We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
The major cities of Babylonia possessed, at least by the end of the fourteenth century B.C., hemerologies which indicated, for each month of the year, which days in that month were regarded as propitious. In the time of Nazimaruttash, king of Babylon, whose reign covered the turn of that century, the versions of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, Ur, Larsa, Uruk, and Eridu were collated and excerpted to produce a single version, which was presumably regarded thenceforward as the standard version for Babylonia.
This standard version (preceded by a longer text of a rather different kind, which indicated which months of the year were regarded as favourable for the performance of various specified actions, such as founding a palace, changing one's occupation, or falling from a roof) was later—perhaps some two centuries later—set out on a large tablet since found in the remains of the city of Ashur, and was followed on the tablet by a further version, by no means in complete agreement with the standard version, and identified on the tablet as the Ashur version.
To these two versions of the short summary hemerology for the whole year, however, the tablet adds two sets of special very detailed instructions for the first eight days of the seventh month of the year, Tashritu; the first set (to which are prefixed short instructions for certain days of the first month, Nisanu) is described on the tablet as the Ashur version, while the second (a shorter set, differing extensively in detail from the Ashur version, and without prefixed instructions for Nisanu, but including, additionally, special instructions for the ninth day of Tashritu) is marked as the Akkad version.
1 This is disputed by Lambert, W. G., JCS XI (1957) 8–9Google Scholar.
2 VAT 9663, published as KAR 177, and edited with transliteration, translation, and notes by Labat, R., Hémérologies et Ménologies d'Assur (1939)Google Scholar, and with translation and notes by Vriezen, Th. C., Ex Orients T.ux VI (1939) 114–35Google Scholar, VII (1940) 417–21.
3 VAT 10564, published as KAR 178, and edited by Labat and Vriezen, locc. citt. Fragments of other hemerological texts from Ashur are published by Labat, R., Mitt. des Inst. für Orientforschung V (1957) 299–345Google Scholar.
4 The surviving parts of two of the tablets are published (with restorations, and quotation of variants, from a number of fragments of other tablets in the series) in IV R 32–3, 33*. Discussions by Landsberger, B., Der Kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrer i (1915) 101–45Google Scholar, and by Langdon, S., Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars (1935) 52, 67–143Google Scholar. The differences between the Ashur and Nineveh editions show either that the traditions of different temple schools are represented, or that there was correction and revision at some unknown date; Smith, S. in Myth, Ritual and Kingship, ed. Hooke, S. H. (1958) 38Google Scholar.
5 HABL 362; B. Landsberger, op. cit. 104; RCAE I 252–3.
6 S. Langdon, op. cit. 101–5, gives a day-by-day résumé of the various versions of the instructions for these days.
7 The writer thanks Professor Mallowan for inviting him to copy and publish the tablet, and for providing him with the details of its discovery; at his suggestion it is presented in such a way as, it is hoped, to interest the general reader. The writer also thanks Dr. Gurney for help with numerous enquiries.
8 VAT 8780, published as KAR 147, and edited by Labat (but omitting the parts not occurring also in KAR 177) and Vriezen, locc. citt.
9 Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq XIX Pt. 1, pp. 1–25Google Scholar, especially (for the tablets) pp. 7, 12–13; D. Oates, ibid. pp. 26–39, especially p. 29.
10 Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq XVIII Pt. 1, pp. 1–21Google Scholar, especially (for the tablets) 7–8; D. Oates and J. H. Reid, ibid. 22–39.
11 Plans in Iraq XIX Pt. 1, Pl. 1 (opp. p. 1) and 2 (opp. p. 2).
12 ZAL, ‘to come to an end’ (discussed by Langdon, S., RA XXVIII, 1931, 14–16Google Scholar) used of days (in the forms BA.ZAL, BA.RA.ZAL, ZAL.LA, etc.) shows in calculation of periods of time that the point of calculation is the end of the day concerned (examples in Schneider, N., Die Zeitbestimmungen der Wirtschaftsurkunden von Ur III, 1936, 115–19Google Scholar); BA.ZAL is equated with the verb nasdhu (B. Landsberger, ana ittišu, MSL I, 62, l. 42), and BA.ZAL and nasāḫu are both used, of days, in the sense ‘to come to an end’, ‘to expire’, ‘to be complete’ (e.g. respectively ARM I 5.46 with Oppenheim, A. L. in JNES XI, 1952, 131–2Google Scholar, and ARM II 78.7, 15, 41, V 83.5). Vriezen's view (l. c. 118 n. 44) that ll. 1 and 3 of VAT 8780 are Sumerian, translated into Akkadian by ll. 2 and 4 respectively, is excluded by the full text of these lines now available on N D 5545; but, as Dr. Gurney has suggested to the writer, 11. 2 and 4 may originally have been glosses on 11. 1 and 3, explaining ZAL LA AN as nasāḫu, though the force of AN would be obscure. One should perhaps think of a use of nasāḫu in the sense ‘extract’, ‘excerpt’, comparing nisḫu, ‘extract tablet’ (Oppenheim, A. L., JNES VI, 1947, 119Google Scholar), and unassihu as used in KAR 177 obv. iv 29. The four lines are clearly some kind of introduction to a tablet chiefly concerned with the first seven days of the seventh month.
13 She is listed as corresponding to the Sumerian ‘nocturnal demon’ (MAŠKÍM) ‘(preying upon) the traveller’ or ‘(roaming) the open spaces’, Oppenheim, A. L., The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (1956) 233Google Scholar. A MAŠKÍM (rābiṣu) occurs below, l. 26.
14 I.e. ‘will pick and take as mate for herself’; an action of humans, gods, demons, witches, etc., CAD VI 119.
15 Rather than aqrabu, von Soden, W., AfO XVIII ii (1958) 393Google Scholar, and E. Weidner, ibid. 393–4;⌈zu⌉-qa-qí-pu in IM 50964.2′ (Gurney, O. R., Sumer IX, 1953, 25Google Scholar); zu-qí-qi-pu in ‘Practical Vocabulary of Assur’ l. 397 (Landsberger, B. and Gurney, O. R., AfO XVIII ii, 1958, 332)Google Scholar.
16 Discussed by (Landsberger, B., AfO XVIII ii (1958) 337Google Scholar; R- C. Thompson (DAB 54–5) suggested the reading sikillum; DAB IV 19 šusikillu.
17 zarābu, ‘to press’ (used of ‘pressure resulting in confinement or oppression’, and of ‘squeezing resulting in ejection or emission’) is discussed by Driver, G. R., ZAW LXV (1953) 258Google Scholar; libbu ‘désigne toute partie interne du corps’, Labat, R., Traité Akkadien de Diagnostics et Pronostics Medicaux (1951) I 33 n. 60Google Scholar.(‘TDP’.) zurub libbi could be fatal (K 2884 obv. 25, in AfO XI, 1936–1937, 361–2Google Scholar).
18 ar-ra-bu appears in equation both with ŠAḪ.GIŠ. ÙR.RA (Landsberger, B., Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien …, 1934, 12Google Scholar, Hh XIV 164a) and with PÉŠ. ÙR.RA (ibid. 16, Hh XIV 193, where one text has PÉŠ.GIŠ.ÙR.RA, as also e.g. ibid. 35 l. 41, and ND 4368 obv. i 24, Kinnier-Wilson, J. V., Iraq XIX, Pt 1, p. 40Google Scholar); Landsberger (l. c. 12, 16, 107) suggests for both, but hesitantly in the case of the first, the translation ‘dormouse’; the second is equated with a-ra-bu-u in ‘Practical Vocabulary of Assur’ l. 391 (Landsberger and Gurney, l. c., PÉŠ read KIŠI5 ), and also occurs written PÉŠ.ÙR (below, l. 38). ár-ra-ab ūri (also ár-rab isūri, KAR 177 rev. iii 14) is taken as a fuller writing of the name of the same animal.
19 marušta immar-ma iballuṭ, in Labat, TDP I 116–7 l. 50′, is translated by him ‘il connaîtra des moments douleureux, mais guérira’.
20 Shown to be read thus (not šim-ra, as read in DAB 63) by the corresponding passages in the related texts K 8068 (Virolleaud, Ch., Babyl. I, 1907, 205, 10Google Scholar; IV, 1911, 107, 14) bi-šir (or bi-sir 4, Labat, R., Manuel d'Epigraphie Akkadienne 268 but not 69Google Scholar; von Soden, W., Das akkadische Syllabar (1948) 36Google Scholar, quoting only one occurrence, TCL XII 75.29, which is a contract tablet of 555 B.C.); IM 50964.5′ (O. R. Gurney l. c.) bi-si-ir; the corresponding passage in the related text KAR 177 rev. i 24 has GA.RAŠ.SAR, strictly probably a different kind of leek (‘Practical Vocabulary of Assur’ ll. 76, 78).
21 KA.IZI in KAR 177 rev. iii 20; šu-me-e ibid, i 7.
22 Leprosy or something similar; discussed by A. L. Oppenheim, op. cit. 273 n. 54, and by Köcher, F., AfO XVIII i (1957) 86Google Scholar; saḫaršubbâ ap. CAD IV 7.
23 Strictly, ‘adult male goat’, CAD V 116.
24 Translation suggested by Thompson, R. C., AJSL XXIV (1907–1908) 327Google Scholar; SAG.KI means, in Sumerian, ‘toute la region frontale’, Labat, TDP I 32 n. 57.
25 I.e., his eyes will see no more, he will become blind; thus Labat, R., Hémérologies … 170–1Google Scholar; but IGI.LAL. šú untranslated in TDP I 124–5 l. 25.
26 For E11; Aššur-nāṣir-apli Ann. II 64 has DUL.È where the parallel Monolith text has e-li (as a preposition).
27 Lilû, the wind-demon, is dissociated by Driver, G. R. (PEQ 1959 55–8Google Scholar) from Hebrew lîlît, which he translates ‘goat-sucker, night-jar’.
28 Thus A. L. Oppenheim, op. cit. 278; tuššu is grouped with šillatu (‘blasphemy’; ibid. 283 n. 110), which appears with it also in the corresponding passage in the related text K 8068.4′ (Baabyl. I, 1907, 205); tuššu corresponds with miqtum (which appears below, l. 37) in II R 35 g–h 47.
29 The related text IM 50964 (O. R. Gurney, l. c.) has, at l. 6a′e, a-⌈šar⌉ i-me-ru it-tag-ra-⌈ar⌉. Cf. equations in CAD V 47.
30 SA.GAL, literally ‘muscle(s) large’, i.e. enlarged; often in a general sense, but sometimes perhaps specifically gout, Labat, TDP I xxvii; cf. Thompson, R. C., PSBA 1908, 63Google Scholar.
31 I.e. ‘the mouse (or rat) which eats sesame’; or possibly a worm or caterpillar which destroys sesame; discussed by B. Landsberger, l. c. 108.
32 CAD IV 39: ‘etymologically … seems to refer to a small rural settlement … with a permanent water supply …’.
33 Uncertain translation, suggested in DAB 117, 118 n. 1; cf. Labat, TDP I 120–1, ll. 31, 34. Taken by Vriezen (l. c. 119 n. 65), noting the equations ⌈ṢI⌉.SI. GIG = šiqu (CT 19.45.7b) and SI.ṢI = natû, ‘to strike’ (CT 19.3.17c), as a demon which strikes one with illness.
34 Dr. Köcher has kindly confirmed that VAT 8780 also has MAŠKÍM here, over an erasure (not GIŠ KU as given in KAR 147).
35 According to the Ashur-text VAT 10057 rev. 6, the ‘evil utukku’ has the head of a lion, hands (presumably human), and the feet of the Zu-bird (Ebeling, E., Tod und Leben …, 1931, 5Google Scholar, and MAOG X ii, 1937, 14; C. Frank, ibid. XIV ii, 1941, 33 discusses the form of the utukku). ‘Hand of …’ is the commonest among several terms used to express the apposed divine or demonic agency of an illness in TDP (I xxi–xxiii), and is used also to express the agency of other misfortunes.
36 ruṭibtu as an agricultural operation involving reference to ‘moisture’ is discussed by Landsberger, B., JNES VIII (1949) 275 ff.Google Scholar; the same word occurs, in a medical sense, as a variant (K 67 ii 11, with KAR 192 obv. ii 35; edited by Ebeling, E., Archiv für Geschichte der Medezjn XIV i–ii, 1922, 33–4Google Scholar, translating ‘Fäulnis’) to rušumtu, for which the meaning ‘dropsy’ was suggested by Thompson, R. C., JRAS 1937, 417Google Scholar; perhaps better ‘suppuration’ (‘gangrene?’) (Labat, TDP I 48 n. 88); translated ‘wet spots’ by A. L. Oppenheim, op. cit. 230.
37 A demon, according to Vriezen, l. c. 120, n. 68; ‘palsy’ according to Langdon, op. cit. 102.
38 liŠulak appears elsewhere as a demon of the underworld in the form of a lion standing on its hind legs (Ebeling, E., Tod und Leben … 5Google Scholar l. 6); cf. Frank, C., MAOG XIV ii (1941) 33Google Scholar, and E. Reiner, Šurpu (AfO Beih. 11, 1958) 56, for suggested identification with ilSilakku(m), a son of the god Anu.
39 Perhaps ‘bath room’ (Labat, R., TDP I 189Google Scholar n. 334, cf. Langdon, S., ZA 36, 1925, 209 n. 1Google Scholar); otherwise ‘laundry’ (?) (id., op. cit. 103), or lavatory, toilet (Labat, R., Hémérologies … 173Google Scholar; Bezold, Babylonisch-Assyrisches Glossar 178a).
40 The reason, if there is one, for the ruling after 1. 34 is not known to the writer; a similar ruling occurs at the same point in KAR 147.
41 ugāru is translated ‘commons, or larger irrigation district’ in CAD IV 250; ‘water-land’ by Driver, G. R. and SirMiles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws II 31Google Scholar, with discussion of passages suggesting that the word means ‘land valuable for its proximity to towns and canals, good for raising crops … and for pasturage … perhaps constituting a unit of irrigation … and … publicly owned’, ibid. 178.
42 So Labat, TDP I 28 n. 50, cf. 161 ll. 54–7; earlier translated ‘bowels’ (Langdon, S., JRAS 1927, 538Google Scholar); ‘probably the pelvis’ (Thompson, R. C., AfO XI, 1936–1937, 336Google Scholar).
43 Literally, ‘a fall’; sometimes equated with bennu (usually translated ‘epilepsy’; for bennu cf. Driver and Miles, op. cit. II 279–80, Gurney, O. R. and Finkelstein, J. J., The Sultantepe Tablets, 1957Google Scholar, no. 89 ll. 192-5). An attack which involves a fall, ‘including, but probably not confined to, the major epileptic fit’, Wilson, J. V. Kinnier, Iraq XVIII Pt 1, p. 135 n. 1Google Scholar.
44 A general term, like marāṣu, ‘to be ill’, with which it is equated, AJSL XXXVIII (1921–2) 197; cf. AJSL XLIII (1926–7) 241. 5, and A. L. Oppenheim op. cit. 279 n. 90.
45 Strictly, aḫḫazu is (the demon of) ‘la jaunisse maligne’ (Labat, TDP I 178 n. 315), as distinct from amurriqānu, ‘jaunisse’, ibid. 170–1 l. 24; cf. ibid. xxvii, and Küchler, F., Assyrisch-Babylonisch Medezin (1904) 141, 144Google Scholar. In Šurpu VII 6, the aḫḫazu(-demon) is said to ‘break through the ground like weed’ (E. Reiner, op. cit. 36).
46 Dr. Köcher, having collated KAR 147 at palga, says ‘mögl. Rasur; ⌈A⌉ PA5?’. Perhaps the writing of KAR 147 shows a corrected dittography of the first sign of the previous line.
47 The title of an illness-bearing demon, to judge from VAT 8264.40 (KAR I 32, edited by Ebeling, E., MVAG 1918 i 35Google Scholar).
48 Or ‘will rob him’.
49 For NAM.ERÍM. The first meaning of the word is ‘oath’; more generally, something evil (E. Reiner, op. cit. 55); ‘evil spell’ (A. L. Oppenheim, op. cit. 277). As an illness, ma-mit mariṣ, ‘he is ill with māmīt’, Labat, TDP I 178–9 ll. 16–17, suggesting (ibid, xxviii) a connexion with mental troubles and delirium.
50 Labat, TDP I xxvii, distinguishes la'bu, ‘l'accès febrile chaud’, from šuruppû ‘l'accès febrile froid’.
51 A grain-goddess; here perhaps a personification of grain.
52 A goddess, consort of the god Amurru, and ‘mistress of the plain’ (RLA I 169)—and thus an appropriate captor in this case.
53 In corresponding passages of related texts, NIN.UR in Ki. 1904–10–9 67 rev. 20; NIN.IB in KAR 177 rev. ii 39; IB ibid. i 33, K 2607.14 (Thompson, R. C., Assyrian Medical Texts, 1923Google ScholarPubMed, 6.6). NIN. UR also occurs in KAV 155.2. Taken here as for NIN.IB.
54 i-tam-ma in corresponding passages in some of the related texts, e.g. KAR 177 rev. ii 40, i 34; cf. CT 12.14 ii 39.
55 The sign is written in the same way at the corresponding point in KAR 147 (rev. 24).
56 GIŠ.SAR is preceded on the tablet by traces of three wedges (one corresponding to the uppermost of which survives on KAR 147, also broken at this point) which suggest the sign for inbu. KAR 177 rev. ii 42 has, before bit-su, ma-ḫir, preceded by three wedges similar to those which in ND 5545 precede GIŠ.SAR, with enough of each of the additional wedges required to make certain the reading inbu, preceded in turn by the upper left and vertical right wedges of UD, perhaps th e second UD lītebbib. (Judging from the KAR copy there might Just be room before this ⌈UD⌉ for UD.UD in addition to it—i.e. rather than comprehending it; but the spacing appears to be satisfactory without assuming a third UD, which would make explanation more difficult.) The writer therefore suggests the translation printed (or, ‘… with garden-fruit’) regarding ma-ḫir in KAR 177 rev. ii 42 as for GIŠ.SAR.
57 The word upakku, if this it be, is unknown to the writer.
58 A senior administrative official, sometimes explicitly of a temple; discussed by Streck, M., ZA 18, 1904–1905, 164–5Google Scholar; Johns, C. H. W., Assyrian Deeds and Documents II (1901) 148Google Scholar; a later šatammu of Der, Šum-iddin by name, is mentioned in HABL 412 obv. 14–15.
59 The virtual identity of the colophons of ND. 5545 and VAT 8780 suggests (if there is no question of mechanical unsigned copying) that both tablets were executed by the same scribe—working, to judge from l. 57, during the period 883–859 B.C.
