaughtered – it sprinkles out its blood like (in the shape of) the gam‹lu› weapon, it ch[atters] (its) teeth …[…and], it opens (its mouth) three times, its hind (legs) prance; its front (legs) are stretched; and its body smeared (with blood); in its innards … [ … ], the ‘Narrow Place of the Wind Cleft’ will be stunted by an atrophy; the gallbladder will be missing; the ‘Finger’ will be split; and there will be 12 coils of the colon; the recovery of the sick client … [ … ].

§80'' A18' be udu ta kud-su úš.meš-šu nu gál.meš šà udu bad-ma ina šà udu.níta ! ur 5 -ut záḫ kun-su tar-[iq] (‘10’) A19' úš.meš-šú è.meš-ni sag.du udu gaz-ma ur 5 igi tá-mit la i-‹ … › ta-qab-bi šu-du-ud me-a nu g[ar-an] (rev.)



F1' F2'

[ … ]x [ … ]x

šumma immeru ištu naksu damūšu la ibaššû libbi immeri petima ina libbi immeri amūtu ḫalqat zibbassu tar[iq] damūšu aṣûni qaqqad immeri gaz-ma amūta biri tamīt la i-‹ … › taqabbi šudud qabâ la ta[šakkan]

If the sheep after its slaughter – there is no blood; the innards of the sheep are opened and inside of the sheep – the liver will be missing; (If) its tail thum[ps], its blood rushes out, you will cut off the sheep’s head and check the omen. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens



167

You may say: “The oracle question which is not … ”. Pay attention! Do not m[ake] a prediction.

§81'' A20' be udu ta kud-su sag.du udu eme na-siq gìr.meš-šú igi.meš-ti egir.meš ki-ma 4 ki-si it-gu-ra A21' kun-su i-tar-rak nim-šu-šu šá ! 15 ana igi.meš-šú-nu šá 150 ana egir-šu-nu nam-šu ! A22' ina šà udu bùr 150 duḫ 150 si 4 150 gar.meš lú.ḫal igi.bar-ma i-ḫad-du F3' [ … ]x F4' [kun-su i-tar-rak] ˹nim-šu-šú šá 15˺ [ana igi.meš šá ] ˹150 ana˺ [eg ir -šu-nu nam-š ]u F5' [ina šà udu bùr 150 duḫ 1]50 si 4 150 gar.˹meš ! ˺ lú.ḫal i[gi.bar-ma i-ḫad-d ]u šumma immeru ištu naksu qaqqad immeri lišāna nasiq šēpāšu maḫrāti arkāti kīma 4 kīsi itgurā zibbassu itarrak nimšūšu ša! imitti ana panišunu ša šumēli ana arkišunu namšū! ina libbi immeri šīlu šumēla piṭru šumēla sāmu šumēla šaknū bārû immarma iḫaddu

If the sheep – after it has been slaughtered – the sheep’s head bites (its) tongue; its forelegs and its hind-legs are intertwined like four (strings) of a pouch; it thumps its tail; its right sinews are taught towards their front (and) the left towards their rear; the diviner will see that inside the sheep are located a hole on the left, a fissure on the left, (and) redness on the left, and he will be satisfied.

Section 7 §82'' A23' be sag udu a kud igi 15-šú bad-te ú-kat-tam šib-sat dingir ana lú F6' [be sag] udu a kud igi 15-šú bad-te u ú-kàt-tam ši [b-sat dingir ana lú]

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu īn imittišu ipte (F: u) ukattam šibsāt ili ana amēli



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – it opens (var. and) then shuts its right eye, anger of the god directed against the client. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

168

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

§83'' A24' be sag udu a kud igi 150-šú bad-te ú-kat-tam ta-a-a-rat dingir ana lú F7' [be sa]g udu a kud igi 150-šú bad-te u ú-kàt-tam ˹ta-a˺-[a- rat dingir ana lú]

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu īn šumēlišu ipte (F: u) ukattam tajārat ili ana amēli



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – it opens (var. and) then shuts its left eye, the god’s show of mercy towards the client.

§84'' A25' be sag udu a kud igi 15-šú bad-at igi 150-šú kat-mat érin-ni érin kúr ina mè gaz F8' [be s]ag udu a kud igi 15-sú bad-at igi 150-šú kàt-mat ˹érin˺-[ni érin kúr ina mè ga]z

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu īn imittišu petât īn šumēlišu katmat ummānī ummān nakri ina taḫāzi idâk



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its right eye is open, its left eye covered, my army will defeat the enemy’s army in battle.

§85'' A26' be sag udu a kud igi 150-šú bad-at igi 15-šú kat-mat érin kúr érin-ni ina mè gaz F9' [be s]ag udu a kud igi 150-šú bad-at igi 15-šú kàt-mat érin [kúr érin-ni ina mè ga]z

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu īn šumēlišu petât īn imittišu katmat ummān nakri ummānī ina taḫāzi idâk

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its left eye is open its right eye is covered, the enemy’s army will defeat my army in battle. §86'' A27' be sag udu a kud igi 2.meš-šú ú-rap-pa-áš sag-bá-an ana lú lugal ina é.gal-šú šúr-iz F10' [be sa]g udu a kud igi 2-šú ú-rap-pa-áš ˹sag-‹bá›-an ana˺ l[ú lugal ina é.gal-šú šúr-iz] šumma rēš immeru ištu naksu īnīšu urappaš sagban(u) ana amēli šarru ina ekallišu izziz © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

169

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – it widens its eyes, a disease upon the client; the king will be angry in his palace. §87''

(‘10’)



A28' F11'

be sag udu a kud igi 15-šú úš diri-at šub-ti érin-ni [be s]ag udu a kud ˹igi˺ ˹15-šú˺ [úš] diri-at šub-t [i érin-ni]

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu īn imittišu dama malât miqitti ummāni

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its right eye is full of blood, the fall of (my) army.

§88'' A28a' : be sag udu a kud igi 150-šú úš diri-at šub-ti érin kúr F12' ˹be˺ sag udu a kud igi 150-šú úš diri-at šub-t[i érin kúr] : šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu īn šumēlišu dama malât miqitti ummān nakri

: If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its left eye is full of blood, the fall of the enemy’s army.

§89" A29' be sag udu a kud igi 2.meš-šú úš.meš diri.meš šub-ti ‹érin› meš-ti F13' be sag udu a kud igi 2-šú úš diri.meš šub-t[i érin meš-ti] šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu īnāšu damē (F: dama) malâ miqitti ‹ummāni› matti

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its eyes are full of blood, the fall of a numerous ‹army›.

Section 8 §90''

A30' F14'

be sag udu na-ḫi-ri-šú ú-gan-na-aṣ dam lú in-nak be sag udu na-ḫi-ri-šú ú-gan-na-aṣ dam lú [in-nak]

šumma rēš immeri naḫīrīšu ugannaṣ aššat amēli innâk If the sheep’s head wrinkles its nostrils, the client’s wife will fornicate.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

170

§91''

A30a' : be sag udu ap-pa-šú it-ta-na-áš-ši é lú bir-aḫ F15' be sag udu ap-pa-šú it-ta-na-aš-ši é lú [bir-aḫ]



šumma rēš immeri appašu ittanašši bīt amēli isappaḫ

If the sheep’s head continuously lifts up its nose, the client’s household will go to ruin. §92''

A31'

be sag udu ap-pa-šú ik-ta-na-li-iṣ lú i.bí.za igi-mar



F16'

be sag udu ap-pa-šú ik-ta-na-li-iṣ lú [i.bí.za igi-mar]

šumma rēš immeri appašu iktanalliṣ amēlu ibissâ immar If the sheep’s head continuously contracts its nose, the client will experience losses. Section 9 §93'' A32' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum-su an.ta iš-šuk u 5 .anše šá uru-ka lugal ana kúr sum-in F17' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum-su an.ta iš-šuk u 5 .anše šá [uru-ka lugal ana kúr sum-i]n šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapassu elīta iššuk rākib imēri ša ālika šarru ana nakri inaddin If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – bites its upper lip, the king will hand over your city’s courier to the enemy. §94'' A33' be sag kúr-ka F18' be sag kúr-ka

udu ta kud-su nundum-su ki.ta iš-šuk u 5 .anše šá kúr ana lugal sum-in udu ta-su nundum-su ki.ta iš-šuk u 5 .an[še šá kúr ana lugal sum-i]n



šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapassu šaplīta iššuk rākib imēri ša nakrika nakru ana šarri inaddin



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – bites its lower lip, the enemy will hand over the courier of your enemy to the king.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

171

§95'' A34' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum-su an.ta ana 15 iš-šuk u 5 .anše záḫ-ma ad.ḫal ! è.meš F19' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum-su an.ta ana 15 iš-šuk ˹u 5 ˺ ! .[anše záḫ-ma ad.ḫal è].meš

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapassu elīta ana imitti iššuk rākib imēri innabbitma pirišta ušteneṣṣi



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – bites its upper lip at the right-side, the courier will desert and will reveal all the secrets.

§96" A35' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum-su ki.ta ana 150 iš-šuk gaba.ri F20' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum-su ki.ta ana 150 i [š-šuk gaba.r]i šumma rēš immeri ištu nakšu šapassu šaplīta ana šumēli iššuk gabarû If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – bites its lower lip at the left-side, the same apodosis (but to the enemy). §97'' A36' ˹be sag udu˺ ta kud-su ina nundum-šú ki i-ḫe-er-re šà.ḫúl F21' be sag udu ta kud-su ina nundum.meš-šú ki i-ḫe-e[r-re šà.ḫ]ul

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu ina šaptišu (F: šapātišu) qaqqara iḫerre lumun libbi



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – scrapes the ground with its lip (var. its lips), there will be grief.

§98'' [(‘10’)]

A37' [be] sag udu ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú ú-ta-ra-aṣ uz-zi dingir ana na F22' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú ú-tar-ra-˹aṣ˺ [uz-zi dingir ana] kur šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapātišu utarrraṣ uzzi ili ana amēli (F: māti)

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – stretches its lips, divine anger towards the client (var. [towards] the land). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

172

§99'' A38' F23'

[be] ˹sag udu˺ ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú íl.íl dingir ana lú šùr-iz be sag udu ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú íl.íl [ … ]-x

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapātišu ittanašší ilu ana amēli izziz (F: ]x)

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – continuously lifts up its lips, the god will be furious with the client (var. unclear).

§100'' A39' [be sa]g udu ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú iš-ta-na-da-ad inim munus sig 5 te-a F24' be sag udu ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú iš-ta-na-da-a[d inim munus sig 5 i-ṭe-e]ḫ-ḫi šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapātišu ištanaddad amātu damiqtu iṭeḫḫâ (F: [iṭe]ḫḫi)

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – stretches out its lips, good news will arrive to me (var. [will arri]ve).

§101'' A40' F25'

[be sag] udu min nundum.meš-šú i-lam-ma-am dingir kú be sag udu ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú i-lam-ma-am […]-x

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapātišu ilammam ilu ikkal (F: ]x) If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – will chew its lips, the god will eat (i.e., pestilence) (var. unclear). §102'' A40a' : be sag udu min ap-pa-šú ú-na-pa-aḫ u 4 .meš nun gíd.meš F26' [be] sag udu ta kud-su ap-pa-šú ú-nap-pa-a[ḫ u 4 .meš nun gíd.m]eš šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu appašu unappaḫ ūmū rubê irrikū



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – will blow its nose, the prince’s reign will be prolonged. §103'' A41' F27'

[be sag udu] ˹min˺ a.u 5 .ka ge 6 érin-ni ṣu-mu dib-bat­­ [be] sag udu ta kud-su a.u 5 .ka ge 6 [érin-ni ṣu-mu dib]-bat

[šumma] rēš immeri ištu naksu liq pî tarik ummānī ṣūmu iṣabbat © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

173

If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its palate is dark, thirst will seize my army. §104'' A41a' : be sag udu min na-kap-ti 15-šú ge 6 en sískur i-ba-˹lu˺-uṭ F28' be sag udu ta kud-su na-kap-ti 15-šú g[e 6 en sískur i-ba-l]u-uṭ šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu nakkapti imittišu tarkat bēl niqê iballuṭ If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its right temple is dark, the sacrificer will live. §105'' A42' [be sag ud]u min na-kap-ti 150-šú ge 6 en sískur úš-it F29' be sag udu ta kud-su na-kap-ti 150-˹šú˺ [ge 6 en sískur úš-i]t

šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu nakkapti šumēlišu tarkat bēl niqê mēt



If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – its left temple is dark, the sacrificer is dead.

2. Commentary §1 Collation of C1 shows 10+4. The first omen is also quoted in the Assyrian Library Records; see pp. 349–350. §2 Manuscript B1 has ar-ra-ak-ka for arrakā; the form is cited erroneously in CAD/A/2: 303b (ar-ra-ak). §3 D3 is poorly written. Is the logogram m a n a mistake for ‘u’? The entry geštu 2 is a mistake for igi.meš-šu. §4 The technical term nēkmetu, written logographically as (munus) kar-tu/tu4, is thought to mean ‘recess’ or ‘hidden mark’ on the liver, as Jeyes (1989: 87– 88) defines this term, or an atrophied part, according to Starr (1990: liii). The result of such a mark is a disaster, as explained by Bārûtu Ch. 10 (Multābiltu commentary), Tablet 1 (Koch 2005, no. 2, 95): nēkemtu : nēkemtumma, ‘an atrophied mark (in the protasis)’ means ‘disaster (in the apodosis). In the © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

174

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

mukallimtu commentary for the manzāzu, the mark was judged as the equivalent of the kakku, ‘the Weapon’: nēkemtu kīma kakkimma tuštabbal, ‘You estimate the atrophied mark like a ‘Weapon’(-mark); Koch (2000: 136, no. 25). The apodosis is here obviously negative, sparked by the look of the animal: the thin waist of the animal, as if suffering from hunger, is a signal for a negative sign in its insides. The logogram ur 5 (= ḫar) or ur 5 .úš (= ḫar.bad) may stand for têrtu, ‘liver’ or ‘extispicy’, ‘extispicy procedure’; see CAD/T: 364–367 (which indeed transliterates the logogram in the SV and other texts as such). However, that the writing ur 5 .úš is to be understood in this text as amūtu ‘liver, omen’ is made clear by UC1, obv. 22' (p. 203), which gives the following equation: ˹ ur 5 ˺.úš : a-mutu, ‘liver, omen’. The term is written as either ur 5 or ur 5 .úš, as the two variants can be seen in the different manuscripts. For example in §4, A4, B3 and G4 have ur 5 but D5 has ur 5 .úš. §5 This entry and §§10, 11, and 19, are concerned with the size of the animal or the proportions of its organs. To express the size the term used is minâtu (Sg. minītu), ‘normal size’; CAD/M/2: 86–89. Compare this omen to the optimum body required of the sacrificial ram in the extispicy ritual: puḫādu ella qudduša ša minâtušu šalmā tanakkis, ‘you will slaughter a clean, pure ram of perfect proportions’; BBR nos. 98–99 (= CAD/M/2: 88); see pp. 35, 316 and 365. The wool of the sacrificial sheep is said to be bridled like that of a gukkallusheep, which is a variety of fat-tailed sheep, if one follows the Sumerian etymology of its name. Written as udu.ḫúl, this sign combination has a reading in the lexical tradition as gu-uk-kal, or gukkal, which has to be reconstructed and subsequently interpretated as *kun.gal, Sumerian ‘big tail’; see Steinkeller (1995: 51) and CAD/G: 126–127. The sheep’s eyes are said to be zarriqā, ‘speckled or sparkling’ or perhaps even ‘red-like’. The adjective specifically refers to the eyes, either of a human or an animal; CAD/Z: 69–70. See also Chapter 7.10, p. 260. The condition is also met in the šumma izbu omens refering to the eyes of the miscarried foetus; Tablet 10, §§24–25 and 46 (= De Zorzi 2014: 617, 613, 633, and 79). For further discussion, see Fincke (2000: 250–252). §6 The sheep’s shape––šikittu––is of concern here and of the following omens (§§ 8–11 and §§14–16). The word šikittu, ‘stature, figure’ appears to designate, apart from its appearance in the SV (and only in this version of the omens and not in other versions), the shape or plan of building, typically palaces or temples. In one omen compendium, it is said that the ṣibtu (‘increment’) has the appearance (šikittu) of the liver (an Old Babylonian ṣibtu compendium; YOS 10 35 33; cited in CAD/Š/II: 431). The word, notablly, does not appear in the šumma izbu omens. Hence, the comparison in this entry, as well as in the following, does not base itself on šumma izbu omens. In this omen, the sheep’s shape is compared to that of a wild ass. The protasis is cited by CAD/A: 212a, sub araddu, ‘wild ass’. The choice of araddu or arandu, © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

175

‘wild ass’, is rather strange, because the word itself is very rare. Apart from the mention here, it features in a lexical list from the Middle Babylonian period (CBS 8538 [P263338]; see DCCLT), where it is equated with anše.edin.na (otherwise equaled with Akkadian sirrimu; CAD/S: 318). This lexical list gives the syllabic spelling on its left-hand side, followed by the Sumerian or logographic writing. For the most part where identifiable, the entries of this lexical list are animals. The word arad(d)u has been compared to Hebrew ārōd, ‘wild ass’ and can be classified as a West Semitic word; Militarev and Kogan (2005: 56–58), with previous literature. The second part of the protasis contains more information about the way the sheep looks: it specifies that its horns must be short. §7 Next for comparison comes the sheep’s fleece which is likened to that of a dog, with no further specifications. §8 Two conditions must be met here: the sheep should look like a gazelle (ṣabītu) and its fleece should be like the fleece of a ṣuppu type of sheep, probably a white and curly fleece; CAD/Ṣ: 249. This type of sheep was used for divination: it is mentioned in the Ritual of the Diviner (Starr 1983: 30), l. 3, and as the sacrificial animal in an extispicy procedure of the Mari diviner Asqudum; Durand (1988, no. 29). §9 B9 adds to the sentence baltam, ‘coat’ (CAD/B: 143, sub baštu, left, however, without a translation). Collation has shown that the final um sign in bitru[m] is visible. CAD/B: 103, sub barāmu, translates as ‘it is brindled in its magnificent (fleece)’. Note the mimation in both words. §10 B11 is clearly mistaken by writing lal.meš, taken from the next entry. It then misses the part of the next entry (§11). D12 writes is-si-i for sīsî, ‘horse’. The phrase 2-ta 2 zé.meš-šú should be understood as šitta šina marrātušu, ‘its gallbladders will be two’. The numeral 2 is a logographic writing for šina, ‘they’ (fem. pl.), and not šina, ‘two’. Compare this phrase: šitta šina mārāt Ani, ‘the daughters of Anu are two’ (CAD/Š/III: 34a and 36a). Only ms. A transmits the phrase correctly (reading with the lectio difficilior). The other mss. (C10 and D12) give a simplified version. §11 B13 omits gìr.meš-šú ana mi-na-ti-šú lál.meš. For lal.meš equaling ma’ṭâ, see CAD/M/1: 431a; Meissner (1933: 120). G12' writes l ú g u d (with two horizontals inside the ‘laga b ’ box), equivalent to kurrâ, ‘short’. §12 E12 is barely preserved, hence restored on the base of the other manuscripts. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

176

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

§13 B15 substitutes sarriqā, ‘sparkling’, with sig 7 (arqā), ‘green’, because of its confusion with the next entry. §15 In this entry and in what follows, A writes síg.maš for dàra.maš, ajalu, ‘deer’. §17 Following the understanding of pūṣa nagil by De Zorzi (2014: 443, §14, ‘di macchie bianche’), when describing the miscarried foetus. The verb nagālu, attested only as a stative form, is left untranslated in CAD/N/I: 107. The kaksu is a negative mark on the omen. See Jeyes (1989: 83), who also quotes this line. §20 CAD/S: 394a notes that A22 is obscure, suggesting to read as follows [… ana ili?]-šú liškun gim dingir su-up-pi-šu; it offers no translation. The line is difficult but the reconciliation of all manuscripts progress our understanding of the omen by some degree. It offers guidance to the diviner at his work; see p. 298. §21 The line is partly given in CAD/Q: 116a. §23 H1 13 writes igi instead of gìr because of its confusion with next line. §25 The writing kur-ti šu-mu equals kišitti qātija (lit. ‘the reaching of my hand’), meaning ‘(the acquisition of) booty’; CAD/K: 452. §43' The end of the line possibly reads [ … i-tap-pa]-lu, ‘they [will corresp]ond’, if UC1 obv. 14', p. 202, is considered to comment on this line. §47' Understand izi.gar as Akkadian nipḫu. The reading of the line is supported by UC1 obv. 16', p.202; see CAD/T: 283. The term nipḫu denotes a result that can be either negative or positive. Koch (2005: 12) explains thus: ‘(t)he nipḫus have the joker-effect of reversing the result of an extispicy, so that an otherwise favourable one becomes unfavourable and vice versa.’ §48' The beginning of the line is restored on account of UC1 obv. 18'. The sign of sheep droppings is positive and indicates that the god will be present at the sacrifice. Apparently what the sheep emits––voice or excrement––may be considered positive. See pp. 193–194. In F15, the sign d u m u is only partly preserved hence the reading is not secure; there could have been a sign in front of it, as well as two signs lost in the break. These probably did not open a new omen, judging by the spacing on © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

177

the tablet, but were rather perhaps signs indicating a new or alternative omen, such as šanûm šumšu (common to southern OB traditions) or šāniš (common to northern OB traditions and NA conventions); Jeyes (1989: 45). The verbal form of the apodosis is i-šab, perhaps from šâbu ‘to grow old’; see CAD/Š/1: 19, sub šâbu B, ‘to become old’. The verb is attested in omen literature, e.g., šarru ina līti izzaz i-šá-ab-ma māssu urappaš ‘the king will achieve victory; he will grow old and he will enlarge his country’ (SAA 8 30). The pair tešmû, ‘compliance’, and salīmu, ‘well-being’, appear in many other omen apodoses; De Zorzi (2014: 509) and CAD/T: 374b. §49' For ia-as-su, see CAD/A/2: 528b, sub azû (asû), ‘to produce unnatural sound’. The sound emitted by the sheep is not for sure its bleating (for which there is another description, see §54'), rather, as the dictionary says, when it gurgles. Other animals said to produce sounds with this verb (and accordingly translated by the CAD), are a dog (‘yelps’) and a lizard (‘hisses’). §50' The logographic writing n a . n e stands for qutrīnu ‘censer, incense’. The equation is given in the UC1 obv. 22', p. 203; also CAD/Q: 323ff. Here it is likely that the sheep turns its eyes towards the censure. In other versions, it is said to turn its body parts towards the sacrificial place (niqû); cf. OB §31, IMV1 §9 and IMV3 §11. Regarding the apodosis, consider this omen from Bārûtu Ch. 3 (manzāzu), Tablet 7 (Koch 2000: 123), 3: dalad šub.meš ana érin-ni [gur.meš], which I understand as ‘the protective gods, which have been kidnapped (by the enemy) (šub.meš) [will return] to my army’. §52' Cited in CAD/Z: 54a. The verb also appears in IMV1 §12. The form with the overhanging /i/ is written in the same way as in UC1 obv. 23', p. 203 (ú-zaq-qa-pi). This points towards the conservatism of the transmission of the omens. The logogram gaz.meš referring to the eyes and ears is not clear. It may stand for ḫīpû, ‘destroyed’ or ḫašlū, ‘crushed’, but it is not obvious how these adjectives describe the body parts. §53' The logographic writing with the phonetic complement sìg.meš-aṣ stands for umaḫḫaṣ ‘it waves, flicks, flaps’; CAD/M/1: 83a. §54' Following CAD/I-J: 106b. Cf. IMV1 §3 and IMV3 §2; the omen is also given in the Assyrian Library Records; see pp. 349–350. §55' Here one finds the logogram š u m for the action of slaughter, equating Akkadian ṭabāḫu, ‘to slaughter’. The apodosis is restored according to Bārûtu Ch. 5 (pan takalti), Tablet 1 (Koch 2005: 289), §§101–102. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

178

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

§56' For the apodosis, see CAD/L: 252a. §57' For the apodosis, see CAD/K: 350b. §58' The end of the line is rather badly preserved, so the reading of the last part of the apodosis is not secure. I read here tentatively ˹i-ma-át˺ → imât, ‘he will die’. For similar apodoses with the verb sapāḫu, but in the sense of ‘to squander’, see CAD/S: 153-157. §59' The writing g a ba . r á stands for gaba.raḫ.ḫa, but not in the sense of gabaraḫḫû, ‘rebellion’, which does not fit the context here, but for maḫāṣ irti or rapās irti, ‘beating, pounding the breast’, as a gesture of mourning. The ‘beating on the breast’ or ‘breast-beating’ is given one sole citation in the CAD. CAD/R: 152a cites the passage from Sargon’s Eighth Campaign, when Ruša learns of the destruction of his country and enters into a fit, beating his breast as a sign of mourning. This reading for gaba.raḫ.ḫa is given also in UC1 rev. 4, p. 205: gaba.raḫ.ḫa = rapa-ás gaba (rapās irti). §61' The white blood coming out of the sheep’s body results in a negative omen (§56') but when the blood is red, inside the sheep, the omen will be well (§55'). §64' For similar apodoses, see CAD/T: 202. §65' The beginning of the apodosis and how it relates to what follows is not entirely clear. §66' I thank E. Jiménez for the reading of this line. §67' For the expression šinīt ṭēmi, ‘different plan’, see CAD/Š/III: 46–47. The expression is left untranslated in the dictionary, but one can understand its meaning from the examples brought forth. §70' Since F37' ends with the protasis, the apodosis probably stretches throughout the mostly lost line, F38'. The reading of the end of the line is not secure but šulmu kabis, ‘the ‘‘Well-being” is curled up, effaced’, is a known expression in omen literature; CAD/K: 181–182. §71' The line is largely lost. The aposodis can only be partly restored. For the writing gu 4 -ud-iṭ, for šiḫiṭ, ‘attack (of)’, see CAD/Š/II: 416. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

179

§72' The line is lost apart from the last part of the protasis. The writing 3-šu stands probably for šalāšīšu, ‘three-times’; CAD/Š/: 234–235. The writing kun-šu is probably a mistake of kun-su, written correctly just before. The following line, F41', is lost. But only two unclear signs survive, crossed over bywhat looks like a double dividing line. This line is expected to have carried the apodosis of §72'. §73' The line is lost but for two signs which seem to form the end of the apodosis. Hence we give this line a separate entry. §76'' A7'–9' are part of the apodosis of A7'. They remain rather unclear because the lines are largely missing. For the qūlu(m) mark, see Jeyes 1989: 105. §77'' Because the tablet provides us with a ‘10’ (u-sign) mark on the left margin, we count this line as 10', and from this point, number the rest of the reverse of A. Note, that the next ‘10’ mark is put in line 19' (not 20') and then again in line 28', instead of one line below. We restore hence another mark at line 37'. For kabsū, ‘obliterated’ (A11'), see Koch (2000: 507), sub kabāsu, ‘to obliterate’. The predicate is plural (although sometimes such forms are used also for singular) hence we restore the first (and missing) subject as the ‘Strength’; cf. Bārûtu Ch. 3 (manāzu), Commentary Tablet 2 (Koch 2000, no. 19), §4. In A12', the sign––copied as ḫi and read so by CAD/I-J: 136––is probably gam ! standing for Akkadian palāšu, ‘to pierce’. This fits the context better and describes the breastbone as ‘split’ or ‘pierced’, a description known from elsewhere; see CAD/P: 60; CAD/K: 244. This reading is also probably supported by UC2, 14; see pp. 215 and 218. Thus, one wonders if the sign k a l , i.e., danānišu, ‘its strength’ is not a mistake for m ú r u , qablišu, ‘its midst’, known from other omens. Cf. the oracle query SAA 4 296. §78'' Part of A13' was cited by CAD/N/1: 285. The sign copied in A14' as the numeral 15 is in fact kù = ellu, ‘pure’. Cf. Bārûtu Ch. 3 (manzāzu), Text 3 (Koch 2000: 119, no. 9), 13'; CAD/E: 106. The apodosis refers to the extispicy ritual; see Chapter 1, Part III. A similar apodosis is found in CUSAS 18 10 (gallbladder and ‘Position’), §28. Ms. A is corrupt, here writing la ma ta kal for la ta!-ta-kal. It is restored on the basis of UC2 15, p. 215. The sign copied as lá is in fact me, in the expression me ! -a = qabâ, ‘prediction’. The same applies to §80. §79'' In A15', the writing g i m g a a m was considered obscure by CAD/D: 76 and CAD/Š/III: 361a (where in both cases it is left untranslated). But the text is perhaps to be amended and therefore is to be read as: gim ga-am-‹li›, = kīma gam‹li›, ‘like the gam‹lu› weapon’. The verbal form ú-sar-ra-aḫ is from the verb © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

180

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

sarāqu, which means to sprinkle flour but also sprinkle liquids, among them milk; CAD/S: 172–174. The by-form of the verb is šurruḫu, with the same meaning, where our omen is cited by CAD/Š/III: 361b. The teeth of the sheep are also the object of some action. The beginning of the verbal form is preserved (ú-), but the rest is broken. On the basis of the OB version, §13 (šumma(diš) immeru(udu) ši-in-ni-šu i-ka-aṣ-ṣa-aṣ ‘If the sheep gnashes its teeth’), I propose to restore the same verb in the D stem, although it is otherwise un-attested. A16' is cited in CAD/R: 167a (although correct tar-ḫa to tar-ṣa and u, as in our edition). In A17', for the reading and translation of sal.la du 8 im as ruqqi piṭir šāri, ‘the Narrow Place of the Wind Cleft’, see Koch (2000: 527) and ead. (2005: 63– 64); CAD/E: 68a; CAD/Š/II: 194a. §80'' The entry is difficult to read and perhaps corrupt, hence its interpretation is tentative. It is partly restored on the basis of UC2 obv. 18–20, pp. 215–216. For qība(me.a) (la) tašakkan(gar-an), ‘You can(not) make a prediction’, see Koch (2005: 127, no. 3, 143). §81'' The form itgurā is the Gt stem of egēru, ‘to be or become twisted, crossed’; following CAD/E: 42a. For zibbassu itarrak, ‘it thumps its tail’, see CAD/T: 204; Starr (1983: 64). The omen is also cited by CAD/N/1: 221b and CAD/N/2: 235b. The reading of nam-šu as against the copy nam-ma (as suggested by CAD) is vindicted by F4' and the commentary UC2 rev. 26. See pp. 216 and 219. §89'' The logogram m e š means mattu ← mādu; see CAD/M/I: 2,1 sub 3'. LBC rev. 4, pp. 225 and 228, glosses the logogram as ma-at-ti. §96'' The technical term g a b a . r i , gabarû, means ‘the same apodosis’. Here understand that the same apodosis is directed to the enemy, although this is not explicitly specified; Tablet Carré (Jeyes 2000: 366), obv. 17; CAD/N/1: 195b. §97'' The last sign of F22' looks like the k u r sign, so it is probable that its apodosis was different than the one of A. The same can be deduced for §§98'' and 100'' of ms. F. §105'' The predicate of the apodosis ú š -it is taken as a writing for the stative mēt, ‘(the client) is dead’, but the form is not found in other omens to the best of my knowledge. Usually, the spelling is úš -at for imât, ‘he will die’.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

181

3. Discussion The discussion will begin with an overview of the tablets of the SV. It will be followed by a section examining the colophons of the tablets. Then we will discuss the layout of the tablets and their contents, as well as the general structure of the SV omens. This will be followed by a detailed discussion of the various sections of the SV. The Manuscripts There are eight tablets of the SV of the šumma immeru omens. Six tablets arrive from Nineveh and two tablets are from Late Babylonian Uruk. We begin by describing the Neo-Assyrian tablets and continue discussing the tablets from Uruk; for their publication history, see Chapter 1, Part I. The best preserved Neo-Assyrian tablets of the SV are manuscripts A and F. Much less well preserved are manuscripts B, C, D and E. Manuscript A (1883-1-18; 410) measures 16.19 × 9.84 cm, but it now is only about 3/4 of its original size; see Fig. 18. It contains thirty-six lines on its observe and thirty-seven lines on its reverse. However, many lines are incomplete. Every ten omen entries are marked on the left margin of the tablet with the ‘u’ sign, for 10. Since the upper margin of the obverse is not well preserved, the first ‘10’ mark is to be restored. The tablet contains a colophon at its end; see below under the discussion on the colophons. Manuscript B (K 959) is a complete tablet. It measures 9 × 5.7 cm. It contains only Section 1 (§§1–20). Due to its compact and unique format in comparison to other tablets, as well as its minimal content, it can be defined as an excerpt.1 It has seventeen lines on the obverse and rather partly preserved seven lines on the reverse, after which comes a dividing line. There is a large space and only two signs left of its colophon (which nonetheless can be reconstructed); see below. Manuscript C (K 9166 + K 5876) is a fragment measuring 8.25 × 7 cm. It holds twenty-two partially preserved lines. The reverse is completely lost. The handwriting on the tablet is different from manuscripts A, B and F: it was written in what Koch (2005: 313) calls an “Assyrian Babylonian” ductus. The signs are somewhat smudged and less-well contoured, but this may be the result of either natural abrasion or the writing material. The clay of the tablet looks somewhat courser than that of the other manuscripts. Manuscript D (K 8044 + Sm 1257) is a fragment measuring 9 × 5.9 cm. It contains twenty-five lines, some very incomplete (the last two are merely traces). The reverse is lost. A Babylonian sign can be seen in l. 22. In the word [ka]-˹ak˺si-e, the ak sign is Babylonian and not Neo-Assyrian. Manuscript E (K 9094) is a small fragment whose size is of no more than 3.8 × 3.9 cm. It holds thirteen lines, all partial. The reverse is not preserved. Manuscript F (K 4106++) is the best-preserved manuscript after A; see Fig. 19. It measures 18.8 × 10.8 cm. Originally, it was about the same size of manuscript A. 1

  See also Koch (2015: 145, n. 393). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

182

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

About half of its obverse is lost, while the reverse is also in very poor condition. In our edition we have entered forty-four lines for the obverse, although the first ten lines are completely lost except for a few unintelligble signs. The reverse holds twenty-nine lines, but all are broken after their mid-part. The tablet ends with a colophon, although only partly preserved. There are two tablets from Uruk. Manuscript G (AO 6468) is largely broken; it measures 10 × 13.5 cm. It contains seventeen lines on the obverse. The colophon on the reverse of the tablet occupies all of its remaining surface. The tablet can be associated with the Bīt Rēš, i.e., the Temple of Anu at Uruk.2 The tablet was written by the scribe Anu-aḫ-ušabši. Other tablets he wrote were also extispicy texts (see below). By comparing them and the remains of Ms. G, including its colophon, it can be assumed that the complete tablet of Ms. G would have contained some sixty lines on the obverse and around thirty to forty on its reverse, hence completing very likely the whole run of the SV šumma immeru omens. Manuscript H (Bagh. Mitt. Beiheft 2, no. 63) interestingly contains the same lines of the composition on its obverse and the reverse: both sides hold the same omens from the beginning of the SV. Hence we call the obverse of the tablet H1, and the reverse H2. H1 has fifteen lines on the obverse. Because its line arrangement follows the Nineveh SV manuscript, it is clear that it is missing at least eleven or twelve lines from its beginning. It is not clear how many are lost at its end but it is doubtful that it contained the entire composition. The reverse of the tablet, H2, contains twelve lines. Because like the obverse, it can be compared with the line count of the Nineveh SV manuscripts, it is clear that it is missing at least ten lines. Although manuscript H cannot be fully reconstructed, its format is intriguing. It demands some thought regarding its arrangement: why are the same omens found on both sides of the tablet? A close examination reveals that there is a difference between the two sides. The reverse of the tablet sometimes omits some signs (H2 2' and 8') or a whole line (but found as H1 5'). It writes some signs rather poorly or mistakenly (H2 2': ḫul !; 8': sí[g !-su]; ). Perhaps more significantly, it spells out a CVC sign as two CV-VC signs (H2 3': -ṭi-im vs. H1 1': -ṭím (g i m ) in the word ḫuṭṭimmu, ‘snout’) and provides syllabic spelling for two (rather common) ideograms (H2 7': qar-ni vs. H1 6': s i , ‘horn(s)’; H2 9': ṣú-up-ra-a-su vs. H1 8': umbin.meš -s[u], ‘its hooves’). One may suppose that the obverse of the tablet was the work of a teacher, while the reverse was that of a less proficient scribe, perhaps the student. But such a practice, while known during the Old Babylonian period (upon tablets with particular formats), is not otherwise attested in first

2

  Although the association is not based on archaeological digs, rather on the reconstruction of the relationship between groups of tablets, as well as prosopographical and historical considerations. See Clancier (2009: 65–67). A general overview is provided by Gabbay (2014: 262–264) and Frahm (2011: 296–302); see further Chapter 9, Part III. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

183

millennium Uruk.3 Nonetheless, taking into consideration the differences between both sides, we may regard the repetition of the omens on the reverse of the tablet as an act of interpretation or commentary intended to instruct or clarify the texts to those less versed in the art of extispicy. The Nineveh Colophons Out of the SV eight manuscripts, only manuscripts A and F from Kuyunjik and manuscript G from Uruk have the remains of substantial colophons. Manuscript B from Kuyunjik contains two signs of an otherwise broken colophon. Manuscript H2 from Uruk holds a very broken but important colophon. We will first treat the colophons of the Kuyunjik manuscripts and then move on to the Uruk colophons. Manuscript A, the most complete tablet of the omens, holds the following colophon at the very end of the reverse of the tablet. [x-x-x] àm mu-šid-bi-im [ṭuppi (dub) zitti (ḫa.la) niṣirti (munus ùru) bā ]rûti([l]ú.ḫal ti) pirišti (ad.ḫal) šamê (an e) u erṣeti (ki tì ) taš-nin-tu4 ummâni (um.me.˹a˺) ‘[…] … are its lines. [The “Tablet of the Division”, the secret lore of the art of the div]iner, the secret knowledge of heaven and earth, the ambition of the scholar.’ The first line of the colophon would have contained the count of lines, but the number is missing. Only ‘…are its lines’ have survived. This is very unfortunate because otherwise we would have been in a position to secure our line count and achieve a more solid reconstruction of the SV. The formula àm mu-šidbi-im is known from other Neo-Assyrian divination compositions.4 However, it usually seems to follow with additional information which has not been brought in this case: the number of the tablet within the series, the name of the series, and sometimes its ownership or origin.5 This of course has meaning regarding the status of the omen collection and its relationship to other divination compositions related to the Bārûtu. See Chapter 9, Part III, for further discussion. The second line of the colophon is written on the lower edge of the tablet. It includes a (partly preserved) formula (niṣirti bārûti pirišti šamê u erṣeti) that

3

  At least according to the school texts studied by Gesche (2000). Nonetheless, it is to be remarked that omen compendia could have been the work of apprentices, as in Gesche (2000: 216). Such was the case in Emar (p. 343). Note KAL 5 30 (= KAR 150), a gallbladder compendium and Bārûtu Ch. 8 (kakku) (= CT 31 19–20; Koch 2015: 108, n. 275): according to their colophons they are the work of young apprentice scribes, lú šamallû ṣeḫru (šáman.lá tur); see Hunger (1968, nos. 232 and 532); see further Chapter 9, Part III. 4   According to the colophons collected by Hunger (1968), the formula àm mu-šid-bii m is attested in first millennium colophons. In Old Babylonian and Post Old Babylonian colophons, the formula is mu-šid-bi-im. 5   See the examples in Hunger (1968, nos. 153, 154, 423, 452, 472, and 498). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

184

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

is found in other learned colophons.6 According to the reconstruction of the colophon, the SV omens were collected as a dub ḫa.la, ṭuppi zitti in Akkadian, ‘Tablet of Division’. This tablet designation refers to a little undestood type of omen texts, which contain guide lines and procedures for the diviner; see further discussion in Chapter 9, Part IV. The phrase tašnintu ummâni appears so far only in one other colophon, again of a dub ḫa.la tablet.7 The term tašnintu, which I translate as ‘ambition’, refers to the desire of other(!) scholars or even laypersons to achieve the secret knowledge of the diviner.8 Hence the knowledge of the art of divination is the ambition, competition, desire or even jealousy of scholars who do not possess it but who wish to attain it.9 This emphasizes why the knowledge is secret––because not all possess it, only the scribe or scribes who study it.10 Of course, this is not to suggest that there was a real-life scenario of competing scholars or schools, for the phrase can be taken as merely rhetorical. Manuscript F has a partly preserved single-line Assurbanipal colophon. It is written in large script, in the so-called Paleographic style. It reads: [k]ur m an.šar-dù-a m[an šú man kur an.šár] ki ‘[Pala]ce of Assurbanipal, ki[ng of totality, king] of the Land [of Assur].’ The formula of the colophon is identified as an Assurbanipal colophon, Type A. No additional information is supplied in this manuscript, so we are left in the dark regarding the name of the omen compendium and its number of lines as far as the

6

  The second line of the colophon follows the reading of Koch (2015: 145, n. 397). The colophon was first treated by Borger (1957: 190) and mentioned by id. (1964: 190); see also Lenzi (2008: 77–84). For additional colophons bearing this line, see examples in CAD/N/2: 276–277; P: 400 and Lenzi (2008: 80, n. 79). For the term dub ḫa.la, see Koch (2005: 56– 66) and ead. (2015: 121). Another dub ḫa.la tablet with a “protection” colophon is SpTU 4, 158 (a tablet of Iqīšāja). It deals with the stipulated term (which means for how long is the result of the extispicy valid); see Stevens (2013: 246, no. 31) and Koch (2005, no. 95). 7   The d u b ḫa.la tablet is indirectly concerned with the stipulated term; Koch (2005, no. 91 [two Nineveh manuscripts]). 8   On the basis of CAD/T: 294, translating the word as “ambition, competition, contention”. Note the letter SAA 16 65 (cited by Koch 2015: 22), which speaks about teaching the arts of extispicy and astrology, apparently without any royal or official permission by a Babylonian teacher to a goldsmith’s son. 9   A different interpretation is offered by Lenzi (2006). He suggests to understand tašnintu as ‘repetition’ and by implication ‘teaching’, by way of an etymological explanation and reconstruction of an unattested verb *šunnunu. Koch (2015: 121) translates tašnintu as the “contention of the scholars”, continuing her translation in ead. (2005: 57–58). She understands contention as “the special results or interpretative insights reached by the competetive debates of scholars in the bīt ṭuppi” (ibid.). See also Gabbay (2016: 18). 10   See Stevens (2013: 230 and passim) about secret colophons and their purposes. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

185

manuscripts from Nineveh go. The same colophon, much broken, is found on the reverse (l. 26) of manuscript B. kur m a[n.šar-dù-a man šú man kur an.šár ki ] ‘Palace of As[surbanipal, king of totality, king of the Land of Assur].’ To conclude, the colophons of the Nineveh SV mss. are not the typical Bārûtu colophons of the Assurbanipal library. We usually find Type B and Type L colophons. However, among the SV colophons, we find the very special colophon of ms. A; and two Type A colophons of ms. F and ms. B. Tablets bearing Type A colophons, according to Koch (2000: 2), do not stem from the “Assurbanipal scriptorium” in her words, or, simply put, not copied by his scribes. Such tablets, in her view, following a suggestion of Julian Reade, were seized from libraries of private individuals, after which the Type A colophon were incised upon them. However, a close-up examination of the colophons of mss. A and F, as well as other manuscripts with colophon Type A, shows that these colophons were not incised on the clay with some metal object, but impressed on it when not completely dry, albeit, with a different type of script (the so-called Paleographic style). These means that the manuscripts of šumma immeru SV omens were produced in Nineveh, and had served the king in his library or collection. See the discussion about the function of the Library of Ashurbanipal in Chapter 9, Parts III and IV. The Uruk Colophons The manuscripts from Uruk––mss. G and H––each have a colophon. Manuscript G holds a colophon, which is not complete. It can, however, be successfully reconstructed from parallel colophons, as will be explained. The partial colophon (all that is left in fact on the reverse of the tablet) reads as follows.11 1'

[im.gíd.da 1-kám.ma be udu.níta (nu) al.til]

2'

[mu.meš be iz-bu a-ḫu-tu … ]

3'

[im m níg-sum-mu- d60/ mNi-din-tu4-d60 a šá m60-en-šú-nu]

4'

[lú šà.bal.b]al mÉ-kur-za-kir lú maš.maš d60 u An-tu4 tir.an.n[a ki -ú]

5'

[šu md 60-šeš-tuku ši  ] a šá mIna-qí-bit-d60 lú šà.bal.bal mÉ-kur-za-kir lú maš. maš d [60 u An-tu]

6'

[lú šeš-gu-l]a šá é.sag lú umbisag diš ud d 60 d en-líl-lá uruk ki [-u]

7'

[uruk ki iti x-x] ud 15-kám mu 60+30+9-kam mAn-ti-̕ -˹ku˺-[su lugal]

11

  See Hunger (1968, no. 103G). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

186

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

1'

[‘Long Tablet’: 1st tablet of šumma immeru (omens); (not) finished].

2'

[Lines of extraneous šumma izbu omens].

3'

[Tablet of Nidintu-Anu, son of Anu-bēlšunu],

4'

[descend]ent of Ekur-zakir, the incantation-priest of An and Antu, the Uruk[ean].

5'

[The hand of Anu-aḫ-ušabši], son of Ina-qibit-Anu, descendent of Ekurzakir, the incantation-priest of An and Antu,

6'

[The chief-prie]st of the Rēš-temple, a scribe of the omen series EnūmaAnu-Enlil, the Uruk[ean].

7'

[Uruk, the month of x-x], 15th day, year 99 of Antioc[hus the king].

The colophon is unfortunately missing its opening lines, but it is restored on the basis of the second Uruk colophon of ms. H and other sources; see below. The name of the scribe of the tablet is likewise broken away, but here we are more lucky because it can be restored. With his affiliation intact (his father’s name and his clan name) he can be securely identified thanks to parallel colophons. The scribe of this tablet was the Uruk scholar Anu-aḫ-ušabši, son of Ina-qibitAnu, grandson of Anu-uballiṭ, a scion of the scholar Ekur-zakir. He was active in the late 3rd century BCE.12 Because he and his family saw themselves as related to Ekur-zakir, they can be considered related to the family of Iqīšāja, which also considered itself related to the scholar Ekur-zakir. The exact relationship between both families, however remains unclear, because there remains a gap in our documentation; see Chapter 6, pp. 229–233.13 The scribe Anu-aḫ-ušabši, as the colophon informs, was also a chief-priest (aḫu rabû) of the Rēš-temple at Uruk. He also calls himself a scribe of the astronomical omen series Enūma-Anu-Enlil, but there is no evidence of his work in that area of celestial divination. This is not the only work that Anu-aḫ-ušabši produced. He copied five more tablets, all relating to extispicy but one, which is a copy of the fifth tablet of the lexical list Erimḫuš.14 His extispicy tablets––all Bārûtu––are: Ch. 2 (tīrānū), Tablet 3;15 Ch. 5 (pan takalti), Tablet 6;16 Ch. 6 (martu), Tablet 4;17 12

  The reconstruction offered here is based on Ossendrijver (2011). Note that according to the customary reconstruction of the scholarly families active in Hellenistic Uruk that this person is to be differentiated from another Anu-aḫ-ušabši, this one the son of Kidin-Anu and also a descendent of Ekur-zakir. 13   Clancier (2009: 61–65) and Glassner (2005b: 506). 14   TCL 6 35 (O 171) = MSL 17, pp. 65–77, ms. A [P363707]. Colophon = Hunger (1968, no. 90C). 15   BRM 4 13 (MLC 1874) [P296524]; Koch (2015: 99). Colophon = Hunger (1968, no. 95B). 16   TCL 6 3 (AO 6457) = Koch (2000: 343–353, no. 64) [P363676]; Koch (2015: 103). Colophon = Hunger (1968, no. 104C). 17   TCL 6 2 (AO 6453) = Jeyes (2000); Koch (2015: 105). See discussion by Beaulieu (2010: 5–6), following Jeyes (2000: 371–372). Colophon = Hunger (1968, no. 104B). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

187

and Ch. 6 (martu), Tablet 9.18 All his work is dated to year 99 of the Selucid era, or in absolute dates to 213 BCE. In the colophon above, the month name is missing, but other tablets of Anu-aḫ-ušabši were written in Ajaru(II) and Tebetu(X), hence it too was probably written in either of these months. All the works that Anu-aḫ-ušabši produced are in fact based on the work of their original compiler, a scholar called Nidintu-Anu, son of Anu-bēlšunu, also of the Ekur-zakir family. Thus they were probably written under his supervision.19 This scholar, like Anu-aḫ-ušabši, specialized in extispicy, although one of his students copied his work on astronomical omens––Enūma Anu Enlil, Tablet 56. We turn to the second colophon from Uruk, at the end of ms. H. It is broken, but nonetheless contains important information. It reads as follows: 13'

[(x) i]m.gíd.da 1?-k[ám ? .ma be udu.níta (nu) al.til]

14'

[mu.meš b]e iz-bu ˹a-ḫu˺-[tu … ]

15'

[ṭup-pi] m!Ni-d[in-tu4-d60 a šá m60-en-šú-nu]

16'

[lú šà.bal.bal mÉ-kur-za-kir etc.] (broken)

13'

[x Long] Tablet: 1st [tablet of šumma immeru (omens); (not) finished].

14'

[Lines of] extraneous šumma izbu omens [ … ]

15'

[Tablet of] Nid[intu-Anu son of Anu-bēlšunu]

16'

[Descendent of Ekur-zakir etc.] (broken)

The designation of the tablet is broken away, but it is restored the way that works are listed in the Uruk colophons. The number of tablet always follows the entry im/‫‏‏‬ṭuppi, ‘tablet’, as x-kám.ma, so read here 1-k[ám.ma], although note the reading is uncertain. The name of the copied work now normally appears, hence we restore the broken segment as be udu.níta, or šumma immeru, according to the name of the series provided by the colophon of UC1. The tablet is designated as an [i]m.gíd. d a, ‘long-tablet’, a one-column tablet type.20 The following line is likewise broken, but it seems to define the omens as extraneous omens of the šumma izbu omen series; see pp. 231, 335–338, and 370. 18

  TCL 6 4 (AO 6454) [P363677]; Koch (2015: 105–106); correct accordingly Ossendrijver (2011: 218, n. 14 [sub no. 7]); Beaulieu (2010: 8). Colophon = Hunger (1968, no. 90A). 19   Ossendrijver (2011: 217) and Clancier (2009: 65, n. 236). 20   Note SAA 16 65 where exorcist literature is taught from an im.gíd.da ina šà-bi lú a-šipu-te, ‘a “long-tablet” containing the arts of the exorcist’; see this Chapter, note 8. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

§§21–34

Textual Break §§35'–54'

§§55'–69'

§§70'–72'

§§73'–75'

Textual Break §§76''–81''

§§82''–89''

§§90''–92''

§§93''–105''

2'

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Omens §§1–20

2

Section 1

rev. 32'–42'

rev. 30'–31'

rev. 23'–29'

rev. 7'–22'

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

­- - - - -

obv. 23–36

A obv. 1–22

B obv. 1–17 rev. 18–25 obv. 21–22

C obv. 1–20

D obv. 1–25

E obv. 1–13

rev.17'–29'

rev. 14'–16'

rev. 6'–13'

rev. 1'–5'

-----

obv. 42'–44'

obv. 37'–41'

obv. 22'–36'

obv. 1'–21'

-----

-----

F not included(?)

G obv. 1–17

H1 obv. 1'–10' obv. 11'–15'

H2 rev. 1'–12'

188 5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

189

The owner of the tablet was in all probability Nidintu-Anu, son of Anubēlšunu, whom we have met above as the owner of ms. G. Thus, we are in a unique position to see that a single work of a scholar has been found in two later re-works or copies of his students. The scribe’s name on this work is lost but we can assume that it was one of Nidintu-Anu’s students, who are known from other compositions. There are several students that can be taken into consideration, since each copied materials relating to divination, and at that, mostly extispicy.21 Note, however, that in all of the scholarly texts related to Nidintu-Anu (as owner and as scribe), as well as administrative documents he himself wrote, his name is spelled m níg-sum-mu- d 60. However, only in an additional colophon is his name syllabically written, as in the colophon above. That is a Bārûtu Ch. 6 (martu), Tablet 9, written by again Anu-aḫ-ušabši. This would suggest that ms. H, like ms. G from Uruk, was also written by Anu-aḫ-ušabši or perhaps by his associates or students. The Content and the General Stucture of the Standard Version Despite the fact that it is the best represented, the SV resists a complete reconstruction because of the poor degree of preservation of its tablets. We cannot even know how many omens this version originally held, because the sole colophon that would have contained this information (given at the end of manuscript A) is broken at a crucial point, exactly where the number of entries would have been given. We reconstruct here 105 omens in the SV, including the omens lost in the breaks, although the total may have been somewhat less, around less than a hundred. That a single tablet could contain such a high number of omens is certainly possible when dealing with Kuyunjik omen manuscripts. Consider, for example, a Bārûtu tablet, K 7000 (Bārûtu Ch. 5, Tablet 4). It is about the same width of manuscripts A and F, but much less tightly written. As its colophon informs, it contained 111 omens (of which eighty-nine are preserved) and holds some forty (preserved) lines per side.22 Our count of 105 preserved omens arrives from a calculation of the number of omens held by mss. A and F and their respective size, which is more or less the same. Ms. A preserves the opening of the omens, but misses chunks of its middle part. It fully preserves the ending of the series. Ms. F misses the opening part of the series and in all probability never did include the first twenty omens. However, it holds a large part (probably) of the middle part that A lost. It meets ms. A towards the final parts of the series. Let us look at this situation is some detail; and see Figs. 18–19. Ms. A holds on its incomplete obverse thirty-six lines or thirty-four omens (§§1–34). Then there is a break of indeterminable length. The obverse of ms. F is half broken, with just the right margin barely preserved, until we see whole lines, about mid-way through the preserved tablet. We count on the obverse of

  See the list in Ossendrijver (2011: 217). Note that the scribe of no. 22 (Bagh. Mitt. 2 65) is Anu-bēlšunu, son of Nidintu-Anu the lamentation-priest; Gabbay (2014: 272, n. 452). 22   Koch (2015: 102). 21

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

190

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

Fig. 18. Manuscript A, Obverse and Reverse

Fig. 19. Manuscript F, Obverse and Reverse © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

191

F forty-four lines (of which ten are simply traces) and enter forty-one omens (§§35'–75'). However, eleven omens are almost completely lost (§§35'–45'). Hence, it is not clear if and where among the barely surviving lines ms. F meets ms. A.23 If there is no overlap with in this space, this means that ms. A misses about forty omens, or about twenty lines per side (which is about 9 cm of the tablet), for the lower obverse side and for the upper reverse side. However, since an overlap for at least seven omens can be assumed, it means that ms. A is missing 15–18 lines per side (8 cm per side and even less).24 What about ms. F? At l. 44' of ms. F obv. comes a break of indeterminable length. We assume it was not too great, judging by the size of tablet. The tablet now measures almost 19 cm in height, hence it is missing 6 cm at most. The reverse of ms. A contains forty-two lines or thirty omen entries (§§76''– 105''). The reverse of ms. F holds twenty-nine lines. It is here that it finally meets with ms. A, at A’s l. 18'. It shares twenty-six omens (§§ 80''–105'') with ms. A. Given the size of ms. F, we can conclude that in all probability, it did not hold the opening omens of the collection (see below). Let us now discuss the general structure of the SV and the relation of mss. A and F to the other manuscripts. The structure of the SV can be determined mainly with the help of the horizontal lines dividing the text to sections, each more or less dealing with a specific area or body part of the sheep. On the basis of what remains, nine sections can be reconstructed. In each section, there is a variable number of omens: from twenty or more omens to only three per section. Section 1 includes twenty omens: §§1–20 are concerned with the size and general appearance of the sheep. In ms. A, these twenty omens are clearly demarcated because they are separated by a horizontal line from the omens that follow. Two mss, which only cover with this section, are excerpts of the SV. Ms. B contains only §§2–15 and §§17–20, after which it ends. Ms. G (from Uruk) is a similar excerpt tablet, holding §§1–16 on its observe. The reverse, now lost apart from its colophon, probably carried §§17–20. Mss. D and E are very fragmentary but they also contain omens from the opening section: ms. D has §§1–20 and then breaks off; ms. E contains only §§1– 13; it is reasonable to assume that it continued till §20. Whether both held the complete omens is not known (we remind the reader that their reverse is lost).25

  There is some possiblity that ll. 1'–10' of ms. F overlap with ll. 25–36 of ms. A. In other words, §§35'–44' of ms. F may be shared to some degree with §§23–34 of ms. A. 24   The reconstruction of the lost parts of mss. A and F is only approximate: sometimes a single omen can stretch for two to three lines. In ms. A, sometimes two omens are included in a single line. 25   Both mss. D and E are sufficiently different in their writing and general appearance to be considered as potential joins to the missing obverse of ms. F. Ms. E has a “firing hole”, missing in other Kuyunjik tablets of the series. 23

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

192

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

Ms. H2 from Uruk (the reverse of H1) has §§10–15 and §§17–20 but no more, since the colophon (only partially preserved) then appears. Its lost part no doubt contained §§1–9 of the opening section. The next section of the omens, Section 2/2', contains approximately thirtyfour omens (the number is approximate because of the gap in the text; see above): §§21–54'. They deal with the sheep at the place of its sacrifice. Ms. A holds §§21– 34 and ms. F §§35'–54'. Apart from these two mss., only C and H1 have omens from this section: ms. C has §§1–22 and H1 holds §§16–25. Section 3 has fifteen omens: §§55'–69'. They mainly treat the blood of the sacrifical sheep. Only ms. F has these omens. Ms. F also has two more sections, Section 4 (§§70'–72') and Section 5 (73'–75'), which are too fragmentary to say anything about their topic. Then comes another textual gap, because the obverse of ms. F breaks. The reverse of the SV holds Section 6 with omens §§76''–81''; it deals again with the blood and some body parts of the sheep. §§76''–81'' are found in ms. A. The reverse of ms. F resumes only at §80''. From this point until the end of the collection, A and F both contain twenty-four omens––§§82''–105''. They deal with the sheep’s head and are divided into three sections: Section 7 (§§82''–89''), the sheep’s eye(s); Section 8 (§§90''–92''), the nose; and Section 9 (§§93''–105''), the lips, mouth region, and the sheep’s temple. See p. 188 for a synoptic chart of the SV manuscripts. The Structure of the Standard Version Once we have understood the reconstruction of the SV on the basis of the extant manuscripts, we can devote more attention to the structure of this final version of the šumma immeru omens. We can reconstruct nine sections, although perhaps more were lost in the textual breaks that exist between the two irreconcilable manuscripts, A and F. The sections are not our own arbitrary decision, but based on dividing horizontal lines drawn by the scribes across the tablets. The division of the omens into sections is thematic, depending on the content of the protases and apodoses, which were obviously considered related. The first section (§1–20) contains twenty omens whose protases describe the size and appearance of the sheep and its body-parts, with a focus on the head region and feet. All the protases are bipartite or even tripartite, that is to say, they contain two or three conditions which are to be observed in order that the apodosis be met. These are either a body part and its relationship to other body parts (§§1–4), or the appearance of the sheep, or its body parts, in comparison to some other animal, and another feature relating to one or more body parts (§§4–20). For example:

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

Protasis 1

Protasis 2

Protasis 3

§2

long ears

mouth, ears, hocks and nail-hoofs are black

15/14 coils

§6

wild ass

short ears

14 coils

§10

gukkallu sheep

abnormally long feet

horse’s face

193

Apodosis

2 gall-bladders

The contents of the protases, as well as their general bipartite or tripartite formulation, are not found in other versions of the omens and this is to be considered an SV innovation, although there are indications of this direction of formulation already in IMV1. The apodoses of the first section (apart perhaps from §20) are all concerned with the observations taken during the extispicy ritual; see Chapter 1, Part III and Chapter 9, Part I. The sheep or its body parts are compared with the body frame or body parts of a fat-tailed sheep (gukkallu), a wild-ass (arandu), a dog (kalbu), a gazelle (ṣabītu), a deer (ajalu), a horse (sīsû) and a goat (enzu). Some of the animals are obviously biologically close to the sheep, but their choice was not because of biology but because of their form––they are four-legged beasts like the sheep. The animals can be found in other omen compendia, especially the šumma izbu series, but note that the gukkallu and arandu (the latter a rare lexical item as it is) are found, to my knowledge, only in this compendium.26 After an horizontal separating line, the next section, Section 2 (§§21–34), deals with the leg, eyes, and ears of the sacrifical sheep. The section begins with the sheep being prostate (šumma immeru nadi…), or as one variant informs after the prayer or dedication of the diviner (arki karābi[ka]). Generally, the apodoses of Section 2 are concerned with whether the god was present at (izziz), or absent from (ul izziz) the client’s sacrifice (ina niqê amēli) and heard (išme) or did not hear (ul išme) the client’s prayer (ikrib amēli). The apodoses are in the preterite tense instead of the durative (present-future), as is usually the case in omens. This means the action is understood as taking place at the time of the sacrifice when the divine presence was sought. Hence, it is not something prospective to the act of extispicy. Similar omens were seen also in the earlier versions, although not in such a concentration; see further Chapter 9, Part I. Section 2' (§§35'–54'), which comes after a textual break and which in a sense continues the concerns of Section 2, brings in its protases the eyes again but also the noise that the sheep omits and its defecation. Omens §§36'–43' are broken, but by judging the content of §§44'–46', they also were concerned with the presence or absence of the god at the client’s sacrifice and prayer. The protases of the following omens are concerned with the movement of the sheep’s ears and eyes, as well as with its cries and its droppings. The apodoses are positive, but so long that the body parts face the place of the 26

  The gukkallu sheep is once found in an omen report (YOS 10 2). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

194

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

sacrifice; or when the sheep emits sounds or its drops its feces. Such signs meant that the god was present at the sacrifice. A unique omen (§51' and compare also §50') reads: šumma min īnāšu ana pani niqê tarṣāma ila īmurā ikrib amēli ilu išme ‘If (likewise) its eyes are turned to face the sacrifice(-place) and they see the god, the god will have heard the client’s prayer.’ This omen is the closest among such utterances in divination that takes us to understanding the communication route opened between the client, the practioner and the gods: the eyes of the sheep looking at the sacrifice indicate that the divine being has accepted the sacrifice and has communicated its will through the sacrificial animal. The last two omens of the section (§§53'–54') introduce the formula we have already met from the previous versions of the omens: ‘Let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’. Consider also in this sense 77''. Section 3 (§§55'–69') opens with telling us that at this stage the sheep was slaughtered (šumma immeru ṭabiḫma), hence it is of no surprise to see many omens of this section (§§55'–65') deal with the blood which comes gushing out of the sheep. There is no specification where the sheep was cut, but one can imagine it was at its neck. When discussing the colour of the blood, the Mesopotamian colour palate is covered here: red, white, green/yellow and black, although not too systematically as in other omen compendia or lexical lists. All colours but red (which is compared to the illuru, a red flower or berry; §§55' and 61') spell various disasters, including mourning and grief visited upon the client at his army, house, and land. White blood (§§ 56' and 65'), in particularly, signalled financial ruin. The blood is not only considered in regards of its colour but also as to its quality, when it turns to water or fat. The association of blood with negative outcomes is of course not surprising. §§66'–75' are still part of the same section but they are not concerned with blood, but, as far as can be understood, with the sheep’s frame. Sections 4 and 5 are too broken and therefore their contents not really intelligble. It is only because of the horizontal lines that demarcate them that we are able to define the omens as belonging to two separate sections. Section 6 (§§76''–81'') has its beginning rather broken, but it seems to be concerned with blood again. The last omen concludes the section by stating that the diviner will be pleased by what he observes. Section 7 (§§82''–89'') has all the omens opening with the same formulation, šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu, ‘If the sheep’s head––after it has been slaughtered’. The next section, Section 8 (§§ 90''–92''), deals with the nose of the sheep. The last section, Section 9 (§§93''–105''), deals with the sheep’s head, and in particular with the lips and mouth region. It ends with the temple of the sheep, left and right. The last two apodoses are concerned with the fate of the sacrificer (bēl niqê), that is, the client: a sign on the right––he survives, but a © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

195

sign on the left temple of the sheep means his death. With this last omen the collection comes to its end. Differences and Variants Among Manuscripts and the Use of Logograms Unlike other SV manuscripts, ms. A (and also F) utilizes logographic writing rather than syllabic spelling. However, we can also find cases where ms. A uses syllabic spelling while the other mss. use logograms. We bring the following writing, first the logographic and then the syllabic for all manuscripts: anše.kur.ra (A11) vs. is-si-i (for si-si-i; D12) diri-át (A18) vs. mal-at (B18) ge 6 (A2) vs. ṣa-lim (D2) gíd.da-at (A12) vs. a-rik (B13) gub-an (D23) vs. i-ka-an (A19) igi (A11) vs. pa-an (D12) ina (A4) vs. i-na (B3) lúgud.da.meš (A7) vs. ku-ur-ra-a (B6) sig (A4) vs. qat-nu (D4) síg (A5) vs. ša-ra-at (B4) u 5 .u 5 (B3) vs. rit !-kub (A4) udu.ḫúl (A5) vs. ku-uk-kal-[li ] (B4) umbin (A2) vs. ṣú-up-ri (B1), ṣu-pur (D2) and ṣú-up-ra-a-su (H2 9') Since the degree of preservation of manuscripts other than A and F is so low, at this stage no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the spread of the use of logograms, apart from noticing that A is rather consistant in its use of them. Comparison of the two best-preserved manuscripts, A and F, reveals that both are remarkably similar in their orthography, although not identical. Variation in logographic spelling is found on one occasion: whereas all manuscripts write š u . s i , D writes u ; both logograms stand for ubānu, ‘finger’. There is also a low level of variation between the syllabic spelling of certain lemmata among the manuscripts, but it is neglible. E.g., A1: kin-ṣi vs. D1: kim-ṣu, B1: ki-im-ṣa. The relationship of both sides of ms. H from Uruk have been discussed on p. 182. Logograms found in the protases are as follows (note * is an uncertain reading of the logogram):

a (ištu, ‘from’) a (mû, ‘water’) [a.gar.gar] ([piqannu], ‘dung’) a.u 5 .ka (lip qî, ‘palate’) an.ta (elītu, ‘upper’) anše.kur.ra (sīsû, ‘horse’) babbar (pūṣu, ‘white’) bad/-te/-at (petû, ‘to open’; ipte, ‘it opened’; petât, ‘open’) balit (ibballakit, ‘turns’) dàra.maš (ajalu, ‘deer’) dul-at (katmat, ‘covered’) © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

196

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

è.meš (aṣû, ‘gone out’) egir (arku, ‘after’) eme (lišānu, ‘tongue’) é r (dīmtu, ‘tear’) gar (šakānu, ‘to place’) gaz.meš (ḫepû?,‘tremble’) ge 6 (ṣalmu, ‘black’) ge 6 (tarāku, ‘to be dark’) geštu (2) (uznu, uznā, ‘ear(s)’) gíd.da.meš (arrakā, ‘long’) gim (kīma, ‘like, as’) gìr.meš (šēpā/ī, ‘feet’) gú (kišādu, ‘neck’) gur.meš (iturrū, ‘will turn into’) igi (panu, ‘face’, ‘toward’) igi (2) , igi.meš (īnu, īnā, ‘eye(s)’) k a (pû, mouth) k i (ašar, ‘where’) ki (qaqqaru, ‘ground’) ki.min (‘likewise’) ki.ta (šaplītu, ‘lower’) kud (nakāsu, ‘to slaughter’) kun; kun-su (sibbatu; sibbassu, ‘tail’, ‘its tail’) íl.íl (ittanašši, ‘continuously lifts’) lal.meš (ma’ṭû, ‘lessened, shortened’) lúgud.meš (kurrû, ‘short’) maš.dà (ṣabītu, ‘gazelle’) min (‘likewise’) múru (qablu, ‘middle’) na.ne (qutrīnu, ‘censer’) nu (la, ul, ‘not’) nundum-su/.meš-šu (šapassu, šapātišu, ‘its lip(s)’) sa 5 (sāmu, ‘red’) sag.du; sag-su (qaqqadu; qaqqassu, ‘its head’) si.meš (qarnā, ‘horns’) (munus) sig (qatnu, ‘thin’) síg (šārtu, ‘fleece’) sìg.meš-aṣ (umaḫḫaṣ, ‘waves’) sig 7 (arqu, ‘green’) šà (libbu, ‘heart, inside’) šu.si (ubānu, ‘finger’) šub (nadû, ‘to throw’) šum (ṭabāḫu, ‘to slaughter’) ta (ištu ‘from’) tag-ut (ilput, ‘he touched’) tag.tag (lupput, ‘smeared’) til.la (baliṭ, ‘alive’) u (ubānu, ‘finger’) ú.nínda (illuru, ‘red flower, berry’) u 5 .anše (rākib imeri, ‘courier’) u 5 .u 5 (ritkubu, ‘to ride one another’) u d u (immeru, ‘sheep’) udu.ḫúl (kukkallu, ‘gukkallu sheep’) udu.níta (immeru, ‘sheep, ram’) ugu (muḫḫi,‘over, top’) umbin (ṣupru, ‘nail hoof’) ur.gi 7 (kalbu, ‘dog’) úš.meš (damū, ‘blood’) ùz (enzu, ‘goat’) uzu.ì.udu (lipû, ‘fat’) zú.meš (šinnū, ‘teeth’) 15 (imittu, ‘right-(side)’) 150 (šumēlu, ‘left-(side)’) These logograms are used in the apodoses, as follows: ad.ḫal (pirištu, ‘secrets’) b à (amūtu, ‘liver, omen’) bad 4 (dannatu, ‘disaster’) bal-e (palê, ‘reign’) bal-su (ibbalakkassu, ‘will revolt against him’) bar (uššuru, ‘to release’) bir-aḫ (sapāḫu, ‘destruction’) bùr (šīlu, ‘hole’); dam (aššatu, ‘wife’) dar-at (šatqat, ‘split’) dib-bat (iṣabbat, ‘will seize’) dingir (ilu, ‘god’) diri/-at (malâ, malât, ‘to be full’) duḫ (piṭru, ‘fissure’) dù (teppuš, ‘you will do’) ér (bikītu, ‘crying’) é (bītu, ‘house’) é.gal (ekallu, ‘palace’) è.meš (ušteneṣṣi, ‘will reveal’) e n (bēlu, ‘lord’, ‘master’) érin (ummānu, ‘army’) gaba.rá (rapās irti, ‘pounding of the breast’) gaba.raḫ (gabaraḫḫu, ‘rebellion’) gaba.ri (gabarû, ‘same apodosis’) gál-ši, gál.meš (ibašši, ‘there is’, ibaššû, ‘there are’) gam !-iš (pališ, ‘pierced’) gar (šakānu, ‘to place’) gaz (dâku, ‘to kill’; ?, ‘to cut off’) gíd.meš (irrikū, ‘will be prolonged’) gig (marṣu, ‘sick’) gim (kīma, ‘like, as’) gu 4 -ud-iṭ-k[a] (šiḫiṭk[a]*, ‘your attack’) gub-iz (izziz, ‘stood’) gur.meš (iturrū, ‘they will return’) ḫa.la (zittu, ‘share’) i.bí.za (ibissû, ‘loss’) i g i (barû, ‘to inspect’) igi.bar (immar, ‘he will see’) inim (amātu, ‘word, legal case’) izi.gar (nipḫu, ‘false omen’) kak.zag.ga (kaskasu, ‘breast-bone’) kal-šú (danānišu*, ‘its strength’) kar (ekēmu, ‘to be displaced’) kar-tu (nēkmetu, ‘apotrophy’) k i -šu-nu (ašrišunu, ‘their place’) ki.ḫul (kiḫullu, ‘mourning rituals’) ki.tuš (šubtu, ‘seat’) kú (akālu, ‘to eat’) kù (ellu, ‘pure’) ku 4 -ub (irrub, ‘enter’) © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

5. The Standard Version of the šumma immeru Omens

197

kur (mātu, ‘country’) kur-ti (kišittu, ‘success’) kúr (nakru, ‘enemy’) lú (amēlu, ‘client’) lugal (šarru, ‘king’) me-a (qabâ, ‘prediction’) me.ni (bāb ekalli, ‘palace gate’) mè (taḫāzu, ‘battle’) meš-ti (matti, ‘numerous’) -mu (-ī, -ija, ‘my’) na (amēlu, ‘client’) nam-ti-la (baliṭ, ‘alive’) nigin (saḫir, ‘turning towards’) nu (la, ‘not’, ul, ‘no’) nun (rubû, ‘prince’) sal. la du 8 im (ruqqi piṭir šāri, ‘Narrow-place of the Wind Cleft’) si4 (sāmu, ‘redness’) munus sig 5 (damiqtu, ‘good tiding’) silim (šulmu, ‘Well-being’ (mark on the liver)) silim-át (šalmat, ‘favourable’) silim-mu (salīmu, ‘well-being’) siskur (karābu, ‘to pray’) sískur (niqû, ‘sacrifice’) su (zumru, ‘body, person’) sum-in (inaddin, ‘he will give’) sum (tabḫu, ‘was slaughtered’) šà.ḫul (lumun libbi, ‘grief’) šà.nigin.meš (tīrānū, ‘coils of the colon’) šu (qātu, ‘hand’) šu.si (ubānu, ‘finger’) šub-di (inaddi, ‘will occur’) šub-ta (imaqquta, ‘will fall’) šub-ti (miqittu, ‘fall’) šùd (ikribu, ‘prayer’) šùr-iz (izziz, ‘he will be angry’) t a (ištu, ‘from’) te-a (iṭeḫḫâ, ‘will arrive to me’) tuku (išû, ‘to have, possess’) giš tukul (kakku, ‘weapon’; ‘Weapon’ (mark on the liver)) u (‘10’ mark; ubānu, ‘Finger’) u 4 .meš (ūmū, ‘days’) umuš-mi (ṭēmi, ‘plan’) uru (ālu, ‘city’) ur 5 , ur 5 .úš (amūtu, ‘liver’) ur 5 -tu4 (šuātu, ‘this’) úš-it (mēt, ‘dead’) záḫ (ḫalāqu,‘to be split’; innabbit, ‘he will desert’) zé (martu, ‘gall-bladder’) 15-iš (imniš, ‘to the right’) 150 (šumēlu, ‘left-(side)’) This high number of logograms is a common feature of late texts and is indicative of the processes of standardization. It points, as in other omen texts, and in other learned texts, such as incantations and magico-medical texts, to a systematization of the production of knowledge.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 6

The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version bar udu gaz kúr : muš-šìr udu.níta duk lú.kúr ‘bar udu gaz kúr ’ means ‘Let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’ (UC1 rev. 2) This chapter will introduce three tablets that are commentaries of the Standard Version: two are from Uruk and one, in all probability, is from Babylon. For the sake of the presentation, following the terminology established by Frahm (2011), in this chapter we will call the Standard Version as the base text. It is the text upon which the commentaries base their exegesis. The aim of the commentary genre in Mesopotamia was to create meaning, or explain things that were considered problematic for the ancient reader when confronting literary or scholarly compositions. The genre to have garnered the most commentaries is divination, but literary texts also have their commentaries, notably the wisdom composition Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and Enūma Eliš. One of the basic ways of explaining obscure or unclear terms was by equating one term with another. The earlier type of commentaries (called ṣâtu-commentaries) were arranged in a double column format as a table, very much like lexical lists. Later, the commentaries (such as will concern us) were formatted as a running text in which explanations were marked off (however inconsistently) with a double wedge sign, or as it is known, the Glossenkeil.1 All commentaries of the šumma immeru omens quote a word, phrase, or sentence from either the protasis or the apodosis of the base text and introduce an explanation or an exegesis, usually following the double wedge sign, in our 1

  Gabbay (2016: 85). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

200

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

edition marked by a colon. It is not apparent which technical terms or phrases demanded exegesis, but there was a large concern with the logographic writing of the base text. See for example the epigraph at the head of this chapter, a sentence from one of the commentaries explaining the meaning of logographic writing. The need to explain logograms is because logographic writing is not immediately apparent and can be ambiguous. But syllabically spelled words can also demand clarification. As will be seen, the type of explanations that the commentaries supply can be a simple syllabic writing in Akkadian of logograms, which provide their meaning; the introduction of synonyms, either to a word in the base text or to an Akkadian word or phrase in the commentary itself as a second or even a third additional or alternative interpretation; and learned interpretations such as notarikon (the breaking up of words), playful spelling, homophonic exchanges and others–– all possible because of the polyvalent nature of cuneiform signs.2 In this mode of interpretation the šumma immeru commentaries follow the exegetical technique of the commentary genre. The commentaries of the SV are not well preserved, so it is difficult to precisely follow their content and relation to the SV. Furthermore, many of the lines of the commentaries refer to omens that are broken or missing from the SV. Notably, Sections 4, 5 and 6 (with a large gap between Sections 5 and 6) of the SV gain many entries in the commentaries. However, these entries of the commentaries, even when read with ease, defy understanding because the base text is at times very poorly preserved. Not having the full sentence of the base text in front of us obviously makes it incredibly problematic to comprehend what the commentary is trying to clarify. Indeed, where the base text is missing entirely, it is not even clear which word or phrase is taken from the base text and which is the commentary’s own. The first two commentaries from Uruk can be treated and discussed in quite a satisfactory manner, although many details remain unclear. They are called here the Uruk Commentary 1 (i.e., UC1) and the Uruk Commentary 2 (i.e., UC2). The third commentary, which we call the Late Babylonian Commentary (i.e., LBC), is very poorly preserved and therefore understandably the discussion will be more limited. After each of the commentaries is introduced and provided with an edition, translation and textual commentary, we will discuss the social and historical contexts of the commentaries and provide some general observations regarding their objectives and concerns with the SV šumma immeru omens.

2

  For a detailed discussion on the interpretative techniques of the genre of commentaries, see Frahm (2011), Gabbay (2016) and Johnson (2015). For a discussion of the polyvalence of the cuneiform script and the production of meaning with the exchange of logographic or syllabic values of the signs, see Finkel (2010). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

201

1. The Uruk Commentary 1 Manuscript SpTU 1 72 = W. 22307/12 [P348493] Edition Hunger (1976, no. 72); Besnier (2009); Cohen (2016). Discussion Frahm (2011: 53, 95, 209–210, 291, and 319), Rutz (2014), and Gabbay (2016: 130–131, 156–157). 1.1 Edition Obverse 1'

[x-x-x] mu [x] ni [ … ]



…[…]…

2'

[x-x]-x a mu x [ … ]



…[…]…

3'

[x-x] x ru mu x [ … ]



…[…]…

4'

šá ana la-ra?-an-du šu x [ … ]



… means tiger … [ … ]

5'

šá ar-ri-šu? [x x x x x] x x [ … ]



…[…]…

6'

ma-qit dan-niš x [x x x x] a ? ḫa [ … ]



… fell … strongly … [ … ]

7'

ar te ik [x] x [x x x] x x x [ … ]





…[…]…

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

202

8'



[x x] ud ḫur [x x x x] x x [ … ]



…[…]…

9'

bi si x x [x x x x x] x [ … ]



…[…]…

10'

giš

tukul el-[lu x x x x ] : x [ … ]



… a pure ‘Weapon’(-mark) … [ … ]

11'

šá-niš kak-ku nu [x x x x x]: ḫúl : [ḫi-du-tú ]



Alternatively, a ‘Weapon’(-mark) not … [ … ] ḫúl means [‘happiness’].

12'

mul 4 .bi : zálag.ga : ḫa-du-ú : e-le-˹e˺-ṣu



mul 4 .bi means ‘bright’ (zálag); ḫadû means ‘to be joyful’,

13'

na-ma-rù : a-a-um-˹ma˺ ús-di : i-˹rid ˺-di



(And also) ‘to be bright’ (namāru). ‘Somebody will uš-di ’ means ‘somebody will travel’.

14'

a-a-um-ma : šá-nam-˹ma˺ i-tap-pa-lu



‘Somebody’: ‘someone’; ‘they correspond’,

15'

ša ma-a-diš iš-tas-su-ú ˹izi˺.gar : ni-ip-ḫi



means ‘they have cried out very loudly’. ne.gar means ‘Joker omen’ (nipḫu);

16'

ni-ip-ḫi : lul : tas-ri-ir-ru : súr-ra-a-tú



‘Joker omen’ means ‘lies’ (lul); tasrirru means ‘lies’ (surrātu);

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

203

17'

nu gi.na : sa-ra-a-ar : nu gi.na



nu gi.na means ‘lying’ (sarār(u)); nu gi.na means

18'

la kìn-ti : a.gar.gar-šu i-ṣar-ra-ar



‘not truthful’. ‘It (the sheep) drops (iṣarrar) its dung-pellets (a.gar.gar-šu)’,

19'

šá piq-qa-an-ni-šú i-za-ar-ru-ú



means ‘it scatters (izarrû) its dung-pellets (piqannišu)’;

20'

šá 1-en-nu-ú in-da-naq-qu-tu-u-nu



It means ‘they (the dung-pellets) repeatedly fall one by one’;

21'

šá-niš i-ṣar-ra-ar : ṣar-a-ra : a-la-ku



Alternatively, ‘it (the sheep) drops’ means ‘to drop’ (ṣar-a- ra); (this) means ‘to proceed’ (alāku).

22'

˹ur 5 ˺.úš : a-mu-tu : na.ne ne : qut-rin-˹nu˺



ur 5 .úš means ‘liver’ (amūtu). na.ne means ‘censer’ (qutrinnu).

23'

[igi 2-šú ] ú-zaq-qa-pi : šá ú-šá-az-za-az-˹za˺



‘It (the sheep) pointedly stares [its eyes]’ means ‘it positions (its eyes)’.

Reverse 1

˹dù˺ : re-tu-u : ú-zu-uz-zu : dù : za-qa-pa

2

dù means ‘to be erect’ or it means ‘to stand still’; dù means ‘to fix’ (the eyes). bar udu gaz kúr : muš-šìr udu.níta duk lú.kúr

bar udu gaz kúr means ‘Let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

204

3

na-ra-ṭu : sa-la-ḫu : ú.nínda : il-lu-ru



‘To shake’ means ‘to tremble’. ú.nínda means ‘red-flower’.

4

ul-lu-ṣu : ḫa-du-ú : gaba ! .raḫ.ḫa : ra-pa-ás gaba



‘To be joyful’ means ‘to be happy’; gaba.raḫ.ḫa means ‘beating of the chest’.

5

ú-da-ap-par : i-re-e-qu : ki kun-su gar gú-su gar ‘He (the god) will leave’ means ‘he (the god) will depart’. ‘Where its tail is placed, it (the sheep) will place its neck’. nun kur-su bal-su : gú : ki-šá-da : gú : re-eš

6

‘The prince – his country will revolt against him’. gú means ‘neck’ (kišāda); gú (also means) ‘head’ (rēš(u)); gú : ma-a-ta : me.ni : ká é.gal

7 8

(But) gú (also) means ‘country’ (māta). me.ni means ‘Palace gate’ (ká é.gal); né-pil-ku-ú : ra-pa-šú : na gim ṣer-ret pa-ri-is nepelku means ‘to be wide’ (rapāšu). The ‘Position’ (looks) like an oarlock (ṣerret parīsi),

9

ša ku-up-pu-tu : nim-šu-šu : sa.me-šú : kal this means it is a circle-like depression (kupputu). ‘Its (the sheep’s) sinews’ means ‘its sinews’ (sa.me-šú). kal means

10

da-na-an : áb.zà.mí : ḫa-si-si : áš-šú u the ‘Strength’ (danān(u)). áb.zà.mí means ‘the ear (of the sammû-harp)’, because ‘the hole’ (u)

11

ap-ta šá sa-am-mu-ú : dar : šá-ta-qa



is the ‘opening of the sammû-harp’. dar means ‘to split’.

12

qí-im-da-šú : nap-ḫar-šú : kin : nap-ḫa-rù

‘Its buttocks’ means ‘all its (frame)’, (because) kin means ‘all’.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

205

bùr : ši-li : bùr : pil-ši : ši-it-rid-ma

13

bùr means ‘hole’; bùr means ‘fissure’. ‘Be firm (vel. sim.)!’ means šit-ru-du : da-˹na˺-an : lìb-bu-ú i-ziz-ma

14

‘To be firm (vel. sim)’; this means ‘to be firm’; this means ‘stand (still)!’ la ta-na-ḫis : ˹la˺ ta-na-aḫ-ḫi-is šá-niš

15

‘Do not retreat!’ means ‘do not retreat’; an additional interpretation:

16

la ta-na-kud : na-ka-du : pa-la-ḫu



‘Do not fear’ means ‘to fear’; this means ‘to be afraid’.

17

šà.mud : šà.gu 4 .ud : šà.gu­4 .ud.gu 4 .ud : gi-lit-ti



šà.mud means šà.gu 4 .ud and šà.gu 4 .ud.gu 4 .ud; this means ‘fear’ (gilitti); ni-kit-ti : na-ka-du : silim : šu-lum : áb

18

‘Fear’ (nikitti) means ‘to fear’. silim means the ‘Well- being’; áb 19

le-e-tu4 : ša-da-da : a-la-ku : [x x] x



means ‘cow cow’. ‘To move away’ means ‘to go’; this means [ … ].

20

na-a-šu : da-a-lu : a : iš-[šá-ḫa-at]



‘To quake’ means ‘to move about’. (The sign) a means ‘it will be wash[ed out]’.

21 níg.zi.gál.edin.na u šu-ut ka šá be udu.ní[ta x x x x x] 22 bar.me šá be iz-bu šá ka um.me.a mal-s[u-tu mdAnu-ik-ṣur] 23 lú.maš.maš bàn.da dumu lú.sanga- d [nin-urta]

Lemmata and ‘those oral (explanations)’ of šumma immeru [ … ] Extraneous (omens) of šumma izbu according to the oral (explanations) of the expert; (according to) the lect[ure of Anu- ikṣur], junior exorcist, descendent of Šangû-[Ninurta].

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

206

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

1.2 Commentary Obverse 1' to mid 15' The lines find no correspondence with the SV, because it is lost at this point. The entries seem to deal with the apodoses but this cannot be verified. 4' The word larandu, ‘tiger’, is rare, but is known from the šumma izbu Principal Commentary, glossing the word mindinu (ur.gug 4 ), ‘tiger’; De Zorzi (2014: 465, l. 46 and 486, no. 117); CAD/M/2: 85. 6' The line possibly comments on the condition of the exta. 10' An interpretation of (probably) the apodosis concerning the ‘Weapon’(-mark). The line is broken and it is not clear how ellu, ‘pure’, relates to the ‘Weapon’. 11' The ‘Weapon’ is given its phonetic writing, kak-ku. For šāniš, ‘another, alternative interpretation’, see Gabbay (2016: 74–83). Nothing much else remains of the line except ḫúl, which was probably explained as ḫidûtu ‘happiness, joy’ (although this is lost in the break). One can assume that it refers to happiness in the client’s house. Compare this favourable omen of SV §55' (the apodosis:) kakku ulluṣ libbi ummāni, a ‘Weapon’(-mark) (equals) joy for the army’. 12'–13' The writing mul 4 .bi (‘star, constellation’) is glossed by zálag.ga (‘brightness’) and, in what follows, an association is formed with the verbs for happiness (ḫadû; elēṣu) and for brightness (namāru). 13'–14' The equation uš = redû is known from the lexical tradition. The use of the verb redû in the sense of ‘to travel’ is found in celestial omens, which may be fitting, given the entry above; see CAD/R: 236–237. 14'–15' For the use of mādiš, ‘very, very much’, in commentaries, see Gabbay (2016: 113–114). 15'–18' These are the first lines of the Uruk Commentary 1 that correspond with SV §47'. [šumma min …imme]ri? ˹ne˺.gar tas-ri-ir-ru miqitti ummāni ‘[If (likewise)…of the shee]p … false omen; falsehood; the fall of the army.’ Line 15' of the commentary explains that the logographic writing ne.gar means nipḫu, ‘joker omen’. It then continues to explain that, however, in this case, nipḫu should mean ‘lies’ (lul). This specific meaning is given in order to harmonize, as © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

207

Uri Gabbay points out to me, the second and third negative apodoses given for the same (lost) protasis (SV §47'): ‘falsehood’ and ‘the fall of the army’. Hence, in this case, nipḫu is specified as negative in order to concur with the other apodoses. The next word in the base text to be glossed is tasrirru. It is glossed as surrātu, which, in addition to explaining the word, exposes the ‘root’ (srr) of tasrirru. The concept of the Semitic root was of course not known to the Mesopotamians, but words were associated with one another and considered related in meaning because of shared sound patterns and close or full homophony. The term surrātu is then provided with a lexical gloss nu gi.na, which itself is further given an explanation as sarāru, ‘to lie’ (l. 17). As Hunger explains (1976: 75), the infinitive sarār(u) may have been brought here to expose the ‘root’ or ‘etymology’ of the entry surrātu ‘lies’. At any rate, the introduction of the infinitive may have also served to demonstrate the use of the syllabic value súr instead of the common value šur (for writing surrātu and not šurrâtu, ‘beginning’; CAD/Š/III: 356). The entry nu gi.na is a citation from a lexical source, probably a lexical list. Indeed note that Lambert (1978–1979: 111) read line 18' of the commentary as la šat-ti, ‘not suitable, fitting’, but Hunger’s reading (1976: 75) la kìn-ti ‘not truthful’, is to be prefered because it is supported by the lexical tradition, where we find nu gina equated with la kittum (e.g., Emar Sag-Tablet, l. 324 = MSL SS1: 34). 18'–21' These lines are devoted to explain SV §48': [be min a.gar.gar]-˹šu˺ i-zàr-ra-ar ilu ina niqê amēli izziz ikrib amēli ilu išme ‘[If (likewise)] it drops its [droppings], the god will have been present at the client’s sacrifice, the god will have heard the client’s prayer.’ Actually, it is thanks to the commentary that the opening of SV §48' can be confidentially restored. The commentary proceeds to explain the two words of the protasis. The logographic a.gar.gar-šú is glossed in the commentary as piqannīšu, ‘its droppings’. The second word to be explained is iṣarrar (→ ṣarāru ‘to flow, drip’), although here it is used in the transitive sense. The gloss (l. 19') is izarru (→ zarû ‘to scatter, sprinkle’). Line 20' continues to explain how the dung pellets are dropped: one by one they are constantly ejected (indanaqqutūnu, Gtn maqātu + ‘late’ Pl. ventive). An alternative explanation (šāniš) is then given in line 21: the verbal form iṣarrar is related to the infinitive ṣarāru ‘to scatter’, which is said to mean here alāku,‘to go, proceed, advance’. The spelling of the infinitive in a unique way as ṣar-a-ra (instead of the usual ṣa-ra-ru) shows why the equation is with alāku, ‘to go’: the Sumerian verb a-rá, which means ‘to go’, is embedded within ṣar-a-ra, thus pointing to a playful but of course not scientific etymology of the Akkadian verb (as pointed out to me by E. Jiménez). 22' The line which is made up of two entries, provides a commentary on SV §§49'– 50'. It explains the logographic writings ur 5 .úš and na.ne. šumma min iassu ina libbi immeri ur5.úš šalmat ‘If (likewise) it gurgles, the oracle inside the sheep will be favourable.’ © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

208

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

šumma min īnēšu ana na.ne utarraṣ u iṣṣanaḫ ana ummānija ilānūša iturrūši ‘If (likewise) it turns its eyes towards the censer and voids itself, to my army – its gods will return to it.’ 23' This line in the commentary explains the specific meaning of the verb zaqāpu as it is used in SV §52'. The meaning that the commentary tries to give to the verb in the base text, as far as we can understand, is that the eyes protrude, but without motion (ušazzazza, ‘holds fixed’). Of the significance of writing the verb in the commentary with an over-hanging vowel, see the discussion in Chapter 5, ad loc. p. 177. Here is the entire omen (SV §52'): šumma min īnēšu ú-zaq-qa-p(i) uznāšu īnāšu ḫepû ummānī ummān nakri idâk ‘If (likewise) it protrudes its eyes; its ears and its eyes tremble, my army will kill the enemy’s army.’ Reverse 1 The line explains how the logogram d ù is to be understood. The problem is that the commentary explicates SV §52' (see above, l. 23'), a line that does not use the logogram dù, but gaz.meš, whose Akkadian rendering is not certain; but see below UC2 obv. 19). Hence, we can assume that UC1 probably relies on a version which at times diverges from the one attested in the Nineveh manuscripts. A comparison of SV §52' and OB §3 (and see the commentary for this line) demonstrates how dù coul d have been used in the sense of retû, ‘to set, to fix’. SV §52' uznāšu īnāšu gaz.meš ‘Its ears and its eyes tremble.’

OB §3 šumma immeru īnāšu riteā! a[na awīlim i]lum ˹i˺[na niqîm izz]iz

‘If the sheep – its eyes are fixed, f[or the client: the g]od [was pres]ent at [(his) sacrifice].’ The OB version shows us how the verb retû was used for describing the condition of the sheep’s eyes. The SV shows us where in the protasis we can insert dù(.meš) instead of gaz.meš, and assume it possibly stands for a D Stem stative ruttâ ‘held fixed’, describing the position of the sheep’s ears and eyes; see CAD/R: 299. The lexical tradition gives us the equation of dù = retû (ibid.: 297). 2 The next line in the commentary tells us how to read the formula of the šumma immeru. It appears in the apodosis of SV §54'. See discussion in Chapter 9, Part I.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

209

3 The first part of line 3 goes back to deal with the protasis of §54' (the apodosis was dealt in rev. 2 of the commentary). It explains that in the protasis the verb narāṭu means salāḫu, ‘to tremble’. The verb salāḫu used in the commentary is rather rare, with very few attestations beside commentary literature, the lexical tradition, and medical omens (according to CAD/S: 88, sub salāḫu B), hence in this case the objective is to supply a synonym and not to explain the lexical meaning of the verb narāṭu. Here is the protasis of §54': šumma min imbâ issima kutallašu u-nar-raṭ ‘If (likewise) it bleats and shakes its back.’ The rest of rev. 3 explains the logographic writing ú.nínda as illuru, ‘a red flower or berry’. It corresponds to the protasis of SV §55': šumma immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu kīma ú.nínda sāmū ‘If the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is like a red flower.’ 4 The commentary gives a synonym of an Akkadian verb: ulluṣu equals ḫadû, both verbs meaning ‘to be happy’. The entry corresponds to the apodosis of SV §55': ina libbi immeri amūtu šalmat kakku ul-lu-uṣ libbi ummānī ‘Inside the sheep – the omen will be well; a ‘Weapon’(-mark) (equals) joy for my army.’ A ‘Weapon’, which can be a negative sign, here will be considered a positive fortuitous mark because the sheep’s blood is red like the illuru plant. The red colour of blood was considered a positive omen. Rev. 4 jumps ahead several lines in the base text to SV §62'; see Rutz (2014: 116). It supplies an alternative interpretation of the Akkadian loan word gabaraḫḫu, ‘rebellion’, as rapās irti, ‘pounding of the breast’, which appears in §59'. SV §62': [šumma] immeru ṭabiḫma damūšu peṣûtu u sāmūtu ballū gaba-raḫ-ḫu ‘[If] the sheep is slaughtered and its blood is mixed with white and red, rebellion.’ The commentary returns to the Sumerian origin of the word in order to explain its literal meaning. The Akkadian gabaraḫḫu is based on Sumerian gaba ráḫ. It can be analysed as g a b a , which is irtu ‘breast’ and ráḫ, which means ‘to beat, to strike’ and in Akkadian corresponds to the verb rapāsu, ‘to beat, to thrash’. The šumma izbu commentary provides the following entries to explain gabaraḫḫu, (appearing in Tablet 22, §113; De Zorzi 2014: 857): gaba-ra-[aḫ-ḫu] [si-pit]-tú



‘lamentation, mourning’

gaba-ra-aḫ-[ḫu] [ra-pa-as/ma-ḫa-aṣ] ir-ti ‘[pounding] of the breast’ © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

210

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

For ‘beating on the breast’ or ‘breast-beating’, see Chapter 5, p. 178.

5

The explanation here is lexical, providing a meaning for Akkadian duppuru by equating it with the entry rêqu, ‘to depart, withdraw’. Although Hunger reads ú-da-ap-pir, we prefer to read pir (the sign u d ) as par for the sake of the durative in the apodosis. The commentary corresponds to SV §66': ilu ina zumri amēli ú-da-ap-par ‘The god will leave the client’s body.’ 5–7 The commentary brings the entire omen—the protasis and the apodosis—in order to provide an explanation of the relationship between the two; see Frahm (2011: 209). Here is SV §67': šumma immeru ṭabiḫma ašar zibbassu šaknu gú-su šakin rubû māssu ibbalakkassu ‘If the sheep is slaughtered and it places its neck where its tail is located, the prince – his country will revolt against him.’ A similar protasis is found in OB §31: šumma [immeru] isḫurma ašar innaksu kišāssu ištakan ilum eli awīlim dilḫam inaddi ‘If [the sheep] turns and places its neck where it has been slaughtered, the god will bring confused (omens) upon the client.’ The logogram gú is glossed as ‘neck’ (ki-šá-da) and then as ‘head’ (re-eš). This provides us with an understanding that the sheep’s front part will be placed at its rear, hence crossed over or reversed. This signals what will happen in the apodosis: the country will overturn or revolt against the prince (rubû māssu ibbalakkassu → nabalkutu, ‘to cross over, to turn over, to roll, to rebel’). The next gloss continues to explain the relationship between the protasis and the apodosis. As Hunger (1976: 75) explains, the sign gú, ‘neck’ also has the meaning of ‘country’ (see CAD/M/1: 414b). Hence the connection: gú of the protasis will reappear in the apodosis as its subject, because gú = kur-su → māssu ‘his country’. 7–8 The entry helps restore the apodosis of §70' of the base text, which reads: [m]e.ni ne-pil-ku!, ‘[the “Palace g]ate” is wide open’. The commentary provides another logogram for me.ni, ‘Palace gate’: it gives ká é.gal. Both me.ni and ká é.gal denote bāb ekalli, the ‘Palace gate’, a location on the liver. Both writings are commonly used in omen literature. The commentary glosses the form nepelku, ‘it is wide’ with the infinitive form rapāšu, ‘to be wide’. The ‘Palace gate’ has become nepelku, that is to say, it has ‘become wide, extended, wide apart’. Consider this © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

211

omen from YOS 10 24 (‘Palace gate’ compendium), 21 (cited in CAD/N/1: 270): šumma bāb ekallim(ká é.gal) nepelku … , ‘If the “Palace gate” is wide open … ’. See also below UC2, obv. 10, p. 215, and LBA, obv. 3, p. 223. This is the last entry of the commentary that can be followed, due to the poor state of preservation of the SV. In addition, it seems that the commentary was following a different version, perhaps longer or with different apodoses than the SV we can presently reconstruct on the basis of Nineveh manuscripts. See discussion below. 8 (Cont.) The line continues to describe the condition of the manzāzu, the ‘Position’, written logographically as n a . The ‘Position’ is likened to a ṣerret parīsi ‘an oarlock’.3 This imagery appears in other compendia dealing with the ‘Position’ (see CAD/P: 186 and Ṣ: 135). The oarlock is then explicated by another description which is not very clear: it said to be kupputu. Gabbay (2009: 70) explains the meaning of kupputu on the basis of its mention in a šumma izbu commentary; De Zorzi (2014: 525–528) and Finkel (2006). Following Gabbay’s understanding, the šumma izbu commentary reads thus: kupput : liptu nušurrû kima būrāti ḫurrūšu, ‘kupput means an affliction of diminution (in the flesh); its holes are like pits.’ If the physical state of kupputu describes an affliction of hole-like pits in the flesh, we can understand how it explicates the condition of the ‘Position’ in the commentary: being kupput is like forming a shape of an oarlock (ṣerret parīsi)—a circle-like hole. Compare a Boǧazköy liver-model where the ‘Position’ is shaped liked a ring (although not said explicitly to be kupput) and surrounded by ‘Weapon’(-marks); De Vos (2013, pl. VII [Bo 8]). Being kupput can also apply to body parts (backbone or tongue) or other parts of the exta; see De Zorzi (2014: 543, §109' and 798, §53'), ead. (2014: 74 and 528) and CAD/K: 552–553. 9–10 There is no corresponding line that survives in the SV, but compare the following omen, OB §35: šumma ˹immeru˺ n˹im˺šūšu ša imittim dunnunū ša šumēlim šaknū ‘If the sheep – its sinews at the right side are tense, those of the left are afflicted.’ 10–11 The áb.za.mí or in Akkadian apsamikku, usually translated as ‘cow of the sammû-harp’ (see below), is a geometrical shape of a regular concave-sided tetragon (CAD/A: 192 sub apsakimmu). This shape is used to describe various conditions of flesh on the liver (and once as a description of the tīrānū), hence we can assume that the commentary tried to explain an apodosis, which is now missing; Robson (2008: 213–214, n. 6). Here the commentary explicates the term áb.za.mí; our reading follows CAD/S: 119b. 3

  For the use of comparisons in commentaries, see Gabbay (2016: 118–119). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

212

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

Note that the explication provided by the commentary casts into doubt the usual interpretation of the term áb.za.mí. It is often translated, as the ‘cow of the za.mí or sammû-instrument’, because of the first element of the logographic writing áb (= lētu) which means ‘cow’. However, apparently the writing with the áb sign was already a secondary interpretation (it is only attested in the first millennium) and the original term was simply ab.za.mí, with ab = aptu ‘opening’; see Robson (2008: 213). Although the shape of the front of a harp, sometimes plastically rendered as a bull’s head, was understood to be the apsakkimu (as suggested in CAD/A: 192, per the suggestion of A. D. Kilmer; also Kilmer [1990: 88]), at least in this text the word obviously refers to the sound hole, but not to the front part of the musical instrument. The apsamikku is said to be a synonym of ḫasīs (sammî), ‘ear (of the sammûinstrument’), which is indeed the openning of the sammû-instrument (apta ša sammî ). The ḫasīs sammî is found to describe parts of the marks of the livers; see CAD/Ḫ: 126b and Richardson (2002: 242). Which instrument was the sammû cannot be treated at length here, but we understand at least on the basis of the commentary, that it was a harp; further discussion Lawergren & Gurney (1987). In conclusion, we can assume that the apodosis treated a part of the exta which looked, or was shaped, like the sound hole of a sammû musical instrument. Gabbay (2016: 156–157) understands this entry somewhat differently. 11 (Cont.) The next entry may refer either to the protasis or the apodosis. The logographic d a r equals syllabic šatāqu, which means ‘to be split’. This verb may refer to either parts of the exta or parts of the body. One textual source (K 10994+; commentary of Bārûtu, Ch. 1; CAD/S: 194) uses the verb in regards to the kaskasu, the sternum. In the OB version, the verb used for the kaskasu is letû, ‘to split, divide’ (e.g., OB §25). The verb letû is, like šatāqu, equated with d a r in the lexical tradition (CAD/L: 148a). Another verb with a similar meaning in the OB version is paṭāru (e.g., OB §71). 12 The line is difficult to understand, unless a solution is offered regarding the writing ki-im-da-šu. I take this writing to stand for qimdašu, which is to be taken as a shorten form for the known qinnatu, ‘buttock’, sic *qimdu ← *qintu ← qinnatu. This explanation is vindicated by LBC obv. 16': [ … qí ]-im-da-šú la ip-pu-uṣ : qí-im-da-šú : qí-in-na-at-[su … ], ‘ … it did not thrash about (its) buttocks’; ‘Its buttocks’ (qimda) means ‘[Its] buttocks’ (qinnat[su]). Thus, the commentary explains the following: ‘Its buttocks (qimdašu) refers to ‘its whole (frame) (napḫaršu)’. Now comes the reason why. The logogram kin means ‘all’; see CAD/N/1: 292, the lexical section. How so? By way of notarikon (breaking up the word), we find a play between the way the first syllable of the word was pronounced (*kin-da-šu) and the pronunciation of the logogram kin.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

213

13 The commentary refers to the apodosis, explaining the reading of the logogram bùr (the sign u) as either šīlu ‘hole’ or pilšu ‘fissure’, both fortuitous marks that appear on the exta. 13–14 The commentary explicates the verbal form šitrid over three-and-a-half lines. A very similar formulation appears in LBC obv. 18'. The form šitrid is the imperative form of a Gt verb šitrudu, whose attestations, apart from this commentary, are very limited. Hence its meaning is derived essentially from what the commentary is telling us. Note that in l. 13 and also 15–16, the 2nd person imperative and prohibitive forms are seen. These, while not unknown in omen apodoses, are very rare. The forms, however, are common in commentaries of the Bārûtu, relating to instructions forwarded to the diviner; see Chapter 9, Part I. The form libbû in the commentary specifies the commented term; see Gabbay (2016: 130–131), whose reading of these lines is followed; and also CAD/L: 173 and Š/III: 134b. 15–16 Lines 15–16 are new entries and are not connected with ll. 13–14; see Gabbay (2016: 131, n. 15). After the entry ta-na-ḫis, l. 15 gives the form ta-na-aḫ-ḫi-is in order to assure the correct reading of the sign ḫ i s (i.e., t a r ). As Hunger explains, the use of the form ta-na-kud in line 16 was triggered by the writing ta-na-ḫis because the sign ḫis/tar has the also the syllabic value of kud. As noted by Frahm (2011: 95), the equation between nakādu and palāḫu derives from another commentary––that of EAE, Tablet 24. The lines seem to contain instructions forwarded to the diviner. See further in this chapter, LBC obv. 18'–19' commentary ad loc., p. 227. 17 The logographic writing šà.mud is given alternative writings as šà.gu 4 .ud and šà.gu 4 .ud.gu 4 .ud. These writings are then given their Akkadian equivalent, gilittu, ‘terror, fear’. It is not clear upon what the line is commentating, but it should be an apodosis. 18 The next entry in the commentary probably explicates an apodosis. The Akkadian word nikittu ‘fear, worry, concern’, is given its ‘root’, the infinitive form, nakādu, ‘to fear’, in order to clarify its meaning. The next entry of this line gives the logographic writing silim (d i ), which is explicated by its Akkadian equivalent šulmu, the ‘Well-being’, one of the marks of the liver. The logogram á b is given its Akkadian reading, lētu lētu,, ‘cow’. ‘cow’ 19–20 The verb šadādu, ‘to move, to pull (a body organ)’, is equated with the allinclusive alāku, ‘to go’. The next entry is broken. The commentary continues with © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

214

nâšu, ‘to quake, shake (a body part)’, which is glossed by dâlu, ‘to move about (unnaturally)’. The last entry is restored (following the suggestion of E. Jiménez).

2. The Uruk Commentary 2 Manuscript SpTU 4 143 = W 22714/0 [P348737] Edition Von Weiher (1993, no. 143); Besnier (2009b). Discussion Frahm (2011: 55, 75, 208, 294 and 319); De Zorzi (2014: 248–249). 2.1 Edition Obverse 1 ur 5 .gim kak.zag.sal: šu-lum šà-ba kak.zag.sal x





Thus: the kak.zag.sal means the ‘The “Well-being(-mark)” inside’; the kak.zag.sal …

2

kak.zag.sal : ḫa kil su ul lu : ina ur 5-tú x x x gál



The kak.zag.sal means … : in the liver there is …

3

ina ter-tu4 e-li-tu4 il-li-ku : ki-di-it 150! x x dar-at



In the liver, ‘the upper(part) goes’ means ‘the outer surface of the left … is split.’

4

ki-di-it : uš-di-tu4 : dar-at : sa-al-ta-at



The ‘outer surface’ means ‘bases’. dar-at means ‘it is split’.

5 dar : sa-la-tu4 : dar : ḫe-pu-u : ina silim-tì šú-nu ki-tì





dar means ‘to split’; dar (also) means ‘to break’. In the favourable area of the exta they are (situated) low.

6

x šá x x zu x : ana me ! .a gar-an! : qa-ba-a ta-šak-kan



… [ … ] … ‘You may make a prediction’(wr. logographically) means ‘You may make a prediction’.

7

na-ši [ … ] x x x x da nu še lal te u ar ma



carried … [ …] …

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

8

x x x [ … ] x x engar sal a šá maš



… [ …] …

9

mi x [ … ] x x x x šá x diš diš šid im x šá : x x ḫa ru



… [ …] …

215

10 x x [ne-pil-ku]-ú : ra-pa-šú : gi-ip-šú

… [‘to be wid]e’ means ‘to be wide’; ‘mass’ …

11 šá en ? [ … ] x da x šá : le-tu4

… [ … ] … ‘to be split’ …

12 ki x x [ … ] x : šá x x x te ku

…[…]…

13 [ … ka]b?-su : gar-an : šá kak.u 4 .tag tu-ú

[ … they are obli]terated ...; it is located; about the ‘Arrow(-mark)’ –

14 [ … gam]-iš : pa-li-iš

[ … gam]-iš means ‘pierced’.

15 [ … tag : i-la-ap-pa]-at : kak-su-u gar la ta-ta-kal



… [tag means ‘he will tou]ch’; the kaksu-mark is located; do not trust (the favourable signs) …

16 [ … ]-tu4 : sal.la du 8 im

… [ … ] … the sal.la du 8 im means

17 [ … im : šá]-a-ri : kar ! n[i-kim-ti] : kar !-[i]t šá ek-mi-it … [im means ‘win]d’; kar ! means ‘at[rophy]’ : kar !-[i]t, which is ‘will be stunted’. 18 [ … ] ku!-su-pu : sag.du ! pa-taḫ-ma

[ … ] … ‘to crush’ means ‘to pierce the (sheep’s) head’.

19 [ … gaz : ḫa]-šal-la! : gaz : da-a-ku [ … gaz means ‘to cr]ush’; gaz (also) means ‘to kill’.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

216

20 [ … š]u-du-ud x : ra-áš-bu : na-qa?-ar

[ … p]ay attention! ; … ‘fearsome’ means ‘to demolish’.

Lower Edge 21 [ … ] x ḫa x ár-ra 22 [ … ] x šà ? munus.lugal iz!-bu! ù.tu ina egir ! im.gíd.da 23 [ … ] šá-ṭir

[ … ] As said in: ‘(If) a woman of the palace gives birth to a malformed foetus’, as written [ … ] on the back of an im.gíd.da tablet.

Reverse 24 [ki]-ma 4 ki-si it-gu-ra šà-bu u šá ‹iq›-bu gìr ! ku-ru-ú



‘(Its forelegs and its hind-legs) are intertwined like four (strings) of a pouch’ means, as was ‹sa›id, ‘(its) feet are short’.

25 [zi]-ba-as!-su : kun-su i-tar-rak : ta-ra-ku : ta-sa-ḫu

‘Its [ta]il’ : ‘it thumps its tail’ means ‘to thump’ and also ‘to … ’.

26 [n]am-šu : si-in-qí-it : a kud : tak-ki-si-ma :



‘Drawn together’ means ‘being fastened’. a k u d means ‘you have slaughtered (it)’.

27 [šú]r-zi : ez-zi-iš : it-ta-na-áš-ši : íl : na-šu-u



[šú]r-zi means ‘furiously’. ‘It lifts up continuously’ written íl means ‘to lift up’;

28 [í]l : šá-qu-u : ad.ḫal : pi-riš-tú : i-lam-ma-am

[í]l means ‘to be elevated, high’. ad.ḫal means ‘a secret’. ‘It chews’

29 la-ma-ma : a-ka-lu : a.u 5 zú.guz-ma : a.u 5 : li-iq pi-i



means ‘to chew’ and also means ‘to eat’. (The logographic chain) a u 5 zú . g u z-ma means thus: a.u 5 means ‘palate’;

30 a.u 5 ‹:› nap-šá-ri : šá-niš  li-iq  pi-i : nap-ḫar pi-i



a.u 5 also means ‘uvula’; alternatively, ‘palate’ also means ‘the whole of the mouth’;

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

217

31 nap-ḫa-ri pi-i : šá-pa-a-tu4 : zú.guz : i-ga-ṣa-aṣ ‘The whole of the mouth’ means ‘lips’. zú.guz means ‘it gnashes’; 32 zú su : šin-ni : gu-ṣi  guz : ga-ṣa-aṣ-ṣi



zú (when pronounced) ‘su’ means ‘teeth’; guz (when pronounced) ‘gu-ṣi’ means ‘to gnash’.

33 géme-su : a-mu-ut-su géme-su means ‘his omen’. 34 šid-tú im.gíd.da ṣa-a-tú u šu-ut  ka u maš-a-a-al-tú ša  ka 35 um.me.a šá  šà dab-t ú zi-ḫu! 27 be iz-bu al.til An im.gíd.da tablet of “counted (lines)”, lemmata and oral explanations and a lesson according to the master, which were collected and excerpted; 27th (lesson) of the series šumma izbu; finished.



36 37 38 39 40

diš ina iti bára ta u 4 -1-kam en u 4 -30-kam lú tur lu-u ina kal u4-mu lu-ú ina kal mu-ši nen-tu egir-šú lugal im.gi šá ṭe-e-me ur.gi 7 šak-nu lugal šá ṭè-en-šú šá-nu-u ina kur gál-ši : lugal im.[g]i šá id-du-u : lugal : šar-ri : ní : ra-ma-n[i] u gi : šá-nu-u šá šà !  munus ur 1ù.tu



If in the month of Nisan from the first day to the 30th day, a baby––either throughout the day or throughout the night––is attacked. An usurper king, whose mind is of a dog, a king who is mad, will be in the land. An usurper king, as was set down (in writing), means lu ga l, means ‘king’; ní (= i m ) means ‘onesel[f ]’. and gi means ‘to change’. According to (the omen): ‘(If) a bitch gives birth to single (puppy)’.



Left Edge 41 dub 15? zi iz-bu 15th? tablet of (šumma) izbu extracts.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

218

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

2.2 Commentary 1 It is not clear which internal part is meant by kak.zag.sal. Amending the sign sal to gu (in order to form *kak.zag.gu, as suggested by Besnier in the GKAB website) is not satisfactory because the tablet clearly differentiates between the signs and here the sign is sal and not gu. Consider a syntagm for *ruqqi kaskasi, ‘the thin part of the breast bone’ (sal = ruqqu and kak.zag = kaskasu). Cf. CAD/R: 418–419. 3 Besnier suggests ki-di-it 150 iš?-du!; cf. CAD/K: 345. 10 The line comments on SV §70''. 13 This line may supply a commentary to SV §77'', but this is very uncertain. 14 The line is very broken but it seems to comment on SV §77'': kaskasu ina danānišu gam !-iš ‘The breastbone will have been pierced at its strength.’ The commentary probably gives the phonetic reading of gam (palāsu, ‘to pierce’), which is lost in the break. 15 The surviving entry is a quote of SV §78'': nu kù sískur tag-ut kak-su-ú gar la ta!-ta-kal ‘An impure person has touched the sacrificial animal; the ‘Arrow(-mark)’ is placed; Do not trust (any of the favourable signs) … ’ For the meaning of the expression la tatakkal, ‘do not trust’, in omen literature, see the examples in Koch (2005: 139). 16 The surviving entry quotes SV §79'': sal.la du 8 im, ruqqi piṭir šāri, ‘Narrow Place of the Wind Cleft’ and in what is lost we would have seen the explication of the logogram chain. 17 The beginning of what is left of the line may give the syllabic spelling of the sign im, but this is not certain. The second and third entries supply the phonetic spelling of kar, corresponding with SV §79'': kar(nēkemtu) kar(ekmet), ‘will be stunted by an atrophy’.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

219

18–19 The reading of both lines is very tentative. They seem to explicate SV §80'' by providing four explanations of the logogram gaz: it can be kussupu, ‘to be crushed’, patāḫu, ‘to pierce’, [ḫa]šālu, ‘to crush’ and dâku, ‘to kill’. 21–23 (Lower Edge) Following De Zorzi (2014: 249). These lines are not a quotation from the base text, but probably are a reference to a source from which a quotation was brought (in the lost line 21) to illuminate some aspect in the commentary. This is a common technique of many commentaries. The im.gíd.da tabl et , an “excerpt tablet”, is probably the designation of a commentary in this case. See Frahm (2011: 29). 24 The commentary explains the protasis of SV §81'': šēpāšu maḫrāti arkāti kīma 4 kīsi ītgurā ‘Its forelegs and its hind-legs are intertwined like four (strings) of a pouch.’ The sign transliterated by von Weiher as lul is senseless, and considering the context, is better to read here gìr. For the use of libbu here in the sense of ‘as, like’, see Gabbay (2016: 128, n. 4). 25 The line continues to explain SV §81'': kun-su i-tar-rak ‘It thumps its tail.’ The synonym ta-sa-ḫu (given to tarāku, ‘to thump, trash’) is not known. Perhaps consider it related to dâšu, ‘to thresh, trample upon’ (CAD/D: 121). 26 More explanations continue for SV §81'': nimšūšu...ša šumēli ana arkišuni nam-šu! ‘Its sinews...of the left are taught towards their rear.’ The commentary explains the form namšū (St. pl. of namāšu, ‘to depart, set out’) with the form si-in-qí-it not easily reconstructed but clearly deriving from sanāqu, ‘to arrive, proceed’, and in its stative form ‘to be adjacent to, to be fastened’ (CAD/S: 133). The writing si-in-qí-it may possibly stand for an adjective form *sinqītū, ‘fastened’. Compare the entry siniqtu (CAD/S: 285 although left untranslated), equated in a lexical text with Sumerian tag (Akkadian lapātu, ‘to touch’). The logographic writing a kud is explained with tak-ki-si-ma, ‘you slaughter’. This reading proves that the combination a and kud must be understood as logograms and not as Akkadian *a-tar; see the discussion in Chapter 4, p. 130. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

220

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

Since the first appearance of the logograms a kud is at SV §82'', the line of the commentary must relate to this entry, unless its proof text was somewhat different. 27 The line explicates SV §86'': šarru ina ekallišu šúr-iz ‘The king will become angry in his palace.’ The writing [šú]r-zi demonstrates the verb was realized here with an “overhanging vowel”. 27–28 The commentary explains the logographic writing and meaning of the verb ittanašši, found in SV §91'': šumma rēš immeri appāšu it-ta-na-áš-ši ‘If the sheep’s head continuously lifts up its nose.’ 28 The commentary explains the logographic writing ad.ḫal found in the apodosis of SV §95'': rākib imēri innabbitma ad.ḫal ušteneṣṣi ‘The courier will flee and will reveal all the secrets.’ 28–29 These lines supply the infinitive of ilammam, lamāmu, ‘to chew’. The infinitive akālu, ‘to eat’, is supplied in order to form a semantic link between the protasis and apodosis of SV §101'': šumma rēš immeri min šapātišu i-lam-ma-am ilu ikkal ‘If the sheep’s head (likewise) will chew its lips, the god will eat (i.e., there will be pestilence).’ 29–32 The commentary here faces a problem how to explain the logographic chain a u 5 ka lum ma. The chain, which presumably was found in the base text, does not provide immediate logical meaning. Before we proceed to explain how the commentary overcomes this textual difficulty, we need to observe the line upon which it is commenting. It is obviously SV §103'', which runs as follows: [šumma rēš immeri] ˹min˺ a.u 5 ka ge 6 ‘[If the sheep’s head] ˹likewise˺, its palate will be dark … ’

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

221

But this is not the entry the commentary provides us. Hence, we need to assume that the base text which the commentary used was somewhat different and possibly suffered from a textual corruption. The word for ‘palate’ in the base text is written a.u 5 ka = liq pî; and ‘dark’ is written ge 6 = tarik. Now note that the sign k a is the same sign as z ú ; and that ge 6 is the equivalent of m i . The base text which the commentary used, however, possibly suffered a corruption of one sign: g e 6 / m i was written as l u m . The difference between m i and l u m is indeed small: 𒈪 vs. 𒈝, an additional initial wedge. Hence the incorrect(!) chain the commentary reads: a.u 5 ka lum(.ma). At this point, the commentary proceeds to explain the chain as consisting of a noun: a.u 5 , ‘palate’; and of a verb: zú.guz(.ma), ‘to gnash’. The commentary first explains the noun. It states that a.u 5 means liq pî, ‘palate’, but it can also mean napšāru, which means ‘uvula’. Alternatively (šāniš), liq pî, ‘palate’, also means napḫar pî, ‘the whole of the mouth’. And the whole of the mouth means šapātu, ‘lips’. The shift of the lexical meaning from ‘palate’ to ‘lips’ was crucial in order to explain how the noun functions as the object of the verb ‘to gnash’, because obviously the palate cannot be bitten or gnashed with the teeth. Now it is the verb’s turn: zú.guz means igaṣṣaṣ, ‘it gnashes’, because the sign z ú ( = k a ) , pronouned ‘su’, means šin-ni and the sign g u z ( = l u m ) , pronounced ‘gu-ṣi’, means gaṣāṣu, ‘to gnash’ (see CAD/G: 52–53). Hence, according to the commentary, the meaning of the chain is ‘it gnashes (its) lips/ whole mouth’. Such a sentence is not found in the SV, but consider SV §79: zú.meš ˹ú˺-[kaṣṣaṣ...], ‘it [gnashes?] (its) teeth’, restored on the basis of OB §13, šumma immeru ši-in-ni-šu i-ka-aṣ-ṣa-aṣ, ‘if the sheep gnashes its teeth’. 33 The commentary explains the playful writing géme, in Akkadian amtum, ‘maidservant’, or here, amūtu, ‘status of a maid-servant’, a homophonous word to amūtu, ‘liver, omen’. The writing géme for amūtu is attested in a few omen compendia; see George (2013: 246), id. (2003: 114–115), MZL: 453, no. 890 and CAD/A/2: 97a. This writing is not found in the base text we have. 34–40 The transliteration and translation of the colophon and subscripts follow De Zorzi (2014: 248). See also Frahm (2011: 55 and 75) and Gabbay (2016: 213). 34–35 The subscript of the colophon is of the type ṣâtu 7, according to Frahm’s (2011: 208) classification. 34 The tablet of the composition is designated as š i d -t ú i m . g í d . d a . The logogram šid has been interpreted usually as designating the number of lines in a composition; cf. the colophon of SV ms. A. Here its function is not clear. It may be understood as manûtu, ‘counted’, possibly referring to the fact that the im.gíd.da tablet had a set number of lines. The im.gíd.da tablet was probably © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

222

a designation of the commentary; see Frahm (2011: 29). However, being termed here as “counted” is a unique designation. See Frahm (2011: 55, n. 246), although the comparison of Heeßel (2008: 122 and 124, rev. 17) is not revealing as was thought. Compare the following formulation found in a colophon of šumma izbu, Tablet 1 (SpTU 3, 90): šu-nigin 1 uš 59-àm mu šid-bi, ‘Total: 60+59 lines, counted’; Stevens (2013: 242, no. 15). 36 The condition affecting the baby is not clear. For a discussion on the form nentû, ‘to go with each other’ (CAD/N/2: 165–167), see De Zorzi (2014: 78 and 248, 520). 38–40 These lines are not part of the main commentary but rather are concerned with an omen from a different text; see p. 229. The commentary, after the colophon, brings its interpretation of an omen concerned with a rebel king. It is set to explain how lugal(šar) im.gi(ḫammê), ‘rebel king’ equals a king who is mad, šarru ša tēnšu šanû (lit. ‘a king whose mind was changed’). It first says that lugal = šarru, ‘king’. Then the logogram im.gi is broken into two parts. The sign i m when read as n ì means ‘himself’ (ramānšu) and the logogram g i can have the meaning of the verb šanû, ‘to change’. Hence the new interpretation of nì and gi as ‘changed himself’, in other words, ‘his mind was changed’; see also Glassner (2015: 146–147). The explanation of lugal im.gi as lugal ḫa-am-ma-’u, ‘rebel king’ is found in the šumma izbu Principle Commentary, l. 72. The same source (ll. 74–75), however, provides a different explanation for i m and g i; De Zorzi (2014: 341) and Leichty (1970: 214).

3. The Late Babylonian Commentary Manuscript BM 48239 (+) BM 48561 [P461240] Edition None; listed in Frahm et al. (2013–2019) as CCP 3.6.4.D. Discussion Frahm (2011: 209 and 311). 3.1 Edition (BM 48239) Superscript caption: ˹ina a-mat d+ en u d+ gašan-ia5˺ liš-lim

˹By the command of Bēl and Bēltija˺, may (this tablet) succeed!

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

223

Obverse 1

be udu ˹ta kud-su˺ gìr.meš igi igi.meš it-ru-ṣa-ma egir-˹meš˺ ik-nu-uš : šá ár-ka-a-tú ḫe-pí





‘If the sheep––after its slaughter––stretches (its) legs towards (its) eyes and bends to its back’, means ‘it (bends to its) rear’. Break.

2

ṭù-ur-ra-am tag-ma suḫuš !-su nu iš-ši : íl : na-šu-u : íl ‹:› šá-qu-u : ur 5 -at!? kar ? :

‘It kicks its rump but does not lift its lower part’; (when written as) íl, it means ‘to lift’; íl ‹also means› ‘to be elevated’; (unclear) … 3 [: na] : man-za!-za : me.ni ká é.gal ne-pil pi-il -ku : ni-pi pí -il-ku-u : ra-pa-šú : ḫe-pí eš-šú



[na] means ‘The Position’; me.ni (means) ‘The Palace Gate’; ne-pil pi-il -ku or ni-pi pí -il-ku-u means ‘to be wide’. New break.

4 [x x x] x x -ṢI IŠ TA ŠÚ ta-nam-ma-ru ù pa-ni-šú zag aga-u : me.a gar-x x x x [x x x]

… You will be joyous at its … and in front of it to the right is a halo; you can make a prediction …

5 [gu 4 -ud-i] ṭ-ka : šá-ḫa-ṭi : a-ba-ku : šá-niš min : a-ṣu šá-niš tu-up-x-x-x x [x x x x]



‘Yo[ur atta]ck’ means ‘to attack’; ‘to lead’ alternatively means the same; or it means ‘to go out’ alternatively …

6 [ana ku]-ta-li-šú ik-nu-uš-ma : gam : ana ka-na-šú : gam ka-pa-áṣ gim ṣer-ret [ pa-ri-is]





‘[To] its [si]des it bends’; when written gam it means ‘to bend’; when written gam it means ‘to curl like an oar[lock]’.

7 [x x]-x an-ni-ma : ana ki.ta-nu pa a-ri tuku-ši [:]˹a-ri ˺ : min : la-a-ri : di-ḫi x [x x x] [ … ] … ‘It has a branch at its lower part’; (you need to understand the sign pa as) ‘frond’; likewise as a ‘branch’; a pustule [ … ]. 8

[x x x]-x-ma : di  šu-lum a-na na man-za-za ka-bi-is AB x x x-ši-it-ma x NIN? [x x x x]



[ … ] … ‘The “Well-being” is curled up towards the “Position”.’ [ … ].

9 [x x x x]-im x x x : šá ni-ki-it-tú pa?-ni ?-šú ? KA? MA áš-šú [x]-tu4 ZI KA x [x x x x x] © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

224



[ … ] … means ‘the one who the fear … ’; … [ … ].

10 [x x x x x] x x x-ma : ku-nu-uk-ku : ana su la dingir gub šá x [x]-id? IŠ NI [x x x x x]

[ … ] … ‘the vertebrae’. ‘Appearing for a person without a god’ – he who … [ … ].

11 [x x x x x x x] nim-šu-šú 15 u 150 du.meš : nim-[šu-šú x x x x x x x]

[ … ] ‘Its sinews go left and right’; ‘its sinews’ [ … ].

12 [x x x x x x x x x x] ˹sa.me˺-šú : kal da-na-na [x x x x x x x x]

[ … means] ‘its sinews’. k a l means the ‘Strength’ [ … ].



(Break of approx. 10 lines)

(BM 48561)

13' [ … ] x x x [ … ]

[ … ] … [ … ].

14' [ … ]-ta-tu4 dar  šá-ta-qa-at l[a? … ]

[ … ] … ‘It is split’ … [ … ].

15' [ … sili]m-át me.a gar-an : ina uzu ? ṭá-bu-tú siskur ?-šú ud-da[m … ]

[(The omen) is sou]nd, therefore you can make a prediction; in the exta there are good signs … its … [ … ].

16' [ … qí ]-im-da-šú la ip-pu-uṣ : qí-im-da-šú : qí-in-na-at-[su … ] [ … ] ‘ … it did not thrash about (its) buttocks’; ‘Its buttocks’ (qimda) means ‘[Its] buttocks’ (qinnat[su]) [ … ] 17' [ … ḫa-n]a?!-bi-šú du-ú-tú ˹ka˺-šá-du šá du!-un-qu-šú ra-ab-bu-u-tú : x[ … ]

[…] ‘Its [abundant gr]owth’ (means) ‘to reach virility’ – ‘the one who (attained) great luck’ [ … ].

18' [ … nu n]i-su-ú : ši-it-rid ri-di-ma «ana» me.a gar-un la ta-na-kud : ši-i [t-rid … ]

[ … not m]oving; ‘be firm!’ and ‘make a prediction!’; ‘do not fear!’; ‘be f[irm!’ … ]. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

225

19' [ … ]x : ši-it-pu-ṣu : la ta-na-kud : la ta-pa-al-la-aḫ : na-ka-[da : pa-la-ḫa … ] [ … ] ‘to grapple’; ‘do not fear’ means ‘do not be afraid’, from ‘to fea[r’(nakādu) meaning ‘to fear’(palāḫu)]. 20' [ … egir-t]u4 šá 150 egir-tu4 šá 150 a-ḫa-meš tag.[meš … ] il-ta-na-ap-[pa-at/tu]

[ … ‘the bac]k of the left-side (and) the back of the left-side together will be touching’ [ … it/they] will be touching.

21' [ … ]x šá di-ḫu ká é.gal i-ḫe-ep-pi-e-ma ḫ[e-pí … ]

[ … ] … that which the pustule divides the ‘Palace Gate’; Break [ … ].

22' [ … ]-x-x-ip : i-ri-iq-ma ḫe-p[í … ]

[ … ] … means ‘it will receed’; Break … [ … ].

23' [ … ]-x-ha?-ḫe-e : šá-lum-ma-t[ú … ]

[ … ] … radianc[e … ].

24' [ … -d ]u-uš : x[ … ]

[ … ] … [ … ].

25' [ … ] x x [ … ]

[ … ] … [ … ].

Reverse





(BM 48561)

1

[…]xxx[…]



[ … ] … [ … ].

2

[…]xax[…]



[ … ] … [ … ].

3

[ … ú-rap-pa]-as : ana ra-pa-su : šúr : [ez-zu]



[ … ‘it will wide]n’ means ‘to widen’; šúr means [‘anger’].

4

[ … ] meš-ti ma-at-ti : ap-pa ik !-d [a-na-li-iṣ]



[ … ] ‘a numerous (army)’; it (the sheep) will continuously con[tract] (its) nose. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

226



6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

5

[ … ] íl : šá-qu-u : u 5 an[še … ]



[ … ] íl means ‘to be high’. u 5 an[še … ] (means ‘courier’).

6

[ … è.m]eš uš-te-ni-iṣ-ṣi : iš-ta-[na-da-ad … ]



[ … è.m]eš (means) ‘(the courier) will reveal (the secrets)’; ‘(the sheep) continuously str[etches out] (its lips)’.

7

[ … ] : gur : i-lam-ma-am : l [a-ma-mu]



[ … ] … ‘(the sheep) chews’ is derived from ‘to c[hew’].

8

[ … z]ú.guz-šú ˹:˺ géme-us : z[ú … ]



[ … ] ‘its [g]nashing’; ‘his omen’; … [ … ].





(Break)

(BM 48239)

9' [ … s]ar-ma ba-[ri … ] 10' sanga/dumu d šú/nin-urta x x x

[ … wr]itten and che[cked … ]. (unclear name or title) …

3.2 Commentary Obverse Superscript Caption The tablet holds a lišlim formula; see Roth (1988). It is poorly preserved but seems to mention Bēl and “My Lady”, i.e., Marduk and his consort Ṣarpanītu. 1 The commentary opens with a line from the protasis of SV §70'. This entry opens Section 4 of the SV. The line is noted as having a break (ḫepi), hence either the tablet is a copy of another faulty commentary manuscript or more likely that the base text in front of the author of the commentary was destroyed at particular parts. 2 The reading of the beginning of the line is very conjectural. The spelling tu-urra-am we take as ṭurram from the lemma ṭurru, ‘buttock, rear’. The word is not attested in the base text. The writing tag, however, may stand for napāṣu, in which case compare SV §72'. The sign d u is perhaps a mistake for suḫuš (išdu, ‘base, lower extremities’). 3 The commentary comments on the apodosis of SV §70'. It supplies another logographic reading for the logogram me.ni as the logogram ká é.gal, ‘Palace © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

227

Gate’. It then supplies two forms of writing for nepelkû, ‘to be wide’, as well as providing it with a synonym. 5 The commentary comments on the broken SV §71'. 6 Compare this entry with UC1 rev. 8, pp. 204, 210–211. 8 The commentary perhaps relates to SV §73'. 10 The commentary refers to a person whose personal god has left him. 11–12 These lines refer to the protasis of SV §81''. See also UC1 rev. 9, pp. 204 and 211. 16' The word written ki-im-da should be realized as qimda, ‘buttocks’; see the commentary of UC1, rev. 12, p. 215. Interestingly enough, the explanation of the word there is different. This demonstrates that the commentaries were a type of oral lesson and therefore that is the reason why no two commentaries are alike. 18'–19' These lines seem to comment on a section of the SV which is now lost. See UC1 rev. 13–18, p. 205, also dealing with the same section. The lines refer to instructions which appeared in the base text and which were aimed at the diviner not to fear the outcome of the signs and provide a prediction. Reverse 3 The verb rapāsu perhaps stands for rapāšu, ‘to be wide’. Consider the protasis of SV §86'': šumma rēš immeru ištu naksu īnāšu ú-rap-pa-áš ‘If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – it widens its eyes’. The rest of the line seems to explicate the apodosis of SV §86'': šarru ina ekallišu šúr-iz ‘The king will be furious in his palace.’ 4 The commentary comments here on the apodosis of SV §89'': miqitti ‹ummāni› meš-ti ‘The fall of a numerous ‹army›.’

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

228

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

It supplies us with the phonetic reading of meš-ti as a gloss The line continues to cite SV §92'', but the commentary is lost in the break. Here is SV §92'': šumma rēš immeri ap-pa-šú ik-ta-na-li-iṣ ‘If the sheep’s head will continuously contract its nose.’ 5 The entry here comments on SV §91''. This means that it is possible that in the version in front of the author the order to the omens was a bit different, since SV 92'' was already provided with a commentary one line above. The omen that won this reading is as follows: šumma rēš immeri appāšu it-ta-na-áš-ši ‘If the sheep’s head continuously lifts up its nose.’ Since the commentary writes í l , we can assume that the base text which was in front of the commentator had a similar logographic writing (íl or íl.íl). The writing u 5 an[še] was probably explained as rākib imēri, ‘courier’, appearing first in SV §93'' and then in §§94'' and 95''. 6 The line in the commentary glosses the logogram è.meš, which appears in SV §95'': rākib imēri innabbitma pirišta è.meš ‘The courier will desert and will reveal all the secrets.’ One can assume it then continues explaining the verbal form iš-ta-n[a-da-ad], which appears in SV §100'': šumma rēš immeri ištu naksu šapātišu iš-ta-na-da-ad ‘If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – continuously stretches out its lips.’ 7 The line explains the verb lamāmu and the relation between the protasis and apodosis of SV §101''. 8 The reading of géme-us proves that the commentaries had a different text from SV. See UC2 rev. 33, pp. 217 and 221.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

229

4. Discussion The Structure and Content of the Uruk Commentaries The first commentary UC1 is an almost complete tablet (9 × 6.7 cm) holding twenty-three lines per side. The obverse is poorly preserved, while the reverse can be read without difficulty. Only parts of the commentary can be properly appreciated. The commentary finds its first correspondence with SV §47' not before obv. 15'. This section of the SV is very poorly preserved (the rev. of SV, manuscript F) and UC1 itself is largely broken. It then runs from obv. 18' to rev. 8, commenting on ten additional entries from the SV (§§48', 49'–50', 52', 54' 55', 62' 66', 67', and 70'). From this point on till the end of the text, UC1 contains twelve additional lines (rev. 9–20) that lack correspondence with the SV. The reason is because SV §§71'–75' are hardly preserved and they are followed by a gap in the SV. It is rather certain that the commentary does not go beyond or at least much beyond this gap (into the poorly preserved SV Section 6). The second Uruk commentary UC2 is a complete tablet (7.7 × 5.7 cm). It has twenty lines on the obverse, three on its lower edge (ll. 21–23) and seventeen lines on the reverse (ll. 24–40). A notation of tablet number and designation is given on the left edge. Not all of the lines of the tablet are part of the commentary to šumma immeru. The commentary runs through ll. 1–33. The colophon of the composition occupies ll. 34–35, after which come quotations from different texts: a catch-line from a hemerology-type of omen (iqqur-īpuš),4 and, after a small space left uninscribed, an explication of a šumma izbu omen. The obverse of UC2 is poorly preserved and a first correspondence with the base text (§70') can be found only in l. 10. The lack of correspondence, not withstanding the condition of the obverse, is because the base text is also in a bad state and in addition has a textual gap (between Sections 5 and 6). There is a correspondence with SV §77'' (Section 6) and from this point onwards, although the commentary cannot be read with confidence at many places, correspondence is found with the base text to its last entry at 103''. All in all we can identify thirteen correspondences (SV §§ 70', 77''?, 78'', 79'', 80''?, 81'', 86'', 89'', 91'', 95'', 100'', 101'', and 103''). The Uruk Colophons and the Native Designation of the Commentaries The colophons of UC1 and UC2 can tell us some more about the kind of text we are dealing with. The colophon of UC1 designates the commentary as follows:5 21

ṣâtu(níg.zi.gál.edin.na) u šūt pî ša šumma immeru [ … ]

22

aḫûtu ša šumma izbu ša pî ummâni mals[ûtu Anu-ikṣur]

23

mašmašši ṣeḫri mār Šangû-[Ninurta]

4

  De Zorzi (2014); Frahm (2011: 208).   For a general introduction to the Uruk colophons, see Clancier (2009:47–58).

5

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

230

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

21

Lemmata and ‘those oral (explanations)’ of šumma immeru […]

22

Extraneous (omens) of šumma izbu according to the oral (explanations) of the expert; (according to) the lect[ure of Anu-ikṣur],

23

junior exorcist, descendent of Šangû-[Ninurta].

Modern terminology calls the tablet from Uruk a commentary, but the colophon allows us to recognize its ancient designation. The text is first termed as ṣâtu. The term ṣâtu means, as Frahm explains, ‘lemmata’, or simply ‘words’. The word ṣâtu is written logographically as níg-zi-gál-edin-na, which means ‘the living things of the steppe’. On the basis of this logographic writing, we can assume that the term originally referred to some lexical list, though which remains unclear. Regardless of the original designation, ṣâtu became the standard term for lexical lists. And during the first millennium (if not before), it came to serve as the designation of what we nowadays call a commentary.6 The second designation of the text in the colophon is šūt pî ša … , ‘those oral (explanations)’.7 The combination of ṣâtu with šût pî ša … is a common subscript in many colophons, including a commentary to Enūma Eliš, astrological commentaries, commentaries on šumma izbu and šumma ālu and other types of texts.8 To continue with our colophons, the omens are then said to belong to extraneous omens (aḫûtu) of the great šumma izbu series. The commentary on the omens was delivered by the master (ša pî ummâni) in the context of his malsûtu ‘lecture’.9 We can imagine the malsûtu actually taking place in either a classroom or schooling environment where the words of the teacher were later written down or recorded. Hence, the commentary we have in front of us, like others, was probably the result of an oral presentation or dialogue between the master and his advanced students.10 It can be safely surmised that the lecture was conducted by Anu-ikṣur, a member of the ŠangûNinurta family, who lived circa 400 BC. His students were perhaps members of his kin; see below. Note that this is the only colophon we have that explicitly names our omens by their ancient name, šumma immeru omens (other colophons are restored). The colophon of UC2 is somewhat similar to UC1, although it does not contain the name of the teacher. It reads at follows:

6

  For a discussion of the genre of ṣâtu-commentaries, the term ṣâtu, its etymology, origin and use, see Gabbay (2016: 1–2 and 101–102). 7   Frahm (2011: 51) of the type 3b; see also Gabbay (2016: 51). 8   This subscript can be found in other colophons; type 6a, found in five or possibly six commentaries; Frahm (2011: 53 and n. 228). 9   A reference to the oral teaching of the master is already attested by a Middle Assyrian extispicy compendium, KAL 5 84 (= KAR 434); Koch (2015: 31, n. 72). 10   Frahm (2010) and Gabbay (2016: 11–24). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

231

34

šid-tú im.gíd.da ṣâtu u šūt pî u maš’altu ša pî

35

ummâni ša libbu ṣabtū nasḫū 27 šumma izbu qati

34

An oblong tablet of “counted (lines)”, lemmata and oral explanations and the teaching according to

35 the master, which were collected (and) excerpted; 27th (tablet) of the series šumma izbu; finished. The colophon of UC2 defines the tablet that contains the commentary as a šidtú im.gíd.da. What this designation means remains unclear. Then, as UC1, it designates the text as ‘lemmata’ (ṣâtu) and ‘oral explanations’ (šūt pî). Further, it defines the commentary as a maš’altu, ‘teaching’ or ‘questioning’ of the master.11 It then states that the entries of the commentary are based on extracted texts, as far as the terminology of ṣabtū and nasḫū can be understood. The texts arrived from the 27th tablet of the šumma izbu omen series. The numbering in late commentaries always holds one number higher than the tablet numbers we are considering, so what is called ‘27’ here probably refers to the 26th tablet of šumma izbu. However, since the series itself does not run above 24 tablets, the reference is to “non-canonical” or extraneous omens, collectively known as aḫû, ‘external’. These omens were collected, we can therefore assume, in Tablets 25 and 26 of šumma izbu.12 Hence, the šumma immeru omens were included in these two tablets. The Archival and Social Context of the Uruk Commentaries The Uruk commentaries UC1 and UC2 were found at Uruk in an area designated U XVIII––a house of exorcists (or āšipus). The house yielded two libraries belonging to two families. The first family is the family of Šangu-Ninurta, whose descendant, Anu-ikṣur, son of the exorcist Šamaš-iddin, wrote UC1, as we have seen from the colophon above. He and his associates were active from the end of the 5th century to the beginning of the 4th century.13 The second family represented in the archive is the family of Ekur-zakir, whose most important member was Iqīšāja (or Iqiša), active in the 3rd century.14 We can assume with some confidence that one of family members of the Ekurzakir family wrote UC2.15 The library of Anu-ikṣur contains 131 tablets. Unsurprisingly, the larger part of the tablet collection deals with the art of exorcism. There is a fair collection 11

  Gabbay (2016: 22–24).   De Zorzi (2014: 249) and Frahm (2011: 208). Note that UC1–2 comment on SV §§47'ff. Hence the first twenty to thirty omens were probably contained on Tablet 25. 13   Clancier (2009: 55, n. 196). For the professional career of Anu-ikṣur, see Clancier (2009: 50, 52 and 54–55), Frahm (2011: 209) and Robson (2011a: 565–569). 14   Pedersén (1998: 212–213), Robson (2011a: 560), Clancier (2009: 30–33, 57–61) and Frahm (2011: 290–296). 15   The association of the tablet with the library of Iqīšāja and his descendants relies on the level find of the tablet, Level II; Clancier (2009: 31, 60 and 396) and Frahm (2011: 294). 12

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

232

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

of divination materials (astrology, astronomy, and non-astronomical divination compendia), as well as schooling materials (lexical lists) and diverse materials (prayers, literature, mathematics). Out of this collection thirty-three tablets are commentaries, some written by Anu-ikṣur himself.16 The later collection of Iqīšāja (153 tablets) shows more or less the same distribution of materials (along with rituals and hymns).17 There are astronomical and non-astronomical divination materials, schooling materials, and some mythological narratives and historiography. Twenty-one tablets in this collection are commentaries (on divination materials). There over 100 tablets which can be assigned to either library. Because the archaeological context of the tablets is not always clear, it is assumed that part of the collection of Anu-ikṣur was utilized by later-day members of the Ekurzakir family.18 Looking specifically at the non-astronomical divination materials and the unassigned materials from both libraries, we can see that there was a considerable interest in extispicy, which is expressed mainly, although not solely, by the commentaries. The commentaries dedicated to extispicy in these two archives, apart from the ones under scrutiny, are the following: 1. A fragment which is concerned with extispicy mentioning the nipḫu sign (SpTU 1 81; probably belonging to the Anu-ikṣur family library).19 It was suggested to be a commentary to the šumma immeru series (because of the mention of the nipḫu sign; see UC1, obv. 15'),20 but nothing in its remains corresponds with what we currently have in the SV. 2. Two commentaries that deal with Bārûtu Ch. 4 (padānu), Tablet 8 (SpTU 2 45 and SpTU 4 156), probably belonging to the Iqīšāja family library.21 3. A commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 4 (padānu), originally from the Library of Assurbanipal (it carries an Assurbanipal colophon; SpTU 2 46). How it arrived to the library at Uruk is not known.22 Apart from the commentaries, there are exemplars representative of the Bārûtu, for example, Ch. 5 (pan takalti), Tablet 5 (SpTU 1 80).23 There are 16

  Commentaries of Anu-ikṣur relating to divination texts include, e.g., SpTU 1 28, 31, 32, 33, 38: commentaries to Diagnostic Omens; SpTU 1 47, 49, 50, 51: commentaries to medical texts (šumma amēlu muḫḫašu ukâl); SpTU 1 83: commentary to Physiognomic Omens; SpTU 3 99: commentary to šumma ālu. For more commentaries from Anu-ikṣur’s library, see Frahm (2011: 291). 17   Frahm (2011: 294–296). 18   Clancier (2009: 81–83) and Frahm (2011: 296). 19   Frahm (2011: 291). 20   Jiménez (2014b). 21   Frahm (2011: 183, 294). 22   Frahm (2011: 275–276 and 294–295) and Beaulieu (2010: 4–5). 23   Koch (2000, no. 62). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

233

other compositions related to the extispicy, such as texts for calculating the stipulated term (i.e., the length of time the extispicy will be valid; SpTU 4 157 and 158),24 and a text providing explanation for combined protases (SpTU 2 47). Learned explanatory texts of divination include a text equating between the zones of the liver to gods and months (SpTU 4 159),25 and a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian behavioural compendium (SpTU 1 85).26 Two additional types of non-astrological divination literature are prominent in this collection: the šumma ālu omen series, the šumma izbu omen series, iqqur-īpuš omens, and physiognomic omens (alamdimmu; see Chapter 9, Part III). The šumma ālu omen series and the šumma izbu omen series also have commentaries.27 Since the šumma immeru omens are defined in the colophon of UC1 as ‘extraneous omens of šumma izbu’, we can form in our mind the connection between the divination materials in the Uruk collections and the commentary that interests us. Lastly, to remind the reader, the SV of šumma immeru omens was in circulation in Uruk. The SV Uruk mss. of the šumma immeru omens––G and H–– are related, although indirectly, to the family of Ekur-zakir and his descendent Iqīšāja. See the discussion in Chapter 5 , pp. 182, 185–189. The Late Babylonian Commentary The Late Babylonian commentary (LBC) consists of two fragments originally from the same tablet: BM 48239 (7.7 × 5 cm) and BM 48561 (5.9 × 4 cm). Today, the fragments only partially preserve the text and do not join directly; see Fig. 20. BM 48239 opens the commentary: it is a fragmentary tablet very poorly preserved with the signs of the upper part of the tablet largely abraded. The tablet carries a superscript caption written in minuscule script on its upper edge: it is the so-called lišlim formula, typical of Hellenistic tablets. On its reverse, it carries only the (largely missing) colophon of the tablet. BM 48561 continues the commentary on its obverse and reverse. The script is better preserved than its counterpart tablet, and in addition, more correspondences with the base-text can be found. Thus the identification of the tablet fragments as being a commentary to the šumma immeru series, as suggested apud Frahm (2011: 209), is confirmed. There are fourteen correspondences with the base text (SV §§70', 71', 73'?, 81'', 82'', 86'', 89'', 91'', 92'', 93'', 95'', 100'', 101'', and 103''). The origin of the tablet, part of British Museum Babylon Collection, is not known, but it is said to arrive from Babylon and should be considered a Late 24

  Koch (2005, nos. 97–106; and see pp. 56–66). For SpTU 4 158, see p. 1846.   Koch (2015: 115); p. 371, n. 229. 26   Koch (2015: 239). 27   Frahm (2011: 207–209). Iqīšāja owned three commentaries and another one associated with this scholar stems from his collection. The commentaries belonging to Iqišāja are 1.) SpTU 2 37 (the šumma izbu Principal Commentary); see Frahm (2011: 203–205), 2.) SpTU 2 38 (šumma izbu Tablet 17), and 3.) Finkel (2006); see also Gabbay (2009); and associated with him is 4.) Leichty (1970: 232–233). 25

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

234

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

Fig. 20. The LBC Manuscript (obv.). ©Trustees of the British Museum. Babylonian tablet, as indeed its script indicates.28 It probably originally belonged to a tablet collection of the one of the learned scholars living in the city, in the vicinity of, and probably connected with, the Esagil temple.29 Babylonian scholars associated with the Esagil temple produced a large number of learned texts such as astrology, astronomy, divination literature (šumma izbu and šumma ālu), incantations, cultic lamentations, medical literature, and lexical lists. They also wrote over 150 commentaries (of which only some twenty are published). The commentaries chiefly deal with divination literature (astronomy, šumma ālu, šumma izbu, iqqur-īquš, medical omens, and physiognomic omens). But the Babylonian scholars also took interest in other types of works, such as 28

  Frahm (2011: 209 and 310–311).   Frahm (2011: 305–311). For a general overview of the Babylon Collection, see Clancier (2009: 185–213). 29

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

235

various lexical lists and literary works (e.g., Enūma Eliš, Marduk’s Address to the Demons and, probably, The Babylonian Theodicy). It is not known by whom LBC was written, but some ideas about its authorship can be advanced. It can be argued that it is perhaps the product of the Babylonian family of scholars, the Egibatilla family. Let us look at the lišlim formula that opens the text, evoking Marduk and his consort (if we read it correctly). This lišlim formula appears in two similar compositions, also commentaries. The first commentary is DT 84, dedicated to Bārûtu Ch. 1.30 The second is DT 37, commenting on šumma ālu Tablet 49. It is similar in size and format to LBC, although it is in much better condition. DT 84 was written by Nabû-balassu-iqbi and DT 37, by his son, Nabû-šumulīšir. Nabû-balassu-iqbi also wrote a commentary to šumma ālu Tablet 25,31 an explanatory commentary for some materia medica,32 and a commentary for astronomical omens. His son, Nabû-šumu-līšir wrote also a commentary to šumma ālu Tablet 48,33 and another commentary for the iqqur īpuš series.34 And yet another son of Nabû-balassu-iqbi, Marduk-zēri-bāni also produced commentaries: one for šumma ālu, Tablet 31,35 and the other for the sakkiku series, Tablets 10–11.36 To conclude, all three family members produced commentaries of divination literature, and two employed a lišlim formula identical to LBC. Hence, there is a good chance that LBC was the work of one of these family members––the Babylon Egibatila family––active at the end of the second century BCE, thus at the very latest period of cuneiform culture.37 Table of Correspondences To conclude this chapter, a table of correspondences between the SV and the three commentaries is presented in order to assist the reader for cross-referencing. SV §47' §48' §49' §50' §52' §53' §54'

UC1 15'–18' 18'–21' 22' 22' 23'; rev 1 2 3

UC2

LBC

30

  Jiménez (2014c); Frahm (2011: 172).   Jiménez (2014d); Freedman (2006: 72–76, 7 82–84, and 99–100). 32   Finkel (2005). 33   Jiménez (2014e). 34   Frahm et al. (2013). 35   See details for this text in note below. 36  Jiménez (2014f). 37   Details about this family in Frahm (2011: 307–309). 31

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

236

SV §55' §62' §66' §67' §70' §71' §73' §77'' §78'' §79'' §80'' §81'' §82'' §86'' §89'' §91'' §92'' §93'' §95'' §100'' §101'' §103''

6. The šumma immeru Commentaries of the Standard Version

UC1 3, 4 4 5 5–7 7–8

UC2

LBC

10

3 5 8(?)

13(?)–14(?) 15 16–17 18–19(?), 20(?) 24–26 26 26–27 27–28

28 28–29 29–32

11–12 rev.

3

4 5 4 5 6 6 7–8

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 7

Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens šumma ur’ud iṣṣūri ašṭūtam uwašširma ziz issi nēšum ina ḫarrānim išeḫḫiṭ ‘If the larynx of the bird relaxes its stiffness and makes a hissing sound, a lion will attack upon a journey.’ (Bird Divination; YOS 10 52 iii, 4–6) This chapter introduces a variety of sources related to the šumma immeru omens. It is divided into two parts: Part I deals with divination literature and Part II with manuals, vocabularies and lexical lists. Part I introduces two types of divination compositions. First come omen compendia that feature the same body parts found in the šumma immeru omens. As will be discussed, these compendia stemmed from the OB šumma immeru version. Omen reports and queries interested in the sheep body parts will also merit our attention. Secondly, we will deal with bird divination compendia, which in a sense are related, as will be explained, to the šumma immeru omens. Thirdly, we will introduce divination compositions that are not directly related to the šumma immeru omens, but observe the behaviour of sheep. One such composition is the šumma izbu omen series, but as we will see, other divination compositions are also interested in sheep. Part II is concerned with manuals, vocabularies and lexical lists of various types. It will demonstrate that interest in the sacrificial sheep and its body parts was not limited to omen compendia, but found expression in other textual genres.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

238

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

Part I: Divination Literature A large number of the body parts found in the OB šumma immeru omens were granted their own compendia. Some of the body parts related to the hind leg and back of the animal were apparently collected in independent compendia. Some of these, one can carefully surmise, at some point were gathered to comprise the first chapter of the Bārûtu series; see Chapter 9, Part III. Since these body parts are present in the OB version, but missing from our reconstructed SV, we can place this process sometime between the two versions of the šumma immeru omens. This section will survey the omen compendia dedicated to body parts found in the OB version that were then separated into their own tablets. We start with the Sealand Dynasty Omen Compendium, continue with the bone omen compendia from Assur, Emar, and Bārûtu Ch. 1. Then we will deal with some related compositions and close the section with omen reports and queries that mention sheep bone parts.

1. The Sealand Dynasty Omen Compendium 1.1 Identifying the Compendium CUSAS 18 22 is an omen compendium related to the šumma immeru omens, which is dated to the Sealand Dynasty in Southern Babylonia (ca. the 16th century). We will call it here the Sealand Dynasty manuscript, henceforth, the SLD manuscript. The composition consists of a single tablet; it measures 12.7 × 11.4 cm. The tablet is incomplete: its left edge is broken off and as a consequence, the beginning of the protases are missing. The bottom of the tablet is also missing. Here are §§1–2 of the tablet:1 [šumma(diš) immeru(udu) … ša … imitta(zi) ta-ar]-ka me-e ú-še-er-˹re-ed ˺ummānu(érin+ni) nu a-šar ˹illaku(du)ku ˺ [imaqqut(šub) ut ] ‘[If the sheep, whose right (such and such body parts) are da]rk, will release its urine, (my) army, wherever it will go, [will suffer a defeat].’ [šumma(diš) immeru(udu) … ša … šumēla(gùb) ta-ar]-ka me-e ˹ú˺-še-er-˹re˺-ed ummān(érin+ni) an lúnakri(kúr) ri a-šar illaku(du)[ ku imaqqut(šub) ut  ] ‘[If the sheep, whose left (such and such body parts) are dar]k, will release its urine, the enemy’s army, wherever it will go, [will suffer a defeat].’ 1

  Because the left side of the tablet is broken off, a few signs of the protases are missing. The opening sign was surely diš, because that is the way the other omens from the Sealand Dynasty begin. In accordance with George’s reading, the next sign was therefore udu, because the first two omens must open with the sheep, which is clearly the subject of the phrase, while the rest of the SLD omens begin with diš and proceed with the sheep’s body parts. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

239

In the first two omens of SLD, the sheep urinates. This parallels the action in LBA §7: šumma immeru šinātešu išten puluḫtu eli ummāni imaqqut tebû ana šarri itebbe ina turri šubtu ‘If the sheep urinates, fear will fall upon the army; an uprising against the king will rise; an ambush upon retreat.’ In the LBA, the action is concentrated on the sheep’s urination. However, in the SLD, the action is related to the treatment of a certain body part of the sheep (lost in the break). Hence, we conclude that the SLD is not, properly speaking, a version of the šumma immeru omens, like the LBA or IMV versions. We will demonstrate that it is a composition which went beyond the OB version and treated individual body parts of the sheep. This will be discussed below in 1.2. For now we turn to the colophon of the SLD manuscript. The colophon (ll. 27'– 30') reads as follows: ˹ k i˺.5.kam šu+nigin 76 mu níg šu bala-šu-l i-ri-ik ˹ugula˺ máš.šu.gíd.gíd […]x[…] ‘Fifth tablet; a total of 76 entries of the hand of Palâšu-līrik, the foreman of the diviners, [ … ] … [ … ].’ The obverse of the tablet contains thirty-six lines––a single line for each omen. The reverse of the tablet has twenty-six lines of text and an additional four lines for the colophon. It contains twenty-five omens (in one case, a single omen, §59, stretches over two lines). Hence, the tablet in its present condition holds sixtyone omens. However, because the colophon gives us a line count of seventy-six omens, the number of missing omens can easily be calculated on the basis of what remains, hence sixteen omens are lost. The notation k i . 5 . k a m, with which the colophon opens, is most important for understanding the relationship of this manuscript to other omens stemming from the šumma immeru omen tradition. As George (2013: 143) stated, this is clearly a variation of the Old Babylonian k i – notation found in the OB version (see Chapter 2). On the basis of our previous discussion, this tablet should be considered the fifth of a series. What preceded this version can be imagined on the basis of the Old Babylonian version: four tablets dealing with different body parts of the sacrificial animal. The contents and structure of the SLD will become clearer once its body parts are dealt with below in section 1.2. In addition to the ki.x.kam notation and the line count, the colophon supplies us with the scribe’s name, Palâšu-līrik, who is given the title akil bārî, the foreman of the diviners. Given his rank among diviners, it is not surprising to find a wellwritten tablet before us. This person is not known from other Sealand Dynasty texts. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

240

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

1.2 The Structure and Content of the Sealand Dynasty Manuscript Although the beginnings of the protases are broken off, George has managed to reconstruct some of the sheep body parts treated in SLD. We follow his reconstruction and observe the following regarding the content of tablet (and see Figs. 21 and 22):

Figs. 21 and 22: The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript, Obverse and Reverse © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

241

§§1–2: unknown body parts.2 §§3–16: šutqu, ‘cleft’ and bantu, ‘rib cage’, in an alternating order. §§17–24: šašallu, ‘back muscle’. §§25–58: unknown body parts. §§59–76: (šuptu, šupātu). The body parts (both still unidentified) that should perhaps be restored––from entry §59 all the way to the end of the tablet––are the šuptu which appears in OB §§106–111, and the šupat šuptim (and see below, 14.1). The predicates of the broken protases in the SLD manuscript are namrat alternating with tarkat, both feminine statives. Plural feminine statives, namrā and tarkā (in §§69–70, and 75–76) may refer to the plural form of šuptu, šupātu. The following quotation from an extispicy report supports the existence of the plural form of šuptu and its use in extispicy:3 šupātum imittam u šumēlam namrā ‘The šuptum-s – right and left – are bright.’ The final entries of the SLD manuscript (§§71–76) mention the [qe]rbitu, ‘the interior’, but it is obvious that this is not the observed organ, because the predicates namrā and tarkā (§§75–76) demonstrate that a plural feminine subject is required. Hence qerbitu must serve as an adverbial attribute to the body part, possibly the šupātu as argued here. With this in mind, consider §§108 and §111 (with *§108 and *§111 representing the left-side) of the OB šumma immeru version in comparison with §§71–74 of the SLD manuscript: OB §108/*108

šumma šuptum ša imittim/ (ša šumēlim) qerbēnum namrat (Apodosis +/(–)) ‘If the right/(left) šuptum is bright inside.’

§111/*111

šumma šuptum ša imittim/ (ša šumēlim) qerbēnum tarkat (Apodosis – (+)) ‘If the right/(left) šuptum is dark on the inside.’

SLD §71

[šumma … qe]rbitu ša imitti namrat (Apodosis +) ‘[If such and such body part in its inner]-part of the right side is bright.’

2

  The predicate of the protases has a feminine plural stative ending (George restores the form as […tar]kā, ‘are darkened’), which could serve either a dual or a feminine plural subject. Perhaps one should consider restoring najjabātu (ribs) that demand a feminine plural predicate. Cf. OB §§89–92, 96, which have the predicate tiṣbutā in the protases. 3   YOS 10 8 = Goetze (1957, g); see CAD/Š/III:185a. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

242

§72

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

[šumma … qe]rbitu ša imitti tarkat (Apodosis –) ‘[If such and such body part in its inner]-part of the right side is dark.’

§73

[šumma … qer]bitu ša šumēli namrat (Apodosis –) ‘[If such and such body part in its inner]-part of the left side is bright.’

§74

[šumma … qer]bitu ša šumēli tarkat (Apodosis +) ‘[If such and such body part in its inner]-part of the left side is dark.’

Thus, to conclude, as we find qerbēnum in the OB version, we find qerbitu in the SLD: both words are used in the sense of ‘insides’, interior’. The use of similar terms may indicate that one needs to restore šuptum as the body part at the final entries of the SLD manuscript. This, however, cannot be fully verified. One final word. The apodoses of this manuscript are incredibly dull, at least to modern sensibilities. They are almost all concerned with military successes or failures, either of the client or the enemy. Some apodoses are similar to the OB version, especially §§72–82.4 A few apodoses concerned with unstable foundations (§15), late crops (§18), and conspirators (§26), diverge from the rest of the banal predictions given in this manuscript. 1.3 Characteristic Features of the Sealand Dynasty Manuscript As discussed above, the SLD manuscript can be confidently dated to ca. 16th century BCE. Internal criteria can also help us understand when this composition was put into its current form. There are instances where we see that Old Babylonian spelling conventions were kept, e.g., i-ir-ru-ur, i-ip-pu-ušx. However, it is not likely that mimation was still current in this period, hence the spelling li-tam (§§63–68) may be taken as an Old Babylonian spelling relic which has to be realized as li-ta5. A Late or Post Old Babylonian feature found in this text is the nasalized form bantu (on the basis of §8 [b]a-an-ti), instead of Old Babylonian bamtu. Extensive use of logograms, sometimes also for verbs, is found both in the protases and apodoses. This clearly indicates a move away from the phonetic spelling of the OB šumma immeru version. Logograms found in the protases are: gùb (šumēla, ‘left’), igi (īnu, ‘eye’), ˹ki˺ ! .ta (ušappil(-amma), ‘descended’), ku 6 (nīnu, ‘fish’), mi+ib.ḫi (ṣiḫḫu, ‘cyst’), šub di (nadi, ‘placed’) and zi (imitta, ‘right’; the usual writing is á.zi). In the apodoses we find: a.šà (eqlu, ‘field’), du ku (illaku, ‘it will go’ [subj.]), edin ri (ṣēri, ‘steppe’), gar  an (išakkan, tašakkan, ‘he/you will establish’), ḫul 4

 Cf. SLD §§60ff. and OB §107. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

243

(lumnu, ‘adversity’), k[á.gal] (ab[ullu], ‘city gate’/; ḫirit āli, ‘the city moat’), ki.min (šanû, ‘another’), kum ak (idâk/tadâk ‘he/you will defeat’), kúr  ri/ru (nakru, ‘enemy’), mè (tāḫazu, ‘battle’), mu (šumu, ‘entry’ [lit., ‘name’]), nam.ne.ra (šallatu, ‘booty’; usually nam.ra(.meš)), ri.ri.ga (miqittu, ‘fall’), suḫuš an (išdān, ‘foundations’), šà bi (libbi, ‘heart’), šub ut (imaqqut, ‘it will fall’), tar ri-ik (tarik, ‘dark’), giš tukul (kakku, ‘weapon’), ugu (eli, ‘over’), and uru ki (ālu, ‘city’). Two features of this manuscript that are shared with other Sealand Dynasty texts are the use of special logograms and the peculiar use of superfluous phonetic complements: érin ni (ummānu, ‘army’; §4), kum ak (idâk/tadâk ‘he/you will defeat’; §54); mi+ib.ḫi (ṣiḫḫu, ‘cyst’; §5); nam.ne.ra (šallatu, ‘booty’; §71); tar ri-ik (tarik, ‘dark’; §19). For further discussion with additional examples from other texts, see George (2013: 131–141). 1.4 The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript and Other Sealand Dynasty Omens SLD is the latest testament to be added to the history of the development of the šumma immeru omens. It was published along with additional new omen compendia in CUSAS 18. Some are Old Babylonian, others come from the kingdom of Tigunānum in the Upper Tigris region. A few more are Middle Babylonian and Standard Babylonian omen compendia. However, the SLD manuscript belongs to a distinct group of texts (and not only omen compendia) that can be dated to the Sealand Dynasty, which briefly thrived in the 16th century, after the fall of Babylon in the south of Mesopotamia. The colophons of these texts mention the regnal years of two (previously known) Sealand Dynasty kings––Pešgaldarameš and Ayadaragalamma. Although not all compositions of this group have colophons with king years, George was able to isolate twelve omen compendia (including this manuscript) and related divinatory materials and define them as a single group on the basis of a set of distinguishing characteristics (as such special sign-forms, spelling, and unique logograms, some of which we have encountered above).5 Most of the compendia deal with the parts of the liver (CUSAS 18 23–27), but there are others: a compendium of the middle lobe of the lung (no. 28), a šumma izbu compendium (no. 29) and a diagram of the tīrānū (no. 32).6 In addition to these texts, a few other compositions seem to be of the same origin, notably a Gilgameš tablet.7

5

  One Sealand Dynasty omen compendium (qerbū omens) was published long ago by Nougayrol (1971). CUSAS 18 31, an intestines compendium, with affinities to this group, it perhaps to date later because of its Middle Babylonian script; George (2013: 131). 6   As observed by George, these features are distinct and consistent enough to be detected elsewhere. A collection of omens from Susa published by Labat (1974) share some distinctive characteristics with the Sealand Dynasty group. In addition, some of these features, once thought to have arrived from Susa, as Farber (1993a) suggested, can be detected in a few astronomical omens from Hattuša; see George (2013: 141). Note, however, that the LBA šumma immeru version (from Hattuša and Emar) does not in any way resemble the scribal tradition manifest in the Sealand Dynasty manuscripts; see Chapter 3. 7   George (2007) and further in Chapter 9, Part III.2, p. 344. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

244

In sum, there appears to have been a veritable scribal tradition in southern Mesopotamia that flourished in spite of the destruction of the many scribal centres in the south of Mesopotamia. A fuller evaluation of these materials, their origin and diffusion, is obviously outside the scope of our discussion. For present purposes, the SLD manuscript serves as the earliest evidence of omen compendia related to the šumma immeru omens: it was apparently created in their wake.

2. The Assur Bone Omen Compendia Chapters 2 to 4 of this book have demonstrated that the bones of the sheep, especially of the hind leg and back, feature throughout the various versions of the šumma immeru omens, particularly in the OB version. These bone parts also generated their own compendia. Evidence of this process comes from Assur and Emar. Three omen compendia recovered from Assur (Middle Assyrian to Early NeoAssyrian) deal with sheep bones.8 2.1 KAL 5 2 KAL 5 2 is an early Middle Babylonian composition found at Assur. The tablet has around 30 omen entries but the beginning of all the protases are missing because the tablet is broken. However, it is clear that the tablet dealt with sheep bones. The colophon reads: [32 mu].bi eṣ-me-tum, ‘[32 en]tries: “Bones”’. Obv. 14 and rev. 8 mentions the sheep’s shins (kuriātum; kurītum). The last omen entry observes the eṣmētum ša singaggarītim ṣeḫḫerētum. Although the entry is broken, it was confidently restored on the basis of OB §69 as follows:9 [šumma eṣmētum ša singaggarītim ṣeḫḫerētum ša imittim p]u-ul-lu-ša mārat(dumu.munuš) šarri ( lugal) a-na ḫa-ri-mu-tim uṣ-ṣi ‘[If the small bones of the right singaggarītu are pi]erced, the king’s daughter will become a prostitute.’ We cannot know which bone parts were included in this compendium, but it is very likely that it included the bones of the sheep’s hind leg––perhaps the os coxae (naglabum) and the carpal bone (kiṣallu). 2.2 KAL 5 3 (KAR 432) KAL 5 3 is a Middle Babylonian tablet from Assur. It is a partly-preserved text (10 lines per side) concerned with the ribs (either the najjabtu or the sikkat ṣēli, wr. kak.ti).10 The colophon informs that it would have held 82 omen 8

  For additional discussion about the origin and nature of the omen texts from Assur, see Chapter 4 and Chapter 9, Part III. 9   Thus Heeßel (2012: 69, n. 15). 10  Heeßel (2012: 71, n. 6). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

245

entries.11 Obv. 1–8 can be compared to OB §§94–95 and rev. 1', 8'–9' to OB §§89–91. 2.3 KAL 5 4 This tablet is a fragment of a three-column tablet from Assur.12 Although broken, the first column of the compendium no doubt dealt with the isru (an unidentified body part; see Chapter 8) on account of the bone that follows it; see below. The second column is concerned with the vertebrae (kunukku; wr. uzu kišib).13 The third column deals with the ribs. Two columns on the reverse (cols. 4 and 5) include entries concerned with the sternum (kaskasu; wr. gag.zag.ga.). Like OB §§74–81, they deal with the sternum when it is bent (kapiṣ) and lies back (naparqud).14 It is not clear what the subject of the third column of the reverse (col. 6) was.15

3. The Emar Bone Omen Compendia Emar 682, 683 and 684 are tablet fragments from Emar. They were written in the scribal tradition of the Syrian school in the city, which situates them sometime before, or early in, the 14th century.16 The texts are very fragmentary but were confidently identified by their editor Daniel Arnaud as omens relating to the sheep’s bone parts: Emar 682 and Emar 684 deal with the ribs (probably the najjabtu or, less likely, the sikkat ṣēli, wr. kak.ti) and Emar 683 with the rib cage (ṣēlu, wr. ti).17 Emar 682 and Emar 684 are in many ways similar to KAL 5 3 (a Middle Babylonian Assur tablet; see above 2.2). In both texts, the ribs can have branching (laria irši); they can be split (Emar: šatiq; Assur: šatqat) or swollen (Emar: ḫamṣu, ḫu[mmuṣū]; Assur: ḫamṭat);18 or be joined to each other (nenmudū). In 11

  According to Heeßel (2012: 71) the tablet can be considered a ‘forerunner’ of Bārûtu 1 (isru), Tablet 3. Koch (2000: 19, n. 40) considers this and other tablets from Assur as “virtually duplicates, except for matters of orthography, of canonical texts”, but the situation is somewhat more complicated (see discussion in Chapter 9, Part III); see further below, 7.4. 12   The tablet, according to Heeßel (2012: 76–77), is a ‘forerunner’ of Bārûtu 1 (isru), Tablets 1–4; see further below, 7.4. 13   KAL 5 6 is a fragment that also deals with the kunukku. 14   KAL 5 5 and KAL 5 7 probably also treat the kaskasu. 15   Heeßel (2014: 70, n. 10) discusses the possibility that col. vi included omens relating to the kidneys; see also KAL 5 4 (p. 77), note to VI 1'–8'. 16   Cohen (2009: 139–141) and Rutz (2013: 224). See also Koch (2000: 17–18). 17   There is a possibility that the fragments join to one tablet; Rutz (2013: 224) and Arnaud (1985–1987: 306–307). Note that Arnaud (1985–1987: 308) expresses some doubt regard�ing the identification of Emar 684. 18   The verbal forms are difficult in both texts. KAL 5 3, rev. 1'–3' has ḫa-am-ṭá-at and Emar 682, 9'–10' has ḫa-am-šu, ḫu-u[m-mu-šu]. The form is probably from the verb ḫamāšu, ‘swollen’(?); CAD/Ḫ: 61a. See discussion also by Heeßel (2012: 71, n. Rs. 2'–3'). The verb also appears in an omen report (inscribed on a liver model), dealing with the accession to the throne of Daduša from Ešnunna; see Al-Rawi (1994, no. 5) and p. 251. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

246

addition, we can demonstrate a very close correspondence between protases and apodoses of the OB šumma immeru omens and Emar 682.19 Note the following comparison: OB §§90–91 šumma najjabātu(kak.ti) ša imittim 3 ina qablišina tiṣbutāma muḫḫašina mitḫar ana šarrim alānūšu nakrutum iturrūniššu ‘If three right ribs are attached in their middle and their top part is parallel, the king’s cities that revolted against him will return to him.’ šumma najjabātu(kak.ti) ša šumēlim 3 ina qablišina tiṣbutāma muḫḫašina la mitḫar ana šarrim alānū ša nakrim ibballakatūni ‘If three left ribs are attached in their middle and their top part is not parallel, the enemy’s cities will revolt against the king.’ Emar 682 16'

be kak.ti ša zag 3-ma ina múru [...]

17'

ana lugal uru ki .meš na-[kur-tu ...]

18'

be kak.ti ša zag 3-ma ina múru [...]

19'

na-kur-ti uru ki .meš [...]

Emar 683, of which only the opening of the protasis is preserved––alternating pairs of the right and left rib cage––is similar in structure to OB §§84–88.

4. The Bārûtu Series and Related Sources 4.1 Bārûtu Ch. 1 and its Commentary By the first millennium, extispicy omens were collected in a single great series called Bārûtu, which consisted of ten chapters, each containing around fifteen tablets or less. The series as a total consisted, as far as can be reconstructed, something like one hundred tablets.20 Accompanying the series was its commentary, extant in many manuscripts.21 Both the series and its commentary still await a complete modern edition but this is surely a monumental task. Of immediate concern is the first chapter of the series which deals with sheep body parts that are also mentioned in the šumma immeru omens.22   This was already realized by Arnaud (1985–1987: 306, nn. 16'–17').   Koch (2015: 94–117). 21   Frahm (2011: 167–189). 22   An edition of this chapter is now under preparation by U. Koch and N. Heeßel. The description of the chapter and its contents relies on Koch (2015: 96–98); see also Starr (1992) and Heeßel (2014: 73–74). 19 20

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

247

Bārûtu Ch. 1 consists of four tablets. The first tablet is dedicated to the body part called the isru, and to the larsinnu, ‘hoof’.23 The isru gave its name to the entire chapter. An anatomical identification of this body part will be offered in Chapter 8, pp. 283–285. Bārûtu, Ch. 1 continues with three more tablets relating to the kunukku, ‘vertebrae’ and the najjabtu, ‘rib(s)’ (or ‘cartilage at the tip of the rib’/‘floatingribs)’ (Tablet 2), the sikkat ṣēli, ‘ribs’ (Tablet 3), and the kaskasu, ‘sternum’ (Tablet 4). These body parts appear in the šumma immeru omens in more or less the same sequence, and are collected in individual compendia from Assur and Emar, as presented above. There was also a commentary text dedicated to Bārûtu Ch. 1.24 Our comments on Bārûtu Ch. 1 and its related texts are limited as we await the full publication of the chapter and its commentaries in order to conduct a complete assessment of their relationship to the šumma immeru omens. What can be immediately stated it that there is one strong link between the two texts. The formula defined as a typical sentence of the šumma immeru omens appears in one of the commentaries of Bārûtu Ch. 1, Tablet 1. The sentence in the commentary reads: 25 [be man-ú / šal-šú mu-ni ina i]s-ri 4-šú-nu bùr.meš šub.meš bar udu.níta gaz kúr ‘[If––in a second entry / a third entry––in the i]sru––there are four of them––there are perforations, let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’ There is no doubt that this sentence from the commentary is a direct quote from Bārûtu Ch. 1, Tablet 1, which is lost to us today. Indeed, the formula ‘Let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’ is also found in KAL 5 1, which is an excerpt tablet of the Bārûtu. See below under 4.2.

23

  The small fragment 82-3-23-17 (unpubl.) deals with the isru, and, on its reverse, with the larsinnu; Starr (1992: 46–47). A larger fragment of Bārûtu Ch. 1, Tablet 1 is K 2722++ [P394632] (unpubl.). 24   There are several versions of the commentary text from Nineveh and sites in Babylonia (Babylon and Uruk). For details, see Frahm (2011: 172–173) and the following discussion. 25   K 6450++ (partly publ. as CT 31 49), obv. 8; see further Chapter 9, Part I and for the scribe, Chapter 9, Part III.2, p. 351. The same sentence, although broken, is also found in another copy of the commentary, K 3978+ i 13 [P395337] (unpubl.), as noted by Heeßel (2012: 53, Bemerk. I 10). A similar formulation is found in extispicy reports; see n. 42. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

248

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

4.2 KAL 5 1 (KAR 423) KAL 5 1 is a single tablet from Assur which holds selections (liqtu) from the entire Bārûtu series.26 Like the Bārûtu seen above, it includes omens relating to the sheep’s external and internal body parts, organized by discrete sections. Of the body parts, it includes only the isru and kaskasu. Then follow the inner body parts, tīrānū, ‘coils of the colon’, manzāzu, ‘Position’, padānu, ‘Path’, etc., as in the Bārûtu. Note, however, that KAL 5 1 differs from the Bārûtu in that it sections off omens relating to the kaskasu, as if the body part originally was contained in a separate chapter. In the Bārûtu series, this body part is considered as Tablet 4 of Chapter 1 and not as a separate chapter. The excerpt is of direct interest because it contains a testimony to what we call here the šumma immeru formula. KAL 5 1, obv. 10 read as follows: [be ina isri bùr.meš] šub.meš-ú uš-šer udu.níta gaz kúr ‘[If in the isru perforations] occurred, let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’ As we discussed above, this sentence appears in the commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 1, Tablet 1 (and originally appearing in Bārûtu Ch. 1, Tablet 1 itself). 4.3 K 6788––A Nineveh Fragment Relating to the Lower Parts of the Sheep This source, K 6788 [P396800], is a small fragment from Nineveh, the left top edge of an Assurbanipal-type tablet. It deals with the lower parts of the sacrificial sheep.27 Here is the edition of the fragment (based on Ulla Koch’s unpublished transcription); translation is not warranted. Obv. 1 be  qin-na-tú ḫi-pí [ … ] 2 be  qin-na-tú na me x [ … ] 3 be  qin-na-tú i me ḫ[i-pí … ] 4 be  ḫi-pi eš-šú ta x [ … ] 5 be  ḫi-pi eš-sú ta x [ … ] 6 be  ḫi-pí eš-šú [ … ] 7 be [o-o] [ … ] 8 be  qin-na-tú x[ … ] 26

  The tablet KAR 423 was once thought to represent the ‘forerunner’ stage of the Bārûtu, e.g., by Starr (1992: 46) and Kraus (1985: 164–165), but is now realized to be an excerpt text of the Bārûtu, although it follows a version different from the canonical one; Koch (2015: 90 and 94). KAL 5 1 is a new copy and a new edition of the tablet. 27   The fragment was identified by Ulla Koch; it measures 5.5 × 5 cm. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

249

Rev.   1' be  šu-up-tum [ … ] 2' be  šu-up-tum [ … ] 3' be kun da i/at ? [ … ] (Followed by a badly broken Type L Assurbanipal Colophon) The obverse (eight partial lines) deals with the buttock of the animal (qinnātu) and the reverse (2 partial lines) with the šuptu, an unidentified body part of the sheep. The catch line to the following tablet reads šumma zibbatu ...[...], ‘If a tail’. The lines of the obverse are marked ḫipi eššu, ‘recent break’, a scribal notation indicating the condition of the text the copyist was copying. The date of the composition is not known, but it is obviously not part of the SV, because, as far as can be seen for now, it mentions body parts that are not found in it––the qinnātu and the šuptu––and it does not open with be u d u . What, then, is the relationship of the fragment to the šumma immeru omens? All three body parts are found in the OB version, but not in this order. The tail, in fact, comes before the qinnātu and the šuptu. It is possible, but not certain, that the šuptu appears in the SLD manuscript (see above under 1.2). IMV1 from Assur (Chapter 4) is very broken, but from what remains of this version, the qinnatu and šuptu do not appear. However, the catch line of IMV1 mentions the tail, just like the last line of K 6788. It is therefore possible that K 6788 represents a copy of a compendium of sheep body parts, which was formed sometime after the OB šumma immeru version. 4.4 Tablets Relating to the Sheep’s Stomach Finally, to further stress the relationship between other omen compendia and the šumma immeru omens, we mention a partly preserved Nineveh tablet which contains omens relating to sheep body parts, Boissier DA 97–99.28 The obverse contains omens dedicated to the kukkudru, a part of the sheep’s stomach (‘abomasum’?), as well as to the karšu, ‘the stomach’ and the riqitu, ‘the abomasum’. The reverse of the tablet brings omens relating to the isru body part, and another sheep part, the ṭapaš(š)um (an unidentified part). These omens are said to number 120 (although far fewer are found on the extant tablet), delivered from “the mouth of the scholar” (rev. 13). Then arrive omens related to the sheep’s šuptum, an unidentified part of the inner carcass, which we have already encountered in the SLD manuscript, as well as in the OB version. As Koch (2015: 97, n. 240) remarks, the tablet displays Old Babylonian writing traditions, hence it could serve as further evidence for the formation of omens relating to sheep parts in the wake of the OB version. It is possible (with Koch 2015: 97, n. 240; ead. 2005, no. 122) that the fragment K 11242 is a commentary of the ṭapaššu, as rev. 1'–3' reads, [… ṭ]a-pa-aš-[šum… ]. 28

  Boissier DA 97–99 = 80-7-19-80 [P451966]. Only a typographical-font fascimile was produced by Boissier; a photo is available on CDLI. The tablet is mentioned by Jeyes (1991–1992: 33) and Koch (2015: 97, n. 240). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

250

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

Another source, an incomplete tablet, K 4112 [P395406], also deals with the sheep’s kukkudru.29 It is very broken and seems to be a collection of omens, some of which, so informs obv. 5', are taken from “an original tablet” (gaba.ri) from elsewhere (the place of origin is lost). The syllabic spelling conventions (e.g., i-mita, ‘right’, šu-me-la, ‘left’) certainly preserve older traditions of writing. Indeed, a short excerpt of kukkudru omens, VAT 13141, was found in Babylon, dating to the Kassite period, thus demonstrating the spread and date of such compositions prior to the first millennium.30

5. Omen Reports and Queries 5.1 Old Babylonian and Kassite Omen Reports Extispicy reports present a documentary account of the outcome of actual real-life extispicies. They are documented on about sixty individual tablets dated to the Late Old Babylonian and Kassite periods.31 A report usually opens by stating that its contents follow the sacrifice of the sheep for a particular deity for the benefit of the client. The report then describes the condition of the exta (but not in the order of the organs in the Ritual of the Diviner). At the center of attention stood the liver and its parts, followed by the lungs, the ‘heart’ of the animal and the number of coils of the colon. Sometimes, attention was given to other body parts of the sheep in the reports, usually the sternum (kaskasu), vertebra(e) (kunukku), and the ribs (najjabtu or sikkat ṣēli), listed between the lung and the ‘heart’.32 The kaskasu is mentioned in several reports. The formulation is often very similar to what we find in the šumma immeru omen compendia. For example, compare the following:33 [ka-as]-ka-su zag ù gùb n[a-p]a-ar-ku-ud ‘[The ster]num lies back both to the right and left.’ OB §81 šumma(diš) ka-as-ka-sú i-mi-tam ù šu-me-lam na-pa-ar-qú-ud ‘If the sternum lies back both to the right and left.’ There are occasions, however, where the description on these tablets differs from that of the šumma immeru omens. Consider for example, kaskasum šumēla zuqqur?? imitta iqdud??, ‘the sternum protruded?? to the left; to the right it bowed 29

Cited by Boissier, Choix, p. 108; according to Ulla Koch it is perhaps part of Bārûtu Ch. 1.  Bartelmus (2016, vol. 2: 343–344). 31   See the survey and discussion by Koch (2002). For the Sitz im Leben of the reports, see Richardson (2002). There are also about fifteen reports embedded in letters from the Mari archive; they are all found in ARM 26 = Durand (1988). 32  Koch (2000: 16–17). 33   Nougayrol (1967a, no. I, 14–15). Also, e.g., Kraus (1985, nos. 5, 27; 6, 7'; 18, 36; and possibly 3, 25). 30

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

251

down??’ (Goetze 1957, no. 18, 17–18),34 or kaskasu ṣēlū šalmā, ‘the sternum (and) the ribs were favourable’ (ibid., no. 23, 11), kaskasu ḫussur u din.din, ‘the sternum was blunt and ...’ (Kraus 1985, no. 4, 28); and kaskasu imittam ḫa-mi-iš! i-na šu-me-el ḫa-x, ‘the sternum to the right was swollen ... (and) to the left ...’ (Al-Rawi 1994, no. 5, 4; cf. Chatper 7.3, p. 245). The reports include descriptions of the vertebrae (kunukku): kunukku imittam atar, ‘the vertebra exceeded to the right’ (Goetze 1957, no. 9, 14); kunukkum imittam eteq, ‘the vertebra crossed to the right’ (ibid. no. 11, 20), kunukkū mitḫarū, ‘the vertebrae were equal’ (ibid. no. 23, 10), kunukkū naḫsū, ‘the vertebrae were recessed’ (Kraus 1985, no. 1, 23), and kunukkū nanmurū, ‘the vertebrae were facing each other’ (Kraus 1985, no. 18, 49). The reports about the najjabātu (the ribs) are different than those of the OB šumma immeru version: najjabtu ša imitti gaṣṣat, ‘the rib(s) of the right are trimmed’ (Kraus 1985, no. 4, 28; CAD/S: 246),35 najjabātu ša imitti u šumēli 1-àm atrā, ‘the ribs of the right and left are exceeding by one’ (ibid., no. 18, 50; CAD/S: 246), najjabātu ša imitti u šumēli 1-ta-àm záḫ.meš, ‘the ribs of the right and left are missing by one’ (ibid., no. 4, 51), and najjabtu ša šumēli marât, ‘the rib(s) of the left are thick’ (ibid., no. 18, 59). These descriptions find parallels with the omens of Bārûtu Ch. 1, but additional research is needed to assess the nature of this connection. A body part whose meaning and exact location are not known, the šutqu, is reported in one extispicy report (and see above the SLD manuscript): ina zibbat nīrim ina idi šu-ut-qí-im ziḫḫu nadi, ‘in the ‘‘Tail of the Yoke’’, next to the šutqu(m), a pustule is found’ (Koch 2002, no. 32, 14–15). Three additional body parts of the sheep are also mentioned in these reports: the karšum, the isru and the ṭapaš(š)u. The condition of the sheep’s stomach is reported in four reports: the karšum is said to be dark (Goetze 1957, no. 11 =YOS 10 8; Koch 2002, no. 32, 18 and no. 33, 17; Al-Rawi 1994, no. 5, 1–2). Its condition is also reported in a letter from Mari in which it is said to be dark like a frog(-stone).36 The same condition is given by the apodoses of IMV1 §35" and IMV3 §18: ‘If the sheep beats its tail three times, inside the sheep – the right stomach (karšum) will be dark (tarik)’. The body part isru is found in two reports. The first is very similar to the formulations we find regarding this body part in the commentaries of the Bārûtu and related texts: i-na is-ri ša zag ù gùb bùr šub, ‘in the right and left isru there are perforations’ (Kraus 1985, no. 4, 51). The mention of this body part appears between the lung parts and the ribs. The second report about the isru and also the body part tapaššu is found in a letter from Mari (ARM 26 116): [šu-m]é-lam ṭá-pa-šum ta-ri-ik ù is!-rum šu-mé34

  The reading is difficult; see Kraus (1985, no. 17) = Goetze (1957, no. 18).  Although these citations are entered in the CAD/S: 246–247 under sikkat ṣēli, there is no obligation to view the logographic writing kak.ti as denoting this term. See Chapter 2, Commentary to §93. 36  ARM 26 98. See also ARM 26 117 = Durand (1988: 283–284) and ARM 26 142 = Durand (1988: 306). 35

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

252

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

lam de-ki, ‘the ṭapaššum is dark on the left and the isru rises to the left’.37 Further discussion on these body parts is provided in Chapter 8. 5.2 Neo-Assyrian Oracular Queries and Extispicy Reports In the queries to Šamaš from the Neo-Assyrian period, an oracular question is put before the god Šamaš regarding the various affairs of state and the actions required to be undertaken by (usually) the royal person.38 Typically, these texts include the so-called ezib formula. This is a rather repetitive string of requests to the god to disregard any unintentional faults and transgressions that occurred during the extispicy ritual. A similar type of texts from the Neo-Assyrian period are extispicy reports. They are shorter than the queries and include (negative) apodoses.39 After inspecting the sheep in search of answers, the diviners (usually as a team of two or more) report their findings in the queries and the reports. As in the Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian extispicy reports, the parts reported in the Neo-Assyrian sources are usually the inner parts of the sheep––the liver, lungs, and ‘heart’. Other parts of the sheep around the liver and elsewhere were reported with much less regularity. The body parts featured in the reports are the sternum, the number of the coils of the colon, the ribs and floating ribs, and the vertebrae.40 Sometimes the descriptions of the body parts are similar to those found in the šumma immeru omens, although other descriptions can be found. For example, the kaskasu in the queries is said to be ‘thick’ (ebi), but such a description is missing in the šumma immeru omens. There is at least one report that mentions the isru body part (SAA 4 13), but the relevant line is badly broken.41 The kursinnu, ‘fetlock’, is a body part that appears only once in the šumma immeru omens (IMV3 §14). It receives observation in at least two of the queries.42

37

 See Glassner (2005: 287).   Starr (1990, esp. p. L) and Koch (2015: 129–133); discussion is found in PongratzLeisten (1999: 155–176). For the Sitz im Leben of the queries and reports, Robson (2011b). 39   Starr (1977); Fincke (2003–2004: 117–118, 133 and 141). 40   In the reports, the ribs (wr. kak.ti) are distinguished from the floating ribs (wr. na-aa-bat šumēli), which appear in one text (SAA 4 290). 41   SAA 4 13, rev. 13', which should possibly be restored according to other protases relating to this body part; see above. See below n. 42. 42   SAA 4 51, rev. 9: [ina is-ri … ] x x ina igi kur-sin-ni šá 15 bùr šub, [In the isru?] x x in front of the fetlock of the right-side there is a hole.’; SAA 4 313, 1': [be] ina? is?-ri bùr šá 150 be ina kur-sin-ni bùr šub-di šà-šú-nu babbar, ‘in the isru (there is) a hole in the left side; in the hock there is a hole; their inside is white.’ 38

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

253

6. Bird Divination Bird divination is concerned with the appearance of the body parts of a bird (but not its flight path). It is a rather rare type of a divination.43 Its omens are collected in a few compendia, which will be presented below. The omens are basically concerned with the observation of the animal, a sacrificial bird. The bird chosen for observation and sacrifice had to be as pure as the sacrificial sheep.44 In scholarly literature, these omens are sometimes confused with the šumma immeru omens but they should be kept separate.45 However, as will be seen, the two types of omens do share some characteristics.46 6.1 Bird Divination Compendia: Sources and Distribution The bird divination texts include the following compendia. YOS 10 51 and 52 (two-sided four-columned tablets) have omens that are concerned with a red coloration or a spot (sūmu) on the bird’s head region (eyes, tongue, front, larynx, throat) and side of the body. The style of writing is terse, and both protases and apodoses are kept simple. The apodoses refer to the stations of various gods (as celestial bodies).47 YOS 10 53 (a single column tablet) is concerned with the skin of the bird, its crest(?) (called qarnu, ‘horn’), claw and side. Two more compositions are MAH 15987 and BM 22740, which are very similar to YOS 51 and 52.48 From Susa there is one omen compendium dealing with bird extispicy.49 It is concerned with the šuptum of the bird (an unidentified body part we know from the sheep), and the eṣem iṣṣuri––an unidentified body part of the bird––as well as other familiar organs we find in the šumma immeru omens and in the texts mentioned above. KAL 5 87 (= KAR 455) is a quite broken Middle Babylonian tablet from Assur concerned with the breast (wr. gaba) of the bird. 43

  Overviews in McEwan (1981), De Zorzi (2009: 85–91), George (2013: 112–113), Maul (2013: 131–153) and Koch (2015: 141–142). 44   Maul (2013: 137), referring to Rm 222+ = Koch (2015b). 45   The confusion arose, so it seems because of the citation of the YOS texts in the CAD. For example, CAD/S: 382, sub sūmu, cites YOS 10 51 and 52 as “OB behavior of sacrificial lamb”, but the object of observation is the bird. Note, in addition, that the CAD (esp. in its earlier volumes) cites the bird divination omens as extispicy of the liver. This is because of Kraus (1950: 145), who argued that YOS 51, 52 and 53 do not refer to an actual animal (the bird), but to a feature of the exta. Since, Kraus’ view has been refuted many times. 46   This was first realized by Nougayrol (1967b: 33); see also Durand (1997: 274), George (2013: 112) and Maul (2013: 138). 47  A full treatment and discussion is found in Anor and Cohen, Forthcoming. 48   Nougayrol (1967b, Texts A and B). 49   MDP 57 7. The edition by Labat provides explanations of the bird’s special body parts and the use of rare ideograms in this text. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

254

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

Three omen collections from the Kingdom of Tigunānum deal with bird divination: CUSAS 18 18 and CUSAS 18, Appendix, nos. XIV and XV.50 The first two observe the “heart” of the bird. The diviner performing the act is said to throw the organ “into the water” (šumma libbi iṣṣuri ina mê taddima/ addima, ‘If you/I throw into the water the “heart” of the bird and…’). The purpose of this act seems strange and one wonders if we are not facing in fact a metaphorical collocation borrowed from Babylonian oil omens which open with the same sentence (šumma šamnam ana mê addima, ‘If I drop oil into the water’).51 In the Tigunānum omens, perhaps the sentence came to simply mean ‘performing divination’. At any rate, these omens were the product of Kuzzi and the scribe Šamaš-muštēšer; see below 7.7 and 7.10. CUSAS 18, Appendix XIV, is rather fragmentary. It deals with the crest (qarnu) of the bird. A related group of texts, of which the prime example is KAL 5 88 (= KAR 426), open with the phrase be mušen dù-ma, ‘when you do a bird(divination)’.52 After this phrase, there follows a description of the inner body parts, denoted by special terminology, which is very reminiscent of the special terms found in liver extispicy, such as the ‘Palace Gate’, the ‘Weapon’ or the ligament.53 There are also unique terms, such as the ‘Path of the “Loop”’ (padān ki-pi).54 One interesting text is Rm 222+, which belonged to Nabû-zuqub-kēnu.55 It is an excerpt containing bird omens (mostly lost but probably formulated like KAL 5 88, above) and prayers. Several ephemeral documents at our disposal contain reports on bird divination or deal with its practice, leading us to understand that this technique, while not as popular as sheep divination, certainly occupied a place in the practice of divination.56

50

 George (2013: 112–116, 314–316). The Appendix of CUSAS 18 includes a collection of divination texts from Tigunānum. The texts (seventeen in total) were edited by W.G. Lambert; they arrived from the antiquities market and their present ownership and location are unknown. 51   For the oil omens and their purpose, see Anor and Cohen (2018). 52   For the translation, see Heeßel (2012: 279, n. 2'). Maul (2013: 350–351, n. 56) translates differently (‘Wenn du einen Vogel zum Opfer vorbereitest’). Additional texts of this style are KAL 5 89 and 89a, and CT 20 9++ (with unpublished texts); details in Heeßel (2012: 275 and 279). 53   Maul (2013: 145–153), who tries to identify the terms with the actual inners of a pigeon, as was done for the inner organs of the sheep. 54   For the identification of this body part (bird intestine?), see Maul (2013: 148–150). 55   Koch (2015b). 56   See Durand (1997), citing two Mari letters: ARM 26 145, which is about someone requesting a diviner and pigeons for, it can be assumed, the purpose of divination; and ARM 26 229, which is about a verification of a dream apparently by bird divination. See George (2013: 112–113) for additional sources, to which we add van Soldt (2015: 521, no. 445), a Middle Babylonian extispicy report on bird divination. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

255

6.2 Bird Divination Omens and the šumma immeru Omens Although the actual practice of bird and sheep divination differed,57 they shared basic divinatory techniques. To an extent, this should be expected since both techniques observe animal parts and share terminology for corresponding physiology. Some shared parts include: the head, eyes, side, tongue, jaw, neck, throat, ribs, floating ribs, breast, and šuptum. But the bird contains some unique features: the region of the throat (kirru), the side of the body (aḫu), the wing (kappu) and main bone of the wing (kurītu), and the eṣem iṣṣuri, ‘bird-bone’, which has still not been identified.58 Unlike the šumma immeru omens, in YOS 10 51 and 52, MAH 15987 (in a partial way) and BM 22740, the observation is not of the body parts themselves or their features, but of the appearance of a red spot (sūmum) on them. On many occasions, the focus is not the entire body part but a piece thereof (such as the ‘tip’). In YOS 10 53, the Susa compendium, and KAL 5 87, the body parts are observed directly, like in the šumma immeru omens, and they can be found in various conditions, reminiscent of those found in the šumma immeru omens and other collections: the body parts can either be dark or bright, “heavy” (kabit), “swollen” (amiš; see above 7.3), shaking, coloured green, white, red, or bearing special marks. The number of body parts is rather limited in these observations: we find the skin of the bird, its crest, head, claw, side, the šuptum, and the eṣem iṣṣuri. In KAL 5 88, the outer body parts are not mentioned at all and the observation centers on the inner part of the animal. In this respect, the composition is not related to the šumma immeru omens, but to omen compendia dedicated to observing the inner parts of the sheep associated with the liver, as those of the ‘Position’, ‘Weapon’, ‘Path’, etc. One protasis of bird omens (YOS 10 51/51, ll. 4–6; see CAD/Z: 150 and U-W: 269) is very similar to the protasis of OB §21, as we have already noted; see Chapter 2, commentary for §21, p. 70. OB §21 šumma immerum ištu ṭabḫu ur’ussu issi rigmum ša maruštim ina bīt awīlim ibbašši ‘If the sheep – after being slaughtered – its larynx sounds, there will be wailing of difficulty in the man’s house.’ YOS 10 51/51, ll. 4–6 šumma ur’ud iṣṣūri ašṭūtam uwašširma ziz issi nēšum ina ḫarrānim išeḫḫiṭ ‘If the larynx of the bird relaxes its stiffness and makes a hissing sound (zizzu), a lion will attack upon a journey.’ 57

  For the differences, see Maul (2013: 140–141).   Is it possible that eṣenṣēru, ‘backbone’, is intended through the playful writing, sic, *e-ṣe-em+iṣṣuru ← eṣenṣēru.

58

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

256

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

Both apodoses are negative. But the apodosis of OB §21 is directly related to the protasis by association (sound). However, the apodosis of YOS 10 51/52 ll. 4–6 is unrelated to the protasis. Hence, one wonders which was the original. This leads us to the concluding point of our discussion. As scholars have previously noted, it is obvious that some relationship exists between the šumma immeru and bird omens (not including KAL 5 87), but it is difficult to assign priority to one type. Did the bird omens come first and inspire the šumma immeru omens, or was it the other way around? Or did they develop sideby-side? From a historical perspective, it is impossible to determine which came first. However, if we judge the textual history and development of the genre, we can well assume that the bird omens came under the strong influence of the šumma immeru omens and additional compositions. It is impossible to trace all the sources and influences on the bird divination compendia here, but a few points lead the way to see how the šumma immeru omens may have lain at their foundation. First, the observation of the bird is from the head and its region downwards; secondly, many of the body parts were seen to be shared between the two collections; they may have had a separate origin, but the unidentified body part šuptum, which features in both, may have first referred to a body part of the sheep. The context of the exstispicy ritual, which put emphasis on the sheep as the sacrificial animal, may have had its part as well in the formation of bird divination, because the bird was an animal, like the sheep, which was used in the practice of divination. The same observational techniques employed for the sheep in the ritual were then borrowed for the bird.

7. An Omen Compendium of Severed Hooves and Fetlocks The nail hoof (ṣupru) and the fetlock or hock (kursinnu) are two body parts of the sacrificial sheep found in the šumma immeru omens. An incomplete tablet from Tigunānum, CUSAS 18, Appendix, no. III, collects omens that observe these two parts, apparently after being cut off the animal.59 It is very likely that these body parts were taken from the sacrificial animal, and perhaps in the wake of an extispicy ritual; see Chapter 1. The colophon informs us that these omens are ‘(f)ifteen (omens) from stumps (nikis) of front fetlocks (kursinnū) and hooves (ṣuprātum).’ Of the original fifteen omens, only seven remain. The omens are very elementary, concerned with the direction of the body parts in relation to each other. Rather uniquely, the apodoses are in the first person singular. They mainly discuss the relationships of citydwellers and the ḫupšu-class. The omens are the product of the diviner Kuzzi, who represents a tradition of divination different from what is known from Babylonia. See further discussion below, under 7.10.

The chapter has so far been concerned with extispicy texts relating to body parts of the sheep. The following pages of Part 1 are dedicated to omens 59

  George (2013: 292–293 and 286). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

257

concerned with the appearance of the sheep as a whole and not its body parts. These include the šumma ālu series, the šumma izbu series, omens taken from the behaviour of a ewe confined to its pen overnight, and the Hittite šašta oracles.

8. Tablet 41 of the šumma ālu Omen Series The šumma ālu (‘If a City’) omen series is the largest of all omen series (more than 120 tablets). The series collects a huge variety of observations from daily life and man’s natural surroundings.60 The first part of the series is dedicated to life in the city, in and around one’s own house, and animals, domestic or wild in and around the house and household. More specifically, Tablets 22–49 are concerned with animals: snakes, scorpions, lizards, mice, ants and insects, followed by domestic animals: sheep (Tablet 41), oxen, donkeys, cows, cats, dogs and pigs. Tablet 41 of the series is concerned with the behaviour of sheep around the house. All the sources are from the first millennium.61 As the editor of the series, Sally Freedman, argues, there is no evidence for a relationship between the šumma ālu series and the šumma immeru omens. There is some similarity, however, between the opening lines of Tablet 41 and the SV, Section 1. Tablet 41 opens with an observation of the sheep’s horns, comparing them to the horns of a gazelle, a mountain goat and ox. SV Section 1 §§17–18 speaks of sheep horns being like goat horns, comparing the animal’s frame to that of other animals. However, the structure of the protases and the results given in the apodoses are completely different between these two collections. Nonetheless, some of the omen entries in šumma ālu are reminiscent of themes found in the šumma immeru omens and related texts. There is concern over the behaviour of rams in their pen, and of the animal eating feces and the discharge of excrement (šumma ālu Tablet 41, §§3', 41'; a.gar.gar). One omen describes the sacrifice of the sheep in a manner similar to what we have seen in some of the šumma immeru omens. It reads as follows (ibid., §32'): šumma immera iṭbuḫma qaqqassu naksu gan-šú uballaṣ … ‘If the client slaughters the sheep and its slaughtered head stares at its (?)…’ To conclude, apart from the topic and some shared themes, the two omen collections are sufficiently different to assume any connection between them. It is not likely that one served as a source, directly or indirectly, to the other. This is not the case, however between šumma ālu Tablet 41 and šumma izbu Tablet 18, which share a significant number of omens.62 60

  Koch (2015: 233–262); Freedman (1998), (2006) and (2017).   Freedman (2017: 3–9). 62   Freedman (2017: 4). The relationship between the two series goes further, as šumma izbu Tablets 18–24 partly parallel šumma ālu Tablets 41–44; De Zorzi (2014: 40–41). 61

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

258

In spite of this, some connection can be made between the šumma immeru omens and šumma ālu. The šumma immeru LBA version from Hattuša carries on its reverse (KBo 36.47, rev. 3'–11') a few lines from what were identified as omens similar to those found in šumma ālu Tablet 41.63 The correspondence of both sources is not exact since there is a large temporal gap between them, but one line is sufficiently indicative to allow a secure identification of the Hattuša omens. Compare the following: KBo 36.47 rev. 7' [diš l]ú i-lík-ma níta a-na igi-šu ir-qú-ud šà ! i-ṭí !-a-[ab] ‘[If the cli]ent walks by and a ram prances in front of him, he will be hap[py].’ šumma ālu Tablet 41, 11' diš udu ana igi na ir-qu-ud šà.[bi dùg.ga] ‘If the sheep prances in front of the client, he will be ha[ppy].’ Although ‘forerunners’ of the standard version of šumma ālu were found in Hittite translations, this is the only Akkadian šumma ālu text identified so far in Hattuša.64 Attention is also to be given to the fact that in Hattuša the LBA šumma immeru omens were followed by the šumma ālu omens. Although the connection does not find expression in Babylonian tablets, it is not to be ignored. The šumma izbu and the šumma immeru omens as will be seen in the next section were at one point in their history considered related. It was the object of observation––the sheep––which brought them together. Hence, such an association may have also prompted the inclusion of the šumma immeru omens and the šumma ālu omens, which deal with the behaviour of a ram, on the same tablet from Hattuša.

9. The šumma izbu Omen Series The šumma izbu omen series (consisting of twenty-four tablets in the standard version) is concerned with omens observing the (usually stillborn) foetus and any strange physiological features it may have.65 The foetus may belong to a woman, ewe, or other household or wild animals. The largest section of the series relates to the lamb, and though it discusses body parts also documented in the šumma immeru omens, the description of the foetus is entirely different. The focus is on bodily anomalies and defects of the various body parts. At first blush, Section 1 63

  Cohen (2007).   The šumma ālu ‘forerunner’ omens in Hittite translation can be found in CTH 536; consider also Animal Behaviour omens (CTH 544). No Hittite parallels to the KBo 36. 47 šumma ālu omens could be found; cf. Riemschneider (2004: 125–126). 65   De Zorzi (2014) and Koch (2015: 262–273). 64

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

259

of the SV seems to be related to the šumma izbu omens, but there is in fact no relationship between the formulations of the protases. Šumma izbu Tablets 16–17 deal with the kursinnu, and then with the inner parts of the izbu (takaltu, [‘liver, stomach’], intestines, heart and lungs), before moving to observe the testicles, behind, rectum, and sphincter of the anus. Apart from a superficial resemblance, there seems no direct connection between Tablets 16–17 and the šumma immeru omens. A tablet from Late Babylonian Uruk, LKU 124, includes šumma izbu omens relating to a donkey. The omens belong to šumma izbu Tablet 19 of the standard series.66 De Zorzi (2014: 814), however, argues that the tablet should not be considered a typical testimony of the series, because the catch line of the tablet is the first entry of the SV.67 Here is the catch line and SV §1: LKU 124, 29' be udu [geštug 2 kur-ri ka gešt]ug 2 ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi kin-ṣi u [umbin] SV §1 be udu geštu 2 kur-ri ka geštu 2 ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi kim-ṣu u umbin ge 6 14/15 šà.nigin.meš-šú ‘If the sheep, (its) ears are short and it is black in regards to the mouth, the ears, snout, the hocks, the nail-hoof(s), it will have 14/15 intestine coils.’ Although LKU 124 is not a typical šumma izbu tablet, the catch line implies a connection between the two omen types. Further evidence for the relationship between the šumma izbu and šumma immeru can also be seen in the commentaries of the šumma immeru omens; see Chapters 6 and 9, Part III.

10. Omens from a Ewe Confined Overnight CUSAS 18, Appendix, no. II is a single unique tablet that contains ten omens derived from observing the behaviour of the sheep after being confined to its pen overnight.68 The sheep’s body parts or general behaviour generate omens typical of the Mesopotamian divinatory genre. However, this divinatory method is completely unknown from other sources. It is obviously not a šumma immeru omen compendium, but it is of our interest since it is concerned with the sheep’s behaviour.69 In this text there is no mention that the animal under observation was intended for sacrifice. Since the animal is designated as a ewe (immertum)

66

  LKU 124 = VAT 14586 [P414255]; Falkenstein (1931: 26, pl. 37–38); Moren (1980: 68–70) and De Zorzi (2014: 813–815). For the LKU texts, Frahm (2011: 288–289). 67   The SV quote is based on ms. G, from Uruk. The identification of LKU 124, 29' with the opening omen of the SV was made already by Meissner (1933-1934a: 119, under 6). 68   George (2013: 288–291). 69   See also George (2013: xxi). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

260

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

throughout the text, one can safely assume that it was not intended to be killed and inspected.70 The omens of this tablet open with the same set of sentences: šumma immertum awātam (itti ilim) ērišma ina bītim ēsir u bābam ana panišu aknuk ina šanîm ūmim/šamšu išḫit ša bābim kunukkašu eptema immertam āmur ‘“If a ewe” – I requested a query (from the god)71 and I locked (it) in (its) pen (lit. ‘house’) and I sealed the door; upon the following day/as the sun shined, I opened the seal of the door and I inspected the ewe.’ The first two words, šumma immertum, “If a ewe”, open the omen as is customary in other omens. But here, the omen itself does not proceed, rather an explanation for the procedure undertaken is provided. The diviner has put forth a query for the god (awātam itti ilim ērišma) and has sealed the ewe in its pen. Upon the morrow or with the sun’s rise he opens the seal to the door and observes the ewe. The procedure of locking the door was obviously important so as to ensure that the ewe was insulated from any interruptions. Although this divinatory practice has little to do with extispicy, the sheep was kept inside, in a similar way that the inner organs, especially the liver, were deposited inside the animal’s body. Hence, the idea that the omen will be more reliable when “written” inside or away from the light, in the dark. The confinement was overnight because, according to Mesopotamian understanding, that is when the future day, or the future generally, was formed.72 The omens observe the following actions of the sheep upon the opening of its sealed confinement. Hereby follows a synopsis: §1

The sheep’s face turned (usaḫḫer) toward the i-ga/bi-[ … ].73 Its hind legs (šēpāšu wurkētum) like those of a horse, scraped the ground. It … its haunches (rapaštašu) as one.

§§2–3 The ewe’s right/left eye was ‘speckled’ (sa-ar-iq).74 70

  The ewe, immertum is feminine, but in this text its possessive pronoun in many cases is masculine, probably because of the influence of the substrate language, Hurrian. 71   The phrase itti ilim, ‘from the god’, is found only in the first omen but should be understood throughout; George (2013: 286). 72   See Chapter 1, Part III. 73   Since the apodosis of the omen speaks about somebody turning (usaḫḫa[r/ru) his face towards the kīdu (the open country), and kīdu is equated with kutallu (neck) in an izbu commentary (CAD/K: 345), one needs to consider if the ewe turned its face towards it neck, although Lambert’s transliteration doesn’t open the way to such an easy reconstruction. Note the correspondence in the following omen (§2), where the ewe’s “speckled eye” invites the same adjective (with an unclear meaning) in the apodosis. 74  The adjective ‘speckled’ (sa-ar-iq) also appears in SV §§5 and 14; see commentary ad loc., p. 174. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

261

§4–5 The ewe bows (iqaddad) its cheek (lēssu) to its right/left hoof (ina qātišu ša imittim/ša šumēlim). §6

The ewe jumped up (išḫit) in front of the person who entered its pen, once opened.

§§7–8 The ewe’s right/left eye has a shadow (ṣillam irši). §§9–10 The ewe stuck out its tongue (lišānšu ušēṣi) and blocked (usaḫḫal/ isaḫḫal) its left/right nostril (naḫir šumēli/imitti) with its tongue. These ten protases are of course supplied with apodoses. The inference between the protases and apodoses of this collection is rather simple: a left-negative and right-positive result is kept as expected and the actions described in the protases find correspondence with their apodoses. For example, if the ewe’s cheek is sunk in its left paw, “our city and land will rebel, we will strike our faces with our own hands” (§ 4). The cheek in the left-side paw draws a negative omen, which involves slapping one’s cheek with one’s hand. The omens collected on the basis of the observation of the sheep in its pen are not directly related to the šumma immeru omens, although it is probable that they stem from an exposure to extispicy procedures and the place of the sheep in them. The sheep isolation procedure, however, has more in common with the Hittite šašta oracle procedure, which will be discussed in the next section. Both derive signs from the behaviour of the animal in a confined environment at a specific time. The šašta oracle procedure observes how the ram lies down to sleep in it bedding, while here the observation is concerned with the first action of the sheep as it wakes. However, there is a notable difference: while the šašta oracles simply provide positive or negative outcomes (without an apodosis), a full apodosis is given in the šumma immertum compendium. The collection closes with a colophon directly relevant to the question of the relationship between the two divination methods. It reads as follows: 10 ša im-me-er-tim ša mKu-uz-zi šu md utu-mu-úš-te-še-er i-na é.gal lugal Tu-ni-ip-Te-eš-šu-ub ‘Ten (omens) of the ewe by Kuzzi, The hand of Šamaš-muštēšer in the palace of King Tunip-Teššub.’ This omen collection was the creation of a certain Kuzzi, who is known as the source of other omens from Tigunānum. This Kuzzi was identified by George as a diviner active in Halab. The identification is not conclusive, but indicative enough to imagine a center of learning at Halab or perhaps elsewhere in Upper Mesopotamia during the late Old Babylonian period where divination was

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

262

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

practiced and studied.75 The scribe Šamaš-muštēšer’s actual writing or copying of the omens, however, took place in the palace of Tunip-Teššub in Tigunānum. Tunip-Teššub’s kingdom is probably located somewhere between the upper Euphrates and the upper Tigris. He himself was a contemporary of Hattušili I. Both campaigned around the upper Euphrates, as reported in the Annals of Hattušili and in a letter sent to Tunip-Teššub by Hattušili. If the conventional middle chronology is followed, this situates the writing of the omens at the palace of Tunip-Teššub around the end of the 17th century. Hittite scribal activity at Hattuša is recorded at this time, although the clay liver models and other divination materials transmitted from Babylonia or North Syria are to be dated some time later.

11. The Hittite šašta Oracles A number of Hittite texts were considered related to the šumma immeru series, although they do not translate any known version of the text. They are oracles, or perhaps more precisely, records of oracle reports of past procedures (whether they actually happened or conceived as such). They are generally termed šašta oracles in the scholarly literature.76 The šašta oracle procedure observes the sheep when it lies down to rest or to sleep, probably at nighttime. This is made clear by the key-word šašta-, which means either ‘reclining, lying down’ or ‘bed, sleeping place’. All the šašta oracle procedures are followed by s u or acl es, also known as flesh oracles.77 The flesh oracles are concerned with the appearance of the liver, the gallbladder and the number of coils of the colon. Throughout the flesh oracles, the technical terms are provided in Hurrian and a special abbreviated writing. Some of the Hurrian terms are derived from familiar Babylonian terms, while others can be confidently identified with markings on the liver and other inner parts known from Babylonian extispicy. Hurrian terminology is also used in the šašta procedures, specifically two terms: kamzuriti and pakmariti, whose meanings remain obscure. On certain occasions, the šašta oracle procedures and the flesh oracles are found on the same tablet along with other types of oracles––ki n oracles, bird

75

 Indeed as suggested by Charpin (2015a: 199), there is further evidence for the origin of the Tigunānum omens in Halab. As he brings to our attention, the colophon of CUSAS 18, Appendix VII (which is a ‘Weapon’ omen collection) reads: 6 ka-ak!-ku ša ú-ba-ni ša dIškur be-el uru ḫa-la-ab [ki ], ‘Six “Weapon” omens of the “Finger” of Adad, lord of Halab.’ 76   See Hoffner (1993), Beal (2002: 64–65), Haas (2008: 62–64) and de Martino (2010). According to HPM, Konkordanz, and other citations in the literature, lastly by de Martino (2010: 63), there are twenty-one texts that contain or allude to this oracle procedure. A fuller treatment of the genre will be given by the author in a separate publication. 77   For the flesh or su oracles, see Schuol (1994) and Beal (2002). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

263

oracles and mu š e n ḫurri oracles.78 Although found with other types of oracle procedures, the šašta procedure was understood to be an independent genre. One of the šašta procedures closes with a colophon which reads: šaštan=kan ištarna arḫa ariu[ēn], ‘we have investigated the sleeping place (procedure) throughout’.79 We provide here one example of a šašta investigation in order to demonstrate the nature of this oracle procedure.80

The query from the diviner is the same as before: May the first ram be favourable and may the second ram be un[favourable]. The first ram at the first watch: (its) first sleeping place was at the left side but later it turned itself to the right side. At kamzuriti (and) pakmariti it did nothing. The first flesh(-oracle): ni(pašuri), ši(ntaḫi), and ta(nani) are present. The “Weapon” is to the right; and the “Path” of the breast looks down to (its) back; 10 coils of the colon. Favourable. The second ram at the first watch: (its) first sleeping place was at the left side, but later it moved itself to the right side. Then, at the kamzuriti, it stuck out (its) tongue to the right, and it bit it, but it did not draw it(s tongue) back. And at the pakmariti, it did nothing. The second flesh(-oracle): the temme holds the ‘Place of the Depth’. Unfavourable.

It has usually been thought that the šašta oracles record the behaviour of the ram or sheep prior to its slaughter. This assumption was based firstly on the superficial resemblance of this procedure to the šumma immeru omens; and secondly, the recording of the flesh oracles directly after the šašta procedure. As attractive as this conclusion is, little of the procedure’s description coincides with the slaughter and behaviour of the sheep as recorded in the šumma immeru omens. The actions described in the šašta procedure are more general and relate to the movement of the sheep, while considerably less attention is devoted to specific body parts of the animal, which occupy a prominent place in the šumma immeru omens. This conclusion is not to deny a general relationship between the observation of the sacrificial animal and the reading of the exta in the flesh oracle, as seen both in the šašta procedure and the šumma immeru omens.

78

  For the k i n oracle procedure, see Archi (1974) and Orlamünde (2001). For bird oracles, Sakuma (2009). Recent discussions include Beal (2002), van den Hout (2003) and Haas (2008). 79   KUB 16.40, 12'; CHD/Š: 307b. 80   KUB 18.11+ KBo 57.125, 3'–11'. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

264

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

The meaning so far provided for the šašta procedure has been inevitably based on comparing and contrasting it with the šumma immeru omens. But there is additional evidence that the principal purpose of the šašta procedure was to observe the sheep as it lay down (very likely at night) and positioned itself. The text introduced above as Omens from a Ewe Confined Overnight is strikingly similar to the descriptions found in the šašta procedure. It, too, draws apodoses from the sheep’s actions when confined. The šašta oracle procedure, along with the flesh oracles, surely were not imported from the Kingdom of Tigunānum. Nonetheless, their origin should be sought in Hurrian-speaking areas because they are infused with Hurrian terminology. In these areas, the observation of sheep – ewe or ram – may have been one of the common divinatory practices, ultimately, drawn from Syrian and/or Babylonian traditions. Hence, I do not claim an exclusive Hurrian origin for either divinatory technique––either the šašta oracle procedure or the omens from the confinement of the ewe–– but wish to demonstrate that they were known and practiced in Late Bronze Syria and Anatolia.

Part II: Manuals, Vocabularies and Lexical Lists Apart from the texts we have so far discussed, a number of compositions deserve attention because they refer, sometimes in unsuspecting ways, to the omens under investigation. We will first discuss two compositions: the Ritual of the Diviner and a Manual of Sacrificial Procedure; and we then will survey vocabularies and lexical lists that concentrate on the body parts of the sheep.

12. The Ritual of the Diviner The Ritual of the Diviner is an ikribu prayer of the diviner to the gods of divination, Šamaš and Adad. Its exemplar is HSM 7494, which is an Old Babylonian tablet of unknown provenance.81 The tablet has 142 lines and, without taking its opening prayer into account, can be roughly divided into two parts: a prayer of the right side of the sheep requesting favourable omens, and a prayer of the left side requesting unfavourable omens. In these prayers there is a description of how the body of the sacrificial sheep was examined twice: first moving right to left and then left to right, the diviner started the inspection from the head and moved to the thorax of the animal.82 Unlike the šumma immeru omens, the prayer reports how the diviner also inspected the inner parts of the animal, including the lungs, heart and the parts of the liver.

81

  Starr (1983); the tablet was copied by Mary Hussey, but published much later in YOS 11 in 1985. A partial translation is by Foster (2005: 212–213). 82  The procedure is met in a (very broken) passage of the extispicy ritual, BBR, nos.11 and 18 = Anor (2015: 105–108): ‘[ … ], from the right side of this lamb, from the tip of its horn to the tail, I inspect the right side. May the omens at the right side be favourable!’ © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

265

This text, much longer and more complex than the extispicy reports, deals with many of the sheep’s body parts. As has been noted, the Ritual of the Diviner shares mention of body parts with the OB version of šumma immeru.83 It also includes some body parts mentioned in the SLD manuscript. We find the following eleven shared items (line numbers according to the Ritual of the Diviner): zibbatum and nimšu (ll. 27, 83, 84), kunuk eṣemṣēri and kislu (ll. 28, 85), kaskasum (ll. 29, 86), šutqu (ll. 40, 98), bamtum, šuptum, šašallum and qerbētum (ll. 69, 128). Beyond the particular body parts, a single example demonstrates more deeply the relationship between the Ritual of the Diviner and the OB version of šumma immeru. The request of the breastbone, kaskasu, in the Ritual of the Diviner was that it be of extra strength (or equal thickness, as Starr translates the omen). Ritual of the Diviner, ll. 29/86 kaskasum imittam/šu[mē]lam ana qerbīnum likpiṣ li-da-na-an-ni-in ‘The breastbone on the right side / left side will be bent towards the inside and be of equal thickness.’ OB §§74–75 šumma kaska[su] imittam kapiṣ ana nakrika tu-ud-da-na-an-na-an ‘If the breast bone is bent to the right side, you will vie for superiority over your enemy.’ šumma kaska˹su˺ šumēlam kapiṣ nakirka ú-da-na-an-na-kum ‘If the breast bone is bent to the left side, your enemy will vie for superiority over you.’ Both texts deal with the breastbone and make use of the very rare form of the verb danānu in the Dtr stem; see discussion in Chapter 2, pp. 76 and 83. To conclude, in the opinion of Starr, it is possible that both the Ritual of the Diviner and the šumma immeru omens drew from closely related, if not identical sources, such as extispicy manuals, which today are lost to us.84 However, such an explanation requires the assumption of technical manuals of which there is neither a trace nor a clue. Hence a different kind of explanation is to be sought after. It can be suggested that the Ritual of the Diviner was a secondary product which relied on omen reports and omen collections, the šumma immeru omens (if not the OB version than some text close to it) included, obviously already in written form and in some sort of circulation. See further Chapter 9, Part III.

83

  Starr (1983: 26).   Starr (1983: 29).

84

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

266

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

13. A Manual of Sacrificial Procedure Another reflection of interest in the body parts of the sacrificial animal in nonextispicy texts can be seen in the Manual of Sacrificial Procedure.85 This is a learned, short bilingual (Sumerian and Akkadian) Old Babylonian composition that seemingly provides instructions for the slaughter and dismemberment of the sacrificial sheep. The body parts are treated in list-like fashion, but the text is not a lexical list because it gives instructions on how to deal with the animal and its carcass: slaughtering, draining the blood, roasting hooves, tail, shoulder and ribs, washing the stomach, and inspecting the intestines and exta. Some of the betterpreserved body parts listed in this composition are: sag.du udu/qaqqadu (‘head’), sa.mud/šer’ānu (‘nerves’), uzu umbin/ṣupru (‘hoof’), kun/zibba‹tum› (‘tail’), uzu zag.lu/imittum (‘shoulder’), ti/ṣēlum (‘rib’), uzu me.ḫe/ḫimṣum (‘omentum’), uzu  šà/qerbu (‘intestines’), uzu ú.suḫ/ riksu (‘sinews’), [u]zu  šà.maḫ/karšum (‘rumen’), [uz]u  níg.kin.gi 4 .a/takaltum (‘stomach’, ‘exta’), [šà (x) k]ešda ! .bi.a/rikis libbi (‘ligaments’), [uzu]/šīrum (‘flesh’, ‘meat’), uzu síl.g[á ? ]/[silqu] (‘boiled meat’), uzu zú zu .gír/[lipištum?] (‘membranous substance’), uzu im.kíd/[qiršum] (‘piece of trimmed meat’),86 (uzu) šà.gar.gar.r[a]/[surummum?] (‘intestinal tract’), (uzu) kun.šà.g[a]/ [kukkudrum?] (‘abomasum’), uzu šà.s[ul]/[bandillu?/karšu?] (‘rumen’), uzu níg. šá[m]/[…], and uzu lá.[lá]/[šišītum?/šisītum?] (‘membrane’/‘shank’). The composition is much less comprehensive in its treatment of body parts than BM 29663 (see 7.14.1) and certainly than the Ritual of the Diviner or the OB šumma immeru version. Nonetheless, it exhibits an academic interest in the animal’s body parts and is definitely not a practical manual of any sort intended for butchers, indicated by the fact that it lists the animal body parts in Sumerian. As such, it can be safely associated with the world of divination, and, more specifically with the extispicy ritual; see Chapter 1, Part III.

14. Vocabulary Lists and Lexical Lists 14.1 An Old Babylonian List of Sheep Body Parts (BM 29663) BM 29663 is a small and fully preserved tablet, apart from some damage to a few lines on the reverse. It is written in Old Babylonian script, and therefore it should be dated to the Old Babylonian period. It is a list of sheep body parts and inner organs.87 This is a learned composition that shares some contents with the Ritual of the Diviner and the šumma immeru omens. The tablet contains eighteen entries on its obverse. Its reverse is divided into two columns: col. ii likewise contains eighteen (or perhaps nineteen) entries, but col. iii is shorter, containing only ten 85

  Foxvog (1989) and Maul (2013: 49ff.).   CAD/Q: 270. 87   A full treatment of the tablet is found in Cohen (2018b). 86

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

267

entries. In total, the tablet holds forty-seven or forty-six entries. Forthwith is the edition and translation of the tablet.

Obv. 1

udu

sheep

2

qá-aq-qá-du

head

3

ki-ša-a-du

neck

4

na-ap-ša-at udu

throat

5

ki-im-ṣum

shin

6

is-rum?/[r]u?

leg part

7

la-ar-sí-nu

fetlock

8

ki-ṣa-al-lu

tarsal

9

ku!-ru

leg part

10

ni-im-šu

sciatic nerve

11

ša-ḫa-tum

back of knee

12

pu-qù-un-nu

body part

13

zi-ib-ba-tum

tail

14

qí-in!-na-tum

anus

15

i-ir!-tum

breast

16

ka-as-ka-s[úm]

breastbone

17

na-a-a-ba-at

floating rib

18

ku-nu-uk udu

vertebra

19

ra!-pa-aš-t[u]m

loins

20

[ki-is]-lum

transverse process

Rev.

(21–23 lost) 24

˹i˺-mi-˹it ˺-t ˹um˺

shoulder

25

ṣe-lum

rib cage

26

ṭù-li-mu

spleen

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

268

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

27

kàr-šum

rumen

28

ri-qí-tum

omasum

29

ḫa-ab-šu-tum

stomach part

30

ku-ku-˹ud ˺-ru

abomasum

31

[sà-ar-k]a-at

duodenum

32

[ku-ku]-ba-tum

reticulum

33

[su]-˹ru˺-mu-um

rectum

34

qí-˹ir˺-[b]u

small intestine

35

šu-˹uḫ˺-ḫu

caecum

36

ba-am-tum

breast

37

ša-ša-al-lum

back muscle

38

šu-up-tum

body part

39

šu-pa-at šu-up-˹tim˺

body part

40

šu-ut-˹qú ˺

esophagus

41

ḫi-im-ṣum

omentum

42

il-la-ab-bu !-˹ḫu˺!

bladder

43

ka-li-tum

kidney

44

ka-li-it bi-ir-ki

testicles

45

pu-ug-lu

body part

46

ur-ḫu-du

trachea

47

na-ap-ša !-˹ru˺

uvula

The list begins with the entry udu, ‘sheep’, apparently as its title. The first body part is the head, followed by the neck or neck region and throat (nos. 2–4). Then come parts of the leg and the rear end of the sheep (nos. 5–14). The chest area and rib cage with the vertebrae are listed next (nos. 15–25). Then follows the inner and stomach parts of the sheep (nos. 26–35). The sheep’s frame, back muscles, as well as some unidentified body parts, occupy the next entries (nos. 36–41). The list closes with the bladder, kidney, testicles, and three body parts in the region of the throat (no. 37–47). It is immediately obvious that the body parts are listed in the order they were studied and analyzed by the diviner during the extispicy procedure. The list shares seventeen items with the šumma immeru omens and twenty-one with the Ritual of the Diviner. The items related to the stomach are also mentioned by the © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

269

commentary to Bārûtu Chapter 1.88 The origin or source of the list is not known, but given the high levels of correspondence between these sources, it would not come as a surprise for it to have sprung from the same fount of knowledge, written or oral, and so not necessarily dependent directly on either the Ritual of the Diviner or the OB šumma immeru. To conclude, the list probably originated in the milieu of the diviner, or at the very least, in a learned context. 14.2 An Akkadian-Hittite List of (Sheep) Body Parts (KBo 1.51) KBo 1.51 is a partly preserved bilingual Akkadian-Hittite list found in the archives of Hattuša.89 It lists some of the sheep body parts encounterd in BM 29963 and probably rests on the same textual tradition, although some of its entries show a striking similarity to sources of the Ugu-mu lexical list.90 Since the Hattuša vocabulary exhibits a typical Late Old Babylonian/Middle Babylonian feature (nasalization, bantu ← bamtu(m); col. ii, 16'), it can be assumed that the text was transmitted to Hattuša after the Old Babylonian period. Column i is concerned with the head region: the head, throat, forehead, ear and eyes can be somewhat confidently read or reconstructed. Column ii begins by listing body parts such as the throat and trachea. It continues to the inner body parts: the lungs, stomach cavity, cover of the stomach cavity, and then further down to the liver, coils of the colon, and kidney. The list continues with the stomach parts typical of ruminants (but not associated with humans). Moving to the reverse of the tablet, we see column iii concerned with the leg parts and then the slaughtered corpse and its blood. The list closes with the penis and the vulva. Column iv is completely broken but we can assume that it continued listing additional body parts. We bring here only columns obv. ii and rev. iii. Not only are they the better-preserved columns, they are also the most relevant for our presentation because they list inner sheep parts as well as other body parts (notably the leg parts), some of which find parallel with entries in BM 29963. Obv. col. ii Akkadian

Hittite

(25)

0'

x-x

[…]

––

(26)

1'

ri-ik-[sú]

[…]

sinew

(27)

2'

ur-’u-ú-d [u]

[…]

larynx, throat

(28)

3'

sag.du ur-’u-{ras. du}-˹di ˺

[…]

top of the larynx, throat

88

  See above, 7.4.1, p. 247, and 7.4.4, pp. 249–250; K 3978+, iii 60ff.   See in detail Cohen (Forthcoming); and a partial treatment by Scheucher (2012: 283, 384 and 674–679). 90   Cf. in particular two recently published sources of the Ugu-mu lexical list: MS 4146 = Civil (2010, 4.2); and MS 2888 = Civil (2010, 4.3). 89

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

270

Akkadian

Hittite

(29)

4'

mu-ša-a-lu

pa-[pa-aš-ša-la-aš]

trachea/throat

(30)

5'

{ras.} ˹mu-ša˺-a-lu

pa-[pa-aš-ša-la-aš]

trachea/throat

(31)

6'

ḫa-šu-ú

ḫa-[aḫ-ri-iš]

lungs

(32)

7'

li-ib-bu

Š[À-er]

stomach cavity

(33)

8'

ku-ut-mu šà-ib-bi

˹ŠÀ˺-[aš … ]

cover of the stomach cavity

(34)

9'

ga-bi-du

li-[iš-ši]

liver

(35)

10'

te-er-tù

li-[iš-ši]

(36)

11'

te-ra-a-nu

ḫu-u-u[p -pa-ra-tiia-ti-iš]

coils (of the colon)

(37)

12'

me-er-tù

kar-˹ša˺-[ia]

gallbladder

(38)

13'

ṭù-li-im-mu

˹lu˺-[ … ]

spleen

(39)

14'

[k]a-li-tù

˹tal˺-[ … ]

kidney

(40)

15'

kar {ras.} -šu

{ras.} [ … ]

rumen

(41)

16'

ba-˹an˺-t [ù]

{ras.} [ … ]

ribs, side of body

(42)

17'

ri-iq-qí-[tù]

{ras.} [ … ]

omasum

(43)

18'

ḫa-ab-sú-[tù]

[…]

abomasum(?), reticulum(?)

(44)

19'

mi-is-sí-is-[sú]

[…]

non-digested food(?)

(45)

20'

pár-[šu]

[…]

non-digested food

(46)

21'

ir-[ru]

[…]

intestines

(47)

22'

qé-er-[bu]

[…]

small intestine

(48)

23'

šu-˹úr˺-[ru-mu]

[…]

rectum

(49)

24'

x-[ … ]-x

[…]

––

(50)

25'

[el-la-bu]-ḫu

[…]

bladder

‫‏‏‬

liver ?

(§§51–54 very fragmentary)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

271

Rev. col. iii (55)

1'

[…]

[…]x[…]

––

(56)

2'

[…]

˹ar˺?-ša-a-[ … ]

––

(57)

3’

[ … ] x-x

: ḫar-ga-n[a-u]

sole, hoof

(58)

4'

[…]

[ … ]-x-x-[ … ]

––

(59)

5'

[…]

[ … ]-x

––

(60)

6'

[pēmu]

[wa]-al-li-[iš]

thigh

(61)

7'

[pēmu … ]

[wa-a]l-li-iš na-ta[o-o-o]

… thigh

(62)

8'

[gìr]

GÌR-[aš]

foot

(63)

9'

[kursinni/nalbati] ˹gìr˺

pa-tal-ḫa-[aš]

fetlock/sole

(64)

10'

[ṣupur] gìr

GÌR-aš ka-l u-l up[a-aš]

nail-hoof

(65)

11'

[ra-ma]-nu

tu-e-ká[n]

body

(66)

12'

[pag]-ru

NÍ.TE-an-pát

(likewise) body

(67)

13'

[ša-la]m-tù

a-an-ša-aš-(o)-šiwi5-i[š]

corpse

(68)

14'

x-x-ši-tù

ḫu-ri-ši-ia-a[š]

?

(69)

15'

˹ṭé˺-bé-eḫ-tù

: ḫu-(o)-ni-ki-iš-šaa[r]

butchered

(70)

16'

bu-bu-’u-tù

pal-wa-aš

boil, pustule

(71)

17'

˹ad-da˺-am-mu

iš-ḫar

red-blood

(72)

18'

˹šar˺-ku

ma-ni-iš

white-blood, pus

(73)

19'

i-ša-a-ru

la-a-[lu]

penis

(74)

20'

˹mu˺-ša-a-ru

la-a-lu-[pát]

penis

(75)

21'

˹ú˺ ?-lu-uṣ-ṣú

zu-up-˹pa˺-[x]

vulva (lit. ‘joy’)

(76)

22'

[ú-lu-uṣ]-ṣú

zu-up-[pa-x]

vulva (lit. ‘joy’)

To conclude, this list brings about forty body parts, most identified as belonging to the sheep, and many of which are shared with BM 29663. As will be seen through the presentation of the next two lexical lists, the inclusion of these body parts in vocabularies and lexical lists is far from accidental. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

272

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

14.3 The 15th Tablet of the ur 5 -ra=ḫubullu Lexical List Another source collecting body parts of the sheep and therefore related to KBo 1.51 and to BM 29963 is the ‘meat-cuts’ section, or more precisely, bovidae body parts of the ur 5 -ra=ḫubullu lexical list. It is Tablet 15 of the standard version of the ur 5 -ra=ḫubullu list.91 Like KBo 1.51 and BM 29963, the section starts its list from the head region and then proceeds to other body parts, including the leg parts and the inner parts. It also includes the genitalia of the male and female reproductive organs.92 All body parts are preceded in the Sumerian column by the determinative uzu, ‘flesh, meat’. This tablet, like the rest of the great ur 5 -ra=ḫubullu lexical list, has a long history of development. The Old Babylonian unilingual (with some Akkadian glosses) version was part of Tablet 3 of the Old Babylonian series. Tablet 3 opens with a list of various sheep types, as well as other domestic animals (goats and cows), before moving to list wild animals. The body parts and meat from the animal includes some 100 entries––the last fifth of the entire tablet (nos. 402– 506). In the Middle Babylonian period, the section was part of Tablet 9 (along with wild animals). The section is preserved in a manuscript from Emar––Emar 552 (Msk 731086 (+) Msk 7342).93 The Emar manuscript is unilingual, although other sources of the tablet from Emar and elsewhere are bilingual (though they do not include the body parts section, only that of the wild animals). The Emar manuscript represents the work of the Syrian scribes of the city. It is to be recalled that the main manuscript of the šumma immeru omens from Emar is the work of a scribe working in the Syro-Hittite tradition (see Chapter 3). In the bilingual version of the first millennium (that is, the standard version), the domestic and wild animals were afforded their own tablets (Tablet 13 and Tablet 14).94 The body parts section gained a whole tablet of its own––Tablet 15––coming to include more than 300 entries. Tablet 15 also received a learned commentary (called m u r- g u d ; formerly named ḫa r-g u d ), in which difficult and rare words were explicated in a parallel column.95 The body parts tablet contains many of the terms we find in BM 29963 and KBo 1.51, thus sharing with them an interest in the leg and inner parts of the sheep. The mur-gud commentary of Tablet 15 also deals with these parts. It supplies synonyms for rare words. The entries of the commentary, mainly those dealing with the inner and stomach parts (nos. 62–71), perhaps served as the source for Tablet 5 91

  Güterbock apud Laroche (1956: 84), had already pointed out the similarity between KBo 1.51 and Hh 15. 92   The list is edited in MSL 9. For the OB version, see MSL 8/1: 79–94; also in DCCLL (oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt), under Thematic Lists, Ura: Old Babylonian (Tablet 3), Middle Babylonian (Tablet 9) and First Millennium (Tablet 15). For an introduction to the structure and development of the list, see Veldhuis (2014: 149–157, 229, and 250–252). 93   See details in Rutz (2013: 191–192) and Veldhuis (2014: 252). 94   MSL 8/1 and MSL 8/2. 95   For the mur-gud commentaries, see Veldhuis (2014: 363–366) and Frahm (2011: 249–253). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

273

of the synonym list šarru=malku. As has been noted, the synonym list šarru=malku contains several entries (nos. 8–17B) relating to the sheep’s inner parts.96 14.4 The Practical Vocabulary (The Assur Version) The Practical Vocabulary lists over 1000 (reconstructed) entries.97 The entries–– logographic writing with Akkadian equivalents (although not for each entry)–– are culled from a variety of lexical sources and seem to be primarily, though not exclusively, concerned with the vocabulary of daily life. Entries 912 to 930 list the inner parts of the sheep, most of which we know from elsewhere. Most importantly, the list also includes entries of extispicy terms. This source is crucially important because it forms a link between common divination terms and the sheep body parts. The sheep parts include not only integral parts of the stomach region, but also the ribs and the sternum. Sumerian

Akkadian

912

uzu

zé

mar-tú

gallbladder

913

uzu

máš

ṣi-ib-tú

increment

914

uzu

šu-si

ú-ba-nu

‘Finger’

914a

uzu

gír

ma-za-zu

‘Position’

915

uzu

gír

pa-da-nu

‘Path’

916

uzu

me-ni

ká é.gal

‘Palace Gate’

917

uzu

kal-an

da-na-nu

‘Strength’

918

uzu 

bùr

ši-lu

hole

919

uzu

kak.ti

sik-kat ṣi-li

ribs

920

uzu

kak.zag.ga

ka-[as-ka-su]

sternum

921

uzu

silim

šul-mu

‘Well Being’

922

[uzu šà]

ir-[ru]

intestines

96

  Hrůša (2010: 108–111). For the possible mur-gud source of malku=šarru, see Hrůša (2010: 19). Further on the list, Geller (2015). 97   Edition by Landsberger and Gurney (1957-1958); corrections according to Weiershäuser in Digitale Keilschrift Bibliothek (under VAT 14253++) (http://keil. uni-goettingen.de). The manuscripts are from Sultantepe and Assur. There are also fragmentary manuscripts from Nineveh, but their arrangement is different; Peterson in DCCLT under Practical Vocabulary Nineveh [P395531]. The Practical Vocabulary (The Nineveh Version) is arranged somewhat differently and extispicy terms are not found. For a brief discussion on the list, see Veldhuis (2014: 357–358); see also MSL 8/2 (Hh 14): 67–70. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

7. Sources Related to the šumma immeru Omens

274

923

[uzu … ]

[…]

[…]

924

[uzu … ]

na-aḫ-tú

part of the exta

925

[

[ú ]-zu-un-tú ni-i-tú

part of the exta

926

[uzušà.nigin].na

ti-rù

coil (of the colon)

927

[uzu … ]-tù

928

[

929 930

uzu

…]

–– si-ma-tú

?

[uzu … ]

li-pu ir-ru

fat of the intestines

[uzu ellag]

ṭu-[li ]-mu

spleen

uzu

… ]-x

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 8

The Sheep Body Parts šumma eṣmētum ša singaggarītim ṣeḫḫerētum ša imittim pullušā mārat šarrim ana ḫarīmūtim uṣṣi ‘If the small bones of the right metacarpal are pierced, the king’s daughter will become a prostitute.’ (OB §69) Since the šumma immeru omens are concerned with over thirty body parts of the sheep, it is unavoidable to investigate which benefited from examination and observation. This chapter will look in some detail at the body parts that starred in these omens.1 Our survey will cut across various versions––from the OB to the SV. In the notes the occurrence of each body part in each version will be cited, as well as the different ways in which it is written. The discussion will naturally focus on the less easily identified body parts. For example, the eṣmētum ša singagaritim ṣeḫḫerētum, whose omen serves as the epigraph of this chapter, will receive special attention. We will also propose some new identifications for body parts in the omens and related compositions (as brought in Chapter 7) that have thus far defied identification.

1

  It is impossible to survey here the entire literature dedicated to the identification of the many sheep body parts, but two pioneering studies are to be singled out, Hussey (1948) and Goetze (1957). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

276

8. The Sheep Body Parts

1. The Head Region The observation of the sheep’s body parts begins with the head region and proceeds to the animal’s hind parts, until finally arriving to the stomach area. The head region includes the eyes, ears, mouth, tongue, jaw, teeth, nose, temple, nape, cheek, and throat. These appear in the OB version, and mostly in other versions, but some parts drop out in later versions, notably the jaw, temple, nape, and cheek. The LBA version contains many omens concerned with the head itself, intermixed between other omens.2 The omens of the IMV2 all open with the slaughtered head of the sheep.3 The OB version omens open with the eyes (īnu, īnā(n)); (the LBA version opens with the mouth).4 The observation is of the direction of the gaze of the eyes––either to the left, right, or both eyes––and whether the eye or eyes are open. When the eyes are fixed (OB §3) or looking in the direction of the altar (SV §§24, 51'), the god will have appeared in the sacrifice or will have heard the client’s prayer. If the eyes are shut, the god will have been absent from the sacrifice (SV §27). Sometimes the condition of the eyes is said to be frightened (IMV1 §2), widened (SV §86''; possibly also IMV4 l. 7), trembling(?) (SV §52'), red (SV §3), sparkling (SV §5), speckled (SV §13), or yellow (SV §14). The eyes can also hold or shed tears.5 Next, the ears (uznu, uznā(n)) are treated.6 When the ears are taut (IMV1 §2, 7) or stretched toward the front of the sheep or the direction of the altar, the omen will be favourable (LBA §8; IMV1 §9; SV §§33, 53'); ears to the rear (LBA §9; IMV1 §10; SV §34) or ears that tremble (SV §52') bring about a negative result. The ears can be described as short (SV §1) or long (SV §2). The mouth (pû) follows.7 It can be open (OB §5) or continuously open and close (LBA §§4–5). There is significance to the number of times the mouth opens and closes (LBA §§76'–80'). The mouth, as other organs of the sheep, can be described as dark (SV §§1–2). Four other parts of the mouth are specified in the series: the palate, tongue, jaw and teeth. The palate (liq pî ) appears only once in the entire series, at the very end of the SV.8 Perhaps because the body part is not directly viewable it escaped observation in other versions. 2

 LBA: sag.du (§§ 34–36, 39–41, and 47).  IMV2 : sag. 4   OB: i-ni-šu; i-na-šu (§§2–3); LBA: igi; igi.ḫi.a-šú (§§12–16); IMV4: i-na-šu (l. 7); SV: igi; igi.meš-šú; igi 2 -šú; igi 2 .meš-šú (§§2–3, 5, 13, 14, 24–30, 50'–53', 70', 81''–89''). 5   OB: di-i-ma-tu-šu (§16); LBA: di-ma-tù-šu (§§16–17); IMV3: di-ma-tu-šú (§11); SV: ér (§§28–30, 53'). 6   OB: uz-na-šu (§4); LBA: geštu; geštu.ḫi.a-šú/šu (§§8–11); IMV1: geštu.meš-šu; geštu-šu (§§2, 4, 8–12); IMV3: geš[tu.meš-šu] (§1'); SV: geštu; geštu.meš; geštu 2 (šú) (§§1, 2, 31–34, 52'–53'). 7   OB: pi-i-šu (§5); LBA: ka×u(-šú) (§§4–5, 76'–80'); SV: ka (§§1–2). 8   SV: a.u 5 .ka (§103''). The term is explicated in UC2 rev. 29 as li-iq pi-i; see pp. 216 and 220–221. The term is found in medical omens, but it is rare in the šumma izbu series; see Tablet 12, 82' and 87' = De Zorzi (2014: 683–684). 3

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8. The Sheep Body Parts

277

The tongue (lišānu) is afforded a good number of observations in the OB and LBA versions, but receives only one entry in the SV. The tongue can be extended (OB §§6–7; LBA §§5, 18, 21–22), coated (OB §8), swollen (OB §9) or bitten (IMV1 §6; SV §81'').9 In later versions, the tongue is basically abandoned and the lips (šaptā(n), šapātu) come to replace them. The lips are given pride of place in IMV2 and SV.10 Some lip omens are similar to tongue omens in the OB version (e.g., IMV2 §11 and OB §7 or SV §100'' and OB §7), supporting our claim that they have come to replace the tongue. This replacement possibly occurred due to the similarity of their logographic signs, eme (ka×me) and nundum (ka×nun) for ‘tongue’ and ‘lip’, respectively. The jaws (isū) come after the tongue in the OB version (and only there).11 The jaws can quiver, or be both or singularly pierced.12 The sheep’s teeth (šinnā(n); šinnātu) garnered attention in four šumma immeru versions.13 The teeth can be bared (OB §13) or gnashed (LBA §3; SV §79'').The nose (appu) is observed as wrinkled (OB §§14; SV 92''), blown (IMV2 § 3; SV §102'') or lifted high (OB §15; IMV2 §2; SV §91'').14 The snout (ḫuṭṭimmu) of the animal is also observed, but only in Section 1 of the SV.15 It can be dark or likened to that of a dog. The nostrils (naḫīrū) appear only once in the SV, just before the nose.16 Out of the nostrils comes the sheep’s mucus (upāṭu) (paired with the tears; see above); it appears in only two versions.17 Also around the sheep’s head is its temple (nakkaptu), which is described as being dark (either to the right or left).18 It is the last organ to be described in the SV. The organ is famously the object of a surgical procedure in the Code of Hammurabi §215: the doctor opens a man’s temple (nakkapti awīlim) with a copper lancelet. 9

  OB: li-ša-an-šu (§§6–9); LBA: eme (-šú) (§§5, 18, 21–22); IMV1: li-ša-an-šu (§6) SV: eme (§81''). 10   IMV2: nundum-su, nundum.meš-šú (§§4–17); SV: nundum-su, nundum.meš-šú (§§93''–101''). 11   For some reason, the more common term laḫû is not used in this text. According to CAD/ I–J: 204–205, both isu and lahû are used for animals and humans. There is no diachronic distinction between the two terms, because they are found from the Old Babylonian period and beyond. The entries in Hh 15, 12ff. (see Chapter 7.14.3) show that the terms may have had different shades of meaning: me.zé = isu, ‘jaw’; me.zé kud.da = lašḫu, ‘short-jaw’ (referring to the part of the jaw inside the mouth; CAD/L: 108); and me.zé gíd.da = laḫû, ‘long-jaw, jaw-bone, cheek.’ The isu may have referred to the upper and lower jaws, but the laḫû may only have denoted the lower jaw; see Böck (2000: 50, n. 237). 12   OB: i-sà-šu (§§10–12). 13   OB: ši-in-ni-šu (§13); LBA: ka×érin.meš-šú (§3); IMV4: ši-in-na-š[u] (ll. 10, 12–13), but the context is completely lost; SV: zú.meš (§79''). 14   OB (§§14–15), IMV2 (§§2–3), and SV (§§91''–92'', 102''): ap-pa-šu/šú. 15   SV: ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-mi, ḫu-ṭím-mi, ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-mi, ḫu-uṭ-ṭím-me, ḫu-uṭ-ṭi-im-me (§§1, 7, 12–13). 16   SV: na-ḫi-ri-šú (§90''). 17   OB: ú-pa-ṭù-šu (§17); IMV4: ˹ú˺-pa-ṭù-šu (l. 8). 18   OB: na-ak-ka-ap-ta-šu (§18); SV: na-kap-ti 15-šú/150-šú (§§104''–105''). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

278

8. The Sheep Body Parts

The horns (qarnā(n), qarnū) are observed only in Section 1 of the SV: they are described as long, short or likened to goat horns.19 The sheep’s kutallu should be understood as the back of its neck or nape, which is differentiated from the neck itself (kišādu; see below). It appears once in the OB version, described as dark, and once in the SV.20 The organ is more commonly found in Bird Divination; see Chapter 7.6. It is very commonly used in šumma izbu (esp. in Tablet 11) as a body part upon which eye(s) or ear(s) and other organs are misplaced, or which they face. Also appearing in the OB version is the cheek (lētu), again described as dark.21 The organ is found several times in the šumma izbu omens. The throat (ur’udu) follows the cheek, omitting a sound after the animal’s slaughter.22 After the slaughter there follow a few omens dealing with the blood and the discharge of gore. Inspection of the head region thus ends, and now it is the turn of the hind part of the animal.

2. The Hind Area of the Animal The hind area of the animal includes the buttocks, hips and parts of the hind leg. Almost all of these elements are treated only in OB version. The tail and the nail-hoof are also found in the SV. One part, the ankle or hoof (but of two different terms, kursinnu and kimṣu) is known only from IMV3 and the SV. The foot (šēpu) is treated for its movements in LBA, IMV3 (restored), and the SV.23 The nail-hoof (ṣupru) is the first to be observed.24 The nail-hoof can be split, either right or left (OB §§25–26). It is described as black (SV §§1–2), short or long(?) (SV §§12 and 19); the nail-hooves can also lie one on top of the other (SV §4). Some omens in šumma izbu are concerned with the shape of the nail-hooves of a stillborn foetus. They compare the shape of the nailhooves to those of other animals; see šumma izbu Tablet 20, 2, 6, 8, 14' and 15' (De Zorzi 2014: 826–827). Two omens in the OB version deal with the movement of the sheep’s head,25 and then the sheep’s behind (šuburru), distinguished from the animal’s anus; see below. The behind is found only in the OB version.26 19

  SV: si.meš-šú (§§6, 15–18); SV B: qar-ni and H2: qar-ni (§§17–18).   OB: ku-ta-la-šu (§19); SV: ku-tal-la-šú (§54'). 21   OB: li-is-sú-ú (§20). 22   OB: ú-ur-ḫu-sú-ú (§21); LBA: ḫu-ur-ḫu-us-sú (§25). The observation here does not relate to the trachea, since the organ is observed from the outside, so it must be the sheep’s throat. 23  LBA: gìr (§§28–29); IMV3: [gìr] (§§19–22); SV: gìr (§§21–23). 24   OB: ṣú-pu-ur i-mi-ti-šu/šu-me-li-šu (§§25–26); SV: umbin, umbin.meš (§§1–2, 4, 12, 19). 25  OB §§26 and 27. The body part, rēšu, is restored. 26   OB: [š]u-bu-ur-ri-šu (§29). 20

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8. The Sheep Body Parts

279

After a few omens dedicated to the sheep’s movements, we find one omen dedicated to the sciatic nerve of the thigh (nimšu).27 In both the OB and SV versions, the protasis is the same: the sciatic nerve can be lax or taut (on either side of the body). The šumma immeru commentaries also devote an entry to this body part.28 In the OB version, six omens are dedicated to the movement of the sheep’s tail (zibbatu).29 An additional six are devoted to the observation of the tail’s colouration (dark) according to its parts (top middle and bottom) and sides. Only one omen in SV (from what survived) is concerned with the colouration of the tail. As explained in Chapter 2, pp. 72–73, the unique shape of the sheep’s tail, elongated and wide, allows the assignment of various ominous signs to its surface, much like the sheep’s flat-like inner parts, such as the lung or the gallbladder. SV §11 is concerned with the tail’s appearance (‘long’). IMV1 is also concerned with the tail’s movement. Note that SV §72' and IMV1 §35'' are similar––both observe the thumping of the tail three times. Another organ that makes a single appearance in the OB version is the anus (qinnātum): it either contracts or opens wide.30 There is a possibility that this body part was treated in one of the missing sections of the SV, because it is mentioned (with a different spelling) in two of the commentaries on the SV. In UC1 and UC3, the organ qim‫‏‬du is found: it is probably a variant spelling of qinnātu(m).31 In UC1 rev. 12 it is equated to napḫaršu, which can be translated as ‘its (the sheep’s) entire (frame)’. In UC3 16' qim‫‏‬du is equated to the qinnātu: ‘anus’. See also Chapter 7.4.3 for a Nineveh fragment dealing with the same body part. The next body part to be examined is the pelvic bone (naglabum) of the sheep.32 Usually translated as the shoulder blade or scapula, in this case it is another bone. It must be a bone located next to the rear part of the sheep and around its hind legs. Hence, the pelvic bone is a natural identification, given the similar shape of the scapula and hip bone.33 The pelvic bone is divided to two parts: the ridge of the bone is called the ‘horn’ (qaran naglabim) and the broader and flat part is called the ‘blade’ (dūr   OB: ni-im-šu-šu (§35); SV: nim-šu-šu (§81''). See Starr (1983: 64–65) for discussion.   UC1 rev. 9: nim-šu-šu : sa.me-šú. The commentary seems to give the logographic writing of the syllabically written term as it appears in the base text. It is possible that the logographic writing was better known than the syllabic spelling since it is the way the body part was usually written in a variety of medical texts and incantations. For a discussion about this text locus, see Fincke (2011). 29   OB: zi-ib-ba-as-sú (§§36–47, 49); IMV1: si-ba-sú; [k]un-sú (§§2, 27',35''); SV: kunsu (§§11, 67', 72', 80''). 30   OB: qí-in-na-tum (§§48–49). 31   UC1 (rev. 12) and UC3 (obv. 16): qí-im-da(-šú). 32   OB: na-ag-la-bu-um; qá-ra-an na-ag-la-bi-im; du-ur na-ag-la-bi-im (§§50–64). 33   Following the suggestion of Ulla Koch. 27 28

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

280

8. The Sheep Body Parts

Fig. 23. The talus (author’s drawing based on Sisson [1953: 148, fig. 148]) Fig. 24. The tarsal calcaneus (situated obliquely to the right)

naglabim).34 These correspond to the anatomical terms as follows: the whole naglabum is the os coxae, the ‘horn’ is the area between the tuber sacrale and the tuber coxae; and the ‘blade’ is the wing of the ilium.35 Even more than the tail, the pelvic bone is awarded fifteen omens. The omens are concerned with perforations to the bone; the colouration of the ridge (left and right), and its undoing (from the carcass one can assume); and the blade: whether or not it is perforated, bent (to left and right) or missing. The examination now continues down to the hind legs. The first part we meet (but only in the OB version) is the kiṣallu, which can be identified as the talus or astragal, or in the present context, more likely, in our view, with the carpal bone (tarsal calcaneus); see Figs. 23–24.36 The astragal is a bone that makes up part of the knee bone and cannot be seen without taking the knee complex apart. However, the carpal bone can be felt and seen on the outside of the animal.37 The bone can be perforated (palšat), or have an ‘extra bone’ (eṣemtum watartum), but what is meant by this is not clear. 34

  The word naglabum in Akkadian literally means ‘razor’, derived from the verb gullubu, ‘to shave’. The Sumerian term is uzu-maš-sìla, ‘a goat meat-cut’. 35   Popesko (2011, III: 78, pl. 75) and Frandson et al. (2009: 74). 36   OB: ki-ṣa-lum (§§65–68). 37   Popesko (2011, III: 78, pl. 75). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8. The Sheep Body Parts

281

Below the talus complex is the metatarsus bone (eṣmētum ša singaggarītim ṣeḫḫerētum).38 The identification of this body part, mentioned only in the OB version and only in one entry, relies on our understanding of the obscure term singaggarītum, so some elaboration is necessary.39 The word singaggarītu means the ‘small-bones of the reed-dam bone’. The ‘small bones’ are the eṣmētum ṣeḫḫerētum, so much is clear. The ‘reed-dam bone’ is singaggarītu. The word singaggarītu can be analyzed thus: *(e)ṣemqān-irrītim ‘the reed-dam bone’. Consider the mur-gud commentary to Hh 15 (MSL 9, pp. 35, 37), ll. 46/43: [uzu.zi.in].gi.kéš.da = sin-ga-an-gu-ri-tum = ḫa-mu-ri-tú [uzu.zi.in].gi.kéš.da = sin-ga-gu-ri-tu = ḫa-mu-ri-tu Note also Hh 15 (MSL 9, p. 13), l. 247: [uzu.k]a.kéš.da = sin-ga-gu-ri-tu These entries are to be understood as such: [zi.in] = sin and gi.kéš.da = ga-gu-ri-tu.40 The rendering of *sin- is from the Sumerian zi.in, a back-formation from Akkadian (e)ṣem. As for the origin of *-gaggurītu, note the entry Hh 9 (MSL 7), l. 318: gi.giš.kéš.da = qa-an ir-ri-ti ‘dam of reeds’ (lit. ‘reed of the dam’).41 Hence *-gaggurītu was formed on the base of *ganurītu/ganurrītu (qan-i/urriti; with nasalization). The Akkadian word ḫamurītu provided as the equivalent of singaggarītu in the mur-gud commentary above is in fact a variant of *ganurītu.42 As is well known, /g/ and /ḫ/ can easily alternate. 38

  OB: e-eṣ-me-tum ša ˹sí˺-in-ga-ga-ri-tim ṣe-eḫ-ḫe-re-tum (§69).   The bone is also mentioned in the omen compendium KAL 5 2; see Chapter 7.2.1, p. 244. The word was left untranslated in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, apart from mention that it is a part of the foot (CAD/S: 284). The AHw (p. 1039b) translates the term as ‘throat’ (‘Kehle’), but this is incorrect. The etymology offered by Militarev and Kogan (2000: 96–98), on the basis of von Soden, is therefore baseless. The bone-part has nothing to do with Hebrew gorgeret and other Semitic cognates, and is definitely not to be located in the throat region. 40   Note also Hh 15 (MSL 9, p. 13), l. 247 : [uzu.k]a.kéš.da = sin-ga-gu-ri-tu. Although broken, the reconstruction of uzu.zi.in (in [uzu.zi.in].gi.kéš.da) is probably secure. Sumerian zi.in.gi is equated with kiṣallu (CAD/K: 434). It can be argued, however, that the Sumerian word *zingi is probably a partly-phonetic and partly-logographic back formation from the Akkadian *(e)ṣen-ki(ṣalli), hence it is to be differentiated in our discussion from the formation of the word singaggarītu and its Sumerian writing (although there may have been cross influences of the spelling of one word and the other). 41   CAD/I–J: 180, sub irritu. 42   Nicola Zorzi suggested to me that it is likely that at some early stage of the omen, the bone was pronounced as sin-ḫamurīti (i.e., with /ḫ/ rather than with /g/), sparking the apodosis dealing with ḫarimtu ‘prostitute’ in OB §69. 39

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

282

8. The Sheep Body Parts

Fig. 25. The metatarsus bone Fig. 26. The metatarsus bone as situated in the sheep’s leg

Following this discussion, we suggest identifying the singaggurītu bone with the sheep’s metatarsus. The metatarsus bone, clearly contains two small bones on its right and left; these are the eṣmētum ṣeḫḫerētum. When viewed together with the main bone they resemble two dams made of reed bundles.43 See Figs. 25–26. The next part of the leg to receive an entry in the omens is the hoof (larsinnu). It is mentioned in only one omen in the OB version, where it is said to be split (palšat).44 However, it gains a few entries in Bārûtu Ch. 1; Chapter 7.4.1, p. 246. A few additional body parts related to the lower part of the animal’s foot are not mentioned in the OB version, but appear in later versions. The fetlock or hock (kursinnu) gains a single entry in IMV3, where its movement is described.45 The body part also appears in Omens from Severed Hooves and Fetlocks; see Chapter

43

  The anatomical identification of singaggarītu with the metatarsus was suggested to me by Lidar Sapir-Hen. For the use of reeds in dams and barrages, see CAD/Š/III: 368–369, sub šūru, ‘reed bundle’. 44   OB: la-ar-sí-nu (§70). 45   IMV3: kur-si-na-šú (§14). It is found in the Neo-Assyrian report SAA 4 51;see p. 252, n. 42. It is a body part also encountered in the extispicy ritual; BBR, no. 68, edge, 1. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8. The Sheep Body Parts

283

7.7, pp. 257–258. It was a body part known to have been a meat-cut (either four or two cuts) following the sacrifice as ration and income.46 A synonymous body part, the hock, but termed kimṣu/kinṣu, makes its appearance in SV §§1–2, where it is described as dark, along with other body parts of the sheep.47 A part of the leg, the shin(s), kuriātum, kurītum, is also found in KAL 5 2, one of the Assur bone compendia, but it is not seen in the šumma immeru versions that we have.4 Related to the kursinnu, although not mentioned in the šumma immeru series, is the body part termed isru. It demands our consideration because it is one of the sheep parts dealt with in Bārûtu Ch. 1.49 Bārûtu Ch. 1 was named the isru. As discussed in Chapter 7.4, the chapter was made up of four tablets, each devoted to a different body part: the isru, the kunukku (vertebra), the najjabātu or sikkat ṣēli (ribs) and the kaskasu (sternum). It is clear that all identifiable items of this chapter relate to bone parts. But what about the isru? It must be related, but to which part of the sheep’s body? This remains an unsolved problem in scholarship,50 but some contribution to its meaning can be made here. We will argue that the isru is related to the leg parts,51 and could possibly be the phalanges bones of the sheep’s leg. The isru is known as a body part that was sacrificed with the kursinnu to Šamaš and Adad in the Ritual of the Diviner (l. 136) (Chapter 7.12), making it an object worthy of observation: Šamaš bēl dīnim Adad bēl ikribi u bêrim našiakkunūšim isram kursinnam [ša immerim] ša imittim ‘Šamaš the judge, Adad lord of prayer and divination, I offer you the isru and fetlock [of the sheep] of the right side.’ From this source, it appears that the isru is associated with the leg parts. The commentary on Bārûtu Ch. 1 (Chapter 7.4) informed us that the body part could have perforations.52

46

  Waerzeggers (2010: 262).   SV: kin-ṣi, kim-ṣu, ki-im-ṣa (§§1–2). 48  KAL 5 2 (obv. 14): ku-ri-a-tum and (rev. 8) ku-ri-tim; p. 244. 49   It appears also in the omen compendia KAL 5 1 (p. 248) and KAL 5 4 (p. 245). 50   The status questionis regarding isru is found in Heeßel (2012: 52, n. 10). 51   As already suspect by Starr (1992: 46): ‘… the isrus … have something to do with the fetlock or thighs, at least with that general region of the sheep’. 52   Thus in the available sources of Bārûtu Ch. 1 and its commentary. This type of defect is also mentioned in an omen report mentioning the isru (Kraus 1985, no. 4, 51); see p. 251. 47

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

284

8. The Sheep Body Parts

Fig. 27. The phalanges bones The commentary gives us more information about this part. A sentence dealing with the larsinnu, ‘hoof’, reads as follows:53 [be ... lar]-sin-nu 15 babbar-ir ul-lu-[uṣ] šà érin-ni lar-sin-nu is-ru ina eme ‘[If ... the h]oof is bright on its right-side, joy among my army; in the lexical lists the larsinnu means the isru.’ The commentary informs us that lexical sources (which are now lost to us, but were available to the compiler of the commentary on Bārûtu Ch. 1), equated isru and larsinnu.54 This does not mean that the isru was the hoof, but it certainly 53

  K 3978+ i 8 (and parallel K 6720++ rev. 5). The sentence was read incorrectly in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD/P: 221 and /I–J: 203a) and hence its interpretation was obscured. The writing lar-sin-nu was read as *pa-š/sin-nu, but this is a ghost word, which should be erased from the dictionary. Although he did not discuss the isru body part, it was obvious to von Soden (1975: 325) that the sign pa is to be read as lar in this very commentary. It has been long recognized that the sign pa can stand as the logographic writing for larû ‘branch’, a feature of the liver, from which the syllabic value of the pa sign, /lar/ is derived. See, e.g., Heeßel (2012: 71, n. vs. 1–8). 54   The technical term in the commentaries for what we nowadays call lexical lists is ina eme (= ina lišāni); Frahm (2011: 88–94). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8. The Sheep Body Parts

285

suggests that the isru was associated with the lower leg area. I suggest to view this body part as the phalanges bones of the sheep’s leg. Below the metacarpal bone discussed above, they form a group of four (phalanx proximalis digiti III et IV; phalanx media digiti III et IV), after which the hoof-nail, ṣupru (phalanx distalis digiti III et IV) is found; see Fig. 27. This was a bone part which was sacrificed in the extispicy ritual and, therefore, was mentioned in the Bārûtu.

3. Areas of the Abdomen and Rib Cage From the hind legs of the animal the inspection moves to the abdomen and rib cage. We find the breast, breastbone, lower neck, rib cage, ribs, and the vertebrae. The area around and in the abdomen cavity is then examined, but as will be seen some items in the šumma immeru omens and related texts lack secure anatomical identification. The breast (irtum) is observed next.55 Its single entry in the OB version informs us that it can be split across (leteat). From the breast, the diviner moves to the kaskasu.56 This term can be identified with the sheep’s corpus sterni or sternum (xiphoid bone).57 Both sides of the flat bone give the diviner plenty of opportunity to play the right-side off the left. It receives twelve omens in the OB version, where it is observed as dark (tarik), bent (kapiṣ), lying down (naparqud), and split (paṭer).58 After the observation of the breastbone, there is a quick stopover at the lower neck (kišādum): just one omen in the OB version.59 The LBA version, however, contains four entries at its end. In the SV, the sheep’s neck is said to be thick (kabar). The observation now returns to the sheep’s frame. The rib cage (ṣēlum) is inspected first.60 It can be perforated (pališ) or covered with blood (damam luput), splattered from the slaughter.

55

  OB: gaba (§71).   CAD/K: 244 identifies it as the soft part of the sheep’s breastbone. The Sumerian term is kak.zag.ga. Heeßel (2012: 43) suggests the xiphoid process, which is very plausible. The m u r- g u d commentary to Hh 15 supplies the following equation (cited in CAD/K: 244, the lexical section; CAD/Š/III: 133): [uzu.kak.zag].ga = ka-as-ka-su = ši-ti-iq ir-ti, ‘breast-bone, sternum’. 57   OB: ka-as-ka-sú, ka-as-ka-su-um (§§72–82, 97); SV: kak.zag.ga (§77''). 58   The body part appears in KAL 5 1 and KAL 5 4, as well as Bārûtu Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 4; see Chapter 7. Similar descriptions of the kaskasu are sometimes found in omen reports, e.g., Nougayrol (1967a, Text I, 14–15 [BM 81364]); Kraus (1985, no. 18, 55) and queries, such as SAA 4 203, 282, 295, 296, 301, 306, 311, 317, and 345. 59   OB: ki-ša-du-um, ki-ša-du (§83); LBA: gú udu (§§80'–84'); SV: gú (§§ 3, 67'). 60   OB: ṣi-lum, ṣi-lu (pl.) (§§84–88). The rib cage (wr. ti) also apparently features in its own omen compendium from Emar, Emar 683; see Chapter 7.3, pp. 245–246. 56

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

286

8. The Sheep Body Parts

The ribs or floating ribes (najjabātu) are then examined.61 This body part is always written as the logogram kak.ti and only appears in the OB version (§§89–97).62 At first, it is counted in threes: the ribs (either left or right) can be attached to each other (tiṣbutā) and their top part may or may not be parallel/of equal size ((la) mitḫar).63 Then they are once defined as part of the breast (§96) and once as linked to the sternum (§97). The rib is treated in Bārûtu, Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 2, and once in an omen report.64 The backbones or vertebrae (kunuk eṣemṣēri) and the transverse process (kislu) of the vertebra are examined next.65 They are found in two entries and only in the OB version: what is observed is the length of the transverse process, a bone easily felt by a manual external examination of the sheep’s back. The kunukku also appears in omens dedicated to body parts and bones, Bārûtu Ch. 1 and omen reports; see Chapter 7, pp. 247ff. After the inspection of the transverse process, the šutqum is observed: its right and left sides, as well as its colouring (dark or bright), are noted.66 However, it is not clear to what body part the term šutqum refers. Since in the Ritual of the Diviner the body part follows the diaphragm (tallum), Starr (1983: 76–77), following Hussey (1948: 26), suggested that it may be one of the following: the aorta, the esophagus, or the vena cava. These are all tube-like organs that pierce

61

  CAD/S: 246–247; Heeßel (2012: 71). The body part (written as kak.ti) also appears in omen reports; e.g., Kraus (1985, no. 18, 50). The reason for reading the logogram as najjabtu is given in Chapter 2, p. 77. 62   It is the subject of a few omen compendia from Assur (KAL 5 3 and KAL 5 4) and Emar (Emar 682 and 684); see pp. 244–246. It also features in Bārûtu Ch. 1, Tablet 3; see pp. 246–247. 63   In other omen texts, the term is spelled syllabically (na-a-a-bat); e.g., Koch (2005: 305, §35). 64   Barûtu Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 3 = CT 31 45, rev. 1'–4', and the Neo-Assyrian report, SAA 4 290. See CAD/N/1: 151–152, citing in extenso K 3978, a commentary of Bārûtu Ch. 1, which supports the identification of najjabtu as the floating rib. The floating rib of the sheep is the thirteenth or sometimes the fourteenth (when present) rib; Sisson (1953: 157). Since in the OB version, the part is linked to the strenum, its identification with the floating ribs is difficult. Koch (2015: 97) considers najjabtu to be the cartilage at the tip of the rib. For the identification of the Kuyunjik tablet, see Frahm (2011: 171). 65   OB: ku-nu-uk e-ṣi-im-ṣi-ri-im; ki-is-li (§§98–99). The kunukku (also written logographically as kišib), ‘cylinder-seal’, was chosen as a term for the vertebra because of its tube-like shape. There is some discussion regarding the exact anatomical definition of the term, with some understanding it as the vertebra and the fleshy muscles around it; see with previous lit., Heeßel (2012: 76, n. II 2') and Kraus (1985: 190–191). The term eṣemṣēru is a nominal compound: *eṣem is the stem of eṣemtu; ṣēru is ‘back’. See Holma (1911: 50–52). The kaslu (a bi-form of kislu) may also mean ‘tendon’; see Held (1965). 66   OB: šu-ut-qú-um (§§100–103); SLD: [š]u-ut-qí (§§3–5, 9–11). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8. The Sheep Body Parts

287

the diaphragm. The derivation of šutqum from the verb šatāqu, ‘to split’, may add support to any of these parts, but a definite conclusion cannot be reached.67 The back of the rib cage (bamtum) is viewed next.68 It is equated with the ribs or the side of the body (ṣēlu) in the Commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 1.69 The back of rib cage can be (on either left or right) constricted or displaced; dark or bright; it can also have a cyst. From this point until the end of the OB version, the šubtum or rather šuptum is observed.70 The anatomical identification of the organ is difficult. The Commentary of Bārûtu Ch. 1 equates the šuptum and irtum, ‘breast’.71 The term appears in the OB List of Sheep Body Parts, l. 38 (Chapter 7.14.1), in sequence with the bamtum, šašallum, and then the obviously related šupat šuptim (l. 39). Almost the same sequence appears in the Ritual of the Diviner, l. 69 (Chapter 7.12). Hence the general area of the šuptum is clear. The plural spelling of the term is šu-pa-a-tum (YOS 8 10 = Goetze 1957, g, 2; an extispicy report). A related term is šu-pa-at šu-up-tim (OB List of Sheep Body Parts, l. 39). The spelling of both with the p a sign may indicate that the term should be realized as šuptum rather than šubtum, as is usually found in the literature and the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. The spelling with /pa/ may also provide a clue as to its etymology, perhaps relating to šaptu, ‘lip’. Hence, we may tentatively suggest that is a body part that forms a rim or encloses other organs. A sheep body part called ṭapaš( š )u is not mentioned in the šumma immeru omens, but it requires some consideration as a body part that may be related to the šuptum.72 Its meaning is obscure but it seems to be a stomach part. It appears in omen reports and compendia associated with Bārûtu Ch. 1. The šumma immeru omens end with the šuptum. However, the Ritual of the Diviner and the SLD supply us with some information regarding how the inspection of the animal continued. Both sources list two more organs that required observation: the šašallu and qerbītu. The šašallu is not an immediately identifiable body part.73 It may refer to the tendon of the hoof or heel, but according to its use in the El-Amarna letters (e.g., EA 211 and 215) and medical texts, it means ‘back’.74 Accordingly, in the present 67

  CAD/Š/III: 404 suggests ‘esophagus’ as a tentative translation; George (2013: 144) opts for a more neutral translation of ‘cleft’. The body part is mentioned in an extispicy report; Koch (2002, no. 32, 15). See p. 251. 68   OB: ba-am-tum (§§104–105); LBA: ba-ma-at zag-šú / gùb-šú (§§30–31); SLV: baan-ti (§§6–7, 12–16). For the identification, Starr (1983: 76). 69   Starr (1983: 94), citing K. 3667 [P394080]. 70   OB: šu-up-tum (§§106–111). 71   Starr (1983: 94), citing K. 3667 [P394080]. 72   See pp. 249 and 251. Also KAL 5 80–82, where the ṭapaš(š)um is perhaps related to the kidneys. Etymologically, consider its relation to Hebrew dabeshet, ‘(camel) hump’. 73   The Ritual of the Diviner: ša-ša-al-lum (ll. 69/128); SLD: [š]a-ša-al-li, [ša-š]a-al-lu (§§17–22). 74   CAD/Š/II: 169–170; Holma (1911: 52). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

288

8. The Sheep Body Parts

context, it was suggested that the term designates the thick back muscles.75 It is certainly related to the next term, the qerbītu, which also remains unclear. After the šašallu, the next item to be examined is the qerbītu.76 It can be considered part of the šašallu because the Commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 1 says the qerbītu has a šašallu.77 The word obviously refers to the inside of the sheep, but which part is not clear. It can be tentatively considered the inside surface of the chest wall.78 It is of interest to note that, as perhaps expected, there is not much correspondance between the body parts of the sheep in divination literature and the body parts counted as meat-cuts to be distributed from the carcass of the sacrificial animal offered in the Babylonian temples. Further investigation of these differences is certainly to bring about new insights. For the benefit of further research we include an English-Akkadian-Sumerian glossary of the terms we discussed so far. Starred items are those which appear in related compositions, but not in the šumma immeru omens themselves. Akkadian

Sumerian

anus

qinnātu, qimdu

*back muscles

šašallu

behind

šuburru

breast

(irtu)

carpal bone

kiṣallu

cheek

lētu

*diaphragm

tallu

ear(s)

uznā

geštu

eye(s)

īnu

igi

fetlock

kursinnu

fetlock

kimṣu, kinṣu

*floating rib

(najjabātu)

kak.ti

foot

(šēpu)

gìr

jaws

isū

head

(rēšu, qaqqadu)

hoof

larsinnu

gaba

sag.du, sag

75

  Thus George (2013: 144).   The Ritual of the Diviner: qé-er-bi-tum (ll. 69/128); SLD: [qé-e]r-bi-tu (§§71–76). 77   Starr (1983: 94), citing K 3667:19: šumma šašal qerbit imitti ..., ‘If the šašallu of the qerbītu of the right-side’. 78   Following George (2013: 144). Hussey (1948: 31) suggested that the šašallu is the capsula adiposa, or perirenal fat, and that the qerbītum are the adrenal glands (just next to the kidneys). It is not clear, however, if these small glands were observed or ever treated as separate organs of the kidneys. 76

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

8. The Sheep Body Parts

289

Akkadian

Sumerian

horn(s)

qarnū

si.meš

*inner body part

qerbītu

*leg part

isru

lip(s)

(šaptā)

nundum

mouth

pû

ka, ka×u

metatarsus

eṣmētum ša singaggarītim

nail-hoof

ṣupru

nape

kutallu

neck

kišādu

nose

appu

nostrils

naḫīrū

palette

liq pî

pelvic bone

naglabum

rib(s)

(najjabtu)

kak.ti

rib cage

ṣēlu

ti

rib cage, back of

bamtu

sciatic nerve

nimšu

*shin

kuriātum, kurītum

snout

huṭṭimmu

sternum

kaskasu

stoamch

karsu

stomach part

šuptu

stomach part

šutqu

*stomach part

ṭapaššu

tail

zibbatu

kun

teeth

šinnā

ka×érin.meš, zú.meš

temple

nakkaptu

throat

ur’udu

tongue

lišānu

trans. process

kislu

vertebrae

kunukku

umbin gú

a.u 5 .ka

sa.me

kak.za.ga

eme kišib

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Chapter 9

Discussion and Conclusion Part I The Apodoses of the šumma immeru Omens— Past, Present and Future šumma immeru ištu naksu qaqqad immeri lišāna nasiq šēpāšu maḫrāti arkāti kīma 4 kīsi ītgurā zibbassu itarrak nimšūšu ša! imitti ana panišunu ša šumēli ana arkišunu namšū!  ina libbi immeri šīlu šumēla piṭru šumēla sāmu šumēla šaknū bārû immarma iḫaddu ‘If the sheep – after it has been slaughtered – the sheep’s head bites (its) tongue; its forelegs and its hind-legs are intertwined like four (strings) of a pouch; it thumps its tail; its right sinews towards their front (and) the left towards their rear are taught; the diviner will see that inside the sheep are located a hole on the left; a fissure on the left; (and) redness on the left; and he will be satisfied.’ (SV §81") The first part of this chapter discusses the apodoses of the šumma immeru omens. By so, it highlights what is unique about this omen collection, setting it apart in some sense from other extispicy collections and divination compositions. The discussion is especially crucial at this stage, because it allows us to partly answer why the šumma immeru omens were not part of the Bārûtu series and why they were designated in one (restored) colophon as a dub ḫa.la tablet and in others, associated with the šumma izbu series. This is of consequence to the discussion in Part III of the chapter. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

292

9. Discussion and Conclusion

As we have seen in Chapter 1, Part III, the extispicy ritual lays out before us the entire preparation of the ritual setting for the extispicy held on behalf of the client: from the choice of the animal to the purity requirements of the diviner, the prayers to Šamaš, Adad and the Gods of the Night, the slaughtering of the animal and the moment of the extispicy itself. The šumma immeru omens, being concerned with body of the sacrificial sheep before and during its slaughter, can be seen as a reflection of some of these ritual procedures. A notable example are two omens from the OB version that refer to the client’s circumstances in the extispicy ritual. In the first omen, the success of the client at his trial before the gods during the extispicy ritual is confirmed. In the second omen, the client’s personal god will send him ambiguous omens: OB §§30–31 šumma [immerum it]taziz awāt awīlim izzaz





‘If [the sheep] stands still, the client’s case will prevail.’



šumma [immerum] isḫurma ašar innaksu kišāssu ištakan ilum eli awīlim dilḫam inaddi



‘If [the sheep] turns and places its neck where it has been slaughtered, the god will bring confused (omens) upon the client.’

The perception of the purpose of the šumma immeru omens is sharpened once we look at the apodoses of many of the omens. Unlike apodoses of other omen collections, the apodoses of the šumma immeru omens are not always concerned with future events that relate to the client, but rather with the immediate time frame of the ritual––with past, present and future points of time during the sacrifice of the sheep. Some apodoses speak of a time prior to the slaughter of the animal: they are concerned with informing the diviner whether the god was present or absent at the time of the extispicy ritual, before the animal was killed. Others relate to the time that the sheep is slaughtered: its movements may be interpreted as so positive that the diviner is instructed not to continue, and to avoid performing the extispicy procedure altogether. Finally, further apodoses predict how the organs soon to be inspected will appear up close and what their divinatory value (positive or negative) will be.1 The apodoses inform the diviner about the condition of the omen in the sheep, the number of coils of the colon, and the fortuitous marks found upon the liver. In this part of our discussion, we will examine the apodoses of the šumma immeru omens and see how they relate to the past, present and future of the extispicy ritual.

1

  Maul (2013: 39 and n. 53), although note that the interest in the internal organs, including the coils of the colon, existed before the SV. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

293

1. The Past: The Presence of the God during the Extispicy Ritual The apodoses of the OB, LBA, IMV3 and SV refer to a time before the slaughter of the sheep. Rather uniquely, they use the preterit tense, which in other omen collections is invariably in the durative (present–future) tense.2 They wish to tell the diviner that the god had been present at the time of extispicy ritual. Without the god’s presence, the extispicy is certain to yield a negative result. Hence, this was information that was crucial for a successful query. Let us look at the omens whose apodoses speak about the presence of the god: OB §3 (and also §27) šumma immerum īnāšu ri-a-te a[na awīlim i]lum ˹i ˺[na niqîm izz]iz

‘If a sheep – its eyes are fixed, fo[r the client: the go]d [will have been pres]ent at [(his) sacrifice].’

IMV3 §19 [šumma imm]eru ina karābik[a (nadima) šēp imittišu] qaqqara iḫepper ilu ina niqê [izziz]

‘[If a shee]p upon your praying [(falls and)] scrapes the ground [with its right foot], the god [will have been present] at the sacrifice.’

SV §23 šumma min šēpāšu qaqqara iḫappirā ina niqê amēli ilu ul izziz

‘If (likewise), its feet scrape the ground, the god will not have been present at the client’s sacrifice.’

The presence or manifestation of the god is articulated by the verb i/uzzuzu, ‘to stand’ but here in the sense of ‘to be present’, as this verb is used regarding witnesses attending the courthouse.3 The god is also said once to have received (in the past!) the client’s sacrifice. Consider this omen: IMV1 §1 [šumma immeru … ] ina ṭeḫêka iṣrit šārat zumrišu izziz [ … ] niqê amēli ilu imḫur

‘[If the sheep … ] – upon your approaching – farts and its fleece bristles [ … ], the god will have accepted the client’s sacrifice.’

2

  Richardson (2010b: 248, no. 109) brings three cases arguing the use of the preterit and the perfect. However, the first two are in the durative (Jeyes 1989, no. 12, 1): ikunnā and (ibid.: no. 1, 9'): ītešer (Gt stem). The third is in the preterit (iqbû ), and for a reason: it is the divine council sitting at the extispicy ritual, who pronounced the client’s fate. 3   CAD/W-U: 378. Recall how witnesses are called to offer testimony in Babylonian legal documents: they are said to be izzazzū/izzizzū, ‘standing’, in other words present at the trial. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

294

9. Discussion and Conclusion

The god’s presence at the ritual is signaled by a special mark observed on the liver, which is termed the naplaštum, the ‘Viewing’, or manzāzu, ‘Position’.4 This mark has been identified with a groove on the left lobe of the liver (or for the diviner, the right side; see Fig. 7), whose appearance is of the utmost importance to the diviner. Consider these sources:5 [naplaš]tam išu [ilum] ina niqê izzi [z]

‘(The liver) had the ‘Viewing’, (means that) the god had been present during the sacrifice.’

[šumma] na(naplaštu/manzāzu) išu ilu ina niqê amēli izziz

‘[If] there is a ‘Viewing/Position’, the god had been present at the client’s sacrifice.’



šumma amūta teppušma ina šalimti manzāzu kabis … [ … ] ina nīš qātī mār bārî ilu ul izziz



‘If you perform an extispicy and in a favourable one the ‘Position’ is obliterated … during the diviner’s prayer the god had not been present.’

If the god had not been present at the client’s ritual, the result was disastrous: 6

šumma amūta teppušma ina šalimti manzāzu kabis … [ … ] ina nīš qātī mār bārî ilu ul izziz … [ … ] la šalmat ilūa izzibūnimma ana nakri ipaḫḫarū … [ … ]



‘If you perform an extispicy and in a favourable extispicy, the ‘Position’ is obliterated … […] The god had not been present at the diviner’s hand-lifting prayer … [ … ] it is unfavourable. My gods will desert me and gather around the enemy.’

According to our understanding, the naplastum or the manzāzu mark should be understood as a reflection of the appearance of the divinity in his or her astral aspect: when the Sun, Moon, and other planets or constellations during the extispicy ritual appear (izziz) in their positions or stations (manzāzu) in

4

  For discussions regarding the naplaštu and manzāzu, see George (2013: 28–30) with previous literature; see further below. 5   Source 1: CUSAS 18 5, obv. 1-2, which is restored acc. to Nougayrol (1950b: 41; AO 9066). The tablet is formulated like an omen report, but in fact it probably had a pedagogical purpose; see George (2013: 20 and 23). Source 2: KAL 5 1, 38; Cf. Manzāzu Commentary 1, (Koch 2000, no. 19, 33). Source 3: Bārûtu Ch. 10 (multābiltu), Tablet 3 (Koch 2005: 142) no. 4, A rev. 9'–10'; and Bārûtu Ch. 3 (manzāzu), Text 3 (Koch 2000, no. 9, 7' and n. 327). 6   Bārûtu Ch. 10 (multābiltu), Tablet 3 (Koch 2005: 142), no. 4, A rev. 9'–11'. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

295

the sky as the gods in charge of divination.7 This idea is clearly expressed in LBA §§3–4:

šumma immeru šinnātišu ikaṣṣaṣ manzāz Šamaš ana lemutti

‘If the sheep gnashes its teeth, the ‘Position’ of Šamaš will be for the bad.’

šumma immeru pîšu iptenette manzāz Šamaš ana damiqti



‘If the sheep opens wide its mouth, the ‘Position’ of Šamaš will be for the good.’

2. The Present: The šumma immeru Formula––Let Go of the Sheep! Kill the Enemy! We have seen how in versions later than the OB version a fixed phrase reoccurs. It stands as a sort of identifying mark for the šumma immeru omen collection: ‘Let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’. It is a call to immediately end the extispicy ritual because the protasis is so positive that there is no need to commence with examining the animal; one can proceed and defeat the enemy.8 This formulaic expression offers us the possibility to reflect on the ties between the šumma immeru omens and other omen collections, where it also features. We will first discuss its appearance in the šumma immeru omens and then move to its additional attestations. The formula first appears in the LBA version and then in IMV1, SV, and UC1. In LBA §8 it reads as follows:

šumma immeru uznāšu ana panišu tarṣā ilu inaṭṭal muššer immeramma dūk nakra



‘If the sheep – its ears are drawn to its front, the god will look (favourably upon the client), let go of the sheep and kill the enemy!’9

The next appearance of the formula is found throughout the second to sixth omen of IMV1. All five omens present a variety of positive signs and all pronounce in their apodoses: uššer immera(udu) dūk nakra(kúr), ‘let go of the sheep, kill the enemy’. IMV1 §5 says to us explicitly that the exta need not be checked, as follows: ‘Do not inspect the exta of the sheep in order to find out about the (outcome) of war’. 7

  This topic will be treated more fully by Anor and Cohen, Forthcoming.   The opposite sense of the formula is see in LBA §9, p. 88. In his review of Ebeling (1931, no. 9), von Soden (1936: 253) understood the phrase thus: ‘Dieses “Laß das Schaf, töte den Feind” besagt wohl, daß unter den vorher angegebenen ominösen Umständen die Opferschau selbst unterbleiben soll, daß das Eintreten solcher Umstände an sich aber für den kriegführenden König günstig ist.’ See Durand (1988: 11–12, n. 29), reflecting on the underlying rationality of the diviner’s actions, when he declares this sentence. 9   The imperative form dūk of the verb dâku, ‘to kill’, is attested, as far as I could check, only in this formula. 8

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

296

9. Discussion and Conclusion

However, this does not mean that the sheep was still alive. It was obviously dead at this point in the ritual, because §§5–6 describe the sheep’s blood as ‘like an anemone’. In the SV the formula appears twice: in §§53'–54', two omens that resemble IMV1 §§3–4. They repeat the formula we have met above, but in the SV, it is fully logographically written: bar udu gaz kúr, ((m)uššer immera dūk nakra). The final appearance of the formula is in UC1 rev. 2, where the commentary reveals what stands behind the logograms seen in SV. It reads as follows: bar udu gaz kúr : muššur udu.níta dūk lú.kúr, ‘(the sequence) “bar udu gaz kúr” means “Let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy”’. When we examine other omen collections for the occurrence of the formula, we see that it appears in KAL 5 1 (obv. 10), which is a collection of omens of the Bārûtu, and in a commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 1.10 The two sources rely on an omen which once appeared in Bārûtu Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 1, but which now is irretrievable to us directly: [be ina isri x bùr.meš] šub.meš-ú uš-šer udu.níta gaz kúr ‘[If in the isru x perforations] occurred, let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’

[be man-ú/šal-šú mu-ni ina i]s-ri 4-šú-nu bùr.meš šub.meš bar udu.níta gaz kúr



‘[If––in a second entry/a third entry––in the i]sru––there are four of them––there are perforations, let go of the sheep! Kill the enemy!’

The omen from Bārûtu Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 1 (which was quoted in the two sources, but which is, as said, not directly available to us) is concerned with perforations in the isru body part. Why perforations lead to a positive sign is not obvious, but it was sufficient to have the extispicy procedure brought to its immediate end by declaring this formula. One suspects that the perforations were indicative of something positive, such as the presence of the personal god in the šumma immeru omens, as discussed above and in Chapter 1.11 At any rate, the appearance of the formula in these two sources, which were dependent, as explained, on the Bārûtu, indicates a common tradition between the Bārûtu and the šumma immeru 10

  K 6450++ (CT 31 49), obv. 8. See Chapter 7, p. 247, n. 25; Heeßel (2012: 263).   Could it be that the perforations going all the way through the bone were understood to channel the light rays through them, which resulted in a positive sign? Cf. Bārûtu Ch. 10 (Multābiltu), Tablet 15(?) (Koch 2005: 225–226), 7: šumma amūtum šīlī saḫratma u šutēbrū amūt Šarrum-kīn ša ekletam iḫbutuma nūram īmuru, ‘If the liver is surrounded by holes and they pierce all the way through, the omen of Sargon, who wandered through the dark but came out to the light.’ In the commentary to Bārûtu Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 1, the isru is described as namru, ‘bright’, and its shape kīma kakkabi, ‘like a star’, which is not a common description for body parts or inner parts; see CAD/I–J: 203b. Some fortuitous marks are described as forming shapes or organized like stars; cf. YOS 10 42 i 6 (the puṣumarks fill up like stars––a positive omen) and YOS 10 42 i 50 (two ziḫḫu-marks are like stars––a negative result).

11

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

297

omens. Or, to be more daring at this point, perhaps it can be posited that an omen from the šumma immeru omens crossed over to the isru omens of the Bārûtu Ch. 1 (isru), Tablet 1. Regardless of whether this suggestion is accepted, the formula should be situated in the Post Old Babylonian period, because it does not appear in the OB version. When the wider implications of the formula are considered, it is to be noted that its formulation is unique (somewhat similar to the apodoses we will see in the next section below). The declaration in the apodosis is given in second person singular imperative form. Although not explicitly stated, it is an instruction forwarded to the client, or rather to the diviner himself as the client’s representative. Moreover, the formula’s call to let go of the sheep refers to the circumstances of the performance of the sacrifice and extispicy within the context of their ritualistic setting or, in other words, the extispicy ritual. Such imperative forms, rare as they are, are found in other omen collections. Understandably, they usually instruct the client in a variety of military and state affairs.12 Their origin may lie in second person singular directives in the present tense and in the indicative mood (i.e., ‘you will … ’), which we find in many other apodoses.13 However, they should be differentiated from what we have here. In our case, we face directives to the diviner relating to the processes of extispicy. These directives are common to the Bārûtu commentaries. Consider this example, which is somewhat similar to the šumma immeru formula. In the Multābiltu commentary, the following instruction is issued to the practitioner, when practicing extispicy for a patient.14 The protasis describes some fortuitous marks on the left of a liver part. But they foretell a disaster for the client, as informed by the apodosis:15 … marṣu imarruṣ [ … ] imarruṣ qūlma puṭur la teppuš [asûta] ‘… the patient will become ill [ … ]; he will become even worse. Do nothing and cancel (the extispicy), do not perform [the medical treatment].’ There are a few other examples, also arriving from learned instruction texts for the professional diviner, which speak about preparations for the extispicy ritual and the interpretation of the omen results. Consider this example: the protasis

12

  For more examples, see George (2013: 156).   These, according to Jeyes (1989: 36–37), refer to the client, who is usually the king; the first person, in her opinion, refers to the diviner. 14   Koch (2005: 5–33); ead. (2015: 111ff.). See other examples of instructions issued to the diviner in the commentary, e.g., in Bārûtu Ch. 10 (Multābiltu), Tablet 3 (Koch 2005: 138ff.) 15   Bārûtu Ch. 10 (Multābiltu), Tablet 7 (Koch 2005: 156), 16, but my translation is somewhat different. 13

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

298

9. Discussion and Conclusion

describes details regarding features of the liver (the ‘Path’ and the ‘Finger’), which is replied to by this apodosis:16 … ana mimma ša teppušu(dù šú ) qība(me a) la (nu) [tašakkan (gar)]

‘… do not [make] a prediction about anything you prepare to do.’

The most notable instruction for the diviner, although in the 3rd person singular, is found in SV §81''. It serves as the header of this chapter (p. 291) and will be treated below. Other instructions for the diviner were present in the SV, but most are lost. SV §77'' speaks about the diviner releasing the sheep, as in the šumma immeru formula; SV §78'' (and see UC2 15) instructs the diviner not to trust any favourable signs, when the protasis tell him that an impure person had touched the sacrificial animal. A similar instruction is issued in §80'', as the diviner is told not to make a prediction, after opening the animal and inspecting the liver/omen. A most intriguing instruction to the diviner is seen in §20. It apparently tells the diviner not to offer the sacrificial sheep (immera šuātu ana niqê la tēppuš), and dedicate, so I understand the complicated and broken passage, the client’s prayer as his own god would in front of the gods at the trial. The full implications of this instruction cannot be grasped because of the poor condition of the text. The commentaries UC1 rev. 13–16, UC2 6 and 15, and LBC 18'–19' supply an explanation of a series of 2nd person singular verbs which seem to relate to the diviner at his craft. Although the texts are very broken, it can be said with near certainty that the explanations of the commentaries explicate the apodoses. The most clear ones relate to the diviner’s prognosis. One reads qabâ tašakkan, ‘You will make a prediction’ (UC2 6) and another goes la tatakkal, ‘You will not trust (in the favourable signs of the liver/omen)’ (UC2 15 = SV §78''). Both expressions are common to the Bārûtu commentaries and other omen “scholia”. The šumma immeru omens, to conclude, stand out from the other omen collections because some of their apodoses are concerned with the outcome of the examination of the sheep’s body parts and not with the fate of the client, as

16

  Combined Protases (Koch 2005: 314), no. 34A, 6. Consider also the following examples: a nisḫu compendium (KAL 5 70 = KAR 151; Koch 2005: 295), no. 32, 178: puḫāda itti riksi teppuš, ‘You will prepare one lamb with (all) the ritual arrangements’; Combined Protases (Koch 2005: 379), no. 57, 68–70: šumma têrta ana … teppuš … , ‘If you perform an extispicy for … ’; Protases in Context (Koch 2005: 384), no. 58, 57: ištu libbi immeri teptû têrta tušēlâ itti kakki, šēpi u piṭri u mimma ša ina têrtika bašû tātamru, ‘After you have opened the sheep, (and) taken out the liver/omen with the ‘Weapon’, ‘Foot’, ‘Fissure’ and whatever else you have seen present in your liver/omen … ’. Although these texts are formulated like omens, their entries are instruction-like. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

299

usually met in divination literature.17 Thus they find points of contact with the commentary texts of the Bārûtu.

3. The Future: What Will the Exta Look Like? We have already discussed at length, especially in the opening chapter of this book, the relationship between the šumma immeru omens and the extispicy ritual. We assessed the sacrificial and ritual contexts of the šumma immeru omens. But as we read through the omens and discussed their formula in the section above, it became evident that, especially in the SV, the apodoses of the collection are concerned with predicting the results of the future examination of the inner parts of the animal. There were many apodoses that assessed the significance of the appearance of the organs leading to the liver, especially the number of the coils of the colon and the fortuitous marks appearing on various parts of the liver. In our reconstruction of the SV, we count twenty-five apodoses relating to the extispicy procedure. Many of these omens are found in the first section of the SV: their apodoses relate to coils of the colon, the gallbladder (§§7, 9–11, and 16) and the ‘Finger’ on the liver (§§8–9 and 12–16). Earlier versions of the šumma immeru omens also include apodoses relating to extispicy. This is a feature well-worth discussing because it is rather unique, although not entirely exclusive, to other extispicy omens. This section will be devoted, therefore, to šumma immeru omens whose apodoses pertain to the act of extispicy. The Omen Inside the Sheep The OB version includes two apodoses (§§22 and 35) relating to the omen inside the sheep. Significantly they show us the link between the šumma immeru omens and the outcome of the extispicy: šumma [immerum] ina ṭabāḫišu damūšu summū têrtum ša libbi immerim šal[m]at



‘If [a sheep]––when it is slaughtered––its blood is deep red, the omen (taken) from the sheep’s inside will be favourable.’

The red blood is taken as a sign for a favourable outcome of the extispicy. The same omen is found in other versions: IMV1 §§5–6, and SV §§55' and 61' have apodoses which predict that the omen will be sound or positive on account of the colour of the sheep’s blood. Additional apodoses of the IMV1-4 provide predictions about the condition of the omen or liver in the sheep (said to be favourable or unfavourable), but they are too broken to offer any illumination for 17

  Note that this is not exclusive. When features of the liver are described in the protasis, the apodosis may provide their typology and meaning; see the examples collected by Richter (1994) regarding the ‘Weapon’(-mark). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

300

9. Discussion and Conclusion

our current discussion.18 The liver appears a total of seven times in the apodoses of the SV and we will discuss these omens below.19 Worth bringing to attention are SV §49', where the liver or omen is predicted to be favourable (šalmat) and SV §80'', where the liver or omen is predicted to be missing altogether (ḫalqat). The Coils of the Colon A considerable number of the SV šumma immeru omens are concerned with the number of coils of the colon.20 They are §§1–6, 19 (in Section 1), and 79''. In fact, the SV opens with apodoses reporting the number of coils to be expected, because they were the first organ to be encountered once the sheep was cut open. They were removed and put aside as the reading progressed to the liver. The observations of the number of coils of the colon, as well as other features of the intestines, were collected, however, by a different omen collection. It is found as Ch. 2 of the Bārûtu series, called šumma tīrānū, ‘If the coils’. It consists of a total of eight tablets.21 In omen literature the coils of the colon are sometimes likened to living beings. A notably informative case is an omen (from Bārûtu Ch. 2) which equates the coils with the face of the monster Ḫumbaba: šumma tīrānū kīma pan Ḫumbaba, ‘If the coils are like the face of Ḫumbaba … ’.22 Indeed, clay models of the face of Ḫumbaba simultaneously portray the monster’s contorted face and the coils of the sheep colon.23 But other animals (e.g., dogs or bulls) were also considered to be equated with the coils, presumably on account of their muzzles, nostrils, or brow, which can form coil-like flesh folds when the animal’s face is contorted in 18

  In IMV1 §§33''–34'', the omen sign is spelled syllabically (as in the OB version): te-retu-ka, ‘your omens’, and te-er-ta-ka, ‘your omen’. In IMV3 §§12–14 and 16 it is written as uzu.kin.(meš-ka), ‘(your) omen(s)’. 19   The liver or omen is written as ur 5 (SV §§4, 76''), ur 5 -ut (SV §§80''), or ur 5 .úš (SV §§49, 55', 61'). The liver is written with a playful writing in UC2 rev. 33, p. 221 (and also in LBC rev. 8) as géme-su (i.e., amūssu) and explicated in the two commentaries as a-muut-su, ‘his omen’. This may point out that in the SV, the Akkadian word behind ur 5 was amūtu and not têrtu(m). See also p. 174. Consider also bà -su (= amūssu),SV §17, p. 153. 20   See Temple (1982), for the way the coils of the (spiral) colon were counted. They were removed from the sheep carcass to reveal other inner parts. The coils were also part of the extispicy ritual; BBR, no. 26 iii 1. 21   Koch (2015: 98–100). There are also ‘forerunners’ to Bārûtu Ch. 2 (tīrānū): from Emar: Emar 678–681; Durand and Marti (2004: 43–53) and Rutz (2013: 224–225); and from Middle Assyrian Assur: KAL 5 10, a ‘forerunner’ of Bārûtu Ch. 2 (tīrānū), Tablet 3 (= BRM 4 13; and additional unpublished materials) and KAL 5 11; also see the discussion in Chapter 7.2 and 7.3. For clay models and drawing of intestines upon clay tablets, see George (2013: 273–277) and Koch (2015: 86–87), and below. There are also fragments of colon coil omens from Hattuša (in Akkadian and Hittite); see Riemschneider (2004: 56–58, 106–107). 22   Cited in CAD/T: 424. 23   See Geller (2011); Heeßel (2012: 88) for BM 116624, a Ḫumbaba-face/coils model. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

301

pain, aggression or heavy breathing.24 But if Section 1 of the SV is considered, the relationship between the animal likened to the sheep and the ominous feature of the coils in the apodosis is not clear. Consider this perplexing example: the fleece of the sacrificial sheep is observed to be brindled like that of a gukkallusheep. SV §5 [šumma imme]ru minâti guppus īnāšu zarriqā šārat gukkallišu bitrum tīrānūšu ul išu

‘[If a shee]p – its size massive, its eyes sparkling, its fleece brindled (like that of) a gukkallu-sheep, it will not have coils of the colon.’

Was the fleece of the gukkallu-sheep so very smooth as to form an association with the lack(!) of coils of the colon, unlike the fleece of the regular sheep, which had an undulating form, like, perhaps, the coils of the colon? While this explanation may be considered for other cases found in the SV, associations between the appearance of the sheep and the coils of the colon (on the assumption that there were) now escape our understanding. It is not clear why a certain look of the sheep (black, thick-necked, red-eyed, etc.) prompted a particular number of coils. The number of coils of the colon provided in SV Section 1 are, 14 (or 15), 10, 14, 15 (or 18), and no coils at all. The numbers above 10 were probably positive, and it is likely that an even number of coils gave favourable results. Odd numbers were negative and perhaps indicated a diseased animal.25 The earlier version, IMV3, holds two omens (§§15–16) regarding the intestines. The Ominous Features of the Liver Additional features were related to extispicy, notably the gallbladder (martu) and the ‘Finger’ (ubānu). They were also considered as the results of the observations of the sheep’s body, and therefore noted in the apodoses of the šumma immeru omens. And as with the coils of the colon, both the gallbladder and the ‘Finger’ had their own chapters in Bārûtu: the gallbladder featured in Ch. 6 (with 10 tablets) and the ‘Finger’ in Ch. 7.26

24

  See KAL 5 10. Note that in these omens the coils were not meant to be compared to the animal itself, but rather to some distinctive anatomical feature of the animal (nose or muzzle) that offered a visual association with the coils. 25   Temple (1982: 21–24). 26   ‘Forerunners’ to these chapters are known from OB and post-OB manuscripts; for the gallbladder, see George (2013: 35–36) and Koch (2015: 85). The gallbladder is represented in Emar by Emar 699; Durand and Marti (2004: 10–24), Cohen (2009: 139–140) and Rutz (2013: 225–226); and in Assur by KAL 5 28–35. CUSAS 18 27 is a Sealand Dynasty manuscript of this organ. For the ‘Finger’, see George (2013: 45) and Koch (2015: 85); and in Assur, see KAL 5 36–41. In Hattuša there are fragments of gallbladder compendia in Akkadian; Riemschneider (2004: 9). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

302

9. Discussion and Conclusion

The apodoses of SV §§7, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 79'' refer to the gallbladder. The organ can be missing; or there can be a pair of gallbladders or even three. The gallbladder was associated with the king and kingship by force of the organ’s additional name rē’û(m) (written with the logogram sipa), ‘Shepherd’, typical of omens from Mari, as is argued in the literature.27 The association, however, is secondary and interpretative: the term rē’u originally meant *‘lung’ but it migrated to the gallbladder because of the similar shape of the organ to the lung.28 The reason for this association was forgotten for all we know, especially since in Akkadian the word for lung is ḫašû. The homophonous word rē’û(m), ‘shepherd’ gave rise to the association, however, with kingship, and the subsequent writing of the term gallbladder with the logogram sipa. The ‘Finger’ appears only in the apodoses of SV §§8, 9, 12–16 and 79''. The predictions are: either will be no ‘Finger’, there will be two ‘Fingers’ or three ‘Fingers’. Other features of the liver are the ‘Well-being’ (šulmu) and the ‘Strength’ (danānu), which in SV §77'' are said to be obliterated; see commentary ad loc.29 SV §70 speaks about the ‘Well-being’ as effaced (kabis). The ‘Palace Gate’ (bāb ekalli) is an important part of the liver.30 It receives an entry in SV §70', where it is predicted to appear as ‘wide open’ (nepelku). There are also apodoses predicting the appearance of the fortuitous marks on the liver surface. The most prominent among them is the ‘Weapon’(-mark) (kakku).31 In the Bārûtu, it is a mark that earns an entire chapter of its own: Chapter 8 in the Bārûtu. In SV §77'' a ‘Weapon’ appears in the rather broken apodosis, which describes additional features to be expected on the liver parts. The protasis is likewise broken, therefore it is difficult to understand the structure and meaning of the omen.32 The ‘Weapon’, found in the apodoses of LBA §§10' and 16', is designated as the ‘Weapon of Šedu and Lamassu’. This probably refers to the name given to the feature on the liver, which in turn implies a positive outcome in the future.33

27

  According to Durand 1988, although see Glassner (2009). Further, see Jeyes (1989: 62–63) and George (2013: 35). 28   Cohen (2003). 29   Jeyes (1989: 59–62), Starr (1990: xlii–xliii) and Koch (2000: 46–47 and 66–67). 30   Jeyes (1989: 60–61), Starr (1990: xliii) and Koch (2000: 46). 31   Jeyes (1989: 82–83), (Starr 1990: li), Koch (2000: 48–51) and George (2013: 167). KAL 5 42–46 are representative of this mark in Assur. The ‘Weapon’ gains a compendium in Emar (Emar 673), although see Rutz (2013: 226). There are also two Sealand Dynasty collections of the ‘Right Weapon’ and the ‘Left Weapon’; CUSAS 18 25 and 26. 32   The ‘Weapon’ also features in UC1 obv. 11', where it is spelled syllabically. 33   See Richter (1994). The ‘Weapon’ in this sense is probably mentioned also in IMV1 §§8 and 19', but the apodoses are too broken to be certain. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

303

The ‘Weapon of Lamassu’ is compared in a certain omen collection to the more common ‘Weapon of Šamaš’.34 The liver can suffer from a nēkemtu, ‘an atrophied mark’, as seen in SV §4: ina amūti nēkemtu šaknat, ‘“an atrophied mark” will be placed in the liver.’35 More details about the nēkemtu are given in SV §79'', where the mark is said to affect the ‘Narrow Place of the Wind Cleft’ (ruqqi piṭir šāri), an area of the liver between the ‘Path’ and the ‘Position’.36 This is a negative sign which predicts a disaster. In SV §17 the liver is predicted to be full of ‘Arrow’(-marks) (kaksû). This is a negative sign.37 This sign appears in the apodosis because in the protasis the sheep is described as being spotted with white spots (puṣa nagil). The ‘Arrow’ will appear in another circumstance: if an impure person (la ellu) touches the sacrificial animal, as SV §78'' informs the diviner.38 In SV §76'' the liver is said to have a qūlum, a mark of ‘Silence’. There are a few body parts which appear in the apodoses of the šumma immeru omens. The stomach (karšum) is predicted to be dark (tarik; IMV1 §35''; IMV3 §18). The breastbone (kaskasu) is predicted to be pierced (palis; SV §77''). A certain feature (which is lost in the break) is said to be curled up (kabi[s]; SV §73'). Such descriptions are also encountered in omen reports, from which a sample was brought in Chapter 7.5, and which are cited throughout Chapter 8. The most elaborate omen to treat the ominous signs to appear inside the sheep is SV §81''. It stands as the header of this chapter. It describes in much detail the movements of the sheep and its positioning, including the head, tongue, legs, tail and sinews. This prompts a prediction in the apodosis about three negative signs, which, because they appear on the left side of the animal, are positive for the client: a hole or perforation (šīlu),39 a fissure (piṭru),40 and redness (sāmu) on the left side. While all three marks are well known from other omen collections, unlike our case, they invariably appear in the protasis, because they describe features relating to the exta. The apodosis of SV §81'' states that the diviner will be satisfied (iḫaddu) upon the discovery of these fortuitous markings. This is the only description known to me that directly reflects on the emotional reaction of the diviner on duty.41 To our modern sensibilities, probably of no substantial 34

  Richter (1994: 226) citing MDP 57 5, 1: šumma ina rēš naplašti kakku šakin-ma šapliš iṭṭul kak Šamaš kak Lamassi šumšu, ‘If the “Weapon” is placed at the head of the “Position” and it looks down, it is the “Weapon of Šamaš”, also called the “Weapon of Lamassu ”’. 35   Jeyes (1989: 87–88); Starr (1990: liii). The logogram kar (= nēkemtu) is explicated in UC2 obv. 17. 36   Koch (2000: 45 and 63–64). 37   Jeyes (1989: 84). 38   The line is explained in UC2 obv. 15, but the text is very poorly preserved. 39   Jeyes (1989: 84), Starr (1990: lii) and id. (1983: 86–87 and 99–100). 40   Jeyes (1989: 84–85), Starr (1990: lii). 41  Nougayrol (1967b: 34–38) = K 57, is an excerpt of omens seemingly observing the behaviour of the diviner while on duty; Koch (2015: 144); Guinan (2002: 15). However, it is the client’s behaviour upon which the omens report; Maul (2013: 45); see, e.g., CAD/R: 436. At any rate, in the excerpt the apodosis refer to the fate of the client. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

304

9. Discussion and Conclusion

meaning for the ancients, the ice cold technical jargon of omen literature melts down, replaced with an emotional language which evokes before our eyes a vivid scene, as portrayed in the Neo-Assyrian reliefs (see Figs. 4 and 5), and at times, in the moving poetics of the diviner’s prayers. As such, one may well imagine the satisfaction of the diviner having seen a positive result at the end of a long and (hopefully) starry night during the extispicy ritual. To conclude, the discussion of Part I has demonstrated the uniqueness of the šumma immeru omens in relationship to other omen collections and emphasized by a close inspection of the apodoses their affinity with learned and technical compendia related to the practice of divination. The full implications of this conclusion will be revealed in Part III of this chapter.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

305

Part II The Structure, Content and Development of the šumma immeru Omens



OB §7 diš udu li-ša-an-šu iš-ta-na-da-ad a-na lugal a-wa-tum da-mi-iq-tum i-ma-qú-ut ‘If the sheep stretches out its tongue, good news will befall the king.’

LBA §5 diš udu ka×u (min) eme it-ta-na-an-di lú kúr ina sag a.šà-ia ki.tuš i-na-an-di ‘If a sheep (opens wide) its mouth and extends out its tongue, the enemy will establish its camp at my destination.’ IMV2 §11 be sag udu a kud-su nundum.meš-šú iš-ta-na-da-ad inim [damiqtu iṭeḫḫi] ‘If the sheep’s head – after its slaughter – it stretches out its lips, [good] news [will arrive].’

SV §100'' [be sa]g udu ta kud-su nundum.meš-šú iš-ta-na-da-ad inim munus sig 5 te-a

‘If the sheep’s head – after it has been slaughtered – stretches out its lips, good news will arrive to me.’ The header of our chapter cites basically the same omen as it appears in the four versions we have studied. The omen is intentionally written here in transcription so the reader can immediately see the differences in orthography, as well as the obvious changes in its formulation. Hence, we cannot speak of an exact duplicate of the omen, but we can speak of a correspondence, and this is the term we will use in our discussion about the structure, content and development of the šumma immeru omens across their various versions and, as a conclusion, all the versions in comparison to each other.

1. The Old Babylonian Version and Related Texts We have reconstructed the OB version as holding 111 omens entries. They were held on two tablets making up a single composition, as the colophons inform us (with their ki – and –kam notations). The first sentence of the omen collection is partly missing, but the phrase ištu tabḫu, ‘after it was slaughtered’, shows us that © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

306

9. Discussion and Conclusion

this is the opening omen of the OB šumma immeru omens. The phrase is repeated in §21, but its purpose is not to indicate the hand of an editor coming to use a new source for his omens.42 Rather, it denotes a change of subject. A similar phrase, lāma teptûšu, ‘before you open it’ (§34), further sets the sacrificial mis-à-scene of the omens. Such phrases later serve as markers for the extispicy ritual procedure reflected in the subsequent versions of the šumma immeru omens. The OB version covers the whole of the sheep’s frame. Its omens deal with organs of the head and continue to the back regions of the animal. They end with the areas around the abdomen. The first organ to be observed is the sheep’s eye, and the last to be investigated is the šuptum, a body part around the stomach. The eye was crucial for observing the presence or absence of the personal god, and the šuptum was one of the last body parts to be examined before the diviner proceeded to the coils of the colon and then the liver. The OB version treated thirty-eight body parts and bodily fluids (tears, mucus, blood and excrement). Each part was given one or two omens, although some parts garnered more entries. The body parts which are flat and have a surface, and which can be thought of as a field or a plot of land, are treated in an extensive manner: these include the tail (§§36–47), the pelvic bone and its various parts (§§50–64), the xiphoid process (§§72–82), and the ribs (§§89–92). These two dimensional surfaces afforded entries that were concerned with their top, middle, and lower parts, and to their left and right sides. The entries of these body parts were structured according to the typical expansion of omens, as apparent from the advent of Babylonian omen literature. Thus, the development of omens into sets of contrasting pairs or triplets is already seen here, and will be utilized, in some instances, more fully in later versions (the LBA and the IMV1–4).43 A good example of such an expansion can be seen in §§72–82 which deal with the xiphoid: the body part can be dark on the right and on the left, bent on the right and the left, lying to the right or the left, bent to the left and lying to the right, bent to the right and lying to the left, lying to the right and left and split on the right and left. Having discussed the structure and content of the protases of the OB version, we can devote some space to the structure and content of the apodoses. The apodoses, as in the Babylonian omen literature, are conditioned by the protases according to the general principles outlined in Chapter 1. Sometimes in the OB version the apodoses are arranged in pairs, giving a negative result and a positive result according to the rules dictated by the protasis. A good example is the one 42

  Glassner (2009: 26) assumes that the repeating opening phrase is an indication of a new source brought by the diviner who compiled the collection from different sources. But comparison with later versions shows that this was a feature typical to the collection, which was very much tied to the extispicy ritual. See below. 43   Pairs in the OB version are: §§32–33, 40–41, 44–45, 55–56, 57–58, 59–60, 63–64, 65–66, 67–68, 72–73, 74–75, 76–77, 78–79, 84–85, 86–87, 89–90, 94–95, 96–97, 98– 99, 100–101, and 102–103. Triplets are §§81–83 and §§91–93. A triplet of three positive omens followed by three negative omens is seen at the end of the composition: §§106–108 are positive and §§109–111 are negative. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

307

cited above for the protases of §§72–82, which observe the xiphoid bone as dark, bent, or lying to the left or the right, and which dictate the corresponding apodoses. Some of the apodoses of the OB version, however, are not arranged in pairs, especially when the body part does not allow a neat division of the left/ right paradigm in the protasis. In these cases, the reported apodoses are mostly negative; see for example §§8–15. The topics encountered in the OB apodoses are very varied, dealing with myriad social circumstances. They regard the king and his army, his country and its population, his advisors (including the diviner), his heirs and children. These occupy most of the omen collection, but there are some apodoses that deal with the client, his personal status, his family and his household and finances. There are a few apodoses that inform of fornication or sexual acts by the client’s wife, the client himself, and the king’s daughter. These apodoses are triggered by the mention of the sheep’s orifices and the perforation of various body parts in the protases (§§13, 20, 48, 49, 65, 69, and 70). The apodoses’ wide thematic variation will largely disappear in the later versions of the omens, and they will become clichéd phrases. This phenomenon is not unique to the šumma immeru omens; it is widespread among Babylonian omen literature. What is still in embryonic stage in this version, and which will later greatly expand, is the theme of predictions regarding the extispicy ritual and the exta. They are few (§§3, 22, 27, 30, 31 and 35) and do not stand at the center of the omen collection, as will be seen most prominently in the SV. See the extensive discussion under Chapter 9, Part I. At the Old Babylonian stage of the šumma immeru omens, distinct omen compendia dealing with select body parts of the animal are not much in evidence. Omen compendia treating distinct parts of the sheep become more available to us in the Post Old Babylonian period and the Late Bronze Age. However, there are exceptions, which allow us to follow the direction in which the omens were heading. There are two Nineveh tablets that include omens of various body parts of the sheep (Chapter 7.4.4). Most of the body parts of these two tablets are found in the Ritual of the Diviner and the List of Sheep Body Parts. However, one tablet of the two also treats the šuptum body part, which is found in the OB version (and also in the SLD manuscript; see below). The Nineveh tablets, although late, display Old Babylonian features, hence the original compositions probably date back to the Old Babylonian or the Post Old Babylonian period. In addition to these two tablets from Nineveh, another Nineveh omen fragment lists sheep parts found in the OB version––the anus, the šuptum and the tail (Chapter 7.4.3). It may represent a Post Old Babylonian composition, which dealt with individual sheep parts, and was transmitted to Nineveh. A near-contemporary tablet of the OB version is the omen compendium of Severed Hooves and Fetlocks, which deals with two bone parts, the nail hoof and the fetlock (Chapter 7.7). One of the body parts––the nail hoof––features also in the OB šumma immeru version (§§25–26). Since the omen compendium of Severed Hooves and Fetlocks comes from Tigunānum, we may safely postulate that it was copied around the Late Old Babylonian period, and perhaps composed somewhat earlier. Although the omens from Tigunānum, including the šumma © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

308

9. Discussion and Conclusion

izbu and bird compendia, are thought to represent divination traditions and even techniques different than the ones found in Mesopotamia and therefore to be representative of northern Mesopotamia and Syria-Anatolia omen traditions, the Omens from Severed Hooves and Fetlocks may in fact already be representative of what will be seen later during the Post Old Babylonian period and the Late Bronze Age. In these periods we will encounter more compendia dedicated to distinct body parts of the sheep. This issue will be discussed below, when the LBA version will be treated. Apart from the OB šumma immeru omens, we were exposed to four additional compositions that dealt with the sheep’s body parts within the context of the extispicy ritual procedure: the Ritual of the Diviner, the List of Sheep Body Parts (BM 29663), an Akkadian-Hittite List of (Sheep) Body Parts, and the Manual of Sacrificial Procedure (see for all Chapter 7). They were found to be related to the šumma immeru omens not only in subject matter, but also in the way they arranged the various body parts of the animal. In particular, the Ritual of the Diviner has shown remarkable closeness to the šumma immeru omens (and also to the SLD manuscript): eleven body parts are shared between the compositions and both exhibited the same rare verb form. In addition to these related compositions, we find OB and Kassite omen reports which mention some of the body parts found in the OB šumma immeru version (Chapter 7.5.1). On occasion, some of the formulations of the reports are those also found in the OB šumma immeru version. As Maul (2013) very well demonstrated, the omens and the related compositions are all accessories to what was enacted in practice, namely, the complicated procedure of slaughtering the animal and dismembering it for the purpose of extispicy. Indeed, they are textual mirrors that allow us to reconstruct the minute realia behind the extispicy ritual. However, there is another way of looking at these sources. Not as such with which to reconstruct real life, but rather as means by which to understand how knowledge was systemized for the community of users––the diviners. The sources illuminate for us the intellectual background of the extispicy procedures. They show that the sheep demanded its own toolbox. There was a need to learn, report, or document the terms of the sheep’s body parts, and to register its behaviour during the extispicy ritual. However, the accumulated knowledge before us was not the writing down of real-life experiences, but a body of technical knowledge, which, no doubt, is to be situated within the wider context of the extispicy ritual, but also which was the outcome of new modes of written expression, utilizing a variety of literary modes, such as the ‘If Q then Y’ syntagm, generative possibilities, lists, and prayers. These are which allowed the flowering of omen literature and its subsequent developments. Other collections of similar or related omens existed alongside the šumma immeru omens. We have described the Old Babylonian (and later) bird divination compendia and have demonstrated that they were in part probably influenced by the šumma immeru omens (Chapter 7.6). Some of these compendia examine the outer parts of the sacrificial bird, in a fashion very much like our omens. And in one case, an almost identical protasis is shared by the two types of omen texts. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

309

The Omens from a Ewe Confined Overnight (Chapter 7.10) is a unique type of composition, previously unknown, and not directly related to the šumma immeru omens. But it reflects, we may assume, a tradition of a divination technique based upon the observation of the movement of the sacrificial animal. The composition arrives from the court of King Tunip-Teššub of Tigunānum, hence its manuscript can be roughly dated to the mid- to end of the 17th century, but the origin of the composition was probably Halab, and it was possibly composed somewhat earlier. A similar and possibly related tradition was reflected in the Hittite šašta oracles (Chapter 7.11). Once thought to be related to the šumma immeru omens, they show, in fact, a greater affinity to the Omens from a Ewe Confined Overnight. Although these two compositions cannot be considered offshoots of the šumma immeru omens, they are important to our discussion. They stretch the geographical zones where divination related to the sheep’s movements was developed and practiced. In north Syria and Anatolia, however, a direct connection between the observation of the sheep and its ritual slaughter cannot be claimed, although there is no doubt that the technique of extispicy was known there. In Mesopotamia, on the other hand, the šumma immeru omens, already from the OB version and onwards, display a strong connection with the extispicy ritual, and naturally, with extispicy. We can assume, rather safely, in conclusion, that the šumma immeru omens were compiled, collected and written down at the same occasion of the extispicy compendia––the liver and its various parts, as well as other inner organs (such as the lungs and heart) of the sacrificial sheep; see below Part III, 3. In order to follow the development of the šumma immeru omens we continue chronologically, looking first at the SLD manuscript and then the LBA version.

2. The Sealand Dynasty Manuscript The SLD manuscript is an important stage in the development of the šumma immeru omens, although it is not considered here as one of the šumma immeru versions (Chapter 7.1). The SLD tablet begins with the same body parts with which the OB version closed, hence obviously there is some connection between the two. The SLD colophon informs us that it was the fifth tablet of an obviously longer compendium, now lost. If it was the last in the series of five tablets, this means most probably that the lost tablets contained the body parts treated in the OB version, but greatly expanded. The OB version includes a total of 111 omen entries. Because the fifth tablet of the series holds seventy-six omen entries, it can be posited that each additional tablet held a similar number, say for the sake of convenience, seventy entries. The total of omens that this putative series held was then roughly speaking around 350 entries. Each body part, in toto around fourty to thirty, on account of the OB version, would have garnered around ten entries. This estimate is indeed confirmed by the SLD tablet, where each body part, as far as can be reconstructed, held about ten entries. This means that in this putative series the body part omens were expanded three-fold. This was probably not a gradual development, but a conscious attempt to re-structure the šumma immeru omens and perhaps include additional body parts omens. In the SLD manuscript the šašallu, ‘back muscle’, and © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

310

9. Discussion and Conclusion

the qerbitu, ‘inner part’ (possibly belonging to the šuptum) are two new parts which do not appear in the OB version. In this sense, the SLD complements and expands OB §§110–111, which include the šutqum, bamtum and šuptum body parts. As we will see, evidence of this kind of development in the later šumma immeru versions is not found. The LBA, IMV1-4 and the SV do not add totally new body parts, they only introduce some new terms to replace older terminology. In addition, the colophons of the LBA, IMV1-4 and the SV do not treat the šumma immeru tablet as part of a series, as was seen in the SLD colophon. Nonetheless, as will be discussed, according to some evidence the šumma immeru omens were later on considered as a sort of a supplement to the šumma izbu omens, hence part of a series. The SLD version was expanded and elaborated following the principles of divinatory investigation. Let us investigate the way that the collection was restructured. We take for example the sequence dealing with the šutqu(m). The OB version presents this pattern (§§100–103): dark and right = negative; dark and left = positive; bright and right = positive; and bright and left = negative. The SLD (corresponding to the OB version in §§3, 9, 4 and 10), only partly adheres to this scheme: it treats the body parts according to their side (left or right) rather than their colouration (dark or light as in the OB version). In addition, it adds the rib cage (bantu) to this scheme, and does not treat it as a separate entry. Moreover, the SLD adds another possibility missing from the OB version. Apart from the simple scheme of left/right and dark/bright, it includes the observation of a cyst, appearing on the right or left of the šutqu(m) organ, along with the expected respective results, negative and positive.44 This adds two more omens to what was found in the OB version. Another structural development that introduces a new equation into the simple scheme can be seen also in SLD §§17–18, where some part of the back muscle (the šašallu) is said to have ten (spots) that resemble a fish eye. Another way the divinatory investigation could be expanded was to add a new condition: dark or bright on both sides of an organ, not just its left or right. When dark is seen on both sides of the organ, the result in the apodosis is nanmurtum, ‘confrontation’; but when the organ is light on both sides, the result in the apodosis is pitruštān, ‘ambiguous omen’.45 The dark versus bright apposition on both sides is not utilized in the OB version, although other terms are used to describe parallel conditions of both sides of a particular organ.46 To conclude, the techniques for expanding entries were not unique to the SLD manuscript, but found in other omen compositions as well, dating already from the OB period. The SLD, however, more fully utilized them with regard to the 44

  The addition of the cyst to the paradigm was probably sparked by the ‘spot’, liptum, which appeared as some sort of growth of the ribcage in OB §104. 45   The šašallu (§§21–22) and probably the šuptu (§§75–76) could be dark (tarkā) or light (namrā) on both sides. 46   In the OB version, the term nanmurtum is not found at all. But the term pitruštān is seen in OB §82, when the breast-bone is spilt (paṭer) both to the right and the left. For the terms nanmurtum and pitruštān, see the discussion by Starr (1975). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

311

šumma immeru omens. This brought about the expansion of the omens found in the OB šumma immeru version. Since we only have the fifth tablet––our SLD manuscript––we cannot know for sure how this omen compendium was developed in comparison to the OB version, and how the whole SLD putative series stood in relation to the šumma immeru omens. However, the fifth tablet demonstrates in what direction the compilers of the SLD omens moved. It is difficult to tell when this expansion and elaboration of the omens happened. The SLD manuscript can only serve us as a terminus ante quem, that is to say, before its production in the 16th century. Interestingly, as far is presently known, the SLD version is not attested in later manuscripts. This fits the nature of the Sealand Dynasty omen collections, as will be described below, in Part III.

3. The Late Bronze Age Version and Related Texts The LBA version, represented by manuscripts from Emar and Hattuša, cannot be fully reconstructed because of the rather poor condition of the manuscripts. Nonetheless, enough exists to ascertain that on the one hand, the LBA version was at a remove from the OB version, and on the other hand, that it was a rather stable text, as indicated by the appearance of almost identical Emar and Hattuša manuscripts. It is clear that manuscripts at both scribal centers were written in the same period, at the closing centuries of the second millennium, but this does not mean that one manuscript relied on the other. Their orthographic differences are obvious, as is their layout. Hence, one should not regard their similarity as evidence of the transmission of a certain manuscript from Emar to Hattuša or the reverse, even via intermediate scribal centers. Nonetheless, they relied on one putative Babylonian version of the omens, which was written in the Late or Post Old Babylonian period. Like the OB version, the LBA version opens with a phrase that situates the omens in the context of the extispicy ritual, enūma takarrabu, ‘when you dedicate (the sheep)’. Further descriptions of the situation of where and when the omens are to be imagined to be observed appear: ina nakāsika, ‘upon your slaughtering’, [šumma qaqqad] immeri takkisu, ‘[If] you will have cut off the sheep’s [head]’, and [šumma] qaqqad ‹immeri enūma› tanakkasu, ‘[If] ‹when› you cut off the ‹sheep’s› head’. It is not clear how and why these phrases, of which only two appear in the OB version, become more varied and frequent. It is possible that this innovation was motivated by a desire to include a prepositional phrase or a subordinate sentence as an introduction to a new topic as the ritual progresses, such as seen when the animal’s blood is treated (§32) or its mouth (§76'). As will be seen below, the introduction of such phrases and sentences was a feature also common to the IMV (e.g., IMV3 §3, ištu karbu, ‘after it was dedicated’). Hence, this innovation, which was absent from the OB version, can lead us to assume that the LBA version and the IMV1–4 relied on Old Babylonian (or Post Old Babylonian) versions, which were different than the OB version we have preserved. After all, only one tradition of the OB version has come down to us, and in view of the © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

312

9. Discussion and Conclusion

great variety found in Old Babylonian literature of various genres, one can assume that parallel traditions of the šumma immeru omens circulated in the Old Babylonian or Post Old Babylonian period. We surmise this because the LBA version and the IMV share these prepositional phrases, but are otherwise different enough from each other. Since they do not represent the same textual tradition, we assume that this innovation was present in a version or versions that were written before their time. Another innovation present in the LBA version is the first appearance of the šumma immeru formula in the apodoses, characteristic of our omens, muššer immeramma dūk nakra, ‘let go of the sheep and kill the enemy’ (above, Part I). The formula’s origin is not clear, but given that it appears in both the LBA version and IMV1, which are of a different textual tradition, it may have also had its origin amongst the now missing Post Old Babylonian version(s) of the omens. As already remarked, the apodoses of later versions become clichéd, predictable and repetitive. They are arranged in pairs or as single apodoses.47 They deal with the king, his army and the client. Some, however, focus on what happens in the extispicy ritual and its wake. The šumma immeru formula is one such apodosis, but there are more, concerned with the disposition of the personal god towards the client during or at the outcome of the ritual (§§1, 3, 26 and 27), and the ‘Position’ of Šamaš and the ‘Weapon’(-mark) (§§4, 10 and 16). These apodoses, which have been treated above in detail, will appear frequently in the IMV and the SV, as will be seen. According to the colophon of the Hattuša manuscript, the LBA version included eighty-four omens. It can be assumed that the Emar version contained nearly the same number of omens, perhaps somewhat more. However, the manuscripts did not permit us to reconstruct, either wholly or partly, more than fifty-six omen entries. At any rate, the number of omens that the colophon gives (84 omen entries) is lower than the number of omens reconstructed in the OB version (111 omen entries). What does this mean? A closer inspection of the contents of the LBA version in comparison with the OB version offers an answer. While the OB version dealt with almost forty body parts, the LBA version treated far fewer. Despite the fact that the LBA version is not well preserved, we can understand its structure and content because we have both its beginning and end. After the opening omen deals with the frame of the animal, we can reconstruct the following body parts: teeth, mouth, ears, eyes, tongue, neck, head, foot, rib cage, blood, head, [head region], mouth, and neck––in total, ten body parts and one bodily fluid––blood. There are also new entries observing the sheep defecating and urinating.48 The rest of the body parts, especially the bone parts, do not appear. But where have they gone? By this time, some of them have been assigned their 47

  The composition opens with single apodoses, as in the OB version, §§1–7. From this point, the following pairs can be distinguished: §§8–9, 10–11, 12–13, 14–15, 19–20, 21– 22, 23–24, 26–27, 28–29, 30–31, 78'–79', and 82'–84'. Within these there are possibly triplets of apodoses, but they cannot be safely reconstructed because of the texts’ poor condition. 48   §§6–7; a similar entry is seen in the SLD manuscript. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

313

own omen compendia. We will deal with this issue shortly, but first continue with the analysis of the changes between the OB and the LBA versions. In the OB version, each body part was given one to three entries (apart from select items, as discussed above). In the LBA version, fewer body parts appear, but the text shows interest in a particular feature of the sacrificial animal––its blood––following the principles of divinatory investigation. After the general examination of the body of the sheep, like the OB version, but in a different order, the LBA assesses the teeth, mouth, ears, eyes, tongue, neck and head region, foot and ribcage. Then at §32, there come twelve entries dealing with appearance and quality of the sheep’s blood (§§32–43). The OB version has only one entry (§22) dealing with blood.49 Some body parts in the LBA version receive more attention than in the OB version: the ear (OB §4 vs. LBA §§8–11), the eye (OB §§2–3 vs. LBA §§12–16), the mouth (OB §5 vs. LBA §§4–5, §§76'–79'), and the neck (OB §83 vs. §§80'– 84'). The omens were developed along the right-left opposition (which many times was not expressed in the OB version), and by numerical gradation. These are not novel techniques: they existed from the every beginning of the omen genre, but they were simply not used by the OB version for many of the body parts. Rather, so one can suppose, they were implied and not expressed in writing. While the LBA version expanded on some body parts, others simply disappeared, specifically, the bones and leg parts. The evidence, limited as it is, points to the fact that these parts had branched off and were assigned their own compendia. Hints to this process are already found in the Old Babylonian period (see above). We can now turn to deal with these compendia, found at Assur and Emar. The Assur and Emar bone omen compendia (Chapter 7.2 and 7.3) deal with the lesser body parts, each of which receives multiple entries. They are tablets whose production is to be dated to the Middle Babylonian period/Middle Assyrian period or the Late Bronze Age, although they may rely on older post-Old Babylonian compositions. A colophon of a Middle Babylonian bone compendium from Assur (KAL 5 2; Chapter 7.2.1), informs us that the tablet is apparently a copy representing or relying on an older composition.50 These bone omen compositions are clearly independent of the LBA or IMV šumma immeru versions, because they lack the opening phrases or other prepositional phrases typical of these. They are also not at all focused on the whole of the sheep’s body. The colophons are informative in this case. One composition (KAL 5 2; Chapter 7.2.1) has a colophon identifying it as a ‘bones’ (eṣmētum) compendium. It includes a catch line (rev. 16, although only the apodosis is preserved), which means it was followed by at least another tablet, but how the composition looked as a whole remains unknown. Perhaps it continued with other sheep body parts. Another colophon of a rib bones collection (KAL 5 3; Chapter 7.2.2) simply 49

  The blood omens do not appear in the extant IMVs, but they feature in the SV, in a section almost of their own, totaling eleven entries (Section 3, §§55''–65"). 50   The colophon has these two broken lines: [ … ] šu máš.šu.gíd.gíd la-bi-ri / [ … ]-ima ú-ul a-mu-ur, ‘by the hand of the ancient diviner / [ … ] … and I did not see’. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

314

9. Discussion and Conclusion

provides the number of omens it includes, without any indication of whether it was part of a larger series or collection. Although these compositions (mostly fragmentary) can be understood as stand-alones, they were nevertheless very much indebted to the OB šumma immeru version. Let us explain. Firstly, they deal with the same body parts found in the earliest version of our omens––the rib cage, ribs, and leg parts. One compendium from Assur (KAL 5 2; Chapter 7.2.1) even includes an entry concerned with a rare body part (albeit reconstructed)––the ‘small bones of the singaggarītum’––a sure indication of its reliance on the OB šumma immeru version, because this body part is found only there and nowhere else. Indeed, the apodosis of this entry in the Assur compendium is the very same as that found in the OB version (§69). An identical apodosis is an extremely rare phenomenon in omen literature. Thus, it must be inferred that this bone compendium for Assur relied (even if not directly) on the šumma immeru omens. Two additional compendia from Assur (KAL 5 3; Chapter 7.2.2. and KAL 5 4; Chapter 7.2.3), as well as the bone omen compendia from Emar (see Chapter 7.3), also exhibit ties to the šumma immeru omens. The šumma immeru omens and these collections do not only share subject matter. There is no need to repeat all the details here (presented in Chapter 7), but we may emphasize that the Emar and Assur collections are related to each other, and that we detect a correspondence between the protases and apodoses of the šumma immeru omens and the Emar materials. This leads us to assume that the bone omens, which surely developed secondarily to the OB šumma immeru version, relied at least partially, although substantially upon it. When these omens were extracted from the OB šumma immeru omens remains unknown. We can surmise, however, that the OB šumma immeru omens were viewed as a source from which to build new types of collections.

4. The Intermediate Versions 1–4 The next phase in the development of the šumma immeru omens can be followed by four different manuscripts, which we have called the intermediate versions. These manuscripts represent compositions compiled after the Old Babylonian period, the latest at the end of the second millennium. The manuscripts of this phase are not in the best state of preservation, so the full development of the omens can only benefit from a tentative interpretation. Despite their condition, they supply us with clues about the way the šumma immeru omens will appear in the SV––their last phase. IMV1-4 contain several descriptive phrases that immediately identify the omens in question and place them in the context of the extispicy ritual, for example, ina ṭeḫêka, ‘upon your approaching (to the sacrificial animal)’, ištu karbu, ‘after (the sheep) was dedicated’, ina karābika, ‘upon your praying’, ištu naksu, ‘after its slaughter’, ina kâṣišu, ‘upon being flayed’, ina nakāsišu, ‘upon its slaughter’, ištu ikūnu, ‘after it has come to rest’, and ištu qaqqadu naksu, ‘after (its) head was cut off’. IMV2 and IMV4 repeat the phrase ištu naksu throughout the beginning of their protases. Such phrases were introduced already in the LBA version, where © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

315

they seemed to mark the beginning of a new topic and this was probably the case in the IMV, as far as can be seen. The body parts that IMV1-4 deal with are the head and head region––the ear, eye, tongue, nose, lips and neck. Many parts of the sheep’s head go unmentioned, as in the LBA version. However, others are expanded, such as the ear (IMV1 §§2–12') and the lip (IMV2 §§4–17). The tail, which was an organ that received many entries in the OB version, is rather neglected in what remains to us. A new term which was not previously present in the OB or LBA versions is the kursinnu (IMV3 §14), which however already had its own compendium in the Late Old Babylonian period (p. 256). The kursinnu probably replaces the larsinnu of the OB version. The same can be said of the appearance of the lips (in IMV2), which replace the mouth of the OB version. The lips in IMV2 are moved to the end of the composition (which will also be their position in the SV). The fleece of the sheep is first encountered in this phase (IMV1) and will appear later in the SV. There are also omens treating the sheep when it farts or defecates. The structure of the protases in the IMV1 is somewhat different from the OB and LBA versions, signaling things to come in the SV. Whereas the OB and LBA protases usually treated each of the sheep’s organs in separate entries, IMV1 sometimes ties two parts of the sheep together in the same protasis, such as ear and eye (§§ 2–4, 6). This structure is somewhat similar to what will be seen in the SV, especially throughout Section 1. In the apodoses, the šumma immeru formula makes an appearance, as it did in the LBA version. There are also apodoses relating directly to the client’s disposition at the extispicy ritual: whether his personal god had accepted his prayer, was present, or will look favourably upon him (IMV1 §§1 and 7; IMV2 §9; IMV3 §§19–20). As in the OB version, there are apodoses that give a prediction about the omens inside the sheep (IMV1 §§33"–34"; IMV3 §§12–14, and 16). But there is also something new: for the first time, the apodoses supply predictions regarding particular inner body parts that will be revealed after the animal’s slaughter. There is reference to the stomach (karšum), which is predicted to be dark (IMV1 §35"; IMV3 §18), and to the coils of the colon (IMV3 §§15–16). The coils will receive considerable attention in the SV. These IMV apodoses, along with the general formation of the omens, demonstrate how IMV anticipates what will be encountered in the SV.

5. The Standard Version and the Bārûtu Series The Standard Version is the latest of the šumma immeru omen collection. The textual history of this version is very stable: there are no substantial differences between the manuscripts found in 7th century Nineveh and those that arrive from 3rd century Uruk. Naturally, from its very beginning, the SV is structured around the same principles of the šumma immeru omens from their very start. The content of the collection and the general arrangement of the omens are also the same, but a few substantial changes can be noted, some of which were also present in the LBA version and the IMV. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

316

9. Discussion and Conclusion

As before, the omens are arranged according to body parts, but here each body part is allocated a section, separated by a dividing line. We can reconstruct nine sections (although there could have been more), holding in total 105 entries (but the number of entries could have been somewhat lower). Section 1 of the SV concentrates on the region of the sheep’s head, as well as the animal’s frame. The first section can therefore be understood as an expansion of the first few omens, which opened the omen collection. Previous versions always concentrated on the head region and the sheep’s body, but Section 1 displays some innovations. First, we find two new terms particular to the section: minâtu, ‘the size (of the sheep’s frame)’, and šikittu, ‘the form (of the sheep’s frame)’. These terms are unique to the SV and, furthermore, are not found in other types of omens, such as the šumma izbu or šumma ālu, both of which extensively deal with the sheep. Hence, both terms clearly reflect the procedures of the extispicy ritual and the descriptions of its accompanying ikribu prayers, which demand a sacrificial sheep of perfect shape and form (see Chapter 1). In addition, the protases of Section 1, as explained in Chapter 5, are all bipartite or tripartite. This means, in short, that they treat several observable features (eyes, ears, nail hoof, etc.), as well as additional characteristics in one single entry. This bipartite/tripartite feature was already partly observed in earlier versions, but to a much lesser degree (see above the discussion regarding the IMV). And finally, we see that there is much more emphasis in the apodoses of Section 1 on the observation of the inner parts of the liver, as well as other organs. Eighteen apodoses of the twenty entries in Section 1 deal with the inner body parts of the animal: the number of the coils of the colon, the features of the liver, the gallbladder and the ‘Finger’. This concentration of apodoses was not seen before (see Part I). Note that some of the manuscripts of the SV seem to be excerpt tablets containing only Section 1, as if this was a separate composition altogether; for details, see Chapter 5. The rest of the SV sections deal with the same parts of the sheep’s body as those found in the LBA and IMV versions. But here, as in the LBA and IMV, the bone parts are missing. The omens are mostly concerned with the organs of the head region––eyes, ears, mouth, lips, snout; and the leg and rear parts––nail hoofs, hocks, and tail. The lips replace the tongue of the earlier versions. A few new body parts are introduced––the snout (ḫuṭṭimmu), the nostrils (naḫīrū) and the palate (liq pî ). They supplement the body parts previously encountered, namely, the nose and mouth. There is a well-developed blood section (Section 3), as in the LBA version. The eyes (Section 7) and lips (Section 9) also receive a considerable number of omens. They are all structured on the same principles discussed above (left/right, etc.). The omens dealing with the sheep’s emissions (farting, defecating, urinating) are found only once (§48), but we should consider whether others were lost in the breaks. As said, the apodoses of Section 1 of the SV are unique in that they treat the observed inner body parts of the animal. In other sections of the SV, there are more apodoses concerned with this issue. In addition, a considerable number of the SV apodoses deal with the extispicy ritual, focusing on whether the client’s personal © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

317

god has appeared and is willing to accept the client’s prayers and sacrifice. This was seen already in the OB version and subsequent versions, but in the SV the theme is much more prominent. Another noticeable feature of the SV apodoses is the emphasis of the role of the diviner himself in the extispicy ritual. The LBA and IMV included apodoses with directives forwarded to the diviner, in particular, the šumma immeru formula. In the SV, there are additional, much more detailed, directives relating to the sacrificial context. The rest of the apodoses are similar to the ones found in the LBA and IMV versions. They concentrate mainly on the affairs of the king and country, and less on domestic or everyday circumstances of the everyman (which were a distinct feature of the OB version). One apodosis (§90) deals with the fornication of the client’s wife, like the OB version omens that center on this theme. In this sense, the SV preserves an Old Babylonian tradition that does not appear in other versions (although note that the sexual omens could have been lost because of textual breaks in the manuscripts). As mentioned, the bone parts of the sheep were not found in the SV. As we saw, they had been already organized into their own compendia, testimonials of which come from Assur and Emar. However, there were additional efforts to collect omens stemming from the šumma immeru omen collection. The process cannot be fully reconstructed, but it can be understood that some of the sheep body parts, notably bone parts, were collected, first, in ‘forerunners’ of the Bārûtu series, and later on, in the Bārûtu itself. The vertebrae (kunukku), the sternum (kaskasu) and the body part isru were encountered in KAL 5 4 from Assur (Chapter 7.2.3), which is a ‘forerunner’ to Bārûtu, Ch. 1, Tablets 1–4. Then comes the standard Bārûtu, Ch. 1. Its four tablets (Tablets 1–4), included, in addition to the body parts already found in its Assur ‘forerunner’ (viz., vertebrae, sternum, and the isru), the hoof (larsinnu), the (floating) ribs (najjabātu) and the ribs (sikkat ṣēli), which again are bone parts mentioned in the earlier versions of the šumma immeru omens, notably the OB version (although not in the SV). Another tablet is related to the Bārûtu: KAL 5 1 (Chapter 7.4.2). It brings selections of the Bārûtu that include omens of the isru and of the sternum. There is no doubt that the Bārûtu omens listed above were taken directly from the šumma immeru omen collection. KAL 5 1 and a commentary to the Bārûtu include the unique šumma immeru formula. This alone suffices to demonstrate their source. It is difficult to know when the šumma immeru omens were extracted to the Bārûtu. The answer depends heavily on the complex and not fully understood textual history of the Bārûtu; see below Part III, 2. The šumma immeru omens can provide us with an understanding that the Bārûtu Ch. 1 omens dealing with bone parts were originally part of the šumma immeru collection. Then ,as argued above, they broke off to form their own collections. When the Bārûtu came about, one can assume that Bārûtu Ch. 1. collected these collections of discrete body parts (evidence of which is found in Emar, Assur, and Nineveh sources based on Late Old Babylonian traditions). Bārûtu Ch. 2 moved on to deal with the coils of © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

318

9. Discussion and Conclusion

colon. The subsequent Bārûtu chapters treated additional inner parts of the exta. The ‘forerunners’ of the Bārûtu provide us with evidence that this process was already under way before the standardization of the series. The question we face, and which will be treated later, is why the Bārûtu did not include other items from the šumma immeru collection. Or to put it differently, why the šumma immeru omen collection did not open the Bārûtu as its first chapter.

6. The Commentaries of the Standard Version The three commentaries of the SV are all late, dating to the Late Babylonian period. None, so far, are attested from Nineveh, although many other commentaries are known from the Library of Ashurbanipal. The commentaries represent the last attestations of the omens, like the Uruk manuscripts of the SV (mss. G and H), showing us that the collection was still known. However, they do not obviously bring forth the entire text but only select citations which amount to no more than individual words or phrases from their base text––the SV. The preservation of the commentaries is so poor that only fragments of their content can be satisfactorily retrieved. Moreover, some of the base text they comment upon is also very poorly preserved in the SV manuscripts. Hence, we face a kind of impossible situation: the commentaries, broken as they are, comment on a text, which is itself largely gone. It is therefore difficult to determine which text they were commenting upon. Was it the SV as represented by the Nineveh manuscripts, or perhaps somewhat a different SV? There are some indications that the base text used by the commentaries was the same (see Chapter 5, commentary to §52'). But other occasions display a possible divergence from the present form of the SV (see Chapter 6.1.2, Rev. 1; Chapter 6.2.2, 29–32; 6.3.2., Rev. 5 and 8). This evidence, meager as it is, is important regarding the question of the standardization of the šumma immeru omens in their SV form. See below Part III, 4.

7. A Crosscut Comparison between the šumma immeru Versions We have discussed each individual version of the omens. Now is the time to assess all the compositions together. We will consider how each version contributed to the next and clarify the relationship between all the versions. Our discussion is supplemented by a few tables that present the data in a succinct manner. The tables present each version according to its individual entries. Parallel columns include the corresponding entries of other versions. The OB version of 111 entries covering some thirty body parts does not find many corresponding entries with the subsequent versions. We have already explained the reason for this situation above: in the later versions, many of the sheep parts either disappeared from the organ repertoire of the sacrificial sheep or were supplied with their own new omen collections. In the first millennium, these were collected into the first chapter of the Bārûtu and other little known (to us) collections. In addition, it is not to be forgotten that the OB version is the only complete version we have and that the other later versions are not fully preserved, © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

319

hence there could have been a higher correspondence than is presently observable. In spite of the rather few shared entries, the chain of transmission between the versions can be seen to have remained rather unbroken. The shared entries display a close but not exact correspondence: in the protasis the choice of the verb may be different and the body part may be replaced (as discussed above, e.g., the tongue with the lips); the apodoses are usually different, but the result is usually the same throughout, i.e., if the apodosis is negative in one version so will it be in another, and the reverse, i.e., when it is positive. Later versions, esp. IMV2, exhibit very close correspondences between both the protases and apodoses of the last and final version, the SV. Here follow the details of the shared entries between the versions. There are five entries shared across all versions: ear (OB §4, LBA §9, IMV1 §10, SV §34), tongue/lips (two entries) (OB §6, LBA §18, IMV2 §12, SV §101"; and OB §7, LBA §5, IMV2 §11, SV §100"), tears (OB §16, LBA §17, IMV3 §11, SV §§28, 30), larynx/cries (OB §21, LBA §25, IMV1 §29', IMV3 §2, SV 54'), and blood (OB §22, LBA §38, IMV1 §§5, 6, SV §55"). The number seems to be very low, but this is misleading. It was probably somewhat higher and this is in large part due to the gaps of our text. The OB version shares two entries solely with the LBA version; one entry with the LBA version and the SLD manuscript; one entry with the LBA and the SV; three entries with the IMV1; one entry with IMV2 and the SV; and four entries solely with the SV. It also shares two entries with Emar 682, one entry with KAL 5 2, and nine entries solely with the SLD. The LBA version (of which are preserved 66 entries out of 84 entries) shares two entries with the OB version; one entry with the OB and SLD; one entry with the OB and SV; one entry with IMV1; one entry with IMV1 and SV; two entries with IMV3; fives entries with IMV3 and SV; and six entries with SV. IMV1 (only 35 entries are preserved) shares three entries with the OB version; one entry with LBA; one entry with LBA and SV; six entries solely with IMV3; one entry with IMV3 and SV; and two entries solely with the SV. Indeed, as we recognized in our discussion in Chapter 4, IMV1 can be restored according to IMV3. IMV2 (only 18 entries are preserved) shares one entry with the OB and the SV; one entry with the LBA and the SV; and five entries solely with the SV. It shares no entries with IMV1 or IMV3. IMV3 (only 22 entries are preserved), although it is a later manuscript (1st millennium ms. originally from Kalhu), displays much continuity with IMV1, as stated above. It shares with it six entries. It shares three entries with LBA and SV. The SV (a total of 105 entries are preserved) shares four entries with the OB version; one entry with OB and LBA; one entry with OB and IMV2; © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

320

9. Discussion and Conclusion

six entries only with LBA; one entry with LBA and IMV2; four entries with LBA and IMV3; two entries solely with IMV1; two entries with IMV2; and one entry with IMV3. A brief summary of the situation can be provided. Two general observations can be made about the SV. When we take into account the considerable breaks in our manuscripts, which provide us with a very incomplete reconstruction of all versions (apart from the OB version), it can be stated that despite the low count of actual correspondences, there is a high degree of continuity between all the versions. Let us explain. When the correspondences to the SV are assessed according to body parts, or sections, as the omen collection came to be organized in this stage, we see that Section 1 of the SV was wholly independent of previous versions. However, the section dealing with the head region (Section 2) was greatly indebted to the OB, LBA and IMV1 and IMV3 versions. Section 3, which dealt with blood, continues what was chiefly met in the LBA version (and which could have been preserved in part by the IMV). The end of the SV (Sections 8 and 9) is very close to IMV2, which also represents the end of the composition. In sum, this situation ought to be evaluated against other data from different omen types, chiefly extispicy. Reaching this objective is of course impossible, as said already in the preface to this book (p. xii): the šumma immeru omen collection was chosen for study because of its manageable size on the one hand and its long history of transmission. Other omen collections are more difficult to study for exactly the opposite reasons: they are either too large and complex and/or not well enough documented across time. For now, a solitary example will serve as an illustration for our purpose––kidney omen collections. These collections are found to be documented by tablets from the Old Babylonian period to the Seleucid era. A close study of the remains reveals a situation very like what was described above for the šumma immeru omens.51 There are nine correspondences between an Old Babylonian kidney omen collection (BM 96966 = Jeyes 1989, no. 16) and KAL 5 82, a Middle Assyrian version. The ordering of the omens amongst them is different and the apodoses different. Parallels are then found between the Middle Assyrian version and a collection of some kidney omens, among other types of omens (Koch 2005, no. 33) from the Uruk libraries and a fragment from Nineveh (K 6597). These presumably represent the standard version, so to speak, of the omens. In spite of all the differences between the versions, three omens are found in all sources. They represent the key-theme of the collection––right/left/both kidney(s) missing. This situation very well fits with what was described above regarding the development of the šumma immeru omens.

51

  Heeßel (2014). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

321

The OB Version and its Correspondences §1 [frame] §2 eyes §3 eyes LBA §16 SV §24 §4 ear LBA §9 IMV1 §10 §5 mouth LBA §4 §6 tongue LBA §18 IMV2 §12 §7 tongue LBA §5 IMV2 §11 §8 tongue §9 tongue §10 jaws §11 jaw bone §12 jaws §13 teeth LBA §3 §14 nose §15 nose IMV2 §2 SV §91" §16 tears LBA §17 IMV3 §11 §17 mucus §18 temple SV §104" §19 nape §20 cheek §21 larynx LBA §25 IMV1 §29' §22 blood LBA §38 IMV1 §§5, 6 §23 blood+gore IMV1 §17' §24 gore IMV1 §19' §25 nail hoof §26 nail hoof §27 head §28 head §29 behind SV §68' (same apodosis) §30 frame §31 frame SV §67' (LBA §83) §32 frame §33 frame §34 frame SV §69'

SV §34 SV §101" SV §100"

(SV §§28, 30)

IMV3 §2 SV §55'

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

SV §54'

322

9. Discussion and Conclusion

§35 sinews §§36–39 tail §40 tail §41 tail §§42–47 tail §48 anus §49 anus §§50–64 hip bone §§65–68 ankle bone §69 leg bones §70 hoof §71 chest §§72–82 xiphoid §83 neck §§84–88 rib cage §89 ribs §90 ribs §91 ribs §§92–97 ribs §98 vertebrae §99 vertebrae §100 šutqum §101 šutqum §102 šutqum §103 šutqum §104 lower rib cage §105 lower rib cage §106 šuptum §107 šuptum §108 šuptum §109 šuptum §110 šuptum §111 šuptum

IMV1 §27' IMV1 §27'

KAL 5 2 rev. 15

Emar 682, 16'–17' Emar 682, 18'–19'

SLD §3 SLD §9 SLD §4 SLD §10 LBA §30 SLD §15 SLD §59

SLD §7

SLD §71 SLD §60 SLD §72

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

323

The LBA Version and its Correspondences §1 frame §2 frame §3 teeth OB §13 §4 mouth OB §5 §5 mouth OB §7 IMV2 §11 §6 dung IMV3 §5 SV §48' §7 urine §8 ears IMV1 §7 §9 ears OB §4 IMV1 §10 §10 ears §11 ears §12 eye SV §26 §13 eye SV §25 §14 eye §15 eye §16 eyes OB §3 SV §24 §17 tears OB §16 IMV3 §11 §18 tongue OB §6 IMV2 §12 §19 neck IMV3 §8 §20 neck IMV3 §9 §21 tongue IMV3 §5 SV §96" §22 tongue IMV3 §6 SV §95" §23 head §24 head §25 larynx OB §21 IMV1 §29' §26 head §27 head §28 foot IMV3 §19 SV §21 §29 foot IMV3 §20 SV §22 §30 rib cage OB §104 SLD §7 §31 rib cage §§32–35 blood §36 blood SV §65' §37 blood SV §57' §38 blood OB §22 IMV1 §§5–6 §39 blood

SV §100"

SV §34

(SV §§28, 30) SV §101"

IMV3 §2

SV §55"

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

SV §54'

324

9. Discussion and Conclusion

§40 blood §41 blood §42 blood §43 blood §44 [lost] §§73'–75' [lost] §§76'–79' mouth §80' neck/mouth §81' neck §82' neck §83' neck §84' neck

SV §58' SV §59'

(OB §31)

(SV §67')

IMV1 and its Correspondences §1 farts + hair §2 ears + eyes §3 cries + ear §4 tears + ear §5 blood §6 blood §7 ears §8 ears §9 ears §10 ears §11' ears §12' eyes §13' cries §14' cries §15' fleece §16' fleece §17' dung §18' head §19' gore §20' blood §21' farts §22' farts §23' farts

IMV3 §1 IMV3 §3 OB §22 OB §22 LBA §8

LBA §38 LBA §38

OB §4 LBA §9

SV §55' SV §55'

SV §34

SV 52'

OB §23 OB §24 IMV3 §17 IMV3 §10

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

§24' [lost] §25' [lost] §26' [lost] §27' tail §28' [lost] §29' cries §30' cries §31' cries §32' [lost] §33" sheep body §34" sheep body §35" tail

325

OB §§40, 41 OB §21

IMV3 §2

LBA §25

SV §54'

IMV3 §16 IMV3 §18

IMV2 and its Correspondences §1 [frame] §2 nose §3 nose §4 lips §5 lips §6 lips §7 lips §8 lips §9 lips §10 lips §11 lips §12 lips §§13–18 lips

OB §15 SV §102" SV §97" SV §95" SV §96"

SV §91"

SV §98" LBA §5 OB §7 OB §§6, 12

SV §99" LBA §5 LBA §18

SV §100" SV §101"

IMV3 and its Correspondences §1 ears §2 cries §3 tears §4 [frame?] §5 dung §6 frame §7 frame §8 neck

IMV1 §2 OB §21 IMV1 §4 LBA §6

IMV1 § 29' LBA §25

SV §54'

SV §48'

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

326

9. Discussion and Conclusion

§9 neck §10 farts §11 tears §12 frame §13 cries §14 hock §15 frame §16 frame §17 farts §18 tail §19 foot §20 foot §21 foot §22 foot

IMV1 §22' OB §16

LBA §17

IMV1 §33' IMV1 §21' IMV1 §35" LBA §29 LBA §28

SV §21 SV §§22, 23

SV §28

The SV and its Correspondences Section 1 §§1–20 head region Section 2 §21 foot LBA §28 IMV3 §19 §22 foot LBA §29 IMV3 §20 §23 foot IMV3 §20 §24 eyes OB §3 LBA §16 §25 eye LBA §13 §26 eye LBA §12 §27 eye §28 tears OB §16 LBA §17 IMV3 §11 §29 tears §30 tears OB §16 LBA §17 IMV3 §11 §31 ear IMV1 §7 §32 ear §33 ear IMV1 §9 §34 ear OB §4 LBA §9 IMV1 §10 §§35'–47' [lost] §48' dung LBA §6 IMV3 §5 §49' cries §50' eyes © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

§51' eyes §52' eyes §53' eyes §54' cries

OB §21

LBA §25

Section 3 §55' blood OB §22 LBA §38 §56' blood §57' blood LBA §37 §58' blood LBA §41 §59' blood LBA §43 §60' blood §61' blood §62' blood §63' blood §64' blood §65' blood (same prot.) LBA §36 §66' blood §67' neck OB §31 (LBA §83) §68' frame OB §29 (same apodosis) §69' frame OB §34

327

IMV1 § 29 IMV3 §2 IMV1 §§5, 6

Section 4 §70' frame §71' [lost] §72' tail Section 5 §73' [lost] §74' [lost] §75' [lost] Section 6 §76" [lost] §77" frame §78" blood §79" blood §80" blood §81" frame © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

328

9. Discussion and Conclusion

Section 7 §§82"–89" eye Section 8 §90" nostril §91" nose OB §15 IMV2 §2 §92" nose Section 9 §93" lips §94" lips §95" lips LBA §22 IMV3 §6 §96" lips LBA §21 IMV3 §5 §97" lips §98" lips IMV2 §9 §99" lips LBA §5 IMV2 §10 §100" lips OB §7 LBA §5 IMV2 §11 §101" lips OB §6 LBA §18 IMV2 §12 §102" nose IMV2 §3 §103" palate §104" brow OB §18 §105" brow

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

329

Part III Text Production, Transmission and Reception ṣâtu u šūt pî ša šumma immeru [ … ] aḫûtu ša šumma izbu ša pî ummâni mals[ûtu Anu-ikṣur] mašmašši ṣeḫri mār Šangû-[Ninurta] ‘Lemmata and “those oral (explanations)” of šumma immeru [ … ]; Extraneous (omens) of šumma izbu according to the oral (explanations) of the expert; (according to) the lect[ure of Anu-ikṣur], junior exorcist, descendent of Šangû-[Ninurta].’ (UC1, colophon) The final and concluding part of Chapter 9 will try to explain the purpose of this study: it will deal with the literary history of the šumma immeru omens by discussing several issues, advancing from the general to the specific through four sections. Section 1 will tackle the issue of canonization or standardization of Mesopotamian texts. Section 2 will discuss text production of omen texts as a reflection of a (partly)-conscious and objective-driven attempt to form corpora of fixed texts. Text production is a comfortable term for dealing with the social and historical circumstances of where, how, why and by whom divination texts were written. Section 3 will consider omen collections with respect to text production: how and when omen collections were formed, transmitted, and canonized or standardized. Section 4 will describe the many lives of the šumma immeru omens in relation to the above: how a literary history of a particular text illuminates the non-linear, unexpected and surprising transmission, reception and standardization of a minor omen collection throughout its more than a thousand years of existence.

1. Text Standardization or Canonization? Text standardization or canonization? Is the choice between the two terms simply arbitrary or, when ancient texts are under discussion, is there a meaningful difference between the two? In this section, we will see what is meant by text standardization and canonization, and try to evaluate the use of both terms in the current discussion of the production, transmission, and reception of texts in the field of Assyriology. The issue of canonization has always stood at the center of the literary history of ancient texts. In particular, it was once considered a crucial measure © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

330

9. Discussion and Conclusion

for judging what differentiates a religious document, such as the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, from other types of texts.52 But it also was deemed an important criterion for demonstrating how an ancient text evolved into its present condition––from its formative or Ur-stage as written by its original author(s), through its consolidation, and eventually to its canonical, nonchanging, status.53 When the very concept of canon was challenged in the mid-1970s, a question over the definition and usefulness of the term was seriously considered, and surfaced in the discussion of the formation and importance of foundation texts, such Homer or the Hebrew Bible, as well as the so-called Western canon. The questions were basically two: how does a canon form, and in what ways does it maintain its relevance for the community that is supposed to use it. These questions, although with little political drive or ideological fire, came to trouble the field of Assyriology.54 It was expected that Assyriologists would have much to contribute to the discussion of what happens during the process of canonization, and how and why a text becomes canonical. The reason behind this assumption was that the well-documented textual history of a certain cuneiform composition, even if very poorly preserved, could serve as a model for drawing a scenario regarding the evolution or development of a given text from its Ur-stage through its ‘forerunners’ to its final canonical version.55 As this study itself has demonstrated, cuneiform materials indeed provide a comfortable platform upon which to base the study of the production of texts. Cuneiform materials at times permit us to study the transmission, reception, and standardization of a given text in much greater detail, and with perhaps less speculation, than what is available for example with the Biblical text. The various textual witnesses from many locations, sometimes outside of Mesopotamia, and which extend over an extremely long time frame, offer an almost unparalleled opportunity to closely study textual transformations. We can follow the inclusion of entirely original parts to the main composition, incorporations from other literary compositions, deletions of passages considered outdated or perhaps misunderstood, and finally the re-organization and standardization of the text into a near-fixed or near-stable composition, to which an exegetical document, i.e., the commentary, is sometimes appended. The Epic of Gilgameš, for sake of illustration, can demonstrate the processes involved in text transmission, reception and standardization. We can gain an idea of how this piece of literature attained its status as a privileged, if not 52

  For a survey and a contemporary assessment of research into the Biblical Canon, see McDonald (2017). For a critical view of how canon is understood by scholars of different backgrounds, see Chapman (2003). For the history of scholarship, Chapman (2000: 1–70). 53   On the futility of the term Ur text, and, likewise, the search for its author(s), Sanders (1987: 133–140, 163–165). 54   See Hurowitz (1999) for the history of the use of the term in Assyriology. 55   Farber (1993); Veldhuis (1998: 79). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

331

fundamental, text by the examination of its manuscripts spanning millennia of copying and studying by ancient scribes and scholars, not only in Mesopotamia, but also in the western reaches of cuneiform writing, until finally reaching its (almost) stable state as a standardized composition.56 When Assyriologists treat the production, transmission and distribution of ancient texts, it is evident that contemporary political and theological significances of the term canon must be put aside, because the texts hold no relevance for a living community. Canon loses its strict definition as a foundation text, and the process of canonization in Assyriological studies certainly does not refer to the transformation and changes of a necessarily religious document. What is canonization in the Assyriological sense? It may be considered a culture-specific textual event of influence or importance embedded within a wide-stretching socio-historical horizon––from the Kassite period, or in some cases, even before––to the end of cuneiform culture. By textual event we mean a creative, multi-faceted, and open-ended process involving the production, transmission, and reception of a certain text or even group of texts. From this point of view, there is no evolution of the text from its Ur-stage towards a finite goal––its final and exclusive form. Moreover, the text should not be evaluated or appreciated independently, but alongside commentaries or exegeses, local variants, competing versions, supplementary editions, and ancient translations. Seen in this light, the term canonization may be abandoned and replaced with the term standardization.57 This term, devoid of any religious connotations, which is now preferred in Assyriological studies, can apply to a wide variety of texts, not only sacred or holy writs, but also foundational or authoritative compositions relating to various topics, many of which may be technical, such as those transmitting knowledge regarding medicine, exorcism and divination.58 Although it is now common in Assyriology to speak of textual standardization instead of canonization, as is done throughout this study, it is nonetheless worthwhile to reassess the value of the terms canon and canonization. We do so because having reached this point in our concluding chapter, the term standardization may be too diffuse to properly define the phenomenon we have been encountering. Standardization on the one hand can simply refer to the act of putting together a fixed text under some editorial guidance. And on the other hand, it can come to 56

  Tigay (1982); George (2003) and (2007).   A view advocated by, e.g., Rochberg (1984). 58   These texts are considered to belong to the Mesopotamian “Stream of Tradition”, a phrase coined by Oppenheim (1964), but which was, importantly, never explicitly articulated by the Mesopotamians themselves. Nowadays, however, it is recognized that the “Stream” was not fixed and static. This leads us to better speak of “Streams”, as Stevens (2013: 231–232) suggests, and as Robson (2011a: 557), warns us, not to ignore innovation, fluidity, and competing traditions all living within this “Stream of Tradition”. 57

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

332

9. Discussion and Conclusion

include various features associated with text production, such as the creation of multiple copies, the inclusion of catch lines or colophons to compositions, and the establishment of school curricula that include this or that text. Hence, the term standardization may either be too narrow or too broad for our requirements, and therefore of limited value.59 The phenomenon we are seeking to understand demands a tighter definition in order to evaluate its significance in textual production, dessemination, reception, and standardization. We turn to briefly introduce James Sander’s views of canon and canonization, and ask how they can sharpen the relevance and utility of these terms in our discussion. Sanders (1987) approached canon as a social function. Canon, for him (ibid., p. 17) functions as a marker of identity and life style for the community that read it. As Sanders (1992: 847) explains, “Canon as function antedates canon as shape”.60 Because Sanders deals the books of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, he reads the story backwards, so to speak, having the benefit of recognizing the shape of canon (at its final stage) much more than its function (at its initial stage), which, we must admit, mainly rests on circumstantial evidence. There is an unacknowledged assumption that the Biblical Books reveal something to us about the social circumstances of their use. However, in fact, we know very little about the social context for the formation of the Biblical text, although we know how the story ends, namely, with a sacred text. Surely, in Mesopotamia, no text was ever formed into a recognizable and transferable canon in a manner similar to the Biblical text. So, is it still useful to speak about the function of canon? The answer is in the affirmative, because the community that used this supposedly canonical text can be identified, albeit in a limited way. The community involved in the production and use of a text can be understood as a textual community, necessarily limited to literate members of the society, which, in Mesopotamia, were the scribal circles. We cannot speak of this community’s ‘life style’, by which Sanders means its religious beliefs and observations, but we can certainly 59

  In this regard of the wideness or narrowness of the term standardization, consider Hallo (1991) who enumerates numerous criteria for recognizing canonical compositions. And because hus criteria are so numerous, the result is that almost every archival cuneiform text under Hallo’s criteria can be considered canonical. This is evident by looking at the contents of Hallo’s first volume of his monumental Context of Scripture. It includes Akkadian myths, rituals from Emar, divination materials, royal hymns, and wisdom literature, which are all considered canonical compositions. See the critique of Frahm (2011a: 318) and Hurowitz (1999:5–8). 60   Similar trends in, and influences of Sanders upon, other scholars’ work can be appreciated. Ulrich (2002: 30–31) responded to Sanders by defining what constitutes a canon: it is a book and not a textual form; a reflective judgement by the society in question on what is its canon; and a closed list. All three criteria are obviously not entirely met in the society we are interested in, but are reflected to various degrees in the evidence we have in hand, as will be discussed below. Finkelberg (2003) also adopts a functionalist approach to the Homeric epics, arguing that their rise to canonical status was due to the role they played in the identity formation of the emergent Greek society of the 8th century following the collapse of Late Bronze Age Greece. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

333

recognize, as will be discussed below, how this community regarded itself and viewed its place within the world it knew––that of the gods and kings. In light of the research trends into the question of Canon and Canonization and in the wake of Sanders’ definition of canon, the search for the function of canon drove modern scholarship to discuss the processes and contexts where canonization happened, because function assumes a social surroundings, or in Sanders’ definition––a community that uses the text. More consideration was given to educational institutions, such as scribal schools, and royal/temple libraries—both the loci of text production and both functioning as depositories of knowledge for current and future generations.61 The social and historical context of text production, that is, the interest in the people who produced the texts, their social circles and lives were also explored. Since evidence for this setting is rather limited as far as ancient Israel is concerned, again, Assyriology was called, even if not explicitly acknowledged by its scholars, to focus its interest on scribal schools, private libraries and temple depositories, ancient scribes and scholars, in order to shed light on the world of text-producing and text-using communities. For the past twenty years or so, much concern was devoted in Assyriology (and in related fields, such as the Classics and Medieval Studies) to the part played by the scribal schools and their curricula, as well as the role of scribes and associated literate professionals, like diviners and exorcists, in the formation of standard repertoires.62 Thus, the formation of the self-identity of Mesopotamian scribes, surely a minor community, but key players in what we can reconstruct as the cultural life of Mesopotamia, was sharpened, and with it the appreciation of the function of the text for the user community. On this assumption, we can distil three key components in the process of text standardization in Mesopotamia: collecting tablets, establishing a text tradition, and creating a community of users. Collecting Tablets Cuneiform tablets of various sorts were stored or archived for different purposes. It can be safely assumed that tablets considered of educational or technical use were actively collected in the libraries of private individuals, such as scribes and other professionals. Such a picture emerges from the study of the remains of ancient Near Eastern libraries and archives.63 But a clear drive for collecting tablets supported in one way or another by the central authorities, which in Mesopotamia means the palace, is chiefly detectable from the second-half of the second millennium. 61

  Davies (2002); Finkelberg and Stroumsa (2003); Evans and Tov (2008). An example reflecting such considerations may be seen in van der Toorn (2007), who situated the creation of the sacred or authoritative of the Biblical text within the broad domain of scribal creativity. He sought to explain the formation of the Biblical text by offering a comparison with the processes of text production in Mesopotamia (as well as in Egypt), which involved the standardization and occasionally the sacralization of particular compositions through their study in scribal schools and other learned environments where scholars created or established collections of standard textual exemplars. 62   E.g., Gesche (2000); Robson (2001); George (2005); Cohen (2009); and Clancier (2011). 63   The classic reference work is still Pedersén (1998). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

334

9. Discussion and Conclusion

A concentrated effort to collect tablets may have begun with Šuppiluliuma I’s conquest of Mitanni Syria (ca. 1340). In the wake of his campaigns, it has been suggested that the Hittite king brought home tablets as booty from the cities he conquered, filling the archives of Hattuša with Mesopotamian scholarly tablets. More concrete proof regarding the collection of various materials for the benefit of the royal person can be found among the near-contemporaneous Kassite monarchs. In the times of the Kassite king Nazi-maruttaš (1307–1282), it can be inferred that a collective effort was made by his scribes to collect omens from seven cities of Babylonia for the king’s own benefit.64 Another Kassite king, Melišiḫu (1186– 1172), was also interested in bringing divination materials from elsewhere, even if on a minor scale.65 It is very likely that such initiatives were also undertaken somewhat later, during the Second Isin Dynasty, as will be discussed below. There is certainly evidence in Assyrian history of a royal ambition to collect learned texts on certain occasions. And although how exactly this was done and by whom is not fully clear, enough remains to see this as a conscious effort of tablet collecting, perhaps initiated by scribes (see below), but over time becoming an imperial objective.66 The best known of such objectives, although there are clues for others, is of course the so-called Library of Ashurbanipal. Here was a project of collecting knowledge under official patronage in one place: the palace of the king. There is a debate whether this library functioned as an official stateproject to produce official texts, or rather aimed only to serve solely the king as a scholar. Lieberman (1990) argues that the Library of Ashurbanipal, as the king’s own academic library for his own reading and study, affords the collection its very function.67 It gave the king the required information by which to check various references to omen collections (e.g., astronomical omens, šumma izbu, šumma ālu, and more) cited by his own scholars––diviners and astrologers––in the oracular reports they had delivered to him. The king’s control––in his own private library––over the source materials of his own experts who were spread across the kingdom gave him power. This scenario of an active scholar-king is perhaps overly positivistic.68 But it can allow us to posit the ideological function of a collection of learned compositions. The collection, which was meant to serve

64

  Heeßel (2011a); Frazer (2013: 197–198 and 205–206). The details are provided in the colophon of the text. The association of king Nazi-marrutaš with this supposed act of tablet collection may be apocryphal, as noted by Heeßel and Frazer. 65   A bird flight omen collection (of the šumma ālu type of omens) attributes its source from Assyria and states that the copy was written down in the 3rd/2nd year of King Melišiḫu. Heeßel (2011a: 174–175); De Zorzi (2009: 91, 92, and 93); Rutz (2006: 73). 66   Heeßel (2010: 164). 67   Lieberman (1990) responds to the notion of official texts, as discussed by RochbergHalton (1984). For the king’s self-professed scholarly abilities, expressed in the colophons of tablets found in Nineveh, and supported by some documentary evidence, see Fincke (2003–2004: 120–122); Livingstone (2007). 68   Such a view is also brought forth by Pongratz-Leisten (2015: 360–378, esp. 377). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

335

a community of scholars, was put, in the case of the Library of Ashurbanipal, to the service of the one and true scholar, Ashurbanipal himself.69 There are some hints as to how such a collection was put together. The documentation, chiefly from the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, points to collecting tablets of extispicy and astrology, while employing experts from Assyria and Babylonia as diviners and astrologers (and see below). There were also scribes, Assyrian and Babylonians, who were responsible for collecting tablets from across the stretches of the empire for the king. These were perhaps brought on ‘wooden tablets’, that is to say wooden wax-covered polyptychs, which were then copied onto the more durable clay by scribes in the service of the king at the capital.70 A series of letters copied and passed down through the centuries from scholars of Borsippa and Babylon to King Ashurbanipal (or to his father Esarhaddon), relay that the scholars have done everything within their ability to collect texts according to the king’s explicit wishes.71 Remarkably, the letters specify the texts requested by the king: all technical manuals in the form of rituals and incantations used by professionals for the benefit, so we can assume, of the royal person and the court. There is also explicit mention of the šumma izbu, šumma ālu, and the Bārûtu series. Tellingly, the king does not request literary compositions, such as epic or wisdom, to be added to his collection. Establishing Textual Traditions: The Catalogue, Series, and Commentary The second component we have isolated for studying the processes of text standardization regards the establishment of textual traditions. What is meant by this are the efforts of the ancient scholars to (re-)organize their textual records by establishing criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of materials under their use. This was done by 1) forming lists or text catalogues, and concurrently or subsequently, by 2) defining (some) scholarly materials as belonging to a series (called iškaru) and extraneous to the series (called aḫû, aḫûtu). These processes started in the Kassite period at the earliest, and became more visible during the Second Isin Dynasty, when the first text commentaries were probably composed. Clear evidence of the creation of catalogues of scholarly texts is offered by the activities of the scholar Esagil-kīn-apli, who edited or complied a collection of texts during the reign of the Babylonian king, Adad-aplaiddina (1068–1047), of the Second Isin Dynasty.72 His near-contemporary 69

  Lieberman (1990: 333–334) reduces the scribe’s role to a mere copyist, who simply wished to produce a “correct” text. By such a view, however, the complex context of the scribes’ world in Mesopotamia is missed, and the broader implications of textual production are abandoned. 70   Fincke (2003–2004: 124). 71   The letters are edited and discussed by George and Frahm (2005); see also Frahm (2011a: 274–275); Lieberman (1990); Fincke (2003–2004: 122ff.); Beaulieu (2010: 2–4). For a different interpretation of the letters, see Goldstein (2010). 72   Finkel (1988). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

336

9. Discussion and Conclusion

was Saggil-kīnam-ubbib, who wrote the well-known Babylonian wisdom composition, the Babylonian Theodicy. Esagil-kīn-apli’s efforts are reflected in a colophon of a catalogue of incipits of two series––diagnostic medico-magical omens called the sakkikû series and physiognomic omens, called alamdimmû, which are concerned with the outer appearance of the client. In his colophon, Esagil-kīn-apli describes how he established the order of the sakkikû omens according to a ‘head to toes’ arrangement, and furthermore, how he determined that the sakkikû and alamdimmû should be considered as one series. There is little doubt that beyond collecting existing compositions, the input provided by this scholar was significant.73 His work organizing omen series was appreciated beyond his time and was certainly influential, as he was mentioned as a compiler of works in the Manual of the Exorcist (see below), and in a few other sources, among them a Neo-Assyrian subscript of alamdimmû omens.74 Adopting the work of compilers such as Esagil-kīn-apli did not mean, however, abandoning older traditions. A subscript of a collection of alamdimmû omens from Assur (VAT 10493+) defines the tablet as holding older omens, which were not treated(?) by the scholar Esaggil-kīn-apli.75 Indeed, according to Koch (2015: 285), there are more Middle and Neo-Assyrian manuscripts of this variant recension. What does this mean? We have in our hands the catalogue of Esagil-kīnapli, which excluded materials that were, however, appreciated at Assur, creating, even if unintentionally, some kind of textual hierarchy. A similar expression to this, as we will discuss below, is the type of text designated as aḫû, ‘extraneous’. In this regard, one can think about the šumma immeru omens: they represented an old tradition, still of value and importance, but which was considered as aḫû (as indicated in the colophon of the commentary UC1, which serves as the epithet to Part III of this chapter). In fact, this is supported by the evidence at hand: the omens are not included within the Bārûtu or the šumma izbu series, while still closely associated with both. Another catalogue or list-like text is the Manual of the Exorcist.76 It provides a list of over fifty scholarly compositions from various disciplines of knowledge that the junior exorcist must study. Here the objective of the text somewhat advances from Esagil-kīn-apli’s catalogue. It forms a canon of sorts for the learned community. It explicitly recommends that the series of the craft of exorcism, the work of the scholar Esagil-kīn-apli, be studied, among additional texts.77 At the 73

  Heeßel (2010b).   Heeßel (2010b: 143–164); Frahm (2011a: 211 and 324–332). 75   Heeßel (2010b: 157–162 and 166). Heeßel states that in Assur (and less so in Nineveh) there was a conscious attempt by scholars to limit or curtail the work of Esagil-kīn-apli out of reasons of “patriotism”, because he was the eminent scholar of Babylonia from the city of Borsippa. Accepting this scholar as the chief authority in an Assyrian courtly setting was impossible for the Assyrians. 76   Geller (2000); Jean (2006); Clancier (2014) and (2009b). 77   Clancier (2014: 47–48). See Frahm (2011a: 325–326). 74

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

337

end of cuneiform writing, the list was still studied in Uruk and works mentioned in it were collected and studied. But by this stage, the list in and of itself, had became a sort of revered or canonical text.78 The organization of textual materials according to lists and catalogues is an activity which assumes or necessitates that the work entered to the list or catalogue is integral and complete. If the work consists of several “chapters”, or tablets in the cuneiform world, it is called an iškaru, a term usually translated as ‘series’. The term is not used in this sense for Old Babylonian compositions (at least not so far as we know), and thus probably originated in Kassite or Post Kassite Babylonia.79 The individual “chapters” within the series were sometimes numbered; and sometimes each “chapter” included a catch-line to the subsequent “chapter”. Tablets which were not part of the series, but related to it, were designated as aḫû, a term for which there is general agreement to call “extraneous” or “appendix”, but whose exact significance to the question of text stabilization is still left open.80 Both the iškaru and the aḫû types of works could be afforded commentaries,81 although it is clear that the aḫû compositions were not commonly copied and commentaries for the aḫû compositions are very rare. This fact by itself suffices to indicate a textual hierarchy.82 We do not know why certain tablets were collected into series (iškaru), while others were excluded (aḫû). All kinds of considerations not immediately apparent to us nowadays could have been at play. Think of the numbers of the chapters of the Bārûtu––ten, or the number of tablets of the standard version of the Gilgamesh Epic, a series by itself––twelve. These are unlikely to be accidental. Other typological or organizational techniques, now lost to us, could also have been at play.83 This observation is important at this point in our discussion in order to free us from assuming a fixed goal or drive of a particular ideology or religious practice in the process of canon formation or textual standardization. Thus, we should be wary of being over-driven by a desire to read the history of a text as a pre-determined, calculated objective.84 We have spoken about catalogues or lists and texts belonging to series and those excluded from them, earning the designation aḫû. It is now time to move on and bring the commentaries into consideration as significant factors in establishing textual traditions. 78

  Clancier (2014: 46–47).   See examples cited by CAD/I–J: 249 (all late texts). 80   Rochberg-Halton (1984); Lieberman (1990: 307–308). 81   Rochberg-Halton (1984: 143–144). 82   Based on the information provided by Frahm (2011a: 319 and n. 1515; 214), we can identify, apart from the three šumma immeru commentaries introduced in Chapter 6, the following commentaries on aḫû tablets: two commentaries on aḫû tablets of the šumma ālu series; and one commentary on aḫû of alamdimmû omens. 83   See the discussion regarding the canonization of classical works, including the Homeric Poems and the Books of the Bible, whose breakdown into books was dictated by the number of the alphabet letters; Mroczek (2016: 156–183); Darshan (2012). 84   Chapman (2003: 46–48); Davies (2002); Mroczek (2016). 79

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

338

9. Discussion and Conclusion

As Frahm (2011a: 332) observes, according to the Enmeduranki Legend, the gods gave mankind the art of extispicy, which included the text and its commentary (ša itti ṣâti). Hence, for the Mesopotamian scholar, both text and commentary go hand in hand as knowledge delivered by the gods in ancient times. This view, of course, does not reflect reality. At a certain time in the textual history of mainly learned texts in Mesopotamia, commentaries started to be written. These, according to Frahm (2011a), although lacking explicit evidence, probably appeared along with textual standardization, a phenomenon situated in Kassite or Post Kassite Babylonia, as discussed above. In fact, he contends, commentaries only arise when the text becomes stable or canonical. The purpose of canonization was to enable the commentary genre to flourish. One can even add that the commentaries themselves were a crucial component of text standardization, because the genre of exegesis requires a stable proof text. Otherwise, the exercise of explicating a fluid text, which is subject, e.g., to deletions of difficult or forgotten words, or to internal commentary, is futile.85 To continue this line of thought, according to Koch (2000: 36), “one purpose of the scholars composing the mukallimtus [the commentaries to the Bārûtu series] must have been to order the huge amount of omina handed down to them…”. Another way of looking at this situation is to consider that the huge amount of omina was originally organized as a stable series of so-and-so chapters, in order for it to serve the scholars as a proof text from which to draw their explanations of difficult lexical items or cuneiform signs. This is possible when the text is stable, comprised of a fixed number of tablets containing a fixed number lines. Hence the two phenomena–– standardization and commentaries––should be seen as interlinked. While texts became canonized or stable, the genre of commentaries continued to expand, primarily because the terminology and even the language of the technical text became less and less understood by the scholars active in the twilight years of cuneiform culture. In such circumstances, the commentaries can be viewed as a defense mechanism against the obliteration of texts that were no longer understood, but which still served as valid authority for the community of users.86 Creating a Community of Users Occasionally we can follow the arguments that were used to lend a degree of authority or sanctification to textual materials. Some texts were lent a degree of authority when scribes explicitly stated their antiquity or provided them with an authorial pedigree. Sometimes the antiquity of the transmitted knowledge was acknowledged in the colophons, which reported that the text in question was based on an old tablet or copied from this or that ancient source.87 On other occasions, 85

  Chapman (2003) suggests that once the community holds the “idea of canon” even if the book is not yet formed or closed, canonization is in action. For him, the very attempt to understand the text and its parts is the process of canonization. 86   Frahm (2011a: 336–338). 87   Heeßel (2012: 14); KAL 5 30, a gallbladder compendium is a copy (in Neo-Assyrian script) of an Old Babylonian tablet (now lost obviously). The colophon specifies that the tablet is a copy of a tablet from Babylon; see pp. 183, n. 3 and 351. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

339

knowledge was considered to be passed down from the gods, as expressed in the Enmeduranki Legend.88 The celestial series Enūma Anu Enlil was said to be the product of a divine hand, the god Ea.89 Ea was also responsible for the craft of the bārûtu, as implied by some sources.90 Legendary scholars (ummânu) of long dead kings were also considered as the composers of literary series (iškaru), such as the sage Sidu, who wrote the eponymous Series of Sidu, or Sîn-lēqi-unninni, scholar and the assumed author of the Epic of Gilgameš.91 Such associations, as is obvious, helped bear the religious and ideological weight of canonical texts.92 But they were also utilized by the scholars of Babylonia in other ways. The scholars established for themselves fictitious genealogies (finding articulation in the colophons of their scholarly works, but also in other sources), which linked their present lineage with scholarly figures of old, who were associated with ancient centers of learning, such as Uruk, Eridu or Nippur, and who served illustrious ancient monarchs.93 Responsible for preserving and transmitting knowledge from the past, scholars viewed themselves as experts forbidden from divulging their technical knowledge to others.94 The implication was that the knowledge they held was secret, as they themselves state in their colophons, although from whom it was held and why is still a matter of dispute among Assyriologists.95 It is clear, however, that the exclusivity of the use of “secret” materials refined and strengthened the identity of the community that used them. Since evidence for the crystallization of this community comes from the Kassite period and not before, it is suggestive that this was not the state of affairs in the Old Babylonian period. Why, then, did this community form? Some have suggested that this was a response of the learned class of scribes and scholars to the difficult times they experienced. With the collapse of the southern cities of Babylonia and later of Babylon herself at the end of the Old Babylonian period, and the rise of the Kassites, newcomers to Mesopotamia (around the early 16th century), the venerable traditions of Babylonian scholarship were under threat of vanishing altogether. The reaction of the scholarly class was to bolster its self-image in view of such threats.96 This certainly could be the reason. But we may also consider another cause: the 88

  Rochberg-Halton (1999: 424).   Rochberg-Halton (1999). 90   Lenzi (2008a: 77–84). 91   The source linking sages (apkallu) and scholars (ummânu) to old Mesopotamian rulers is the Uruk List of Kings and Sages; Lenzi (2008b). See also Lambert (1957); id. (1962); Cohen (2018b) with previous literature; Beaulieu (2000); id. (2010: 15–17). 92   It has been argued that the canonization process of classical works was determined by lists of famous authors and not by individual works; see Hägg (2010). 93   Frahm (2011a: 299–300; 319–320); Beaulieu (2000). 94   Rochberg-Halton (1999). 95   Lenzi (2008a), for an overview of the issue and a discussion; and Stevens (2013), for another point of view. See Chapter 5, The Colophons, pp. 183–189. 96   E.g., Frahm (2011a: 322–323). 89

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

340

9. Discussion and Conclusion

growing investment of the palace in this scholarly class for its own needs. Viewed from the palace’s perspective, here was a scribal community of users who exhibited deep knowledge and control over a technical wisdom, which was attributed to the gods or ancient sages. It was knowledge worth cultivating, and, as shown, brought about the palace to invest in collecting tablets. This contributed indirectly to boosting the textual standardization of the learned materials. To conclude our discussion, we have considered three criteria for evaluating canon formation in ancient Mesopotamia: Collecting tablets, establishing a text tradition and creating a community of users. All three lead us to see canon as function, and not shape, to follow Sander’s definition. As such, canonization, or if one prefers the more neutral term, text standardization, functions as a marker of the identity and life style of a community of scribes. The next section of this concluding chapter will assess the textual production of omen collections.

2. Text Production of Omen Collections This section will discuss the text production of omen collections, and in particular, extispicy. We will try to understand the socio-historical contexts in which the Old Babylonian omen collections were born, and from this vantage point, where they were produced, and where they were transmitted and received across the ancient Near East for about fifteen-hundred years. The discussion here is obviously limited, because this vast subject demands much more thorough treatment than can be provided here. However, it is important to treat this issue for two reasons. First, as is obvious by now, the šumma immeru omens are related to extispicy omens; and secondly, the rich documentation of extispicy literature across the centuries makes it suitable for our aims of seeking to understand the place and function of expert literature in Mesopotamia. We know close to nothing about the circumstances leading to the formation of omen collections, the šumma immeru omens included. The questions of where, why, how and when omens were collected and written down remain unanswered. This stands in contrast to what we know about the production of lexical lists, proverbs, wisdom literature and epic––all of which were included in the school curriculum during the Old Babylonian period. In a period that saw a flowering of Akkadian literature, the basic curriculum studied in scribal schools can be successfully reconstructed. Its history, in fact, can be followed across centuries in Babylonia and beyond. Thanks to meticulous scholarship, the type of compositions and the order in which they were studied in the scribal schools is pretty much established nowadays.97 The curricular compositions were aids of varying types of complexity that were meant to put the young novice scribe on his path to becoming a loyal bureaucrat in the royal or temple administration and civil institutions. The social and historical setting of the text production of omen literature, on the other hand, is mostly lost to us. However, considerable information is available about the diviners 97

  See above, note 32. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

341

of the Old Babylonian period and their patrons, the royals.98 Notable is the diviner Asqudum, top administrator at the Mari court, whose activities both in politics and in the practice of divination can be well followed.99 Information is also available regarding the diviners of Sippar, who were responsible for providing sheep for the temple of Šamaš.100 It is of course far from certain that the people mentioned in ample documentary sources as diviners are the very scribes who produced the Old Babylonian textual sources we have at our hands, although it is certainly possible, especially in the case of the Sippar diviners.101 A wider historical lens certainly suggests that it is probable, as will be argued below. While the literary history of certain texts such as lexical lists can be followed from almost the beginning of writing, the omen collections have no precedent. As discussed in Chapter 1, they are documented centuries after writing became a vehicle for communication in Mesopotamia. They appear as if almost ab ovo, the earliest corpus being some thirty inscribed liver models from Mari.102 But this is not to say that there was not a conscious attempt to think about the formulation and organization of omens from the very start.103 First, there was a system of writing down an omen entry, formalized, as has been noted many times in the past, as a conditional sentence.104 Secondly, the paradigm by which a single omen entry could be expanded into many omens appears already fully explored in all omen collections we have from the Old Babylonian period. This uniformity cannot be but the result of a synchronized transfer and distribution of knowledge, even if we cannot reconstruct it in detail. One can add the evidence of the colophons of the early omen collections, which demonstrate that the act of collecting omens was not devoid of reflective effort. Even if the omen colophons are in most cases missing, the presence of the occasional names of scribes or dates (like the ones which are found in colophons of other technical and even school materials of the Old Babylonian period) is an indication of an organized and premeditated production sphere.105 We have more to go on when considering the supporting or supplementary compositions to the extispicy materials. The List of Sheep Body Parts and the 98

  Especially from the Mari documentation; see Durand (1988). Also consider Lenzi (2008a); Richardson (2010). 99   Charpin (2011); Durand (1988). 100   Richardson (2002); id. (2010: 58–69). 101   Winitzer (2017: 19). 102   Richardson (2010). The Mari models are dated to the 20th–19th centuries. 103   The large majority of the Old Babylonian omen collections do not contain royal names. Two Old Babylonian kings are mentioned in omen collections––Samsu-iluna and (probably) Ammi-ṣaduqa of the First Dynasty of Babylon; Glassner (2009: 7–8), on the base of the colophons of Jeyes (1989, nos. 1 and 4). King Daduša of Ešnunna is mentioned in an omen report; Al-Rawi (1994, no. 5). For dating the Old Babylonian divination sources, see Winitzer (2017: 18–19). 104   For example, van de Mieroop (2016: 83, 98–99, 159 and passim). 105   Glassner (2009: 6). There is one fragmentary name of a scribe in a colophon; Glassner (2009: 7); see here n. 185. And also possibly in Jeyes (1989), no. 19, 9; see Winitzer (2017: 17, n. 98). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

342

9. Discussion and Conclusion

Manual of Sacrifice (also reflected in lexical lists), the ikribu prayers, chief among them the Ritual of the Diviner Prayer, and the few omen reports occasionally found in letters, which we treated in Chapter 7, demonstrate that the practice of extispicy did not operate in a vacuum, and that it generated accompanying texts. The šumma immeru omens themselves are part of this argument, because they illuminate the ritual context in which extispicy was practiced. Divination may have been concerned with (mostly) secular events, but it was tied to the sacrifice of the animal. The sacrificial procedure, including the ritual purity of both animal and practitioner, was the gateway for achieving a successful result in the extispicy process. As the recent publication of the texts from Dūr Abi-ešuḫ show, indeed there was a whole economy behind the procurement of the animals meant for divination purposes.106 This is not to claim that there was a unified tradition of extispicy across Syria and Mesopotamia. Evidence points to the contrary.107 But it is to argue that where omen texts are found, the context of a wider text production and social setting of its community of users can be explored. This leads us to ask why divination literature arose at the particular historical juncture of the Old Babylonian period. Richardson (2010) suggested that the phenomenon of divination should be understood against the background of the infighting of the Amorite kingdoms across Mesopotamia.108 Diviners were much more than simply masters of a technical skill: they were involved in matters of state and acted as ambassadors in other kings’ courts, possibly at times as spies or informants. As such, divination took a central position in the Old Babylonian period. While Richardson’s explanation is satisfying for answering why the practice of divination flourished, it remains to be explained why this technical art was at all written down. This question is sharpened when it is realized that although many of the Old Babylonian apodoses deal with matters of state, thus satisfying Richardson’s claim to the centrality of divination to the royal courts,109 a considerable number of apodoses regards the household affairs of the client and his family members. Moreover, there are quite a few omen reports from the Old Babylonian period that serve individuals, but not, as far as can be seen, chief members of the palace bureaucracy or royalty. They are mentioned in the Mari letters arriving from royal contexts. Why should this be the situation if the aim of divination was to serve feuding kings?110 Moreover, at this early period, the 106

  CUSAS 29, nos. 42–65; Charpin (2018: 194–197); see also Richardson (2002).   Durand (1988) studied the extispicy terms unique to Mari. Cf. Glassner (2005), for which see the reply of Charpin (2015b: 43). See also Maul 2013: 208ff. 108   Also argued by van der Mieroop (2016: 100). 109   Richardson (2010: 245–248). 110   Richardson (2010) claims that later omen collections became “academic” and part of the “Stream of Tradition”. However, in later periods, there are far fewer personal apodoses, as our study has also demonstrated, and see also Anor (2017a), and most are concerned with matters of state. This is a reflection, so it can be argued, of the growing involvement of royal power in omen production more so than in earlier periods; see pp. 333ff. 107

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

343

claim of royal patronage responsible for ordering omen series (as seen in later periods, see above) is difficult to maintain.111 Hence, we suggest considering the rise of divination collections against a wider socio-cultural setting, which takes into account the writing explosion, so to speak, that happened with the full phoneticization of the writing system––to write Akkadian––followed by the (albeit gradual) abandonment of Sumerian for everyday use.112 This explosion of writing brought about changes in the school curriculum when Akkadian was used more profusely than before, and not only in bilinguals. But it was also felt on a wider scale. When standard contents such as verdicts and business documents like loans or sales were to be written, Sumerian was employed out of convenience, tradition and conservatism. But in fully discursive texts such as literature, law codes, medical texts and incantations, as well as letters, the spoken language, Akkadian, written mostly as fully phonetic, prevailed. The advantage of writing phonetically, and in the spoken language, is what drove omens to be written. Omen literature, certainly repetitive in many ways, nonetheless is a genre that requires flexibility on the one hand, and exactitude in terminology on the other, something written Akkadian could afford.113 Although the social context for the production of divination collections is missing, parallel situations and somewhat later data can be extrapolated to fill the void. The story of the lamentation priest Ur-Utu can be instructive in our case, although he was not a diviner. An examination of this lamentation priest’s archive from Sippar-Amanum (dated to the mid-17th century) allows us to envisage a similar setting for a diviner and his family in the Old Babylonian period. There is evidence of schooling in this man’s house and one can assume that this knowledge was later put to use for professional needs (although tablets associated with the kalûtu ‘the art of lamentation’ were not found in his house).114 The evidence from Emar (from the 13th–12th centuries) is also instructive. It shows us that students of the Zu-Bala family were active in the family’s scribal school and, probably at a later stage in their career, in the production of omens (see below for details).115 In Kassite Babylon we find a private 111

  Jeyes (1989: 9).   On the Akkadian “revolution”, see Charpin (2010, passim); Maul (2013: 215–217); Glassner (2012a). Glassner (2009) attempts to place the textual production of the Old Babylonian corpus alongside the curricular activities of scribal schools. To order to establish his claim, he uses criteria that are mostly formal (such as tablet format, spelling conventions, sign usage, etc.), but perhaps it is more worthy to adopt a contextual approach for the production of the Old Babylonian corpus. See also Winitzer (2013: 179, n. 23). 113   As time went by, paradoxically in some sense, omen literature employed more and more logograms, surely the result of growing standardization of the protases but also of the apodoses. 114   Tanret (2011) and Charpin (2010). 115   Cohen (2009). The Zu-balas were called the diviners of the city of Emar and one of their predecessors, a diviner called Mašru-ḫamiṣ, indeed performed an act of divination for the king of Emar. 112

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

344

9. Discussion and Conclusion

house, in which divination texts were written by students.116 These tablets were part of the students’ curriculum. The students eventually wrote their final manuscripts, adding to them, as they did to other literary texts, elaborate colophons, which included blessings to the patron gods of the scribal arts (Nisaba, Nabû, Marduk and others). On occasion these tablets were deposited as votive gifts in temples.117 On the basis of these examples, it can be assumed that the social background available to us from later periods is similar to the one of the Old Babylonian period. It can be imagined that at first, novice diviners began their training at the scribal school, writing down omen literature, along with other basic training materials.118 Later they were probably responsible for producing accomplished manuscripts. (And see further on this issue under section 3 below). The Late Old Babylonian and Post Old Babylonian periods have always been considered periods of decline in text production. But recent publications are now changing the picture. The Sealand Dynasty texts are a welcome addition to the literary history of Babylonia.119 Dating to the 16th century, the materials––extispicy, incantations, bilingual hymns and Akkadian literature––show many novel features, which seem to be unique.120 The Sealand Dynasty scribal tradition, however, did not stop at southern Babylonia: it was transmitted eastwards to Susa, where it was further manipulated and changed throughout the processes of its reception. Traces of this tradition’s influence, albeit short-lived, can also be detected in some of the Hattuša materials, as well as in some 1st millennium Babylonian omens.121 One manuscript of this Sealand Dynasty tradition is represented in our study: the SLD manuscript (Chapter 7.1). It was written by a certain Palâšu-līrik, who was the head of a group of diviners, according to his title provided in the colophon. He cannot be identified elsewhere, but two scribes––a father, Ilīyātum, the foreman of diviners?, and a son, Ikūn-pî-Ištar––are known to have copied two Sealand Dynasty omens.122 On the basis of external features, three omen compendia in this corpus (CUSAS 18 24, 27 and 29) were probably written by one and the same scribe, but because the tablets are not supplied with a colophon, his name is missing. The omens from Susa, which exhibit scribal traditions common to the 16th century Sealand Dynasty texts, include omens of the lung (MDP 57 3) and the 116

  Bartelmus (2016: 165 and 199) and Koch (2015a: 327), discussing library M6.   George (1985–1986: 14); Lieberman (1990: 317–318), regarding Ashurbanipal’s colophons blessing Nabû, the patron god of the scribes. 118   Charpin (2010): 16–17. 119   The historical background for the Sealand Dynasty is provided by Boivin (2018). 120   The list of manuscripts provided by George (2013: 131) can be updated with new references: a bilingual text mentioning Ayadaragalamma = Gabbay and Boivin (2018) [P431311]; a Sumerian text (a balag hymn to Enlil) = Gabbay (2014b) [P431312]; and a grammatical text = Veldhuis (2017) [P431315]. 121   Rutz (2006), to be appreciated in light of George (2013: 139–142). 122   The texts are Nougayrol (1971) and CUSAS 18 30; George (2013: 129), who, while suggesting the connection between the two colophons, expresses some caution. There are two more names of scribes in this corpus, but they are fragmentary. 117

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

345

parts of the liver, the ‘Throne Base’ (MDP 57 4)123 and the ‘Weapon’(-marks) (MDP 57 5–6). There are also other divination texts from Susa, including bird omens (MDP 57 7), an alamdimmû tablet (MDP 57 8) and two šumma izbu tablets (MDP 9–10).124 Two Susa omen tablets are identified as the copies made by Ilīma-ilu (an Akkadian name). There is a rather rare scribal notation in their colophon, šurri Šamaš (u Adad), which provides the compositions with their title, ‘If– (the omen entries) of Šamaš (and Adad).125 Additional extispicy texts from Elam are a “Position” compendium (Daneshmand 2004), and a fragment of an extispicy text relating to one of the liver parts (Biggs and Stolper 1983). Omen literature was transmitted and disseminated at the western reaches of cuneiform culture. Our discussion has focused on Emar, Hattuša and Tigunānum: centers, we should emphasize, that produced not only the LBA version of the šumma immeru omens (Emar and Hattuša), but also what we considered ancillary material to sheep extispicy, namely, the šašta oracles and the Akkadian-Hittite List of Body Parts (at Hattuša); and the Omens from a Sheep Confined Overnight (Tigunānum). At Tigunānum we are exposed to other types of divination techniques––the šumma izbu omen collections and bird extispicy. Other omen collections from Tigunānum, some of them still unpublished, are also known. They seem to reflect a non-Babylonian tradition. They show a strong Hurrian background (as Hurrian words are included in them), but their tradition could have originated in Halab (Chapter 7.10).126 They were the product of the scribe and diviner (a.zu), Šamašmuštēšir, scion of a family of diviners, who collected or copied omens composed or compiled by a certain Kuzzi.127 However, at Tigunānum there are also omen materials, which seem to follow Babylonian traditions.128 At Emar we find omen literature attested in both scribal traditions of the city: the Syrian tradition and the Syro-Hittite tradition.129 The two liver models recovered from the excavation at Tel Meskene, as well as the omen compendia relating to parts of the liver and other inner organs (which were introduced in Chapter 7) were written in the earlier Syrian tradition. Because the colophons of these works are very badly preserved, the scribes of these collections largely remain largely unknown to us apart from one or two fragmentary names. Hence, the context in which these omens were produced is missing. 123

  Koch (2000: 278–279); Koch (2015: 103).   De Zorzi (2014: 21). 125   Michalowski (2006b); Rutz (2006: 74–75). 126   De Zorzi (2017a) and (2017b). 127   George (2013: 102–105). 128   De Zorzi (2017b). 129   Details in Cohen (2009) and Rutz (2013: 221–263), who organizes the Emar Syrian extispicy omen compendia into seven tablets, although these are reconstructed and hence are not to be considered part of a hypothetical Old Babylonian proto-Bārûtu series; see discussion below. 124

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

346

9. Discussion and Conclusion

Extispicy materials are not found among the Emar Syro-Hittite scholarly texts. However, other types of omens are known. Several omen collections (such as iqqur-īpuš, šumma izbu, celestial omens and more) were written in the Syro-Hittite tradition. Their scribes, appearing in the colophons, can be recognized as belonging to the Zu-Bala family of diviners. They are Šaggarabu, scribe, diviner (lúḫal) and seer (lúazu), who copied school tablets, as well as an unidentified omen fragment (Emar 708) and a lunar signs collection (Emar 652); and his brother, Ba‘al-malik, scribe and diviner (lúḫal) who copied lexical lists, as well as iqqur-īpuš omens (Emar 611A) and the LBA šumma immeru omens (Emar 698A). The Zu-Bala family was the most important family in the city of Emar and the remains of their school and private archive, the largest found at Emar, include many teaching and scholarly materials of Babylonian origin. At Hattuša Babylonian divination literature, as well as other genres of Babylonian literature and school texts were received.130 There was the production of celestial omens, šumma izbu, oil omens and iqqur-īpuš omens.131 In the realm of extispicy, there is a large collection of liver models (over fifty),132 and a few extispicy collections, quite poorly preserved. Unlike other sites of the western reaches of the cuneiform world, the Babylonian omens at times were provided with a Hittite translation, and as recently demonstrated, a Hurrian translation.133 Not much is known about the production of these texts, although some were probably the work of foreign scribes arriving from Babylonia, Assyria and Syria. Agi-Teššub, who wrote an incantation-cum-omen text (KUB 4.53; see p. 364), was perhaps a foreigner of Hurrian background; GUR-Šarruma, perhaps of Assyrian background, wrote a physiognomic omen tablet (KUB 37.210); Kuzi-Teššub (from Nuḫḫaše?) produced Hittite translations of a manzāzu omen collection (KBo 10.7+) and a moon(?) omen (KUB 8.29). A few local Hattuša scribes are mentioned in colophons of omen tablets. Two apprentice scribes, Ḫiliya and Pikku, of the scribal circles of Walwaziti and Anuwanza, produced, respectively, a lunar signs omen (KUB 8.9; in Hittite) and a lunar horns omen (KUB 29.11+; bilingual). Palla, a local scribe, was responsible for an Akkadian lunar signs omen collection (KUB 13.27).134 While it can be assumed that the inscribed liver models served to educate young diviners at Hattuša, the purpose of copying and translating Babylonian omens is not obvious. It remains undetermined if the interest of advanced scholars 130

  For the activity of foreign scribes in Hattuša, see Beckman (1983); Heeßel (2009). A study of the transmission and reception of Babylonian scholarly materials in Hattuša is still a desideratum; see Weeden (2011). 131   Riemschneider (2004). 132   De Vos (2014a). 133   Cohen (2017). 134   See Waal (2015: 381–386); Gordin (2015: 139, 190, 228, and 281). The texts are edited by Riemschneider (2004). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

347

at the capital in Babylonian divination literature was of a purely academic nature or whether it had a practical side. Hittite extispicy texts, with borrowed Hurrian terminology (itself borrowed mostly from Babylonian terminology) most likely had a practical side.135 In the second half of the second millennium evidence for omen production in Mesopotamia comes chiefly from Assur and Babylon. Text production in the Middle Assyrian capital Assur was certainly in full swing. The omen collection from Assur is particularly rich, foreshadowing the nature of the 1st millennium Bārûtu. It is basically divided into two groups: the first (some 68 tablets) produced by Assyrian scribes and scholars, presumably in Assur itself, and the second, a smaller group (27 manuscripts), produced by Babylonian scribes. The Babylonian manuscripts may have arrived to the capital, as has been suggested by many before, in the wake of Tukulti-Ninurta’s war against Kaštiliyašu IV of Babylonia. The šumma immeru manuscripts from Assur were found in the Old Palace (IMV2) and near the Anu-Adad temple (A648 of IMV1). Tablets found near the Anu-Adad temple, as well as additional tablets found at or near the Enpi-gate of the Assur temple and around the southwest court (the Nunamnir court) are considered to belong a reconstructed Middle Assyrian library M2, having been found in a secondary Neo-Assyrian context.136 The tablets may have originally belonged to private libraries of various professionals in the city of Assur.137 The Assur collection can be dated to the times of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114–1076) and perhaps some fifty years prior to his accession. Three colophons give a līmu date (including one of the king himself) and the scribe identifies himself as Šamašzēra-iddina, son of Šamaš-šumu-līšer, a diviner (lú ḫal).138 Another scribe identifies himself by name, patronym and title, as Ubru, son of Šamaš-aḫa-iddina, who was an overseer of the diviners (gal ḫal.meš).139 This Šamaš-aḫa-iddina was possibly the scribe of an omen collection. Writing a ‘Weapon’(-mark) collection (KAL 5 43), he calls himself a scribe (a.ba), and gives his lineage. His own father was Šamaš-nādin-šumāte, who was the king’s diviner (ḫal man). The name of another scribe (of KAL 5 31) is missing, although he provides his lineage in his colophon, 135

  Haas (2008: 56–61) with literature.   Heeßel (2012: 10–11); Pedersén (1998: 83–84 [M2] and 132 [N1]). The idea that this collection of Middle Assyrian and Middle Babylonian tablets was a library the creation of, or under the royal patronage of, Tigleth-Pileser I has long been abandoned, although see Frahm (2011a: 523). 137   Koch (2000: 22–23). 138   Heeßel (2012: 10 and 174); KAL 5 37, ‘Finger’ omens, KAL 5 51, ‘forerunner’ to Bārûtu Ch. 9 (ḫašû), Tablet 8, and KAL 5 80 (kidney omens). Šamaš-zēra-iddina also wrote KAL 5 73, Calculation for the Stipulated Term = Koch (2005, no. 97). In the colophon, he calls himself a diviner. For KAL 5 51 (recovered in Nineveh, but certainly produced in Assur) and its relation to other later tablets, see Heeßel (2012: 180); Koch (2000: 23, n. 58); ead. (2015: 91 and 110). 139   KAL 5 52, ‘forerunner’ to Bārûtu Ch. 9 (ḫašû), Tablet 10; and KAL 5 69, ‘forerunner’ to Bārûtu Ch. 10 (multābiltu), Tablets 12–13; Koch (2005, no. 12). 136

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

348

9. Discussion and Conclusion

which shows that he is a scion of diviners. He is the son of the diviner Šamašdajjān-ilānī, who is the son of Aššur-aḫa-iddina, also a diviner. Hence, it may have been a family tradition to prepare and copy manuscripts of divination literature. Better known as a scribal family in Middle Assyrian Assur is the family of Ninurta-uballissu. Ninurta-uballissu was a royal scribe whose three sons were active scribes in the early decades of the 12th century. They mostly copied lexical lists and literary compositions. Their compositions were collected in a secondary Neo-Assyrian library.140 The Babylonian manuscripts of omen collections found at Assur allow us a glimpse of what was taking place in contemporary Babylonia, because published finds from the Kassite and Post Kassite period are meagre. A colophon of a ‘forerunner’ to Bārûtu, Ch. 2 (tīrānū) (KAL 5 8), contains the name of the scribe Etel-pî-Asalluḫi and his supervisor (whose name is difficult to read). Two names appear in a Middle Babylonian omen collection of the ‘Finger’ of the lungs (KAL 5 50): the first, presumably of the scribe, is someone called Šamašnādin-aḫḫē, son of Šamaš-mu[ … ]; the second name, Šamaš-mudammiq, son of Šamaš-… [ … ], belongs either to his supervisor or somebody from his family.141 Šamaš-nādin-aḫḫē also produced a ‘Foot’(-mark) omen collection (KAL 5 86). The omen texts from Babylon include omen collections of the coils of the colon, as well as parts of the liver. From the little that is known, it is evident that diviners were responsible for producing their own tablets, which in all likelihood were part of their professional library.142 The omen tablets from the Babylon M6 library number a total of six, some very fragmentary. These which can be identified include a text parallel to Bārûtu Ch. 5 (pan takalti), Tablet 6, omens of the ‘Finger’, and an excerpt tablet of kukkudru omens (cf. Chapter 7.4.4). (There are several, mostly unprovenanced, Middle Babylonian omen tablets and they will be discussed in the next section). In the first millennium, omen collections are found in Assur, Kalḫu, Huzirina (Sultantepe), Sippar, Babylon, Uruk and of course Nineveh. The most detailed and instructive, though not necessarily typical, is Nineveh. Although usually thought of as the home of the library of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal, the origin and contents of this huge tablet collection is not as monolithic as is assumed. A large quantity of materials in the library originated from outside the royal city. The so-called Assyrian Library Records from Nineveh allow us a glimpse of the tablet and writing board collections of private scholars, which had been confiscated and removed for furnishing the Library of Ashurbanipal in 647 BCE, following the war between Assyria and Babylonia.143 140

  Waggensonner (2011).   Heeßel (2012: 173–174). 142   Bartelmus (2016: 165 and 199); Pedersén (2011: 55); Koch (2015: 89 and 327). See also Heeßel (2011a: 187 and 190), who introduces the diviner Ilīma-aḫu, responsible for a Middle Babylonian coils of the colon manuscript (BMV 4 15). 143   Parpola (1983); Fincke (2003–2004: 124); Frahm (2011: 275). The source is Parpola (1983) = SAA 7, nos. 49–56. 141

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

349

According to the Assyrian Library Records, the largest number of materials belonging to these private scholars (a high number of them diviners) were divination collections. Out of a total of 2000 tablets and 300 wooden writing boards listed by the Assyrian Library Records, divination materials consist of over 20%. The šumma izbu omen collection recorded in the Assyrian Library Records includes nine tablets and seven writing boards. The extispicy materials (explicitly termed bārûtu) consist of sixty-nine writing boards (50% of all writing boards), all belonging to Babylonian scholars.144 It is of no surprise of find also the šumma immeru omens recorded there (pp. 29 and 365). It can be assumed that they too were brought to Nineveh in one of these tablet acquisitions. They were later copied onto clay tablets for the royal collection.145 It remains very difficult to account for the entire Nineveh text collection, which numbers into 26,000 tablets and tablet fragments. A limited study of the Nineveh collection of Babylonian tablets (written in Babylonian script) includes almost 1,600 literary texts (out of a total of some 3,600 Babylonian tablets).146 Divination materials comprise almost 50% of this group. Within this corpus, 14% are extispicy compositions. The second-largest group includes religious compositions related to the disciplines of the kalûtu, ‘lamentation’, and āšipūtu, ‘exorcism’. As Fincke (2003–2004) has demonstrated, there is a strong correlation between the numbers of the extispicy texts reported in the Assyrian Library Records and the actual finds (Babylonian tablets, that is) from Nineveh. Other disciplines (medicine and lamentations) also find a strong correlation between the numbers of tablets in the library vis-à-vis the numbers given in the Assyrian Library Records. The interest in divination and specifically in extispicy can be sharpened by devoting attention to the commentaries of the Library of Ashurbanipal. Most of the commentaries from Nineveh (around 85%) deal with omen texts. The conclusion is that this subject matter was of utmost importance to the court for political objectives.147 This find strongly supports the functional view of the Library of Assurbanipal as a collection whose aim was to benefit the royal figure and his grasp over the empire. Naturally, all of the above also explains the abundance of Nineveh manuscripts (seven in number) of the SV šumma immeru omens. While the Assyrian kings were preoccupied with divination, they were certainly not the ones producing these collections. As said, many of the scholars mentioned in the Assyrian Library Records were diviners, so it stands to reason that they, and their ancestors, copied and produced divination materials.148 Indeed, one Nabûbalāssu-iqbi, who is mentioned in the Assyrian Library Records, was the scribe of 144

  Fincke (2003–2004: 124–125).   Recall that IMV3, copied by the Assyrian scribe Nabû-zuqup-kēna from Kalhu was not the basis for the SV manuscripts of Nineveh (and Uruk), although recovered at Nineveh. 146   What follows is based on Fincke (2003–2004). 147   Frahm (2004); Frahm (2011a: 277). 148   Although note that in the Assyrian Library Records there is no strong correspondence between the works listed and the owner’s profession. The diviners held collections of šumma ālu and šumma izbu, but no Bārûtu tablets; Parpola (1983: 8–9). 145

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

350

9. Discussion and Conclusion

an Eršemma prayer, according to the tablet’s colophon.149 Another Assyrian Library Records scholar, Nabû-nādin-apli, is mentioned elsewhere: along with five other diviners in SAA 7 1––a list of experts at the royal court. In the very same list of experts, the diviner Marduk-šarra-uṣur is named: he is perhaps the person who was the copyist of the Principal Commentary of šumma izbu, copied from a now lost writing board, likely to have been brought from Babylonia, like other divination literature mentioned in the Assyrian Library Records.150 All these persons (if the identifications with their namesakes is correct) may have been instrumental in building the corpus of divination literature in Nineveh. But who else was responsible? At the royal courts in Nineveh and Kalhu, the king interacted either directly or by reports and letters with the diviners at his service, who were meant to offer advice and counsel on the basis of their knowledge.151 These were professionals who were trained in their art, mastering the disciplines held in their family probably for generations. Their knowledge is reflected in queries and extispicy reports, as well as other scholarly texts that they wrote for their employers, the Neo-Assyrian kings (Chapter 7.5.2). The fact that they explicitly quote from the šumma izbu series,152 and confess to have learned this very series, along with other divination techniques,153 demonstrates that they must have also been acquainted with the SV šumma immeru omens, which to remind the reader, were associated with the šumma izbu series, according to the colophons of UC1 and UC2. However, with all this said, we emphasize that it is not known whether these scholars are the same people who produced the Bārûtu series and other extispicy materials in the Library of Ashurbanipal. This is because the tablets of the library were designated by their colophons as belonging to the king or his palace, with no details whatsoever regarding any individual but the king.154 There are exceptions to this rule. An expert in the service of king, the diviner Nabû-ušallim, probably of Babylonian origin, was part of a team of diviners who wrote queries to Esarḫaddon. He was very likely the same person who wrote the commentary of Bārûtu, Ch. 1, Tablet 1 (CT 31 49, which quotes the šumma immeru formula; see p. 247) and who owned the original writing board of KAL 5 70 (although note that the tablet was found in Assur) of the nisḫu Compendium (Koch 2005, no. 32;

149

  K 10595 (from Nineveh, although perhaps not originally); Hunger (1968, no. 429). See Parpola (1983: 7, and n. 23); PNA 2: 807, no. 15. 150   Frahm (2011: 278); PNA 2: 730–731, no. 37; Hunger (1968, no. 506). 151   Robson (2011b). Much has been written on the subject of the experts at the Assyrian court; select references are Pongratz-Leisten (1999), Radner (2011), ead. (2009), and Frahm (2011). These and other studies are based on the data found in SAA 4, SAA 8, and SAA 10. The key study remains Parpola (1983). 152   E.g., SAA 8 242 and also SAA 10 60; Koch (2015: 272–273). 153   E.g., SAA 10 160; Fincke (2003–2004: 118); Frahm (2011: 279–280). 154   Information about the origin of the text is sometimes specified in the library colophons; Fincke (2003–2004: 127–128); Hunger (1968, nos. 346–349). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

351

see here p. 298, n. 16). This is a text considered related to the secrets of the diviner.155 He thus seems to be a good candidate as the owner of another text that relates to the secrets of the diviner––the SV šumma immeru omens. Afterall, the colophon of SV ms. A designates the omens as being a dub ḫa.la type of composition. It may be that his (putative) copy served as the base for preparing the SV Nineveh manuscripts in our hands today. Other professionals were interested in extispicy materials. A certain Ezbulē[šir] wrote Bārûtu Ch.1 (isru), Tablet 2 (kunukku).156 And a scribe from Nineveh named Nabû-ina-tēšî-ēṭir is mentioned in a colophon of Bārûtu Ch. 8 (kakku), Tablet 1, as its copyist.157 The best-known scribe who can be identified as a person producing omen compendia (including IMV3) in the context of the Nineveh collection was Nabûzuqup-kēnu. He was a member of a family of scribes serving the Assyrian court since the beginning of the 9th century, active in the times of Sargon and his son, Sennacherib. In the collection of texts he produced there is an important place for astrology and extispicy texts.158 His knowledge was based on Babylonian originals or copies, perhaps delivered to him directly by his Babylonian colleagues.159 Alongside the royal library of Nineveh, some private tablet collections can give further insight into textual production in the Neo-Assyrian period. One private library belonged to exorcists from Assur, a family of professionals, the Kiṣir-Aššurs (although their collection of omen collections is not substantial).160 One apprentice scribe, Nabû-e‫‏‬ṭir, copied a gallbladder compendium (KAL 5 30) of Old Babylonian origin.161 Other families, whose history is not as well known, held omen tablets in their collections, as well as tablets and excerpts of the Principal šumma izbu commentary.162 More information about individual scribes from the Neo-Assyrian period stems from Huzirina (Sultantepe), but the data about the production of divination materials are patchy.163 There are a few tablets of šumma ālu and šumma izbu, tablets of the šakikku series, hemerologies and the series EAE. Extispicy materials include Bārûtu Ch. 10 (multābiltu), Tablet 2, and several additional Bārûtu pieces.164 According to the colophons of the Huzirina tablets, these were part of a wider collection of 155

  According to Frahm (2011: 172 and 278–279); also PNA 2: 859, no. 2, 869, nos. 3 and 8, 904, no. 14; Hunger (1968: 503). See Chapter 1, Part II, p. 35, n. 108; and above Part I, p. 298. A few additional Nineveh colophons name individuals; Hunger (1968, nos. 343–345, 500, 512, 521, and 524). 156   Hunger (1968, no. 529); PNA 1: 409–410, no. 4. The tablet is CT 31 45a; Koch (2015: 97, n. 241). 157   Hunger (1968, no. 532); PNA 2: 832, no. 2; CT 31 19–20; Koch (2015: 108, n. 275). 158   Frahm (2011: 265). 159   Frahm (2011: 267); Koch (2015: 329–330); Chapter 4.3.3, pp. 137–140. 160   Maul (2010); May (2018); Library N4. 161   Koch (2015: 90 and 326, n. 894); PNA 2: 830; Hunger (1968, no. 232). See also Chapter 1, p. 11 and Chapter 5, p. 183. 162   Frahm (2011: 268–269 and 270–271); Koch (2015: 325–326). Libraries N7 and N2. 163   Koch (2015: 329). 164   Koch (2015: 94, n. 231); STT 319. Additional Bārûtu pieces are STT 308–318 and 320. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

352

9. Discussion and Conclusion

tablets, the product of a family of priests, some of whom were apprentice scribes.165 A certain scribe (whose name is missing) is identified as the son of a diviner called Marduk-bāni-apli. Further activity of this family is not known.166 Evidence for text production in the Neo-Assyrian period can be completed from the finds concentrated in one room of the Nabû temple at Kalḫu: mainly celestial omens, šumma izbu, šumma ālu, iqqur-īpuš and oracle questions. A notable find is CTN 4 60, an annotated lung model, which was prepared by the scribe Nabû-pā[šir].167 This three-dimensional model was meant to facilitate understanding of the complex structure of the lung, as expounded in Bārûtu Ch. 9 (ḫašû), Tablet 10.168 Some of the Kalḫu tablets were the product of the family of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu.169 In the second half of the first millennium, text production was concentrated in the southern cities of Mesopotamia––at Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa, Uruk and a few others. Text production of the Uruk scribes was found to be principally related to one location––the House of the Exorcists––on two chronological levels split between two families: the ‎earlier Šangu-Ninurtas, and their followers the Ekur-zakirs, whose tablets were also found at the Rēš Temple.170 The Ekur-zakir family’s activities are well documented, as is their production of omen literature and commentaries. This family worked closely with the Sîn-leqi-unninnī family (see above, p. 339).171 In Chapter 6, a thorough survey of the families’ production of commentaries and additional materials was provided, so there is no need to repeat it here other than to reiterate that UC1 was copied by Anu-ikṣur of the ŠanguNinurta family, and that UC2 and SV Uruk mss. G and H were the production of the Ekur-zakir family of the circle of Anu-aḫ-ušabši and Iqīšāja. Another concentration of Uruk text materials arrives from the Eanna temple (ca. 625–500). The tablets do not form one coherent group, but are the product of several scribal families, whose members are related to the Ekur-zakirs, known from Selucid Uruk, and to scholars from Borsippa and Ur. There are divination texts, including celestial omens, and the šumma ālu and šumma izbu series, as well as commentaries.172 One of the šumma izbu found there (LKU 124) includes the first line of the SV šumma immeru omens as its catch line (treated in Chapter 7.9). In addition, there is a copy of the commentary to the Bārûtu Chapter 1 (isru), (LKU 133) produced by Nabû-šuma-iddin, who was originally a scholar from

165

  Hunger (1968, nos. 351–408).   Hunger (1968, no. 397); PNA 2: 713, no. 2. 167   Frahm (2011: 184, n. 852) suggests that Nabû-pā[šir] was the father of Nabû-ušallim, the expert diviner at Nineveh, who was mentioned above. 168   Koch (2015: 80–81 and 111), discussing CTN 4 60. 169   Wiseman and Black (1996: 1–36); Koch (2015: 318–319). Editions of the texts from Sultantepe and Kalḫu are found in the GKAB website. 170   Clancier (2014). 171   Frahm (2011: 296–297). 172   Koch (2015: 320–321); Frahm (2011: 288–289); Hunger (1968, nos. 74–86). 166

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

353

Borsippa.173 The relationship of the Bārûtu commentary to the šumma immeru omens was already commented upon above. In the same late period, we have suggested to identify LBC (the commentary of šumma immeru; Chapter 6.3) as the product of one of the members of the Egibatilla family from Babylon. There were other scribes active in Babylon at the period who produced learned texts: most of the material was astronomical, but the divination corpus was also represented, although poorly preserved and in small amounts.174 It is noticeable that during this late period of cuneiform scholarship the persons studying extispicy were not diviners, but exorcists. Why? The Manual of the Exorcist is a text that lays out the full curriculum for the exorcist on his way to becoming a professional.175 According to the Manual of the Exorcist, the exorcist must control materials not only directly related to his profession, such as incantations and spells, but he must also obtain knowledge of commentaries on lexical lists, rituals in Sumerian and Akkadian and divination materials. The text specifically states that knowledge of extispicy is required.176 It is therefore reasonable that among the exorcists’ collections at Uruk, which included a copy of the Manual of the Exorcist, we find divination materials, including the SV šumma immeru and its commentaries, as detailed above. However, whether divination literature was actually used in practice is difficult to know.177 Indeed the professional title of bārû disappears from the record by the mid-5th century, although the professional titles of the kalû and āšipu were still in use.178 This leads us to ask whether the profession of extispicy and its affiliated arts were still practiced at all during this period. If the answer is no, then the texts in late collections were theoretical in the sense that they did not support a particularly active field of knowledge. They may, however, have been important in other fields. At least for the Uruk commentaries––the šumma immeru and others–– we can understand the interest in them as a sort of desire to possess antiquarian knowledge. It was postulated indeed that the scribal families of Iqišaja moved beyond their traditional pursuit of the āšipûtu, ‘exorcism’, and developed an interest in celestial divination, while striving to link it with extispicy literature.179 Tying up what was discussed in Part III, 1, we can speak in this case about canon

173

  Frahm (2011: 172, 191 and 289); Hunger (1968, no. 75).   See Chapter 6; summary in Koch (2015: 316–317). For diviners in Babylon at this late period, see Beaulieu (2010: 7, with n. 21). 175   Geller (2000); Jean (2006); Clancier (2014) and (2009b). 176   Geller (2000: 254, n. 39). 177   Stevens (2013: 218 and 222–223) and see Chapter 5, pp. 185–189 and Chapter 6, pp. 231–233, 235. 178   Beaulieu (2010: 6–9); Robson (2011a: 558). 179   Clancier (2014); Stevens (2013). The division between the disciplines may have not been as sharp as we judge today. The Sîn-lēqi-unninni clan of lamentation priests (kalû) were not only interested in materials of the art of kalûtu, but also in astronomy and extispicy, as well as in other types of scholarly knowledge; Beaulieu (2000: 12–16). 174

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

354

9. Discussion and Conclusion

in the making: the revered texts were chosen anew to form a corpus of relevant texts for the scribal community of Uruk.180

3. From Old Babylonian Extispicy Collections to the Bārûtu As has been made clear in the discussion, the šumma immeru omens are closely linked to the extispicy collections throughout a large part of their history. This section will evaluate the development of the extispicy omens towards their standardized appearance as the Bārûtu series, in relationship, of course, to the šumma immeru omens. It is clear that the Old Babylonian omen collections formed some kind of corpus. This corpus, although not standardized or fully comprehensive, extensively covered parts of the liver, as well as the lungs and the “heart” of the sacrificial animal.181 Although these organs were treated in separate compendia, one can assume that there was a sort of organizational reasoning behind the formation of the collections. Since these organs and liver parts are mentioned in the Ritual of the Diviner (Chapter 7.12), which is the next best thing we have to a technical manual of how extispicy was actually performed in the Old Babylonian period, it follows that the order of the Old Babylonian omen tablets of the individual organs and body parts should be determined, even if not explicitly articulated, as the order of the organs found in the Ritual of the Diviner, echoed in two texts of sheep body parts we have edited (Chapter 7.14), as well as the Old Babylonian omen reports (Chapter 7.5).182 The šumma immeru omens would have stood at the very start of this collection. Hence, we emphasize, this collection was not minor at the nascent stage of omen writing. The šumma immeru omens would have been followed by collections of the coils of the colon (tīrānū),183 and the intestines (qerbu), the stomach parts (non-extant in the Old Babylonian period, but of which there is indirect evidence; cf. Chapter 7.4.4 and below) and perhaps different inner body parts, such as the kidneys or spleen (these were checked separately, when they were removed from the body). Collections of the parts of the liver, including the gallbladder, the “heart”, the lungs and their parts would then proceed. This description is not meant to claim a rigid order of tablets, but to point out that the Old Babylonian sources cover pretty much all of the material mentioned in the Ritual of the Diviner and omen reports: they were not an arbitrary collection.184 Indeed, it was supposed that the Old Babylonian omen collection of extispicy ran into a hundred tablets, all numbered and, therefore, collected as a series, although not designated as such. This understanding, however, was based on a 180

  Stevens (2013: 223–224).   For the history of the Old Babylonian collections, see Chapter 1, Part II.4. 182   Jeyes (1989: 8–11); George (2013: 231–232). 183   This body part started to appear more extensively after the Old Babylonian period; George (2013: 215). 184   The Old Babylonian sources are listed in Koch (2015: 84–87). 181

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

355

misreading of an omen collection colophon, which now can be discarded. The colophon allegedly gave a very high number of omen tablets––ninety––brought together as one series. However, what was considered to be the digit “90” in the colophon in fact should be read as a part of the name of the scribe who copied the tablet.185 There are certainly a good number of Old Babylonian omen collections, but approaching a hundred compendia is very unlikely, and the evidence does not support their organization in a series as in the first millennium.186 What can be said is that in some cases tablets were supplied with colophons which provided information about the type of text copied (very rarely), the number of lines included in the tablet, and the ordinal number of the tablet, presumably in a sequence of sort, designated as ki- followed by a digit.187 The numbers in the colophons that have survived run from ki-1 to ki-17. Other colophons designated the tablet number by a digit followed by the notation -kam. These notations have led scholars to consider that the Old Babylonina omen collections formed a series, somewhat a sort of a proto-Bārûtu.188 Jeyes (1989) suggested that ki– tablets were “first editions”, which were then arranged on larger –kam tablets.189 On the other hand, Richter (1993) wished to view these ki– tablets as excerpt tablets of a major series (“Hauptserie”), which formed their own sub-series (“Unterserien”).190 However, our study of the OB šumma immeru version demonstrates that this is not the case. First, it was shown there must have existed ms *B of the the OB šumma immeru omens, hence B does not collect omens from mss. A and C, which are designated as ki-1 and ki-2 respectively. And secondly, it was demonstrated that ms B, although designated as 1-kam, is not a large tablet. In fact it is smaller than A and contains fewer lines. And there is no doubt that A and C are the major (and better) manuscripts, which make up the whole composition. Mss. *B and B consist of an inferior version. In sum, we contend that there is no real difference between the ki– and the –kam tablets.191 Another suggestion regarding the formation of the Old Babylonian corpus attributed a special significance to tablet format. The shape and size of the tablet was considered a clue as to how the omens were written and compiled. Glassner 185

  This was based on a reading of a colophon of a collection of ‘Weapon’(-mark) omens. Jeyes (1989, no. 11, rev. 2'): dub-pí 60+30 ka-[…], ‘tablet 90’ ka-[…]. But the supposed numeral ‘90’ is in fact part of the personal name of the scribe, thus, mSin-ka[…]; Glassner (2009: 7); Heeßel (2012: 15, n. 173). See note 105. 186   This view was advocated first by Jeyes (1989) and later by Richter (1993, esp. pp. 130–131), but criticized by Glassner (2009) and Heeßel (2012: 15). 187   Richter (1993: 122–123). 188   Glassner (2009: 25–29). 189   Jeyes (1989: 9). 190   Richter (1993: 129–130 and 137–138) suggested that OB ms. A (YOS 10 47) and ms. C (YOS 10 49) are excerpts of the Hauptserie ms. B (YOS 10 48), making up their own subseries. But he runs into difficulties in explaining the origin of ms. A §§1–63 (YOS 10 47 1–63). 191   Later colophons will give the formula im/ṭup-pi N-kam.ma. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

356

9. Discussion and Conclusion

(2009: 24–26) argued that the tablets with a wider horizontal axis than their vertical axis are school tablets, and the tablets with a longer vertical than horizontal axis are scholarly tablets. Thus, the Old Babylonian omen collections in our hands should be viewed as a work of compilation done by a master diviner based on several sources at his disposal.192 However, the supposed division of the type of tablets according to their format––schooling vs. scholarly, does not stand well after our study of the omens. Mss. A and C of the OB version, although of two different formats––A is a vertical ‘portrait’ format, C of a horizontal ‘landscape’ format––make up a single composition. As explained above, the ki- notations of mss. A and C support the idea that the two made up the entire composition, as the first is termed as ki-1 and the second ki-2.193 Although the idea of an Old Babylonian series like the Bārûtu should probably be dismissed, our study supports the following view, which can be generalized to other collections. The OB šumma immeru version existed as a rather fixed collection, represented by two copies (A+C and *B+B), which are almost identical. This version was the base upon which (even if indirectly) the subsequent Post Old Babylonian version was formed, represented by the LBA version, with two almost identical manuscripts from Hattuša and Emar. This conclusion fits with what has been suggested regarding the celestial omens: that the basis for the standardization or uniformity of the series’ contents had already begun in the Old Babylonian period.194 In order to understand the efforts of text stabilization after the Old Babylonian period, we will now move to discuss the tablets from the Sealand Dynasty and from the western reaches of the cuneiform world. The SLD manuscript, as explained above (in Part II) and in Chapter 7, shows affinity with the OB šumma immeru version.195 However, the SLD is not the only example of a Sealand Dynasty omen text that exhibits closeness with the Old Babylonian omen compendia. Like the Old Babylonian corpus, other Sealand Dynasty omens are dedicated to individual liver parts, and also share many sections with the Old Babylonian materials.196 Moreover, one manuscript, CUSAS 18 23, preserves an omen collection wholly dedicated to the ‘Good mouth’, and

192

  Glassner (2009) adopts the technique of classical text criticism to unravel the layers of editorial work on the individual Old Babylonian omen tablets. The variables, however, in this relatively small corpus, are too many to have a certain meaning to inform us about the way which these texts were composed; see Winitzer (2017: 22–23). 193   The same observation probably holds true for YOS 10 51 and YOS 10 52. Both are bird omen compendia. They are two-column tablets of approximately the same size. Nonetheless, it is rather clear that YOS 10 52 is most likely to be the inferior copy. Hence, the format of the tablet is of no obvious consequence for the history or purpose of the composition in question. For a critique of Glassner (2009), see Winitzer (2013: 178–181). 194   Rochberg-Halton (1999). 195   Also here Koch (2015: 89). 196   George (2013: 158–159, 167, and 177). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

357

is probably based on an Old Babylonian version, which, however, has not come down to us.197 Two Sealand Dynasty collections, CUSAS 18 31 and Nougayrol (1971), dealing with the qerbū, the ‘small intestines’, are very similar compositions, although not identical.198 In this sense, they represent what was seen in the Old Babylonian omen collections: tablets with very similar contents but which are not duplicates. While the relationship between the two tablets is difficult to determine, their existence points to the active transmission of divination literature in this period, either on a local level or a wider scale. Since both tablets are unprovenanced, it remains unknown how wide this transmission spread, but recall that the Susa omens exhibit a scribal tradition that depends, one way or another, on the scribal traditions of the Sea land Dynasty. As in the Old Babylonian omen collections, the SLD colophon has a scribal notation which indicates it as the fifth tablet of a longer collection (ki.5.kam). According to the reconstruction we offered (in Chapter 7.1), the SLD manuscript was one part of many other omens (now lost) dealing with the sheep’s body parts, arranged in a sequence of five tablets, at the very least. More notations are found in the Sealand Dynasty omen corpus. A notation similar to the SLD is seen in the colophon of CUSAS 18 25, a collection of ‘Weapon’(-mark) omens. The tablet is designated as the ninth in a sequence, but of how many tablets altogether is not known.199 CUSAS 18 28, which is dedicated to omens of a lung part, ends with a colophon giving the number of entries, and ki-3, meaning the third tablet of an unknown total of tablets. The omen fragment CUSAS 18 30 gives the name of the scribe and the number of lines in the collection. Hence, to conclude, the number of entries and number of sequential tablets, already met in the Old Babylonian collections, are seen in this Sealand corpus, and will continue to be met later on––in the Middle Assyrian and Middle Babylonian ‘forerunners’ to the Bārûtu (see below). At Hattuša we see two fragments of šumma izbu omens translated into Hittite and Hurrian that very closely follow a (putative) Post Old Babylonian version, which already displays some closeness to the šumma izbu standard version.200 It stands to reason that the LBA šumma immeru version was also based on a Post Old Babylonian šumma immeru version, rather than on a Kassite or a Middle Babylonian recension. Indeed the LBA version does not correspond closely to the IMV tablets, which are closer to the SV. Additional extispicy (and other) omens from Hattuša are too fragmentary to offer a satisfying analysis of their origin and their place in the chain of transmission.201 We find translations of extispicy compendia, such as a Hittite translation of manzāzu omens; a bilingual Akkadian-Hittite version of kam(-marks) omens; Akkadian and Hittite tīrānū (coils) omens; and Hittite ‘Weapon’(-mark) omens. 197

  George (2013: 151).   George (2013: 212–213). 199   George (2013: 171 and 176). 200   Cohen (2017). 201   Although note that we have recently argued for a Middle Assyrian origin of an oil omen collection from Hattuša; Anor and Cohen (2018). 198

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

358

9. Discussion and Conclusion

At Emar the extispicy omens of the earlier Syrian tradition shows continuation with the Old Babylonian period.202 The colophons include information about the type of omens copied and the number of lines, as seen in the Old Babylonian colophons. However, the Emar Syrian tradition colophons also include some features typical of the Middle Babylonian period:203 cryptic writing (such as: b e man be), and a ‘complete; collated’ (al.til igi.kár) notation. The Emar omens also display some closeness to the later first millennium materials (Chapter 7.3). Comparison has been made between Emar 670, KAL 5 13–15, YOS 10 63 (a Middle Babylonian tablet) and first millennium sources–– all representing omens relating to the ‘Position’, collected in Bārûtu Ch. 3 (manzāzu).204 And we have demonstrated that the Emar bone omen compendia (Emar 682, 683, and 684) and omens of the coils of the colon (Emar 678) show some resemblance to the Middle Babylonian Assur materials (KAL 5 3), as well as to Bārûtu Ch. 2 (tīrānū). It is worth mentioning that the same trend can be observed in the Emar celestial omens, which exhibit very close correspondences with textual remains from Hattuša.205 The material at hand is rather sparse, but parallels with the standard version of the EAE have been pointed out.206 It is important to note that the Emar Syrian omen manuscripts are to be dated to the mid- to late-14th century––prior, or around the time of Šuppiluliuma’s Syrian campaigns. They antedate the Middle Babylonian/Middle Assyrian collections found at Assur, which are dated to around the reign of Tiglathpileser I. As such, they form an important chain in the link, and indicate what the ‘forerunners’ to the Bārûtu looked like, even prior to the Middle Assyrian materials. We have demonstrated in Chapter 7 that the omen materials from Assur included body parts from the OB šumma immeru version, which, however, were now collected in their own compendia. Called ‘forerunners’ (to the Bārûtu) by their editor, Nils Heeßel, these collections from Assur will later provide the materials which will form the first chapter of the standard Bārûtu series––the isru. However, not much will be replicated, and some body parts had already been given their own omen collections outside of the Bārûtu; see pp. 307, 313–314. The question we are facing at this stage of the history of omen literature is how close the ‘forerunners’ from Assur, as well as other tablets, from Babylonia (some unprovenanced), and Emar, were to the first millennium Bārûtu. The answer is not straight forward, but two points can be made. On the one hand, the ‘forerunners’ are not identified in the colophons as belonging to a series (iškaru), as found in 202

  Cohen (2009: 136–143). It was argued that Emar 669, a gallbladder compendium, exhibits a Syrian or a Middle Euphrates scribal tradition; Durand and Marti (2004). The Middle Babylonian naṣrapti ḫarrānim omen collection, Dalley and Teissier (1992), no. 7, whose provenance is unknown, is most likely not from Emar. It does not resemble any collections found at the site. Cohen (2009: 8, n. 7); George (2013: 229, n. 1). 203   Jeyes (2000: 370–371). 204   Durand and Marti (2004: 24–43); Koch (2000: 70–77). 205   Cohen (2009: 210–211), with previous literature. 206   Rutz (2013: 234–240), with previous literature. Also George (2013: 252–257), discussing CUSAS 18 34, a compendium of lunar eclipses. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

359

later manuscripts. On the other hand, they exhibit a great deal of closeness in content and arrangement with the first millennium Bārûtu manuscripts. We turn to investigate this issue in more detail, introducing along the way the Middle Assyria and Middle Babylonian ‘forerunners’ of the Bārûtu. The Middle Assyrian and Middle Babylonian ‘forerunners’ from Assur cover many chapters of the standard Bārûtu. They include chapters dealing with the coils of the colon, the parts of the liver (‘Path’, pan takalti, gallbladder, ‘Finger’, and ‘Weapon’) as well as the ‘Lungs’, and even the commentary chapter, Bārûtu Ch. 10 (multābiltu).207 The Assur ‘forerunners’, as noted by Heeßel (2012: 13), are so close to the standard Bārûtu series that at first glance they look like duplicates. But, as Heeßel explains, the differences are enough to show that the standard Bārûtu was not directly based on these ‘forerunners’. Koch (2015: 91–93), on the other hand, is of the opinion that the Assur ‘forerunners’ are “virtually duplicates of the first millennium standard series”. A few examples from Assur and elsewhere can illuminate the complexity of the issue. A good illustration for our problem is provided by a Middle Babylonian fragment (TIM 9 83) dealing with the ‘Position’ (wr. ki.gub). The preserved text is very close but does not parallel Bārûtu, Ch. 3 (manzāzu), Tablet 5 (Koch 2000, no. 5). A line count is given, as well as the name of the scribe and his supervisor. However, there is no information about the number of the tablet within the Bārûtu, as can be seen in the Neo-Assyrian colophons.208 Nearly the same situation can be seen when comparing a Middle Babylonian gallbladder omen collection (Tablet Carré) with later sources. Already very much at a distance from Old Babylonian gallbladder collections, the Middle Babylonian tablet is very similar to manuscripts of Bārûtu Ch. 3 (martu), Tablet 4, although there are some noticeable differences. These include extra lines and different formulations of apodoses.209 A colophon of another tablet, a Middle Babylonian omen collection of the coils of the colon (KAL 5 8), names it the 8th tablet, presumably as the eighth in a collection of omens dedicated to this body part, in a manner similar to the –kam/ki– notations of the Old Babylonian omens and the Sealand Dynasty omen corpus.210 The tablet shows a close proximity, although it is not a parallel text, to Bārûtu Ch. 2 (tīrānū), Tablet 8 (the identical tablet number, namely, the 8th, of both the Middle Babylonian omen collection and the Bārûtu sources, is probably accidental).211 The last example concerns three Middle Babylonian manuscripts (Bab 36400, BRM 4 15 and BRM 4 16), which deal with one of the parts of the coils of the 207

  Koch (2015: 93–94).   Heeßel (2011b: 221–223). 209   Tablet Carré (= Jeyes 2000); see ead. (2000: 371–372); Beaulieu (2010: 5–6). 210   Consider a Middle Babylonian manuscript of liver and lung parts omens, CUSAS 18 33, which is designated as the 8th tablet in a sequence of an unknown total. The tablet also includes a catch line. George (2013: 231). 211   Heeßel (2011b: 223–228). For the Bārûtu sources, see ibid. for more details. 208

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

360

9. Discussion and Conclusion

colon (ekal tīrānī), and their relation to Bārûtu Ch. 2 (tīrānū), Tablet 4. The correspondence between the Middle Babylonian sources and the 1st millennium manuscripts of the Bārûtu is remarkable, despite a few differences. The major difference lies in the number of omens. The standard Bārûtu Ch. 2, Tablet 4 has a few more entires. This may mean that other sources were possibly used to compile the later version. The Middle Babylonian colophons specify the line count and one manuscript identifies the composition by name, but there is no mention of the series or the number of tablets per chapter, as provided by the first millennium sources.212 In sum, there is no proof for a proper series like the solid evidence provided by the colophons of the Neo-Assyrian Bārûtu manuscripts. In these manuscripts, a catch-line to the next tablet is given, as well as the tablet’s ordinal number within the series. Note, however, that at this stage the series was not yet named as Bārûtu, but only designated as iškaru. The Bārûtu series was given its name as such much later, probably only in Seleucid times.213 Whatever the case, we do not wish to state categorically that the Bārûtu was a creation of the first millennium, rather to provide a terminus post quem: since there is no evidence of the series at Assur or elsewhere in Mesopotamia (and Emar), the Bārûtu series was formed in Babylonia somewhat later, towards the end of the second millennium or the beginning of the first, although our earliest manuscripts of the Bārûtu are NeoAssyrian.214 Nonetheless, they were already organized as some kind series, based on their numbering and the occasional catch line.215 This observation is supported by our study of the šumma immeru IMV manuscripts, three of which come from Assyria (Assur and Kalhu). They are very close to the first millennium SV manuscripts, but are not designated in their colophons as either an aḫû tablet of the šumma izbu series, or as a d u b ḫ a .l a tablet. These designations appear only later––in the Nineveh and Uruk colophons of the SV. The IMV manuscripts are not numbered, but one of them (IMV1) includes a catch line. To conclude, the evidence of the development of extispicy omens from the second-half of second millennium to the beginning of the first millennium sits between Heeßel’s and Koch’s opposing views: the materials present a rather unstable and variable textual tradition that was still surely advancing towards forming standard versions, either of the Bārûtu or other omen collections, within which the SV šumma immeru omens are to be situated.216 In the first millennium, the standard version of the Bārûtu was indeed “canonized”: the differences between the Nineveh and Late Babylonian manuscripts

212

  Heeßel (2011a); and see ibid. for details.   Heeßel (2011: 227, n. 30). 214   Heeßel (2011b: 228); Koch (2000: 26); Beaulieu (2010: 9–10). 215   See also Koch (2000: 19–20). 216   Koch (2000: 19, 70–77); Heeßel (2012: 90–94) = KAL 5 13, 14 and 15. 213

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

361

are truly minor.217 Nonetheless, the Bārûtu series may have been represented in two or more competing versions, of which only clues remain. There is a possibility that Barûtu Ch. 1 (isru), which was directly related to our discussion, included not four tablets, as in the standard version of the series, but a fifth tablet, dealing with the kidneys.218 And at Assurbanipal’s library, the king had made for himself at least two sets of the Bārûtu. This may indicate that he wished to have in his possession two competing or variant versions of the same composition.219 Although the Bārûtu became a canonized or standard text, the commentaries to this series continued to evolve and change.220 This is reflected also in the three commentaries we have for the SV of the šumma immeru omens. They are very close to each other on occasion, but display enough differences to show that they are independent to a certain extent from each other. On the basis of such differences, it was suggested that in fact they offer a commentary on different SV šumma immeru base texts of the omens, hence “canonizied” or standartizied as the SV omens were, they still exhibited minor differences; p. 318.

4. The Many Lives of the šumma immeru Omens We have began our story with a neglected, if not nearly completely forgotten, omen collection. Already known from almost the very first publications of the British Museum, and as early as Bezold’s Catalogue (1889–1899), and studied by the pioneer scholars of Babylonian divination, if not by name then by their content, the šumma immeru omens were given their first edition and translation only in 1933 by Bruno Meissner. Even so, the treatment was far from complete, because only the first section of the SV was dealt with. More SV manuscripts came from much later excavations at Uruk (along with the related commentaries). The manuscripts from Middle Assyrian Assur benefited from an edition (although faulty) by Ebeling (1931), which revealed to the scholarly world a further attestation of this omen collection. The Old Babylonian tablets, published by Goetze (1947), only however as autograph copies, exposed the earliest layer of this composition. Fragments of the composition from Late Bronze Emar (Arnaud 1985–1987) and Hattuša (Wilhelm 1991) attested to the next stage of the composition and to its transmission to the fringes of the cuneiform world. The publication of the related SLD manuscript (George 2013) pointed out the way the omen composition will develop and change. However, up to this study, this group of omens was never fully edited, translated and commented upon. It received in this book its first systematical treatment. It was also thoroughly considered as a 217

  Koch (2015: 94). It is possible that there existed a catalogue of the whole Bārûtu series. It is documented solely by a fragment belonging to Nabû-zuqup-kēnu; Koch (2005, no. 1). 218   Heeßel (2014: 74). 219   See discussion in Koch (2000: 27–31). Heeßel (2012: 15) carefully suggests that two different recensions of the Bārûtu are already in evidence in the Assur collections. 220   Koch (2000: 34–36). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

362

9. Discussion and Conclusion

text which was produced, transmitted and received throughout the centuries in different locations and social contexts of Mesopotamia and the ancient Near East. And, it was evaluated as a composition existing, at least during certain periods, side by side with the living tradition of the practice of extispicy. Thus, in our study, the šumma immeru omens were given their proper place as a text which is to be evaluated in relationship to wide-ranging Babylonian and other divination materials. The omens’ production and transmission were demonstrated to have been an integral part of divination literature, and, in particular, of extispicy literature. Even if not explicitly articulated as such, and not fully appreciated as such in modern literature, the šumma immeru omens are to be recognized as the first in a line of a collection of omens which dealt with the inner parts of the sheep, in other words, the Old Babylonian extispicy omen collections, if not yet standardized as the Bārûtu series of later times. It was also was argued that the šumma immeru omens themselves mirrored in a sense the reality of the diviner, who as a performer carried out the sacrificial extispicy ritual (although see our more nuanced approach in the following pages). As such, we have shown that the omens were part of the diviner’s tool-box, which included additional compositions meant to assist in the interpretation of the result of the oracle question. The omens were accompanied, at least as far as we can reconstruct, with supplementary materials, such as the Old Babylonian Sheep Body Parts list, which saw its (indirect) transmission and reception in Hittite Anatolia, when the Akkadian terms were translated into Hittite. All this is evidence of the growing intellectual investment in written texts, rather than a personal experience in the practice of divination, as the gateway to erudition and knowledge. Whereas the argument that the šumma immeru omens reflected what was happening in the extispicy ritual, was already pronounced in the literature (Maul 2013), we have further shown the omens’ growing interest throughout time in the wholesomeness and appearance of the inner parts of the animal. This concern, which became to be fully expressed in the SV, was articulated in the apodoses of the omens. But this development was only one side of the change that the omens underwent over time, as will be discussed below. The earliest attestation of the šumma immeru omen collection is from the Old Babylonian period, represented by two near-identical, although differently arranged, sets of the entire composition. A transmission hierarchy between the two sets can be determined on the results of our study: mss. *B and B were based, even if not directly, on the superior mss. A and C. This points out already some dissemination of the omens, even if limited. The notation of the tablets by line numbers and by their colophons, minimal as the information is, conveys an organization of the šumma immeru omens along side other extispicy collections, which were notated in a similar manner. Even if modern scholarship refuses to see in these early collections proper ‘forerunners’ to the Bārûtu series, some degree of organizational criteria can be recognized in the šumma immeru omens and other extispicy compositions. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

363

If a characterization of the omens at their Old Babylonian stage is to be offered, the following can be said. The omens covered a very wide range of sheep body parts (around forty), never to be encountered again in the collection’s history. Through time it can be observed how the body parts formed new collections, the evidence for which is only partial, but which evidently happened quite quickly. The body parts omen collections from Assur display some Old Babylonian characteristics. And having the very similar body parts omen collections from Emar (in the older Syrian schooling tradition) and from Assur speaks about their formation in the Late Old Babylonian period. It is evident that these body part omen collections rely very substantially on the OB version and therefore must be a secondary development. There were also some indications of this processes in Nineveh tablets dealing with sheep body parts. Although they are Neo-Assyrian manuscripts, they represent older Old Babylonian traditions (pp. 248–249). The Omens from Severed Hooves and Fetlocks from Tigunanum is another indication of how the body parts started to occupy their own special collections, outside of, and parallel to the šumma immeru omens. On the basis of the later LBA and the IMV, it can be argued that the OB version we have in our hands is not the only one which existed and there may have been contemporary or near contemporary competing versions, now lost. Nonetheless it is sufficiently clear that the LBA and IMV versions on the whole relied on a textual tradition represented by the OB version we hold in hand. Finding the LBA šumma immeru omens at Emar and Hattuša should not come as a surprise to anybody familiar with the spread of Babylonian scholarly materials, and, more specifically, of omen literature, during the second half of the 2nd millennium throughout the ancient Near East. However, finding šumma immeru omens which are so close to each other, although coming from different places, demands our consideration. It is obvious that they must have relied on one and the same source, arriving from Babylonian, but not on each other. It was demonstrated that the LBA version was already removed from the OB version, although composed not much thereafter. And, moreover, that it exhibited a development of the omens’ contents. We meet in the apodoses the šumma immeru formula, which will appear in all later versions of the omens. A further noticeable development typical of the LBA found in divination literature is the expansion of single omens into whole sections. The blood section of the LBA omens is the most obvious example, having been the best preserved, but enough remains to conclude that other single omens were expanded in a similar way, along ‘generative’ principles, as discussed throughout our study. But another phenomenon can be observed, contrary to one’s expectation. The collection expands, although in a particular way. Many of the body parts present in the OB version, as discussed above, do not appear any longer in the LBA version, having been granted their own separate collections. It seems that in spite of the expansion of several omens, the LBA collection may have been contained on one single tablet. One colophon (Hattuša ms. H) gives a line count, a feature which is not found in the OB version, and which signals a move towards standardization. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

364

9. Discussion and Conclusion

The association of the šumma immeru omens with other type of omen collections, notably with the šumma izbu omens (as the colophons of the commentaries inform; see discussion below), may have had its first evidence at Hattuša. One manuscript (ms. H) combines two types of omens: the šumma immeru omens and the šumma ālu omens, the latter already sufficiently close to the canonical version. The combination of two or more types of compositions on the same tablet––called in the literature a Sammeltafel––was a feature of a pedagogical function in the Old Babylonian school curriculum and is known from later times as well. The Sammeltafel usually combines proverbs, lexical list extracts, hymns, and wisdom literature compositions. More sophisticated compositions intended for the professional classes could also be collected on a single tablet for purposes which were perhaps educational but are to be situated in a more diffuse context than the strict scribal school institution. Such tablets are known from the core areas, as from Hattuša. KUB 4.53 is a good example. On its observe it contains an incantation to Šamaš and on its reverse it brings omens parallel to the šumma ālu standard version Tablet 94.221 The connection between the two sides of the tablet remains unclear. In the case of the LBA ms. H from Hattuša, however, the connection between the šumma immeru and the šumma ālu omens is obvious. The ram of the extispicy ritual featuring in the šumma immeru omens is met by the ram prancing about the street in the šumma ālu omens. The association was certainly not fortuitous, and while it could have been formed by the Hattuša scribes, the subsequent history of the šumma immeru omens speaks otherwise. It demonstrates on the one hand the widening drift between the šumma immeru omens and the extispicy omens and on the other hand their growing association with other types of divination literature, including esoteric compositions. Four manuscripts represent the intermediate stage of the omens’ development. Three of them (IMV1-3) were close to one another, while the fourth (IMV4), an excerpt tablet, was unrelated, although clearly a Post Old Babylonian composition. They all deal with the sheep head and leg parts, and, like the LBA version, IMV1-3 no longer include the smaller bones and body parts. They do, however, introduce on a much wider scale than before predications concerned with the stomach of the animal and the coils of the colon. These subsequentially will occupy Section 1, as well as additional entires of the SV. In a sense, the IMV1-3 manuscripts can be compared with the ‘forerunner’ Assur manuscripts of the Bārûtu series (discussed in Chapter 7 and in this concluding chapter). Their content already approaches what will be met in the SV (especially as evidenced by IMV3). There is more use of logographic writing (esp. IMV2) and one colophon (IMV1) includes a line count, as well a catch line to a second tablet (which is now lost), as if the šumma immeru omens are the beginning of, or at least a part of a longer ‘forerunner’ series. It is of interest to note that the version studied in late second millennium Assur was still transmitted and studied in Kalhu of the late 8th–7th century by the master scribe   Rutz (2012); Gordin (2015: 139) for the scribe of the tablet.

221

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

365

Nabû-zuqup-kēna (who puts down his name in the colophon of IMV3). In view of things to come, it is important to state that the omens were not considered at this stage as related to the šumma izbu omens, or explicitly divorced from the extispicy omens, as will be seen later. The next and final stage of the omens is represented by SV. The rest of our summing discussion is devoted to provide some answers regarding its nature, aim and function in relationship to what has been discussed in Part III of this final chapter, viz., text standardization, text production, and the history of extispicy omens. The name given in this study to the last and final version of the šumma immeru omens, viz., the Standard Version, speaks out its characterization. At this stage, there is a peak number of manuscripts, and, to a large degree, all are homogeneous. Can we confidentially speak therefore of a standard version or a “canonized” text? There are some indications that although the text was stable there may have been some variations in its entries’ order and its organization across tablets. First, it can noticed that in the Assyrian Library Records (pp. 29–30; SAA 7 52), two of lines of the SV are quoted. The first line, i.e., §1, is the opening line of the omen collection, and then for some strange reason, the second line is §54'. Perhaps some other arrangement of the omens, which is unknown to us, existed, stretching over two tablets (see p. 231 and below).222 In relation to this, the šumma immeru omens were also very probably regarded as two external tablets of the šumma izbu omens, in contradiction to the arrangement we are familiar with––the whole composition on one tablet (and see directly below). Secondly, as the evidence of the commentaries show us, some of the entries may have been ordered somewhat differently, with one preceding the other (p. 228). There are also minor spelling variations between SV manuscripts, with the ones from Uruk displaying spellings that are also recorded in the commentaries. This may speak of an Uruk version versus a Nineveh version, but surely, the differences between the two was minor. Hence, to conclude, at its SV stage, the composition was already non-changeable, immune to any additions and changes, and therefore, as argued before, suitable for an exegesis in form of a learned lesson of a master scholar, appearing as a text we term as a commentary. The SV was reconstructed of holding about 100 entries, divided between rather distinct thematic sections. Its chief difference from previous versions lies in its first section––Section 1. Although Section 1 had some kind of precursors (compare with LBA §§1–7), and, therefore, is not entirely novel, it represents a noticeable development. To begin with, Section 1 uses two new terms for defining the sacrificial animal in relationship to its šikittu, ‘form’, and minâtu, ‘size’. Contrary to expectations, the terms are not found in the šumma izbu or the šumma ālu omens. As we have discussed, on the whole there is not much in common between the šumma immeru omens and the šumma izbu series. However, one can contemplate that   Already Parpola (1983: 25, commentary, n. 5).

222

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

366

9. Discussion and Conclusion

because Section 1 solely dealt with the šikittu ‘form’ and minâtu, ‘size’ of the sheep, the šumma immeru omens had become associated with the šumma izbu omens; see more below. Section 1 abandoned the description of the sheep’s movement and gestures at the sacrifice place, so typical of the opening omens of previous versions, concentrating only on the sheep’s outer physical appearance. Indeed, there is evidence that Section 1 stood as an excerpt or even as a sort of independent collection. That is not to say that Section 2 was of no importance, because it dealt with determining the personal god’s presence at the extispicy ritual according to the sheep’s behaviour, as met in the earlier versions. The rest of the omens, arranged through more or less thematic sections (each separated by a line drawn across the tablet, and numbered by a ‘ten’ notation, regardless of the section), treat the head region of the sheep and its blood. The bone omens, which have mostly disappeared in versions later than the OB version, do not make their appearance in the SV. As argued, some of them were regrouped from their disparate Post Old Babylonian collections in order to form the first chapter of the Bārûtu. With these said differences between the SV and earlier versions, once the SV is viewed according to sections and not individual omens, a great degree of continuity can be claimed throughout the history of the šumma immeru omens, as the intention and content of the omens remained the same. And even if considered according to individual entries, the common history of all versions can be well appreciated: the SV corresponds with twenty-two omens across all versions, which is not a low figure, considering the expansion of many entries into sections throughout the omens’ development. It remains to explain why the šumma immeru omen compendium, which was so central to the extispicy procedure, was not included in the great Bārûtu series, but came be to regarded as a separate and distinct composition. As has been discussed, already in the ‘forerunner’ stage of the SV, the bone parts were moved out of the šumma immeru omens, forming their own collections, of which some later on were to join the Bārûtu, as they were brought together under its first chapter, holding the isru, hoof, vertebrae, (floating)-ribs, and sternum. What eventually had remained of the original composition in the SV was, chiefly, the behaviour of the sheep at the time of its slaughter and aftermath, the parts of its head organ (such as eyes, ears and tongue/lips) and the quality of its blood (colour, consistency, flow, etc.). These objects could not be treated as systematically as other internal body parts of the animal. Let us explain. The bones (in Bārûtu Ch. 1) and the various parts of the liver (manzāzu, martu, etc.) and lungs, were observed almost as abstract geometrical forms–– two dimensional objects neatly divided and subdivided into bi-partite (and occasionally tri-partite) zones. This conceptualization of the sheep parts is what enabled the manipulation and seemingly never-ending expansion or generation of extispicy omens, under the guiding principles we have discussed already in our introduction (pp. 23–24, 26–28). On the other hand, the behaviour of the sheep, the colour of its blood, the size or shape of its head organs, could not constitute a comfortable medium for Babylonian extispicy, because they could © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

367

not be defined as clear-cut geometrical shapes, possessing a top, middle, and lower part, or divided into right and left sections (although note the discussion regarding the sheep tail and the pelvic bone, pp. 72–73 and 280). As the omen collection became more organized into chapters and series, already probably in the Post Old Babylonian period, this dichotomy became more felt, pushing the šumma immeru omens away from extispicy and bringing about the migration of its bone and inner parts to other independent collections. By way of this argument, it can be claimed that it is not the actual practice of extispicy that was recorded by the Bārûtu series and the related materials. The textbook is therefore not a reflection of what was happening during the extispicy ritual, but rather the other way around. It was the “text” that set the practice. The generative principle, which enabled the formation of long list-like compositions, in a way similar to the way that lexical lists were formed, is what dictated how the diviner interpreted his finds. It matters not whether this “text” was initially written down upon cuneiform tablets, or at first memorized by various mnemonic techniques. It was the way the rules of interpretation were thought of and developed that dictated its practice. Seen in this way, a conundrum which had bothered students of Mesopotamian divination can be absolved. It was noticed that as extispicy developed there was a growing concern with the inner parts of the sheep at the expense of other parts. Jeyes (1989: 11) wrote that:223 … it is possible that the Old Babylonian series [i.e., the Old Babylonian omen compendia] had a higher proportion of omens derived from organs other the liver and the lung than Bārûtu … By comparing the material of Old Babylonian extispicy compendia with the lay-out of the Nineveh series [i.e., the Bārûtu] in which only the first chapter is devoted to other organs than the ominous ones a priori, there is an indication that the later period emphasized the hepatoscopy to a great extent than the earlier ones. In her study of Neo-Assyrian omen reports, Robson (2011b: 625) had reached a similar conclusion. She remarked that the diviners “focused their observations on a small number of features on the liver and lungs, paying less attention to other exta and bones.” Both the conclusion of Jeyes and of Robson are of course correct. But they should not be derived from the perspective of the practicing diviner. His was not a conscious choice of focusing on particular sheep parts rather than others. What forced his behaviour was the “text”, which imposed its rules on his observations and subsequent interpretations. It can be hypothesized, in passing, that other types of divination techniques saw their eventual demise, as can assumed by their diminishing number of manuscripts, because of their unpredictable or un-generative nature. The smoke, oil, and bird omens, all very important components in the extispicy ritual (see pp. 16, 24, 25, 29, 42; Chapter 7.6),224 eventually lost their appeal. This happened, so we suggest, because it was more difficult to generate stable interpretative rules 223 224

 This observation is supported by Koch (2015: 84).  See also K 57 (Nougayrol 1967: 35–37), ll. 6–12. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

368

9. Discussion and Conclusion

for these techniques in contrast to the sheep’s liver and its other parts. The oftquoted phrase that the oil, flour, and smoke omens were intended for the ‘poor folk’ of Babylonia,225 seems in this light, as a contemporary ad-hoc explanation as to why these divinatory techniques fell into neglect. They were considered as being the poor man’s media, although in reality, they all featured in one way or the other, as far as can be told, throughout the extispicy ritual, hence of cultic importance.226 Of course, this is not to deny a social reality: flour was certainly cheaper than sheep. However, in a diachronic perspective, the decline in popularity of these techniques was because of their unsuitability for generating omens and not dictated by their use of the humble stratum of Babylonian society: the movement and shape of oil drops on water, the rising smoke of burnt incense, and scattered flour could not lend themselves easily to allow the formulation of a methodic sequence. If judged diachronically, bird extispicy, which employed at its earliest attestations unique observational techniques (i.e., the red ‘spot’ or ‘throwing the “heart” into the water’), subsequently turned to adopt many sheep extispicy methods. Despite the adaptation, bird extispicy, although documented, never gained the popularity of sheep extispicy. Was this because the inner parts of bird, due to their miniature size, could only be divided and subdivided into a very limited number of zones? To conclude, the šumma immeru omens were not considered as the iškaru of the Bārûtu series for the reasons given above. But neither were they an iškaru by themselves. Interestingly enough, it is difficult to determine what the šumma immeru were. We learn that at the SV stage, according to the colophon of ms. A, the omens were considered as part of the ‘secret lore of the art of the diviner’. This was a designation of a category of various learned texts which were manuals assisting the diviner in determining the oracle result. Furthermore, ms. A colophon designates the omens as collected under the obscure genre of the ‘Tablet of Division’. An almost unique phrase tašnintu ummâni, ‘ambition of the scholar’ (of which there is only one other example attested; p. 184) in the colophon further marks this text as special. What does all of this mean? While the exact nature of these ‘secret’ texts is not fully clear, the least that can be said that the omens were not considered as part of the Bārûtu, and further, that they belonged to a group of technical compositions meant to assist the diviner in the practical side of his work. Indeed several of entries in the SV were shown to be very different than the type we are accustomed to meet in omen literature. In Part I of this concluding chapter, we have demonstrated the strong relation of the omens to the immediate past, present and future of the extispicy ritual, and, moreover, the instruction-like character of the apodoses, speaking directly to the diviner in the 2nd person imperative or the 3rd person. Since these features existed since the early stages of the omens, although accenutating over time, we can consider that this feature is what may  Foster (2005: 751); Oppenheim (1956: 301); Incantation to Šamaš; KAR 252 (with dupls.) 226  Maul 2013: 155–179, pp. of the chapter “Opferschau für Eilige und Arme”. 225

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

369

have partly drove them out of the Bārûtu in addition to what was argued above. Indeed, 2nd person imperative instructions are common to the commentaries of the Bārûtu and the type of texts termed Combined Protases. While the Neo-Assyrian SV ms. A designates the šumma immeru omens as part of the ‘secret lore of the art of the diviner’, the same text is designated differently in the Uruk SV mss. G and H colophons and the colophons of the commentaries. In the colophons of the SV mss. G (restored) and H, the šumma immeru omens are defined as ‘extraneous [lines] of the šumma izbu series’ ([mu.meš b]e iz-bu ˹a-ḫu˺-[tu … ]). The same designation is found in the colophons of the two Uruk commentaries. In UC1 the šumma immeru omens are explicitly termed as collected omens, external (aḫûtu) to the šumma izbu series. And in UC2, the šumma immeru omens were collected and excerpted as the 26th(!) tablet of the šumma izbu series. As explained (p. 231), these šumma immeru omens, although contained in our SV on a single tablet, were stretched over two tablets––Tablet 25 and Tablet 26 of the šumma izbu series. Hence they were ex-series, because the standard version šumma izbu series ran only up to twenty-four tablets. The association between the šumma immeru omens and the šumma izbu series certainly can be recognized in other sources, in which the former omen collection was not placed in a textual hierarchy (i.e., defined as external) to the latter. Consider the following. Tablet 19 (LKU 124, Neo/Late Babylonian; p. 259), although not the last tablet of the šumma izbu series, included a catch line to the šumma immeru omens, thus furthering the connection between the two compositions. The association of the omens with šumma izbu can also be detected in the Assyrian Library Records, already introduced in Chapter 1, Part 1 (pp. 29–30). One tablet among these Records (SAA 7 52) lists the following sequence of learned works, originally belonging to a collection of a private person, before being devoured into the Library of Assurbanipal. It is worth looking with some attention at this source, because it informs us of the status of the šumma immeru omens in regards to the šumma izbu series, as well as some other major works. First comes the great Enūma Anu Enlil series, then the šumma izbu series, which is followed by its Principal Commentary (called gurru maḫīru). Immediately after this the šumma immeru omens are listed (in two entires), and another commentary (mukallimtu), whose name is lost. Which commentary was it? It could have been a commentary to the Enūma Anu Enlil series, but one can consider also a commentary to the Bārûtu, or even a commentary to the šumma immeru omens. Then come namburbû apotropaic rituals for the šumma izbu series and some more tablets of the šumma izbu series. 1

[N (tablets) Enūma] Anu Enlil

2

[N (tablets)] šumma izbu

3

[1 (tablet) gu]rru maḫīru

4

[1? (tablet) šumma im]meru uznā kurrî (= SV §1)

5

[1? (tablet) šumma] immeru imbâ ilsi (= SV §54') © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

370

9. Discussion and Conclusion

6

[N (tablets) m]ukallimtu

7

[N (tablets) na]mburbê izbi

8

[N (tablets)] šumma izbu

The mention of the šumma immeru omens with the šumma izbu series shows us that the association between the two was well established already in the NeoAssyrian period, well before the Late Babylonian Uruk colophons. Hence this is not an Urukean association, but goes further back.227 It also demonstrates that our omens, although at times considered as external, and in our eyes, as secondary, or even “non-canonical”, were treasured items worthy of a diviner’s library. Therefore, to conclude this point, although the šumma immeru omens were regulated out of the Bārûtu, they however had not disappeared. The text community of Mesopotamia held on to the composition and continued to study and even exegete it. Indeed, rather exceptionally the šumma immeru omens, although designated as aḫûtu, gained commentaries. Such aḫû commentaries are very rare. But their very existence blurrs the differences between what stands between canonical or non-canonical texts. They may also point out the arbitrariness in the evaluation of texts and their hierarchy, at least across time, when the reason why one text was more regarded than the next was forgotten, and when all compositions may have regained an equal standing, although retaining their old labels. The fluctuating designation of the composition in question, an independent composition, a ‘Tablet of Division’, or a supplement to the šumma izbu series, points to a text with a unfixed or changing objective. It was thought of differently at different times and among different textual communities. The situation, with all due caution when such comparisons are made, recalls the reception of the Apochrypha into the Christian Canon. From this point arises the concluding question of our study. What were the šumma immeru omens used for in the scribal community that composed, copied and studied them? The community of users who copied and studied the text throughout the ages provides us with glimpse of the function of the omens. There is some gradation that can be observed, which naturally is tied with the development of the text itself. This is divulged from the metadata of the text, i.e., the colophons, tablet format, notations, etc., and the socio-historical context. The OB version is almost completely devoid of metadata (apart from the line count and the ki–/–kam notations), and further information about text production is to be completed from the wider scribal context, as we have done in this concluding chapter. Advanced scribal or professional education was suggested for this type of extispicy materials, although the evidence was wanting. School and scribal training are detected for the LBA version (at Emar and Hattuša), with a question mark hanging over the use of the text in actual extispicy. Later, there is evidence of scholars studying the omens. The Kalhu IMV3 tablet produced by Nabû-zuqup  Cf. Rutz (2014).

227

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

371

kēna is to be assessed with other products of this prolific scholar. Notable are his Bārûtu commentaries, which show his interest in ancillary materials of extispicy (p. 139). This complements his interest in the šumma immeru omens. Tablets housed in the Library of Assurbanibal can be very rarely be attributed to a particular scholar or copyist, since, as a whole, the tablets were considered to be the property of the palace of the king, if not his own personal productions. But it was contemplated that the Nineveh diviner Nabû-ušallim may have been responsible for producing a copy (which is not preserved) upon which the SV Nineveh manuscripts were based. The colophons of the SV mss. F and B inform us that the text is part of Assurbanipal’s collection and the implications have been discussed in Part III of this chapter. The place of the šumma immeru omens in the palace collection is a direct appropriation of Babylonian extispicy interpretative techniques (for one ms. has a niṣirti bārûti colophon) by the Assyrian empire. The Late Babylonian Uruk and Babylonian scribes who were engaged in producing both the SV and its commentaries came from families of established scholars. In Chapter 6, it was suggested that one of the Egibatilla family copied the LBC of the SV. Further research is required to establish links between individuals and their tablets, but this preliminary investigation demonstrates that the same individuals, or at least the same centers of textual production, were responsible for the šumma immeru omens and the Bārûtu commentaries. The reason for the interest of these scholars in our omens, as well as in other divination materials, was not so much (if at all) for the purpose of accuring a practicle knowledge of ‘howto’, but rather of accumulating antiquarian knowledge. It can be assumed that the reason why they copied šumma izbu, along with our omens, and other extispicy texts was their growing interest in astronomical horoscopes.228 One text gives the list of the zodiac and provides a šumma izbu kind of omens regarding the death of a child on a particular zodiac sign; and the other creates equations between the liver parts and particular gods, months and constellations.229 The šumma immeru, not mentioned in either of these, nonetheless bridges over the interest in two ancient techniques of divination––extispicy and teratology. It joined, as it did already in the Neo-Assyrian period, along with its commentaries, the world of interpretation in which new problems could be solved by the perpetuation and study of old knowledge. Habent sua fata libelli. The story of the many lives of the šumma immeru omens has come to an end. However, it only offered a limited viewpoint on a much more wider and complex phenomenon, which is the production, transmission, and preservation and perpetuation of knowledge of an ancient society writing in a forgotten writing system on small clay tablets for over millennia. The concerns of this “dead civilization”, as far as it is removed from us, were not as different than the ones which bother us today. As much as we rely on empirical science and reason, unpredictability and variabilities remain a constant in our world as in   Robson (2011a: 568).   SpTU 2 43 and SpTU 4 159; Anor (2017b). See p. 233.

228 229

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

372

9. Discussion and Conclusion

Mesopotamia. Our abilities to govern the present let alone predict the future are eventually restricted. The figure below reproduces a Middle Assyrian seal impression. We see the newly born suckling lamb with its caring mother, the ewe. The lamb’s growth, success, and well-being, however, depend on forces unknown. Above the two figures a shinning star appears, representing the divine. As the personal god or goddess, the divine casts an observant eye over the lamb, standing to protect it over the tribulations of the world to come. The scene is but a metaphor for the life of the seal owner. With his or her future lurking in the dark, the only recourse for security and consolation was to appeal the gods for protection, guidance and solace. One could find a recourse in prayer, sacrifice and ritual, and divination, all standing at the center of the intellectual pursuits of Babylonia and her neighbours, written, studied and transmitted across centuries––a substantial heritage which stands at the core of world civilization, worthy of appreciation and admiration.

Fig. 28. Ewe and Lamb, Middle Assyrian Cylinder Seal. Assur (VA 1129) ©Staatliche Museen Zu Berlin–Vorderasiatisches Museum; photo: O. M.Teßmer

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography Al-Rawi, F. N. H. (1994): Texts from Tell Haddad and Elsewhere, Iraq 56, 35–43. Anor, N. (2015): The Babylonian Extispicy Rituals: Theory and Practice. (PhD Thesis) Berlin: Free University of Berlin. –––––. (2017a). Mesopotamian Divinatory Inquiry: A Private or State Matter? In: De Boer, R. and J.G. Dercksen (ed.), Private and State in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 58th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Leiden 16–20 July 2012, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 71–78. –––––. (2017b). Is the Liver a Reflection of the Sky?, Aram 29, 195–206. Anor, N. and Y. Cohen. (2018): The Oil Omens from Hattuša: An Investigation of the History and Transmission of a Babylonian Divination Compendium, JNES 77, 195–206. –––––. (forthcoming): Bird in the Sky –– Bird Omen Collections, Astral Observations and the Meaning of the Term manzāzu. Archi, A. (1974): Il sitema KIN della divinazione ittita, Oriens Antiquus 13, 113–144. –––––. (2010): Divination at Ebla. In: Fincke, J. (ed.), Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010, Dresden: Islet, 45–56. Armstrong, P. (2016): Sheep (Animal), London: Reaktion Books. Arnaud, D. (1975–1976): Religion Assyro-Babylonienne. École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses 84, 221–228. –––––. (1985–1987): Recherches au pays d’Aštata: Emar VI: Les textes sumériens et accadiens, Paris: ERC. Assante, J. (2009): Bad Girls and Kinky Boys? The Modern Prostituting of Ishtar, Her Clergy and Her Cults. In: Scheer, T. S. and Lindner, M. (ed.), Tempelprostitution im Altertum: Fakten und Fiktionen, Berlin: Verlag Antike, 23–54. Bartelmus, A. (2016): Fragmente einer großen Sprache. Sumerisch im Kontext der Schreiberausbildung des kassitenzeitlichen Babylonien, Boston – Berlin: De Gruyter. Baumgartner, W. (1932–1933): Review of: E. Ebeling 1931, AfO 8, 233–235. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

374

Bibliography

Beal, R. H. (2002): Hittite Oracles. In: Ciraolo, L. and Seidel, J. (ed.), Magic and Divination in the Ancient World, (AMD 2), Leiden: Brill, 57–81. Beaulieu, P.-A (2000): The Descendents of Sîn-lēqi-unninni. In: Marzahn, J. and Neumann, H. (ed.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1–16. –––––. (2010): The Afterlife of Assyrian Scholarship in Hellenistic Babylonia. In: Stackert, J., Porter, B. N. and Wright, D. P. (ed.), Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tsvi Abusch, Bethesda: CDL Press, 1–18. Beckman, G. (1983): Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Ḫattuša, JCS 35, 97–115. Berman, H. (1982): Review of: A. Archi 1979, Hethitische Orakeltexte KUB 49 and KUB 50, Berlin: Akademie Verlag., JCS 34, 118–126. Besnier, M-F. (2009a): SpTU 1, 072 [Barutu Commentary]. Available from http:// oracc.org/cams/gkab/P348493. –––––. (2009b): SpTU 4, 143 [Šumma Izbu commentary]. Available from http:// oracc.org/cams/gkab/P348737. Bezold, C. (1889–1899): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum (Vol. I–IV), London: The British Museum. –––––. (1893): Oriental Diplomacy: The Transliterated Text of the Cuneiform Despatches between the Kings of Egypt and Western Asia in the XVth Century before Christ, Discovered at Tell el-Amarna, and Now Preserved in the British Museum, London: Luzac and co. Biggs, R. D. (1994): Review of: Arnaud (1985–1987), JAOS 114, 515. Biggs, R. D. and M. W. Stolper (1983): A Babylonian Omen Text from Susiana.” RA 77, 155–162. Böck, B. (2000): Die Babylonisch-Assyrische Morphoskopie, (AfO Beiheft 27), Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Boissier, A. (1905): Choix de textes relatifs à la divination assyro-babylonienne, Genève: Kündig. –––––. (1914): Seconde note sur la publication des textes divinatoires du British Museum, Genève: Kündig. Borger, R. (1957): niṣirti bārûti, Geheimlehre der Haruspizin (Zu Neugebauer-Sachs MCT, V und W, und einigen verwandten Texten), BiOr 14, 189–195, pl. iv–v. –––––. (1967): Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur, Berlin: De Gruyter. –––––. (2010): Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305; 2nd Ed.), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Burkert, W. (1998): The Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

375

Campbell Thompson, R. (1923): Assyrian Medical Texts, London: J. Bale, Sons & Danielsson. –––––. (1949): A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany, London: The British Academy. Chapman, St. B. 2000. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 27), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. –––––. (2003): How the Biblical Canon Began: Working Models and Open Questions. In: Finkelberg, M. and Stroumsa, G. (ed.), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 29–51. Charpin, D. (2010): Writing, Law, and Kingship in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. –––––. (2011): Patron and Client: Zimri-Lim and Asqudum the Diviner. In: Radner, K. and Robson, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 248–269. –––––. (2015a): Review of: George 2013, RA 109, 198–199. –––––. (2015b): Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Publications de l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien du Collège de France. Leuven: Peeters. –––––. (2018): Chroniques bibliographiques 21. À l’occasion des dix ans du projet ARCHIBAB, RA 112, 177–208. Civil, M. (1989): The Texts from Meskene-Emar, AuOr 7, 5–25. –––––. (2010): The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection, (CUSAS 12), Bethesda: CDL. Clancier, P. (2009): Les bibliothéques en Babylonie dans la deuxiéme moitié du Ier millémaire av. J.-C., (AOAT 363), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. –––––. (2009b): Le manuel de l’exorciste d’Uruk. In: Faivre, X., Lion, B. and Michel, C. (ed.), Et il y eut un esprit dans l’Homme. Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie. Paris: De Boccard, 105–117. –––––. (2011): Cuneiform Culture’s Last Guardians: The Old Urban Nobility of Hellenistic Uruk. In: Radner, K. and Robson, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 752–773. –––––. (2014): Teaching and Learning Medicine and Exorcism at Uruk during the Hellenistic Period. In: Bernard, A. and Proust, C. (ed.), Scientific Sources and Teaching Contexts Throughout History: Problems and Perspectives (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 301), New York: Springer, 41–66. Cohen, Y. (2003): The Term for ‘Lung’ in West-Semitic/Northwestern Peripheral Akkadian, JAOS 122, 824–827. –––––. (2007): Akkadian Omens from Hattuša and Emar: The šumma immeru and šumma ālu Omens, ZA 97, 233–251. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

376

Bibliography

Cohen, Y. (2009): The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, (HSS 59), Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. –––––. (2016): Commentary on Šumma immeru, Izbu aḫû (CCP 3.6.3.E). In: Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., and Frazer, M. (ed.), Cuneiform Commentaries Project, https://ccp.yale.edu/P348493. –––––. (2017): Parallel Hurrian and Hittite šumma izbu Omens from Hattuša and Corresponding Akkadian Omens, AoF 44, 9–18. –––––. (2018a): An Old Babylonian List of Sheep Body-parts (BM 29663). In: Panatayov, S. and Vacín, L. (ed.), Mesopotamian Medicine and Magic: Studies in Honor of Markham, J. Geller, (AMD 14), Leiden – Boston: Brill, 131–148. –––––. (2018b): “Why “Wisdom”?: Copying, Studying, and Collecting Wisdom Literature in the Cuneiform World. In: Oshima, T. (ed.), Teaching Morality in Antiquity: Wisdom Texts, Oral Traditions, and Images, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 41–59. –––––. (Forthcoming): An Akkadian-Hittite List of Body Parts (KBo 1.51). In: Hazenbos, J. and Goegdebeure, P. (ed.), To Appear in Festschrift Theo van den Hout, Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Contenau, G. (1932): Review of: E. Ebeling 1931, RA 29, 39. Cooper, J.S. (1972): Bilinguals from Boghazköi. II, ZA 62, 62–81. Dalley, S. and B. Teissier (1992): Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar and Elsewhere, Iraq 54, 83–111. Daneshmand, P. (2004): An Extispicy Text from Haft-Tappe, JCS 56, 13–17. Darshan, G. (2012): The Twenty-Four or Twenty-Two Books of the Bible and Alexandrian Scribal Methods. In: Niehoff, M. R. (ed.), Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters: Between Literary and Religious Concerns, Leiden: Brill, 221–244. Davies, Ph. R. (2002): The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective. In: McDonald, L. M. and Sanders, J. A. (ed.), The Canon Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson, 36–52. de Martino, S. (1992): Die mantischen Texte, (ChS 7), Rome: Bonsignori editore. –––––. (2010): Hittite Oracles on the Behavior of the Sacrificial Ram at the Time of Its Slaughter. In: Klinger, J., Rieken, E., Rüster, C., et al. (ed.), Investigationes Anatolicae: Gedenkschrift für Erich Neu, (StBoT 52), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 61–64. De Vos, A. (2014a): Die Lebermodelle aus Boğazköy, (StBoT Beiheft 5), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. –––––. (2014b): Review of: Heeßel 2012, OLZ 109, 110–112. De Zorzi, N. (2009): Bird Divination in Mesopotamia: New Evidence from BM 108874, KASKAL 6, 85–131. –––––. (2014): La serie teratomantica Šumma Izbu: testo, tradizione, orizzonti culturali, (HANE/M 15), Padova: Sargon. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

377

–––––. (2017a): Another Teratomantic Tablet from Tigunānum, WZKM 107, 11–18. –––––.(2017b): Teratomancy at Tigunānum: Structure, Hermeneutics, and Weltanschauung of a Northern Mesopotamian Omen Corpus, JCS 69, 125– 150. Dhorme, E. (1933): Review of: Ebeling 1931, Revue de l’histoire des religions 108, 246–254. Dick, M. B. (2005): Pīt pī und mīs pī, RlA 10, 580–585. Dietrich, M. (1990): Die akkadischen Texte der Archive und Bibliotheken von Emar, UF 22, 25–48. Dietrich, M. and O. Loretz. (1990): Mantik in Ugarit. Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlungen – Nekromantie (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 3), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Dossin, G. (1935): Prières aux “dieux de la nuit” (AO 6769), RA 32, 179–187. Durand, J. M. (1988): Archives epistolaires de Mari I/1, (ARM 26), Paris: ERC. –––––. (1995): Urpatum = ‘tente’, NABU 1995, 42–43. –––––. (1997): La divination par les oiseaux, MARI 8, 273–282. Durand, J. M. and L. Marti. (2004): Les textes hépatoscopiques d’Émar, Journal Asiatique 292, 1–61. Ebeling, E. (1931): Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babyonier, Berlin: De Gruyter. –––––. (1933): Ein altbabylonischer Opferschautext in assyrischer Abschrift, AfO 9, 326–329. Evans, C. A. and E. Tov (2008): Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. Falkenstein, A. (1931): Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk, Berlin: vorderasiatische Abteilung der staatlichen Museen. –––––. (1949): Review of: Goetze 1947, BiOr 6, 179–182. Fales, F. M. and J. N. Postgate (1992): Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple Administration (SAA 7), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Farber, W. (1993a) Zur Orthographie von EAE 22: Neue Lesungen und Versuch einer Deutung. In Galter, H. D. (ed.), Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens. Graz: Grazer morgenländische Studien, 247–257. –––––. (1993b): “Forerunners” and “Standard Versions”: A Few Thoughts about Terminology. In: Cohen, M. E., Snell, D. C. and Weisberg, D. B. (ed.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda: CDL, 95–97.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

378

Bibliography

Fincke, J. (2000): Augenleiden nach keilschriftlichen Quellen: Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Medizin, (Würzburger medizinhistorische Forschungen 70), Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. –––––. (2003–2004): The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh: Report on the British Museum’s “Ashurbanipal Library Project”, AfO 50, 111–149. –––––. (2009): Ist die mesopotamische Opferschau ein nächtliches Ritual?, BiOr 66, 519–558. –––––. (2011): Neue Erkenntnisse zur 21. Tafel der diagnostischen Omenserie SA.GIG und zur Überlieferung diagnostischer Omentexte in Hattuša, BiOr 68, 472–476. –––––. (2015): Nineveh Tablet Collection. Available at: http://www.finckecuneiform.com/nineveh/index.htm. Finkel, I. L. (1988): Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kīn-apli and the Series SA.GIG. In: Leichty, E., de Jong Ellis, M. and Gerardi, P. (ed.), A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The University Museum, 143–159. –––––.(1991): Muššu’u, Qutāru and the Scribe Tanittu-Bēl, AuOr 9, 91–104. –––––. (2005): Explanatory Commentary on a List of Materia Medica (no. 69). In: Spar, I., Lambert, W. G., von Dassow, E., et al. (ed.), Cuneiform Texts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Volume I, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 279–283. –––––. (2006): On an Izbu VII Commentary. In: Guinan, A. K., de Jong Ellis, M., Ferrara, A. J., et al. (ed.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, (Cuneiform Monographs 31), Leiden – Boston: Brill, 139–148. –––––. (2010): Strange Byways in Cuneiform Writing. In: de Voogt, A. and Finkel, I. L. (ed.), The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity, Leiden: Brill, 9–26. Finkelberg, M. (2003). Homer as a Foundation Text. In: Finkelberg, M. and Stroumsa, G. (ed.), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 75–96. Finkelberg, M. and G. Stroumsa. (2003): Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, Leiden – Boston: Brill. Foster, B. R. (2005): Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, Bethesda: CDL. Foxvog, D. A. (1989): A Manual of Sacrificial Procedure. In: Behrens, H., Loding, D. and Roth, M.T. (ed.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11), Philadelphia: University Museum, 167–176. Frahm, E. (1999): Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, das Gilgameš-Epos und der Tod Sargons II, JCS 51, 73–90.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

379

–––––. (2004): Royal Hermeneutics: Observations on the Commentaries from Ashurbanipal’s Libraries at Nineveh, Iraq 66, 45–50. –––––. (2010): Reading the Tablet, the Exta, and the Body: The Hermeneutics of Cuneiform Signs in Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries and Divinatory Texts. In: Annus, A. (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, (Oriental Institute Seminars 6), Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 93–141. –––––. (2011a): Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation, (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. –––––. (2011b): Keeping Company with Men of Learning: The King as Scholar. In: Radner, K. and Robson, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, New York – Oxford, Oxford University Press, 508–532. Frahm, E., M. Frazer, and E. Jiménez. (2013–2019): Commentary on Šumma immeru, Izbu aḫû (CCP 3.6.4.D). Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner); https://ccp.yale.edu/P461240. –––––. (2013): Commentary on Iqqur īpuš, série mensuelle (Ayyāru) (CCP 3.8.2.B), Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner); https://ccp.yale.edu/P461300. Frandson, R. D., W. L. Wilke and A. D. Fails. (2009): Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals, Ames: Wiley-Blackwell. Frazer, M. (2013): Nazi-maruttaš in Later Mesopotamian Tradition, Kaskal 10, 187–220. –––––. (2016a): An Elementary Late Babylonian Scribal Exercise Featuring Nazi-maruttaš, Kaskal 13, 175–183. –––––. (2016b): Commentary on Enūma Anu Enlil 5(?) (CCP 3.1.5.A), Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), https://ccp.yale.edu/P237772. Freedman, S. M. (1998): If a City is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin, (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 17), Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Museum. –––––. (2006): If a City is Set on a Height. The Akkadian Omen Series šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin, Volume II: Tablets 22–40, (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 19), Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Museum. –––––. (2017): If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin, Volume III: Tablets 41–63, (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 20), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Gabbay, U. (2009): Some Notes on an Izbu Commentary, NABU 2009, 69–71. –––––. (2014a): Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods: Sumerian Emesal Prayers of the First Millenium BC, (Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 1), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. –––––. (2014b): A Balaĝ to Enlil from the First Sealand Dynasty, ZA 104, 146–170. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

380

Bibliography

Gabbay, U. (2015): Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears. In: Yona, S., Greenstein, E., Gruber, M., Machinist, P., Paul, S.M. (ed.), Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, In Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 185–220. –––––. (2016): The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries, (CHANE 82), Leiden – Boston: Brill. Gabbay, U. and O. Boivin (2018): A Hymn of Ayadaragalama, King of the First Sealand Dynasty, to the Gods of Nippur: The Fate of Nippur and Its Cult during the First Sealand Dynasty, ZA 108, 22–42. Gabbay, U. and N. Wasserman (2005): Literatures in Contact: The Balag ÚRU ÀMMA-IR-RA-BI and its Akkadian Translation UET 6/2, 403, JCS 57, 69–84. Geller, M. J. (2000): Incipits and Rubrics. In: George, A. R and Finkel, I. L (ed.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 225–258. –––––. (2015): Review of: Hrůša 2010, AfO 53, 213–215. George, A. R. (1985–1986): The Topography of Babylon Reconsidered, Sumer 44, 7–24. –––––. (1990): Review of: Arnaud 1985–1987, BSOAS 53, 323–325. –––––. (2003): The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts, Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––––. (2007): The Civilizing of Ea-Enkidu: An Unusual Tablet of the Babylonian Gilgameš Epic, RA 101, 59–80. –––––. (2013): Babylonian Divinatory Texts Chiefly in the Schøyen Collection: With an Appendix of Material from the Papers of W. G. Lambert, (CUSAS 18), Bethesda: CDL. Gesche, P. (2000): Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr., (AOAT 275), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Girard, R. (1977): Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Glassner, J.-J. (2005a): L’aruspicine paléo-babylonienne et le témoignage des sources de Mari, ZA 95, 276–300. –––––. (2005b): Des dieux, des scribes et des savants. Circulation des idées et transmission des écrits en Mésopotamie, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 60e année, 483–506. –––––. (2008): Le corps écrit. La victime dans le sacrifice divinatoire en Mésopotamie. In: Baptandier, B. and Charuty, G. (ed.), Du corps au texte. Approches comparatives, Nanterre: société d’ethnologie, 185–206. –––––. (2009): Écrire des livres à l’époque paléo-babylonienne: le traité d’extispicine, ZA 99, 1–81. –––––. (2011): Le corps de la victime dans le sacrifice divinatoire. In: Barjamovic, G., Dahl, J. L., Koch, U. S., et al. (ed.), Akkade is King. A Collection of Papers © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

381

by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday 15th of May 2009, (PIHANS 118), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 143–150. –––––. (2012a): La fabrique des présages en Mésopotamie: la sémiologie des devins. In: Georgoudi, S., Koch, S., Piettre, R. and Schmidt, F. (ed.). La raison des signes: Présages, rites, destin dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 29–53. –––––. (2012b): Le devin, la droite, la gauche et la manipulation du foie de la victime, Kaskal 9, 55–65. –––––. (2015): The Diviner as Historian, Studia Mesopotamica 2, 131–147. Goetze, A. (1947): Old Babylonian Omen Texts, (YOS 10), New Haven: Yale University Press. –––––. (1957): Reports on Acts of Extispicy from Old Babylonian and Kassite Times, JCS 11, 89–105. Goldstein, R. (2010): Late Babylonian Letters on Collecting Tablets and Their Hellenistic Background—A Suggestion, JNES 69, 199–207. Gordin, S. (2015): Hittite Scribal Circles: Scholarly Tradition and Writing Habits, (StBoT 59), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Guinan, A. K. (1997): Auguries of Hegemony: The Sex Omens of Mesopotamia. Gender & History 9, 462–479. –––––. (2002): A Severed Head Laughed: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation. In: Ciraolo, L. J. and Seidel, J. L. (ed.), Magic and Divination in the Ancient World, (AMD 2), Leiden – Boston: Brill and Styx, 7–40. Gustavs, A. (1932): Review of: Ebeling 1931, Theologische Literaturzeitung 57, 25–27. Gysembergh, V. (2014): Review of: Heeßel 2012, Journal Asiatique 302, 567– 570. Haas, V. (2008): Hethitische Orakel, Vorzeichen und Abwehrstrategien: ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Kulturgeschichte, Berlin – New York: De Gruyter. Hägg, Th. (2010): Canon Formation in Greek Literary Culture. In: Thomassen, E. (ed.), Canon and Canonicity: The Formation and Use of Scripture. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 109–128. Hallo, W. W. (1991): The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal. In: Lawson Younger, K. Jr, Hallo, W. W. and Batto, B. F. (ed.). The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1–19. Handcock, P. and L. W. King. (1910): Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum Part XXVIII, (CT 28), London: British Museum. Heeßel, N. P. (2007): Divinatorische Texte I. Terrestrische, Teratologische, Physiognomische Omina, (KAL 1), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

382

Bibliography

Heeßel, N. P. (2008): Neue Texte zum Kapitel šumma multābiltu der Opferschauserie bārûtu, RA 102, 119–148. –––––. (2009): The Babylonian Physician Rabâ-ša-Marduk. Another Look at Physicians and Exorcists in the Ancient Near East. In: Attia, A., Buisson, G. and Geller, M. J. (ed.), Advances in Mesopotamian Medicine from Hammurapi to Hipprocrates, (CM 37), Leiden: Brill, 13–28. –––––. (2010a): The Calculation of the Stipulated Term in Extispicy. In: Annus, A. (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World (Oriental Institute Seminars 6), Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 163–175. –––––. (2010b): Neues von Esagil-kīn-apli. Die ältere Version der physiognomischen Omenserie alamdimmû. In: Maul, S. A. and Heeßel, N. P. (ed.), Assur-Forschungen. Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle “Edition Literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur” der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz, 139–187. –––––. (2011a): “Sieben Tafeln aus sieben Städten.” Überlegungen zum Prozess der Serialisierung von Texten in Babylonien in der zweiten Hälfte des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. In: Cancik-Kirschbaum, E., van Ess, M. and Marzahn, J. (ed.), Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident, (Topoi – Berliner Studien der Alten Welt 1), Berlin: De Gruyter, 171–195. –––––. (2011b): Zur Standardisierung und Serialisierung von Texten während der Kassitenzeit am Beispiel der Opferschau-Omina. In: Bartelmus, A. and Sternitzke, K. (ed.), Karduniaš: Babylonia Under the Kassites, Boston – Berlin: De Gruyter, 219–228. –––––. (2012): Divinatorische Texte II. Opferschau-Omina, (KAL 5), Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz. –––––. (2014): Die Beobachtung der Nieren in der altorientalischen Opferschau und die Stellung der Nieren-Omina innerhalb der Opferschau-Serie bārûtu. In: Fincke, J. (ed.), Divination in the Ancient Near East: A Workshop on Divination Conducted During the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Würzburg, 2008, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 67–76. Heimpel, W. (1993): Zu den Bezeichnungen von Schafen und Ziegen in den Drehem- und Ummatexten, BSA 7, 115–160. Held, M. (1965): Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography. In: Güterbock, H. G., Jacobsen, T. and Landsberger, B. (ed.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, (Assyriological Studies 16), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 395–406. Henshaw, R. A. (1994): Female and Male: The Cultic Personnel: The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East, (Princeton Theological Monograph Series 31), Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. Hoffner, H. A. (1993): Akkadian šumma immeru Texts and Their Hurro-Hittite Counterparts. In: Cohen, M. E., Snell, D. C. and Weisberg, D. B. (ed.), The © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

383

Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda: CDL, 116–119. Holma, H. (1911): Die Namen der Körperteile im Assyrisch-Babylonischen: eine lexikalisch-etymolgische Studie, Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Kustantama. –––––. (1923): Omen Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Concerning Birds and Other Portents: I. Texts, (Western Asia: Babylonia and Assyria 1), Helsingfors: The Asia Publishing Co. Horowitz, W. and N. Wasserman. (1996): Another Old Babylonian Prayer to the Gods of the Night, JCS 48, 57–60. Hrůša, I. (2010): Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru: eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar, (AOAT 50), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Hunger, H. (1968): Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, (AOAT 2), Neukirchen-Vluyn – Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker – Neukirchener Verlag. –––––. (1976): Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk 1, (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 9), Berlin: G. Mann. Hunger, J. (1909): Babylonische Tieromina nebst griechisch-römischen Parallelen, (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 3), Berlin: Wolf Peiser. Hurowitz, V. A. (1999): Canon, Canonicity and Canonization in Mesopotamia – Scholarly Model or Ancient Reality? In: Margolin, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29 – August 5, 1997, Division A: The Bible and Its World. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies,*1–*12. Hussey, M. I. (1948): Anatomic Nomenclature in an Akkadian Omen Text, JCS 2, 21–32. Jastrow, M. (1912): Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens (Zweiter Band), Giessen: A. Töpelmann. Jean, C. (2006): La magie néo-assyrienne en contexte: recherches sur le métier d’exorciste et le concept d’āšipūtu (SAAS 17), Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Jeyes, U. (1989): Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum, Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. –––––. (1991–1992): Divination as a Science, Jaarbericht van het VooraziatischEgyptisch Genootschap, Ex Oriente Lux 32, 23–41. –––––. (2000): A Compendium of Gall-Bladder Omens Extant in Middle Babylonian, Nineveh, and Selucid Versions. In: Finkel, I. L. and George, A. R. (ed.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 345–377. Jiménez, E. (2013): Three colophons, NABU 2013, 152–154. –––––. (2014): New Fragments of Gilgameš and Other Literary Texts from Kuyunjik, Iraq 76, 99–121. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

384

Bibliography

Jiménez, E. (2014b): Commentary on Šumma immeru(?) (CCP 3.6.4.F), Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2019; https://ccp.yale.edu/P348502. –––––. (2014c): Commentary on Bārûtu 1 Isru (CCP 3.4.1.A.i), Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2019; https://ccp.yale.edu/P433502. –––––. (2014d): Commentary on Ālu 25 (CCP 3.5.25), Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2019; https://ccp.yale.edu/P461317. –––––. (2014e): Commentary on Ālu 48 (CCP 3.5.48), Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2019; https://ccp.yale.edu/P461299. –––––. (2014f): Commentary on Sagig 10–11 (CCP 4.1.10), Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013– 2019; https://ccp.yale.edu/P461113. Johnson, J. C. (2015): In the Wake of the Compendia: Infrastructural Contexts and the Licensing of Empiricism in Ancient and Medieval Mesopotamia, Boston: De Gruyter. Jursa, M. (2010): Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC: Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth, (AOAT 377), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Kammenhuber, A. (1976): Orakelpraxis, Träume und Vorzeichenschau bei den Hethitern, (THeth 7), Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Kilmer, A. (1990): Sumerian and Akkadian Names for Designs and Geometrical Shapes. In: Gunter, A. C. (ed.), Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East, Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 83–91. King, L. W. (1914): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum (Vol. I–IV), London: The British Museum. Knolle, F., R. P. Goncalves and A. J. Morton. (2017): Sheep Recognize Familiar and Unfamiliar Human Faces from Two-dimensional Images, Royal Society Open Science 10.1098/rsos.171228. Koch, U. S. (2000): Babylonian Liver Omens: The Chapters Manzāzu, Padānu and Pān tākalti of the Babylonian Extispicy Series mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library, (CNI Publications 25), Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. –––––. (2002): Old Babylonian Extispicy Reports. In: Wunsch, C. (ed.), Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Dresden: Islet, 131–145. –––––. (2005): Secrets of Extispicy: The Chapter multābiltu of the Babylonian Extispicy Series and niṣirti barûti Texts Mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library, (AOAT 326), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

385

–––––. (2010): Three Strikes and You’re Out! A View on Cognitive Theory and the First-millennium Extispicy Ritual. In: Annus, A. (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World. (Oriental Institute Seminar 6), Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 43–59. –––––. (2011): Sheep and Sky: Systems of Divinatory Interpertation. In: Radner, K. and Robson, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 447–469. –––––. (2013): Review of: Heeßel (2012), ZA 103, 241–244. –––––. (2015): Mesopotamian Divination Texts: Conversing with the Gods: Sources from the First Millennium BCE, (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 7), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. –––––. (2015b): Notes on a nisḫu for the Performance of Ornithoscopy, NABU 2015, 69–72. –––––. (2016): Bais in Observations of Natural Phenomena Made for Divinatory Purposes. In: Fincke, J. (ed.), Divination as Science: A Workshop Conducted during the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Warsaw, 2014, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 11–45. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. (2010): The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background. (Languages of the Ancient Near East 2), Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Kozuh, M. (2010): Lamb, Mutton, and Goat in the Babylonian Temple Economy, JESHO 53, 531–578. –––––. (2014): The Sacrificial Economy: Assessors, Contractors, and Thieves in the Management of Sacrificial Sheep at the Eanna Temple of Uruk (ca. 625520 B.C.), (Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations 2), Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Kraus, F. R. (1950): Review of: Goetze 1947, JCS 4, 141–154. –––––. (1985): Mittelbabylonische Opferschauprotokolle, JCS 37, 127–218. Labat, R. (1932): L’akkadien de Boghaz-köi: étude sur la langue des lettres, traités et vocabulaires akkadiens trouvés à Boghaz-köi, Bordeaux: Librairie Delmas. –––––. (1951): Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux, (Collection de travaux de l’académie internationale d’histoire des sciences 7), Paris: Académie internationale d’histoire des sciences. –––––. (1974): Textes littéraires de Suse, (MDP 57), Paris: P. Guethner. Lambert, W.G. (1957): Ancestors, Authors and Canonicity, JCS 11 1–14. –––––. (1960): Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press. –––––. (1962): A Catalogue of Texts and Authors, JCS 16 59–77. –––––. (1967): Enmeduranki and Related Matters, JCS 21, 126–138. –––––. (1978–1979): Review of: Hunger (1976), AfO 26, 110–111.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

386

Bibliography

Lambert, W.G. (1998): The Qualifications of Babylonian Diviners. In: Maul, S. M. (ed.), Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: tikip santakki mala bašmu ... (Cuneiform Monographs 10), Groningen: Styx, 141–158. –––––. (2007): Babylonian Oracle Questions, (Mesopotamian Civilizations 13), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. –––––. (2016): Ancient Mesopotamian Religion and Mythology: Selected Essays, (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike: Ägypten, Israel, Alter Orient, 15), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Landsberger, B. (1967): The Date Palm and Its By-products According to the Cuneiform Sources, (AfO Beiheft 17), Graz. Landsberger, B. and O. R. Gurney. (1957–1958): Practical Vocabulary of Assur, AfO 18, 328–341. Laroche, E. (1956): Catalogue des textes hittites, (Études et commentaires 75), Paris: Klincksieck. Lawergren, B. and O. R. Gurney. (1987): Sound Holes and Geometrical Figures. Clues to the Terminology of Ancient Mesopotamian Harps, Iraq 49, 37–52. Layard, H. A. (1853): Bas-Reliefs from the Palace of Sennacherib and Bronzes from the Ruins of Nimroud from Drawings Made on the Spot During a Second Expedition to Assyria, London: John Murray. Leichty, E. (1970): The Omen Series Šumma Izbu, (TCS 4), Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin. –––––. (1993): Ritual, “Sacrifice”, and Divination in Mesopotamia. In: Quaegebeur, J. (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991, (Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 55) Leuven: Peeters, 237–242. Leichty, E. and A. Guinan. (2014): The Rejected Sheep. In: Sassmannshausen, L. (ed.), He Has Opened Nisaba’s House of Learning: Studies in Honor of Åke Waldemar Sjöberg on the Occasion of His 89th Birthday on August 1st 2013, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 103–112. Leiderer, R. (1990): Anatomie der Schafsleber im babylonischen Leberorakel, Munich – Bern: W. Zuckschwerdt. Lenzi, A. (2006): Tašnintu II, “Repetition, Teaching”?, NABU 2006, 28–29. –––––. (2008a): Secrecy and the Gods: Secret Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical Israel, (SAAS 19), Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. –––––. (2008b): The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship, JANER 8, 137–69. –––––. (2011): Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction. (Ancient Near East Monographs 3), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

387

Lieberman, S. J. (1987): A Mesopotamian Background for the So-Called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical Hermeneutics, HUCA 58, 157–225. –––––. (1990): Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection. In: Abusch, T., Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, P. (ed.), Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (HSS 37), Atlanta: Scholars Press, 305–336. Livingstone, A. (2007): Ashurbanipal: Literate or Not?, ZA 97, 98–118. Marchetti, N. (2009): Divination at Ebla During the Old Syrian Period: The Archaeological Evidence. In: Schloen, J. D. (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in the Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 279–295. Maul, S. M. (1999): How the Babylonians Protected Themselves Against Calamities Announced by Omens. In: Abusch, T. and van der Toorn, K. (ed.), Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, (AMD 1), Groningen: Styx, 123–129. –––––. (2010) Die Tontafelbibliothek aus dem sogenannten “Haus des Beschwörungspriesters”. In: Maul, S. M. and Heeßel, N. (ed.), Assur-Forschungen: Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle “Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur” der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 189–228. –––––. (2013): Die Wahrsagekunst im Alten Orient: Zeichen des Himmels und der Erde, (Historische Bibliothek der Gerda Henkel Stiftung), Munich: C. H. Beck. May, N.N. (2018). Exorcists and Physicians at Assur: More on their Education and Interfamily and Court Connections, ZA 108, 63–80. Mayer, W. (1976): Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen “Gebetsbeschwörungen”, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. McCorriston, J. (1997): The Fiber Revolution: Textile Extensification, Alienation, and Social Stratification in Ancient Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 38, 517–549. McDonald, LM. (2017): The Formation of the Biblical Canon. London – New York: Bloomsbury; T & T Clark. McEwan, G. J. P. (1981): A Seleucid Augural Request, ZA 76, 58–69. McMahon, G. (2003): Cultural Boundaries in Hittite Ritual. In: Beckman, G. Beal, R. H. and McMahon, G. (ed.), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 265–280. Meissner, B. (1933–1934): Omina zur Erkenntnis der Eingeweide des Opfertieres, AfO 9, 118–122. –––––. (1933–1934b): Zu AfO IX, s. 118ff., AfO 9, 329–330. Meyer, J. W. (1987): Untersuchungen zu den Tonlebermodellen aus dem Alten Orient, (AOAT 39), Neukirchen-Vluyn – Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker – Neukirchener Verlag. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

388

Bibliography

Michalowski, P. (2006a): How to Read the Liver –– in Sumerian. In: Guinan, A. K., de Jong Ellis, M. and Ferrara, A. J. (ed.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, (Cuneiform Monographs 31), Leiden and Boston: Brill, 247–257. –––––. (2006b): The Scribe(s) of MDAI 57 Susa Omens?, NABU 2006, 39–40. Militarev, A. and L. Kogan (2000): Semitic Etymological Dictionary (AOAT 278), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Moren, S. M. (1980): Šumma Izbu XIX: New Light on the Animal Omens, AfO 27, 53–70, 135. Mroczek, E. (2016): The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press. Nötscher, F. (1931): Review of: Ebeling 1931, Theologische Revue 9/10, 417–419. Nougayrol, J. (1941): Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre (I), RA 38, 67–88. –––––. (1945): Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre (II), RA 40, 56–97. –––––. (1950a): Review of: Goetze 1947, JAOS 70, 110–113. –––––. (1950b): Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre (III): III. –– A propos d’un livre récent (Goetze, YBT, X), RA 44, 1–44. –––––. (1967a): Rapports paléo-babyloniens d’haruspices, JCS 21, 219–235. –––––. (1967b): ‹‹Oiseau›› ou oiseau?, RA 61, 23–38. –––––. (1968): Le foie ‹‹d’orientation›› BM 50494, RA 62, 31–50. –––––. (1971): Nouveaux textes sur le ziḫḫu (II), RA 65, 67–84. Oppenheim, A. L. (1956): The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46), 179–373. –––––. (1964): Ancient Mesopotamia: A Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: Chicago University Press. –––––. (1974): A Babylonian Diviner’s Manual, JNES 33, 197–220. Orlamünde, J. (2001): Überlegungen zum hethitischen KIN-Orakel. In: Klinger, J., Richter, T. and Prechel, D. (ed.), Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 295–311. Oshima, T. (2014): Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers: Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Ossendrijver, M. (2011): Science in Action: Networks in Babylonian Astronomy. In: Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. C., van Ess, M. and Marzahn, J. (ed.), Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident (Topoi – Berliner Studien der Alten Welt 1), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter, 213–221. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

389

Parpola, S. (1983a): Assyrian Library Records, JNES 42, 1–29. –––––.(1983b): Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices (AOAT 5/2), NeukirchenVluyn – Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker – Neukirchener Verlag. Pedde, F. and S. Lundström. (2008): Der Alte Palast in Assur: Architektur und Baugeschichte, (WVDOG 120), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pedersén, O. (1986): Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 6), Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell. –––––. (1998): Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C., Bethesda: CDL Press. –––––. (2011): Excavated and Unexcavated Libraries in Babylon. In: CancikKirschbaum, E. C., van Ess, M. and Marzahn, J. (ed.), Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident (Topoi – Berliner Studien der Alten Welt 1), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter, 47–67. Peled, I. (2014): assinnu and kurgarrû Revisited, JNES 73, 283–297. Pettinato, G. (1966): Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern. Band I: Einleitung, Band II: Texte und Kommentar (Studi Semitici 21-22), Rome: Instituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente. Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1999): Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König in 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (SAAS 10), Helsinki: University of Helsinki. –––––. (2015): Religion and Ideology in Assyria (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6), Boston: De Gruyter. Popesko, P. (2011): Atlas der topographischen Anatomie der Haustiere (7th ed.), Stuttgart: Enke Verlag. Postgate, N. (2009): Schaf (Sheep), RlA 12, 115–120. Radner, K (2009): The Assyrian King and his Scholars: The Syro-Anatolian and Egyptian Schools. In: Luukko, M., Svärd, S., and Mattila, R. (ed.), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola (Studia Orientalia 106), Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 221–238. –––––.(2011): Royal Decision-making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars. In: Radner, K. and Robson, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 358–379. Radner, K. et al. (1998–2011): The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Richardson, S. F. C. (2002): Ewe Should be So Lucky: Extispicy Reports and Everyday Life. In: Wunsch, C. (ed.), Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, 4 October 2002, Dresden: Islet, 229–244. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

390

Bibliography

Richardson, S. F. C. (2010): On Seeing and Believing: Liver Divination and the Era of Warring States (II). In: Annus, A. (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, (Oriental Institute Seminars 6), Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 225–266. –––––. (2010b). Texts from the Late Old Babylonian Period (Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series 2), Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Richter, T. (1993): Untersuchungen zum Opferschauwesen. I. Überlegungen zur Rekonstruktion der altbabylonischen bārûtum-Serie, Or 62, 121–141. –––––. (1994): Untersuchungen zum Oferschauwesen. II. Zu einigen speziellen Keulenmarkierungen, AoF 21, 212–246. –––––. (1999): Untersuchungen zum Opferschauwesen: III. Drei Übersehene Opferschauprotokolle aus altbabylonischer Zeit. In: Böck, B., CancikKirschbaum, E. C. and Richter, T. (ed.), Munuscula mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger, (AOAT 267), Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 399–414. Riemschneider, K. K. (1965): Ein altbabylonischer Gallenomentext, ZA 57, 125–145. –––––. (2004): Die akkadischen und hethitischen Omentexte aus Boğazköy, (DBH 12), Dresden: Verlag der TU Dresden. Robson, E. (2001): The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur, RA 95, 39–66. –––––. (2008): The Long Career of a Favorite Figure: The apsamikku in NeoBabylonian Mathematics. In: Ross, M. (ed.), From the Banks of the Euphrates: Studies in Honor of Alice Louise Slotsky, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 209–224. –––––. (2011a): The Production and Dissemination of Scholarly Knowledge. In: Radner, K. and Robson, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, New-York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 537–576. –––––. (2011b): Empirical Scholarship in the Neo-Assyrian Court. In: Selz, G. J. and Wagensonner, K. (ed.), The Empirical Dimension of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Vienna: LIT, 603–629. Rochberg-Halton, F. (1984): Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts. JCS 36, 127–144. –––––. (1999): Continuity and Change in Omen Literatur. In: Böck, B., CancikKirschbaum, E. C. and Richter, T. (ed.), Munuscula mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger, (AOAT 267), Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 415–425. –––––. (2010): “If P, then Q”: Form and Reasoning in Babylonian Divination. In: Annus, A. (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, (Oriental Institute Seminars 6), Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 19–27. Roth, M. (1988): ina amat DN1 u DN2 lišlim, JSS 33, 1–9. Rutz, M. T. (2006): Textual Transmission between Babylonia and Susa: A New Solar Omen Compendium, JCS 58, 63–96. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

391

–––––. (2012): Mesopotamian Scholarship in Ḫattuša and the Sammeltafel KUB 4.53, JAOS 132, 171–188. –––––. (2013): Bodies of Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Diviners of Late Bronze Age Emar and their Table Collection, (AMD 9), Leiden – Boston: Brill. –––––. (2014): SpTU 1 72: šumma immeru and šumma izbu in Late Babylonian Uruk, NABU 2014, 115–117. Ryder, M. L. (1983): Sheep and Man, London: Duckworth. –––––. (1993): Sheep and Goat Husbandry with Particular Reference to Textile Fibre and Milk Production, BSA 7, 9–32. Sakuma, Y. (2009): Hethitische Vogelorakeltexte. (PhD Thesis). JuliusMaximilians-Universität zu Würzburg. Sanders, J. A. (1987): From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. –––––. (1992): Canon, Hebrew Bible. In: Freedman, D. N. (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York: Doubleday, 837–852. Sayce, A. H. (1932): Review of: Ebeling 1931, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1, 232–234. Scheil, V. (1930): Nouveaux présages tirés du foie, RA 27, 141–154. Scheucher, T. S. (2012): The Transmissional and Functional Context of the Lexical Lists from Hattusha and from the Contemporaneous Traditions in Late-Bronze-Age Syria. (PhD Thesis). Universiteit Leiden, Leiden. Schuol, M. (1994): Die Terminologie des hethitischen SU-Orakels. Eine Untersuchung auf der Grundlage des mittelhethitischen Textes KBo XVI 97 unter vergleichender Berücksichtigung akkadischer Orakeltexte und Lebermodelle, AoF 21, 73–124, 247–304. Sisson, S. (1953): The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals (4th edition), Philadelphia – London: W.B. Saunders. Soldt, W. H. van (2015): Middle Babylonian Texts in the Cornell University Collections, (CUSAS 30), Bethesda: CDL. Starr, I. (1975): Notes on Some Technical Terms in Extispicy, JCS 27, 241–247. –––––. (1977): Extispicy Reports from the Old Babylonian and Sargonid Periods. In: de Jong Ellis, M. (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19), Hamden CT: Archon Books, 201–208. –––––. (1983): The Rituals of the Diviner, (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 12), Malibu: Undena. –––––. (1992): Chapters 1 and 2 of the bārûtu, SAAB 6, 45–53. Steinert, U. (2012): K. 263+10934, A Tablet with Recipes Against the Abnormal Flow of a Woman’s Blood, Sudhoffs Archiv 96, 64–94.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

392

Bibliography

Steinert, U. (2017): Cows, Women and Wombs: Interrelations between Texts and Images from the Ancient Near East. In: Kertai, D. and Nieuwenhuyse, O. (ed.), From the Four Corners of the Earth: Studies in Iconography and Cultures of the Ancient Near East in Honour of F. A. M. Wiggermann, (AOAT 441), Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 205–258. Steinkeller, P. (1995): Sheep and Goat Terminology in Ur III Sources from Drehem, BSA 8, 49–70. –––––. (2005): Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy. In: Gianto, A. (ed.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, (Biblica et orientalia 48) Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 11–47. Stevens, K. (2013): Secrets in the Library: Protected Knowledge and Professional Identity in Late Babylonian Uruk, Iraq 75, 211–253. Stiner, M. C. et al. (2014): A Forager–Herder Trade-off, From Broad-spectrum Hunting to Sheep Management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 8404– 8409. Stol, M. (2000): Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting, (Cuneiform Monographs 14), Groningen: Styx. –––––. (2014): Review of: Heeßel (2012), BiOr 71, 186–187. Tanret, M. (2011): Learned, Rich, Famous and Unhappy: Ur-Utu of Sippar. In: Radner, K. and Robson, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 270–287. Temple, R. K. G. (1982): An Anatomical Verification of the Reading of a Term in Extispicy, JCS 34, 19–27. Thureau-Dangin, F. (1922): Tablettes d’Uruk: à l’usage des prêtres du temple d’Anu au temps des Séleucides, (TCL 6), Paris: P. Geuthner. Tigay, J. H. (1982): The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ulrich, E. (2002): The Notion and Definition of Canon. In: McDonald, L.M. and Sanders, J. A. (ed.), The Canon Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson, 21–35. Van de Mieroop, M. (2016): Philosophy before the Greeks: The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia. Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press. Van den Hout, T. (2003): Orakel (Oracle). B. Bei den Hethitern, RlA 10, 118–124. Van der Toorn, K. (2007): Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press. van Dijk, J. and W. R. Mayer. (1980): Texte aus dem Reš-Heiligtum in UrukWarka, (Baghdader Mitteilungen Beiheft 2), Berlin: G. Mann. Vanstiphout, H. L. J. (1997): Disputations. In: Hallo, W. W. and Younger, K. L., Jr. (ed.), The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Volume 1, Leiden: Brill, 575–588. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Bibliography

393

Veldhuis, N. (1998): TIN.TIR = Babylon, the Question of Canonization and the Production of Meaning, JCS 50, 77–85. –––––. (2014): History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition, (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 6), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. –––––. (2017): Words and Grammar: Two Old Babylonian Lists. In: Feliu, L., Karahashi, F. and Rubio, G. (ed.), The First Ninety Years: A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 12), Boston –– Berlin: De Gruyter, 363–395. Völlig, E. (2016): Wolle. B. Technik und Archäologie, RlA 15, 129–131. Von Soden, W. (1934): Review of: Ebeling (1931), OLZ 37, 411–420. –––––. (1936): Review of: Ebeling (1931), ZA 43, 251–276. –––––. (1975): Seltene akkadische Wörter, Studia Orientalia 46, 323–332. Von Weiher, E. (1993): Uruk: spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat U 18, (Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka 12–13), Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Waal, W. J. I. (2015): Hittite Diplomatics: Studies in Ancient Document Format and Record Management (StBoT 57), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Waerzeggers, C. (2010): The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives, (Achaemenid History 15), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Waetzoldt, H. (2016): Wolle. A. Philologisch, RlA 15, 127–129. Wagensonner, K. (2011): A Scribal Family and its Orthographic Peculiarities. On the Scientific Work of a Royal Scribe and his Sons. In: Selz, G. J. and Wagensonner, K. (ed.), The Empirical Dimension of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Vienna: LIT, 645–701. Weeden, M. (2011): Hittite Logograms and Hittite Scholarship, (StBoT 54), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Weidner, E. (1952-1953): Die Bibliothek Tiglatpilesers I, AfO 16, 197–215. Whiting, R. M. (1981): The R Stem(s) in Akkadian, Or 50, 1–39. Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1998–2000): Nin-gišzida, RlA 9, 368–373. Wilhelm, G. (1991): Literarische Texte in sumerischer und akkadischer Sprache, (KBo 26), Berlin: G. Mann. Winitzer, A. (2011): Writing and Mesopotamian Divination: The Case of Alternative Interpretation, JCS 63, 77–94. –––––. (2013): A New OB Collection of Padānum and Related Omens in Los Angeles, ZA, 162–182. –––––. (2017): Early Mesopotamian Divination Literature: Its Organizational Framework and Generative and Paradigmatic Characteristics, (AMD 12), Leiden – Boston: Brill. Winter, A. C. and M. J. Clarkson. (2012): A Handbook for the Sheep Clinician (7th ed.), Wallingford: CABI. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

394

Bibliography

Wiseman, D. J. and J. A. Black. (1996): Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 4), London: The British School of Archaeology of Iraq. Zeder, M. A. (2011): The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East, Current Anthropology 52, S221–S235. Zimmern, H. (1901): Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion, (Assyriologische Bibliothek 12), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Indices Sources 80-7-19-80 249 82-3-23-17 (unpubl.) 247 (18)83-1-18; 410 2–6, 8, 145, 181 A 463 128, 131, 132 A 468 8, 125 A 627 Al-Rawi (1994), no. 5 24518, 251, 341103 AMT pl. 101, no. 1 146 ARM 26 98 25136 116 251 117 25136 142 25136 145 25136, 25456 229 25456 AO 6453 18617 AO 6454 18718 AO 6457 18616 AO 6468 146, 182 AO 9066 2945 Assur Practical Vocabulary 273–274 Assyrian Dream Book 101 Babylonian Theodicy 235, 236 Bagh. Mitt. 2 no. 63 146 Bagh. Mitt. 2 no. 65 18921

Bab 36400 359 Bārûtu 238, 246–247, Ch. 1 (išru) 25029, 251, 282, 28558,286, 283, 287, 297, 317, 351, 361 Ch. 1, Commentary 41141, 139, 212, 235, 246–247, 248, 284, 287, 288, 296, 297, 351 29, 127, 186, Ch. 2 (tīrānū) 300, 317, 348, 358, 360 101, 139, 177, Ch. 3 (manzāzu) 179, 358, 359 Ch. 3, Commentary 139, 173–174, 2945 Ch. 4 (padānu), Commentary 232 Ch. 5 (pan takalti) 101, 177, 186, 189, 232, 348 Ch. 5, Commentary 13921 Ch. 6 (martu) 139, 186, 187, 189, 301 Ch. 7 (ubānu) 74, 139, 301 Ch. 8 (kakku) 351 Ch. 8, Commentary 78, 1833 Ch. 9 (ḫāšû) 139, 347138 139, 352 Ch. 9, Commentary 136 Ch. 10 (multābiltu) 173, 13917 5 6 11 14 15 139 294 , 296 , 297 , 348 352, 359

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

396

Indices

BBR nos. 1–20 16, 28–29, 32–33, 35, 36111, 37123, 39, 41142, 45 no. 11 33 no. 24 32, 33, 40139 no. 74 41140 nos. 79–82 20 nos. 84–85 40134 no. 88 37 111 nos. 98–99 31, 35, 36 , 174 no. 100 34, 40135 BM 22740 253, 255 29663 266ff., 308 48239 xxi, 222 48561 xxi, 222 81364 28558 86429 xxi, 140 96966 320 116624 30023 124548 38 Boissier DA 97–99 249 BRM 4 12 741 15 BRM 4 13 186 , 30021 BRM 4 15 359 BRM 4 16 359 CBS 574 37119 CBS 8538 175 Civil (2010), nos. 4.2–4.3 26990 Code Hammurabi §215 277 Cooper (1972) 40135 CT 6 1–3 73 20 9++ 25452 28 6

28 14 xxi, 2 30 6 30 25 13919 30 27 xxi, 2 30 28 13917 30 32 xxi, 2 30 41–42 13920 30 48 xxi, 2 31 6 31 10 78 3 31 19–20 183 , 351157 31 30–33 xxi, 2 31 39 136 31 45 28664, 351156 31 49 24725, 29610, 351 39 45 70 41 6 41 9 xxi, 2 41 10 xxi, 2 41 11 78 41 12 xxi, 2 CTH 536 CTH 544 CTN 4 60

25864 25864 352

CUSAS 18 5 2945 10 179 18 254 22 13, 238ff. 23 357 24 101, 345 25 30231, 357 26 102, 30231 27 30126, 345 28 357 29 345

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

397

Indices

30 345122, 357 31 2435, 357 33 360210 34 358206 43 1734 Appendix II 259ff. Appendix III 256ff. Appendix VII 26275 Appendix XIV, XV 254 CUSAS 29, nos. 42–65 342106 Dalley and Teissier (1992), no. 7 358202 Dossin (1935) 34100, 37 DT 37 235 DT 84 235 EA 84 75 EA 211 287 EA 215 287 Emar 552 272 602 1103 611 346 652 346 669 358201 670 358 673 30231 678 358 678–681 30021 682 109, 245ff., 28662, 319, 322, 358 683 109, 245ff., 28560 684 109+2, 245ff., 28662, 358 685 xxi, 85 698 xxi 699 xxi, 85, 30126

701 102, 108 703 108, 109+2, 112 708 346 Emar Sag-Tablet 207 53 EAE xvi, 21 , 30, 13814, 186, 339, 352, 358, 369–370 EAE 24 213 EAE 56 187 EAE, Commentary 140 Enūma Eliš 199, 230, 235 ETCSL 5.3.2 (Ewe and Grain) 17 ETCSL 6.2.3 (Proverb) 35 Foxvog (1989) 266 Genesis 22, 8 18 Gilg. X: 113 70 Goetze (1957) 250–252 Hh 9 281 Hh 13 1944, 20 Hh 14 1944 45, 27397 Hh 15 1944, 272–273, 27711, 281+40, 28556 HSM 7494 = Ritual of the Diviner Horowitz and Wasserman (1996) 37119 120 123 Hymn to Nergal 70 Hymn to Šamaš(1) 41 iqqur-īpuš 229, 233, 346, 352 Jeyes (1989) no. 1 no. 4 no. 11 no. 16 no. 19 Jeyes (2000)

341103 341103 355185 320 342105 72, 73, 180, 18617, 359

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

398

Indices

K 57 30341 75+ 140 959 2 2086+ 78 2180 (unpubl.) xxiv, 2 2678 13916 2680 13922 2683+ 13916 2692+ 13915 2722++ (unpubl.) 24723 3068 13919 3667 28769 3797+ 13921 3946+ 13920 23 3978 (unpubl.) 24725 4106+ 2 4112 250 4125 2 5285 13924 5876+ 2 6075 (unpubl.) 13918 6450++ (unpubl.) 24725 6597 320 6720++ 28453 6756+ xxiv, 2 6764+ 13921 6788 248–249 6939+ (unpubl.) xxiv, 2 6983+ 2 7000 189 8014 13917 8044 2 8345+ 2 8912 xxiv, 2 9094 2 9166+ 2 10994 212

10595 350149 10967 13922 10994+ 212 11242 249 11716+ 1389 12648 13921 14855 xxiv, 2 KAL 2 21 KAL 5 1

39131

11, 247, 248, 28349, 28558, 2945, 296, 317 2 125, 127, 244, 28139, +48 283 , 313, 314, 319, 322, 3 77, 102, 1092, 244– 245+18, 28662, 313, 314, 358 4 125 5 24514 6 24513 7 24514 8 125, 127, 348, 359 10 30021, 30124 11 30021 13–15 358, 361216 21 125 23 125 25 125 28–35 30126 30 11, 1833, 33987, 351 36–41 30126 37 125, 347138 38 125 42 78 42–46 30231 48 127 51 347138 52 347139 61 78

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

399

Indices

63 125 64 127 69 347139 70 2051, 35108, 29816, 351 73 347138 80 347138 80–82 28772 82 320 83 xxiii, 11 84 2309 85 xxiii, 11 86 127, 348 87 253, 255, 256 88 254, 255 89, 89a 25452 90 127 93 127 KAR 26 39131 150 11, 1833 151 2051, 35108, 29816 423 11, 248+26 426 254 432 102, 244–245 434 2309 455 253 KBo 1.51 269ff., 272 36 13 36.47 xxiv, 258+64 42 13 42.116 xxiv Koch (2000) no. 5 no. 9

359 179, 2945

no. 19 no. 25 no. 62 no. 64

41, 179, 2945 173–174 23223 18616

Koch (2002) no. 15 no. 32 no. 33

22–23 251, 28767 251

Koch (2005) no. 1 no. 3 no. 4 no. 12 no. 19 no. 28 no. 32 no. 33 no. 34A no. 57 no. 58 no. 78 no. 90 no. 91 no. 95 no. 97 no. 97–106 nos. 107–109 no. 122

361217 180 2946 347139 13919 13917 35108 320 29816 29816 29816 13921 34100 2986, 1847 1846 347138 23324 44151 249

Koch (2015b) 13922, 25344, 254 Kraus (1985) 250–251,28558, 28661 KUB 4.53 364 8.9 346 8.29 346

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

400

Indices

13.27 346 16.40 26379 18.11 2638 29.11 346 37.210 346 Lambert (2007), no. 5 Legend of Enmeduranki

140 33, 40139, 338, 339 LKU 124 259, 352, 369 LKU 133 352 Lú=ša 110 Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi 199 101 Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi I, 45–46 Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi I, 51 71 MAH 15987 253, 255 malku=šarru 76, 27396 Marduk’s Address to the Demons 235 MDP 57 345 MDP 57 5 30334 MDP 57 6 102 MDP 57 7 25349 MLC 1874 18615 MS 2888 26990 MS 4146 26990 Msk 7342 272 731075z 108 731077a+b xxiii 731086 272 74101w xxiii 74104c xxiii 74132e xxiii 74135m xxiii 74203a xxiii 74212 xxiii 74261c xxiii

Nougayrol (1967a) 136, 250+33, 28558 Nougayrol (1967b) 253+48, 30341 Nougayrol (1971) 75, 2435, 357 Pettinato (1966) 67, 68, 102 P Numbers 238579 13918 263338 175 296524 18615 348493 201 348737 214 363327 146 363676 18616 363677 18718 363680 146 363707 18614 365993 13919 365995 2 366008 13920 393849 2 394080 28769 71 394129 136 394240 2 394597 13916 394599 13922 394601 13916 394608 13915 394632 24723 395236 13921 395337 24725 395406 250 395413 2 395531 27397 395978 13924 396800 248 397438 13917 397457 2 397908 2 399001 13922

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

401

Indices

399962 13922 414255 25966 425823 13922 426362 13922 431311 344120 431312 344120 431315 344120 451966 24928 452673 2 461240 222 Prayer of Šamaš-šūm-ukīn 36115 Prayer to the Gods of the Night 34100 Ritual of the Diviner 14, 31ff.,76, 175, 264–266, 268, 269, 283, 286, 287, 28876, 307, 308, 342, 354, 355 Rm 83 7 22 44 Rm 222+ 139 , 253 , 254 Sargon’s Eighth Campaign 178 SAA 3 30 4 13 4 51 4 110 4 203 4 282 4 290 4 295 4 296 4 301 4 306 4 311 4 313 4 317 4 345 7 1 7 49–56

39126 252+41 25242, 28345 3399 28558 28558 28664, 290 28558 179, 28558 28558 76, 28558 28558 25242 28558 28558 350 348143

7 52 8 30 8 242 10 60 10 160 16 65

2987, 365, 369 177 350152 350152 350153 1848, 18720

sakkiku (sa.gig) Scheil (1930), Text B Sm 1239 Sm 1257+

235, 336 802 13922 2

SpTU 1 28, 31–33, 38 23216 47–51 23216 72 xxiv 80 232 81 232 83 23216 85 233 SpTU 2 37 23327 38 23327 43 371 45 232 46 232 47 233 SpTU 3 90 222 99 23216 SpTU 4 143 xxiv 156 232 157 233 158 1846, 233+24

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

402

Indices

159

233, 371

STT 89 STT 231 STT 308–318 STT 319 STT 320

67 103 351164 351164 351164

šumma ālu 25, Commentary 235 31, Commentary 235 8 56 41 7 , 22 , 100, 257ff. 41–44 25762 45 101 48, Commentary 235 49 69, 74 49, Commentary 235 94 364 104 70 šumma izbu 1 222 4 69 5 2256 10 174 11 278 12 2768 16–17 259 17 23327 18 257 18–24 25762 19 259, 369 20 278 22 69, 209 25–26 231, 369 Commentary

69, 206, 209, 211, 222, 352, 370

Tablet Carré = Jeyes (2000) TCL 6 7 17 TCL 6 2 186 TCL 6 3 18616 TCL 6 4 1874 TCL 6 7 pl. 18 xxiv TCL 6 35 18614 TDP, F 79 TIM 9 83 359 TuL 8ff. TuL, no. 9 1, 8, 1016, 11–12 UET 6/2 234 (Proverb) 35107 UET 6/2 403 (City lament) 1738 UM 55-21-9 (Lexical list) 73 Ura 03 19, 27292 Ura 08 1944 W 20030/102 146 W 22307/12 201 W 22714/0 214 Van Soldt (2015), no. 445 25456 VAT 8611 11 9518 8, 1119 10493+ 336 13141 250 14253++ 27397 14586 25966 YOS 8 10

287

YOS 10 2 19326 8 2413, 251 11 74, 102 17 79 24 211 35 174

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Indices

42 101, 296 47 xxiv 48 xxiv 49 xxiv 50 84 51 253, 255–256, 356193 52 70, 237, 253, 255– 256, 356193 63 358 YOS 11 23 = Ritual of the Diviner Gods, People, and Persons Adad

32–37, 56, 26275, 264, 283, 284, 292, 354 Adad-apla-iddina 26, 335 Aḫlamû 140 Agi-Teššub 346 140 Amēl-dIB-li-ia Ammi-ṣaduqa 341103 An(u) 7, 8, 175, 186 Antiochus 186 Antu 186 Anu-aḫ-ušabši 182, 186–189, 353 Anu-bēlšunu 186–187, 18921 Anu-ikṣur 229–232, 329, 352 Anu-uballiṭ 186 Anuwanza 347 Asalluḫi 33 Ashurbanipal 335 Assurnasirpal II 138 Aššur-aḫa-iddina 348 Aya 39 Ayadaragalamma 243, 344120 Ba‘al-malik 99, 105, 110, 114, 346 Ba‘al-qarrad 99 Bēl-ēṭir 39126

403

Bēlet-ṣēri 33 Bunene 37, 39 Daduša 24518, 341103 Ea 32–33, 339 Ea-pattāni 140 Egibatilla family 232, 353 Ekur-zakir 185–187, 231, 233, 352–353 Enmeduranki 33 Esagila-iddin 140 Esagil-kīn-apli 26, 335–336 Esarhaddon 335, 351 Etel-pî-Asalluḫi 348 Ezbu-lē[šir] 351 Gabbu-ilānī-ēreš 117, 135–136, 138 Gilgameš 70 GUR-Šarruma 346 Hammurabi 80 Hattušili I 262 Ḫiliya 346 Ḫumbaba 300 Ikūn-pî-Ištar 344 Ilīma-aḫu 348142 Ilīma-ilu 345 Ilīyātum 344 Ina-qibit-Anu 185–186 Iqīšāja 1846, 186, 231–233, 352 Kaštiliyašu IV 126, 347 Kidin-Anu 18612 Kiṣir-Aššur, family of 351 Kittu (god) 35 Kuzi-Teššub 346 Kuzzi 254, 256, 261, 345 Lamassu 88, 89, 101, 302, 303 Marduk 226, 235, 344 Marduk-bāni-apli 352 Marduk-šarra-uṣur 350

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

404

Indices

Marduk-šuma-iqīša 138 Marduk-zēri-bāni 235 Mašru-ḫamiṣ 343115 Melišiḫu 334+65 Mišāru (god) 35 +117 Nabû 344 Nabû-balāssu-iqbi 235 351 Nabû-e‫‏‬ṭir Nabû-ina-tēšî-ēṭir 351 Nabû-nādin-apli 350 Nabû-pā[šir] 352+167 Nabû-šumu-līšir 235 Nabû-šuma-iddin 353 Nabû-ušallim 352167 Nabû-zuqup-kēna 117,135–136, 138–140, 365, 349145, 371 Nazi-maruttaš 26, 334+64 Nergal 70 Nidintu-Anu 185–189 Ningišzida 62, 77 Ninurta-uballissu 348 Nisaba 344 Palâšu-līrik 239, 344 Palla 346 Pešgaldarameš 243 Pikku 346 Rim-Sîn 80 Ruša 178 Saggil-kīnam-ubbib 335–336 Samsu-iluna 341103 Sargon (of Agade) 29611 Sargon (II) 138, 139, 178, 351 Sennacherib 138, 351 Sidu 339 Sîn 37 Sîn-ka[…] 355185 Sîn-leqi-unninni 339, 352, 353179 Sutu 140

Ṣarpanītu 226 Šakkan 34 Šaggar-abu 110 Šamaš 22, 32–41, 86, 87, 89, 102, 252, 264, 283, 292, 295, 303, 312, 341, 345, 364 Šamaš-aḫa-iddina 347 Šamaš-dajjān-ilānī 348 Šamaš-iddin 231 Šamaš-mudammiq 348 Šamaš-muštēšir 254, 261, 262, 345 Šamaš-nādin-aḫḫē 348 Šamaš-nādin-šumāte 347 Šamaš-šumu-līšer 347 Šamaš-zēra-iddina 347–348 Šangû-Ninurta 229–230, 352 Šedu 88, 89, 302 Šuppiluliuma 334, 358 Tigleth-Pileser I 815, 347136 Tukulti-Ninurta 126, 347 Tukulti-Ninurta II 138 Tunip-Teššub 261–262, 309 Ubru 347 Ur-šanabi 70 Walwaziti 346 Zimrī-Lim 39126 Zu-Bala Family 114, 344, 346 Place Names Assur xvii, 1, 8–11, 12, 25, 117, 125–126, 132, 238, 244–249, 253, 273+97, 28662, 30021, 30126, 30231, 313, 314, 317, 336, 347, 348, 349, 351, 358–361, 365 Babylon xvii, 13, 139, 140, 199, 233, 235, 243, 24724, 250, 335, 339+87, 344, 347–349, 352, 353 Borsippa 139, 335, 33675, 352, 353

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

Indices

Dūr Abi-ešuḫ 342 Elam 345 Emar xvii, 1, 11, 12–13, 25, 85, 105, 109, 113–115, 1833, 238, 244–246, 247, 272, 28662, 30021, 30126, 30231, 311–314, 317, 33259, 344–345, 356, 358–360, 362–363 Eridu 339 Ešnunna 24518, 341103 Halab 36, 261, 26275, 309, 345 Hattuša/Boğazköy/Büyükkale xvii, 1, 12–13, 25, 44151­, 85, 105, 110–115, 211, 2436­, 258, 262, 269, 30022, 30126, 311, 312, 334, 345, 346, 347, 356–358, 362–366 Huzirina/Sultantepe 27397, 348, 351 Kalḫu/Nimrud xvii, 25, 117, 138, 140, 319, 349, 350, 352, 360, 364 Larsa 12, 25, 80, 81 Mari 17, 25, 37122, 39126, 175, 25031, 251, 302, 341–342 Nineveh/Kuyunjik xvii, 2, 25, 26, 29, 117, 137, 138, 181, 189, 24724, 248, 249, 27397, 28664, 307, 315, 317, 318, 320, 33675, 347138, 349–352, 360, 361, 363 Nippur 1944, 339 Sippar 25, 341, 343, 349, 352 Susa 2436, 253, 255, 344, 345, 357 Tigunānum 14, 25, 36, 243, 254, 256, 261, 262, 264, 307, 309, 345, 363, Uruk xv, xvii, 7–8, 16, 26, 117, 181, 182–183, 185–189, 199, 231–233, 259, 315, 320, 337, 339, 349, 352–354, 360, 361, 365, 369–371 Select Akkadian/Sumerian Terms a (ištu) 130 áb.za.mi (apsamikku) 211–212 a.gar.gar (piqannu) 207, 257 alāku 207

405

221 amtu, amūtu araddu 174 assinnu 70 221, 276 a.u5 ka (liq pî ) azû, asû 177 bitrum, barāmu 175, 301 99 da’āpu, iddêp edēḫu, edēku 101 egēru 180 etēqu 101 gaba.ra 178 gaba ráḫ 209 gaba.ri 180, 250 kabsū, kabāsu 179 kapālu, uktappal 78 karābu 123 kupputu 211 larandu 206 meš (mādu) 180 maḫaṣ irti 178 malsûtu 230 maš’altu 231 35, 174, 316, 365 minītu, minâtu 104, 136 muškēnu nagil, nagālu 176, 303 naḫāru 137 nanmurtu 37 natāku 124 rapās irti 178, 209 nēkmetu 173 niāku 73–74 nipḫu 176, 206–207 parīrū 102 pitruštān 76, 310 puluḫtu, palāḫu 122 sapāḫu 178 sarāqu 179–180 ṣerret parīsi 211

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)

406

Indices

ṣilbu 136 su (râbu) 131 suḫḫuru 103 šâbu 177 šāniš 177, 206, 207 šanûm šumšu 177 šapāku 124 139 šikittu 40 , 174, 316, 365 šinīt ṭēmi 178 šubakilu 32 ta (ištu) 130 tašnintu 184+9, 368 turruku 103 u (‘10’) 80, 126, 179, 181, 365 (w)aṣû 103 wedûm 73 174, 176 zarriqu, sarriqu zaqāpu 208 Subject Index 231, 335–337, 370 aḫû tablet(s) alamdimmû series 233, 336–337, 345 Assyrian Library Records 29–30, 349– 350, 369–370 baby, condition of 217, 222 Bible, Books of 330, 332, 33783 blood 41, 75, 103, 123, 194 death of the client 101, 180 Dtr stem 76, 83, 265 dub ḫa.la tablet 29, 184, 293, 351, 360, 368, 370 Epic of Gilgameš 243, 330, 337, 339 flesh oracle (su ) 263 gagûm cloister 79 gamlu weapon 179 Glossenkeil 105–106, 199 Homer 330,33260, 33783 ḫupšu class 78–79, 256

ikribu prayers 31ff. illuru plant 123, 194 iškaru tablet 335ff. im.gíd.da tablet 185–187, 219, 221, 231 ki– notation 81, 239, 305, 355, 357 kin oracles 262 gukkallu sheep 174 Library of Ashurbanipal 334–335, 349ff. 226, 233, 235 lišlim formula liver models 44151, 73, 211, 24518, 341, 346–347 mourning, gesture of 178 Manual of the Exorcist 336, 353 mur-gud lexical list 272 m u š e n ḫurri 263 niṣirti bārûti 34100, 183–184, 369, 371 official secrets 137 paleographic script 185 prostitution 73, 75, 84 protective god(s) 101,177 R stem 76, 83 rebel king 222 sakkikû series 336 Sammeltafel 110, 364 sammû-harp 211–212 school texts, scribal schools 12, 143, 1833, 230, 232, 332, 333, 340ff. ‘Temple of the Diviner’ 105, 114 Temple of Anu (Bīt Rēš) 7, 182 Temple of Anu-Adad 125, 347 tent(s) 75 third gender 3294, 70 wool, fleece 16–17, 301 ugu-mu lexical list 269 u’iltu tablet 80, 143

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-042-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-043-7 (E-Book)