SCHOLARLY PRACTICE: QUOTATION AND INTERPRETATION

The scholarly tradition that was thus imagined to derive from Ea and the primordial sages was actively used by specialists who were in service of the crown. Several hundreds of letters and reports sent by those specialists to the kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal reveal much that is of relevance for understanding the complexity of the written scholarly corpus and the way this corpus was used in the Neo-Assyrian period.^{10 *} The letters and reports reflect on all five scholarly disciplines and they provide evidence how this secret knowledge was used in practice.

The letters and reports contain many quotations of omens, in particular (but not ex­clusively) celestial omens. They provide a glimpse at the relationship between a corpus of traditional texts and the process of actual decision-making at the court, between the theory of divine (secret) wisdom and the practice of royal counsel. In the present section I focus on the corpus of celestial omens and its uses, because that is where our evidence leads us.¹¹ It is possible that in other areas of scholarly specialization theory and practice developed other kinds of relationships — the important aspect to note is that any such relationship is complex and cannot be read or guessed from the theoretical (traditional) scholarly texts alone.

The scholars clearly quote omens as literarily as possible — “as it was written on the tab­let,” as Mar-Issar puts it (SAA 10, 362) — rather than giving a summary or paraphrase. The omen quotations are always in Standard Babylonian, the language used for all traditional texts, and commonly use the technical (heavily logographic) writing style of the divination compen­dia. Other parts of the letters and reports are in the local (Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian) dialect; the contrast is particularly clear in the letters and reports written in Assyrian.

quotations are thus set apart as being different from the voice of the scholar himself, coming from a more authoritative source.¹²

The celestial omens quoted in the letters and reports frequently do not come directly from the main series of Enuma Anu Enlil, but from one of the derived compositions, primarily from the commentary series Summa Sin ina tamartisu. The material that was at the disposal of the scholars of the king may be divided into the following main categories:¹³

1. the series Enuma Anu Enlil

2. the extraneous (ahu) tablets of Enuma Anu Enlil (containing additional omens, but not considered to be part of the main series)

3. the excerpt series rikis girri Enuma Anu Enlil (following the order in the main series)

4. excerpts which contain just a few omens from one or more tablets of the main series, concentrating on a single topic

5. factual commentaries (mukallimtu), usually quoting full omens, plus explanation

6. linguistic commentaries (satu), often in the form of word lists

7. the explanatory series Summa Sin ina tamartisu, which has the form of a mukallimtu commentary¹⁴

The boundaries between the various types of commentaries seem to be fluid and the relationships between the text categories are often unclear. One may note that even the main series contains rather heterogeneous material, such as the daylight tables in Tablet 14¹⁵ and the tablet that associates certain stars with certain terrestrial events, not in the usual format of an omen, but rather as an abstract statement (“The Raven star is for a steady market”).¹⁶ Notwithstanding the high prestige enjoyed by Enuma Anu Enlil, and the scribal myth making that traced the composition all the way back to Ea, it was never truly standardized. Fincke (2001) has shown that there existed multiple versions of Enuma Anu Enlil in Assyria: one from Assur and two from Nineveh (one in Assyrian, the other in Babylonian ductus).¹⁷ All versions follow the same general order of topics, but differ in the arrangement of tablets.

NIEK VELDHUIS

In the letters and reports scholars rarely specify where their citations come from. If they do, however, they distinguish between iskaru “the series,” ahu “extraneous omens,” and (fac­tual) commentaries, usually referred to as sa pi ummdni (from the mouth of a master),¹⁸ but once as mukallimtu commentary (SAA 10, 23).¹⁹ Mar-Issar, in a letter to the king, reports that Jupiter appeared five days late; it had been invisible for thirty-five days, while the normative period of disappearance (as he explains) was twenty to thirty days (SAA 10, 362). He quotes various applicable Jupiter omens, some of which have been identified in the omen literature.²⁰ He continues (in the translation by Parpola 1993a: 299):

Furthermore, when it had moved onwards 5 days, (the same amount) by which it had exceeded its term, it completed 40 days. The relevant interpretation runs as follows: ^r· ³ “If Neberu drags: the gods will get angry, righteousness will be put to shame, bright things will become dull, clear things confused; rains and floods will cease, grass will be beaten down, (all) the countries will be thrown into confusion; the gods will not listen to pray[ers], nor will they ac[cept] supplications, nor will they an[swer] the queries of the haruspices.”

¹¹ [This interpretation I have ex]tracted and [sent] to the king, [my lo]rd, (exactly) as it was wr[itten] on the tablet (SAA 10, 362 obv.

The assurance that he copied the omen “as it was written on the tablet” is unusual, because that was what scholars simply were supposed to do. He may have been inspired to add the remark by the gravity of the situation predicted, implying that the channels of communication with the divine world were to be closed.^{21 *}

Ulla Koch-Westenholz has demonstrated that quite a few of the references to celestial omens do not come from the main series, but rather from mukallimtu commentaries (Koch­Westenholz 1995: 82-83), in particular from Summa Sin ina tamartisu (Koch-Westenholz 1999). Many quotations appear more than once in the correspondence, often by different scholars, and very frequently such quotations go back to commentaries. The following report contains two such omens (SAA 8, 10):²²

¹ If the moon becomes visible on the 1st day: reliable speech; the land will become happy.

³ If the day reaches its normal length: a reign of long days.

⁵ If the moon at its appearance wears a crown: the king will reach the highest rank.

⁷ From Issar-sumu-eres.

The first omen is attested in Summa Sin ina tamartisu tablet 1 line 116 (Koch-Westenholz 1999: 161), and is quoted in three different reports by this same scholar, but also by oth­ers.²³ Other scholars tend to quote the variant omen “If the moon at its appearance is seen on

the first day: good for Akkad, bad for Elam,” which is the preceding line in Summa Sin ina tamartlsu.²⁴ These reports originate both in Assyria and in Babylonia and clearly belong to the standard omen repertoire to be quoted when new moon happens at the right time (that is, when the preceding month had thirty days).

The second omen quoted by Issar-sumu-eres is at least as frequent among the reports. This omen comes from Summa Sin ina tamartlsu tablet 6 (see Gehlken 2007), a commentary to Enuma Anu Enlil tablet 36-37.²⁵ In the commentary the omen reads:

If the day reaches its normal length: a reign of long days; the thirtieth day completes the measure of the month.²⁶

The final phrase is the explanatory part, which renders the omen relevant for observations of the new moon on the first day.

Some of the interpretations in the commentaries and in the quotations in the reports are quite a bit more sophisticated or convoluted than what we have seen so far. The omen quota­tion “If the moon rides a chariot in month Sililiti: the dominion of the king of Akkad will prosper, and his hand will capture his enemies” is in need of several pieces of explanation. The Elamite month name Sililitu is explained by its common name Sebat (month 11) and the moon riding a chariot turns out to mean that it is surrounded by a halo while standing in Perseus (Slbu):

^msi-li-li-ti ^ITIZIZ₂ Sililiti = Sebat

sa2 ^ITIZIZ2 ina SA₃-bi ^mulSU.GI That is: In Shebat, within Perseus

TUR₃ NIGIN-mi-ma it (the moon) was surrounded by a halo.

This piece of explanation probably comes from Summa Sin ina tamartlsu tablet 11²⁸ and is quoted in different reports by different scholars, located in different parts of the empire: Nabu-iqisa of Borsippa (SAA 8, 298), Akkulanu of Assur (SAA 8, 112), and Aplaya, again from Borsippa (SAA 8, 364).

An explanatory entry in SAA 8, 304 obv. 3-rev. 4, is derived from Summa Sin ina tamartlsu tablet 1 lines 68-71:

[If the moon's] horns at its appearance are very dark:

[disbanding of the fortified] outposts, [retiring of the guards];

there will be reconciliation [and pea]ce in the land.

GI = to be dark

GI = to be well

NIEK VELDHUIS

GI = to be stable Its horns are stable.

The various interpretations of GI in the report come straight from the commentary text,²⁹ although formulated slightly differently:

GI ka-a-nu lu ta-ra-ku GI sa-la-mu

GI = to be stable or to be dark.

The commentary basically explains why darkness of the moon’s horns can be interpreted as “Its horns are stable” and why this relates to peace or well-being in the apodosis, thus es­tablishing a link between protasis and apodosis.³⁰ The connection between the words “to be dark,” “to be well,” and “to be stable” is that all can be equated with a logogram that has a value GI. The equation GI = kanu = “to be stable” is indeed common throughout the cuneiform tradition. “To be dark” may be written GI_g and finally salamu “to be well,” is related to sul- lumu, “to repay” or “to compensate,” which equals Sumerian su... gi₄. The commentary thus uses complex associations between signs and words in which homographs (GI, GI₄, and GI_g) may substitute for each other in order to demonstrate the connection between Akkadian words. Although such associations are ultimately grounded in the kind of knowledge that lexical texts provide, they do not immediately depend on such texts. They use the kind of reasoning that is best known from “The Fifty Names of Marduk” in the final section of the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Bottero 1977).³¹

It seems that Enuma Anu Enlil, the text authored by Ea and transmitted via the primordial apkallus through a lengthy sequence of generations of scholars, was the ultimate authority in theory but that a second tier of compositions, more geared toward the actual practice of celestial divination, was primarily used for the day-to-day business of the scholars’ craft.^{[46] *} This second tier, in particular the series Summa Sin ina tamartisu contained a selection of the more frequently quoted omens, explaining in more detail what the expressions in the protasis meant in terms of observation and adding some learned commentary. This second tier had authority enough to be quoted in letters to the king, yet it did not define the identity of the scholarly community in the same way that Enuma Anu Enlil did.³³

Summa Sin ina tamartisu offered standardized solutions for some problems that were in­volved in the practical use of Enuma Anu Enlil. On the one hand, the complexity of Enuma Anu Enlil and the availability of a hermeneutical system that allowed for various interpretational strategies, implied that a single observation could be related to multiple omens in various chap­ters of the omen handbook (Koch-Westenholz 1995: 140-51; and Frahm 2004: 49).³⁴ On the

other hand, Enuma Anu Enlil may not always have had available omens for what was normal and expected — such as the appearance of the new moon at the regular time. In other words, Enuma Anu Enlil offered both too much and too little. Summa Sin ina tamartisu provided a first selection of relevant omens (not all omens actually receive commentary) and supplied an initial interpretation. The fact that the same entries were used by scholars all over the place may imply that the commentary was part of the education of astronomers, as a tool for put­ting Enuma Anu Enlil to practice. Summa Sin ina tamartisu is a relatively rare text, which is consonant with its more practical function. Libraries primarily collect the most authoritative and ancient knowledge.

Summa Sin ina tamartisu was well suited for the purposes of the scholars corresponding with the Assyrian king, whose task was not only to find and quote the appropriate omens, but also to interpret them. Divination compendia that were less frequently used may not have had such an authoritative interpretational body of knowledge and thus the scholars were forced to provide such interpretations themselves. The following letter, SAA 10, 42, includes a quota­tion from the series of terrestrial omens Summa alu³ as well as a discussion by Balasi, the chief scribe of the king, of the applicability of the omen, the ritual countermeasures that might be taken (even though Balasi does not believe it is necessary) and an unrelated calendrical issue.

¹ To the king, my lord: [your servant] Balasi. Good health to the king, my lord! [May Nabu and Marduk bless] the king, my lord!

⁵ As to what the king, m[y lord, wr]ote [to me]: “[In] the city of H[ar]ihumba light­ning struck and ravaged the fields of the Assyrians” — why does the king look for (trouble), and why does he look (for it) [in the ho]me of a tiller? There is no evil inside the palace, and when has the king ever visited Harihumba?

¹⁶ Now, provided that there is (evil) inside the palace, they should go and perform the (ritual) “Evil of Lightning” there. In case the king, my lord, says: “How is it said (in the tablets)?” — (here is the relevant interpretation): “If the storm god devastates a field inside or outside a city, or if he puts down a... of (his) chariot, or if fire burns anything, the said man will live in utter misery for 3 years.” This applies (only) to the one who was cultivating the field.

^{r. 10} Concerning the adding of the intercalary month about which the king wrote to me, this is (indeed) a leap year. After Jupiter has become visible, I shall write (again) to the king, my lord. I am waiting for it; it will take this whole month. Then we shall see how it is and when we have to add the intercalary month (translation by Parpola 1993a: 32-33).

In this letter Balasi’s interpretation of the omen text is based on common-sense reasoning, not on the quotation of a commentary. In a similar letter Issar-sumu-eres answers a query by the king about the applicability of an omen about a mongoose that appears between the legs of a man. The mongoose came out from under the chariot of the king, and according to Issar- sumu-eres’ opinion the omen is applicable in such a case (SAA 10, 33).

Comparing the celestial omens and their interpretation through Summa Sin ina tamartisu with the letters quoted above, we see that in both cases issues of applicability are addressed. What is different about Summa Sin ina tamartisu is that it was created (or compiled) as a second textual layer, largely standardized and thus delimiting the interpretational authority of the experts. The importance of texts and writing in this whole process is emphasized by the use in these commentaries of complicated sign equivalences, such as the analysis of GI discussed above. We may adduce one more example here from what may be the third tablet of the commentary series Summa Sin ina tamartisu.^{36 *}

DIS 30 TAB-ma ba-ra-ri it-ta- °-dar

AN.MI LUGAL URI.KI

ba-ra : la-a : ri : a-dan-nu

ina la a-dan-ni-su2 UD 12-KAM UD 13-KAM AN.MI GAR-ma

ina EN.NUN AN.USAN₂ AN.MI GAR-ma

If the moon is early and is eclipsed at the time of the evening watch: eclipse of the king of Akkad. ba-ra = “not”; RI = “period” an eclipse occurs not according to its period on the 12th or 13 th day; (variant): an eclipse occurs in the evening watch.

The commentary refers to the first omen of Enuma Anu Enlil tablet 15; it analyses the rare (and probably technical astronomical) Akkadian word barari (“at the time of the evening watch”) first by analyzing it into its component syllables and then by giving a more conven­tionally written synonym (ina EN.NUN AN.USAN2 “during the evening watch”). The analysis of ba-ra-ri takes the first two syllable of the word as the Sumerian verbal prefix ba-ra-, which is a negative modal and may thus be translated by Akkadian la. Although RI does not seem to correspond to a Sumerian word meaning “period,” its use as a logogram for Akkadian adannu (period) is well attested.³⁷

Although such lexical gymnastics may seem rather farfetched to the modern observer, it should be noted that these comments do not play out in the context of fanciful academic speculation, but are found in the context of the actual practice of celestial divination in reports and commentary texts (see Frahm 2004).

In one case, Summa Sin ina tamartisu refers to the source of one of these lexical equations, explaining ITI.NE (normally a writing for the month name Abu) as “this month.” “ITI.NE means ‘this month,’ NE means ‘this,’ it is said in the sdtu-commentary” (Koch-Westenholz 1999: 156 47-50). Significantly, the source is not a lexical text, but rather another type of commentary (a linguistic commentary or word list) within the realm of the celestial divination corpus.³⁸

In a recent article Eleanor Robson (2008) has demonstrated that the relationship between the traditional corpus of asutu and asiputu on the one hand, and the practical roles of experts who are identified as asu or asipu, on the other, is weak at best. Such a discrepancy between theory and practice may not be surprising. The scholarly corpora may be understood as foun­dational texts that define the self-understanding of a profession, rather than their practice. The scholarly texts belong to the area of scribal myth-making, but are not necessarily the ones

used in the day-to-day business of divinatory observation and reporting. We see a similar gap between Enuma Anu Enlil as a foundational text and the practice of celestial divination at the Assyrian court. What makes this case different, though, is that the gap is filled with written texts. The heavens are a tablet on which the gods write their messages, “heavenly writing” (sitir same),¹⁹ legible for those who are initiated into its secrets. The practice of this reading refers from one text to another: from the heavenly writing itself to the core series (iskaru), from the core series to the mukallimtu commentaries, and from the mukallimtus to the com­mentary word list (satu). It is hard to over-emphasize, indeed, how much this whole enterprise is textualized — the final step in the process is a letter or report sent in writing to the king. The very practice of reading the skies is grounded in a text — in Enuma elis — where Marduk determines the proper periods of the heavenly bodies, thus establishing the basic determinants of a system based on interpreting deviations from the standard period schemes that had been divinely imposed.^{38 39 40}

During the first millennium, authoritative knowledge was located in traditional texts, which were carefully transmitted from one generation to another — at least in theory. Such an immutable concept of knowledge and authority is a valuable tool for collecting libraries, for foundational narratives, or for displaying universal knowledge through intertextual refer­ences. When it comes to practical application, however, knowledge from before the flood is a burden more than an asset. Summa Sin ina tamartisu represents the middle ground between the “heavenly writing” in the stars, the traditional knowledge “from the mouth of Ea” in Enuma Anu Enlil, and the actual responsibilities of scholars at the royal court.

ABBREVIATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Rawi, Farouk N. H., and Andrew R. George

1991-1992 “Enuma Anu Enlil XIV and Other Early Astronomical Tables.” Archiv für Orientforschung 38-39: 52-73.

2006 “Tablets from the Sippar Library XIII: Enuma Anu Enlil XX.” Iraq 68: 59-84.

Annus, Amar

2002 The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia. State

Archives of Assyria Studies 14. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Beaulieu, Paul-Alain

2007“The Social and Intellectual Setting of Babylonian Wisdom Literature.” In Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel, edited by Richard J. Clifford, pp. 3-19. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Biggs, Robert D.

1968 “An Esoteric Babylonian Commentary.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archeologie

Orientale 62: 51-58.

Bock, Barbara

2000 “‘An Esoteric Babylonian Commentary' Revisited.” Journal of the American Oriental

Society 120: 615-20.

Borger, Rykle

1973 “Keilschrifttexte verschiedenen Inhalts.” In Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae

Francisco Mario Theodoro De Liagre Bohl Dedicatae, edited by Μ. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, and J. Ryckmans, pp. 38-55. Leiden: Brill.

Bottero, Jean

1977 “Les noms de Marduk; L'ecriture et la ‘logique' en Mesopotamie ancienne.” In Essays

on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J. J. Finkelstein, edited by Μ. De Jong Ellis, pp. 5-28. Hamden: Archon Books.

Brown, David

2000Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology. Cuneiform Monographs 18. Groningen: Styx.

Fincke, Jeanette C.

2001“Der Assur-Katalog der Serie enuma anu enlil (EAE).” Orientalia. Nova Series, 70: 19-39.

Finkel, Irving L.

1986 “On the Series of Sidu.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 76: 250-53.

Finkelstein, J. J.

1963 “The Antediluvian Kings: A University of California Tablet.” Journal of Cuneiform

Studies 17: 39-51.

Frahm, Eckart

2004“Royal Hermeneutics: Observations on the Commentaries from Ashurbanipal's Libraries at Nineveh.” Iraq 46: 45-50.

Gehlken, Erlend

2005“Die Adad-Tafeln der Omenserie Enuma Anu Enlil. Teil 1: Einführung.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 36: 235-73.

2007 “Die Serie DIS Sin ina tamartisu im Überblick.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves

et Utilitaires 2007: no. 4, pp. 3-5.

2008 “Die Adad-Tafeln der Omenserie Enuma Anu Enlil, Teil 2: Die ersten bei­

den Donnertafeln (EAE 42 und EAE 43).” Zeitschrift für Orientarchäologie 1: 256-314.

George, Andrew R.

2003The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2007 “Gilgames Epic at Ugarit.” Aula Orientalis 25: 237-54.

Glassner, Jean-Jacques

2004Mesopotamian Chronicles. Writings from the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Hunger, Hermann

1992 Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings. State Archives of Assyria 8. Helsinki:

Helsinki University Press. http://cdl.museum.upenn.edu/saa

1998“Zur Lesung sumerischer Zahlworter.” In Dubsar anta-men: Studien zur Altorientalistik; Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Romer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, edited Μ. Dietrich and O. Loretz, pp. 179-83. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 253. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag.

Jean, Cynthia

2006 La magie Neo-Assyrienne en contexte: Recherches sur le metier d’exorciste et le

concept d’asiputu. State Archives of Assyria Studies 17. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Koch-Westenholz, Ulla

1995 Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial

Divination. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 19. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

1999“The Astrological Commentary Summa Sin ina Tamartisu Tablet 1.” In La science des cieux: Sages, mages, astrologues, edited by R. Gyselen, pp. 149-65. Res Orientales 12. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’etude de la civilisation du Moyen-Orient.

2004 “A Fragment of Enuma Anu Enlil Concerning Jupiter.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques

Breves et Utilitaires 2004, no. 45: 43.

Kocher, Franz

1963-2005 Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. 7 volumes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Lambert, Wilfred G.

1962 “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16: 59-77.

1976 “A Late Assyrian Catalogue of Literary and Scholarly Texts.” In Kramer Anniversary

Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, edited by B. L. Eichler, J. W. Heimerdinger, and A. W. Sjoberg, pp. 313-18. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

1998 “The Qualifications of Babylonian Diviners.” In Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu sei­

nem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994. tikip santakki mala basmu..., edited by S. Μ. Maul, pp. 141-58. Cuneiform Monographs 10. Groningen: Styx.

Langdon, Stephen

1919 Sumerian Liturgies and Psalms. Publications of the Babylonian Section 10/4.

Philadelphia: University Museum.

Lenzi, Alan

2008a Secrecy and the Gods: Secret Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical Israel. State Archives of Assyria Studies 19. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

2008b “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8: 137-69.

Machinist, Peter, and Hayim Tadmor

1993 “Heavenly Wisdom.” In The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor

of William W. Hallo, edited by M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg, pp. 146-51. Bethesda: CDL.

Parpola, Simo

1970 Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part 1:

Texts. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.

1983 Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part

2: Commentary and Appendices. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.

1993a Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. State Archives of Assyria 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. http://cdl.museum.upenn.edu/saa

1993b “Mesopotamian Astrology and Astronomy as Domains of Mesopotamian ‘Wisdom.’” In Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens, edited by Hannes D. Galter, pp. 47-59. Grazer morgenländische Studien 3. Graz: GrazKult.

Reiner, Erica

2007“Another Harbinger of the Golden Age.” In Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, ed­ited by M. T. Roth, W. Farber, M. W. Stolper, and P. von Bechtolsheim, pp. 201-05. From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 2. Assyriological Studies 27. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

Reiner, Erica, and David Pingree

1981 Babylonian Planetary Omens, Part 2. Enuma Anu Enlil, Tablets 50-51. Bibliotheca

Mesopotamica 2/2. Malibu: Undena Publications.

2005Babylonian Planetary Omens, Part Four. Cuneiform Monographs 30. Leiden: Brill, Styx.

Robson, Eleanor

2008“Mesopotamian Medicine and Religion: Current Debates, New Perspectives.” Religion Compass 2/4: 455-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00082.x

forthcoming “Empirical Scholarship in the Neo-Assyrian Court.”

Rochberg, Francesca

1999 “Continuity and Change in Omen Literature.” In Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift

für Johannes Renger, edited by B. Bock, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, and T. Richter, pp. 415-25. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 267. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

2004 The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian

Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rochberg-Halton, Francesca

1988 Aspects of Babylonian Celestial Divination: The Lunar Eclipse Tablets of Enuma Anu

Enlil. Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 22. Horn: F. Berger.

Seri, Andrea

2006“The Fifty Names of Marduk in Enuma elis.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 126: 507-20.

Streck, Michael P.

2001 “Ninurta/Ningirsu. A I. In Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9:

512-22.

van der Toorn, Karel

2007“Why Wisdom Became a Secret: On Wisdom as a Written Genre.” In Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel, edited by R. J. Clifford, pp. 21-29. Society of Biblical Literature, Symposium Series 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Verderame, Lorenzo

2002 Le Tavole I-VI della serie astrologica Enuma Anu Enlil. Nisaba 2. Messina:

Di.Sc.A.M.

Virolleaud, Charles

1907-1912 L’astrologie chaldeenne: Le livre intitule “Enuma (Anu) ilu Bel.” Paris: P. Geuthner.

Weidner, Ernst F.

1942 “Die astrologische Serie Enuma Anu Enlil.” Archiv für Orientforschung 14: 172-95;

308-18.

Worthington, Martin

2006 “Dialect Admixture of Babylonian and Assyrian in SAA VIII, X, XII, XVII and

XVIII.” Iraq 68: 59-84.

oi.uchicago.edu