A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary
on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
JOHN Z. WEE, University of Chicago
Prolegomena
The composition named Marduk’s Address to the Demons
appears in Tablet 11 of the Utukkū Lemnūtu (“Evil De-
mons”) incantation series, which was standardized as a
16-tablet compilation by the first millennium BC. The
enduring appeal of the series as a whole is evident from
Late Babylonian tablet copies from libraries in Sippar,
Borsippa, Uruk, and Babylon, as well as quotations from
its Lunar Eclipse Myth (Tablet 16) in ritual texts from
Seleucid Uruk.1 An examination of the textual history of
* Bibliographic abbreviations from the Assyrian Dictionary of
the University of Chicago (CAD) (Chicago: 1954–2010) are em-
ployed; additional abbreviations include: ADART = H. Hunger and
A. J. Sachs, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia,
6 Vols. (Wien, 1988–2006); EAE = the astronomical omen series
Enūma Anu Enlil; MZL = R. Borger, Mesopotamisches Zeichen-
lexikon, AOAT 305 (Münster, 2nd ed. 2010); SCT 110 = C. H.
Gordon, Smith College Tablets: 110 Cuneiform Texts Selected from
the College Collection (Northampton, MA, 1952), Plate CXX (no.
110); SpTU = H. Hunger and E. von Weiher, Spätbabylonische Texte
aus Uruk, 5 Vols. (Berlin, 1976–98); ŠL 4/1 = A. Deimel, Pantheon
Babylonicum oder Keilschriftkatalog der babyl. GN, Šumerisches
Lexikon 4/1 (Rome, 1950); ŠL 4/2 = P. F. Gössmann, Planetar-
ium Babylonicum oder die sumerisch-babylonischen Stern-Namen,
Šumerisches Lexikon 4/2 (Rome, 1950).
1
M. J. Geller, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu In-
cantations, SAACT 5 (Helsinki, 2007), xii; P. D. Gesche, Schul-
unterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr., AOAT 275
(Münster, 2001), 819; BRM 4, 6, line 36′ and BM 134701, rev.
10′ff. in M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The
Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practises, CM
[JNES 75 no. 1 (2016)] © 2016 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 022–2968–2016/7501–009 $10.00. DOI: 10.1086/684845
Utukkū Lemnūtu reveals certain thematic emphases in
its first millennium BC manifestation. Only Tablets 3–8
are attested with Sumerian precursors, and may repre-
sent an early kernel of the series; while Tablets 12–16
display later concerns by their focus on the god Marduk
and a group of seven deities called the Sibitti.2 The pro-
tagonist of Marduk’s Address goes by the name Asalluhi,
but the editor(s) of the 16-tablet series most certainly
considered it one of Marduk’s designations and, there-
fore, aligned with the theme of Marduk’s prominence in
the later portion of the Utukkū Lemnūtu series.3 Indeed,
the status of “Asalluhi” as “Marduk as pertaining to in-
cantation” lends support to the invocatory function of
this unusual text, whose genre and ritual uses may well
come under question (see §1a).4
25 (Leiden, 2004), 307, 309. For discussion on this Lunar Eclipse
Myth, see J. Z. Wee, “Grieving with the Moon: Pantheon and Poli-
tics in the Lunar Eclipse,” JANER 14 (2014): 29–67.
2
M. J. Geller, Forerunners to Udug-hul: Sumerian Exorcistic In-
cantations, FAOS 12 (Stuttgart, 1985), 3; Geller, Evil Demons, xi n. 3.
3
Asalluhi is listed as one of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI,
147 in W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, MC 16 (Wi-
nona Lake, IN, 2013), 118–19. For Asalluhi’s identification with
Marduk from Old Babylonian times, see W. Sommerfeld, “Marduk.
A. Philologisch. I. In Mesopotamien,” RLA 7 (1987–90): 362. In
the astral commentary on Marduk’s Address, the name “Asalluhi”
is repeatedly expressed by the number 10 (the logographic number
for Marduk), and one entry (§12) explains Asalluhi’s attributes by
recourse to the name dAMAR.UTU (“Marduk”).
4 d
Asal-lú-ḫi = dAMAR.UTU šá ši-ip-tí (K 4349, rev. xi 97 in CT 24,
42) = MS B of An = Anu ša amēli, 108, but understood as šá ši-ip-ṭí
127
128 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Marduk’s Address has been a particularly difficult
text for modern scholars to work with. Much credit
must go to W. G. Lambert,5 whose painstaking recon-
struction and contemplation of this very fragmentary
composition led to his conclusion that it ran for more
than a couple of hundred lines and existed in five sec-
tions: (a) “a traditional short incantation invoking
Marduk”; (b) “a long section in which each line begins
‘I am Asalluhi’ and is then followed by a full poetic
line of epithets”; (c) a conversation between Marduk
and his vizier Nabû about demons, followed by lines
describing demonic activities, each beginning with “or
who” (lū ša); (d) lines beginning with lissuḫkunūši
Asalluḫi, “May Asalluhi extirpate you,” followed by
lines beginning with utammīkunūši Asalluḫi nīš . . . ,
“Asalluhi has exorcised you by . . .”; and (e) a call “for
the removal of troublesome demons and shades to
the netherworld, by the powers of the netherworld.”6
The repetitious format of lines within each sec-
tion and the lack of clear development in themes or
narrative, however, mean that the many extracts of
Marduk’s Address on exercise tablets cannot be easily
arranged in order. In M. Geller’s preliminary edition
of Utukkū Lemnūtu Tablet 11, for example, he listed
nine “Excerpts” of the text without always indicat-
ing how one of these relates to another.7 Indeed,
boundaries of the base text employed by commenta-
tors on Marduk’s Address do not always match up
(“as pertaining to the verdict”) in R. L. Litke, A Reconstruction of
the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: dA-nu-um and AN: Anu šá
amēli, TBC 3 (New Haven, 1998), 236, cf. 89 (An = Anum II,
185). In the construction A šá B, the particle šá introduces a “post-
modifier” (B) that often restricts the semantic domain of the “head”
(A) that is modified. This restricting function of the particle šá (“in
the case of / as pertaining to”) was often used as a means of speci-
fication in lexical texts and commentaries. See discussion in J. Z.
Wee, The Practice of Diagnosis in Mesopotamian Medicine: With Edi-
tions of Commentaries on the Diagnostic Series Sa-gig (Ph.D. diss.,
Yale University, 2012), 487–90, §N2. Note also other examples:
“Month Ulūlu (VI) = as pertaining to (šá) Ištar” (§4d), “the god
Ninurta as pertaining to (šá) the work song” (§8c).
5 12
W. G. Lambert, “An Address of Marduk to the Demons,” AfO
17 (1954–56): 310–21; W. G. Lambert, “An Address of Marduk to
the Demons, New Fragments,” AfO 19 (1959–60): 114–19; W. G.
Lambert, “Marduk’s Address to the Demons,” in Mesopotamian
Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. T.
Abusch and K. van der Toorn, AMD 1 (Groningen, 1999), 291–96,
including a survey of previous scholarship on Marduk’s Address on
p. 291.
6
Lambert, “Marduk’s Address,” 292–94.
7
Geller, Evil Demons, xv, 58–63, 150–57, 230–36. Geller’s more
definitive edition of the Utukkū Lemnūtu series is forthcoming.
with boundaries of the text on extant extracts or on
small tablets. We need to be aware of assumptions in
the prevalent view that Marduk’s Address consists of
a single main “text” that is attested in bits and pieces
as much shorter “excerpts” or “extracts.” Instead,
ancient users could have considered their shorter
versions as self-contained texts in their own right, es-
pecially when measured against other incantations of
comparable lengths that were employed in supposedly
similar prophylactic or apotropaic situations.8
Cuneiform commentaries on Marduk’s Address
have been discovered in the cities of Nineveh, Assur,
and Babylon.9 The Nineveh commentaries mentioned
by Lambert are less accessible due to their unknown
museum numbers, but the three commentary frag-
ments from Assur have long been identified as Ass.
13955gt (A 195), Ass. 13955fx (A 163), and JRL
1053.10 Scattered throughout Eckart Frahm’s survey
of Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries are
various analyses of commentaries on Marduk’s Ad-
dress, which focus heavily on the Assur material.11
In Geller’s recent book Melothesia in Babylonia, he
included transliterations and translations of Late
Babylonian (BM 47529 + 47685) and Assyrian (Ass.
13955fx + 13955gt) commentaries on Marduk’s Ad-
dress “from the Nachlass of W. G. Lambert, offered
here courtesy of A. R. George.”12 As Geller correctly
observed, while both commentaries make reference to
the heavens and to celestial measurement, it is only the
8
See discussion on the expression “I am Asalluhi” and its rele-
vance for the text user in §1a.
9
E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Ori-
gins of Interpretation, GMTR 5 (Münster, 2011), 123–27.
10
See Lambert, “Marduk’s Address,” 294–95, and Frahm, Com-
mentaries, 124–25 for bibliographic details. Obverse and reverse
sides of the commentary tablet Ass. 13955fx (A 163) had been con-
fused in various publications prior to their correction by Lambert,
“Marduk’s Address,” 291.
11
Frahm, Commentaries, 43 n. 162, 45, 73 n. 351, 82–83, 88
n. 436, 94–95, 124–26, 269, 276, 307, 331 n. 1585, 355–56, 358,
359 n. 1715, 373.
M. J. Geller, Melothesia in Babylonia: Medicine, Magic, and
Astrology in the Ancient Near East, STMAC 2 (Berlin, 2014), 60–
68; cf. Lambert Folio 9619–20. Typos in Geller’s edition of BM
47529 + 47685 include šú-nu instead of šú-u (obv. 17 = §7 [66]),
the omission of the disjunction sign after ṣar-ḫu (obv. 18 = §7 [66]),
the translation of itiŠE as “Ayyaru” rather than “Addaru” (rev. 1–2
= §9 [68]), the omission of šá, and múlḪUN.GÁ instead of múlLÚ.ḪUN.
GÁ (rev. 4 = §10 [69]), UGU instead of ŠÀ (rev. 5 = §10 [69]), KUŠU
instead of KUŠU2 (identical to ALLA in late script), and iṣ-ṣi instead of
iṣ-ṣu (rev. 9 = §10 [69]), šá instead of ŠÀ (rev. 10 = §11 [70]), and
perhaps -su instead of -sú (obv. 16 = §7 [66]).
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
Babylonian commentary “from roughly two centuries
later” that construes its arguments from the zodiac.
This situation recalls the relationship between the
Neo-Assyrian Sultantepe tablet STT II, 300, which
presents calendar dates suitable for particular magic
spells, and later tablets that relate the same spells to
the sun’s micro-zodiacal signs corresponding to these
dates.13 In this article, any mention of “astral com-
mentary” refers to the Late Babylonian composition.14
Commentaries represent one of the most challeng-
ing cuneiform genres, and I gratefully build on previ-
ous scholarship by Lambert and Geller, as I explore
how astronomical knowledge shaped interpretation in
this Late Babylonian astral commentary (BM 47529
+ 47685) on Marduk’s Address. Photos of this tablet
are included as Figures 1 and 2. According to how
the tablet has been joined at the British Museum, its
dimensions are around 11 × 8 cm, with cuneiform
script written in landscape format on the obverse
and reverse. The text consists of fifteen commentary
entries—eight on the obverse and seven on the re-
verse—followed by one line of colophon. Each com-
mentary entry begins by quoting a line from section
(b) of Marduk’s Address (see Lambert’s five sections
described above), and the recurring incipit “I am Asal-
luhi” is aligned farther to the left than the rest of the
text, providing clear visual cues to the start of each
entry. The commentator seems to have derived his
quotations from consecutive lines of the manuscript
of Marduk’s Address that he consulted.15 I refer to this
manuscript as the commentator’s “base text,” and it is
only as convenient shorthand that I cite the pagination
of modern (often composite) editions of texts that are
roughly equivalent to the commentator’s quotations.
Understood in this way, the commentator’s base
text consists of fifteen consecutive lines of Marduk’s
13
I demonstrate why zodiacal names in tablets BRM IV, 19 and
20, LBAT 1626, and SpTU V, 243, all refer to the sun’s ‘micro-
zodiac of 13’ in J. Z. Wee, “Virtual Moons Over Babylonia: The
Calendar Text System, Its Micro-Zodiac of 13, and the Making of
Medical Zodiology,” in The Circulation of Astronomical Knowledge
in the Ancient World, ed. J. M. Steele (Leiden, 2016).
14
I refrain from the label “zodiacal commentary” to avoid giv-
ing the impression that the star names here represent zodiacal signs
rather than individual constellations or asterisms (see discussion be-
low), even though these constellations are arranged consecutively in
one round of the zodiac circle.
15
Some prefer to speak of “manuscript traditions” rather than
individual manuscripts, but I would caution against seeing every
orthographic, lexical, or syntactical variant as necessarily indicative
of a new “tradition.”
) 129
Address that correspond to §B 5–19 in Lambert’s
editions, which are preserved to varying degrees in
manuscripts (MSS) c, d, and j.16 While commentators
sometimes cite their base texts incompletely or make
deliberate modifications to quoted texts, variants in
this astral commentary such as mu-⸢kin⸣ (obv. 12) in-
stead of mu-kil, and i-ḫi-ṭu (obv. 19) instead of i-ḫi-
ir-ru, seem more indicative of textual corruption in
the base text or other manuscripts, rather than the
commentator’s intention. A comprehensive analysis
of the textual objects comprising Marduk’s Address
must await Geller’s completed edition of the Utukkū
Lemnūtu series. For our purposes here, it suffices
to note that the commentator’s base text does not
map onto textual boundaries in existing fragments of
Marduk’s Address, or correspond to any thematic or
narratival divisions in the original. Fragment K 7063
(MS d) gives the impression that at least four more “I
am Asalluhi” lines (obv. i 1′–4′) immediately precede
the commentator’s base text, while fragment K 3349
(MS j) suggests that at least four or five such lines
(obv. 5–9) immediately follow the base text. By as-
suming that commentators quoted lines according to
their order in the original text, other commentaries
reveal that the base text here was not even privileged
due to its proximity to the beginning of the “I am
Asalluhi” section. Judging by the Assur commentary
Ass. 13955gt (A 195), for example, the “I am Asal-
luhi” statements in fragments Sm 2013 (MS b) and K
3275 (MS a) may be shown to precede the base text
of the astral commentary.17
In other words, the astral commentary deals with
fifteen consecutive “I am Asalluhi” statements that are
not distinguished as a group in extant manuscripts,
and whose contents suggest no clear reason for being
excerpted from Marduk’s Address. These observations
16
Lambert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 5–14 (MSS c and
d); §B 15 (MS c); and Lambert, “New Fragments,” 115, §B 16–19
(MS j). MS c = K 3307+6626 obv. (AfO 17: Plate XIII) + K 6626
rev.+11350 + K 9148+8640 + K 11767+3759+7035 (AfO 19: Plate
XXIV); MS d = K 7063 (AfO 17: Plate XIII); MS j = K 3349
(AfO 19: Plate XXV).
17
The commentator of Ass. 13955gt (A 195) either did not
always quote from consecutive lines in his base text, or utilized a
base text manuscript that does not exactly correspond to preserved
fragments of Marduk’s Address. Broadly speaking, there is overlap
between the base text of Ass. 13955gt (A 195) rev. and that of
the astral commentary, and overlap between the base text of Ass.
13955gt (A 195) obv. and the material in Sm 2013 (MS b) and K
3275, obv. I (MS a). Hand copies of MSS a and b may be found in
AfO 17: Plate XIII.
130 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Figure 1—Obverse of Tablet BM 47529+47685. Photo © John Z. Wee. Taken courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
are pertinent because the commentator proceeded to
identify these fifteen epithets of Asalluhi with specific
constellations (asterisms) arranged in sequence east-
ward in exactly one round of the zodiac circle,18 be-
stowing unity and exclusivity on a body of text that
displayed neither in its original condition as part of
Marduk’s Address. Commentary served not merely to
reveal implications hidden in an existing text, but to
create fresh textual identities and to define new textual
boundaries.
18
A “constellation” in modern astronomy refers to an area on
the celestial sphere, but it has become conventional to describe
imagined patterns of stars in antiquity (known today as “asterisms”)
as ancient “constellations.” In any case, even when iconic zodiacal
names were used, the plurality of astral entities occurring in this
commentary suggests that they refer to individual constellations
rather than zodiacal signs. When a larger celestial area was intended,
the commentator employed the expression KI múlX, “Region of the
X constellation (perhaps zodiacal sign X)” (BM 47529 + 47685,
obv. 11, 12, 14; rev. 1).
Two features in the structure of this astral commen-
tary should be noticed. First, while adhering to the
order of constellations in the zodiac, the commentator
deviated from other astral lists that begin around Aries
and end around Pisces, choosing instead to commence
with Sirius (in the sign Cancer) and finish with Orion
(in the sign Gemini). Indeed, he adopted these un-
usual starting and ending points, in full knowledge
and in contradiction of practices in other astral texts,
where certain eminent stars were strategically assigned
to positions of importance. The Plow constellation
(perhaps Andromeda or Cassiopeia), which heads the
northern stars of Enlil and occurs at the beginning
of other astral lists, for example, makes its debut in
this commentary only as late as entry §8.19 The Ford
(Nēberu) star, celebrated for its centrality between
19
The reading múl⸢APIN⸣, “the Plow” (BM 47529 + 47685, obv.
19), is admittedly damaged, but see my rationale for its restora-
tion in §8b. Although iconic constellations appear for the most
part in sections §1–§11, the commentator chose to include the
Plow (§8) in place of the expected constellation of “the Great One”
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
Figure 2—Reverse of Tablet BM 47529+47685. Photo © John Z. Wee. Taken courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
northern and southern celestial paths, between heaven
and the Netherworld, and between old and new years,
occurs without positional significance in entry §11.
One is reminded of van der Waerden’s old idea about
a “stellar year” beginning with the heliacal rising of
Sirius on 15th of Duʾūzu (IV).20 Berossos’ description
of Cancer as a “zodiacal sign of great power” at the
beginning of the 3rd century BC, in fact, alludes to
Sirius’ role in heralding the summer solstice.21 While
such explanations are cogent to the order of our astral
commentary, they still fail to account for its second
peculiar feature.
This second structural feature of note is that al-
though the majority of commentary entries focus on
(Aquarius), which suggests his awareness of the significance of the
Plow constellation.
20
B. L. van der Waerden, “Babylonian Astronomy II: The
Thirty-Six Stars,” JNES 8/1 (1949): 19; H. Hunger and D. Pin-
gree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, HdO 44 (Leiden, 1999), 66.
21
Babyloniaca, I §3 in S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Beros-
sus, SANE 1/5 (Malibu, 1978), 15.
) 131
iconic constellations, each of which became the epo-
nym for a single zodiacal sign, we find a concentration
of constellations in the signs Taurus and Gemini, in-
volving the Crook (§12), the fire-god Girru (§13), the
Chariot of Enmešarra (§14), and the True Shepherd of
Anu (§15). Such inconsistencies are perhaps best ex-
plained by constraints intrinsic to existing forms of the
base text. As a matter of fact, it is precisely those “I am
Asalluhi” statements describing Asalluhi’s “weapon”
(hence, the Crook, §12), “torch” (hence, the fire-
god, §13), epithet as “Enlil of the gods” (hence,
Enmešarra, §14), or role as “shepherd” (hence, the
True Shepherd of Anu, §15) that seem to lend them-
selves most readily to the commentator’s arguments.
By contrast, associations earlier in the commentary
between “crown” and Furrow (Virgo, §3), “rays” and
Tails (Pisces, §9), or “stone wall” and Hired Man (Ar-
ies, §10) can strike us as somewhat forced. Perhaps
the commentator was initially inspired by how easily
latter entries of his base text related to constellations
(§12–15), and then for some reason worked his way
132 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
backwards22 rather than forwards, until he completed
one round of the zodiac circle (§1–11). This theory
is admittedly speculative, but has fascinating implica-
tions about the process of commentary construction,
as well as how commentators (as authors) worked to
materialize an imagined literary product.
In its endeavor to discern celestial significance in
Asalluhi’s epithets, the astral commentary on Mar-
duk’s Address stands in a learned tradition manifested
in Enūma eliš (and its commentaries) and at least the
late version of the Anzû epic, which commemorate
the exploits of Marduk or Ninurta by a conclud-
ing recital of the protagonist’s divine names.23 As a
matter of fact, a couple of arguments in this astral
commentary were likely based on the meanings of
Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš, involving the name
Sirsir “whose headdress is the furrow” (VII, 73) in en-
try §3b, and the name Nēberu that “holds the cross-
ing place of heaven and netherworld” (VII, 124–25)
in entry §11b.24 This did not mean that other deities
were excluded from mention. On the contrary, we
encounter a rich plethora of divine beings such as the
moon-god Sîn (§10d–f), the sun-god Šamaš (§9c–d,
f; §10d–f, h), Ningišzida (§1c), Išhara (§5c), the fire-
god Girru (§13b), Enmešarra (§14b), Pabilsag (§6b),
the divine vizier Ilabrat (§15c), the divinized work
song Alāla (§8b), the Anzû-bird (§1b), the Asakku-
monster (§10g), the rare deity Šidada (§4d), and un-
specified “gods of humankind” (§15c), along with
implied references to Ninurta (§1b, §10g), Gula and
Damu (§6b), the grain-goddess Šala (§3c), and even
Gilgamesh (§7d and perhaps §2b/c). The divine name
22
The more explicit connection between the Scorpion constel-
lation and the “Sea” or “rivers” in entry §5, for instance, may have
shaped the argument in the preceding entry §4, which deals with
yearly washings by Ištar-votaries in the divine river. See discussion
in §4f.
23
The fifty names of Marduk in Enūma eliš VI, 121–VII, 142
are examined in Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 147–68;
cf. the names of Ninurta (Anzû III, 127–76) in A. Annus, The
Standard Babylonian Epic of Anzu, SAACT 3 (Helsinki, 2001), 28;
based on H. W. F. Saggs, “Additions to Anzu,” AfO 33 (1986):
25–28. See also J. Bottéro, “Les Noms de Marduk, l’écriture et la
‘logique’ en Mésopotamie ancienne,” in Essays on the Ancient Near
East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. M. De Jong Ellis, Mem-
oirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19 (Hamden,
CT, 1977), 5–28; D. Danzig, “Name Word Play and Marduk’s Fifty
Names in Enūma Eliš ” (M.A. thesis, Yale University, 2013).
24
Enūma eliš VII, 73, 124–25 in Lambert, Babylonian Creation
Myths, 129–31. See also my discussion in §12d, concerning a pos-
sible allusion to the name Meršakušu who is “fierce yet deliberat-
ing” and whose “heart is wide” (Enūma eliš VI, 137–38).
written dBAD requires elucidation, but consideration of
its positions in the zodiac circle suggests the readings
“Enlil” (§8b–c) and “Bēl” (§11b). What we find here
is a veritable illustration of the axiom that the great
gods “established the constellations, the stars (as)
their likenesses.”25 Far from crowding out the focus on
Marduk, these deities were subsumed under aspects
of his character or activities, perhaps in fulfillment of
the programmatic statement “I am Asalluhi, Enlil of
the gods” (§14a) in what might have been the kernel
(§12–15) of this commentary (see above p. 127). If
the multitude of gods and divine forces could be each
represented by an individual star constellation, they
could also be imagined in ensemble as constituents of
a giant constellation that was Marduk.
It comes as little surprise that Mesopotamia’s astral
tradition supplied much of the content and imagery
underlying the commentator’s arguments, involv-
ing common ways of interpreting the constellations
that extend across compositions like Mul-apin, the
astrolabes, the “Zwölfmaldrei” tablet (BM 82923),
the 30-Star Catalog (HS 1897), the Great Star
List, ziqpu-star texts, the so-called “GU Text” (BM
78161), and omens of the Enūma Anu Enlil series,
along with almanac-type material of the menology in
Astrolabe B (§4d–f) and the royal hemerology Inbu bēl
arḫi, “Fruit, Lord of the Month” (§9c–d). We cannot
always discern if ‘astral’ readings of literary or religious
narratives originated with this commentator, or if such
stories had already been built into the mythological
backgrounds of celestial bodies and events. On the
one hand, the definition of the Arrow constellation
as Ninurta’s weapon against the Anzû-bird (§1b) and
familial relationships among the Pabilsag, She-goat
(Gula), and Pig (Damu) constellations (§6b) appear to
be existing features of astral lore, which this commen-
tator in fact interpreted with slightly different nuance.
On the other hand, inventiveness on the part of our
commentator may account for how the “depth of the
Waters of Death” in Gilgamesh’s journey along the
“Path of the Sun” was compared to the sun’s mini-
mum latitude during the winter solstice (§7d), or how
stones allied with the Asakku-monster in Lugale were
25
kakkabānimeš tam-šil-šu-nu lu-ma-ši uš-zi-iz (Enūma eliš V, 2)
in Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 98–99; plausibly restored
[MUL.MEŠ tam-ši-il-šú-nu e-ṣi-ru lu-ma-a-ši] (EAE 22, E 18′) in F.
Rochberg-(Halton), Aspects of Babylonian Celestial Divination: The
Lunar Eclipse Tablets of Enūma Anu Enlil, AfO Beih. 22 (Horn,
Austria, 1988), 271.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
dubbed its ‘hirelings’ and were therefore related to the
Hired Man (Aries) constellation (§10g).
Despite damage to the tablet’s colophon, the in-
dividual responsible for this astral commentary may
be identified as “[. . . Šemaʾya son of (?)] Marduk-
perʾu-uṣur, descendant of Ēṭiru,” who also displayed
his celestial competence in another commentary (BM
47447) on the astronomical omen series EAE 16–
20. Other colophons reveal that Šemaʾya and various
members of his family copied tablets from originals in
Babylon and Borsippa (see §16).
The latter connection deserves particular atten-
tion in light of shared intellectual traditions apparent
in the astral commentary on Marduk’s Address and
two other astral texts from Borsippa, transliterations
and translations which I provide in Appendices A
and B. The first text is a List of Stars and Deities (5R
46 No. 1) labeled as “property of the Ezida-temple,
(belonging to) Nabû-nādin-aḫi, descendent of Arkât-
ilāni-damqā.” In addition to the general prominence
of Marduk in this list and the astral commentary,
both compositions include nearly identical expres-
sions “the Crook = the Weapon of Marduk’s hands”
(§12b) and “the fire-god Girru = the Lamp that is
before Enmešarra” (§13b), associate the Scorpion
constellation with the “Sea” (tâmtu) (§5b),26 present
the Corpse constellation as part of the sign Cancer
(§10g), and describe the planet Mars using the Št
stem of the verb bitrû (“to make continue, pass all
the way through”) (§7b, f).
The second connected astral text is an explanatory
one (SCT 110) with astral interpretations “deposited
in the Ezida-temple (at Borsippa)” by an apprentice
scribe. Tablet SCT 110 (obv. 5) repeats the equa-
tion in 5R 46 No. 1 (line 28) depicting “the Corpse
constellation (as) the body of the Asakku-monster,”
and echoes the astral commentary (§10g) in relating
this Asakku-monster to “stone.” In place of the above
statement on Girru, we find what may be a slightly
altered version: “The brazier (of the fire-god Girru
constellation) that is before [Ninurta (?)]” (SCT 110,
obv. 9). Most importantly, both the astral commentary
and the explanatory text exhibit similar motivations
and methods that integrate the stars into religious
belief and practice. While the astral commentary extols
26
A similar formulation in the Great Star List (line 35) links
the Scorpion with “Tiamat.” U. Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian
Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial
Divination, CNIP 19 (Copenhagen, 1995), 188–89.
) 133
Marduk by discerning in his epithets constellations of
the entire zodiac circle, tablet SCT 110 demonstrates
the coherence of cultic ritual by showing how constel-
lations symbolized by ritual objects also stand in close
relationship to each other within the zodiacal signs
Taurus–Cancer.
Let me conclude these Prolegomena with some
final remarks specific to commentarial features and
formatting. Because the beginning of its colophon is
broken, we are unable to situate this tablet within the
typology of “commentary self-designations” proposed
by Frahm.27 For what it is worth, however, Šemaʾya’s
commentary on EAE 16–20 (BM 47447) belongs to
the category of ṣâtu 4a, with a colophon that reads
“Glossary, as well as oral lore (and) readings of (the
astronomical omen series) Enūma Anu Enlil.”28 As I
argued elsewhere, the recurring commentary notation
consisting of two Winkelhaken and transcribed as a
colon represents a disjunction sign (Trennungszeichen,
rather than Glossenkeil).29 This notation is typically
omitted as redundant where there is a line break, and
it is not always used consistently to separate different
arguments or to separate topic and comment within
the same argument. While the relationship between
topic and comment is largely based on synonymy, this
commentary may include one example of antonymy:
“One who kills corresponds to one who heals” (§12c).
In at least five instances (§3b; §4b, e; §7b, f), the
commentator asserted some connection between two
disparate lexical terms, on the grounds that both could
be associated with the same logogram, cuneiform sign,
or lexical form. Compound logographic forms were
analyzed into their constituent parts at least twice
27
Frahm, Commentaries, 41–58.
28
ṣa-a-tu u šu-ut KA mal-su-ti ša U4 dA-nim dEN.LÍL.LÁ (BM
47447, rev. 31) in Rochberg-(Halton), Aspects of Babylonian Celes-
tial Divination, 285. The main labels mukallimtu (“exposition”)
or ṣâtu (“glossary”) stand at the head of most commentary desig-
nations. Though several commentaries follow the usual syntax of
positioning the conjunction u (“and, as well as”) between the final
two members of a three-member group (GAG, §117b), patterns
such as “Glossary, as well as oral lore (and) readings . . .” (Type ṣâtu
4a–b) and “Glossary, as well as oral lore (and) questionings . . .”
(Type ṣâtu 7a) suggest that the terms “oral lore” (šūt pî), “readings”
(malsûti), and “questionings” (maš ʾaltu) function as supplements
to the main label. J. Z. Wee, Knowledge and Rhetoric in Medical
Commentary: Mesopotamian Commentaries on the Diagnostic Series
Sa-gig (Leiden, forthcoming), §II.1.
29
While A : B may be often translated “A means B” or “A refers
to B,” the relationship between A and B is deduced from the context
of juxtaposing two syntactically independent items, not as meaning
intrinsic to the disjunction sign itself.
134 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
(§6c; §12d), and there is even an example where a
syllabic form received similar treatment: dIliabrat =
ilū + abrāti (§15c).30
By scribal convention, constellation names are
indicated with the múl (“star”) determinative,31 and
the writings GÍR.TAB (obv. 10), SUḪUR.MAŠ (obv. 16),
UR.MAḪ (obv. 4), and LÚ.ḪUN.GÁ (rev. 9) must repre-
sent instances in which the semantic restriction im-
posed by a determinative was unwelcome.32 In the first
two cases, the commentator’s argument required the
terms to function as polysemous lexical items: GÍR.TAB
was equivalent to MIR meaning “scorpion” or “crown”
(§4e), while SUḪUR.MAŠ represented “goat-fish” or the
verb bitrû, “(Gt) to be continuous; (Št) to make con-
tinue” (§7b). In the next two cases, the determinative
was omitted, because the terms indicated not merely
the Lion and Hired Man constellations, but also their
earthly counterparts, i.e., any “lion” (UR.MAḪ) and any
“hireling” (LÚ.ḪUN.GÁ). In my translation, I attempt
to express the gist of the commentator’s arguments
by occasionally including rough restorations within
square brackets [. . . (?)] (§1c; §3b–c; §12c–d). I re-
frain from similar restorations in my transliteration,
however, since I do not assert that these restored
translations correspond word-for-word with the cu-
neiform of the unbroken tablet.
For the edition of Astral Commentary BM 47529
+ 47685 with transliteration and translation, see Fig-
ures 3a–b.
30
Authors of cuneiform commentaries not infrequently ana-
lyzed logographic forms into their constituent parts. One might be
tempted to view such methods as the logical extension of principles
for creating compound logographic forms, whereby, for example,
the logogram GU7 (“to eat”) = KA (“mouth”) × NINDA (“food”).
That commentators went well beyond the constraints of linguistic
and scribal practice is evident in cases like dIliabrat = ilū + abrāti
(§15c), where such analyses were applied to syllabic forms. For an-
other example, note how agurru (“kiln-fired brick”) was analyzed
in terms of various meanings of a + gur in the commentaries AO
17661, obv. 11–13, and SpTU I, 27, rev. 21–23. See A. R. George,
“Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney Smith – Part Two:
Prognostic and Diagnostic Omens, Tablet I,” RA 85/2 (1991):
146–47; Wee, “The Practice of Diagnosis,” 503, 509–10, 524.
31
Note múlAB.SÍN (obv. 6), múlRÍN SI múlGÍR.TAB (obv. 9), múlGÍR.TAB
(obv. 11, 12), múlPA.BIL.SAG (obv. 14), múl⸢APIN⸣, (obv. 19) múlKUN.
MEŠ (rev. 1), múlLÚ.ḪUN.GÁ (rev. 4, 5) múlSIPA.ZI.AN.NA (rev. 16), and
perhaps m[ÚLMUŠ (?)] (obv. 2), and [MÚLGÀ]M (rev. 11).
32
In my translation, I reflect such omissions by not capitalizing
the first letter of the translated English term.
Explanation of the Astral Commentary
BM 47529 + 47685
§1. Sirius, Hydra
§1a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 1′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 5′.33
The statement “I am Asalluhi” is characteristic of
Section (b) of Marduk’s Address and is expressed re-
peatedly by the syllabic signs ana-ku dAsal-lú-ḫi in
existing manuscripts and in the Assur commentary
JRL 1053. In this astral commentary, however, we find
the esoteric writing GE 10-ḫi. The term GE seems to
be a rendition of the Sumerian 1cs personal pronoun
ĝá-e (or contracted ĝe24-e), which is related to the
1cs pronominal suffix -ĝu10 and possibly the cohor-
tative prefix ga-.34 In the writing 10-ḫi, the number
10 functions as a logogram for the name “Asalluhi,”
while the -ḫi sign serves as its phonetic complement.
Asalluhi’s identification with Marduk is evident from
Marduk’s association with the logographic number
10 elsewhere.35
Lambert was concerned that though “it is so char-
acteristic of incantations to stress that the human
performer is acting in the power of divine patrons,
and is not relying on his own resources,” the recita-
tion of Section (b) by a human would imply a claim
“to act with the powers and attributes of Marduk, in
short becoming Marduk by repeatedly stating ‘I am
Asalluhi’.”36 The problem cannot be entirely resolved
here, especially since commentarial interpretations
33
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lambert,
“Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 5.
34
D. O. Edzard, Sumerian Grammar, HdO 71 (Leiden, 2003),
30, 55, 115. For other late renditions of the 1cs pronoun in “ab-
struse Sumerian,” see T. Jacobsen, “Abstruse Sumerian,” in Ah,
Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern
Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I.
Eph‘al, Scripta Hierosolymitana 33 (Jerusalem, 1991), 285–86,
290. For another example in which Sumerian grammatical forms
are expressed by atypical writing in commentaries, see SpTU I, 41,
obv. 3: [ki-ši]-da-nu-uš-šú : ki-šit SAḪAR lìb-bu-ú ana KI-tim KI.ŠI,
“/kišidanuššu/ (i.e., kišid ‘reaching’ + ana ušši ‘to the foundation’)
refers to ‘kišit SAḪAR’ (lit. ‘reaching-dust’) sickness [cf. CAD K s.v.
kišittu s. 3a]. As in the fact that ‘to the earth’ (is expressed by) KI.ŠI.”
The commentator interpreted the sign ŠI as the Sumerian termina-
tive marker šè (“towards”).
35
[. . .] 10 dEN dAMAR.UTU (CT 25, 50 + CT 46, 54, line 12) in
L. E. Pearce, Cuneiform Cryptography: Numerical Substitutes for Syl-
labic and Logographic Signs (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1982), 87.
36
Lambert, “Marduk’s Address,” 295.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
of Marduk’s Address need not represent an ancient
consensus as to how the composition should be un-
derstood or employed. The issue of vocalizing the “I
am Asalluhi” lines, however, finds its counterpart here
in a different kind of performance: The writing GE
10-ḫi easily recalls the term lúGI.BÙR for “scribe” (BÙR
and 10 are values of the same sign),37 which plays on
the idea that a cuneiform scribe “pierces” (BÙR) his
tablet with a “reed” (GI). That such imagery was not
far from our commentator’s mind may be suggested
by his argument in §7f, where the sign BÙR serves
to connect disparate ideas involving “perforation,”
“depth,” and the planet “Mars,” with the implication
that Mars belonged to the god “Marduk” (expressed
by the logographic number 10). In both oral and writ-
ten presentations, therefore, Marduk’s Address could
involve some measure of appropriating Marduk’s attri-
butes on the part of the incanter or scribe, who served
as the god’s representative in bringing the text to life.
The remainder of this entry is unfortunately ob-
scured by damage to the top of the tablet. In my
understanding, argument §1b relates to “warrior of
the gods,” while argument §1c makes reference to
“director of Anduruna.”
§1b. In the notes of his folio (No. 9619), Lam-
bert had already recognized the connection to Tablet
I of the Standard Babylonian Epic of Anzû, where the
Anzû-bird is said to be born “in the Šaršar Mountain”
(I, 25).38 This description likely accounts for Geller’s
restoration an-zu-ú šá ina ŠÁR.ŠÁR[ki] / [al]-du (obv.
1–2), “Anzû who was born in Šaršar.”39 I am less con-
37
B, Meissner, Beiträge zum assyrischen Wörterbuch I, AS 1/1
(Chicago, 1931), 85 n. 82; E. Reiner and M. Civil, “Another Vol-
ume of Sultantepe Tablets,” JNES 26/3 (1967): 199–200; W. G.
Lambert, review of H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolo-
phone, WO 5/2 (1970): 291; R. Borger, “Zum Handerhebungsge-
bet an Nanna-Sin IV R 9,” ZA 61/1 (1971): 83.
38
i-na ŠÁR.ŠÁR KUR-i e-li-[i x x] / . . . / it-ta-[a]ʾ-lad an-z[a-a
x x] (Anzû I, 25–27) in Annus, Epic of Anzu, 19; cf. M. E. Vogel-
zang, Bin šar dadmē: Edition and Analysis of the Akkadian Anzu
Poem (Groningen, 1988), 31–32. For discussion on the mountain
Šaršar, see W. G. Lambert, “Notes on a Work of the Most Ancient
Semitic Literature,” JCS 41/1 (1989): 17–18; C. Woods, “At the
Edge of the World: Cosmological Conceptions of the Eastern Ho-
rizon in Mesopotamia,” JANER 9 (2009): 218 n. 143. Anzu I, 28
alludes to the bird’s origin on Mount Šaršar by comparing its sharp
beak to a “saw” (šaššāru).
39
My translation of Geller’s restored signs above differs a little
from the translation “[dwelling] of Anzu who is in Sarsar: Born . . .”
in Geller, Melothesia, 61–62.
) 135
fident of restoring [al]-du and, in any case, it cannot
be determined that these commentary lines constitute
a verbatim quotation. If W. W. Hallo and W. L. Moran
were indeed correct to restore an epithet of Enlil as
qa[r-ra-ad DINGIR.MEŠ] (Anzû I, 22) in close proximity
to the Šaršar Mountain reference (I, 25),40 this may
provide a clue as to why Asalluhi’s title “warrior of the
gods” reminded the commentator of the Anzû passage.
Damage to the commentator’s argument makes it
difficult to figure out which constellation he intended.
One might readily view the Anzû-bird as a reference to
the Horse constellation, since the two are connected
in 5R 46 No. 1 (line 20) and in the Great Star List
(line 159).41 As a matter of fact, the explanation for
a ritual connects “the ghost of Anzû” to “the horses
which are harnessed to [a ritual Elamite chariot].”42
Scholars have identified the Horse constellation as
Lacerta or Equuleus (P. F. Gössmann), parts of Cas-
siopeia (U. Koch, H. Hunger, and D. Pingree), or left
it undefined (E. Reiner and R. K. Kolev).43 It is not
accidental that several of these proposals lie in the
vicinity of Sagittarius. In a couple of Uruk Calendar
Texts (SpTU III, 104 and 105) that correlate zodiacal
signs with appropriate therapeutic ingredients from
animals, Sagittarius calls for “smearing with the head,
feather, and blood of an Anzû-bird.”44
40
W. W. Hallo and W. L. Moran, “The First Tablet of the SB
Recension of the Anzu-Myth,” JCS 31/2 (1979): 78.
41
Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian Astrology, 195 (line 159);
cf. E. F. Weidner, “Ein astrologischer Sammeltext aus der Sargo-
nidenzeit,” AfO 19 (1959–60): 107.
42
VAT 8917, obv. 25 in A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythologi-
cal Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Oxford,
1986), 124–25, §2.
43
ŠL 4/2, 11, no. 32; Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian As-
trology, 207; Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences, 273; BPO 2, 10;
R. K. Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe: The Calendar of Creation,
SAAS 22 (Winona Lake, IN, 2013), 268. One may be tempted
to connect the “Horse” to the classical horse-constellations of
Equuleus and Pegasus, even if their constellation boundaries and
mythological backgrounds do not match up exactly. See Living-
stone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 147; George,
“Babylonian Texts,” 157 n. 22.
44
SAG.DU An-zi-i PA An-zi-i u ÚŠ MIN (= An-zi-i) MIN (= ŠÉŠ).
SpTU III, 104 (lines 11, 24) and 105 (lines 8, 21). For the status
of zodiacal signs in Calendar Texts as those of a virtual moon, see
Wee, “Virtual Moons.” In a section of tablet BM 33535 dealing
with “Crab (micro-Cancer) of Pabilsag (Sagittarius)” (rev. 1–15),
it is less clear whether the prescription of “horse-skin” and “horse-
sinew” (rev. 13–14) corresponds to the zodiacal sign Sagittarius
or to the micro-zodiacal sign micro-Cancer. H. Hunger, “How to
136 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies

obverse
1 [GE 10-ḫi UR.SAG DINGIR.MEŠ mu-ma-ʾ-ir an-duru2-na : . . .] ⸢an⸣-zu-ú šá ina ŠÁR.Š[ÁR . . .]
2 [x] ⸢x⸣ [. . . mu-ma-ʾ-ir an-duru2]-⸢na (?) :⸣ dNin-giš-zi-da : m[úlMUŠ (?)]
3 [GE 10-ḫi š]á nam-ri-r[i lit-bu-šu ma-lu-ú pu]l-ḫa-a-ti
4 lu-ba-ri šá x[. . .] x lu-ú UR.MAḪ
5 ⸢GE 10-ḫi⸣ a-pir AGA šá [me-lam-mu-šú ra]-šub-bat za-a-nu
6 šu-ku-us GADA.T[ÙN . . . T]ÙN : ši-ir-ʾu!(mu) ina ŠÀ múlAB.SÍN
7 šá me-lam-mu-šú : me-l [am-me . . .] x x dab ba x x sar ár
8 GE 10-ḫi ḫa-tin a-bi-ri-⸢i⸣ m[u-še-zib en-ši : du]n-na-mu-u : en-šú : dun-na-mu-u : ú-la-la
9 múlRÍN SI múlGÍR.TAB : x[. . .].MEŠ-šú ana ⸢ne!⸣-me-el (?) ni-ši i-na IGI NU.GIG.ME
10 ina ŠÀ GÍR.TAB IGI.MEŠ šú-nu [: ina ma]-ḫar (?) AGA šá dŠi-da-da NU.IGI.MEŠ
11 lìb-bu-ú d15.MEŠ [ana(?) SA]G.DU-šú-nu KUD.⸢DA⸣ MU gab-bi KI múlGÍR.TAB
12 GE 10-ḫi mu-ub-bír ÍD.MEŠ mu-⸢kin⸣ na-piš-tú KUR : ÍD.ME KI múlGÍR.TAB tam-tim
13 na-piš-tú ma-a-tú šá DUG4-u : dBe-let-da-ád-me
14 GE 10-ḫi lúḪAL EŠ.BAR pa-ri-is ḪAL.ḪAL.LA : KI múlPA.BIL.SAG
15 lúḪAL u lúšá-ʾ-i-lu : ḪAL.ḪAL.LA : ḪAL : bi-ri ḪAL : pi-riš-tú
16 GE 10-ḫi pe-tu-ú sat-tak-ku mu-[ḫ]al-líq ṣe-nu u rag-⸢gu⸣ : SUḪUR.MAŠ ina qí-bit-sú ina-aṭ-ṭal PAP
17 šu-pul me-e mu-ú-tú [: š]u-pul « šá » AN-e šú-u : ⸢É⸣ ni-ṣir-tú šá dṢal-bat-a-nu
18 MUL ṣar-ḫu : ⸢ṣar⸣-[. . .]x-šú : BÙR : ši-la ⸢:⸣ BÙR : šu-pul : BÙR : dṢal-bat-a-nu
19 ⸢GE 10⸣-ḫi šá U4-šam-mu p[i-i ni-š]i i-ḫi-ṭu : múl⸢APIN⸣ [:] dBAD : dA-la-la : dBAD
20 ⸢d⸣A-la-la [ina pi-i] ni-ši li-in-na-bi : ⸢d⸣BAD šá ina pi-i ni-ši šak-nu

reverse
1 [G]E 10-ḫi šá šá-ru-⟨ru⟩-šú ú-na[m-ma-ru KUR].KUR.MEŠ : KI múlKUN.MEŠ ⸢ina⸣ itiŠE U4.20.KAM
2 šá ni-ši SUK.MEŠ-ši-na ana dUTU [ú-kan ma-aq-q]í-tú šá U4.20.KAM šá itiŠE šá ni-ši IGI.MEŠ-ši-na
3 i-qa-a ÉN dUTU U4.20.[KAM U4 na]m-ri GURUN pi-i iṣ-ṣi : šá-niš ana UGU šá-ru-ru šá dUTU DUG4-⸢ú⸣
4 GE 10-ḫi šá bir-bir-ru-šú u[b-ba-tu BÀD ab-ni :] ana UGU múlLÚ.⸢ḪUN⸣.GÁ 5 UŠ EGIR giš-šú
5 šá múlLÚ.ḪUN.G[Á . . .]x šá d30 dUTU ana ŠÀ KUR-du ul-tu dUTU
6 ina giš gú x[. . . d30 i]na IGI dUTU GUB BÀD NA4 : AGA d30
7 it-bal! x[. . .]x na : a-di d30 ub-ba-tú BÀD NA4
8 ana UGU AGA [d30 . . .] x : dUTU ana KI.⸢GUB⸣ šá d30 NA4 a- saksàk
9 LÚ.ḪUN.GÁ : x[. . . mú]lALLA Á.SÀG šá-niš ana UGU zi-mi šá dUTU šá KUR-ú šá NA4 pi-i iṣ-ṣu
10 GE 10-ḫi er-šú it-pe-šú šá š [u-tu-ru ḫa-si-sa :] ŠÀ ÁB.ÁB.ÁB.ÁB dBAD ḫa-si-si : dBAD
11 [G]E 10-ḫi šá gišTUKUL-šú a-bu-b [u ez-zu : múlGÀ]M kak-ku šá ŠU.2 dAMAR.UTU gam-lu
12 šag-gi-šú : x [. . . š]á-ga-šú ⸢muš⸣-mi!(im)-tú : mu-bal-li-ṭu
13 AMAR ez-zu : ni(?) [. . .] ina lìb-bi MU šá dAMAR.UTU qa-ti
14 [GE] ⸢10-ḫi šá⸣ ina di-pa-ri-šú i-qa-m[u-ú a-a-b]u u lem-nu : dGIBIL6 nu-ú-ri šá IGI d+EN.ME.ŠÁR.RA
15 [GE 10-ḫi d+En-líl DING]IR.MEŠ a-ši-ir [kib-ra-a-ti :] múlGIŠ.GIGIR dEN.ME.ŠÁR.RA : d+En-líl
16 [GE 10-ḫi re-ʾ-ú kiš-šat ni-š]i ṣ[u-lul kal da-á]d-me : múlSIPA.ZI.AN.NA re-ʾ-um
17 [. . .] ⸢d⸣ì-lí-ab-rat : DINGIR.MEŠ ab-ra-a-ti
18 [. . . IM mŠe-ma-ʾ-ia A (?) m]dŠÀ.ZU-per-ʾ-uṣ-ru A mE-ṭ[i-ru]

Figure 3a—Transliteration of Astral Commentary BM 47529 + 47685

 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons ) 137

(19–20)
Sirius, Hydra §8c Alāla refers to Enlil. “Let the work song (Alāla) be
§1a (Obv. 1) [“I am Asalluhi, warrior of the gods, director of intoned [in the mouths] of the people” refers to Enlil (Illil)
Anduruna”] placed in the mouths of the people.
§1b (1–2) [refers to . . .] the Anzû-bird which in Šaršar [. . .] Pisces
§1c (2) [“Director of Anduruna” (?)] refers to Ningišzida, which §9a (Rev. 1)
“I am Asalluhi, whose rays brighten the lands”
(1)
refers to [the Snake (?)]. §9b refers to the region of the Tails.
(1–3)
Leo §9c In Month Addaru (XII) Day 20 when people [set] their
§2a (3) “[I am Asalluhi], who [is clothed] with splendor, [filled food offerings for the sun-god Šamaš (and) pour out the
with] fearsomeness” people’s libations of Month Addaru (XII) Day 20 before
§2b (4) (refers to) the garment of . . . themselves.
§2c (4) . . . or the lion. §9d (3)
Spell of the sun-god Šamaš (for) “Day 20, the bright
Virgo [day]” (according to the hemerology series) “Fruit,”
§3a (5) “I am Asalluhi, who wears a crown, whose [radiance] is §9e (3)
wording of a wooden (writing-board) (?).
(3)
adorned with awe.” §9f Secondly, it is said concerning the “rays” of the sun-god
§3b (6) Headdress (means) GADA.TÙN. [. . . TÙN refers to a (thin) Šamaš.
hoe. (?)] TÙN refers to the plowed-trough in the middle of Aries
(4)
the Furrow. §10a “I am Asalluhi, whose luminosity [destroys a stone wall]”
§3c (7) “Whose radiance” refers to the radiance [of the Barley- §10b (4)
concerns the Hired Man.
(4–5)
stalk. (?)] §10c 5 UŠ (degrees) behind the Thigh of the Hired Man
§3d (7) . . . [. . .]
Libra §10d (5–6) . . . at which the moon (and) the sun arrive therein.
§4a (8) “I am Asalluhi, who protects the needy, who [saves the From the sun . . . [the moon] stands in front of the sun.
weak].” §10e (6–7) “The stone wall” that is the moon’s crown disappears
§4b (8) The lowly means “the weak.” The lowly means the feeble . . . as far as the moon.
(ulāla). §10f (7–8) “Destroys the stone wall” concerns the [moon’s] crown
§4c (9) (Which refers to) the Scales, (which are) the horn (i.e., . . . refers to the sun at the moon’s position.
claws) of the Scorpion. §10g (8–9) “Stone” of the Asakku-monster (refers to) (its) hireling.
§4d (9) Its [. . .] for the benefit (?) of the people in front of the . . . the Crab (refers to) the Asakku-monster.
hierodules (for the month Ulūlu (VI)). §10h (9) Secondly, it concerns the effulgence of the sun-god Šamaš
§4e (10) They are seen within the scorpion (MIR) [means (?)] they from a mountain of stone,
are not seen [before (?)] the crown (MIR) of Šidada. §10i (9) wording of a wooden (writing-board) (?).
§4f (11) As in, Ištar-votaries are consecrated (?) for the entire year The Ford
(in) the region of the Scorpion. §11a (10) “I am Asalluhi, the wise, the learned, who is [superlative
Scorpio in understanding].”
§5a (12) “I am Asalluhi, who encompasses the rivers, who secures §11b (10) The heart of the stars (is) Bēl. “Understanding” refers to
the life of the land.” Bēl.
§5b (12) “Rivers” (refer to) the region of the Scorpion, (which is) Auriga
the Sea. §12a (11) “I am Asalluhi, whose weapon is the [fierce] deluge”
§5c (13) “Life of the land,” which is said, refers to Bēlet-dadmē. §12b (11) refers to the Crook, the weapon of Marduk’s hands.
Sagittarius §12c (11–12) “Crook” (gamlu) (refers to) a murderer. [. . . To save
§6a (14) “I am Asalluhi, diviner of the verdict, who decides the (gamālu) (?) means] to murder. One who kills corresponds to
allotment (ḪAL.ḪAL.LA)” one who heals.
§6b (14–15) refers to the region of Pabilsag, the diviner and dream- §12d (13) AMAR (“bull-calf ”) (means) “fierce.” . . . [UTU means
interpreter. “deluge.” (?)] It is fulfilled within the name of Marduk
§6c (15) ḪAL.ḪAL.LA consists of ḪAL meaning divination (and) ḪAL (dAMAR.UTU).
meaning secret. Hyades
Capricorn §13a (14) “[I am] Asalluhi, who with his torch burns the [enemy]
§7a (16) “I am Asalluhi, who opens (one’s understanding of) and the evil one”
cuneiform wedges, who destroys the evil and the wicked” §13b (14) refers to the fire-god Girru, (who is) the Lamp that is
§7b (16) refers to SUḪUR.MAŠ (meaning “goat-fish” or “to before Enmešarra.
perforate”). North Taurus
§7c (16) At his utterance, everything becomes apparent (by §14a (15) “[I am Asalluhi, Enlil] of the gods, who organizes the
extispicy). [world regions]”
§7d (17) The depth of the Waters of Death is the depth of the sky, §14b (15) [refers to] the Chariot of Enmešarra, who refers to “Enlil.”
which refers to the House of Secret of Mars. Orion
§7e (18) The flared-up star refers to . . . §15a (16) “[I am Asalluhi, shepherd of all] people, protection of
§7f (18) BÙR means a perforation (in the organ for extispicy). BÙR [every] inhabitant”
means depth. BÙR (representing “Marduk”) means Mars. §15b (16) refers to Sipazianna the shepherd.
The Plow §15c (17) [. . .] The god Iliabrat refers to the gods (ilū) of human-
§8a (19) “I am Asalluhi, who daily checks the mouths of the kind (abrāti).
people” Colophon
§8b (19) refers to [the Plow], which refers to Enlil. §16 (18) [. . . Šemaʾya son of (?)] Marduk-perʾu-uṣur, descendant
of Ēṭiru.
Figure 3b—Translation of Astral Commentary BM 47529 + 47685
138 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
An allusion to Sagittarius here would be problem-
atic, as the structure of this astral commentary requires a
constellation in the zodiacal sign Cancer at this point in
the text. Another solution presents itself if we consider
the “warrior” referenced to be Ninurta (or Ningirsu),
who is after all the main protagonist of the Anzû story.
Taking his cue not from the Anzû-bird itself but from
the instruments of its destruction, the commentator
may have had in mind the Arrow constellation (Sirius),
whose associations with the months Duʾūzu (IV) and
Abu (V) and whose order of mention in Mul-apin and
the astrolabes suggests a location in or near the fourth
zodiacal sign of Cancer.45 In fact, the full title of this
constellation in Mul-apin (I, ii 6) reveals the source of
its imagery in the Anzû narrative and emphasizes the
“warrior” status of its user: “The Arrow, the arrow of
the great warrior Ninurta.”46 The commentator’s efforts
to appropriate Ninurta’s achievements for Marduk finds
a parallel in an explanatory text for a ritual (K 3476),
which describes how by “unsparing arrows from the
quiver of Bēl . . . the evil gods Anzû and Asakku, were
defeated in their midst,” where the name Bēl refers
to the god Marduk (see Prolegomena).47 Indeed, the
commentator repeats the same trick in a later entry
(§10g), where the destruction of the Asakku-monster
by Ninurta described in Lugale is similarly ascribed to
Marduk.
§1c. Although the exact way to restore this line
may be questioned, its meaning is clear. Anduruna’s
location in the Netherworld is implied by the descrip-
tion of Enmešarra as one “who issues decrees of the
Netherworld, great bond of Anduruna” (K 48, rev.
3), as well as the juxtaposition of “Anduruna” and
“Where the sun rises” ([d]UTU.È.A) on a Susa exercise
tablet (MDP 27, no. 159), which envisions the sun
Make the Gods Speak: A Late Babylonian Tablet Related to the
MicroZodiac,” in Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, ed. M. T.
Roth et al. (Chicago, 2007), 141–44; see also discussion of tablet
BM 33535 in §6b.
45
H. Hunger and D. Pingree, MUL.APIN: An Astronomical
Compendium in Cuneiform, AfO Beih. 24 (Horn, Austria, 1989),
32 (I, ii 6). Month IV in Circular Astrolabe Reconstruction; VAT
9416, I ii [1], 8; II obv. i 13; III 4; IV 7; LBAT 1499, obv. ii 4,
16; CT 33, pl. 9, rev. 11′ in W. Horowitz, The Three Stars Each: The
Astrolabes and Related Texts, AfO Beih. 33 (Austria, 2014), 1 (Fig.
1), 34–35, 37, 40–41, 126–127, 210; K 3119 = ACh, 2nd Suppl. 63,
i 26′ in Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe, 178–79.
46 I mul
KAK.SI.SÁ šil-ta-ḫu UR.SAG GAL-ú dNin-urta (Mul-apin I, ii 6).
47
K 3476, obv. 11–15 in Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological
Explanatory Works, 120–23, §7, where dbēl is directly translated as
“Marduk.”
sojourning in the Netherworld at night prior to its
emergence from the eastern horizon.48 The commen-
tator’s argument here recalls “the Snake, Ningišzida,
Lord of the Netherworld” in Mul-apin (I, ii 8), and
Netherworld connections are probably implied as well
in the mention of “Snake and Ningišzida” in Astrolabe
B.49 The same is true for 5R 46 No. 1 (line 29), where
the famed Netherworld goddess Ereškigal stands in
place of Ningišzida. In BM 82923 (obv. 9), the Snake
constellation is paired with Ištaran, who is associated
elsewhere with the “Little Snake” Niraḫ and various
chthonic deities.50
Most scholars link the Snake to the Hydra con-
stellation, though Kolev has recently proposed the
Hyades + α Cancri instead.51 Astral texts tend to group
together Lion and Snake, as constellations that rise
around the same time, even if each belongs to a differ-
ent celestial “Path” (i.e., of Anu/Enlil).52 The drawing
of Jupiter’s House of Secret on the obverse of tablet
VAT 7847+AO 6448 depicts the Snake slightly ahead
of the Lion (Leo), which agrees with the order of
constellations in this commentary.53
§2. Leo
§2a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 2′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 6′,
which is also cited in the Assur commentary Ass.
13955fx (A 163), rev. 1.54
48
pa-ri-is EŠ.BAR KI-tim mar-kás GAL-ú šá an-duru2-na (K 48, rev.
3) in Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 470; W. Heimpel, “The
Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts,” JCS
38/2 (1986): 127–51.
49
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 32 (I, ii 8); MUL ša EGIR.
BI GUB-[zu] / dMUŠ u dNIN.GIŠ.Z[I.DA] (VAT 9416, II obv. iii 6–7) in
Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 39.
[ MUŠ] = dKA.DI dA-nu (BM 82923, obv. 9) in C. B. F.
50 I mu l
Walker and H. Hunger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” MDOG 109 (1977):
30–31. See discussion by F. A. M. Wiggermann, “Mischwesen A,”
RLA 8/1–2 (1993): 233–35, §3.1; F. A. M. Wiggermann, “Niraḫ,
Irḫan,” RLA 9 (1998–2001): 570–74.
51
ŠL 4/2, 112–13, no. 284; BPO 2, 13; Koch(-Westenholz),
Mesopotamian Astrology, 208; Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences,
276; Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe, 269.
52
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 48 (I, iii 17), 52 (I, iii 32);
Month III in Circular Astrolabe Reconstruction; VAT 9416, III 3,
IV 18 in Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 1 (Fig. 1), 40–41.
53
E. F. Weidner, Gestirn-Darstellungen auf babylonischen Ton-
tafeln (Wien, 1967), Tafeln 5–6, 9.
54
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lambert,
“Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 6; Geller, Evil Demons, 155, Excerpt
4, 1; Assur commentary in Geller, Melothesia, 65, §11 (61).
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
§2b/c. Too much of this line (obv. 4) is damaged to
be certain whether parts §2b and §2c build upon the
same feature in the base text, and whether they each
represent the same or a different argument. In one
interpretation, “clothed with splendor” could have
been understood by the commentator as “the garment
of ” a king, alluding to the star “King” (Regulus) in
the zodiacal sign Leo.
On the other hand, the full description “clothed
with splendor, filled with fearsomeness” may have
reminded the commentator of similar language in
Gilgamesh X, 6, where the hero presents himself to
the ale-wife Šiduri “clothed in a skin, [filled with
(?)] fearsomeness” (maška labiš pu-l[u]ḫ-tu[m . . .]),
since he had earlier put on “the skin of a lion” (mašak
labbi; Gilgamesh VIII, 91 // VII, 147) in mourning
for Enkidu.55 Whether or not one accepts this con-
nection, both Gilgamesh and this astral commentary
probably employed wordplay involving the states of
being “clothed” (G stem: labiš) and being “lion-like”
(labbiš). To be sure, the use of the Gt stem (litbuš) in
Marduk’s Address somewhat obscures the similarity
in word forms, but it was not unusual for ancient
commentators to construct their arguments relying
on Akkadian verbal stems other than the one cited
from the base text.56 The múl (“star”) determinative
was omitted in the writing UR.MAḪ (see Prolegom-
ena), since the commentator’s conclusions here were
applicable to all lions (including the constellation),
rather than limited by features specific to the Lion
constellation (Leo).
55
A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction,
Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts (Oxford, 2003), 642–43
(VII, 147), 656–57 (VIII, 91), 678–79 (X, 6). For the lion-skin
in ritual contexts, see R. S. Ellis, “Lion-men in Assyria,” in Essays
on the Ancient Near East, ed. Ellis, 67–78; J. Curtis and J. Reade,
Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum (Lon-
don, 2000), 62, No. 12; J. Reade, “Religious Ritual in Assyrian
Sculpture,” in Ritual and Politics in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed. B. N.
Porter, AOS 88 (New Haven, 2005), 20; M.-A. Ataç, The Mythol-
ogy of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art (Cambridge, 2010), 42–43.
Note also the wrapping of lion-skin around a figurine (BAM 323,
obv. 5) as part of the remedy against a ghost affliction in J. A. Scur-
lock, Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in
Ancient Mesopotamia, AMD 3 (Leiden, 2006), 530–35, No. 226.
56
For example, in SpTU I, 40, obv. 26, the commentator in-
terpreted the written form nu-uḫ5-ḫu-rat as a byform of nuʾʾru (D
stem) that shared the same meaning as its G stem nêru (“to smite”).
In STT II, 403, rev. 52–53, the commentator first equated the Gtn
stem of ḫaḫû (“to keep spewing out”) with the D stem of qâʾu (“to
spit out”), then the G stem of ḫaḫû (“to spew out”) with the G
stem of qâʾu (“to spit”).
) 139
§3. Virgo
§3a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 3′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 7′,
which is also cited in the Assur commentary Ass.
13955fx (A 163), rev. 5.57
§3b. My restored readings here reflect the lexical
equations [. . . GADA.TÙ]N = ga-da tùn-[na-ku = šu-
ku-su šá GADA.TÙN] in Ea III, 2 (MSL XIV, 303); [. . .
GADA . TÙN ] = šu-ku-su šá GADA . TÙN in Aa III/1, 8
(MSL XIV, 319). Geller, by contrast, understood this
line (obv. 6) as šu-ku-us gadat[a-kil-ti šá NA4 pi-i iṣ-ṣ]i
(“Headdress of purple [of . . .-minerals]”).58
Individual cuneiform signs were correctly read as
ši-ir-mu ina ŠÀ múlAB.SÍN (translated: “trimming in the
middle of Virgo”) by Lambert and Geller.59 I have
proposed the emendation ši-ir-ʾu!(mu), however, in
view of how frequently the term šerʾu (CAD Š II)
appears as a synonym for the “furrow” in agricultural
contexts and as part of the constellation or zodiacal
sign Virgo. Indeed, the commentator likely had in
mind the characterization of Marduk by his name Sir-
sir: šu-ku-us-su šèr-ʾu, “whose headdress is the furrow”
(Enūma eliš VII, 73).60 The argument here is largely
damaged, but the restoration [T]ÙN is plausible, espe-
cially since the commentator went out of his way to
introduce the form GADA.TÙN as a kind of headdress
corresponding to Asalluhi’s crown. In my interpreta-
tion, the damaged portion of this line (obv. 6) includes
the equation TÙN : aḫzu (“TÙN means [thin] hoe”) and
perhaps also TÙN : pāšu (“TÙN means hatchet”), which
link the element TÙN in the GADA.TÙN headdress to
“the plowed-trough in the middle of the Furrow.”61
§3c. I tentatively restore this commentarial argu-
ment as follows: “ ‘Whose (i.e., Asalluhi’s) radiance’
57
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lambert,
“Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 7; Geller, Evil Demons, 155, Excerpt
4, 2; Assur commentary in Geller, Melothesia, 65, §12 (62).
58
Geller, Melothesia, 61–62.
59
Lambert Folio 9619; Geller, Melothesia, 61–62.
60
Enūma eliš VII, 73 in Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths,
129–30.
61
For TÙN.SAL = aḫzu, see Hh. VI, 233 (MSL VI, 73); XI, 377
(MSL VII, 144). Its status as an agricultural implement is clear from
the series Ana ittīšu IV, ii 25 (MSL I, 56): a-šà tùn-sal-ta ba-ab-
ak-ta = eqla ina aḫzi urappiq (“after he plowed the field with a
(thin) hoe”). For TÙN = pāšu, see Aa VIII/1, 130 (MSL XIV, 492);
Proto-Aa, No. 13 iii 8 (MSL XIV, 134); Sb I, 94 (MSL III, 104);
Hh. VI, 231 (MSL VI, 73); XI, 375; XII, 128 (MSL VII, 144, 164).
Both implements ([urudu]gín-sal and [giš]gín) appear and are discussed
in M. Civil, The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural
Manual, AuOrS 5 (Barcelona, 1994), 70–71, 73.
140 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
refers to the radiance [of the Barley-stalk. (?)]” (obv.
7), alluding to the goddess Šala’s “Barley-stalk”
(šubultu) associated with the Furrow constellation
in Mul-apin I, ii 10, and depicted together with the
Snake (Hydra) and Raven (Corvus+Crater) in a draw-
ing of Mercury’s House of Secret (VAT 7847 + AO
6448, reverse).62 Scholars have long connected the
prominent star Spica (α Virginis) to this Barley-stalk,
which finds confirmation in its reference as the “Bright
Star (lit. ‘nominated one’) of the Furrow” (SA4 šá AB-
SIN) in lists of Normal Stars, as well as its frequent use
to represent the entire constellation of the Furrow.63
In non-astronomical contexts, the Sumerian Debate
Between Grain and Sheep includes a boast by Grain
that “all the yarns of Uttu, the radiance (me-lám =
melammu) of kingship, belong to me” (line 96), while
no comparable claim to melammu-radiance is made
by Sheep.64 The therapeutic or ritual efficacy of plant
ingredients was imagined in terms of the plant’s con-
ferral of radiance to the suppliant: “May the tamarisk
purify me! May the [maštakal-plant] relieve me and
give me its melammu-radiance!”65
§3d. Geller understood the cuneiform as šá me-
lam-mu-šú pi x [. . .] x x ṭàb-ba-⸢aʾ NU?⸣ SAR-ár (obv.
7), which translates as “the sheen of which is [like a
tablet(?)]. . . cancelled (or) not inscribed.”66 The signs
in the latter half of this line are too damaged for me
to interpret with confidence.
§4. Libra
§4a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 4′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 8′.67
62
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 33 (I, ii 10); Weidner,
Gestirn-Darstellungen, Tafel 10.
63
A. Sachs, “Babylonian Observational Astronomy,” in The
Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World, ed. F. R. Hodson (Lon-
don, 1974), 46, Table 1; cf. Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences,
149 (no. 23), 150 (α Virginis in BM 46083).
64
B. Alster and H. L. J. Vanstiphout, “Lahar and Ashnan: Pre-
sentation and Analysis of a Sumerian Disputation,” ASJ 9 (1987):
20–21.
65 giš
bi-nu li-⸢líl-an-ni⸣ [úIN.NU.UŠ] lip-šur-an-ni / lid-di-na me-
lam-ma-šá (K 2535 + 2598, rev. 18–19) in AMT 72/1; restored
from parallel in J. Laessøe, Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series
bît rimki (København, 1955), 58, lines 89–92.
66
Geller, Melothesia, 61–62, §3 (62).
67
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 8; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 3.
§4b. It is possible the commentator wanted to con-
nect “the weak” (enšu) in the base text to the “horn”
(SI) of the scorpion (§4c), on the basis of lexical equa-
tions like sig = en-šu, si = e-ni-šu (Antagal G, 118–19
in MSL XVII, 224). If this were his sole purpose, how-
ever, there would have been little need to introduce
the terms dunnamû (“the lowly”) and ulāla (“the
feeble”), especially since the latter were not expressed
by the logogram SI. All three terms (enšu, dunnamû,
and ulāla) are found grouped together in lexical texts
and in the “Principal Commentary” on Izbu.68 The
commentator seems to be arguing that enšu (“the
weak”) could be equated with ulāla (“the feeble”),
because each of these terms had semantic overlap
with dunnamû (“the lowly”). Having demonstrated
this point, he could then relate the base text to the
sixth Babylonian month Ulūlu and its theme of “pu-
rification” (ullulu), whose description in a menology
supplied fodder for argumentation in §4d–f. Resem-
blances in the sound patterns of ulāla and Ulūlu/ul-
lulu in this entry anticipate a similar kind of wordplay
later between the alālu-worksong and the divine name
Enlil pronounced as Illil (§8c).
§4c. The Mul-apin entry “the Scales, the horn of
the Scorpion” (I, ii 11) consists of two designations for
the same constellation rather than two different con-
stellations, given the way Mul-apin adheres to lexical
conventions in marking each new entry with a single
DIŠ sign.69 The commentator must have shared this
view that the Scales (Libra) represent the “horn” (i.e.,
claws) portion of the Scorpion constellation, since
there seems little in his argument that might require
the mention of the “Scales” otherwise. Here is the
precursor for Arabic etymologies of Zubenelgenubi (α
Librae) and Zubeneschamali (β Librae) as “southern
claw” and “northern claw” respectively, which depicts
these stars as extensions of the Scorpion. The same
understanding is implied in Calendar Texts SpTU
III, 104 and 105, where the zodiacal signs Libra and
Scorpio come with identical therapeutic instructions
68
Erimhuš IV, 116–18 in MSL XVII, 62; Malku IV, 47–48
and VIII, 16 in I. Hrůša, Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku =
šarru: Eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar, AOAT
50 (Münster, 2010), 381, 422; “Principal Commentary” on Izbu,
51 in E. Leichty, The Omen Series Šumma Izbu, TCS 4 (New York,
1970), 213.
69
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 33 (I, ii 11), 138; cf.
R. Watson and W. Horowitz, Writing Science before the Greeks: A
Naturalistic Analysis of the Babylonian Astronomical Treatise MUL.
APIN, CHANE 48 (Leiden, 2011), 66.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
to “smear with molted-skin of scorpion (qí-líp GÍR.
TAB).”70 Another example of how stars can perform
double duty in pictorial representations of asterisms
is found on the obverse of tablet VAT 7851. In a
drawing of the moon’s House of Secret, the Pleiades
are represented twice: first, as a group of seven “stars”
(MUL.MUL), and secondly, as the “bristle” (zappu) on
the hump of the Bull (Taurus).71
§4d. Much of the remainder of this commentary
entry (§4d–f) is obscure, but likely alludes to a menol-
ogy for rituals of “purification” (ullulu) performed
during the sixth Babylonian month Ulūlu, which be-
longs to the bilingual first section of Astrolabe B on a
tablet (VAT 9416) copied probably in the reign of the
Assyrian king Ninurta-apil-Ekur (early 12th century
BC).72 The Sumerian text alone appears also on a Kas-
site Babylonian tablet (VAT 17081) with only parts of
the first six months badly preserved.73 The menology
reads: I itikin mulban dInanna Elam-maki-ke4 / amalu-
e-ne dÍd-lú-ru-gú / sikil-e-dè mu-bi in.dadag / itiKIN
ši-pír dU.DAR e-la-ma-ti / dU.DAR.MEŠ ina dÍD ú-tál-
la-la / šat-tu-su ú-tab-ba-ba, “[Translation of Akka-
dian:] Month Ulūlu (VI), Activity of the Elamite Ištar:
Ištar-votaries are purified in the divine river, they are
70
My reading qí-líp GÍR.TAB (“molted-skin of scorpion”) refers
to the “peeled-off skin” (CAD Q s.v. qilpu) or exoskeleton shed by
a scorpion as it grows beyond its original size. The cuneiform was
previously transliterated as KI.KAL-tim in SpTU III, 104 and 105;
E. Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia, TAPS 85/4 (Philadelphia,
1995), 116–17; and translated as “empty place” (perhaps the Ak-
kadian teriktim, logogram KI.KAL) in J. M. Steele, “Astronomy and
Culture in Late Babylonian Uruk,” in Archaeoastronomy and Ethno-
astronomy: Building Bridges between Cultures, ed. C. L. N. Ruggles
(Cambridge, 2011), 336. The writing BAR GÍR.TAB in SpTU II, 49,
obv. 8′, 9′, refers to the same ingredient, where the logogram BAR
likely represents qilpu rather than quleptu in N. P. Heeßel, “Stein,
Pflanze und Holz: Ein neuer Text zur ‘medizinischen Astrologie,”
OrNS 74/1 (2005): 8. In these practices of medical zodiology, it
would have been safer to collect molted remains than to capture
living scorpions (or snakes) as ingredients.
71
Weidner, Gestirn-Darstellungen, Tafeln 1–2. Similarly, accord-
ing to Bayer, designations used today that are based in part on Ptol-
emy’s perception of asterisms, the star Alpheratz is simultaneously
α Andromedae and δ Pegasi, while the star Elnath is likewise both
β Tauri and γ Aurigae.
72
“Hand of Marduk-balāssu-ēreš the junior scribe, son of Nin-
urta-uballissu the king’s scribe. Checked by Bēl-aḫu-iddina. . . .
Eponym year of Ikkaru” (VAT 9416, Colophon) in Horowitz, The
Three Stars Each, 42; cf. Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences, 51.
73
J. van Dijk, Literarische Texte aus Babylon, VS 24 (Berlin,
1987), no. 120 (= VAT 17081, obv. 1–15); Horowitz, The Three
Stars Each, 239.
) 141
cleansed each year” (VAT 9416, I ii 16–21; cf. VAT
17081, obv. 14–15).74
In Cohen’s description of cultic activity for the
month Ulūlu (VI), several events and observances
evidently harken back to this menology.75 Included
in a section on months and festivals in the Nippur
Compendium, for example, are the lines dÍd-lú-ru-
gú-gíd-da = i-si-in-nu dIš-tar / Ú-lu-lu = šá dIš-tar,
“dÍd-lú-ru-gú-gíd-da (parallel to dÍd-lú-ru-gú earlier)
= Festival of Ištar; Month Ulūlu (VI) = as pertaining
to Ištar” (iii 26′–27′).76 In Milkya near the city of
Arbela, King Assurbanipal erected an akītu-house for
Ištar of Arbela, where a festival seems to have been
celebrated on the 17th of Ulūlu (VI).77 As a matter of
fact, more of the menology may be implied than stated
in Assurbanipal’s prism inscription describing how “in
the month Ulūlu (VI), activity of Ištar-votaries (šipir
ištarâte), festival of Assur the exalted, . . . against
Teumman, king of Elam, I took the road . . .” (Cyl.
B, v 77ff.),78 given the appropriateness of warring
against the Elamite king while invoking the goddess
named elsewhere “the Elamite Ištar.” Finally, though
the significance of entire months may not always be
clearly expressed in day-by-day hemerologies, the Of-
fering Bread Hemerology appears to prescribe more
than the usual frequency of offerings for Ištar during
the month Ulūlu (VI).79
For this commentary entry, I follow Geller’s trans-
lation “hierodules” for NU.GIG.ME, which often cor-
responds to the Akkadian term qadištu (sg.), qašdātu
(pl.).80 Context suggests the later designation d15.MEŠ
74
The KAV 218 copy of tablet VAT 9416 suggests typos in the
transliterations dÍd.lu.ru.gú (BPO 2, 82) and ši-pir (Kolev, The Baby-
lonian Astrolabe, 159; corrected as ši-pír in Horowitz, The Three
Stars Each, 35).
75
More comprehensive lists of allusions to such cultic activity
may be found in M. E. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient
Near East (Bethesda, MD, 1993), 321–26; M. E. Cohen, Festivals
and Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD, 2015),
421–24; Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 75–76.
76
A. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, OLA 40 (Leu-
ven, 1992), 154–55.
77
M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis
zum Untergange Ninivehs (Leipzig, 1916), 248–49 (K 891, obv.
6–7), 320–21 (K 2637, line 7); G. van Driel, The Cult of Aššur (As-
sen, 1969), 149.
78
Streck, Assurbanipal, 118–19; A. C. Piepkorn, Historical
Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, I: Editions E, B1–5 , D, and K,
AS 5 (Chicago, 1933), 66–67.
79
A. Livingstone, Hemerologies of Assyrian and Babylonian
Scholars, CUSAS 25 (Bethesda, MD, 2013), 133–36.
80
Geller, Melothesia, 62; CAD Q s.v. qadištu.
142 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
(obv. 11; §4f) addresses this same group of females.
Based on synonymy implied by lexical texts that ex-
press the logographic form NU.GIG both as qadištu
and ištarītu,81 I interpret d15.MEŠ as the substantiv-
ized denominative adjective ištarâtu (“Ištar-ites, Ištar-
votaries”),82 which here indicates “a woman of special
status” (CAD I/J s.v. ištarītu s. 2) rather than “an epi-
thet of Ištar” (CAD I/J s.v. ištarītu s. 1). As evident
from my earlier translation, I consider the Akkadian
term dU.DAR.MEŠ in the Astrolabe B (I ii 20) menology
to be likewise a reference to human ištarâtu.83
§4e. This line (obv. 10) presents great difficulty, not
least because of the sudden mention of the relatively
rare goddess dŠidada,84 who may have been considered
an aspect of Ištar. It is however likely that the argu-
ment hinges on the cuneiform sign MIR, which lexical
texts define as a possible reading for “scorpion,”85 and
which also serves as the logogram AGA for the “crown”
of Šidada. As is the case with SUḪUR.MAŠ (meaning
“goat-fish” or “to perforate”) in §7b, the function of
the term “scorpion” (GÍR.TAB; obv. 10) as a polysemous
lexical item here explains the absence of any múl (“star”)
81
m[u-g]ibx NU.GIG = qa-áš-[da-tu], iš-ta-r[i-tu]; [mu-gibx-
gašan-an-na] NU.GIG dINANNA = MIN (Emesal Voc. II, 78–80) in MSL
IV, I 17.
82
Note the writing d15-i-tum for ištarītum (Ištar-votary) in
the same group with other human cultic personnel like “exorcist,
ecstatic, snake charmer, agugiltu, qadištu-votary, nadītu-priestess,
etc.” in G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû: neu
bearbeitet, AfO Beih. 2 (Osnabrück, 1967), 23 (Tablet III, 45) =
Maqlû III, 44 in T. Abusch, The Witchcraft Series Maqlû, SBLWAW
37 (Atlanta, 2015), 72–73. For the denominative adjective formed
by the -ī ending, see GAG, §56q.
83
Transcribed dEŠ4.DAR.MEŠ in Horowitz, The Three Stars Each,
35. Note Cohen’s description on how “goddesses are purified”
which “may have involved her (Ištar’s) statue’s consecration” and
“a series of lustrations of the goddesses throughout the cities.” Co-
hen, Cultic Calendars, 104–105, 322. While it is possible that the
purification of votaries corresponded to some kind of consecration
involving their deities or their divine statues, the primary referents
in this astral commentary and Astrolabe B appear to be humans.
84
M. Krebernik, “Šidada,” RLA 12/5–6 (2010): 452.
85
(me-er) MIR = zu-qa-qí-pu (Hh. XIV, 360) in MSL VIII/2,
39; cf. [mi-ri-tab] [GÍR].TAB = zu-qa-q[í-pu] (Emesal Voc. II, 97) in
MSL IV, I 19. It may be tempting to connect ŠÀ GÍR.TAB (lit. “heart/
belly of scorpion”; obv. 10) to the so-called ‘Scorpion-stone’: NA4
GAR-šú GIM ban-di GÍR.TAB na4GÍR.TAB MU.NI, “The stone’s form is like
the thorax (bandu) of a scorpion, ‘Scorpion-stone’ (na4GÍR.TAB) is
its name” (Abnu šikinšu, 100) in A. Schuster-Brandis, Steine als
Schutz- und Heilmittel: Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der
Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr., AOAT 46 (Mün-
ster, 2008), 31, 412; cf. na4GÍR.TAB = MIN (= NA4) zu-qa-qí-pi (Hh.
XVI, 235) in MSL X, 11. The context, however, gives no indication
that this stone was in view.
determinative. Unfortunately, the argument is dam-
aged at precisely the point where the commentator
posits a logical connection between “scorpion” and
“crown,” so interpretation remains uncertain.
§4f. I discussed in §4d my rationale for understand-
ing d15.MEŠ as ištarâtu, “Ištar-votaries (lit. Ištar-ites).”
The commentator remarked that the efficacy of their
ritual activity lasted “for the entire year” (MU gab-bi;
obv. 11), which is merely another way of saying that
they needed to repeat the activity “each year” (šat-
tu-su; VAT 9416, A ii 21). Among other cultic allu-
sions, the menology in Astrolabe B and the Nippur
Compendium both imply some act of washing and
cleansing in the divine river. The expression that con-
veys this act in the commentary is SAG.DU (lit. “head”)
+ KUD.DA (lit. “cut off”), which we should probably
understand as an idiom, rather than as a literal descrip-
tion involving the decapitation of votaries.
As a matter of fact, equations such as SAG.KUD =
NU.GIG (“hierodule”) appear in cuneiform vocabularies
found at Ugarit, which reflect the sort of ritual activ-
ity in which hierodules were perceived to be promi-
nently engaged.86 Lexical lists like Aa III/5 (MSL XIV,
344–48) or Izi D (MSL XIII, 181–83) that enumerate
meanings of the KUD sign, unfortunately, do not include
an entry that specifically “pertains to the head” (šá SAG.
[DU]). It is possible that SAG.DU (“head”) functioned as
a synecdoche for the hierodule’s “person” (CAD Q s.v.
qaqqadu s. 2), who was religiously “set apart” (KUD)
if not also “isolated” or “cloistered” after washing in
the divine river. On the other hand, a Neo-Assyrian
royal ritual (K 7060+) involving both a “cloth cover-
ing” (TÚG.DU8.DU8 = tapsû) over the king’s head and the
deity dSAG.KUD.DA may suggest some ceremonial treat-
ment actually done to the hierodule’s head.87
Given the important role of the “divine river” (dÍd-
lú-ru-gú // dÍD), it is difficult to imagine that the com-
mentator simply omitted it from his description of
the Ulūlu (VI) ritual. More likely, the “region of the
Scorpion” (obv. 11) referred not merely to the Scales’
inclusion in the Scorpion constellation, but also to the
watery nature of this celestial region and its associa-
86
SAG.KUD = NU.GIG; SAG.KUD.DA.A
= NU.GIG AN.NA; KUD.DA =
NU.GIG; KUD.DA.A = NU.GIG AN.NA (Silbenvokabular D from RS,
19′–20′, 26′–27′) in J. Nougayrol, “«Vocalises» et «Syllabes en Li-
berté» à Ugarit,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his
Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, ed. H. G. Güterbock and
T. Jacobsen, AS 16 (Chicago, 1965), 36–37.
87
A. Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Ein-
weihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche
Bilderpolemik, OBO 162 (Göttingen, 1998), 138 n. 774.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
tion with “rivers” and the “Sea” in the following entry
(§5). As I noted in the Prolegomena, it is possible that
the commentator started off with entries §12–15, then
worked his way backwards (§1–11), and perhaps we
should not be surprised that imagery in later entries
could have influenced those in earlier ones. The iden-
tification of Scorpio with the divine river also fitted
nicely into the commentator’s agenda of linking the
constellations to the god Marduk. In a collection of
invocations “by the life of ” various deities, Asalluhi/
Marduk appears with the epithet “prominent one,
who oversees the divine river.”88
One final point needs clarification: schematic rep-
resentations of the year in Babylonian astronomy not
uncommonly employed an ideal year of 360 days that
could be mapped exactly onto the zodiac circle of
360°, so that each month began with the sun’s move-
ment into a new zodiacal sign, and the 30 days of a
month corresponded to the 30° of a zodiacal sign.89
One byproduct of such a calendar was the use of Baby-
lonian month names in cuneiform writing as synonyms
for zodiacal signs of the same number.90 Later in this
commentary, for example, the equation of the Tails
constellation (eponym for the twelfth sign) with the
twelfth Babylonian month Addaru (§9b–c) is aligned
with this scheme. Here, however, the commentator’s
association of a festival in the sixth Babylonian month
Ulūlu with the Scales constellation (eponym for the
seventh zodiacal sign) may appear problematic. Perhaps
the arguments in §4d–f relied on merely the theme of
“purification” (ullulu) in the month Ulūlu (VI), with-
88
[á-ka]l-tuku šid-dù [dÍd]-lú-ru-gú : be-el pa-nu pa-qid dÍD
(VAT 13662+13883, lines 47–48) in E. Ebeling, “Sammlungen
von Beschwörungsformeln,” ArOr 21 (1953): 363–64; W. G. Lam-
bert, review of W. von Soden (ed.), Akkadisches Handwörterbuch,
JSS 19 (1974): 83 (note to p. 821a); duplicate K 7602. For á-tuku
= be-el pa-ni, see Antagal VIII, 80 in MSL XVII, 172.
89
To give but a few examples: B. L. van der Waerden, “His-
tory of the Zodiac,” AfO 16 (1952–53): 218; Weidner, Gestirn-
Darstellungen, 51; H. Hunger et al., Halley’s Comet in History
(London, 1985), 15; L. Brack-Bernsen and J. M. Steele, “Baby-
lonian Mathemagics: Two Mathematical Astronomical-Astrological
Texts,” in Studies in the History of the Exact Sciences in Honour of
David Pingree, ed. C. Burnett et al. (Leiden, 2004), 102; Qumran
text 4QZodiac Calendar = 4Q318 cols. iv, vii–viii, lines 1–6a in
H. R. Jacobus, Zodiac Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Their
Reception, IJS Studies in Judaica 14 (Leiden, 2014), 83–91; Wee,
“Virtual Moons.”
90
For example, the writing ŠU for the fourth Babylonian month
“Duʾūzu” (logogram itiŠU.[NUMUN.NA]) indicates instead the fourth
zodiacal sign “Crab” (Cancer) in SpTU III, 104, lines 4, 13, 17,
26. Note, by contrast, the writing KUŠU2 (or ALLA in late script) for
“Crab” at comparable positions in SpTU III, 105, lines 10, 23.
) 143
out necessarily drawing a connection between month
and zodiacal sign; or perhaps the ideal year was not
strictly in view here and some disjuncture of month
and zodiacal sign was considered permissible.
§5. Scorpio
§5a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 5′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 9′,
where the D stem participle mu-kil appears instead of
mu-⸢kin⸣ in this commentary.91
Geller’s proposal to derive the signs mu-up-pir from
ḫepēru (“to dig”) fits the context of “securing the life of
the land” by provision of river-canal irrigation, but the
dictionaries do not list epēru as a byform of ḫepēru.92
Another attractive verb candidate epēru (“to sustain,
provide with food rations”) is unfortunately not at-
tested in the D stem.93 Perhaps the signs mu-up-pir (or
mu-ub-bír) are better understood as the D participle of
the verb ubburu (CAD U/W) or abāru III (AHw, 4),
which describes Asalluhi as one “who encompasses the
rivers” in guardianship or protection.94
As a matter of fact, the verb ubburu (“to encom-
pass”) aptly describes the Scorpion constellation in
another astrological commentary: “ ‘If the Scorpion
encompasses Lisi, the stars of the Scorpion’s head are
large (i.e., occupy a large area)’ means Lisi is made to
scintillate” (K 2310, obv. 4–5).95 The base text (pos-
sibly cited in part) is a straightforward description of
the large area occupied by the Scorpion constellation,
so that the star Lisi (α Scorpii), elsewhere identified
as the Scorpion’s “breast,” appears to be encompassed
within other stars of the Scorpion’s head. By making
an erudite connection between the verbs rabû (“to
become large”) and raʾābu (“to shiver”), and build-
ing on equivalences between raʾābu (“to shiver”) and
91
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 9; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 4.
92
Geller, Melothesia, 61 n. 23. CAD Ḫ s.v. ḫepēru; AHw, 340.
Note also the absence of ḫepēru (“to dig”) among other verbs that
describe Marduk’s irrigation activities in T. Oshima, “Marduk, the
Canal Digger,” JNES 30 (2006): 77–88.
93
CAD E s.v. epēru; AHw, 223.
94
Asalluhi’s action of “encompassing the rivers” is also parallel
to his “holding (mukil) the life of the land” in preserved manu-
scripts of the base text, where we find the signs mu-kil instead of
mu-⸢kin⸣.
95
DIŠ mulGÍR.TAB dLi9-si4 ub-bu-ur MUL.MEŠ šá SAG mulGÍR.TAB GAL.
MEŠ-ma : dLi9-si4 ú-tam-ma-al-ma (K 2310, obv. 4–5) in ACh Ištar
no. 28.
144 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
ummulu (“to scintillate”) in lexical texts, that com-
mentator imagined an alternative scenario whereby
the stars of the Scorpion’s head make Lisi to shiver or
“scintillate.”96
§5b. I have understood KI múlGÍR.TAB tam-tim (obv.
12) not as “the region of Scorpio of the Sea,”97 but
as “the region of the Scorpion, (which is) the Sea,” in
view of astral lists that equate the Scorpion with “the
goddess Išḫara (and) the Sea (tâmtu)” (5R 46 No.
1, line 31) or the goddesses “Išḫara (and) Tiamat”
(Great Star List, line 35).98 The obvious connection
between “rivers” and the “Sea” needs no elaboration.
§5c. The expression “life of the land” recalls the
goddess Bēlet-dadmē, whose name literally means
“Lady of the inhabited world.” The commentator
must have had in mind the identification of Bēlet-
dadmē with the deity Išhara, as attested in the Šurpu
incantations and on kudurru-stelae.99 Numerous as-
tronomical references link Išhara to the Scorpion.100
96
The erudite nature of the commentary is evident from the
writing GAL.MEŠ, which, unlike the syllabic signs ra-bu, leaves no
doubt that the verb intended is rabû (“to become large”) and not
raʾābu (“to shiver”). The verbal roots ummulu (“to scintillate”)
and raʾābu (“to shiver”) are equated in An = Anum IX, 35 (CAD
U/W s.v. wamālu); as well as the following manuscripts of the
An = šamû list: LTBA II, no. 2 (VAT 10143+12966), rev. 269
// no. 3 (VAT 10248+10573+11845), rev. iv 6 // no. 4 (VAT
10378+10834), rev. iv [1′] in LTBA II, 13–14, 16.
97
Geller, Melothesia, 62.
98
Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian Astrology, 188–89 (line
35). For now, it is uncertain whether there is any allusion to Tia-
mat’s henchmen “the Scorpion-men” (GÍR.TAB.LÚ.U18.LU) in Enūma
eliš I, 142; II, 28; III, 32, 90 (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths,
58–59, 64–65, 76–77, 80–81).
99
Šurpu II, 172 in E. Reiner, Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian
and Akkadian Incantations, AfO Beih. 11 (Graz, 1958), 17; cf.
Geller, Melothesia, 62 n. 27; kudurru-stelae of Meli-Šipak (MŠ 7) iv
8′–9′ and of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē (MNA 3) iv 28 in S. Paulus, Die
babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur früh-
neubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen, AOAT 51 (Mün-
ster, 2014), 426, 547. Note, however, that Nabû’s wife Tašmetu is
addressed as bāʾilat dadmē in the prayer of K 3432 + K 8147, obv.
9 in L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London, 1896),
97 (no. 33, Plate 54).
100
EAE 51, X 19 in BPO 2, 61; Great Star List, lines 34–35
in Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian Astrology, 188–89; 30-Star
Catalog, Anu 2 in J. Oelsner and W. Horowitz, “The 30-Star Ca-
talogue HS 1897 and the Late Parallel BM 55502,” AfO 44/45
(1997–98): 178; H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings,
SAA 8 (Helsinki, 1992), 213 (no. 376, rev. 4), 281 (no. 504, obv.
5); Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 234.
§6. Sagittarius
§6a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 6′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 10′.101
The syllabic writing ḫal-ḫal-li in the base text cor-
responds here to what I consider the logographic form
ḪAL.ḪAL.LA, since we would expect writing such as ḫal-
ḫal-lu if it were merely the case of an obscured genitive
case-ending (see other examples in §7d). The dic-
tionaries experience difficulties with this term, which
has been rendered as “destinies” by Lambert, and as
“rations [lit. baskets]” by Geller.102 If the commenta-
tor’s analysis of ḪAL.ḪAL.LA in §6c is normative, such
expressions (perhaps including the familiar incanta-
tion label KA.INIM.MA) represent not the doubling of a
single term, but the genitival coupling of cognate or
semantically similar terms that each appear as the same
logographic form or cuneiform sign, i.e., “division
(ḪAL) of the lot (ḪAL)” = allotment, and “utterance
(KA, same sign as INIM) of the word (INIM)” = (incanta-
tory) recitation.103
§6b. “The region of Pabilsag” refers to an area
around the Sagittarius constellation. As a divine name,
the god “Pabilsag” often seems overshadowed by his
spouse the healing goddess Gula (or Ninisina) and
his son Damu. Such familial relationships were an
acknowledged part of astral lore, accounting for the
location of the She-goat constellation (Lyra, identified
with Gula) and the Pig constellation (perhaps Delphi-
nus, identified with Damu) in the vicinity of Pabilsag
(Sagittarius).104 The classical zodiac furnishes a good
analogy to this, in its proximate placement of Cepheus,
Cassiopeia, and Andromeda constellations, which rep-
resent the royal family of Aethiopia in the Perseus leg-
end.105 There is some question whether the She-goat
101
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 10; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 5.
102
CAD Ḫ s.v. ḫalḫallu (cf. the translation “lots(?)” in CAD P
s.v. purussû s. 2b); AHw, 311 (untranslated); Lambert, “Address of
Marduk,” 316, §B 10; Geller, Evil Demons, 234 n. 35.
103
Expressions such as TU6.ÉN (whose genitival relation is ap-
parent from the Akkadian tē šipti, “incantation of spell”) seem to
exhibit the same construction but with different logographic forms.
104
The Pig constellation has been identified as “Head and
first coil of Draco?” in Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences, 275;
Vulpecula or Delphinus in ŠL 4/2, 184, no. 371; and perhaps Del-
phinus in BPO 2, 15; Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian Astrology,
207; Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe, 268.
105
Also represented by constellations nearby are the sea-monster
Cetus (that captured Andromeda) and the hero Perseus (who res-
cued her from the monster).
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
in fact belongs to the Babylonian zodiacal sign Sagit-
tarius or to the next sign Capricorn, since one tradi-
tion describes the She-goat as “Head of the Goat-fish
(Capricorn),”106 and her epithet “Lady of Divination
(MÁŠ = bīru)” may allude not merely to the generic
coupling of she-goat and “billy goat” (MÁŠ = urīṣu),
but more specifically to the “Goat-fish” (mulSUḪUR.MÁŠ)
constellation.107 In any case, the commentator’s broad
reference to “the region of Pabilsag” was apparently a
deliberate move to include characteristics of Gula and
Damu in his argument. Just as Pabilsag’s connection
to medicine derived from Gula’s sphere of activities,108
his role as “diviner and dream-interpreter” here cor-
responds to the title “Lady of Divination” bestowed
on Gula’s representative She-goat constellation (see
above), as well as the invocation of Gula and Damu
in dream incantations and the nocturnal appearance
of Gula during dream-incubation.109
The special significance of Sagittarius for dreams
sheds light on another tablet: BM 33535 preserves
two entries (micro-Gemini and micro-Cancer) in what
may be a series, which prescribes different wood, plant,
and stone ingredients and ritual activities for differ-
ent micro-zodiacal divisions of the sign Sagittarius.110
These prescriptions were intended to prepare a suppli-
ant for dream-incubation, when the gods would com-
municate to him via the medium of dreams: “let him
sleep on the roof . . . the gods of the night will speak
with him” (BM 33535, obv. 11–13); “let him lie on a
bed and sleep, his goddess will speak with him” (BM
33535, rev. 11–12). Although micro-zodiacal signs
(associated with different deities) vary from entry to
entry, the zodiacal sign is always Sagittarius, since this
was the sign that pertained to the larger theme of the
tablet (and series) concerning dreams.
§6c. The term ḪAL.ḪAL.LA (“allotment”) is analyzed
as ḪAL (“divination”) + ḪAL (pirištu, “secret [lore]”).
Pabilsag’s general connection to the divination of se-
crets has been discussed above, but perhaps the com-
106 mul
ÙZ : SAG.DU mulSUḪUR.MÁŠku6 (K 42, line 22) in ACh Ištar
no. 6.
107 I mul
ÙZ = Be-let MÁŠ (BM 82923, rev. 27) in Walker and Hun-
ger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” 30; ÙZ = Be-let bi-ri (5R 46 No. 1, line 53).
108
M. Krebernik, “Pabilsaĝ(a),” RLA 10/2–3 (2003–2004):
167.
109
S. A. L. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and
Dream Rituals, AOAT 258 (Münster, 1998), 139, 233–35.
110
Tablet BM 33535 is edited in Hunger, “How to Make the
Gods Speak,” 141–44. These micro-zodiacal signs belong to the
virtual moon’s zodiacal sign Sagittarius. See discussion in appendix
of Wee, “Virtual Moons.”
) 145
mentator also alluded here specifically to the grouping
together of Ninurta’s names in the Anzû narrative:
“In E-Ibbi-Anu (temple at Dilbat) they gave you the
name ‘Lord of Secret (Lore) (AD.ḪAL = pirištu).’ . . .
among the gods your brothers, . . . your father . . .
In Egalmah (temple at Isin) they gave [you the name
‘Pabilsag.’]” (Anzû III, 133–37).111
§7. Capricorn
§7a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 7′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 11′.112
§7b. The “goat-fish” here is indicated by the writ-
ing SUḪUR.MAŠ, which not only appears without the
múl
(“star”) determinative (see Prolegomena), but also
represents a less common orthography than SUḪUR.
MÁŠ, whose abbreviated writing (MÁŠ = Capricorn) in
astronomical texts can be more readily distinguished
from similar forms such as MAŠ.MAŠ (Gemini) and BAR
(the month Nisannu [I], also a metonym for the zodi-
acal sign Aries). The commentator likely had in mind
the relationships expressed in these lexical equations:
SUḪUR.MÁŠ KU6 = ŠU (preceded by the purādu-carp),
SUḪUR.MÁŠ KU6 = bit-ru-ú (Hh. XVIII, 4–5).113 Attesta-
tions of these equations at Emar, moreover, preserve
some distinction between MAŠ and MÁŠ signs: SUḪUR.
MÁŠ KU6 = su-ḫu-ur-ma-šu, SUḪUR.MAŠ KU6 = bi-it-ru
(Msk 7498c, col. i // Msk 74171d, col. i).114 Similar
to how “scorpion” was used in §4e, the polysemous
role of the term SUḪUR.MAŠ here explains the omission
of the múl (“star”) determinative.
Modern dictionaries classify bitrû in the above
lexical equations from ḪAR.ra = ḫubullu as the adjec-
tive “outstanding, superb” (CAD B s.v. bitrû adj.),115
111
[M]U-ka ina ⸢É⸣–[i]-bí–dA-num id-di-nu EN AD.ḪAL / [x] ⸢x⸣
[x] ⸢x x⸣-ka ina DINGIR.DINGIR ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ka / [. . .]x AD-ka / [. . .] ⸢a-
lak!⸣–ma[ḫ-r]i / [MU-ka dPA.BIL.SAG i]d-di-nu ina É.GAL.MAḪ (Anzû
III, 133–37) in Annus, Epic of Anzu, 28. “[dPA.BIL.SAG] is the obvi-
ous restoration, in view of the fact that É.GAL.MAḪ was the temple of
Ninisin of Isin (RLA II, 277), and that Pabilsag, well-known as one
of the deities identified with Ninurta, was consort of this goddess.”
Saggs, “Additions to Anzu,” 25–27, note to line 137.
112
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 11; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 6.
113
Hh. XVIII, 4–5 in MSL VIII/2, 96.
114
M. Rutz, Bodies of Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia: The
Diviners of Late Bronze Age Emar and Their Tablet Collection, AMD
9 (Leiden, 2013), 195.
115
Equations between SUḪUR.MÁŠ or SUḪUR.MAŠ and bitrû are
not specified in AHw, 132, but similar connections between MÁŠ
146 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
perhaps because this adjective often referred to an-
imals of superior quality, so that the SUḪUR.MÁŠ fish
could be favorably compared with other animals like
the “sheep” (UDU) and the “pig” (ŠAḪ) that also re-
ceive the appellation bitrû in the same lexical series.116
Whether or not our commentator was correct, he in-
terpreted bitrû instead as the verb “(Gt) to be con-
tinuous, stay on; (Št) to happen continually; (Št) to
make continue; (Št) to pass all the way through (said
of a hole, in omen texts only) [i.e., to perforate]”
(CAD B s.v. bitrû v.). This interpretation of bitrû is
evident from the elements introduced in the following
commentarial arguments. For one, the very frequent
pairing of bitrû (Št stem) with šīlu, “perforation” in
extispicy texts (CAD B s.v. bitrû v. s. 4) accounts for
the use of the latter term in §7f. More subtle is yet an-
other connection with the tablet 5R 46 No. 1, where
one finds the erudite explanation mulṢal-bat-a-nu =
muš-ta-bar-ru-ú mu-ta-nu, “Mars = One who makes
the pestilence continue” (line 42). There, the name
mul
Ṣal-bat-a-nu may have been analyzed as ZAL (the
same sign as Ṣal and logogram for bitrû [Št], “to make
continue”) + mút-a-nu (“pestilence”; mút being the
same sign as bat). These ideas anticipate discussion
involving the planet Mars in §7d.
§7c. Geller read the cuneiform as ina qí-bit-su ina-
aṭ-ṭal DÙ (obv. 16) and translated “under his command,
he observes all.”117 Though the correct grammatical
form is ina qibītīšu instead of ina qibīssu, and though
the final cuneiform sign seems to be PAP (napḫaru,
“all, whole”) instead of DÙ (kalu, “all, whole”), the
general tenor of Geller’s translation is plausible. The
context is established by the later mention of “a per-
foration (šīlu)” in the animal organ consulted during
extispicy (§7f), and this statement “at his utterance,
everything becomes apparent” probably refers to the
revelation of divine intentions by divinatory means.
The choice of the logogram PAP (“everything”) may be
a playful one, since features or markings in the shape
or MAŠ and bitrû in the lexical texts Idu and Aa are included in this
dictionary entry.
116
udu-nam-en-na-ak-a = bit-ru-ú (Hh. XIII, 74 in MSL
VIII/1, 13); šaḫ-nam-lugal-la-ak-a = bit-[ru-ú] (Hh. XIV, 180e in
MSL VIII/2, 21).
117
Geller, Melothesia, 61, 63, §7 (66). The orthography ina(aš)-
aṭ-ṭal, though perhaps more typical of first millennium BC texts,
already appears in learned texts of the second millennium BC. See ex-
amples in Y. Cohen, “Akkadian Omens from Hattuša and Emar: The
šumma immeru and šumma ālu Omens,” ZA 97 (2007): 243 n. 11.
of the PAP grapheme (two crossing wedges or lines) or
graphemes like BAD, ḪAL, AN, KASKAL, and U appeared in
various parts of the liver as an omen to the haruspex.118
As mentioned earlier in §6b, the relationship be-
tween She-goat (Lyra) and Goat-fish (Capricorn)
constellations may account for the former’s epithet
“Lady of Divination (MÁŠ = bīru),” which implies that
the element MÁŠ in the name “Goat-fish” (mulSUḪUR.
MÁŠ) likewise carries nuances of divinatory practice.
Despite the writing SUḪUR.MAŠ (instead of SUḪUR.MÁŠ)
in this particular entry for reasons suggested above
(§7b), the commentator leads his discussion of Cap-
ricorn back to the anticipated theme of divination and
extispicy by defining bitrû (logogram SUḪUR.MAŠ) in
terms of omens derived from the “perforation” of the
animal organ used in extispicy.
§7d. I have understood the written form mu-ú-
tú (obv. 17) as a genitive, despite the obscuration of
the case-ending.119 The “Waters of Death” (mê mūti)
famously recall the ocean that only the sun had hith-
erto traversed, which Gilgamesh needed to cross in his
journey along the “Path of the Sun” (ḫarrān Šamši)
towards Ūta-napišti (Tablets IX and X).120 Here, the
commentator likely exercised some license in adopting
‘astral’ readings of the Gilgamesh narrative, imagin-
ing this so-called “Path of the Sun” in ways not too
dissimilar to our own notion of the ecliptic, so that
the “Waters of Death” designated a celestial location,
whose depth “is the depth of the sky.” In fact, as a
technical term in astronomy, šuplu (“depth”) denotes
a “minimum (i.e., extreme negative) latitude” (CAD
Š III s.v. šuplu s. 2).121 While modern constellations of
Scorpio and Sagittarius lie farther south than Capri-
118
E. Frahm, “Reading the Tablet, the Exta, and the Body: The
Hermeneutics of Cuneiform Signs in Babylonian and Assyrian Text
Commentaries and Divinatory Texts,” in Divination and Inter-
pretation of Signs in the Ancient World, OIS 6 (Chicago, 2010),
100–103, 105, 108, 110–13.
119
The genitive case-ending is obscured also elsewhere in this
commentary tablet: ma-a-tú (obv. 13), sat-tak-ku (obv. 16), ṣe-nu u
rag-⸢gu⸣ (obv. 16), ni-ṣir-tú (obv. 17), šá-ru-ru (rev. 3), giš-šú (rev.
4), pi-i iṣ-ṣu (rev. 9; cf. pi-i iṣ-ṣi in rev. 3); cf. m[u-k]in na-piš-tú
KUR (obv. 12).
120
“The one who crosses the ocean is the hero Šamaš: / apart
from Šamaš, who is there can cross the ocean? / The crossing is
perilous, its way full of hazard, / and in between are the Waters of
Death, that lie across the passage forward” (Gilgamesh X, 81–84).
For discussion on the “Path of the Sun” and the “Waters of Death,”
see George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 494–97, 499–501.
121
For NIM (“highest”) and BÙR (šuplu, “lowest”) as astronomi-
cal parameters defining upper and lower limits in latitude, see J. M.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
corn, the commentator probably referred to the sun’s
southernmost position during the winter solstice in
the zodiacal sign Capricorn.122 Writing towards the
beginning of the 3rd century BC, for example, Beros-
sos referred to summer and winter solstices by observ-
ing that “midsummer is at present brought around by
the former (Cancer), midwinter by the latter (Capri-
corn). They are zodiacal signs of great power, seeing
that they are the determining influences in the two
great changes of the year” (Babyloniaca, I §3).123
In the next step of his argument, the commentator
equated this “depth of the sky” with the “House of
Secret of Mars.” He could have accomplished this in
one of two ways. Since the planet Mars is frequently
denoted in astronomical texts by the abbreviated writ-
ing AN, the depth of the “sky” (logogram AN) might
also designate Mars; alternatively, the association of
Mars with “death” in the astral tablet BM 82923 might
make the depth of the “Waters of Death” a reference
to Mars.124 Either way, the “House / Place of Secret”
(bīt / ašar niṣirti) of Mesopotamian planets was a
precursor to the planet’s “exaltation” (hypsoma) posi-
tion in Hellenistic astrology and later times.125 Mars is
named with Capricorn in a tablet that depicts planets’
Houses of Secret as zodiacal signs in which they ap-
pear (LBAT 1591, obv. 5–7), and possibly also in an
astrological commentary (BM 55466+55486+55627,
i 31).126 Empiricus and Ptolemy mentioned the “exal-
Steele, “Celestial Measurement in Babylonian Astronomy,” Annals
of Science 64/3 (2007): 306–25.
122
The winter solstice (marked by the shortest duration of day-
light) occurs during the month Ṭebētu (X) in Mul-apin I, iii 7–9
(Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 45–46); but in Month IX in the
Circular Astrolabe Reconstruction and Astrolabe S (= LBAT 1499,
obv. ii 9, 21) in Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 1 (Fig. 1), 126–27.
123
Burstein, Babyloniaca of Berossus, 15.
124 I mul
Ṣal-bat-a-nu = mu-ú-tu (BM 82923, rev. 25) in Walker
and Hunger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” 30.
125
E. F. Weidner, “Beiträge zur Erklärung der astronomischen
Keilschrifttexte,” OLZ 16/5 (1913): 208–12; E. F. Weidner, “Baby-
lonische Hypsomatabilder,” OLZ 22/1–2 (1919): 10–16; Weidner,
Gestirn-Darstellungen, 10; F. Rochberg-Halton, “Elements of the
Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology,” JAOS 108/1
(1988): 53–57 = F. Rochberg, In the Path of the Moon: Babylonian
Celestial Divination and Its Legacy (Leiden, 2010), 147–55; Wee,
“Grieving with the Moon,” 59–60. Detailed discussion is forth-
coming in an article based on my paper “Houses of Secret and the
Meanings of Planetary Exaltations” at the session on The Heavenly
Bodies in Image and Text during the 61st Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale (Geneva and Bern), 23 June 2015.
126
For Tablet BM 34566 = LBAT 1591, see F. X. Kugler,
Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel (Münster, 1907), 39–41; with
) 147
tation” of Mars in Capricorn, while Porphyry of Tyre,
Julius Firmicus, Paul of Alexandria, and Dorotheus of
Sidon (as ascribed by Hephaestion of Thebes) speci-
fied its position as Capricorn 28°.127 Finally, as I will
elaborate in a forthcoming publication, the connec-
tion between Mars’ House of Secret and the winter
solstice implied by this commentator appears aligned
with a hypothesis made by Hunger and Pingree: just
as the Houses of Secret of Jupiter and Saturn relate to
the summer solstice and the fall equinox respectively,
Mars’ House of Secret (inadequately attested at the
time) presumably corresponds to the winter solstice.128
§7e. “The flared-up star” here most probably con-
tinues the previous discussion on Mars, though it could
conceivably indicate a shooting star that is frequently
used with the verbs ṣarāru (“to flash”) and ṣarāḫu (“to
flare up”). What comes after it is too broken to restore
with certainty, but Geller suggests the reading MUL
ṣar-ḫu ṣar-[rip-t]u-šú, “a shining star (and) its redden-
ing” (obv. 18) that presumably describes the red planet
Mars.129 Another rather speculative proposal involves
an analysis of the term ṣarḫu (“flared-up”) into zar
(“seed”) + reḫû (“to inseminate”). This in turn leads to
the restoration MUL ṣar-ḫu : Ṣar-[pa-ni-t]u-šú (?), “The
flared-up star refers to his (Marduk’s) goddess-(consort)
brief discussion in J. M. Steele, “Celestial Measurement in Baby-
lonian Astronomy,” 302–303. For the relevant line (KI ni-ṣir-tu4 šá
d
Ṣal-bat-a-nu MÚL.x[. . .]) in Tablet BM 55466+55486+55627, i
31, see L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation (London, 1902), I
212, II pl. 69; B. Landsberger, “Ein astralmythologischer Kommen-
tar aus der Spätzeit babylonischer Gelehrsamkeit,” AfO 1 (1923):
44; Rochberg-Halton, “Elements,” 55 = Rochberg, Path of the
Moon, 151–52.
127
Empiricus (Adversus Mathematicos V, 36) in R. G. Bury,
Sextus Empiricus, IV, Against the Professors, Loeb 382 (Cambridge,
1949), 336–41; Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos I, 20) in W. Hübner, Clau-
dii Ptolemaei Opera quae exstant omnia, III, 1, Apotelesmatika
(Stuttgart, 1998), 66–68; Porphyry (Introduction to Ptolemy’s
Tetrabiblos) in Catalogus codicum astrologorum graecorum V/4:
196–97, no. 6; Firmicus (Mathesis II, 3) in W. Kroll and F. Skvtsch,
Firmicus Maternus Mathesis I (Stuttgart, 1968), 43–44; Paul (Ei-
sagogica, A3–B1) in Ae. Boer, Pauli Alexandrini elementa apote-
lesmatica (Leipzig, 1958), 2–7; Dorotheus (Carmen Astrologicum
I, 2.1–2) in D. Pingree, Dorothei Sidonii Carmen Astrologicum
(Leipzig, 1976), 162–63.
128
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 146–47, Table X. Also
insufficiently attested, the sun’s House of Secret in Aries supposedly
matches up with the spring equinox.
129
Geller, Melothesia, 61, 63, §7 (66), with a typo omitting the
disjunction sign after ṣar-ḫu. Mars is named the “red star” (MUL
SA5), for instance, in the 30-Star Catalog, Ea 10 in Oelsner and
Horowitz, “The 30-Star Catalogue HS 1897,” 177.
148 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Ṣarpānītum” (obv. 18), in view of the folk etymology
that interprets the name Ṣarpānītum as zar (“seed”) +
bānītum (“creator”).130 This connection between Mars
or Capricorn and the goddess Ṣarpānītum is however
unattested elsewhere, even if we do find a link associ-
ating the Goat-fish constellation with Nabû’s consort
Tašmetu (5R 46 No. 1, line 38).
§7f. Here is an example of a method of argumen-
tation common in the commentary genre, which
demonstrates how disparate ideas like “perforation,”
“depth,” and “Mars” discussed by the commentator
are in fact semantically linked, on the basis of their
equivalences with the same logogram (BÙR in this in-
stance) in lexical texts. The terms “perforation” (šīlu)
and “depth” (šuplu) actually do often take BÙR as their
logogram.131 “Mars” (dṢalbatānu), on the other hand,
cannot be easily related to BÙR. One suspects the com-
mentator relied on Mars’ association with the other
terms in the preceding arguments, in order to connect
the planet to BÙR, the same sign as the number “10”
that serves as the logogram for the god “Marduk.”
This numerical logogram, in fact, appears in the in-
cipit of each entry in this commentary tablet, where
one of Marduk’s names, “Asalluhi,” is expressed by
the writing 10-ḫi (see §1a). The reference to Marduk
was probably intentional, since otherwise, short of the
doubtful mention of Ṣarpānītum in §7e, this would
be the only one of the fifteen entries that does not
relate its line in Marduk’s Address to at least one deity
or divine being.
§8a. The Plow
§8a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 8′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 12′,
where the verb i-ḫi-ir-ru appears instead of i-ḫi-ṭu
in this commentary.132 This base text is also cited in
the Assur commentary Ass. 13955fx (A 163), rev. 7,
where the verb of interest cannot be determined due
to the damaged writing i-ḫi-x[. . .].133 The original
130 d
Ṣarpānītum ša kīma šumīšā-ma bānât zēri, “Ṣarpānītum
who, according to her name, creates seed” (K 3371 in CAD Ṣ s.v.
ṣarpānītu).
131
CAD Š II s.v. šīlu A; CAD Š III s.v. šuplu.
132
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 12; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 7. The signs in this astral commentary were also read
i-ḫi-ṭu (obv. 19) by Lambert Folio 9619; Geller, Melothesia, 61,
§8 (67).
133
Geller, Melothesia, 65, §13 (67).
idiom was pī nišī ḫiāru, which is variously interpreted
by the dictionaries as “sich der Menschen annehmen”
(AHw, 343 §3), “[to] have people’s interests at heart”
(CDA, 115), and even “to bind the mouth magically
to compel people to speak the truth in preparation
for judgment” (CAD Ḫ s.v. ḫâru A s. 2a). The notion
of caring for the people may account for confusion
between the idiom and the verb i-ḫi-ṭu (< ḫâṭu, “to
watch over, take care of, etc.” in CAD Ḫ), but one
should not discount the possibility that the similar
orthographies i-ḫi-ir-ru and i-ḫi-ṭu resulted simply
from textual corruption.
§8b. In this position, we would expect a constel-
lation within or near the sign Aquarius, since the en-
tries immediately preceding (§7) and following (§9)
deal with Capricorn and Pisces respectively. The text
is unfortunately damaged at the very point where this
constellation is named, but I have restored the read-
ing as múl⸢APIN⸣, “the Plow” (obv. 19), since the com-
mentator subsequently discusses the alāla work song
(§8c), which was frequently voiced by plowmen or
farmers in contexts of plowing the field.134 To give a
few examples: “May the plowmen on . . . mourn you
(Enkidu), [who] will extol your name with his sweet
work song (alāla)!” (Gilgamesh VIII, 23–24); “. . .
the plow, the work song (alāla) will be cut off in all
the land, famine among the people . . .” (LBAT 1580,
rev. 4); “After the farmer-god dURU4 (= same writing
as dAPIN) sounded off the work song (alāla) in the
land . . .” (Maqlû VIII, 53′ // Ritual Tablet, 162′).135
The Plow constellation has been identified as α,
β Trianguli + γ Andromedae (Hunger, Pingree; cf.
Reiner, Horowitz), part of Andromeda (Koch), or
Cassiopeia (Kolev), with all these possibilities noted by
Gössmann.136 The commentator’s choice of the Plow
here, rather than the expected “Great One” (Aquar-
ius) constellation, was a nod to the Plow’s significance
at the beginning of other astral lists. As befitting the
Plow’s position at the head of the constellations in
the northern Path of Enlil, several astral texts (Mul-
apin, Astrolabe B, and perhaps BM 82923) identify
134
CAD A I s.v. alāla s. 1b.
135
George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 652–53; [. . .] gišAPIN a-
la-la ina KUR DÙ.A.⸢BI⸣ KUD-is SU.GU7 ina UN x[. . .] (LBAT 1580, rev.
4); Maqlû VIII, 53′ // Ritual Tablet, 162′ in Abusch, The Witch-
craft Series Maqlû, 142, 164.
136
Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences, 275; BPO 2, 10;
Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 245; Koch(-Westenholz), Meso-
potamian Astrology, 207; Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe, 268; ŠL
4/2, 12–13, no. 39.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
the constellation with the god dEn-líl himself.137 Here,
the writing dBAD (obv. 19–20) likewise represents the
name “Enlil,” which supplies the implied final conso-
nant /l/ in orthographies such as dBAD-lá-(ke4) (An
= Anum I, 205, 289).138 In tablet 5R 46 No. 1, the
Plow constellation at the very beginning of the List of
Stars and Deities is fittingly ascribed to AN.ŠÁR, which
literally means “Entirety of Sky.” This title should
probably be understood as a reference to Enlil, ac-
cording to the equivalence dAN A-nu ŠÁR = d+En-líl (K
4349E, line 7).139
§8c. Frahm’s interpretation of this commentarial
argument is probably correct:
[H]e (the commentator) declares that a verse
about Marduk watching over the mood (lit.
“mouth”) of the people (pî nišī) proves Mar-
duk’s preeminence over Enlil. . . . Enlil, whose
name was pronounced Illil in the first millen-
nium, could be identified (because of the simi-
lar sound patterns of their names) with the god
d
a-la-la, a deity embodying the alālu-worksong,
which was, quite literally, in the mouth of the
people. Hence it was “Enlil who was placed in
the mouth of the people” . . . and Marduk, who
was in charge of the people’s “mouth,” had to
be his superior.140
I observed similar wordplay earlier in this commentary
(§4b) between ulāla (“the feeble”) and the “purifica-
tion” (ullulu) of Ištar-votaries during the sixth Baby-
lonian month Ulūlu.
To be sure, the divinized work song Alāla is more
explicitly linked to other deities besides Enlil. The
god list An = Anum groups Alāla (I, 18) together
with other gods under Anu and Antu.141 Of particular
note are relationships between Alāla and Ningirsu/
Ninurta or Bēlili. The Maqlû (VIII, 53′) example in
§8b appears elsewhere in the series (Maqlû VI, 45)
with the god Ningirsu/Ninurta in place of dURU4, as
reflected also in the equivalence d ú-rum URU4 = MIN
(= dNin-urta) šá ala3-li, “The farmer-god dURU4 = the
god Ninurta as pertaining to the work song” (K 4339,
137
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 18 (I, i 1); VAT 9416, II
obv. iii 1–3 in Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 39; [I mulAPIN] = dEn-
líl (BM 82923, obv. 3) in Walker and Hunger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” 27.
138
F. Nötscher, “Enlil,” RLA 2 (1938): 382; An = Anum I, 205,
289 in Litke, Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, 44, 54.
139
K 4349E, line 7 in CT 24, 49.
140
Frahm, Commentaries, 126.
141
Litke, Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, 22.
) 149
obv. ii 26).142 Ningirsu is lauded as “lord of the work
song, who piles up heaps of grain” (STT I, 71, obv.
10), and a kudurru-stela curse implores Ningirsu and
Bau/Gula not to count the sweet work song towards
an offender’s destiny.143 A Gula hymn addresses Nin-
girsu as one “who intones the work song” (line 27),
while referring to Zababa (probably identified with
Ningirsu) as “fruit of the work song” (line 98).144
On the other hand, Alāla is juxtaposed with Bēlili in
the god list An = Anum (I, 18–21), while both are
equated outright in another list: dA-la-la = dBe-li-li
(K 4349, obv. i 11).145 Unfortunately, the reading of
Ningirsu/Ninurta or Bēlili for dBAD is uncertain, and
it is preferable for now to interpret Enlil as the subject
of this commentary entry.
§9. Pisces
§9a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 9′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 13′,
which is also cited in the Assur commentary Ass.
13955fx (A 163), rev. 9.146
§9b. The Tails constellation lies in the zodiacal sign
Pisces and is sometimes specified as ω or λ Piscium.147
While Hunger and Pingree have considered the Tails a
142
Maqlû VI, 45 in Abusch, The Witchcraft Series Maqlû, 116;
K 4339, obv. ii 26 in CT 25, 11 (contra the reading ša-al-li [sic] in
Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum, 128). Agricultural aspects of Nin-
urta are also celebrated in F. Al-Rawi and J. Black, “A balbale of
Ninurta, god of fertility,” ZA 90/1 (2000): 31–39.
143 d
Nin-gír-⸢su be-el⸣ [a]-la-li mu-šap-<pi>-ik ka-re-e [še-ʾ] (STT
I, 71, obv. 10) in W. G. Lambert, “The Sultantepe Tablets: A Re-
view Article,” RA 53/3 (1959): 134. Kudurru-stela of Meli-Šipak
(MŠ 4) vi 15–18; cf. Ningirsu’s epithet “Lord of the work song” (EN
a-la-la) in the kudurru-stela of Marduk-šāpik-zēri (MŠZ 1) ii 22 in
Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften, 408, 577.
144
[n]a-bu-ú a-la-la (line 27), pi-ir-ʾ a-la-lu (line 98) in W. G.
Lambert, “The Gula Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi,” OrNS 36/2 (1967):
116–17, 122–23. Both Ningirsu and Zababa are described as son of
Assur (W. G. Lambert, “The god Aššur,” Iraq 45 [1983]: 82) and
consort of Gula (Lambert, “Gula Hymn,” 122–23, lines 92–100).
Note also dZa-ba4-ba4 (obv. 1, 3) as destroyer of the Asakku-mon-
ster in Smith College Tablets No. 110, immediately before a section
on possibly dNi[n-urta (?)] (obv. 9).
145 d
A-la-la, dBe-li-li, dMIN(=A-la-la) ALAM, dMIN(=Be-li-li) ALAM
= dA-nu-um u An-tum (An = Anum I, 18–21) in Litke, Assyro-
Babylonian God-Lists, 22–23; K 4349, obv. i 11 in CT 24, 20.
146
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 13; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 8; Assur commentary in Geller, Melothesia, 65, §14 (68).
147
BPO 2, 9; Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences, 276; Hunger
and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 144 (List VI, no. 15); cf. ŠL 4/2, 88,
no. 221; Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian Astrology, 132, 164.
150 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
part of the Swallow constellation, Horowitz cautioned
that the Tails might exist independently.148 In seal im-
pressions from Hellenistic Uruk, Pisces is depicted by
Swallow (mulSIM.MAḪ) and Northern Fish (mulAnunītu)
constellations tied together at their tails by the “rib-
bon of the fish” (mulrikis nūni) to a pivot point.149 The
connected yet diverging “ribbon” lines attached to
these two constellations may have been reminiscent
of river distributaries, leading to the association of
Anunītu and the Swallow with the Tigris and the Eu-
phrates respectively (5R 46 No. 1, line 34; cf. 2R 51
No. 2, lines 58–59), as well as the Swallow’s identifica-
tion with the “Goddess of the Headwaters.”150
§9c. These lines are reminiscent of an almanac en-
try, and the subsequent reference to GURUN, “Fruit”
(rev. 3), suggests an extract from the royal hemerology
Inbu bēl arḫi, “Fruit, Lord of the Month.”151 From
early on, B. Landsberger and J. Bottéro noticed the
significance of Days 18 and 20 in the Inbu series for
the cult of the sun-god Šamaš.152 The Hymn to Šamaš
also alludes to these occasions: “On the twentieth
day, you exult with mirth and joy . . . you receive
their pure, clear libations. . . . you regularly accept
their prayers” (lines 156–64).153 Unfortunately, not all
tablets of the Inbu series are available, and the non-
intercalary month Addaru (XII) of interest here is not
attested with certainty. Nonetheless, the entry for Day
20 of intercalary Addaru (XII2) is preserved in its en-
148
W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, MC 8 (Wi-
nona Lake, IN, 1998), 171 n. 33.
149
R. Wallenfels, “Zodiacal Signs Among the Seal Impressions
from Hellenistic Uruk,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern
Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell,
and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, MD, 1993), 287 (Fig. 15).
150 I mul
SIM.MAḪ = DINGIR-at nag-bi (BM 82923, rev. 32) in Walker
and Hunger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” 30.
151
The most recent edition of this hemerological series may be
found in Livingstone, Hemerologies, 199–248; cf. R. Labat, Un
calendrier babylonien des travaux, des signes et des mois (séries iqqur
îpuš) (Paris, 1965), Plates XLIV–XLVI.
152
B. Landsberger, Der kultische Kalendar der Babylonier und
Assyrer, Erste Hälfte, LSS 6/1 (Leipzig, 1915), 136; J. Bottéro,
Textes économiques et administratifs, ARM 7 (Paris, 1957), 198;
cf. A. Livingstone, “The Case of the Hemerologies: Official Cult,
Learned Formulation and Popular Practice,” in Official Cult and
Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, ed. E. Matsushima (Hei-
delberg, 1993), 110; Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 275. In the first
millennium BC, of course, the number 20 was not infrequently used
as logographic writing for the name of Šamaš. See, for example, CT
25, 50 + CT 46, 54, line 10 in Pearce, “Cuneiform Cryptography,”
86.
153
W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford,
1963), 136–37.
tirety and is essentially identical with Day 20 entries
of other preserved months like intercalary Nisannu
(I2), intercalary Ulūlu (VI2), Arahsamna (VIII), and
Ṭebētu (X):
Day 20, the bright day (for) the bread donation
of Sîn and Šamaš: A favorable day. In the morn-
ing, the king sets his bread offering for Šamaš
and Bēlet-mātāti, for Sîn (other MSS: Sîn and
Bēlet-ilī). He pours out a libation. The raising of
his hand will be agreeable to the god (K 4093,
obv. ii 11′–13′).154
As is immediately evident, hemerological instruc-
tions in this commentary resemble procedures in exist-
ing Inbu tablets, but the two are far from being literal
duplicates. In the commentary tablet, there is likely
insufficient space to restore ana dUTU [dBe-let-KUR.KUR
ú-kan ma-aq-q]í-tú (rev. 2), but one wonders whether
the presence of dBe-let-KUR.KUR (“Lady of the lands”)
in the Inbu original in any way influenced its inclu-
sion in this commentary on Asalluhi’s illumination of
“the lands.” More importantly, whereas all attested
tablets of the series Inbu bēl arḫi come from Assur-
banipal’s libraries at Nineveh and directly address the
king’s activities, the version in this Late Babylonian
commentary extends its hemerological prescriptions
to “the people” (nišū) in general, raising questions
of whether official almanac observances might have
had counterparts in popular practice, even if the latter
continued to be designated by the formal title Inbu
(“Fruit”).155
§9d–f. I have restored U4.20.[KAM U4 na]m-ri, “Day
20, the bright [day]” (rev. 3) as the incipit-title for a
subsection in the series Inbu bēl arḫi.156 The commen-
154 I
U4.20.KÁM U4 ZALAG2 ⸢SUM⸣.NINDA šá 30 u 20 U4 ŠE ina še-rì
LUGAL / NIDBA-šú ana dUTU dBe-let-KUR.KUR ana 30 (other MSS:
30 DINGIR.MAḪ) ⸢ú-kan⸣ / ni-qé-e BAL-qí niš ŠU-šú KI DINGIR ma-gir
(K 4093, obv. ii 11′–13′). Day 20 entries in the Inbu series exist in
varying degrees of preservation for the months Nisannu (I) (Sm
948, obv. 17′ff.), intercalary Nisannu (I2) (K 2514+, obv. 59–60),
Simanu (III) (K 4068+, obv. ii 37′–39′), intercalary Ulūlu (VI2) (K
4231, obv. ii 49–52), Arahsamna (VIII) (K 3269, obv. ii 49–52),
Ṭebētu (X) (K 2809+, obv. ii 11′–14′), Šabāṭu (XI) (K 7079+, obv. i
or ii), and intercalary Addaru (XII2) (K 4093, obv. ii 11′–13′) in Liv-
ingstone, Hemerologies, 202, 205, 209, 215, 221, 225, 228, 231.
155
For a brief investigation into the relationship between “of-
ficial cult” and “popular practice” based on comparisons of the royal
hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi with other almanacs, reports, and legal
documents, see Livingstone, “Case of the Hemerologies,” 97–113.
156
This subsection incipit-title for Day 20 appears as I U4.20.KÁM
U4 ZALAG2 in K 3269, obv. ii 49 (Arahsamna) and K 4093, obv. ii 11′
(intercalary Addaru), but only as I U4.20.KÁM in K 2809+, obv. ii 11′
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
tator’s argument comes in two parts, both of which
rely on the Inbu extract to demonstrate Asalluhi’s rela-
tionship to Pisces. First (§9d), the relevance of Addaru
(XII) Day 20 in the Inbu series is implied by its title
“the bright (namri) day,” which employs the same
verbal root (namāru) used in the description of how
Asalluhi’s rays “brighten” (unammarū) the lands. The
month Addaru (XII) then corresponds to the twelfth
zodiacal sign Pisces in the ideal year (see §4f).
Secondly (§9f), the mere mention of Asalluhi’s
“rays” (šarūrū) was apparently enough to point to the
sun-god Šamaš, whose significance on Addaru (XII)
Day 20 in the Inbu series yet again links Asalluhi to
Pisces. The concepts of “brightness” (namāru) and
“rays” (šarūrū) are close enough for us to be skepti-
cal that they constitute separate lines of argument,
but expressions like šanîš, “secondly” (rev. 3) reveal
the commentator’s care to preserve the distinction. A
more serious objection lies in the fact that Day 20 of
several other months (or perhaps all months) in the
Inbu series is concerned with food offerings and liba-
tions to the sun-god Šamaš, which undermines any
exclusive relationship between Asalluhi’s “brightness”
or “rays” and the month Addaru (XII) or the zodiacal
sign Pisces.
§9e. The expression pi-i iṣ-ṣi (rev. 3) is difficult, and
appears again later in this commentary as pi-i iṣ-ṣu (rev.
9; §10i).157 The variation between -ṣi and -ṣu endings,
along with what appears to be the vowel i, suggests
that the writing is syllabic. Moreover, the expression
seems to stand at the end of a commentarial argument
in both instances, where one would expect a scribal
note or appendix. Indeed, the reading pi-i brings to
mind expressions like šūt pî (“oral lore”) and ša pî
ummâni (“from the mouth of the ummânu-scholar”),
which are also found in positions similar to those oc-
cupied by pi-i iṣ-ṣi in this commentary (i.e., following
after a scholarly interpretation).158 With much res-
(Ṭebētu). See Livingstone, Hemerologies, 221, 225, 231. The title
is not preserved in the other Inbu tablets.
157
An additional occurrence of the expression [pi-i iṣ-ṣ]i (BM
47529 + 47685, obv. 6) proposed by Geller, Melothesia, 61, §3
(62), has been restored here as [. . . T]ÙN instead (see §3b).
158
šu-ut pi-i šú-ú (K 2895, rev. 10′); šu-ut pi-i (K 36+2917, rev.
1) in Frahm, Commentaries, 44, 87; contra the translation in S. M.
Freedman, If a City is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Se-
ries Šumma Alu ina Mēlê Šakin, Volume 1: Tablets 1–21, OPKF 17
(Philadelphia, 1998), 298 n. 23. an-ni-u ša pi-i um-m[a-ni] . . .
in Hunger, Astrological Reports, 93 (no. 158, rev. 4–5); . . . ša pi-i
um-ma-ni šu-ú in S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian
Scholars, SAA 10 (Helsinki, 1993), 9 (no. 8, rev. 1–2). In addition
) 151
ervation, I have rendered pī iṣṣi as “wording of the
wood,” i.e., “wording of a wooden (writing-board)
(?),” which may possibly be an abstruse version of the
more recognizable colophon statement kī pī (giš)lēʾi.159
§10a Aries
§10a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 10′; K 7063 (MS d), obv. i 14′.160
§10b. The “Hired Man” was the native Babylo-
nian constellation for Aries, in contrast to “the Ram”
that may be an import from the classical zodiac (see
Appendix A). With the exception of §9f, this entry
is remarkable for its use of the notation ana UGU,
“concerning” (§10b, f, h) in constructions that are
expressed in other ways (e.g., by the use of a disjunc-
tion sign) elsewhere on the tablet. The reasons for this
are not entirely clear. The notation is attested as well
in other commentaries: DIŠ AN.GE6 : ina U4.7.KAM U4.14.
KAM U4.21.KAM / : ana UGU IGI-šú u TIL-tú, “ ‘If (the
moon god brings about) an eclipse on the seventh,
fourteenth, (or) twenty-first day’ concerns its (first)
sighting and termination” (EAE XX §XII commen-
tary, rev. 14′–15′);161 gi-iṣ-ṣa-tú : ana UGU ga-za-az šá
SÍG ÙZ, “giṣṣatu-sickness concerns shearing, as pertain-
ing to she-goat fleece” (SpTU I, 51, rev. 3).
§10c. The phrase 5 UŠ EGIR giš-šú / šá múlLÚ.
ḪUN.G[Á], “5 UŠ (degrees) behind the Thigh (giššu =
gilšu) of the Hired Man” (rev. 4–5)162 is reminiscent of
descriptions like 5 UŠ EGIR mulA[L.L]UL, “5 UŠ (degrees)
behind the Crab” (BM 78161, line 7).163 The mea-
surement by UŠ (degrees) here immediately presents
to these, šūt pî and ša pî ummâni occur frequently in commentary
colophons.
159
H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, AOAT 2
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1968), 171.
160
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 14; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 9.
161
F. N. H. Al-Rawi and A. R. George, “Tablets from the Sippar
Library XIII: Enūma Anu Ellil XX,” Iraq 68 (2006): 48.
162
Contra 5 UŠ EGIR GIŠ-šú / šá múlLÚ.ḪUN.G[Á], “5 uš behind its
giš, of Aries [. . .]” in Geller, Melothesia, 61, 63 §10 (69). Some
scribes make a conscious distinction between the syllabic signs šu
and šú, with the latter typically reserved for pronominal suffixes. My
understanding of giš-šú (rev. 4) as “hip/thigh” is plausible in view of
several other examples in this tablet where the šú sign expresses part
of a word’s lexical stem: en-šú (obv. 8), šú-nu (obv. 10), šú-u (obv.
17), er-šú it-pe-šú (rev. 10), and šag-gi-šú . . . [ša]g-ga-šú (rev. 12).
163
D. Pingree and C. Walker, “A Babylonian Star-Catalogue:
BM 78161,” in A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abra-
ham Sachs, ed. E. Leichty, M. de J. Ellis, and P. Gerardi, OPKF 9
152 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
a contrast to Non-Mathematical Astronomical Texts
(NMAT) such as the Astronomical Diaries, Goal-Year
texts, and Normal Star Almanacs, where distances to
Normal Stars are counted in units of “fingers” (SI)
and “cubits” (KÙŠ). On the other hand, UŠ (degrees)
in Mathematical Astronomical Texts (MAT) typically
denote a position within a zodiacal sign, rather than
the distance to a fixed star.164 The astronomical genre
most relevant here is perhaps lists of successively cul-
minating stars (i.e., stars that reach their highest alti-
tude in sequence) known as ziqpu stars, which serve
as reference points in terms of UŠ (degrees) away from
other celestial positions. As a matter of fact, perhaps
the closest parallel to the commentary description
here is the so-called “GU Text” (BM 78161), an ex-
cerpt of which is already cited above, and which has
been classified as a “type 3” ziqpu star list.165 In §10g,
I suggest the significance of ziqpu star astronomy for
the arguments in this entry.
Unfortunately, the star designated “Thigh of the
Hired Man” remains unmentioned in available lists
of ziqpu (or even Normal) stars,166 though specific
body parts of constellation figures like “Shoulder of
the Panther,” “Knee,” and “Heel” do appear. Such
body parts were employed as degree references also
in the Calendar Text LBAT 1586+1587, where 5 UŠ
(degrees) of the first zodiacal sign corresponded to
(Philadelphia, 1988), 315–16; J. Koch, “Der Sternenkatalog BM
78161,” WO 23 (1992): 41.
164
Steele, “Celestial Measurement in Babylonian Astronomy,”
293–97. “The earliest evidence of the ‘degree system’ is found in
Tablet 14 of the astrological omen series Enūma Anu Enlil, which
is dated to ca. 1200 BC. In that text, and others that predate the
5th c. BC, the degree system is used for time intervals, and not yet
for angular distance.” M. Ossendrijver, Babylonian Mathematical
Astronomy: Procedure Texts (New York, 2012), 32–33.
165
J. M. Steele, “Late Babylonian ziqpu-star lists: Written or
remembered traditions of knowledge?” in Traditions of Written
Knowledge in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, ed. A. Imhausen
and D. Bawanypeck, AOAT 403 (Münster, 2015), 129, 132.
166
See list of ziqpu stars in J. Schaumberger, “Die Ziqpu-Gestirne
nach neuen Keilschrifttexten,” ZA 50 (1952): 226–29; Hunger and
Pingree, Astral Sciences, 85–89; cf. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cos-
mic Geography, 182–88; list of Normal Stars in ADART I, 17–19;
Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences, 148–49. The Hired Man is
largely absent from ziqpu lists, while more common Normal Stars
for Aries are the “Front Star of Head of Hired Man” (β Arietis) and
the “Rear Star of Head of Hired Man” (α Arietis). But note GIŠ.
KUN múlUDU, “Haunch (rapaštu) of the Ram (Aries)” (LBAT 1499,
rev. 14) in F. Rochberg, “A Babylonian Rising-Times Scheme in
Non-Tabular Astronomical Texts,” in Studies Pingree, ed. C. Bur-
nett et al., 68. See Appendix A to this article for discussion on the
Ram constellation.
the “neck” of the Hired Man constellation.167 A Greek
table entitled On the Limbs of Zodiacal Signs (περὶ
μελῶν ζωδίων) likewise apportioned the 30 degrees
of each sign to various body parts, according to the
manner in which asterisms of persons or animals were
imagined to be oriented within their sign.168
§10d–f. I am uncertain whether the preserved por-
tions here belong to the same argument or to separate
ones, so I will discuss them together. My interpreta-
tion of these lines (rev. 5–8) differs from Geller’s169 at
the following four points: first, I am unconvinced by
the reading ina gišgú-ḫ[a-áš-ši] (rev. 6) and wonder
if the preserved GÚ sign might be part of some ver-
sion of USAN (“evening”) instead; second, instead of
it-ti (rev. 7), I understand these signs as it-bal! (“it
disappears”), a common description of the behavior
of celestial bodies;170 third, instead of KI NA4 šá d30
(“region of the moon-stone”; rev. 8), I read KI.⸢GUB⸣
šá d30 (“the moon’s position”); and fourth and finally,
following the convention in cuneiform commentar-
ies, expressions original to the base text such as BÀD
NA4 (“the stone wall”; rev. 6) and ub-ba-tú BÀD NA4
(“destroys the stone wall”; rev. 7) are cited at the very
beginning of their sentence or argument.
A key idea in these lines concerns the “moon’s
crown” and its erudite comparison with the “stone
wall” of the base text. In Weidner’s seminal study, he
discerned two major meanings of “crown” as it per-
tains to the moon: the moon’s “crown” (agû), which
referred to earthshine on the side of the moon away
from the sun, most visible shortly before and after the
moon’s conjunction with the sun; and the “crown of
splendor” (agê tašriḫti), which referred to the disk of
the full moon, around the time of the moon’s opposi-
tion with the sun.171 The commentator’s description of
167
[1] 5 3 5 30 ina G[Ú múlḪUN.GÁ] / KI múlSIPA GUB ⸢. . .⸣, “[1]
5 3 5 : The (virtual) moon stands in the neck [of the Hired Man
(Aries)] (and) with the Shepherd (micro-Gemini) . . .” (LBAT
1586+1587, obv. 9) in H. Hunger, “Noch ein ‘Kalendartext,’ ” ZA
64 (1975): 40. For an interpretation of the body parts and zodiacal
names on this tablet, see Wee, “Virtual Moons.”
168
O. Neugebauer, “Melothesia and Dodecatemoria,” OrAnt 3
(1959): 270–75.
169
Geller, Melothesia, 61, §10 (69).
170
When compared with bal in rev. 12, the second sign in rev.
7 admittedly seems to lack an additional horizontal wedge. I have
nonetheless understood the latter also as a bal! sign because of the
two overlapping Winkelhaken on its right side, which differs from
other writings of the ti sign in obv. 3; rev. 13, 17.
171
E. F. Weidner, “Beiträge zur babylonischen Astronomie,” BA
8/4 (1911): 23–52. Cf. CAD A I s.v. agû A s. 2a1′–2′. Weidner’s
categories were essentially affirmed in M. Stol, “The Moon as Seen
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
“the sun at the moon’s position” (§10f) and perhaps
“[the moon] stands in front of the sun” (§10d),172
however, would suggest that phenomena at conjunc-
tion were relevant here. As a matter of fact, earth-
shine associated with the waning or waxing crescent
is described in EAE 3 in metallic hues of silver, gold,
bronze, copper, and tin, as well as in stony shades
of diorite, limestone, and antimony.173 The latter, of
course, could perhaps explain the perception of the
moon’s night side with its earthshine as a “stone wall.”
While much remains unclear, it is possible that the
thin sliver of the moon’s crescent adjacent to its larger
portion with earthshine appeared as light from be-
hind a stone wall that shone forth at its edge. This
image of light penetrating stone served to illustrate
how Marduk’s “luminosity destroys a stone wall.”
Unfortunately, this explanation runs into a problem
similar to that encountered in §9d–f: since earthshine
around the time of the New Moon was not restricted
to the first month or zodiacal sign, the phenomenon
represents a dubious link to the Hired Man (Aries)
constellation.
§10g. Although the cuneiform writing NA4 a-saksàk /
LÚ.ḪUN.GÁ (rev. 8–9)174 may suggest a construct noun
a-saksàk (“Asakku-monster (of) . . .”), the argument
makes most sense as “ ‘Stone’ of the Asakku-mon-
ster (refers to) (its) hireling.” Here, the commentator
evoked the Sumerian composition titled The Exploits
of Ninurta or, according to its incipit, Lugale. Just
as Ninurta’s victory over the Anzû-bird was ascribed
to Marduk in §1b, the Lugale story of how Ninurta
by the Babylonians,” in Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depic-
tion and Description in the Ancient Near East, ed. D. J. W. Mei-
jer (Amsterdam, 1992), 249–50. Analysis of the crown’s features
(form, color, number, etc.) was thought to be a more productive
alternative by L. Verderame, Le Tavole I–VI della serie astrologica
Enūma Anu Enlil, Nisaba 2 (Roma, 2002), 60–100.
172
The expression [d30 i]na IGI dUTU GUB (rev. 6) in the astral
commentary differs from others like “moon and sun stand (GUB)
together,” “moon is seen (IGI) with sun,” and “one god is seen (IGI)
with the other” that address phenomena at opposition, even though
similar terms (GUB and IGI) are employed. Hunger and Pingree,
Astral Sciences, 116–17.
173
Verderame, Le Tavole I–VI, 74–76.
174
While there are superficial scratches before the final sàk (or
sàg) sign in rev. 8, these do not constitute a disjunction sign as tran-
scribed in Geller, Melothesia, 61, §10 (69). Also, the stone na4A.SAG
proposed by Geller is not attested in the glossary of Schuster-
Brandis, Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel, 391–458. Concerning
the orthographies NA4 a-saksàk (rev. 8) and Á.SÀG (rev. 9), a similar
variation occurs in pa-gar Á.SÀG NA4 a-sak-[ku] (SCT 110, obv. 5)
in Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 64.
) 153
condemned the Asakku-monster to stone175 was ap-
propriated for Marduk here, since Marduk (Asalluhi)
was the one “whose luminosity destroys a stone wall.”
In Lugale, the divine protagonist pronounces the ver-
dict: “Henceforth, do not say ‘Asag,’ its name shall be
‘stone.’ Its name shall be ‘zalag-stone,’ its name shall
be ‘stone’ ” (lines 327–28).176 The notion that the
Asakku-monster had been petrified to death provides
background to the logic of the explanatory text SCT
110, obv. 4–5: “[“Stone”] (refers to) the Corpse con-
stellation, as it is said. The Corpse constellation (refers
to) the body of the Asakku-monster. ‘Stone’ (refers to)
the Asakku-monster.” Giving a twist to this association
between “Asakku-monster” and “stone,” the author of
the astral commentary focused instead on the various
stones that allied themselves with the Asakku-mon-
ster against Ninurta and were later punished for their
rebellious acts, either by being subjected to rough
treatment as processed raw materials, or by serving as
products for uncomplimentary uses.177 The designa-
tion of these stones altogether as “hireling” (LÚ.ḪUN.
GÁ, rev. 9) of the Asakku-monster is evident from the
omission of the múl (“star”) determinative, which is
elsewhere included in the writing for the “Hired Man”
(múlLÚ.ḪUN.GÁ) constellation.
The remainder of this argument is obscured by
damage, but some grounds for the claim that “the
Crab (Cancer) (refers to) the Asakku-monster” can be
found in Lugale itself: “In the mountain, the ‘tooth’ of
a kušu2-creature (i.e., the Asakku-monster) has grown
up, it has stripped the trees. Before its might, the
gods of those cities bow down to it” (lines 39–40).178
175
The Asakku-monster was identified as a “demonically person-
ified volcano and its associated phenomena” by K. P. Foster, “Vol-
canic Landscapes in Lugal-e,” in Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers
and Horizons in the Ancient Near East, Papers Presented to the XLIV
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia, 7–11 July 1997,
Vol. 3, ed. L. Milano, et al. (Padova, 1999), 27–33, 35–36, 38–39.
176
[u4?]-da-ta á-sàg nam-ba-DI na4 mu-bi ḫé-em / na4 na4zalag
mu-bi ḫé-em na4 mu-bi ḫé-em (Lugale, 327–28) in J. van Dijk,
LUGAL UD ME-LÁM-bi NIR-GÁL: le récit épique et didactique des
Travaux de Ninurta, du Déluge et de la Nouvelle Création, 2 vols.
(Leiden, 1983), I 92.
177
These are the stones that fought against Ninurta and were
subsequently condemned for it: na4ú (line 419), na4šu-u (line 438),
na4
sag-kal, na4gul-gul, na4sag-gar (lines 451–53), na4na (line 480),
na4
algameš (line 524), na4gír-zú-gal (line 546), na4im-an, na4al-lí-ga
(lines 557–58), na4maš-da, na4dub-ba-an, na4ú-ru-tum (lines 569–70),
na4
ša-ga-ra (line 582), and na4ḫáš-tum (line 603), according to the
line numbering in ibid., I 105–30.
178
kur-ra zú-kušu2-a mu-ne-mú giš mi-ni-ib-ùr-ùr / á-ba uruki-
ba dingir-bé-ne ki-bi-šè [ba-a]n-gurum-e-eš (Lugale, 39–40) in
ibid., I 56.
154 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
The inclusion of the kušu2-creature in Archaic and
Early Dynastic Fish lists, as well as its occasional oc-
currence with the ku6 (“fish”) determinative, has led to
translations such as “shark,” “crocodile,” or “snapping
turtle.”179 The conflation of KUŠU2 and ALLA signs in
late script, however, may have encouraged the associa-
tion of the Asakku-monster with the Crab (múlALLA)
constellation or zodiacal sign. As much is implied by
a section of tablet 5R 46 No. 1 (lines 28–33), which
enumerates the following constellations in their zo-
diacal order: “The Stars” (Pleiades) in Taurus (line
26), “the Rooster” (Lepus?) in Gemini (line 27), “the
Corpse” (line 28), “the Snake” (Hydra) in Leo/Virgo
(line 29), Šullat and Ḫaniš (parts of Centaurus) in
Virgo/Libra (line 30), and “the Scorpion,” “Šarur
and Šargaz” and “the Mad Dog” (Lupus) in Scorpio
(lines 31–33). In this sequence, the Corpse constel-
lation (line 28) may reasonably be assigned to the
zodiacal sign Cancer.
The Asakku-monster’s association with both the
Hired Man (Aries) and the Crab (Cancer) finds resolu-
tion in ziqpu star astronomy (see §10c), particularly in
the geometrical relationship between a ziqpu star at or
near its point of culmination and another star that rose
heliacally at the same time. Preserved tablets that pair
up ziqpu and heliacally rising stars in a “Babylonian
Rising-Times Scheme,” however, do not include one
focused on the relationship between Aries and Can-
cer.180 Perhaps the closest approximation is found in
Mul-apin I, iv 22–23: “On the 15th of Abu (V), the
dusky stars of the Old Man (Perseus) stand in the
middle of the sky opposite your breast, and the Bow
(part of Canis Major) rises.”181 The Old Man seems to
be part of the Babylonian sign Aries/Taurus, while the
Bow belonged to the sign Cancer/Leo (cf. the Arrow
constellation’s position in Cancer at §1b).
§10h. The term zīmu can indicate the “glow” of
stars (CAD Z s.v. zīmu s. 2). What is intended here,
however, is not simply the brightness of the sun-god
Šamaš, but the penetrating qualities of rays “whose
luminosity destroys a stone wall.” The effulgence char-
179
See bibliography in N. C. Veldhuis, “The Sur9-Priest, the
Instrument gišAl-gar-sur9, and the Forms and Uses of a Rare Sign,”
AfO 44/45 (1997/98): 127 n. 46; P. Attinger and M. Krebernik,
“L’Hymne à Ḫendursaĝa (Ḫendursaĝa A),” in Von Sumer bis Homer:
Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar
2004, ed. R. Rollinger, AOAT 325 (Münster, 2005), 66 (no. 84).
180
Rochberg, “A Babylonian Rising-Times Scheme,” 56–91.
181
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 64.
acteristic of Šamaš becomes ascribed to Marduk by
the commentator’s craft. Instead of a merely generic
reference to the sun’s emergence from mountains east
of Mesopotamia, the commentator could have had in
mind a specific recurring trope in cylinder seal scenes:
there, Šamaš climbs out from behind stone-textured
mountains that sometimes appear cleaved into two
halves on either side of him, while wielding his trade-
mark šaššāru-saw apparently as the instrument for cut-
ting his way through.182
§10i. I hesitantly understand pi-i iṣ-ṣu (rev. 9) as a
scribal note perhaps meaning “wording of a wooden
(writing-board) (?),” and discuss it together with pi-i
iṣ-ṣi (rev. 3) in §9e.
§11. The Ford
§11a. Quotation of the base text in K 3307 + 6626
(Part of MS c), obv. i 11′.183
§11b. Geller translated “[in the] middle of the
stars, wise Idim = Ea,”184 but I understand this entry
to refer to Marduk as “Bēl” (dBAD), even though the
same writing dBAD was used for “Enlil” in §8b–c.185
A description of the Crook constellation (Auriga) as
Marduk’s weapon, likewise, appears in a list of ziqpu-
stars with the god’s name written dBAD (VAT 16436,
obv. 8; see §12b). The sign ÁB (often transliterated
MULx) can appear in environments in which one might
expect the MUL or MÚL (= kakkabu, “star”) sign, ei-
ther as a determinative before constellation or zodiacal
182
These cylinder seal scenes are conveniently collected in
Woods, “At the Edge of the World,” especially figs. 5, 10, 11, 24.
Woods’ assertion that “the šaššaru-saw is symbolic of the cutting of
judgments, di-kud, that Šamaš executes, and the cutting of fates,
nam-tar, that Šamaš facilitates, on the eastern horizon” (p. 218)
need not exclude earlier ideas about this saw as Šamaš’s means of
breaking forth into dawn. See J. van Dijk, “Sumerische Religion,” in
Handbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Band 1, Altertum und Frühmit-
telalter, ed. J. P. Asmussen, J. Laessøe, and C. Golpe (Göttingen,
1971), 475–76; D. Collon, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the
Ancient Near East (London, 1987), 35.
183
Base text copied in AfO 17: Plate XIII and edited in Lam-
bert, “Address of Marduk,” 313, §B 15; Geller, Evil Demons, 155,
Excerpt 4, 10.
184
Geller, Melothesia, 63.
185
For dBAD as a writing for the god Bēl, see S. Parpola, “A Letter
from Šamaš-šumu-ukīn to Esarhaddon,” Iraq 34/1 (1972): 25; K.
Kessler, Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie Nordmesopota-
miens (Wiesbaden, 1980), 150 n. 508; cf. MZL, no. 113.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
names,186 as a stand-alone logogram for “star,”187 or
in the form ÁB.ÁB (lit. “the Stars”) as a designation for
the Pleiades.188 The orthographic choice of ÁB here
may be notable, because the MÚL sign is almost always
employed for the same roles elsewhere in this com-
mentary.189 Furthermore, the repetition ÁB ÁB ÁB ÁB
seems reminiscent of methods employed in crypto-
graphic writing. In my interpretation, the theme of
this entry (§11) is the Ford star (Nēberu), but I will
also explore the possibility later that “the Stars” (Pleia-
des) may be in view.
The commentator’s argument hinges on varied
meanings of the term “heart” (ŠÀ): first, as the center
of spatial relations, and next, as the seat of cognition.
Because Marduk in his aspect as Bēl is the “heart” (i.e.,
middle) of the stars, he is thus the possessor of “un-
derstanding” (ḫasīsu). This central position among
the stars can be interpreted literally when it comes to
the Ford star (Nēberu), which also goes by the name
“Star of Marduk.” Enūma eliš describes its centrality
from the perspective of looking at the eastern hori-
zon. On the one hand, the Ford stands in the middle
Path of Anu in order to check the boundaries of the
northern Path of Enlil and the southern Path of Ea,
placing “strong bolts at the left (i.e., north) and at the
186
For example: 1 KÙŠ sin ina IGI ábGÌR ár ša UR.A GUB, “the
moon stood 1 cubit in front of the Lion’s hind foot (β Virginis)”
(VAT 4956, obv. 3 = Astronomical Diary for –567 in ADART I,
46–47); U4.1.KAM GU4.UD ina ábGÍR.TAB ina SI 15-šú GUB-ma, “on
Day 1, Mercury stands at the Scorpion’s right horn” (AO 6464,
obv. 6 = Commentary on EAE 8 owned by Iqīšāya in H. Hunger,
“Ein Kommentar zu Mond-Omina,” in Vom Alten Orient zum Al-
ten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85.
Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, AOAT
240 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995), 105, 109); AN i-[na] / ábPA.BIL.SAG
šá-ru-ru ÍL-ma, “Mars bears rays in Pabilsag (Sagittarius)” (SpTU I,
90, obv. 7–8 = Commentary on EAE 56 copied by Anu-abu-uṣur
and owned by Iqīšāya).
187
ina ÁB-šú ana maš-tak-ku EN-šú ḪÉ.GUR-šú, “at its star, let
him return it (i.e., the tablet) to its owner’s quarters” (VAT 7825,
rev. 14′) = Colophon to commentary on EAE 20 owned by Anu-
balāssu-iqbi in Rochberg-(Halton), Aspects of Babylonian Celestial
Divination, 227; cf. E. F. Weidner, “Die astrologische Serie Enûma
Anu Enlil,” AfO 14 (1941–44): Tafel VI. The colophon was under-
stood as ina ūmī!-šú (“an ihrem (festgesetzten) Tag”) in Hunger,
Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, 40, no. 91; but the reading
“at its star” is confirmed by the parallel ina MÚL-š [ú] in SpTU I,
139, line 4′.
188
⅔ DANNA TA UGU ÁB.ÁB, “⅔ bēru from above the Stars (i.e.,
Pleiades)” (BM 41004, obv. 4) in O. Neugebauer and A. J. Sachs,
“Some Atypical Astronomical Cuneiform Texts I,” JCS 21 (1967):
200.
189
But note the writing MUL ṣar-ḫu (“the flared-up star”) in §7e.
) 155
right (i.e., south).”190 On the other hand, Marduk in
the capacity of Nēberu “holds the crossing place of
heaven and netherworld, they should not cross above
or below, but should wait for him.”191 Astrolabe B and
the 30-Star-Catalog speak of “the red star, which, at
the rising of the south wind, after the gods of the
night have finished, halves the sky and stands (in the
middle); that star is the Ford, the god Marduk.”192 In-
deed, as Horowitz postulated, “Marduk’s star Nēberu
may be imagined to divide the stars of the outgoing
old year from those of the incoming new year,” per-
forming its role as a Ford, not merely in spatial, but
also in temporal terms.193
Interest in the Ford star is also apparent in an As-
sur commentary entry (Ass. 13955fx = A 163, obv.
9′–14′) on Marduk’s Address that explains the base
text line “I am Asalluhi, who was created by means of
his own intention.”194 According to the interpretation
of a second ummânu-scholar: dNé-bi-ru : dMES šá ana
ra-ma-ni-šú DÙ-u / dNí-bi7-rú ra : šá-a : ra : i-na : bi7
: ṭè-e-mu : rú : ba-nu-u / NÍ : ra-ma-nu : dNé-bi-ru
: dNí-bi7-rú:
The Ford star (Nēberu) refers to Marduk who was
created for himself. (The syllabic equivalent of
Nēberu) dNí-bi7-rú is analyzed as (the Sumerian
particle) ra meaning he/who + (the Sumerian
particle) ra meaning by means of + bi7 (the same
sign as the logogram UMUŠ) meaning intention +
190
Enūma eliš V, 6–10 in Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths,
98–99.
191
Enūma eliš VII, 124–25 in Lambert, Babylonian Creation
Myths, 130–31. See §1c for discussion of the sun’s journey in the
Netherworld at night before it rises from the eastern horizon.
192
MUL SA5 ša ina ZI IM.U18.LU / EGIR DINGIR.MEŠ GE6-ti / ug-da-
mi-ru-nim-ma / AN-e MAŠ-ma GUB-ma MUL.BI / dNé-bi-ru dAMAR.
UTU (VAT 9416, II rev. ii 10–13) in Horowitz, The Three Stars Each,
38; 30-Star Catalog, Anu 10 in Oelsner and Horowitz, “The 30-
Star Catalogue HS 1897,” 178. Cf. 1 MUL GAL UD.DA-su da-a-ʾ-mat
AN-e MAŠ-ma GUB-zu MUL dAMAR.UTU né-bi-ri (Mul-apin I, i 37) in
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 28; [ina MURUB4] AN-e GUB-ma
d
Né-bi-ru MU.NI (K 2212, line 23′) in BPO 4, 178; cf. K 3124, line
6′ in BPO 3, 230.
193
W. Horowitz, “The Astrolabes: Astronomy, Theology, and
Chronology,” in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the
Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Steele (Oxford, 2007), 110.
194
Assur commentary in Geller, Melothesia, 65, §8 (47); cf.
Geller, Evil Demons, 155, Excerpt 3, 4. The obverse and reverse
sides of the commentary tablet Ass. 13955fx (A 163) had been con-
fused in various publications prior to their correction by Lambert,
“Marduk’s Address,” 291, so the entry of interest here (obv. 9′–14′)
is labeled as the reverse side in AfO 17: Plate XXVI.
156 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
rú (the same sign as the logogram DÙ) meaning
to create + (the logogram) NÍ meaning his own.
(Thus) the Ford star (Nēberu) means dNí-bi7-rú
(i.e., he who was created by means of his own
intention)” (obv. 12′–14′).195
In allusion here is Marduk’s epithet “Creator of the
gods, his fathers” (Enūma eliš VII, 97), which was also
co-opted in Sennacherib’s description of Aššur (writ-
ten AN.ŠÁR) as “he who created himself.”196
The precise nature of the Ford star is problematic.
Its description as “a single great star” (1 MUL GAL;
Mul-apin I, i 37) may distinguish it from constella-
tions comprising groups of stars, and its epithet “Star
of Marduk” certainly contributed to its popular iden-
tification as Marduk’s planet Jupiter.197 In addition
to the above statements about Nēberu “halving the
sky,” an astrological report by Nabû-mušēṣi seems to
provide a ready definition: “The Star of Marduk at its
appearance is Šulpae; when it rises one double-hour,
it is Sagmegar; when it stands in the middle of the sky
(ina MURUB4 AN-e), it is Nēberu” (K 120A, obv. 7–rev.
1).198 As Hunger and Pingree pointed out, however,
the description of “halving (MAŠ or BAR) the sky” was
used also for the inner planets Venus and Mercury as
well as the New Moon crescent, and so cannot refer
to a planet at the meridian.199
Ancient observers, of course, readily recognized
that planets moved untethered to the stars.200 On the
other hand, as I explore in a forthcoming publication
(see §7d), astral lists sometimes envisioned planets in
certain fixed positions in relation to the fixed stars.
195
The typo dné(ni)-bi7-rú instead of dNí(im)-bi7-rú (Ass.
13955fx = A 163, obv. 13′, 14′) occurs in Geller, Melothesia, 65, §8
(47). In line with arguments in other commentaries where a single
component could represent more than one expression or idea, the
analysis of /ru/ (from Nēberu) into ra + ra + rú here was not con-
sidered problematic.
196
ba-an DINGIR.MEŠ AD.MEŠ-šú (Enūma eliš VII, 97) in Lambert,
Babylonian Creation Myths, 128–29; a-na AN.ŠÁR šar kiš-šat DINGIR.
MEŠ ba-nu-u ram-ni-šu (K 5413a, line 1) in D. D. Luckenbill, The
Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chicago, 1924), 149; cf. Frahm,
“Counter-texts,” 10.
197
BPO 2, 13; Koch(-Westenholz), Mesopotamian Astrology,
207; Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe, 269.
198
K 120A, obv. 7–rev. 1 in Hunger, Astrological Reports, 89,
no. 147; cf. ŠL 4/2, 118, no. 311. See also commentarial explana-
tions such as dNé-bi-ri dSAG.ME.GAR (K 148+, line 21) in BPO 3,
56–57.
199
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 126.
200
“[These are the gods(?) who] keep changing their positions”
(II, i 40) in Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 80–81.
Even if Nēberu is to be identified with Jupiter (not
necessarily at the meridian), various astral texts and
this astral commentary in particular give the impres-
sion that the Ford star occupies a specific location on
the fixed star map. In this regard, instincts by early
scholars to define the Ford star as a constellation can
be suggestive of such a location, with proposals such as
Perseus (Weidner), Canopus (Jeremias), and “a fixed
star . . . near Pisces and Aries” (S. Langdon).201 We can
easily see that the Ford star’s location implied by the
texts agrees well with its placement in this astral com-
mentary between entries dealing with Aries (§10) and
Auriga (§12). In Astrolabe B, pairs of simultaneously
rising and setting constellations are all unrealistically
separated by six-month intervals, but it is telling that
the schematized geometry there situates the “Star of
Marduk” (i.e., the Ford star) immediately after the
Swallow (part of Pisces) and diametrically opposite
the Raven (Corvus+Crater).202
The weight of evidence inclines me to identify the
Ford star as the theme of this entry (§11), though
the decision is not without its difficulties. The abrupt
use of the ÁB sign instead of MÚL remains unresolved,
and, while the fourfold repetition ÁB.ÁB.ÁB.ÁB (“stars
[in general]”) could be an attempt to avoid confu-
sion with ÁB.ÁB (“the Stars,” i.e., the Pleiades), one
wonders why the simpler alternative MÚL.MEŠ was not
employed instead. The sudden occurrence of atypical
orthographies, especially in a commentary text, can
sometimes be attributed to the citation of another
source in a way that preserves the latter’s original
form. One candidate for such a source may appear
in another commentary on the astronomical omen(s)
EAE 19, III 14–15: KI ÁB.ÁB u ábGU4.AN.NA ÚŠ.MEŠ, “Re-
gion of the Stars (Pleiades) and the Bull of Heaven
(Taurus) (means) plague” (BM 47447, rev. 24).203 If
so, it would not be coincidental that this other com-
mentary (BM 47447) belonged to Šemaʾya, whose
201
E. F. Weidner, Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie
(Leipzig, 1915), 69; A. Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen
Geisteskultur (Berlin, 2nd ed. 1929), 134; S. Langdon, The Babylo-
nian Epic of Creation, 155; cf. A. Schott, “Marduk und sein Stern,”
ZA 43 (1936): 141–42.
202
VAT 9416, III 6, 11–12; IV 10–12 in Horowitz, The Three
Stars Each, 40–41. In contrast to this artificial scheme in Astrolabe
B, an analogous pairing of simultaneously rising and setting con-
stellations in Mul-apin (I, iii 13–33) has been ascribed to the year
c. –1000 at a latitude c. 36° north by Hunger and Pingree, Astral
Sciences, 66.
203
Rochberg-(Halton), Aspects of Babylonian Celestial Divina-
tion, 171 (EAE 19, III 14–15), 285 (BM 47447, rev. 24).
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
authorship has been credibly proposed also for our
astral commentary (see §16). According to this view,
the signs here can be understood as [ina] ŠÀ ÁB.ÁB
áb
ÁB dBAD, “[In] the heart of the Stars (Pleiades) (and)
the Bull (lit. Cow) (Taurus) (is) Bēl” (rev. 10), which
plays on the fact that the logogram ÚŠ (“plague”) is
the same cuneiform sign indicating the god Bēl (dBAD).
However, the statement “Region of the Stars and the
Bull of Heaven (means) plague” represents the com-
mentator’s (Šemaʾya’s) own explanation, rather than
the citation of an external authoritative source, and
the statement itself does not seem axiomatic enough
to serve as the deciphered solution for cryptographic
writing like ÁB ÁB ÁB ÁB.
§12. Auriga
§12a. Quotation of the base text in K 3349 (MS j),
obv. 1, which is also cited in the Assur commentary
Ass. 13955fx (A 163), rev. 11.204
§12b. The commentator’s explanation here is an
almost exact replicate of 5R 46 No. 1, line 3: mulGÀM
giš
TUKUL šá ŠU.2 dAMAR.UTU. While this is the only refer-
ence to Marduk’s weapon in the astral commentary,
tablet 5R 46 No. 1 describes the “Crook” (Auriga,
line 3), “Stars” (Pleiades, line 26), and “Šarur and
Šargaz” (λ and υ Scorpii, line 32) as Marduk’s weapons
and the “Harrow” (perhaps eastern part of Vela, line
25) as the weapon of Mār-bīti. The Maqlû series (VII,
49) includes a reference to “the Crook at the gate of
Marduk.”205 A list of ziqpu-stars relates the “Crook”
to the deity dBAD (VAT 16436, obv. 8),206 who should
probably be identified with the god Bēl (Marduk) as
the same writing indicates in §11b.
§12c. Preserved portions of this argument, unfor-
tunately, present quite an enigma, and Geller has re-
stored it in the follow way: . . . kak-ku šá ŠU.2 dAMAR.
UTU gam-lu / šag-gi-šú : qab-[lu š]ag-ga-šú ⸢MUŠ ⸣
im-tú : mu-bal-li-ṭu / bi-iṣ-ṣú : . . . , “the weapon of
Marduk’s hands is a murderous throwstick : battle is a
murderer (is) a snake (is its) poison : healing droplets :
204
Base text copied in AfO 19: Plate XXV and edited in Lam-
bert, “New Fragments,” 115, §B 16; Geller, Evil Demons, 155, Ex-
cerpt 4, 11; Assur commentary in Lambert, “Address of Marduk,”
313, §B1; Geller, Melothesia, 65, §15 (71).
205
gamlu ša bāb dMarduk (Maqlû VII, 49) in Abusch, The
Witchcraft Series Maqlû, 128.
206 múl
GÀM dBAD, “the Crook of Bēl” (VAT 16436, obv. 8) in
Schaumberger, “Die Ziqpu-Gestirne,” 226–27.
) 157
. . .” (rev. 11–13).207 I have a different interpretation
based on three considerations. First, as I explain in
§12d, the signs rendered by Geller as bi-iṣ-ṣú (rev. 13)
most likely belong to a separate argument and should
not be considered here. Secondly, despite the syllabic
writing for “Crook,” gam-lu (rev. 11), the commen-
tator actually built on lexical equations involving its
logographic form GÀM, such as: ga-am GÀM = ša-ka-šum
šá MÈ (Aa VIII/1, 93 in MSL XIV, 491), GÀM.KID =
šá-ka-šum (Nabnitu XX, 126 in MSL XVI, 182). This
implies that the terms “Crook” (gamlu, rev. 11) and
“murderer” (šaggišu, rev. 12) relate to each other as
predicates and not as parts of the same phrase.
Thirdly, given the tendency by commentators to
match up forms of commensurable syntaxes in their
arguments, the participle mu-bal-li-ṭu (rev. 12) is very
likely preceded by another participle. I have therefore
emended the text as ⸢muš ⸣-mi!(im)-⸢tú⸣ : mu-bal-li-ṭu,
“One who kills corresponds to one who heals” (rev.
12).208 Such uses of antonymy (rather than synon-
ymy) in commentarial arguments is less common, but
attested in examples like “[TA] dUTU.ŠÚ.A EN EN.NUN.
UD . ZAL . LE (lit. ‘From sunset until the third night
watch’) means the opposite of ‘from morning until the
cool of day (i.e., evening).’ ”209 Here, the commenta-
tor may have been trying to resolve perceived tensions
in the etymologies of “Crook” and “murderer,” in an
argument that might be restored as follows: “ ‘Crook’
(GÀM = gamlu) (refers to) a murderer (GÀM = šaggišu).
[. . . (Accordingly,) to save (gamālu) means] to mur-
der (šagāšu). One who kills corresponds to one who
heals.”
§12d. Geller’s reading bi-iṣ-ṣú, “droplets” (rev. 13)
at the beginning of the line is questionable,210 since
the initial cuneiform sign resembles AMAR more than
bi, and because the following signs ez-zu (the same
signs as iṣ-ṣú) likely refer back to the expression “fierce
deluge” (abūbu ezzu) in the base text of Marduk’s Ad-
dress. Moreover, I understand the signs qa-ti (rev. 13)
as the stative verb qatû (“to come to an end, become
207
Geller, Melothesia, 62–63, §12 (71).
208
For example, note the orthography muš-mit bu-lim (“One
who kills the livestock”) in 5R 46 No. 1, line 41.
209
[TA dUTU.ŠÚ].⸤A EN⸥ EN.NUN.UD.ZAL.⸤LE :⸥ TA še-e-ri EN ki-iṣ U4
x[. . .] (BM 66965 + 76508, obv. 16). Transliterated and trans-
lated from the original, and forthcoming with other examples of
antonymy in Wee, Knowledge and Rhetoric in Medical Commentary,
§II.3.1.
210
The term is presumably biṣṣu (CAD B: “tears”) suggested by
Geller, Melothesia, 62, §12 (71).
158 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
complete”: CAD Q), indicating the “fulfillment” of
meanings inherent in Marduk’s name. Alternatively,
Lambert and Geller have proposed emending the signs
to MU šá dAMAR.UTU qa-bi!, “a name by which Marduk
is called,” though perhaps then the form qa-bu! with
the subordination marker -u would be preferable.211
In my transliteration and translation, I adopt one of
two possible ways to interpret this broken line, which
assumes that the name fulfilled is dAMAR.UTU: “AMAR
(‘bull-calf ’) (means) ‘fierce.’ . . . [UTU means ‘deluge.’
(?)] It is fulfilled within the name of Marduk (dAMAR.
UTU)” (rev. 13). This analysis of dAMAR.UTU into its
components (AMAR + UTU) is a well-attested means
of argumentation in commentaries, which is utilized
also in §6c. Unfortunately, lexical lists do not readily
support the readings AMAR = ezzu (“fierce”) or UTU =
abūbu (“deluge”), and these explanations should be
considered associative rather than lexical: on the one
hand, a “bull-calf ” (logogram AMAR) was a “fierce”
animal, as attested elsewhere by the epithets “fierce
(ekdu) bull-calf of Adad” and “Nanna, the fierce bull-
calf of Anu.”212 On the other hand, the sign UD (same
sign as UTU) could represent a “storm” (CAD U/W
s.v. ūmu s. 2a–d),213 and logographic forms such as
ú-ru URU×UD = a-bu-bu (“deluge”) may envision a
“storm” (UD) that penetrates within even a walled
“city” (URU).214 In short then, the “fierce deluge” be-
fitted the god Marduk, because such a weapon was
inherent in the components of his name (dAMAR.UTU).
There is a second possible restoration to this ar-
gument (rev. 13), which assumes that the name of
Marduk alluded to is one of his fifty names in Enūma
eliš: AMAR ez-zu : ni(?) [. . . ra-pa]-aš (?) lìb-bi MU šá
d
AMAR.UTU qa-ti, “ ‘Fierce bull-calf . . . [Wide (?)] of
heart,’ a name of Marduk, is fulfilled.” The best can-
didate for such a name would be dMIR.ŠÀ.KÚŠ.Ù: “fierce
211
“Emended from -ti by W.G.L.” in Geller, Melothesia, 62 n. 24.
212
bu-ru ek-du ša dIŠKUR in the kudurru-stela of Nazi-Maruttaš
(NM 2) iv 17 in Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften,
329; “Nanna, the fierce bull-calf of Anu” on the foundation cones
WM 1179 and WM 1180 in A. Kelly, “A Neo-Assyrian Relief in the
Weingreen Museum of Biblical Antiquities, Trinity College Dublin–
A Case Study in Artefact Acquisition,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy 112C (2011): 90–91.
213
Note also mulUD.KA.DU8.A = u4-mu na-ʾ-ri, “The Panther =
The roaring storm” (5R 46 No. 1, line 43), where the name mulUD.
KA.DU8.A is analyzed as UD (“storm”) + KA.DU8.A (“opened mouth”).
214 b
S II, 260 in MSL III, 145; Ea VI, C [2′] in MSL XIV, 432.
Note also similar equations like ú-ru URU×A = [a-bu-bu] (“deluge”)
(Ea VI, C 7′ in MSL XIV, 432), which depict “water” (A) within
the walled “city” (URU).
yet deliberating, angry yet relenting, his heart is wide,
who keeps in check his inner emotions” (Enūma
eliš VI, 137–38), with dMIR.ŠÀ.KÚŠ.Ù analyzed as the
Sumerian components MIR (“to be angry, rage”) +
the compound verb ŠÀ KÚŠ.Ù (“to soothe, take coun-
sel with”).215 However, given that the language in
Enūma eliš would be rendered only imprecisely, this
second option seems to me more speculative and less
preferable.
§13. Hyades
§13a. Quotation of the base text in K 3349 (MS j),
obv. 2.216
§13b. The commentator’s explanation (dGIBIL6 nu-
ú-ri šá IGI d+EN.ME.ŠÁR.RA, rev. 14) seems to be the
exact replica of a statement with different orthography
in 5R 46 No. 1, line 14: mulGIŠ.BAR ZALAG2 šá IGI dEN.
ME.ŠÁR.RA.217 Another similar statement that substi-
tutes Enmešarra for perhaps Ninurta is found in tablet
SCT 110, obv. 9: [K]I.NE šá ina IGI dNi[n-urta (?)],
“The brazier (of the fire-god Girru constellation) that
is before [Ninurta (?)].” Already in Old Babylonian
“Prayers to the Gods of the Night,” the Girru constel-
lation stands at the head of a list of stars enumerated
by the haruspex.218 According to Astrolabe B, the con-
stellation of “the Jaw of the Bull (α Tauri+Hyades),
215 d
MIR.ŠÀ.KÚŠ.Ù e-zi-iz ù muš-tal sa-bu-us u t[a]-a-ár / ra-pa-áš
lìb-ba-šú la-a-ʾ-iṭ ka-ras-su (Enūma eliš VI, 137–38) in Lambert,
Babylonian Creation Myths, 118–19. I have differed from Lambert’s
translation of the final expression: “his heart is all-controlling.”
216
Base text copied in AfO 19: Plate XXV and edited in Lam-
bert, “New Fragments,” 115, §B 17.
217 d
GIŠ.BAR.RA, dGIŠ.BAR.AN.NA = dGIBIL6 (An = Anum II, 335–36)
in Litke, Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, 107. The example here is not
the only instance where 5R 46 No. 1 deviates from other texts in its
orthography. Compare MUL.AN.NA meš-ḫu SUR-uḫ NA BAR A.DAM-e-a
GAM-mis, “If the Heaven Star produces a glow, the foreign man will
gather up my pastureland” (5R 46 No. 1, line 57) with the more
typical writing in MUL.AN.NA meš-ḫa im-šuḫ KÚR na-me-e-a i-[kam-
mis] (K 2068 + K 2251 = MS B, 103) in U. Koch(-Westenholz),
“The Astrological Commentary Šumma Sîn ina Tāmartīšu Tablet
1,” ResOr 12 (1999): 160; cf. Hunger, Astrological Reports, 115
(no. 202, lines 5–6); K 3119, i 19′ in ACh 2nd Suppl. no. 63.
218
W. von Soden, “1. Ein Opferschaugebet bei Nacht,” ZA 43
(1936): 306 (obv. 15), text originally published in W. Šileiko, Iz-
vestija Rossijskoj Akademii istorii material’noj kul’tury 3 (1924):
147; AO 6769, obv. 16 in G. Dossin, “Prières aux ‘Dieux de la
Nuit’,” RA 32/4 (1935): 181, cf. 180; CBS 574, line 12 in W.
Horowitz and N. Wasserman, “Another Old Babylonian Prayer to
the Gods of the Night,” JCS 48 (1996): 58.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
the Crown of Anu is equal to the fire-god Girru.”219
Enmešarra, moreover, is considered part of the con-
stellation “Old Man” (ŠU.GI), which is identified with
Perseus.220 Depending on how the ancients envisioned
the asterisms, one might question the description of
Girru as “before” (IGI) Enmešarra, since an object “in
front of ” (ina IGI) a star technically lies to the west of
that star, and the Hyades appear slightly to the east of
Perseus at least in modern conception. On the other
hand, Girru’s position “before” Enmešarra may refer
simply to the fact that the figure of Enmešarra was
imagined as facing eastward.221 The characteristics of
the fire god are implied in the following entries of
EAE 50–51, even if Girru is not explicitly named: “If
the star before Enmešarra is very dim, there will be
severe cold. If the star before Enmešarra is like the
noonday sun, and one star in its midst (probably α
Tauri) is very red, there will be severe heat” (XVI,
8–9).222
§14. Northern Taurus
§14a. Quotation of the base text in K 3349 (MS j),
obv. 3, where Lambert’s transcribed reading [. . .] x
x ni probably corresponds to . . . a-ši-ir in this com-
mentary.223 This base text is also cited in the Assur
commentary Ass. 13955gt (A 195), line 3′.224
219 iti
SIG4 is le-e a-gi dA-nim / [MU]L.BI dGIBIL6 ša-nin. VAT 9416,
I i 32–33 in Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 34.
220 mul
ŠU.GI dEN.ME.ŠÁR.RA (Mul-apin I, i 3) in Hunger and Pin-
gree, MUL.APIN, 18, 125, 137; mulŠU.GI / dEN.ME.ŠÁR.RA dMAR.TU
(VAT 9416, II obv. ii 13–14) in Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 38;
cf. Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe, 270; BPO 2, 15.
221
In the same fashion, Mercury is described as “in front of (ina
IGI) the Raven” (BM 78161, lines 17–18) even though it is depicted
to the east of the Raven (VAT 7847 + AO 6448, reverse), because
the Raven was thought to face eastward. Pingree and Walker, “A
Babylonian Star-Catalogue: BM 78161,” 315–16, n. 4; Koch, “Der
Sternenkatalog BM 78161,” 41. Similarly, the description that
“Marduk rose up behind the True Shepherd of Anu (Orion)” (VAT
10099, §7 in Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory
Works, 116–17), may have nothing to do with the position of the
Star of Marduk (i.e., the Ford star) to the west of Orion, or could
reflect the view that Shepherd (Orion) faced eastward.
222
K 7621 = Text XVI, 8–9 in BPO 2, 74–75. The star Al-
debaran (α Tauri) was known as “the red one” (Rōhiṇi) also in the
Hindu list of 27 nakshatras.
223
Base text copied in AfO 19: Plate XXV and edited in Lam-
bert, “New Fragments,” 115, §B 18.
224
Assur commentary in Lambert, “New Fragments,” 115, §A;
cf. Geller, Melothesia, 64, §2 (73).
) 159
§14b. There is probably no space to restore any
signs in addition to [kib-ra-a-ti :] (rev. 15). Asalluhi’s
epithet as “Enlil of the gods” formed a ready connec-
tion to Enmešarra of the Old Man constellation (Per-
seus), since both have been identified with the god
Enlil.225 Epigraphic differences in writing the first two
signs of dEN.ME.ŠÁR.RA versus d+En-líl may represent
the scribe’s attempt at mimicking the writing [d+En-
líl] in the quotation from his base text manuscript,
and I reflect such anaphoric markers in my translation
by retaining quotation marks around “Enlil.”226 The
so-called “Chariot of Enmešarra” likely includes the
northern portion of the constellation Taurus, in ad-
dition to any stars that belong to Perseus.227 Strictly
speaking, a link merely between “Enlil” and Enmešarra
would have sufficed in connecting Asalluhi to the stars,
even without the extra step of specifying the “Chariot
of Enmešarra.” The commentator probably wanted
to indicate progress from the previous entry (§13),
whose concern with the Hyades already moved the
commentator eastward past Enmešarra in his journey
around the zodiac circle.
§15. Orion
§15a. Quotation of the base text in K 3349 (MS j),
obv. 4.228
§15b. “Shepherd” refers to Orion, which ancient
astronomers perceived as located in the zodiacal sign
Gemini. “Shepherd” was used in synecdoche for the
sign Gemini in the Uruk texts SpTU III, 104 and
105, and the order of constellations in Tablet LBAT
1597, obv. 9′–10′, rev. 1 situates the “True Shepherd
of Anu” (Orion) between the “Bull of Heaven” (Tau-
rus) and the “Great Twins” (α and β Geminorum).
In the Calendar Text LBAT 1586+1587, “Shepherd”
[ ŠU.G]I = dEn-líl (BM 82923, obv. 5) in Walker and Hun-
225 I mul
ger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” 30; mulŠU.GI = dEn-líl ša NIBRUki (82–9-18,
7292, obv. 1–2) in T. G. Pinches, “Enlil and Ninlil, the Older Bel
and Beltis,” PSBA 33 (1911): 94, Plate XI; dEn-líl ki-i dLUGAL.DU6.
KÙ.GA dEN.ME.ŠÁR.RA (O 175, obv. 1) in Livingstone, Mystical and
Mythological Explanatory Works, 190–91. Both Enmešarra and En-
lil are associated with the metal gold in CBS 6060 obv. 10 (ibid.,
176–77) and K 4349, E 4 (CT 24, 29).
226
The contrast between dEN and d+En here is easily spotted. A
careful study of epigraphy and orthography in commentary tablets
may reveal other more subtle markers, representing attempts by
commentators to link quotations and explanations.
227
Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 137.
228
Base text copied in AfO 19: Plate XXV and edited in Lam-
bert, “New Fragments,” 115, §B 19.
160 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
appears as the label for the “virtual moon”-sign
micro-Gemini.229
§15c. The deity Ilabrat was frequently associated
with the god Anu, not only directly designated as “vi-
zier” (šukkallu) of Anu in the composition Adapa and
the South Wind, but also identified in the so-called
“Weidner God List” with other known subordinates
of Anu such as Nin-šubur and Papsukkal.230 Although
a large part of the commentator’s argument is dam-
aged (i.e., the first half of rev. 17), it is easy to imagine
how “Sipazianna” (lit. “True Shepherd of Anu”) came
to be identified with these deities in Anu’s service.231
As a matter of fact, the Great Star List includes a bro-
ken but tantalizing mention of the constellation mulÌ-
lí-ab-[rat] (line 81) in close association with Dumuzi
(lines 82, 171) and perhaps Papsukkal (line 169), all
of whom are connected to the constellation Orion
(Sipazianna).232 Here, the commentator interpreted
the name “Il(i)abrat” as ilī (“gods”) + abrāti (“(of)
humankind”), in order to emphasize similarities be-
tween “Asalluhi, shepherd of all people” and the shep-
229
The “Shepherd” in the Calendar Text LBAT 1586+1587
was initially identified with a planet like Saturn, since it seems to
follow the moon around and “changes its position relative to the
other constellations.” Hunger, “Noch ein ‘Kalendartext’,” 41–42;
Brack-Bernsen and Steele, “Babylonian Mathemagics,” 101. I re-
cently demonstrated, however, that Calendar Texts describe the
movement of a “virtual moon,” whose micro-zodiacal signs in any
given month consistently agree in number with that month (Wee,
“Virtual Moons”). Concerned exclusively with Month 3, the tab-
let LBAT 1586+1587 situates the virtual moon repeatedly in the
“Shepherd,” i.e., in micro-Gemini (= micro-sign 3).
230
References to Ilabrat as Anu’s “vizier” (šukkallu) are pre-
served only in Fragment B (= EA 356, obv. 8′, 10′) of the Adapa
story at Amarna. S. Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind: Language
Has the Power of Life and Death, MC 10 (Winona Lake, IN, 2001),
16–17. For the relevant lines (col. i, 19; col. ii 12) in the “Weid-
ner God List,” see E. F. Weidner, “Altbabylonische Götterlisten,”
AfK 2 (1924–25): 11, 13 // Tableau I, nos. 19 and 44 in the final
version of this list in A. Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires du temple de
Nabû ša Harê (Baghdad 1981), 82–85. Cf. F. A. M. Wiggermann,
“Nin-šubur,” RLA 9 7/8 (2001): 492. Note also the commentary
reading KAV 46, obv. 10′ partially translated in Frahm, Commen-
taries, 256: “(The theonym) dpap-sukkal, (pronounced) papšukkal
(and written with the signs) pap (and) šukkallu, (represents) the
god Ilabrat [(and) . . .].”
[ SIPA.ZI.AN.NA] = suk-kal-lum (BM 82923, obv. 7) in
231 I mu l
Walker and Hunger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” 30.
232
Despite the broken context, Ilabrat’s (line 81) close proxim-
ity to Dumuzi (line 82), Mars (lines 83ff.), and “Fiery Red,” “Red,”
and “Yellow” stars (lines 85–87) in the Great Star List is strikingly
similar to another section (lines 168–73) that groups together Pap-
sukkal, Dumuzi, Mars, and stars of various colors. Koch(-Westen-
holz), Mesopotamian Astrology, 190–91, 194–95.
herd Sipazianna whose identity as Ilabrat concerned
“humankind” as a whole. This etymology, however,
need not have been historically accurate or univer-
sally accepted. Modern scholars, for instance, have
proposed links between Ilabrat and the land/city of
“l̯abrat” or even to non-Semitic origins.233
A medical commentary from Late Babylonian Uruk
(SpTU I, 50) includes a complex argument that con-
nects Papsukkal’s roles as vizier and guardian to the
term labar (“old”): NUN.BAR.ḪUŠ : ziq-qa-tu-ú : la-ab-
rat š [á(?) . . .] / la-ab-rat šá E-ú : la-bar at-ta : LA.BAR
: suk-[kal-lu] / ziq-qa-tu-ú : a-na sip-pi a-tu-ú ma-šil
: ZI[Q : sip-pu] / a-tu-ú : dPap-sukkal (rev. 24–27),
NUN.BAR.ḪUŠ refers to the ziqqatû-fish. Labrat
. . . ‘Labrat,’ which is said, means ‘you are old
(labar).’ LA.BAR (in the Emesal dialect) refers to a
vizier.234 Ziqqatû is equivalent to the doorframe
of a doorkeeper. ZIQ [meaning “doorframe”]235
(and) atû (meaning “doorkeeper”) refer to the
god Papsukkal.
A. Salonen identified this so-called ziqqatû-fish
with Saccobranchus fossilis.236 Equations between
SUKKAL.Ì.DU8 and sukkal atû or simply atû (“door-
keeper”) may be found in the lexical text Lu I, 92–93
(MSL XII, 96). In this medical commentary, the name
of the god “Papsukkal” was likely interpreted as bāb-
sukkal (“doorway of the vizier”) and made synony-
mous to “the doorframe (ZIQ) of a doorkeeper (atû),”
which in turn linked the deity to the ziqqatû-fish (=
ZIQ + atû).
233
I. J. Gelb, Hurrians and Subarians, SAOC 22 (Chicago,
1944), 102 n. 39; W. von Soden, “Zu einigen altbabylonischen
Dichtungen,” OrNS 26 (1957): 314; J.-M. Durand, “Noms de
dieux sumériens à Mari,” NABU 1987/2 (1987): 8, no. 14; K.
Deller, “Ilabrat and Ilabra,” NABU 1987/2 (1987): 29, no. 54.
234
For LA.BAR, LAGAR, and LI.BI.IR as Eme-sal expressions of
sukkallum (“vizier”), see the lexical text Lu I, 84–86 (MSL XII, 95)
as well as bilingual attestations in CAD S s.v. sukkallu.
235
The term sippu (“doorframe”) is equated with the term ZIQ
or its loanword ziqqu in Erimhuš b ii 4′ (MSL XVII, 89), Antagal
G, [70] (MSL XVII, 223), Malku I, 248 (Hrůša, Die akkadische
Synonymenliste malku = šarru, 321); cf. Sb II, 197 (MSL III, 143).
236
A. Salonen, Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien (Helsinki,
1970), 152, 169. The fish NUN.BAR.ḪUŠku6 (= ziqqatû) appears in
the lexical list Hh. XVIII, 41 (MSL VIII/2, 103) and occurs as a
medical or ritual ingredient in AMT, no. 19/2, ii 9; no. 63/2, 6′
(cf. K. Deller, “kurru ‘Mehlbrei’,” OrNS 54 [1985]: 328); Lamaštu
Series II 29 and III 68 in W. Farber, Lamaštu: An Edition of the
Canonical Series of Lamaštu Incantations and Rituals and Related
Texts from the Second and First Millennia B.C., MC 17 (Winona
Lake, IN, 2014), 100, 135.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
Another commentary (BM 62741) to the “Weidner
God List” discusses the writing LA.BAR in context with
Dumuzi, Sipazianna, Nin-šubur, and Papsukkal:237
[dDUMU.Z]I : ma-ru na-as-ḫu : re-⸢é⸣-um na-as-ḫu : MU :
re-é-um : ⸢ZI⸣ [: na-as-ḫu] / [. . .]x dSIPA.ZI.AN.NA : re-
⸢é-um⸣ na-as-ḫu dA-nu x[. . .] / [dNIN.Š]UBUR : NIN : be-
lum : ⸢šubur⸣ : pa-áš-šu-ru : dPap-sukkal : pa-áš-šu-ru
⸢dA⸣-[nim] / [. . .]x er x ba-a : šá-niš be-⸢el⸣ er-ṣe-tum :
NIN : be-li : ŠUBUR ⸢:⸣ [er-ṣe-tum] / [LA.B]A.AR : suk-kal-
lum : LA.BAR ⸢:⸣ ar-du : . . . (obv. 7′–11′):
Dumuzi means ‘removed son’ or ‘removed
shepherd.’ MU means ‘shepherd.’ ZI [means ‘re-
moved.’] . . . dSIPA.ZI.AN.NA (implied here to be
Dumuzi) means ‘shepherd removed (by) Anu.’
. . ... dNIN.ŠUBUR consists of NIN meaning ‘lord’
(and) /šubur/ (metathesis of consonantal val-
ues in the logogram BANŠUR) meaning ‘serving
portion (lit. table).’ Papsukkal (vizier of the god
Anu) refers to the ‘serving portion’ of Anu. . . .
Secondly, ‘lord of the earth.’ NIN means ‘lord.’
ŠUBUR means [‘earth.’] LA.BA.AR (in the Eme-sal
dialect) refers to a vizier. LA.BAR (referring to the
vizier dNIN.ŠUBUR) means a servant.238
Although both commentaries above do not explic-
itly name the god Ilabrat, they are concerned with dei-
ties related to or identified with him. The employment
of forms of /labar/ in argumentation, therefore, likely
involved what was perceived to be the etymology for
“Ilabrat.” The author of our astral commentary may
be said to deviate from such understandings of the
name “Ilabrat,” in order that he might present the
component /abrat/ as the term abrātu (“human-
kind”) and therefore bring Ilabrat (Orion) closer to
the description of “Asalluhi, shepherd of all people.”
§16. Colophon
Frahm wondered if this astral commentary was com-
posed by the son of Marduk-perʾu-uṣur, “Šemaʾya,
whose name may be broken away.”239 According to
Finkel’s reconstruction of Ēṭiru’s scholarly family tree,
Šemaʾya was the son of Marduk-perʾu-uṣur (whose
name is perhaps also written “Zababa-perʾu-uṣur”),
237
Transliterated and translated from the original, in consulta-
tion with Lambert Folio 9828.
238
[šu-bu-ur ŠUB]UR = wa-ar-du-um (Proto Ea) in MSL II, 147
(i 19); šu-bur BAD+ŠUBUR = [ar-du] (Sb II, 319) in MSL III, 149;
su-bar ⸢ŠUBUR⸣ = ar-du (Sa Voc, Z 11′; AA 15′) in MSL III, 80–81.
239
Frahm, Commentaries, 126.
) 161
who in turn was the son of Arad-Baba.240 Displaying
celestial interests evident in this astral commentary,
Šemaʾya is credited also for another commentary (BM
47447) on the astronomical omen series EAE 16–20
that dates to “Year 19 of King Artaxerxes.”241 I find
this proposal plausible and have restored the colophon
as “[. . . Šemaʾya son of (?)] Marduk-perʾu-uṣur, de-
scendant of Ēṭiru” (rev. 18).
Along with other members of his family, Šemaʾya
is known to have copied tablets from originals in
Babylon and Borsippa.242 As I noted in the Prolegom-
ena, his close ties with the latter city are conspicuous
by recurrences of distinctive astral ideas and expres-
sions in both his commentary on Marduk’s Address
and in Borsippean compositions like the List of Stars
and Deities in 5R 46 No. 1 (Appendix A) and the
tablet SCT 110 (Appendix B).
Appendix A: The List of Stars and Deities
in Tablet 5R 46 No. 1, Lines 1–53
Tablet 5R 46 No. 1 (British Museum No. 81-7-1, 4; see
Figs. 4a–b) is not unknown to scholars, who generally refer
to its schematic representation in Rawlinson’s Cuneiform In-
scriptions of Western Asia, where it is described as a “Mytho-
logical Text” consisting of a “List of stars and corresponding
gods, &c., obverse and reverse (from the Birs-Nimroud).”243
The identification of this provenance with “Borsippa, usually
in practice the Ibrahim al-Khalil mound”244 agrees with the
tablet’s status as “property of the Ezida-temple, (belonging
240
I. L. Finkel, “Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kīn-apli, and the Se-
ries SA.GIG,” in Scientific Humanist, ed. Leichty, Ellis, and Gerardi,
153–55.
241
IM mŠe-ma-ʾ-ia A mARAD-dBa-ba6 A mE-ṭi-ru IN.SAR itiZÍZ U4.23.
⸢KAM⸣ / MU.19.KAM mAr-tak-šat-su LUGAL pa-liḫ dAG u ⸢15(?) li(?)-ṣúr⸣
li-šá-qir (BM 47447, rev. 33–34) in Rochberg-(Halton), Aspects of
Babylonian Celestial Divination, 285; cf. Frahm, Commentar-
ies, 144. Depending on the Achaemenid king in view, Šemaʾya’s
commentary on EAE 16–20 could date to 445 (Artaxerxes I), 385
(Artaxerxes II), or 339 (Artaxerxes III) BC. Šemaʾya and other
members of the Ēṭiru family also produced tablets on “magical ritu-
als, Šumma ālu, Iqqur īpuš, diagnostic and therapeutic compendia,
an explanatory treatise, and astral lore.” Frahm, Commentaries, 307.
242
ki-i KA ṭup-pi GABA.RI É.ZI.⸢DA⸣ ṣir-pi SA5 GIM SUMUN-šú šá-
ṭir-ma / [b]a-a-ri IM mŠe-ma!-ʾ-ia A ⸢mARAD-dBa-ba6 A mA-ṭi⸣-[rù]
(BM 47938, rev. 24–25) in CT 39, 27; GABA.RI uruBa-bi-ilix(DINGIR)
u Bar-sip ki / SAR-ma IGI.KÁR ù up-pu-uš / DUB m!(aš)Še-ma-ʾ-iá A mA-
ṭi-rù (colophon in BM 47463, rev. iv) in Livingstone, Mystical and
Mythological Explanatory Works, 259, Plate V.
243
H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia,
Vol. V (London, 1884), Plate 46.
244
E. Leichty, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum, Volume VI: Tablets from Sippar 1 (London, 1986), xxxi.
162 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies

obverse
1 mul
APIN AN.ŠÁR
2 mul
UR.BAR.RA d
A-nu
3 mul
GÀM giš
TUKUL šá ŠU.2 dAMAR.UTU
4 mul
MAŠ.TAB.BA GAL.GAL.LA d
LUGAL.GÌR.RA u dMES.LAM.TA.È.A
5 -- d
30 u dU.GUR
6 mul
MAŠ.TAB.BA TUR.TUR d
MÙŠ.LÀL u dNin-ezen×gu4
7 -- d
IGI.DU u dNin-ezen×gu4
8 mul
LUGAL d
AMAR.UTU
9 mul
ḪÉ.GÁL.A.A d
ne.ZIL.LÁ
10 mulBAL.TÉŠ.A d
Na-na-a
11 mulŠU.PA dEn-líl šá ši-mat KUR i-šim-mu : GAL dEn-líl.MEŠ dAMAR.UTU
12 mulMU.BU.KÉŠ.DA d
A-nim GAL-ú šá AN-e DINGIR GAL
13 mul
DUMU×NITA É.MAḪ d
DI.KU5
14 mulGIŠ.BAR ZALAG2 šá IGI dEN.ME.ŠÁR.RA dNUSKA
15 mulGUB.BA.MEŠ šu-ut É.KUR d
30 u dU.GUR
16 mul
DINGIR.TUŠ.A.MEŠ šu-ut É.KUR d
A-nu u dEn-líl
mul d d
17 Lam-mu SUKKAL Ba-ú Ur-ma-šum SUKKAL dGu-la
18 mulNin-SAR u dÈr-ra-gal d
U.GUR u dAḫ-bi-tum
19 mulŠAḪ dDa-mu d
A-nu
20 mulANŠE.KUR.RA d
IM.DUGUDmušen
21 mul
LU.LIM d
EN.ME.ŠÁR.RA
22 mulLÚ.LÀL u dLa-ta-rak d
30 u dU.GUR
23 mulBAN d
INNIN TIN.TIRki
24 mul
EN.TE.NA.BAR.ḪUM d
Uraš
25 mul.gišGÁN.ÙR gišTUKUL šá dA-É šá ina lìb-bi-šú ABZU IGI.KÁR
26 MUL.MUL.LA giš
TUKUL šá ŠU.2 dAMAR.UTU
27 mulDAR.LUGAL d
En-líl šá Kul-aba4ki dLUGAL.BÀN.DA
28 mulAD6 pa-gar Á.SÀG
29 mulMUŠ d
Ereš-ki-gal
30 dŠullat2 u dḪaniš2 d
UTU u dIŠKUR
31 mulGÍR.TAB d
Iš-ḫa-ra tam-tim
32 dŠár-ur4 u dŠár-gaz d
Muš-te-šir-ḫab-lim u d.gišTUKUL dŠÀ.ZU
33 mul
UR.IDIM Kù-sù
d d
KUR.GAL
34 mulA-nu-ni-tum u mulŠi-nu-nu-tum íd
IDIGNA u ídBURANUN
35 --
36 --
reverse
37 mulMU.BU.A.AB.BA mul
NUNki
38 mulMÁ.GUR8 mulSUḪUR.MÁŠ d
MUATI u dTaš-me-tum
39 mulSAG.ME.GAR na-áš ṣa-ad-du ana da-da-mu
40 mulDili-bat na-ba-aṭ kak-ka-bu
41 mulUDU.IDIM muš-mit bu-lim
42 mulṢal-bat-a-nu muš-ta-bar-ru-ú mu-ta-nu
43 mulUD.KA.DU8.A u4-mu na-ʾ-ri
44 mulNU.MUŠ.DA DINGIR šá-gi-mu
45 mulBAL.TÉŠ.A kak-kab bal-tum
46 mulA.EDIN ba-na-at ri-ḫu-tum
47 mulMU.BU.KÉŠ.DA d
Ni-ru rak-su
48 mulḪa-ba-ṣi-ra-nu dNin-gír-su : iḫ-bu-tú EDIN dA-nu
49 mulUDU.NITA2 SAG.DU mulGÀM
50 mulAŠ.GÁN mul
ma-a-tú : ma-a-tú TIN.TIRki
51 mulKAK.SI.SÁ MUL meš-re-e
52 mulŠU.PA MUL na-am-ru
53 ÙZ Be-let bi-ri
Figure 4a—Transliteration of Tablet 5R 46 No. 1, Lines 1–53
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons ) 163

obverse
1 The Plow Anšar (lit. “Entirety of Sky”)
2 The Wolf Anu
3 The Crook Weapon of the Hands of Marduk
4 The Great Twins Lugalgirra and Meslamtaea
5 -- Sîn and Nergal
6 The Little Twins Alammuš and Nin-ezen×gu4i
7 -- Nergal and Nin-ezen×gu4
8 The King Marduk
9 The Abundant One ne-zillaii
10 BAL.TÉŠ.A Nanaya
11 ŠU.PA Enlil who decrees the land’s fate: Great One among the Enlil-gods,iii Marduk
12 MU.BU.KÉŠ.DA Great Anu of Heaven,iv Great God
13 Heir of the Sublime Temple Madānu (“Divine Judge”)v
14 (Fire-god) Girru The Lamp that is before Enmešarra, Nusku
15 The Standing Ones of Ekur Sîn and Nergal
16 The Sitting Gods of Ekur Anu and Enlil
17 Lammu, Vizier of Bau Urmašum, Vizier of Gulavi
18 Nin-SAR and Erragal Nergal and Aḫbitumvii
19 The Pig, Damu Anu
20 The Horse Anzû-bird
21 The Stag Enmešarra
22 Lulal and Latarak Sîn and Nergal
23 The Bow Ištar of Babylonviii
24 Entenabarḫumix Uraš
25 The Harrow Weapon of Mār-bīti, within which one sees the subterranean waters
26 The Stars Weapon of the Hands of Marduk
27 The Rooster Enlil of Kullab, Lugalbandax
28 The Corpse Body of the Asakku-monster
29 The Snake Ereškigal
30 Šullat and Ḫaniš Šamaš and Adadxi
31 The Scorpion Išḫara, the Sea
32 Šarur and Šargaz Muštēšir-ḫablim (“Rectifier of the Wronged”)xii and Weapon of Marduk
33 The Mad Dog, Kusu Amurru
34 Anunītu and the Swallow The Tigris and the Euphratesxiii
35 --
36 --
reverse
37 Yoke of the Sea Star of Eridu
38 The Boat, the Goat-fish Nabû and Tašmetu
39 Sagmegar (Jupiter) Bearer of a sign for the inhabited worldxiv
40 Venus Resplendence of starsxv
41 Udu-idim (Mercury or Saturn) One who kills the livestockxvi
42 Mars One who makes the pestilence continuexvii
43 The Panther The roaring stormxviii
44 Numušda The resounding god
45 BAL.TÉŠ.A Star of Dignityxix
46 Erua Creator of semenxx
47 MU.BU.KÉŠ.DA The Hitched Yoke
48 Ḫabaṣirānu Ningirsu : (who) plunders the steppe of Anuxxi
49 The Ram Head of the Crook
50 The Field The Land : Land of Babylon
51 The Arrow Star of Prosperityxxii
52 ŠU.PA Bright Starxxiii
53 She-goat Lady of Divinationxxiv

Figure 4b—Translation of Tablet 5R 46 No. 1, Lines 1–53 (See Appendix A for notes)
164 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
to) Nabû-nādin-aḫi, descendent of Arkât-ilāni-damqā,” a
prominent kin group in Borsippa from early Neo-Babylo-
nian times.245 This List of Stars and Deities seems to favor
Marduk particularly. Though the list is headed by AN.ŠÁR,
a title likely designating Enlil (see below), the superior-
ity of Marduk is underscored by his epithet “Great One
among the Enlil-gods (GAL dEn-líl.MEŠ)” (line 11). In the
same vein, the “King” (Regulus) constellation is identified
with Marduk (line 8), various constellations are interpreted
as Marduk’s weapons (lines 3, 26, 32), and emphasis is given
to Marduk’s “land” (interestingly, not “city”) “of Babylon”
(line 50; cf. line 23), all of which reflect a perspective one
might expect from the cities of Babylon and nearby Bor-
sippa. If we are correct to situate tablet 5R 46 No. 1 in
Achaemenid or Seleucid Borsippa (see below), the focus
on Marduk is well-aligned with contemporary invocational
formulas in scholarly texts from Babylon and Borsippa that
repeatedly call on the god Bēl (Marduk).246
Earlier transliterations by E. Weidner (1915), V. S. Tu-
men (1993), and R. Laffitte (2002) unfortunately include
several errors, and I provide here not so much a new edition,
but an updated and convenient reference for comparison
with the astral commentary on Marduk’s Address to the De-
mons (see Figs. 4a–b for the transliteration and translation
245
IM.GÌ.DA NÍG.GA É.ZI.DA m.dMUATI-SUM.NA-ŠEŠ / A mÁr-kát-
DINGIR.MEŠ-SIG5 lúMAŠ (5R 46 No. 1, lines 62–63). The Arkât-ilāni-
damqā kin group seems to have been particularly tied to Borsippa,
where its descendents performed influential roles as the city’s šākin
ṭēmi (Nabû-lē′ʾi in 715 BC, Šamaš-zēra-iqīša in 676 BC, and Nabû-
zēru-līšir in 635 BC), šatammu of the Ezida temple, ērib bīti offi-
cials, scribes, and witnesses for transactions. G. Frame, “The ‘First
Families’ of Borsippa during the Early Neo-Babylonian Period,”
JCS 36/1 (1984): 68–70, 73; J. P. Nielsen, Sons and Descendents:
A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early
Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 BC, CHANE 43 (Leiden, 2011),
70 n. 213, 72, 78–80, 100. It is tempting to identify this epony-
mous Arkât-ilāni-damqā with the ancestor of “Aplāya, descendent
of Arkât-ilāni” (cf. K. Fabritius, “Arkat-ilāni,” in The Prosopogra-
phy of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part I: A, ed. K. Radner
[Helsinki, 1998], 132, §2), who is mentioned together with other
scholars from Borsippa in connection with “all the tablets as much
as there are in their houses and all the tablets as much as there are
stored in the temple Ezida.” J. C. Fincke, “The Babylonian Texts
of Nineveh: Report on the British Museum’s Ashurbanipal Library
Project,” AfO 50 (2003–2004): 122–23. For a brief survey of re-
building or restorations done to Borsippa’s Ezida-temple up till the
time of Antiochus I, see A. R. George, House Most High: The Temples
of Ancient Mesopotamia, MC 5 (Winona Lake, IN, 1993), 159–60,
no. 1236.
246
The invocation ina amāt Bēl u Bēltīya(/Nabû) lišlim (“May
it be well by command of Bēl and Bēltīya/Nabû!”) on scholarly
tablets from late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon and Borsippa
appears instead with the gods “Anu and Antu” on similar tablets
from Uruk. M. T. Roth, “ina amat DN1 u DN2 lišlim,” JSS 33/1
(1988): 1–2.
of the text).247 The obverse and reverse sides of the tablet
are each divided into two columns: for the most part, the
left column consists of star names, while the right column
lists the names of gods or divine objects that are matched
up with each star. If the positions of signs in Rawlinson’s
copy are true to the original, the ancient scribe indicated
constellation names written without the mul determinative
by not aligning these names with the left edge of the left
column: MUL.MUL.LA (line 26), dŠullat2 u dḪaniš2 (line 30),
ÙZ (line 53), with the exception of dŠár-ur4 u dŠár-gaz (line
32).248 My English translation largely follows older works by
Hunger, Pingree, and Reiner, partly for the ease of readers
accustomed to such translations, partly because a compre-
hensive study of the etymology of these names lies beyond
the scope of this appendix. I wish to raise a note of caution,
however, that some of these names may derive from erudite
ways of interpreting the cuneiform,249 without indicating
that the ancients necessarily imagined asterisms as graphi-
cally depicting the named objects or creatures.
Special mention should be made of “the Ram” (mulUDU.
NITA2) and its association with the “Head of the Crook (Au-
riga)” in line 49.250 It likely represents an import of the Aries
constellation from the classical zodiac, which one would
expect to lie in close proximity to Auriga. The intermittent
use of the cuneiform sign LU (same sign as UDU) as a des-
ignation for Aries late in the first millennium BC has been
observed in astronomical diaries, horoscopes, and other
texts.251 Laffitte has recently argued that the Ram constel-
lation was indigenous to Mesopotamia, since “il serait assez
curieux que le zodiaque, né comme objet culturel original
au terme d’une longue évolution autochtone, ait dû em-
247
Weidner, Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie, 51–58;
V. S. Tuman, “Astronomical Dating of Observed and Recorded
Events in the Astrolabe V R 46,” in Die Rolle der Astronomie in den
Kulturen Mesopotamiens, ed. H. D. Galter (Graz, 1993), 202–3;
R. Laffitte, “La Tablette néobabylonienne VR 46,” at http://www.
uranos.fr/PDF/ETUDES_01_N22_FR.pdf, most recently up-
dated on 30 Sept 2009 and accessed Nov. 2015.
248
This scribal convention may suggest one response to the
question whether the first sign in MUL.MUL represents a determi-
native. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 160 (note a).
249
See especially my notes on 5R 46 No. 1, lines 39–53.
250
The Ram’s attestation here in 5R 46 No. 1 is the only one
noted in Gössmann’s Planetarium Babylonicum (ŠL 4/2, 58, no.
142).
251
See, for example, ADART I, 72 (BM 34634, rev. 10; dated
–384), 98 (BM 32333+, rev. 6′; dated –375), 106 (BM 34792, rev.
9′, 15′, 19′; dated –373), 110 (BM 32511, i 16; dated –372), 144
(BM 46229, obv. 14; dated –346); references compiled by R. Laf-
fitte, “Le point sur l’origine mésopotamienne du signe du bélier,”
Cahiers de l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien du Collège de France 1
(2009): 102. Note also F. Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopes, TAPS
88/1 (Philadelphia, 1998), 65 (Text 5, obv. 3), 141 (Text 28, rev.
3); LBAT 1499, rev. 14–30 in Rochberg, “A Babylonian Rising-
Times Scheme,” 68–69.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
prunter, pour désigner un seul de ses signes, un élément
tout à fait allogène.”252 One motivation for adopting the
classical constellation, however, could have arisen from the
development of medical or ritual astronomy, where zodia-
cal animals pointed to ingredients derived from their real
animal counterparts, which made the classical “Ram” con-
stellation more useful as a prescriptor than the Babylonian
“Hired Man” constellation (mulLÚ.ḪUN.GÁ).253 In any case,
judging by the dates for other textual attestations of the Ram
constellation, the final form of tablet 5R 46 No. 1 should
probably be assigned to the Achaemenid or Seleucid period.
As I argued above in entry §8b, the title AN.ŠÁR (lit. “En-
tirety of Sky”) that fittingly stands with the Plow constel-
lation at the head of this List of Stars and Deities probably
refers to the god Enlil, who was indeed equated with AN.ŠÁR
(K 4349E, line 7 in CT 24, 49), and who was identified
with the Plow in several other astral lists. Responding to
G. Frame’s claim that the cult of Aššur never took root in
Babylonia, P.-A. Beaulieu conceded the paucity of evidence
for Assyrian influence even at “well documented sites such as
Sippar and Babylon,” but considered Uruk to be an excep-
tion where AN.ŠÁR in theophoric names stood for the god
Aššur.254 Given the Borsippean perspective of tablet 5R 46
No. 1, however, there may be less reason to connect AN.ŠÁR
here to an ongoing cult of Aššur.
Notes from Fig. 4
i.dNin-ezen×⸢gu4⸣ = *dumu dEn.zu.na.ke4 in An = Anum III, 30
(Litke, Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, 120).
ii. [d]ne.zil.lá = [. . .] in An = Anum IV, 249 (Litke, Assyro-
Babylonian God-Lists, 164); cf. A. Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum:
Nomina Deorum e Textibus Cuneiformibus Excerpta et Ordine Al-
phabetico (Rome, 1914), 81, no. 413; 191, no. 2328; ŠL 4/1, 46,
no. 339,7. Note the typo NE.NUN.GAL in ŠL 4/2, 74, no. 185.
iii. dEn-líl.MEŠ (O 175, reverse; cf. obv. 6) occurs as a variant
of DINGIR.DINGIR (AO 17626, rev. 8) in Livingstone, Mystical and
Mythological Explanatory Works, 190, 194, 198.
252
Laffitte, “l’origine mésopotamienne,” 108.
253
In the Calendar Texts SpTU III, 104 and 105, the sign Aries
called for prescriptions involving the blood, fat, and wool of a “ram”
(UDU.NITA2). The “ram” (UDU), moreover, appears with other ani-
mals in the iatromathematical context of tablet BM 56605 reverse,
col. 11 row 7, col. 12 rows 8 and 10. See N. P. Heeßel, Babylonisch-
assyrische Diagnostik, AOAT 43 (Münster, 2000), 128–29; reinter-
preted in J. Z. Wee, “Discovery of the Zodiac Man in Cuneiform,”
JCS 67 (2015): 217–33; Appendix of Wee, “Virtual Moons.” See
also SpTU II, 43, obv. 1, rev. 20.
254
G. Frame, “The God Aššur in Babylonia,” in Assyria 1995,
Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian
Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, ed. S. Parpola
and R. Whiting (Helsinki, 1997), 55–64; P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Cult
of AN.ŠÁR/Aššur in Babylonia after the Fall of the Assyrian Empire,”
SAAB 11 (1997): 55–73.
) 165
iv. Despite the writing dA-nim (obv. 12) here, I have followed
the syntax in Hunger and Pingree, MUL.APIN, 24 (I, i 19).
v. dDi.ku5 in An = Anum III, 174; VII, 67–125 (Litke, Assyro-
Babylonian God-Lists, 135, 224–27).
vi. W. G. Lambert, “Laṣ,” RLA 6 (1980–83): 507.
vii. For the transliteration of this name as dAḫ-bi-tum or dUḫ-
bi-tum, see Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum, 62, no. 168; 124, no.
1147; ŠL 4/1, 83, no. 717,1; ŠL 4/2, 123, no. 326.
viii. Contrast this with mulBAN dIš-tar ELAM.MA-tum, “The Bow,
the Elamite Ištar” (Mul-apin I, ii 7) in Hunger and Pingree, MUL.
APIN, 32; mulban dInnin Elam-maki-ke4 (VAT 9416, I ii 16) in
Horowitz, The Three Stars Each, 35. See my earlier discussion on
the prominence of Babylon and its god Bēl (Marduk) in tablet 5R
46 No. 1.
ix. I have followed the usual transliteration (mulEN.TE.NA.BAR.
ḪUM) for this name, but note also the reading mulEN.TE.NA.BAR.ḪUZ
based on an assumed relation to the term qūqānu that employs
logographic elements including BAR.ḪU.UZ or BAR.ḪUZ. See MZL,
no. 164; AHw, 928; CAD Q s.v. qūqānu; Sag A, v 7 (MSL SS
I, 25). mulEN.TE.NA.BAR.ḪUM is translated “Mouse” or “The Mousy
One” in Kolev, The Babylonian Astrolabe, 268; Horowitz, The Three
Stars Each, 246. Note its association with other deities: [EN.TE.NA].
BAR.ḪUM dNin-gír-su dDili-bat KI.MIN-ma (K 3384, rev.? 6) in BPO
3, 262–63.
x. Cf. d⸢Lugal⸣.[. . .] = [dEn.líl] in An = Anum VI, 153 (Litke,
Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, 212). Rather than the possibility of
“Lugalbanda” here, however, Litke suggests that “the Sumerian
entries may have represented names concerned with places.”
xi. The identification of Šullat and Ḫaniš with Šamaš and Adad
dates after the Old Babylonian period. I. J. Gelb, “Šullat and Ḫaniš,”
ArOr 18/1 (1950): 189–98; W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard,
Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford, 1969), 158,
172.
xii. A discussion of Muštēšir-ḫablim may be found in George,
Babylonian Topographical Texts, 293.
xiii. See my discussion above in §9b.
xiv. The writing na-áš ṣa-ad-du ana da-da-mu is understood
here as nāš ṣaddi ana dadmī, “bearer of a sign for the inhabited
world.” Several more parallels to this expression may be found in
CAD Ṣ s.v. ṣaddu, where the term dadmī (“inhabited world”) may
be substituted for KUR.KUR (“lands”; BM 32574, obv. 7), DÙ.DÙ.A
(“everything”; MNB. 1848, iii 5 in F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels ac-
cadiens [Paris, 1921], 153), or even dMIN = dA.NUN.NA.KEx.NE (“the
Anunnaki”; VAT 13841+, 6).
xv. As is the case with other planets in this section (rev. 39–42),
we would expect an epithet of Venus that begins with a participle,
but the reading na-ba-at as presumably the G participle nābât <
nabû “glänzen” (Walker and Hunger, “Zwölfmaldrei,” 32) is not
supported by the dictionaries. I have tentatively understood the
signs na-ba-aṭ to refer to the infinitive in construct state nabāṭ,
“to shine brightly, (as a substantive:) resplendence” (CAD N I s.v.
nabāṭu; AHw, 697), which is expressed by the logogram DE5 (the
sign ri) in the parallel text BM 82923, obv. 2 (Walker and Hunger,
“Zwölfmaldrei,” 27). This lexical equation is attested in Aa II/7, ii
7′ (MSL XIV, 297) and Antagal G, 192 (MSL XVII, 226).
xvi. The name mulUDU.IDIM is analyzed as UDU (“sheep”) + ÚŠ
(“to die”; the same sign as IDIM). Plenary writing in this line would
have distinguished between UDU.IDIM.GU4.UD (“Mercury”) and
UDU.IDIM.SAG.UŠ (“Saturn”). But the ambiguity is likely intentional,
166 ) Journal of Near Eastern Studies
obverse
1 d
Za-ba4-ba4 EN KUR.KUR ina šu!-me-⸢šú⸣ [qa-bi]
2 ZA be-lu BA4.BA4 ma-ta-[ti]
3 [d]a-a-a-iš NA4.MEŠ dZa-ba[4-ba4]
4 [NA4] mulAD6 ki-i DUG4.GA-[ú]
5 [mul]⸢AD6⸣ pa-gar Á.SÀG NA4 a-sak-[ku]
6 [A . . . S]AG EN šá i-sin-ni-⸢šú⸣ [. . .]
7 [SI]SKUR2 al-pi [. . .]
8 [al-pi m]ulGU4.AN.NA ki-[i DUG4.GA-ú]
9 [K]I.NE šá ina IGI dNi[n-urta (?) . . .]
10 [. . .]x NA4 šá ina muḫ-ḫi ki-x[. . .]
11 x x [. . .]
reverse
1 ⸢d⸣NAMMA u dNANŠE ABZU [. . .]
2 GIŠ.MAR šá È-ma 7 [. . .]
3 k[i-i DUG4.GA-ú (?)]
4 mu-bar-ru-ú šá x x ⸢x x x x⸣ [. . .]
5 ZU-ú ZU-a li-kal-li-[im]
6 GIM la-bi-ri-šú APIN BA.A[N.È]
lú
7 šá-ma-al-lu-ú lúna-a-[. . .]
8 a-na ba-la-ṭu ZI.MEŠ-šú i[š-ṭur]
9 i-na É.ZI.DA ú-ki-[in]
Figure 5a—Transliteration of SCT 110
so that the erudite etymology mulUDU.IDIM = UDU + ÚŠ could be
considered applicable for both. This explains why only four, not the
usual five, planets are named in this section (rev. 39–42).
xvii. As I suggested earlier, the name mulṢal-bat-a-nu may have
been analyzed as ZAL (the same sign as Ṣal and logogram for bitrû
(Št), “to make continue”; see §7b) + mút-a-nu (“pestilence”; mút
being the same sign as bat). The syllabic values in this folk etymol-
ogy might have also contributed to the equation dSi-mu-ut = dṢal-
bat-a-nu (Antagal G, 309) in MSL XVII, 229.
xviii. The name mulUD.KA.DU8.A is analyzed as UD (“storm”;
CAD U/W s.v. ūmu s. 2a–d) + KA.DU8.A (“opened mouth”), in ad-
dition to possible wordplay between nimru (“panther”) and nāʾiri
(“roaring”).
xix. Possible wordplay between mulBAL.TÉŠ.A and bāltum <
bāštum (“dignity”).
xx. The logographic form mulA.EDIN may have been analyzed as
“water” (A) of the “steppe” (EDIN), and the syllabic form of the
name “Erua” may have suggested the identity of the fluid as “se-
men” (A.RI.A).
xxi. The name mulḪa-ba-ṣi-ra-nu is analyzed as ḫabāt (“plun-
dering [of]”) + ṣīr (“steppe [of]”) + (the god) Anu.
xxii. The name mulKAK.SI.SÁ (“The Arrow”) is compounded with
the element SI.SÁ (related to the verb ešēru), which has a range of
meanings including “to go straight,” i.e., like an arrow, and “to
move straight ahead (without hindrance),” i.e., to prosper.
xxiii. The name mulŠU.PA may have been interpreted as the adjec-
tive šūpû (“brilliant, shining”).
xxiv. See discussion in §6b and §7c concerning the She-goat’s
relation, not merely in general terms with the “billy goat” (logo-
gram MÁŠ, same logogram as the term “divination”), but more spe-
cifically with the “Goat-fish” (mulSUḪUR.MÁŠ) constellation.
obverse
1 Zababa [is called] by his name “lord of the lands.”
2 ZA means “lord.” BA4.BA4 (same signs as the logo-
gram GÁ.GÁ) (means) “lands.”i
3 “One who tramples the stones” refers to Zababa.
4 [“Stone”] (refers to) the Corpse constellation, as it
is said.
5 The Corpse constellation (refers to) the body of
the Asakku-monster.
“Stone” (refers to) the Asakku-monster.ii
6 [A] (refers to) . . . SAG (refers to) the lord whose
festival . . .iii
7 “Offering of an ox” . . .
8 [“Ox”] (refers to) the Bull of Heaven constellation
(Taurus), as [it is said].
9 The brazier (of the fire-god Girru constellation)
that is before [Ninurta (?)]iv. . .
10 . . . stone on which . . .
11 . . .
reverse
1 Namma (same sign as ENGUR, “subterranean wa-
ters”) and Nanše (refer to) the subterranean
waters (of the Harrow constellation)v . . .
2 Chariot (of the Enmešarra constellation)vi that
comes out and seven . . .
3 as [it is said] (?).
4 Mubarrû of . . .vii
5 May the knowledgeable show (this tablet to) the
knowledgeable.
6 Writtenviii according to its original (and) checked.ix
7 Apprentice scribe . . .
8 He wrote for the sake of his life.
9 He deposited (the tablet) in the Ezida-temple (at
Borsippa).
Figure 5b—Translation of SCT 110 (See Appendix B for notes)
Appendix B: Astral Interpretation in
Smith College Tablet (SCT) 110
This was the final exemplar among the 110 Smith College
Tablets copied by Cyrus Gordon (see Figs. 5a–b). Alasdair
Livingstone supplied a transliteration and translation in his
book on Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works in
a chapter entitled “Mathematics and Philology,” holding
to the view that the text “probably comments on citations
from a specific [but unknown] work.”255 The tablet was
recently published again by D. Arnaud, apparently with-
out knowledge of Livingstone’s edition, but Livingstone’s
255
Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works,
64–66.
 A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons
readings remain preferable at several points.256 In his book
on Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, E. Frahm
made scarce mention of tablet SCT 110 and other “so-called
‘explanatory texts,’ which are so different from the text com-
mentaries in terms of structure, terminology, and function
that it would have been more confusing than illuminating
to present them here too.”257 These considerations are not
without validity. However, given the particular nature of
tablet SCT 110 as an explanatory text focused on “philol-
ogy” and addressing “citations” from a written source, and
given how it shares similar Borsippean connections, astro-
mythological motivations, methods of argumentation, and
even verbatim explanations with the Late Babylonian astral
(text)-commentary on Marduk’s Address (see Prolegom-
ena), tablet SCT 110 may caution us against an overly rigid
delineation of the text commentary genre.
Astral concerns in this tablet are obvious from preserved
references to the “Corpse” constellation in Cancer (§10g)
and the “Bull of Heaven” (Taurus) constellation. Other
allusions are less perspicuous, but my translation and notes
below make connections to constellations of the fire-god
Girru (α Tauri+Hyades; cf. §13b), the Harrow (eastern part
of Vela), and the Chariot of Enmešarra (northern Taurus;
cf. §14b). It is unlikely coincidental that all these constella-
tions lie in proximity to each other, being located roughly
within the zodiacal signs Taurus–Cancer. If Livingstone is
correct that descriptions here “relate events in cultic practice
to myth and astro-myth,”258 it should come as little surprise
that symbolic objects brought together in earthly ritual con-
texts served to mirror celestial relationships above.
256
D. Arnaud, “Documents à contenu « historique » (supplé-
ment),” AuOr 28 (2010): 14–18.
257
Frahm, Commentaries, 7, 344.
258
Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 66.
) 167
Notes from Fig. 5
i. ga-a GÁ = ma-a-tu (Idu II, 155) in CAD M I s.v. mātu.
ii. Whereas “stone” here primarily denotes the petrified state of
the dead Asakku-monster, “stone” in the astral commentary (§10g)
refers to one of the Asakku-monster’s “hirelings” in its fight against
Ninurta, which therefore could be associated with the “Hired Man”
constellation (Aries).
iii. The argument here probably involved the analysis of Asakku
into its components A + SAG.
iv. Girru is described as “the Lamp that is before Enmešarra”
in 5R 46 No. 1, line 14; Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address
(BM 47529 + 47685), rev. 14 (§13b).
v. mul.gišGÁN.ÙR gišTUKUL šá dA-É šá ina lìb-bi-šú ABZU IGI.KÁR, “The
Harrow = Weapon of Mār-bīti, within which one sees the subter-
ranean waters” (5R 46 No. 1, line 25).
vi. An allusion to “the Chariot of Enmešarra,” which includes
stars in the northern part of Taurus and Perseus constellations. See
the Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address (BM 47529 + 47685),
rev. 15 (§14b).
vii. The term mubarrû was understood as a kind of “commen-
tary” by Livingstone (Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works,
65–66), but defined by the dictionaries as “ein Funktionär” (AHw,
665) and “member of the temple personnel who presents offerings,
announcer(?)” (CAD M II s.v. mubarrû, this text cited in s. 1c).
These lines were read as mu-sa!-ru-ú šá KÁ SIG4 È-šú ⸢ana⸣ / su-Ú-LU
a-li e-li, “Inscription de la porte en briques à la ⸢sortie⸣ de la rue
de la ville haute” (SCT 110, rev. 4–5) in Arnaud, “Documents,”
15–16 (lines 15–16).
viii. Based on attestations of this stereotypical formula else-
where, APIN is read as šaṭir, as proposed by Livingstone, Mystical
and Mythological Explanatory Works, 64–65. An alternative reading
might be GIM la-bi-ri-šú ina URU BA.A[N.È], “Checked against its
original in the city” (SCT 110, rev. 6).
ix. For other examples where bari (“checked”) is written as
BA.AN.È, see Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, 159–60.