"A New OB Collection of Padânum and Related Omens in Los Angeles," ZA 103 (2013): 162-82.

162 Abraham Winitzer, A New OB Collection of Padanum and Related Omens in Los Angeles

Abraham Winitzer

A New OB Collection of Padanumand Related Omens in Los Angeles

Abstract: The following presents an edition of a heretofore-unpublished OB omen collection concerning the padanum,or “Path.” As may be expected, this text, larger than most of the known padanum collections, enhances our understand-ing of the zone in Mesopotamian extispicy known by that name, typically the second according to the standardized in-spection sequence. An examination of the text, however, reveals an interweaving of omens concerning other zonesbearing the label of “Path.” This interweaving raises questions about the development of extispicy literature in thisperiod and challenges conceptions concerning its standardization – from a new perspective.

I Introductiona Preface Matters

The omen tablet edited herewith rests in the hands of theCalifornia Museum of Ancient Art (CMAA).1 Little, unfortu-nately, is known of its provenance. Jerome Berman, execu-tive director of CMAA, informs us that it was purchased atauction in 2001, something confirmed from the April 25,2001 Christie’s auction catalogue (lot 16),2 and on loan tothe museum from Richard and Alison Gerber from thatdate until 2012, when it was donated to CMAA. Faute demieux, we proceed with a philological investigation of thistext (henceforth: CMAA030-C0001), the second largestomen collection known to date concerning – among othermatters – extispicy’s second zone, padanum, “the Path.”

For convenience’s sake the publication informationon several omen collections, which are cited according totheir museum numbers, appears here:

1 We thank J. Berman for inviting us, twice, to the California Museumof Ancient Art, to study the tablet and for allowing its publication.Warm thanks are also extended to Bruce Zuckerman and staff of theUSC West Semitic Research Project, who photographed the tablet in2010 and also made its photos – including those accompanying thispaper – available via its Inscriptifact project. It is also a pleasure tothank Andrew George, who kindly read the manuscript in a penulti-mate form and made invaluable suggestions. Naturally any remain-ing faults are ours alone.Abbreviations used herein, including those for text references, followthose of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (= CAD), but note also the ci-tation of several omen collections according to their museum numbers,in keeping with the practice in secondary literature on OB extispicy.2 The tablet appears in Christie’s online searchable database as well;see: http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/a-large-old-babylonian-cuneiform-clay-omen-2034605details.aspx?from=searchresults&int-ObjectID=2034605&sid=ebd15991–4d6a-4a4e-9d36-b900044a3652.

b Physical Description and Measurements

CMAA030-C0001 is flat on the front side and convex onthe back, and measures 23.2 × 15.9 cm. The tablet is com-prised of several fragments, some glued together previousto our first encounter with it; these pieces, it is clear, arecorrect in their placement, and thus it seems safe to as-sume that this reconstruction effort took place at or near

Museum Number Publication Edition

AO 7028 Nougayrol (1941,80–81)

Nougayrol (1946,56–81)

AO 7033 Nougayrol (1941, 88) Nougayrol (1946,85–90)

AO 7539 Nougayrol (1971, 70,72)


AO 9066 Nougayrol (1950, pls.I–II, IV)


BM 12875 Aro/Nougayrol (1973,51)

Aro/Nougayrol (1973,50–52)

BM 13915 Aro/Nougayrol (1973,54)


BM 22694 Aro/Nougayrol (1973,43, 45)


HY 150 Saporetti (1979–1981,247–49),

Veldhuis (2006, 492)

Rouault/Saporetti(1985, 41–42)

HY 154 Saporetti(1979–1981, 251),

None

Rouault/Saporetti(1985, 43)

MAH 15874 Nougayrol (1950, 44,pl. III–IV)

Nougayrol (1950,33–40);Glassner(2009, 40–41)

I26 1663+1661 Khait (2012, 55) Khait (2012, 38–39,50)

DOI 10.1515/za-2013-0003 Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2013; 103(2): 162–182

Abraham Winitzer, A New OB Collection of Padanum and Related Omens in Los Angeles 163

the time of this text’s discovery. In terms of preservation,the reverse has survived considerably better than the ob-verse, the latter effaced to various extents, at times com-pletely.

Rulings appear between lines, more clearly on the tab-let’s right side. The line number appears to stand at 91, as-suming that what is missing in the break has been ac-counted for accurately. The bottom edge includes a tally ofthe su.nigin sort (only the su appears), which would haveprovided a count of the tablet’s omen entries. In terms oftype, this single-column text written on the obverse andreverse, longer than it is wide, and of the length describedabove is referred to as an im.gíd.da/gittum in the nativesources. According to Glassner’s recent study of OB divi-nation collections in the context of textualization fromthis period, this sort of text figures as type 3 overall, type 2among the three groups he delineated for the omen collec-tions (Glassner 2009, 5f.). One may even be a bit more pre-cise in this respect, assuming, that is, that the sub-groupGlassner posited as comprised of Teiltafeln existed inthe manner he conceived.3 If so, CMAA 30 belongs toGlassner’s other – much larger – sub-grouping, the one hedescribed as comprised of Auszugstafeln, that is, collec-tions that represent excerpts from “master” compendiabut that were not reconceived as a parts of a series of anysort. A consideration of this last matter is taken up in § VIbelow with respect to CMAA030-C0001; in that context wewill consider the question of this text’s relation to a pu-tative “master” padanum collection in the OB period aswell as to other texts of this sort.

c Paleography, Orthography, and Phonology

Most interesting with respect to unusual writings on thistablet is that of padanum itself, rendered as du or someother value of this sign. The matter is discussed in greaterdetail below (§ I d), in the context of the identification ofthe main zone under consideration by CMAA030-C0001.

A few things are worthy of mention concerning otherpaleographic or orthographic peculiarities that mighthelp in determining this tablet’s provenance and date.Both ductus and spellings maintain essentially a standardOB repertoire. Mimation is adhered to with some excep-tions (e.g., fanû, o. 44; imitti, r. 12, 17). One finds plene

3 The assumption of the presence of such texts, which formed seriesin their own right, seems plausible, though, as Glassner (2009, 6f.)himself admits, this is supported at present by only one, partlybroken, example (OBE no. 11).

spellings (e.g. fu-ta-af-na-a-at, r. 12, but cf. r. 14; i-ma-qú-ta-af-fu-ú-um, o. 41; ma-a-tum, o. 42; na-a-di, r. 10); ke!-re-e-tu-[ka]/ke!-er-re-e-et, r. 12, 14 (on which see below) insome unexpected places, though this is by no means sys-tematic in the way of other unprovenanced OB materialpublished recently (e.g., George 2009, text 1). Contractedlong vowels are often, but not always, written plene: pi-ifor pî (o. 22), i-ma-a-at for imât (o. 33); ú-su-ú-[(ni-im/nim)]for usûnim (o. 36); [ud-d]a-na-na-a-ak- kum for uddanan-nâkkum (r. 18); mu-su-ú-fu for musûfu (r. 34); but cf. qú-umfor qûm (o. 1); fa-nu for fanû (o. 44). Gemination is irregu-lar, with some writings showing doubled consonants (e.g.,far-ru-um; da-an-nu-um) while others, including those foriqattal and purrus forms (respectively, e.g., i-la-ka-am andku-pu-us), without such representation.

In terms of syllabary, signs from the so-called Z-grouprepresent the sibilant s when it occurs in /sV/: sí-ip-pi(o. 36, 37); pa-ar-sà (r. 2); äa-sú-um (r. 8); bi-is-sú (r. 9); pa-sí-im (r. 38–39). The sign pi consistently represents /pi/:pi-i (o. 22); [i]-la-pi-in (o. 34); sí-ip-pi (o. 36, 38, r. 8); pi-it-ru-us (r. 2); ka-pi-is (r. 27–28); fa-pi-ik (r. 43). Represen-tation of the sound change involving the initial sibilant ofthe third-person pronominal suffix that follows a dentalemploys a sign from the so-called Z-group and appearstwice (bi-is-sú, r. 9, 28). /te/ is rendered with te4(te) (o. 14,15, 46, r. 1, all in pater). The b>m/_m shift in izim-ma (r. 10)is well known in OB.

Among these observations three are of special valuein terms of the shedding of some light on the text’s roughprovenance.4 These are: writings of /pi/ with pi; variationsof /sV/ with signs from the Z-group; representation of thesuffixal sibilant resulting from the dental + f > -ss- soundchange with the S-group. All three of these factors point toa southern Babylonian provenance for the tablet.

d Identification of the Writing for “Path”

The identification of du in this text as a writing for pada-num, the extispicy zone that occupies the bulk ofCMAA030-C0001’s concern, is secured by the parallels be-tween entries in our text and counterparts in publishedpadanum collections concerning this zone. A recap of thelatter group follows:

4 Even given the reservations owing to a potential ancient “contami-nation” of the data, something most recently expressed by Glassner(2009, 17f.).

[ ]


Partial or full parallels between omens in CMAA030-C0001 and the published padanum collections include thefollowing:

o. 2 // YOS 10, 20: 20–21o. 32 // AO 7028: 3(4)o. 33 // AO 7028: 4(5) (apodosis only)o. 42 // AO 7028: 2(3) (apodosis and part of protasis)r. 6–7 // YOS 10, 11 i 14–21 (parts of protasis and apodo-

sis)r. 11 // TIM 9, 79: 14–15r. 12–15 // YOS 10, 18: 45r. 37 // YOS 10, 18: 30 (protasis only)

Commentary on each of these cases appears in § V. In ad-dition to these parallels, another appears betweenCMAA030-C0001 and a known extispicy text:

o. 28 // YOS 10, 19: 13–15 (protasis only).

The implications of this last parallel are discussedbelow in § I e, and differently in § VI below, which takes upthe question of the degree of standardization of padanumand related materials in the OB period.

The Path was the second zone according to the orderapparent in OB reports and also the standard first-millen-nium extispicy commentary.5 More than others this zoneimpresses by the variety of its designations, both syllabicand logographic; a recap of these follows (Table 2).

5 Starr (1983, 78f.); Meyer (1987, 57f.); Jeyes (1989, 54f.); Leiderer(1990, 45f.); Koch-Westenholz (2000, 58f.); Glassner (2000).

Table 2: Designations for Extispicy’s Second Zone

To this list one may now add the present representation ofthe zone as some value of du, perhaps du itself, owing tothe connection between Sum. du and “going” (alakum),for obvious reasons a major subject of omens concerningthe “Path.” In this respect one is well to recall the equationof a.rá with alaktum (e.g., OB Diri Nippur, 316 [MSL 15,24]), with the Sumerian compound surely to be under-stood as aA R A (du); whether, however, this justifies thereading of the sign here accordingly seems uncertain atpresent. In any case the identification of the zone in ques-tion seems secure, with the only other alternative, viz.,manzazum, Sum. gub(du), excluded owing to the paral-lels already noted above.

e Other Zones Considered byCMAA030-C0001

Interestingly, in addition to those omens concerned withthe Path, CMAA030-C0001 includes omens concernedwith at least two, but potentially three, other zones of theliver. These are described below.

Designation Textual Attestation

padanum/gír AO 7028 o. 1–8; BM 12875; HY 150A-D; 154; YOS 10, 11 i 1–21; 18; 20;

äarranum/kaskal JCS 21, 227, 229kibsum OBE 5 ii 3–6neptûm MB and SBsu.bar AO 9066; TIM 9, 79: 10–16ka.gir3 YOS 10, 19: 1pa Labat Suse

Table 1: OB padanum collections

Text Lines Entries Tablet Dimensions (cm) Tablet Characteristics Literature

YOS 10, 11 i 1–21 18 6 15.3 × 18.5 Six-column tablet with unusual gapsand errors

Richter (1999); Winitzer(2006)

YOS 10, 18 108 82 12.5 × 19 Rulings between entries Winitzer (2006)YOS 10, 20 39 29 11.9 × 7.6 Rulings between entries;

double-line ruling at endWinitzer (2006)

AO 7028: 1–8 8 6 10.7 × 8.2 Double-line ruling betweenpadanum and dananum sections

Winitzer (2006)

BM 12875 33 7 6.3 × 3.4 Double-line ruling at end Winitzer (2006)TIM 9, 79: 10–16 19 + x 6 4.5 × 7 Single-column, obverse and

reverse; padanum on reverseGlassner (2000);Winitzer (2003; 2006)

HY 150 A-D ca. 60 + x ca. 25 + x ? Four-column tablet (and fragments);rulings between entries (and lines?)

Veldhuis (2006, 492f.)

HY 154 38 + x 11 + x ? Single-column, obverse and reverse NoneKhait 5(I26 1663+1661)

6 6 3.8 × 7 Single-column, obverse and one lineon reverse

Khait (2012)


1. Padan sumelim/sumel martim “The Path to theleft (of the gallbladder)”

A significant section (o. 6–28) of omens concerns astandardized zone reminiscent of but altogether differentfrom the Path: “The Path to the left/left of the gallbladder”(padan fumelim/fumel martim). In fact this zone, no. VIIIaccording to the standardized order, is situated in the op-posite lobe (lobus dexter) of the liver from that of the Path(lobus sinister); the two “Paths” relate to each other onlyin name and those interpretations metaphorically deriva-tive from it.

The padan fumelim/fumel martim is known from first-millennium extispicy materials, including from the “ca-nonical” Pan takalti series VIII 96–98 (Koch-Westenholz2000, 359 [text 65]), an excerpt from this series K 6754, ll.3H–18H (Koch-Westenholz 2000, 459–60 [text 99]), KAR 423ii 73–77, and passim in the Sargonid “Queries to the Sun-god.”6 Jeyes (1989, 64), followed in part by Koch-Westen-holz (2000, 60), held that this term, and its metonymy-based variant, miäis pan umman nakrim,7 were to be foundalready in OB extispicy omen collections, respectively inthe abbreviated forms padan fumelim (YOS 10, 7: 10–11; 18:28; 44: 13;8 cf. YOS 10, 19 below) and miäis pan nakrim(ARM 26/1 100-bis: 14. 39 [letter9]).

CMAA030-C0001 supplies important new data on thiszone, even though a resolution of the question of its nameremains difficult. Significant in this respect is CMAA030-C0001’s juxtaposition, and, in the case of o. 16–17, 18, and22 (?), interweaving, of padan fumel martim and padanfumelim, two terms held as synonymous. The finding ofboth of these in the same text seems to argue against theirequation, at least initially. But in fact the matter is notclear-cut, since different writings are apparent for theseterms: in the section of CMAA030-C0001 where padanfumelim appears (o. 12–28), padan is rendered with thephonetic complement (du-an; but cf. l. 23); by contrast, ino. 6–11, the main section mentioning padan fumel martim,this is not the case (but cf. o. 16, 18). Similar such vari-ations in OB extispicy collections have been entertained

6 See further Koch-Westenholz (2000, 60, 459 n. 1122).7 The equation of these locutions was recognized by Denner (1934,190 n. 1). On the existence of this term in the OB period, see below,and cf. Glassner (2005, 285), who is probably correct in arguing thatthis term is not originally Syrian.8 The newly edited short collection of padanum omens, I261663+1661, includes two additional possible attestations of padanfumelim (ll. 3, 6), though for reasons discussed in § VI below thematter is uncertain.9 Previously taken as an extispicy report by Nougayrol (1967, 229–32,text “N”).

recently by Glassner (2009, 17–24), who took these as po-tential evidence of text compilation in this period.

However this last matter is settled, the probability ishigh that the padan fumel martim (and in all likelihoodthe padan fumelim) mentioned in CMAA030-C0001 repre-sents the syllabic rendering of the zone rendered in latersources as gír 150 zé and appearing eighth in the standardzonal ordering. The matter seems secured by the parallelof o. 28 with YOS 10, 19: 13–15, since the latter lines, in thecontext of a report, occur where one would expect men-tion of zone VIII, with the (regular) Path itself appearing inits expected earlier position (II). For convenience’s sakewe offer a normalized version of the omen report YOS 10,19 (Nougayrol 1967, 219) in its entirety, along with an enu-meration of both the standardized and non-standardized/optional zones, respectively in Arabic and Roman nu-merals.

1naplaftum [1] ifupadanum [2] fina2ina ruqqi nasraptim [3] 3fa imittim kakkum fakim-ma 4pitrumana panifu pater5imitti bab ekallim [5] pater6martum [7] ifdafa imittam kina 7fumelam nasäa8ina fumel 9takaltim [V?10] 10usurtum11ina fumel takaltim [V?] 12pitrum u filu fina13padan fumelim [8] iftu 14ifdi ubanim ana ref martim 15fadid16ina ser biritim 17filu nadiubanum [10] 18irteqsibtum [12] falim19äafûm [Opt. I] falim20libbu [Opt. II] falim – 21fa Sîn-afared (YOS 10, 19).

In addition to the evidence supplied by o. 28 // YOS 10, 19:13–15, the absence of parallels between CMAA030-C0001o. 6–28 with any entry appearing in the known OB pad-anum collections11 is itself noteworthy, since, as observedabove, a different picture emerges from the remainingparts of this text in terms of its relation to the previouslyknown padanum collections. In light of these factors, itwould seem that the scribe of CMAA030-C0001 saw fit toinclude a section of padan fumelim/fumel martim omensamidst a collection primarily concerned with padanum.The ramifications of this point are discussed in § VI below.

2. Bab ekallim “The Gate of the Palace”R. 3 and 8–9 below differ from the rest of CMAA030-

C0001 in making no reference to a “Path” of any sort.

10 Following, for this context, the term’s understanding and numberoffered in Jeyes (1989, 76).11 The case of o. 23, discussed in the commentary below, mayamount to an exception that proves the “rule.”


Rather, the entries in these lines consider footmarks enter-ing the Palace Gate’s midst. Why these should appear inthe present context is difficult to say. It is possible (es-pecially in r. 3) that the footmarks mentioned were under-stood, implicitly, as occurring along the Path that hadreached these specified locales. But this is not certain, andin r. 8–9, which gives the foot’s initial coordinate as the“left doorjamb” (sippi fumelim), this seems unlikely. Theprobability that these entries pick up implicitly on detailsin the entries preceding them – a phenomenon consider-ably more frequent than is appreciated (Winitzer 2006,216–23) – seems here more distant still. In any event itwould appear that these entries are primarily concernedwith the Palace Gate and may even originate from collec-tions concerning this zone.

3. Padan imittim “The Path to the right (of the gall-bladder)”1213

In light of the preceding, the possibility must also beentertained that the writing du i-mi-tim in r. 42 refers notto the right side of the Path (cf. o. 46–47; r. 1) but rather to

12 Koch-Westenholz 2000: 45, 60 (with references and another poss-ible name, Fulmum, for this zone; see on which the discussion in § VIbelow).13 E.g., Pan takalti VI 69 (Koch-Westenholz 2000, 350).

the zone known from later extispicy materials as gír 15 zé,a groove lying to the right of the gallbladder in the lobusquadratus,12 and, as here, in the vicinity of the Increase(sibtum). The sense of the padan imittim is more difficult toascertain than that of its left-side nominal counterpart,however, since in this case one is not speaking of a stan-dardized zone, at least not in this appellation. The situ-ation differs considerably if this term is taken as synony-mous with the fulmum, or “Well-being,” something statedexplicitly in first-millennium sources13 and assumed astrue already in the earlier period by Jeyes (1989, 61–62; butcf. ibid., 202 n. 170) and Koch-Westenholz (2000, 66 n. 199;but cf. ibid., 45). Indeed, for Jeyes (1989, 61, 202 n. 169) themention of a padan imittim in several entries of the pada-num compendium YOS 10, 18 (ll. 25, 28, 45, 61, 69, 80) rep-resents an abbreviated writing for this zone.14 This compli-cated matter is taken up again in § VI below. Regardless ofhow it is settled, however, the present instance of an al-leged single padan imittim entry – broken in part – cannotalter the overall picture significantly.

14 Along with the possible references to the padan fumelim in I261663+1661 (see n. 8 above), this collection may also reference thepadan imittim on two occasions (ll. 1, 4). This matter, too, is taken upin the discussion of this collection in § VI below.


II CMAA030-C0001

Fig. 1: CMAA030-C0001, Obverse


Fig. 2, 3: CMAA030-C0001, Reverse and right edge


III TransliterationO.1. [dis i-na ] du qú-um a-na mi-fa-ri-f[u ]2. [dis i-na i-mi-t]i du ú-sú-úr-tum lú kaskal [illaku iturram f ]3. dis du a-na 3-fu pu-tù-ur na-af-pa-ak ma-t[im ]4. dis du sa-mi-id-ma ù pu-tù-ur a- mi-x [ ]5. i-na giåtukul.mes kaskal la tù-ub sà-f[a ummanum illak f ]6. dis du fu-me-el mar-tim 2-ma!? tu-x [ ]7. dis du fu-me-el mar-tim x [x x a]t? [ ]8. [dis d]u fu-me-el ma[r-tim ]9. [ i-t]u-ra-am [ ]10. [dis du fu]- me -el mar-tim [ ] x [ ]11. lú.kúr na-we- e-ka a-na x [x-x-ti]m [ ]12. dis du-an fu-me-lim na- ba-al-ku -ut x x x (x) [ r]i-im um-ma- ni-x [ ]13. dis du-an fu-me-lim na- ba -al-ku-ut-ma i-na ru -[uq]- qí na-di ma-ri fi -[ip-ri]- ia/im [ ]14. dis du-an fu-me-lim na-ba-al-ku -ut-ma pa-te4- er fa li-fa-nim x [ ]15. dis du-an fu-me-lim [pa]-te4-er ar-bu-u[t ]16. dis du-an fu-me-el [mar]- tim a-na [(x)] x x x [ ] if -lu-uä- ma a-na re- ef mar-tim ki -ma x [ ]17. ik - ta-pa- a[s ] x [ ] mi-li ki-if -fa-tim i -[la-ka-am ]18. [dis du] -an [fu-m]e-el mar-tim a-na [ i]f-lu- uä lú.kúr x [ ]19. [dis du ] x [ ] x [ ] x i-tù-ul i-na giåtukul .mes x x [ ]20. [ ] x lú.kúr [ ] x [ ]21. [ ]-mu-ur ma-at lú.kúr i-ka -m[a-ar? ]22. [dis f]u- me -e[l a]r-bu-ut [ ]23. [dis] du(<-an>) fu-me- lim a-na x x [ a]-na pi-i ma-li-ki- fu ú-ul u[f-fa-ab ]24. [dis] du-an fu-me-lim se-ra- nim qá? -a[b?-la?-tim? x -ri-im ip- ru? -us4

? lú. kúr [ ]25. [dis] d[u-an] fu -me-lim [fa-pa]- al su.si fa -k[i-in ] e -li um- ma-nim i-m[a-qú-ut]26. dis d[u-an f]u-me-lim ib-ba-al-ki -it-ma x x [x x] x [ ] x su?.si fa? -k[i?-in?] x e-ri-ib é .[gal-lim]27. a-a-ú-um-ma! bi-ra- am i-ma-a[r]28. dis du -an fu-me-lim if-tu if -di giå gu .za su?.si a-na re-ef [mar]-tim fa-di-id mi-lum i-la-k[a-am]29. dis du ip-lu-uf-ma ib-ba-al -ki-it-ma igi.bar i-tù-u[l ni]- ip -äu-um far-rum kaskal i-la-[ku]30. ú -[ul] i-tu-ra-am u4 -ma-am ri-qá-am ta-aq-t[i-it] pa-le-e[m]31. dis du e-ki -im lú.kúr x -[x]-x-ta-ka i-na-äi-i[d]32. dis du it-ku- um far-ra-am fu-ut re-fi-fu i-du-ku-fu33. dis d[u a-n]a fi- li i-tu-úr lú kaskal i-la-k[u] i-ma-a-at34. dis du i -[na t]ù-ur-ri na-as-ra-a[p]-tim na-di l[ú i?]-la-pi-in-ma li-mi- ti -fu i-na-fu i -m[a-ra]35. dis du i -[ta-s]i-ma ù igi.bar qú-um sa-bi-it ma-ti? in-né-fi-ma a-äu-um a-äa-am i- da-ak36. dis du i- na sí -ip-pi fu -me-lim a-na 2 i- tu-úr um -ma-an am-fa-li ù ú-ma-am ú-su- ú -[(ni-im/nim)]37. [ i]f-ti-ni- if i- ru -bu- ni -[im]38. [dis] du sí-ip-pi fu-me-lim ip-lu-uf-ma a-na ká.gal im-ta-qú-ut um-ma-an a-na kaskal ta-at- ru-du39. [u]p-ta-la-{la}-sú-nim i-ru-bu- ni-im40. [dis d]u a-na ká é. gal ki-ma pu-äu?-úr? x [x im]- qú -ut a-a-i-nu-um a-na far -ri-im41. nu? -[(x)]- x-x -tum [ ] i-ma-qú-ta-af-fu-ú-um42. [dis d]u a-na? pa-x x x x i-ta- zi-iz [mi-fi]- ir-tum i-te-bé- a -am-ma ma-a-tam!(tum) i-k[a-(a)-al]43. [dis ] x x (x) x x x -ra-tim i-ta-ad-du ru? -bu-um x x ú?-da-x [ ]44. um? x x x ud? [ ] x fa-nu fum-fu far-rum a-la-nu-fu ib- ba-la -ka-t[u-fu]45. dis du ki-ma x [ ] pa-ni-im mi-li i-[ir-tim]46. dis du i-mi-t[am ] pa-te4-er i -na ta-äa-z[i-im (…) lú.kúr-(ka)?]47. i-m[i-it-ta-ka idâk?]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ][ ]

[ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ][ ] [ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ][ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

[ ]


IV TranslationObv.1. [If in the … of the] Path (there is) a filament – in/from its mifarum […] will […].2. [If in the righ]t of the Path (there is) a design – the man [will return] from the campaign [he undertakes].3. If the Path was split (in)to its three (parts) – the granary of the l[and will . . . . . .].4–5. If the Path was tied (together) but split – …[......] for warfare: [the army will follow] a road that will bring it misery.6. If (concerning) the Path of the left of the gallbladder, there were two and …[..... .].7. If the Path of the left of the gallbladder …[..... .].8. [If the Pa]th of the left of the gal[lbladder ... . . . – the .... . . from the ... . . . he/it undertakes]9. [will ret]urn [(... . . .)]. ]10–11. [If the Path of the l]eft of the gallbladder […]… […(…)] – the enemy [will …] your herds (in)to …[…].12. If the Path of the left was turned 90o [... . . .] (–)…(–) the/my troops [... . . .].13. If the Path of the left was turned 90o and is cast in the T[h]in (of the liver) – my/the mess[enger(s) …].14. If the Path of the left was turned 90o and was split – an informer …[..... .].15. If the Path of the left was [sp]lit – (it forecasts the) fligh[t of .. . . . .].16–17. If the Path of the left of the [gall]bladder was torn out towards [the …]… and had bent forward towards the top of

the gallbladder like a […] – a massive flood is coming.18. [If the Pat]h [of the le]ft of the gallbladder was torn out towards [the … ] – the enemy …[…].19. [If … the Path … ] faced the [ … ] – for warfare: …[…]20. [ ] the enemy […]…[…].21. [If the … was …]… – the land of the enemy will become rui[ns and wasteland].22. [If the l]ef[t of the ... . . .] – (it forecasts the) f]light of [.. . . . .].23. [If] the Path of the left [was .. .. . .] to … [(…) – the … will] not ab[ide b]y the advice of his counselors.24. [If] the Path of the left separated the mi[ddle] plains [into …] … – the enemy [.. .. . .]25. [If] the Pa[th] of the left was sit[uated un]der the Finger – [.. . . . . will fa]ll upon the army.26–27. [If] the P[ath of the l]eft turned 90o and […] was sit[uated] […] the Finger [(…).... . .] – ... . . . […] someone or other

who has access to the p[alace] will obser[ve] the extispicy.28. If the Path to the right was extended from the base of the throne of the Finger to the top of the [gall]bladder – a

flood is com[ing].29–30. If the Path was perforated, displaced, and face[d] the View – [(it represents) a ni]päu-(forecast): the king [who]

goe[s] on a campaign will n[ot] return; for a distant day: (it forecasts) the en[d] of the dynas[ty].31. If the Path was atrophied – the enemy will be anxi[ous] by your …[…].32. If the Path was atrophied towards itself – (concerning) the king: his servants will kill him.33. If the Pa[th] turned [t]o holes – the man [who] goes on a campaign will die.34. If the Path was cast i[n the c]orner of the Cruci[b]le – the m[an] will become poor and his eyes [will s]ee its

edge(s).35. If the Path h[as g]one out and a filament was seizing the View – my land will become confused and brother will

kill brother.36–37. If the Path in the doorjamb of the left turned into two – the army which went [forth] yesterday and (the one of)

today will come ho[me a]t the same time.38–39. [If] the Path perforated the doorjamb of the left and has collapsed onto the Main Gate – the army which you had

sent on a campaign will come home [di]scontented.40–41. [If the Pa]th [des]cended onto the Palace Gate like an assembly of …[…] – (it represents) …; for the king: …[…]

will befall him.42. [If the Pa]th has stood (on)to the .... . . – [mifirtum-s]ea creatures will arise and co[nsume] the land.43–44. [If the ... . . . Path (…)] is full of .. . . . . – the prince will …[…] …; its alternative interpretation: (concerning) a king:

his cities will rebe[l against him].45. If the Path (is) like a face’s …[…] – (it forecasts) pr[ide].46–47. If the Path was split on the righ[t] – in batt[le your/the enemy will defeat your ri]ght (flank).


R.1. [dis d]u fu -me- lam pa-te4-er i -na ta-äa-zi-im f[u?-me]-el-ka [lú.kúr-(ka)? idâk?]2. [dis d]u qá-ab-la-fu pa-ar-sà pi -it-ru-us um- ma -num re-ef a.sà-f[u (ú-ul) ikaffad]3. [dis i]f-tu ar-ka-at ta-ka-al-tim gir3 a-na sà ká.gal er-be-et gir3 l[i-mu-ut-tim]4. [dis d]u i-mi-tim i-na re-ef mar-t[im] na- di ma-mi-it a-bi-im ma-ra-am sa-ab-t[a-at]5. dis du i-mi-tim a-na ká é.gal i[p-t]a-ra-as fa ma- sa -ar-tim du-ra-am ib-ba-la-k[a-at]6. dis du a-na 3-fu a-na 4-fu ku- pu -us fum-ma far-rum a-na kaskal i-te-bé kaskal a-na kaskal [i-na-di-fu]7. ud.mes-fu i-ri-qú i-na giåtukul.mes ar-bu-ut um -m[a-nim/ni(-im/ka)]8. dis i-na sí-ip-pi fu-me-lim gir3 a- na sà ká.gal er- be -et la äa-sú-um a-na é.gal i-ru-[ub/ba-am]9. a-na mu-uf-ke-ni-im é .gal bi-is-sú ú-ka-a[f-fa-ad]10. dis du ma-af-ka-an-fu i-zi-im-ma i-na i-di martim na-a-di far-rum i-na-bi-it-ma a -[ ]11. dis du fi-fi-tam äa-ri-im um-ma-num i-na fu-ub- ti -fa a-di fi-äi-it fa-am-fi-im me-äu-u[m i-ka-al-la-(a)-fi]12. dis du fa-ki-in-ma e-le-nu-fu fu-pa-at i-mi-ti fu-ta-af-na-a-at ke!(de)-re-e-tu-[ka]13. in-ne-mi-da-ma i-na ma-at lú.kúr fu-ma-am i-ra-af-f[i-a]14. dis du fa-ki-in-ma e-le-nu-fu fu-pa-at fu-me-lim fu-ta-af-na-at ke!(de)-er-re-e-et lú .kúr15. in-ne-mi-da-ma i-na ma-ti-ka fu-ma-am i-ra-af-fi-a16. dis fu-pa-at fu-me-lim sú-äu-ra-at ka-ba-ra-aä-äi lú.kúr17. dis fu-pa-at i-mi- ti ip-ri-ik-ma i-mi-tam i -t[ù-ul mu-k]i-il re-ef le-mu-ut- tim18. lú .kúr [ ud-d]a-na-na-a-ak- kum19. [dis ] x x-ma? ni -ra-am i -[tù-ul i-na giåtukul].mes um-ma-an-ka um- ma-an lú.kúr20. [ ] x x [ ]- di -fa i- ta-ba-al21. [dis i]-tù-ul lú.kúr i-na sà er-se -ti- ka na-di22. [dis i]- tù-ul um-ma? -[ ] x x äi-ri-x giåtukul- ka23. [ ] x x [ ] ud [ ]-ak-kum24. [dis i-t]ù-ul um-m[a-num ] fi -äi-it fa-a[m-fi-i]m x [ ] x x -fi25. [dis (…) du ma]-li [ ] [ti-b]u-ut ka -a[l?-ma?-ti]m?

26. [dis (…) du ma]-li x x [ ] se-a- am i- x [ ]27. [dis (…) du ka-p]i-is lú a-far i-la-ku ka.li le-mu-tim i- ka-áf! -fi-ip- fu-ma [ ]28. dis du i-m[i-tam] ù fu -me-lam ka-pi-is lú bi-is- sú i- ki -im-fu-ma pi- i bi-ti-fu ú-[ul ]29. dis du i-mi- ti ù fu-<me>-lim qá-ar-na-fu i-ku- na -[ma q]á-ab-li-(<a>)-tu-fu it-ta -na-ab-la-k[a-ta]30. fa li-fa- nim fa a-na sà ma-tim i-te- er -bu i -sa-ba-tu-ni-ik- ku -um-ma ta-da-[ak-fu]31. dis du a-na fu- me-lim is-äu-ur lú mu-u[r-su]-um da-an-nu-um i-sa-ba-[at-sú]32. dis me-eä-re-et igi.bar du ki-ma èf-ka-ri-[im] lú né-fum i-sa-ba- at -[(-sú)]33. dis du qá-ar-na-fu i-mi-tam ù fu-me-lam ik?-pu? -pa-ma i-fi-i[d x (x) is-b]a-ta a-lum ra-bu-u[m]34. mu-su-ú-fu ù na-ap-pa-af-sú a-n[a if-t]e-en-ma [ ] i-ta-ar35. dis d[u fi]- ir-fi -ri ma-li ta- zi -im-tum36. dis [du i-n]a? i -[mi-tim] ù fu-me -lim fi-pa- an na-an-[mu-ra n]a-an-mu-ur-tum it-ti lú.kúr ta-na-ma-a[r]37. dis giåtukul ù [du ti-is]- bu-tu qè- e -[pu-um i]-na pa-ni < …(…)> i-ma-qú-[ut]38. dis i-na i-m[i-ti] du [giåtukul] ki-ma pa-sí-[im zi]-ka-ri-im i-na um-ma-an lugal a -[a]- ú-ma [ ]39. dis i-na fu-me- el du g[iåtukul ki-m]a pa -sí-i[m zi-k]a-ri-im i-na um- ma-an lú.kúr a -[a-ú-ma … ]40. dis du a-na giåtukul i-tu-ú[r ] x -mi-id m[i- ]41. dis du si -la-fu na-pa-ar- qú-ud(<-ma>) ni -[ra-am ]-ri-im x [ ]42. dis du i-mi-tim is-äu-ur-ma más is-b[a-at ] x (x) x [ ]43. [dis du] ki-ma i-ki-im fa-pi-ik um-ma-nu-u[m ]44. [dis d]u a-na pu-uf-qí-im im-ta-qú-u[t ]

Bottom edge: su.[nigin …]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]

[ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ][ ]

[ ] [ ][ ]

[ ] [ ][ ]

[ ]

[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

[ ] [ ][ ]

[ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]


Rev.1. [If the Pa]th was split on the left – in battle [your/the enemy will defeat] your [le]ft (flank).2. [If the Pa]th – its middle sections were divided – it is ambiguous; the army [will not reach i]ts destination.3. [If f]rom the back of the Pouch a foot(-mark) was entering the Gate – (it is) a foot-mark of e[vil].4. [If the Pa]th of the right was situated in the top of the gall[bladder] – the father’s m.-oath-curse is seiz[ing] the son.5. If the Path of the right has s[pl]it (on)to the Palace Gate – the one in prison will sca[le] the wall.6–7. If the Path was curved three or four times – if (for) a king going on a campaign: from one campaign to another

[he will wander] (and) his days will be idle; for warfare: (it forecasts) a rout of [the/your ar]my.8–9. If in the doorjamb of the left a foot(-mark) was entering the middle of the Gate – a fool will ent[er] the palace;

concerning the poor: the palace will comman[deer] his house(hold).10. If the Path left its place and was situated beside the gall[bladder] – the king will flee and …[…].11. If the Path was covered by a membrane – (for) the army: a meä[û-storm will detain it] in its encampment until sunrise.12–13. If the Path was (normally) situated and above it the Seat of the right was doubled – [your] expeditionary forces

will converge and acquir[e] fame in the enemy’s land.14–15. If the Path was (normally) situated and above it the Seat of the left was doubled – the expeditionary forces of the

enemy will converge and acquire fame in your land.16. If the Seat of the left was turned away – (it forecasts) a rebellion of the enemy.17–18. If the Seat of the right lay sideways and fa[ced] the right – (it forecasts) an evil [de]mon; the enemy will [st]rive

for superiority over you.19–20. [If . . . . . . the Path ...... and] f[aced] the Yoke – [for battl]e: your army and the enemy’s army will [. . . . . .]… its

[... . . .] it will take away.21. [If . . . . . . the Path .... . . and f]aced [the …] – the enemy is situated in the midst of your land.22–23. [If . . . . . . the Path .... . . and f]aced [the …] – […] ar[my …]… your weapon .... . . will [. . . . . .] . . . . . . to you.24. [If . . . . . . and fa]ced [the .... . .] – (for) the ar[my: … wi]ll … [it before/until su]nrise.25. [If … the Path is fu]ll [of .. . . . . – (it forecasts) a pla]gue of l[ice].26. [If … the Path is fu]ll [of .. . . . .] – …[…] w[ill . . . . . .] the barley.27. [If (.. . . . .) the Path … was con]cave – wherever the man goes an evil spell will bewitch him and […].28. If the Path was concave [on the r]ight and left – a man’s house(hold) will kidnap him and the mood of his

house [will] not [.... . .].29–30. If concerning the Path of the right and le}f≠t, its (two) ‘horns’ were stable [but] its [m]iddle parts keep movi[ng]

from side to side – the informer who had entered into the midst of the land one will seize him for you and youwill ki[ll (him)].

31. If the Path turned to the left – a grave i[ll]ness will seiz[e] the man.32. If opposite the View the Path (was) like a crescent – for the man: a lion will seize [(him)].33–34. If the Path – its ‘horns’ on the right and left wrapped around and [se]ized the bas[e of the …] – (concerning) the

great city: its exits [a]nd canal opening will become [on]e.35. If the Pat[h] was full of [ch]ain-marks – (it forecasts) complaint.36. If the [Path – i]n the r[ight] and left two footmarks were fac[ing one another] – (it is) a [n]anmurtu-forecast: you

will mee[t up] with the enemy.37. If the weapon and [Path were fas]tened together – a tru[stworthy (official)] will fal[l b]efore <you/his lord?>.38. If in the ri[ght of] the Path [a weapon-mark was like a [m]ale ‘gamepiece’ – s[o]meone in/from the army of the

king [will . . . . . .].39. If in the left of the Path a [weapon-mark was lik]e a [ma]le ‘gamepiece’ – so[meone] in/from the army of the

enemy [will . . . . . .].40. If the Path turne[d] (in)to a weapon(-mark) [... . . .]…[…].41. If the Path – its flap was lying flat (}and≠) […] the Y[oke …] … [.... . .].42. If the Path of the right turned and sei[zed] the Increase [... . . .]…[.... . .].43. [If the Path] was piled up like a dike – the arm[y ... . . .].44. [If the Pat]h has collaps[ed] onto the Narrowing [ . . . . . .].

Bottom edge: Its [total: … (entries)]


V CommentaryObverse

1. In all likelihood the missing portion in the line’sopening concerns a right or left location (probably theright) of the filament’s finding on the Path. Filaments ap-pear in connection to the Path in HY 150 ii 2–7 (OB) and SBPadanu, Text 1: 20–21 (Koch-Westenholz 2000, 215). TheHY 150 passage, edited by Veldhuis (2006, 492f.), involvesthree entries that consider the Path’s seizure (sabit) ac-cording to a right/middle/left organizational scheme cor-related with obscurity/darkness (etûm), though whetherfilaments in the Path were conceived in this way here is, ofcourse, impossible to say.

Whether the mifarum mentioned goes with thisentry’s protasis or apodosis is difficult to determine; theterm’s appearance in either is unexpected, and to ourknowledge is unattested as a terminus technicus in OB ex-tispicy (but cf. mifarum B [CAD M/2, 119]). Then again, thefinding elsewhere in OB extispicy of various hapax desig-nations for sub-zonal regions (e.g., ummum rabitum, “thegreat mother,” YOS 10, 31 ii 2) is such that another suchcase should not come as great surprise. In extispicy apo-doses the term does occur in Multabiltu VIII 35 (Koch 2005,168), though on its own this cannot constitute conclusiveevidence. The fact that this bit is not connected to whatprecedes by a conjunction is telling, however, especiallywhen compared to the following entry. Our translation fol-lows accordingly.

2. The omen appears to parallel a tradition preservedvertically across the two entries in YOS 10, 20: 20f.:

20. fumma i[na fu]mel padanim fepum awılum h˘

arran illakuiturram21. summa ina imitti padanim us· urtum fiäit nefim

It is possible that the entry before us in this line reflects aconflation of these separate but juxtaposed protases andapodoses (or, vice versa, that YOS 10, 20: 20–21 reflects asplit of the tradition preserved here); cf. the entry in o.29–30 and its commentary below. But the motif of a par-ticular entity not returning from an expedition is quitecommon in general and with respect to padanu-omensparticularly, CMAA030-C0001 being no exception. In thislight the possibility that what is shared between this entryand YOS 10, 20: 20–21 owes to a common source cannot beestablished with certainty, though the possibility seemsgood nonetheless.

3. Granaries in OB extispicy omen apodoses appearin YOS 10, 35: 28 // AO 7033: 12–13 and YOS 10, 42 iii 39, incollections concerning the Increase (sibtum) and dia-

phragm (tallum), respectively; this line appears to be itsfirst attestation with respect to the Path. But the predic-tions of infestations in the granaries in these examplesseem to correlate with the abnormal findings of manyholes (YOS 10, 35: 28 // AO 7033: 12–13) or redness (YOS 10,42 iii 39), not to the specific zones. It is possible that thepresent instance, with the Path described as split in sev-eral parts, was perceived in the manner of the finding ofmany holes, though the matter does not warrant furtherspeculation.

6. As discussed above (§ I e), beginning in this lineand running through o. 28 the subject of the omens con-cerns the padan fumelim/fumel martim. The zone’s de-scription in this entry is difficult to ascertain.

8–9. Context and space (3–4 signs) suggest that thereconstruction in l. 9 represents the only plausible option;cf. o. 30–31. If so, what precedes in the start of the apodo-sis in l. 8 must include a variation of the journey/cam-paign motif already seen in l. 2. The break in the left side ofl. 9 does not seem to allow room for the two signs (ú-ul)usually employed for the negative adverb (cf. o. 23, 30, r.28 [?]). It is also probable that with the space in the re-mains of l. 9 a second forecast appeared, though this ofcourse cannot be proven without a duplicate and perhapsnot even then.

10–11. Mention of the nawûm/namûm in omens con-cerning the padan fumel martim occurs in Pan takaltiVIII 64–65, 69 (Koch-Westenholz 2000, 356f.), the com-mon denominator among these in terms of a hermeneuticconnection to nawûm/namûm seemingly being the divi-sion of the zone by foot marks and/or holes. Unfortunatelythe breaks in our entry preclude further discussion of thepossibility of a shared tradition with these later cases.

13. The entry’s protasis recalls, in general terms, AO7028: 5 (6), which is itself partially parallel to BM 12875:20–25. In both those cases the following apodoses concernan impending end of days and are relatively short; thelatter point, if in fact the present entry shares the sametradition, would suit the remaining space well.

14. The fa lifanim also occurs below in r. 29–30 andperhaps in YOS 10, 18: 28 (Path), and elsewhere in OB ex-tispicy in AO 7028: 10–11; YOS 10, 36 iv 10–11.

16–17. Our mili kiffatim – lit. “a flood of totality” –seems more in keeping with this trope’s connotation in theomen tradition, which stresses these floods’ abnormal sizeand severity. The alternative reading of this as a “flood’screst” does find some support, however; see CAD K, 459.

22. The entry appears to represent an interruption ofthe padan fumelim/fumel martim section with what maybe a “Path” omen, since what appears of the apodosismatches the tradition preserved in two omens from OB


padanum collections: BM 12875: 29–33 and, even more lit-erally, YOS 10, 11 i 8–10. In the latter instance this predic-tion appears twice, alternatively concerning one’s army orking, and both times with uffab, a common trope inomens and elsewhere; the verb in the present line is re-stored accordingly. As regards subject, however, uncer-tainty prevails. In both BM 12875: 29–33 and YOS 10, 11 i8–10 the protases describe conditions (respectively, loo-sening and constriction) that occur on the Path’s right andleft. The present entry, by contrast, seems to concern onlythe Path’s left, since typically – this tablet providing noexception – where both sides are described, right precedesleft. Whether this means that this line involved the king orarmy of the enemy owing to the pars hostilis association isintriguing but needlessly risky in terms of restoration, es-pecially since what remains of the protasis makes it clearthat this is not a duplicate of either BM 12875: 29–33 orYOS 10, 11 i 8–10.

24. The description of the Finger’s plains in the plu-ral in place of the typical singular is unusual, even wheremultiple plains are at issue, as in YOS 10, 33 v 18: fummaser ubanim – falaftafunu …, “if (concerning) the plain(s)of the Finger – the(ir) three ….” Still the possibility cannotbe excluded that the plains were occasionally conceivedas plural, as with the same term’s reference in the lung(seran fa äaf îm imittim u fumelim, “the lung’s right andleft plains” YOS 10, 36 i 50), or even as dual, as in a later,rarer tradition concerning the Finger itself (afar tu’ami,“the site of the twins,” see George 2013 ad 26:32H, with ad-ditional references). Mention of the Path of the left of thegallbladder in relation to the Finger’s middle plain (in thesingular) appears in Pan takalti VIII 109f. (Koch-Westen-holz 2000, 360).

26–27. Could the apodosis be highlighting a secrethiding locus for the illicit observation of an extispicyexamination? If so, a reading in the protasis for the padanfumelim as situated hidden beneath (?) the Finger wouldprovide a logical correspondence.

28. On the near parallel to the tradition in the prota-sis, see above (§ 1 d). The source of the present entry’s ad-ditional detail (kussûm) concerning the location in theFinger from which the Path is “extended” can presentlyonly be guessed at.

29–30. On the “distant day” rubric, see Winitzer(2006, 110–25). The forecast here labeled as such, taqtitpalêm, appears in at least three other collections concern-ing the Path: AO 7028: 5 (6); BM 12875: 7–13; YOS 10, 11 i11–13. In the case of YOS 10, 11 i 11–13 the accompanyingprotasis considers the Path absorbed (ekim), the very sub-ject of the protasis of the following entry here (o. 31). It isthus possible that as a secondary option here the taqtit

palêm forecast was shifted from the entry in o. 31 to that ino. 29–30, in the manner witnessed elsewhere (see the com-mentary to o. 2 above); for another example of such con-flation, see Winitzer (2011, 85–86) (on ex. 8, l. 10).

31. Statements describing fears or concerns arisingfrom extispicy results occur frequently in OB omen collec-tions, on several occasions employing na’adum (e.g.,YOS 10, 31 i 9–11; 33 i 16–17, 39 r. 4, etc.; cf. also ARM 26/1,82:6–9). The king, typically the subject in such state-ments, here seems to be the source (“your”) of theenemy’s anxiety, though the specifics of the latter remainunclear.

32. Nearly the same omen appears in AO 7028: 3(4):fumma pa-da-nu it-ku-mu rubâm fut refifu id[ukkufu].

The difference between “king” in CMAA030-C0001and “prince” in AO 7028 seems explicable according tovariant traditions, be these written or oral.15 The other dif-ference, involving the alleged pl. itkumu in AO 7028: 3(4),now appears attributable to the writing in that line of pa-da-nu, which is apparently plural (cf. CAD E, 68b). But allthe remaining omens concerning this zone in that collec-tion (AO 7028: 1–8) describe a singular Path whose writinglacks mimation (5 ×); and thus it seems likely that this wasthe intent in this line as well, with the difference owing toscribal error, perhaps owing to the iterative Gt form (cor-rect thus: it-ku-um!(mu)). In any case the two omens reflectthe same tradition, something supported even further bythe following entry and its parallel in AO 7028.

31–32. Note the shift in the verbal forms ekemum (G f

Gt predicative adjective) in the protases of these entries,something recalling other such sorts of progressions em-ploying the same verb (e.g., G fD; D f G; predicative ad-jective f preterite forms) utilized in the organization ofomen entries in collections; see Winitzer (2006, 539–52).Did this progression affect the forecasts in these entries’apodoses? In other words, is the fear in o. 31 realized withthe king’s murder in o. 32, and with the reflexive Gt formcorresponding to the king’s own servant? The question can-not be answered for certain. Still, the appearance of suchcalculations elsewhere, including complex gradations ofomens whose protases vary only according to verbal forms,suggests that this represents a distinct possibility.

33. The apodosis matches AO 7028: 4(5), which fol-lows the parallel from that text to l. 32 above, though ad-mittedly this is a common trope and the protases do notmatch.

34. The reading of turrum is tentative, but what re-mains of the initial sign looks like the right side of DU.

15 On this distinction in such contexts, see Winitzer (2011).


Though not yet as a sub-zonal part of the Crucible, as afeature of the exta this term is attested (see already CAD T,165);16 further, in a first-millennium extispicy commentaryit is identical with tubqum, “corner angle,” another sub-zonal designation appearing in extispicy (see furtherGeorge 2013, ad 25:10H–13H; 26: 14H, 21H–24H, etc.).

The apodosis of this line proves especially frustrating.It is difficult to understand how a statement predictingpoverty (lapanum) connects with what follows, somethingexacerbated by our inability to make sense of the object ofthe eye’s sight. The signs li and mi seem clear enough,though the reading of limitifu (“borderline, enclosure,edge, rim”) raises problems in terms of case (unless li-mitêfu [< limitiafu]; cf. qablêtum, r. 29–30), an alleged in-tervocalic w > m in OB (see, however, GAG § 21c), and, mostsignificantly, meaning. A. George’s suggestion of x xbi?-ti? -fu i-na-fu i-ma-[ra], “his eyes will wit[ness] the … ofhis household,” certainly seems more logical contex-tually, though (perhaps foolishly) we preserve our read-ing. Could it be that a rare mention of the Path’s “edge” or“corner” generated an equally unusual interpretation thattook up a figurative sense of liwitum?

36–39. The two entries represented by these linesconcern the Path’s turning towards the Palace Gate. In thefirst entry (o. 36–37) the twofold division of the Path pat-ently relates to the mention in the apodosis of two armycontingents sent, “yesterday and today”; that these arepredicted to return at once probably correlates with thecommon origin of the described two turns of the Path. Inthe second entry (o. 38–39) the Path, which is said tobreach the left doorjamb and collapse on the (Palace)Main Gate, is correlated with an army that was sent oncampaign and is also predicted to return back home dis-quietedly, with the verb (< putallusum [Dt]) here to betaken as an adverbial hendiadys.

40. The reading of puärum in the protasis is very ten-tative, not least owing to the fact that conceptual ideasseem illogical for what Nougayrol (1976) termed the “sil-houettes de référence.” Also difficult is the determinationof what is forecast to befall the king in the apodosis, alongwith what appears to be an initial short forecast precedingthe specification of the following as applicable “for theking.” The possibility that this reflects the interrogativeayyanum, “wherefrom,” makes little sense; other optionsthat are dependent upon emendations demand substanti-ation from parallel traditions.

42. The prediction of a plague of mifirtum-“sea crea-tures” appears in OB padanum collections in YOS 10, 18: 22

16 Our translation follows George (2008), pace CAD.

[]

and AO 7028: 2(3). In the latter instance the apodosis par-allels that of this line (once one corrects “land” for case),though what remains of the protasis in this entry does notappear in AO 7028: 2(3).

43–44. The Gtn of nadûm in protases typically de-scribes the finding of a zone full of smaller “pathological”findings like filaments, pocks, spots, and the like (see theexamples in CAD N/1, 89–90 [3b]). A suitable candidate forthe present instance, ending with -ratum, leaves few op-tions, at least ones reasonably reconcilable with the fol-lowing predictions (cf., however, tayyaratum, YOS 10, 31 iv8). The reading of rubûm in the apodosis’s first alternativefinds support with farrum in the second.

45. Forecasts of mili irtim appear in several OB collec-tions, in the case of AO 7028 o. 1–2 and YOS 10, 11 i 5–7,even concerning the Path. In YOS 10, 11 i 5–7, as in the pres-ent entry, a simile – “like a bow” (kima qaftim) – is em-ployed to express something of the Path’s shape, evi-dently to stress abnormal width; cf. YOS 10, 28: 3 (qaqqadakullim). It seems then that the missing culprit in this linewas regarded as bearing this characteristic.

46-r. 1. These form a pairing according to right andleft, the protases of which match those of YOS 10, 18:81–82, though of course the description of the Path asmerely “split” is sufficiently terse and common so as tohinder clear identification. There is not enough room inthe initial break in the apodosis of r. 1 to allow for mentionof the enemy, though perhaps this subject was recalled inthe second break.

Reverse2. The initial statement of ambiguity in the apodosis owesto the occurrence of the Path’s separation in its middlesection, the duality of which was evidently taken in thesense of an identical finding on a zone’s right and leftsides (see Starr 1975, 243). The presence of the secondaryforecast thus surprises initially, though in fact other caseswhere a pitruftum label is followed by a secondary anddecisive interpretation are known; see, e.g., YOS 10, 53: 11(OB omens of a sacrificial animal), and cf. o. 29–30 abovewith respect to the nipäu-label and what follows. When refeqlim figures as their direct object, statements concerningthe army’s “destination” as that of this entry are overwhel-mingly concerned with the success in reaching this goal,something typically expressed by kafadum; the line hasbeen restored accordingly.

3. Concerning the subject matter of this entry andthat in r. 8–9 below, see § I e above. On the fep lemuttimdesignation, see Richter (1994, 241 n. 87).

4. The mamitum oath-cum-curse appears elsewherein OB extispicy in YOS 10, 42 i 28–29 and OBE 14 o. 29


(mamit ersetim), in both cases, as here, with the 3fs predi-cative adjective form of sabatum (sabtat).

6–7. A partial parallel appears in YOS 10, 11 i 14–21:

fumma padanum adi falafifu purrus – alik äarranim äarranumana äarranim inaddifu – umufu ireqqu ina umim riqim nantallû‘If the Path is divided into its three (parts) – the expeditionaryforce will go from one campaign to another – its days will beidle; for a tentative date (it forecasts) an eclipse.’

The juxtaposition of the forecasts describing an agentgoing from one campaign to another and the “idle days”forecast in these two entries is too close for coincidence,with the secondary interpretive option in each (ina kakki;ina umim riqim) buttressing the claim further still. (On theunusual umam riqam forecast in YOS 10, 11 i 14–21, see thediscussion in Winitzer (2006, 114–15), which this entrynow affirms; should one assume that the ina kakki optionin this entry represents the “original” version of this tradi-tion?)

In light of these parallels, the differences between theprotases of these entries (kuppus/purrus; 2f4/f3) sur-prise initially, though the reason for the correlation ofmultiple campaigns with a Path either “concave” or splitinto several parts is sufficiently clear. Moreover, the fore-cast of an arbut ummanim appears in connection to threepadanus in BM 12875: 4–6, an entry followed by another(BM 12875: 7–13) describing the Path as kabis. On this ap-parent fluidity in the tradition, see below.

8–9. See the commentary to r. 3 above. Mention of ala äassum appears in AO 7539 o. 8 and YOS 10, 39: 5–6, thelatter in (a probably paranomastic) association with theäafûm (lung). Both these instances share with our entry afocus on the midpoint of the zone in question, whichseems to correlate with the “fool” (as is particularly clearin the tripartite scheme in AO 7539 o. 7–9). On the ana +Noun Phrase qualification in omen apodoses, ana mufke-nim among them, see Winitzer (2006: 60–65). The second-ary interpretation here almost certainly reflects the motifof the financial loss of a commoner or his household at thehands of the palace (see, e.g., AO 9066: 47–53; YOS 10, 46iii 12; TIM 9, 79: 17–19), with kuffudum in the sense of “todisinherit” a fitting possibility for the broken verb. If, asexpected, this secondary interpretation echoed the basicsense of the preceding counterpart, then it would seemthat the fate of the “fool” who did not know his placeechoes something of the English proverb “a fool and hismoney are soon parted.”

11. Virtually the same omen appears in TIM 9, 79:14–15, which helps restore this one. The writing of um-ma-num reflects the topicalizing of the “army,” the object of

the apodosis, in the nominative, and an example of anominative absolute (casus pendens), especially if themissing verb at the apodosis’s end is restored as pro-posed – with the aid of TIM 9, 79 and with the pronominalsuffix -fi. See also r. 24, 45 below.

12–15. A close variant of the tradition behind theseentries in YOS 10, 18: 45 which, rather broken, can now berestored nonetheless:

[fumma] e[l]enu padan imittim fubtum futafnât – äarranatukainn[emmid]a-m[a] [in]a mat nakrim fumam ileqqe[a(nim)]‘[If a]bove the Path of the right the seat is double – your expedi-tionary forces w[ill converge] and gather fame [i]n the land ofthe enemy.’

The parallel to äarranatum in this entry is, therefore, ger-retum, which furnishes another example of the initialvoiceless /k/ in place of voiced /g/ (for additional such in-stances for gerrum alone, see CAD G, 90; note also kaba-raääi two lines below); the miswriting of ki with di doesnot call for alarm. What does challenge anew is the ten-sion between tradition and innovation, here evinced inthe differences (gerretum vs. äarranatum; rafûm vs.leqûm) between the variants.

16. Alternatively the verb in the protasis could be su-äu-ra-at, “is reduced,” though in light of the followingentry a sense describing a change in orientation seemsslightly preferable.

17–18. Why the prediction of an evil demon (“badluck”) should precede the following is unclear. For a par-allel apodosis see YOS 10, 25: 21 (bab ekallim).

24. The apodosis resembles the one appearing in r.11 above, which, in turn, was seen to parallel TIM 9, 79:14–15. From what remains of the present entry’s protasis,however, it is clear that the case under considerationdiffers from the one in r. 11 // TIM 9, 79: 14–15, and thusthe urge to restore the apodosis in this entry from l. 11must be met with caution. Still the possibility that, withits antecedent pronominal suffix -fi, the verb at the endof this line is to be restored ikallafi is sensible, thoughwhether this demands the nightly meäû-storm too can-not be said.

25. The restoration of “lice” is, as indicated above,tentative; for their mention in OB omen apodoses, seeJeyes, OBE 10: 24.

28. The mention of kidnap by a man’s own house-hold in the apodosis’s initial part seems peculiar; couldthe real subject be missing here: “< …> will deprive theman of his house …?”

29–30. “Its middle parts” is f.pl.; one expects thusthat either the writing is missing a vowel sign or that it rep-resents qablêtum (< qabliatum). Is a correlation of ongoingmovement in the Path’s middle section with the apodo-


sis’s informer, lit., “one of a tongue,” based here on a vis-ual mnemonic (cf. eme [ka×me])?

32. Lions appear in the context of OB padanum inYOS 10, 18: 20, 28–29; 20: 21, though no duplicate to thisomen is known as yet.

33–34. The restoration of ikpupa fits the context,which in the protasis seems to describe the Path’s“horns” forming a circle that connects to the base of an-other sub-zonal region; this image correlates with theapodosis’s entry/exits (musûm) which, in conjunctionwith a singular nappafum, become one (hence sing. itâr).The image of a single access point to the city suggestspreparations for a siege, and recalls the bricked-up open-ings excavated in the walls of Nineveh (explanation cour-tesy A. George).

35. Tazzimtum forecasts are discussed in Winitzer(2006, 200f.). In extispicy these occur in OBE 9: 16H;YOS 10, 3 (fep tazzimtim); YOS 10, 33 v 5, 7; YOS 10, 42 i24–25; BM 22694: 26–27. As with the current omen, the pro-tases of YOS 10, 42 i 24–25 and BM 22694: 26–27 (thesebeing partially parallel) speak of the zones in questionbeing filled (malûm) with particular mark: grains (utte-tum) in one version (YOS 10, 42 i 24–25) and tendrils (fa-ruru) in the other (BM 22694: 26).

36. Nanmurtum forecasts were discussed by Starr(1975, 241f.; also Richter 1993f.), who claimed that theseoccur when an ominous finding appearing simulta-neously on a zone’s right and left is said to be light (nawir);this finding, Starr went on (ibid., 242), is often correlatedwith military matters. The present entry backs the secondof these observations with what Starr described as a “ver-bal elaboration” of the technical term. The breaks in theline make difficult a word concerning the first claim,though as Starr himself noted (ibid., 241 n. 3; 244 n. 14;also Richter 1993, 140), this was not without exception.

37. What remains of the forecast following the paral-lel protasis in YOS 10, 18: 30 describes the enemy’s pre-sumed attack of one’s expedition (alaktaka nakrumi[faääit (?)]; cf. I26 1663+1661 5: 3–5), a correlation thatseems hermeneutically explicable (padanum h alaktum;weapon h enemy; reciprocal sense of Gt); what survivesof the apodosis in the present entry, by comparison, doesnot. The suggested restoration of subject is by no meansproblem-free: one expects a military official, though abetter solution eludes us.

38–39. The male “game-piece” appears in OB extis-picy in YOS 10, 25: 65; 43: 4–7 // 46 iv 32–34. In the lattertradition the image is recalled in connection to the occur-rence of a weapon-mark, something that, along with thisentry’s setting within r. 37–40, supports our restoration ofthe protasis’s lacuna.

41. The addition of the short -a- in the spelling si-la-fu indicates that the word’s unbound form was reck-oned as sillum, that is, either the well-known lexememeaning “shadow” (CAD S, 189) with the technical mean-ing of “flap, covering” (cf. YOS 10, 14: 1) or the noted bi-form of selum (sellum), “side” (CAD S, 124ff.). The latter isattested with respect to the padanum in YOS 10, 18: 77–78and described as “pierced” (palif). Tentatively, however,we prefer the former option, which seems the only sen-sible one for the verb naparqudum.

44. On the Path’s relation to the Narrowing, see Jeyes(1989, 57, with text references).

VI Analysis and ImplicationsWhat remains for discussion involves the sorting out ofthis text’s relation to the known OB padanum collectionsand what, if anything, can now be said about the scholarlytradition concerning this zone in the selfsame period. Arewe in a position to speak of an OB padanum series whencethese collections, or perhaps some of them, are quoted? Ifnot, how might those parallels among the collections ob-served above be explained? And how should our text, withits substantial number of entries and colophon, be under-stood?

Before setting out to answer these questions, a briefreview of opinions on these questions for OB extispicymore broadly seems prudent. The matter was the subjectof a study by T. Richter (1993) and, more recently, com-prised a part of an ambitious undertaking by J.-J. Glassner(2009; also id. 2004). In both these cases the findings werelargely based on extispicy’s first zone, naplaftum, owingto the relatively large number of collections pertaining toit.17

Following Jeyes (1989, 9, 11), Richter (1993, 130) ar-gued in favor of the existence of an OB barûtum series,which he believed to be immense, in the order of some 100tablets.18 This series promoted quotation by shorter texts,some of which he suggested were apparently arranged insub-series and quoted as such (ibid., 131). As a main sup-port for his position Richter turned to several among theshorter naplaftum collections that bear a ki+# subscript

17 Both Richter and Glassner consider other OB divination collec-tions as well, including YOS 10, 22–26 (bab ekallim) and 47–49(fumma immerum).18 Cf., however, this assumption’s refutation below (including n.22).


(AO 9066; YOS 10, 14; 15; 16; MAH 15874),19 and pointed toa sequential correspondence between each of these textsand specific sections of the largest padanum text known todate, YOS 10, 17.20 Richter explained his findings in termsof the shorter texts representing excerpt texts (Auszugsta-feln) of a main series (Hauptserie) of OB naplaftum, ofwhich YOS 10, 17 represented a part. Additional suchshorter texts, some bearing the ki+# notation (YOS 10, 22)and others not, were explained in similar terms.21 Stress-ing the tentative nature of his conclusions, Richter no-netheless painted a picture of an OB barûtum series whoselearning is not much less – and at times perhaps evenmore (ibid., 122–23) – complex than its first-millenniumcounterpart.

Though his work builds on Richter’s findings,Glassner presented a very different interpretation of theOB extispicy collections. In fact according to him a reverseprocess accounts for the apparent picture: the shorter col-lections were used to compose (texts like) the longer ones.Like Richter, Glassner (2009, 24–29, 33f.) paid special at-tention to those collections marked by the ki+# colophon,but these he labeled manuscrits d’apprentissage andunderstood as sources from which the longer omen com-pendia, described as manuscrits de fixation, were created.For Glassner this did not mean, however, that a fixed OBbarûtum series should be assumed in the manner put forthby Jeyes and Richter. Though he was ultimately unclearabout this issue (ibid., 2, 7–9, 15), Glassner reinterpreted –correctly, to our mind – an important datum that under-mines earlier ideas of this (alleged) series’ assumed size.22

As for the lion’s share of the known OB extispicy col-lections, Glassner understood these essentially in themanner of those texts bearing the ki+# colophon: as prod-ucts of a school setting, and, more importantly, of a cre-ative effort undertaken in the educational process in

19 For a tabulation of all such collections, see Glassner (2009, 25).20 See the table of Richter (1993, 124). Richter’s findings, while im-pressive, are not as clear-cut as one is lead to believe. For a dis-cussion of one such case, see Winitzer (2006, 69–70, n. 74); Glassner(2009, 40 n. 83).21 Richter 1993, 122 (on the assumed stitch-line in YOS 10, 23 r. 14),128.22 This idea rested on a broken line in the colophon of OBE text 11 (r.2H: dub-pí 60+30 ka -[…]; so Jeyes [1989, 145]), which Jeyes andRichter had read as referring to a “tablet 90” of an alleged series.However, as Glassner explained (2009, 7), this reading cannot stand,with the “90” turning out upon collation to be the beginning of a ref-erence to a scribe (dub-pí m30-ka-[…], “tablet of Sîn-ka[…]”). For an-other refutation of existing conceptions of an extispicy series early onin the Mesopotamian “stream of tradition,” this one alleged alreadyin the third millennium, see Richardson (2006).

[ ]

which omen entries are compiled (ibid., 15–24, 36–37)from various sources in the composition of new texts.23 Ina few such cases, one observes a mixing and matching ofomens from different zones of extispicy, somethingfurther indicative to Glassner of the creative and compila-tory aspects of these texts. This is the case of YOS 10, 9, ashort text of only eight entries that combines omens fromvarious zones (naplaftum, bab ekallim, martum, nirum,libbum), according to Glassner (2004; 2009, 16) in the ser-vice of a lesson by a master diviner.

While additional such examples are attested,24 thesebecome less frequent as one turns to the consideration ofthe longer collections. To the contrary, by and large thefocus of such texts remains limited to one particular find-ing within a specific zone or (in the case of the ki+# na-plaftum texts) a specific finding in a zone. In this respectthe case of YOS 10, 42, a large (14.7 × 23.6 cm), four-columntext of 234 lines, may be seen as the exception that provesthe rule. This text concerns the heart and the liver’s Yoke,

23 Whether these texts belonged to the curriculum of the OB school,however, seems problematic, at least in light of impressive recent ad-vances in our understanding of that institution; see, e.g., Veldhuis(1997; 2000); Robson (2001); Delnero (2010a; 2010b); Kleinerman(2011, 1–9, with additional references); Michalowski (2011, 47–63,with additional references); Peterson (2011, with additional refer-ences). It must be stressed, however, that all these studies concernSumerian, not Akkadian, since the former appears to be the exclusivefocus of the OB scribal curriculum – at least, that is, according to thecommunis opinio emerging from these works.And yet it seems all but certain that a comprehensive picture of OBeducation (if such a feat is ever achieved) will prove more complica-ted still, with a greater degree of geographic- and temporal-, and the-me-based variation than that currently appreciated. This seems to bethe implication of additional pieces of evidence bearing on the ques-tion, like the recent publication of a model-contract collection (Spada2011) that represents inevitably at some level the product of scriballearning. And then there is the problem of Akkadian. Unquestionablythis tongue too was the subject of pedagogy in this period, a point un-derscored by common sense as well as the findings of multiple copiesof identical texts, like literary letters; see on which Michalowski(1983); also Kleinerman (2011, 3 n. 16).Thus at least initially it seems sensible to attribute, as Glassner does,parallels in contemporary omen collections, be these of individualentries or of sections of (or entire) texts, to the same institutional mi-lieu; alternatively we may posit this activity to be the product of a dif-ferent sort of educational structure, one geared perhaps for related(Semitic?) interests or to more vocationally oriented concerns. Andyet it must be reiterated that in terms of both quantity and quality theparallels observed among the OB omen collections are not the equalof the (Sumerian or Akkadian) literary letters, let alone the other gen-res that comprised a part of the Edubba curriculum. Thus, the as-sumption concerning omen collections as derivative of a school set-ting must be rendered premature per se.24 E.g., TIM 9, 79.


and bears a colophon that employs the ki+# formula andreads: su.nigin 33 ni-ru-um ki 1 / 94 li-bu-um, “a total of 33(omens concerning) the Yoke, 1st tablet;25 94 omens con-cerning the heart.” In other words, while the compilationof materials from two unrelated zones is witnessed amonglonger collections too, this does not trump the integrity ofeach section. Rather, omens concerning each zone arepresented in separate sections, something already wit-nessed in shorter texts, for instance AO 7028, where fol-lowing 6 padanum entries the text moves to consider 20concerning dananum, but first sees fit to delineate onesection from the other by way of a double ruling. Signifi-cantly, this observation accords with the findings of bothRichter and Glassner, since both actually agreed on thepoint of a textual dependency among some of the OB ex-tispicy collections, even as they differed on the issue ofthat relationship’s directionality.

Our findings provide a limited but new perspective onthese matters, one stemming from extispicy’s second zoneand its representation in the collections. As we have seen,unquestionably parts of CMAA030-C0001 recall specificpadanum traditions seen elsewhere. The cases of parallelsbetween CMAA030-C0001 on the one hand and AO 7028and TIM 9, 79 on the other are especially compelling in thisrespect, since the latter two texts reflect eclectic collec-tions that are patently the product of student learning.That these texts share entries with CMAA030-C0001underscores what probably could have been guessed: forpadanum, as for naplaftum or bab ekallim, there existed acommon tradition in the OB period, a tradition partly re-flected in the texts known to us.

Still, at least as it currently stands for padanum thistradition does not appear to be as fixed as in the cases ofnaplaftum or bab ekallim. One simply does not find thesame degree of overlap between the padanum collectionsas those witnessed in the case of the traditions sharedamong the bab ekallim texts (esp. YOS 10, 22, 24, 25, and26), let alone YOS 10, 17 and its alleged Auszugstafeln/manuscrits d’apprentissage. Of course it could becountered that CMAA030-C0001 patently does not refer toitself by the ki+# notation. And yet both Richter andGlassner understood the other mid-size collections in es-sentially similar terms: in one way or another these were

25 In all likelihood Richter (1993, 129) and Glassner (2009, 25) areboth correct to take the ki 1 notation as referring to the Yoke section,presumably owing to the fact that this is written on the same line asthe tally of nirum omens and, in the case of Glassner, owing to hissense of the expected length of those texts bearing the ki+# notation.But note the reversed order in the presentation of the two sections inthe text.

removed by one degree from a putative Hauptserie or, atleast, the surviving manuscrits de fixation.

This observation leads inevitably to questions con-cerning the degree of standardization of this literature atthis time. Could it be that in the OB period Barûtu’s secondzone was not the equal of its neighbors? If so, how couldthis disparity be explained in light of the ordering of theinspected zones, in which the place of padanum seemswell established? And what would this mean for the over-all picture of this literature as presented by Richter andGlassner?

Naturally one might object that our sense for pada-num reflects merely the unevenness of the discovery pro-cess, something supported in part by the very publicationof CMAA030-C0001. This point, it should be clear, is notmade for rhetorical effect. Its significance finds importantcorroboration via the recent publication of a considerablenew corpus of OB and later omen texts by A. George (2013).Here, inter alia, one stumbles across two OB compendiaconcerning the gallbladder (nos. 9 [MS 3078] and 10 [MS3295]), which, as George makes plain, parallel major por-tions of two published collections (BM 13915 and YOS 10,31) that have hitherto known no such counterparts. Onceagain, then, one learns that the pronouncements of un-qualified verdicts on the OB extispicy curriculum is some-thing best avoided.

And yet evidence from our text suggests that, at leastin part, another explanation may account for the zonaldiscrepancy presented above. Critical in this respect is anappreciation of the appearance of padan fumelim omensinterwoven in CMAA030-C0001.26 The finding of a sub-stantial section concerned with this zone in a text that (a)is primarily concerned with the better-known padanumand (b) is clearly not a student exercise challenges oursense of what this text should represent. To wit: ifCMAA030-C0001 is neither an Auszugstafel nor a portionof that (alleged) main series of OB padanum, then what isit?

No obvious answers avail themselves to this last ques-tion, at least not according to the framework for the under-standing of OB extispicy collections articulated thus far.For CMAA030-C0001 hints at a different conception ofpadanum-related traditions than those assumed for thecases of naplaftum or bab ekallim. This conception may becharacterized as more fluid and porous, allowing for amixing of traditions – in our text from padanum andpadan fumelim/fumel martim (and probably bab ekallim

26 Along with two entries dealing with the bab ekallim and perhapsanother concerning the padan fumelim; see § I e above.


and perhaps padan imittim too) – that is unparalleled ineither those texts deemed Auszugstafeln/manuscrits d’ap-prentissage of a particular zone or others like them (e.g.,OBE 1 [naplaftum]; YOS 10, 24 [bab ekallim]).

Significantly, our finding is not without parallel in theexisting “Path” collections. This, to remind, was the pre-sumption of Jeyes (1989, 61), who posited that certain en-tries in YOS 10, 18, the largest padanum compendiumknown to date, included several (25, 28, r. 45, 61, 69, 80)concerning the padan imittim.27 The short collection I261663+1661 recently re-edited by I. Khait, which mentionstwice apiece a padan imittim (ll. 1, 4) and a padan fumelim(ll. 3, 6), may supply further evidence of this “mixed tradi-tions” phenomenon, since these may refer to the lesser-known zones by these names, not simply to right/leftqualifications of the second zone.28 Yet, as Khait rightlyobserved, the arrangement of entries in this collection is“highly symmetrical” and otherwise suggestive of clever(pedagogic?) configuration,29 such that this possibilitycannot be confirmed. However this last case is settled,CMAA030-C0001 furnishes new evidence in support ofJeyes’s hunch. Not that anything went for the diviner-scholars: plainly for both CMAA030-C0001 and YOS 10, 18(and perhaps I26 1663+1661) the common denominatoramong padanum, padan imittim, and padan fumelim/fumel martim omens is the reference in each to a “path”;and this, along with their derivative interpretative over-lap, must be understood to have been the motivating fac-tor behind the apparent fluidity.

Whether this fluidity means that the OB diviner-scholars maintained a fuzzy conceptualization concern-ing these three paths and their distinct locations cannotyet be answered with certainty, though this need not tohave been the case. The mention of padan fumelim in itsexpected place in YOS 10, 19 militates against this possi-bility. A more plausible explanation is that the similaritiesin these zones’ appellations induced their mutual recol-lection in certain contexts and perhaps even a degree ofcross-pollination in terms of their signification. This sortof semantic overlap would explain why, for instance, the

27 YOS 10 18 breaks before a colophon can be rescued. But on ac-count of its size (12.5 × 19 cm; 82 ll.), shape, and most importantly,highly organized topical arrangement, it would seem that if a stan-dardized version of padanum did exist in the OB period, then this textreflects it or parts thereof.28 As seemingly taken in Khait (2012, 39, 50).29 Ibid. However, if I26 1663+1661 also represents a combination ofdifferent “Path” omens, then the suggestion of the liver’s 90°, re-orientation to explain the phrasing of the entries in this collectionwould seem to be redundant.

tradition concerning the forecast of the diviner’s fame wit-nessed in the apodoses of r. 12–15 above, two entries con-cerned with the Path padanum, appears also in YOS 10, 18:45, an entry that mentions a padan imittim and that Jeyestook for the zone by that name. The protases of both thesetraditions speak of a seemingly identical occurrence: aSeat of the Right doubled above a normally situated“path”; no doubt it was what spurred the equation of onepadanum (“Path”) with another, padan imittim (“Path ofthe right”).

Still it does appear as if in this period the paths of theliver had not yet been sufficiently, or at least systemati-cally, demarcated. From this perspective we may appreci-ate the posited development of the name of the sixth zonefrom padan imittim to fulmum30 as one step in that direc-tion; another may have involved padan fumelim/fumelmartim, which, as described above, owing to metonymytook on the name miäis pan umman nakrim, though thisdid not stick. What this means for the development of ex-tispical nomenclature more broadly and the manner bywhich one zone differentiated from the occasionally simi-lar other we leave for another day.

The same, alas, must be said concerning the status ofCMAA030-C0001 in the context of the omen literature’sstandardization in the OB period. A satisfying explanationfor the seemingly intermediary stage of omen collectionsrepresented by the ki+# texts and other collections –longer than the lenticular and similar-size tablets on theone hand and shorter than one like YOS 10, 17 on theother – appears still to be wanting; whether either of themodels proposed by Richter or Glassner is borne out by fu-ture discovery remains to be seen. In either case, however,the instance of CMAA030-C0001 and others like it (recallYOS 10, 18) will demand accounting.

BibliographyAro, J./J. Nougayrol (1973): Trois nouveaux recueils d’haruspicine

ancienne, RA 67, 41–56Delnero, P. (2010a): Sumerian extract tablets and scribal education,

JCS 62, 53–69– (2010b): Sumerian literary catalogues and the scribal curriculum,

ZA 100, 32–55Durand, J.-M. (1988): Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. ARM 26/1.

ParisDenner, J. (1934): Der assyrische Eingeweideschautext 2R 43,

WZKM 41, 180–220

30 On the “artificial” sense of this zone’s designation, see Goetze(1947, 6–7); Durand (1988, 237, and note (a)); Winitzer (2006, 639).


George, A. R. (2008): Akkadian turru (turru B) “corner angle,” and thewalls of Babylon, ZA 98, 221–29

– (2009): Babylonian literary texts in the Schøyen collection.CUSAS 10. Bethesda, MD

– (2013): Babylonian divinatory texts chiefly in the Schøyen collec-tion. CUSAS 18. Bethesda, MD

Glassner, J.-J. (2000): ÅU+BAR dans les textes divinatoires paléo-babyloniens, NABU 2000/67

– (2004): La leçon d’un devin paléo-babylonien, RA 98, 63–80– (2005): L’aruspicine paléo-babylonienne et le témoignage des

sources de Mari, ZA 95, 276–300– (2009): Écrire des livres à l’époque paléo-babylonienne. Le traité

d’extispicine, ZA 99, 1–81Horowitz, W./T. Oshima/A. Winitzer (2010): Hazor 17. Another clay

liver model, IEJ 60, 133–145Jeyes, U. (1989): Old Babylonian extispicy. Omen texts in the British

Museum. PIHANS 64. IstanbulKhait, I. (2012): The Old Babylonian omens in the Pushkin Museum of

Fine Arts, Moscow, Babel & Bibel 6, 31–59Kleinerman, A. (2011): Education in early 2nd millennium BC Babylo-

nia. The Sumerian epistolary miscellany. CM 42. LeidenKoch-Westenholz, U. (2000):Babylonian liver omens. The chapters

Manzazu, Padanu and Pan takalti of the Babylonian extispicyseries mainly from Aååurbanipal’s library. CNI 25. Copenhagen

Leiderer, R. (1990): Anatomie der Schafsleber im babylonischenLeberorakel. Eine makroskopisch-analytische Studie. Munich

Meyer, J.-W. (1987): Untersuchungen zu den Tonlebermodellen ausdem Alten Orient. AOAT 39. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn

Michalowski, P. (1983): Review of Briefe aus dem Iraq Museum. Alt-babylonische Briefe 8, by L. Cagni, JCS 35, 221–228

– (2011): Correspondence of the kings of Ur. Epistolary history of anancient Mesopotamian kingdom. Winona Lake, IN

Nougayrol, J. (1941): Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienneconservés au Musée du Louvre, RA 38, 67–83

– (1946): Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés auMusée du Louvre (II), RA 40, 56–97

– (1967): Rapports paléo-babyloniens d’haruspices, JCS 21,219–235

– (1971): Nouveaux textes sur le ziääu (II), RA 65, 67–84– (1976): Les ‘silhouettes de référence’ de l’haruspicine, in: B. Eichler

(ed.), Kramer Anniversary Volume. AOAT 25. Kevelaer, Neu-kirchen-Vluyn, 343–350

Peterson, J. (2011): The personal names list in the scribalcurriculum of Old Babylonian Nippur. An overview, ZA 101,246–273

Richardson, S. (2006): gir3-gen-na and Shulgi’s ‘library’. Liver omentexts in the third millennium BC (I), CDLJ 3, 1–9

Richter, T. (1993): Überlegungen zur Rekonstruktion der altbabylo-nischen barûtum-Serie, Or. 62, 121–141

– (1994): Zu einigen speziellen Keulenmarkierungen, AoF 21,212–246

– (1999): Untersuchungen zum Opferschauwesen. III. Drei überse-hene Opferschauprotokolle aus altbabylonischer Zeit, in B.Böck et al. (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift fürJohannes Renger. AOAT 267. Münster, 399–414

Rouault, O./C. Saporetti (1985): Old Babylonian texts from Tell Yelkhi(Hamr\n Project, Iraq), Mesopotamia 20, 27–52

Robson, E. (2001): The tablet house. A scribal school in Old Babylo-nian Nippur, RA 95, 39–67

Saporetti, C. (1979–1981): Cuneiform texts discovered at Tell Yelkhi,Sumer 40, 245–59.

Spada, G. (2011): A handbook from the Eduba’a. An early Old Babylo-nian collection of model contracts, ZA 102, 204–45

Starr, I. (1975): Notes on some technical terms in extispicy, JCS 27,241–47

– (1983): The rituals of the diviner. BM 12. Malibu– (1990): Queries to the sungod. Divination and politics in Sargonid

Assyria. SAA 4. HelsinkiVeldhuis, N. (1997): Elementary education at Nippur. The lists of

trees and wooden objects. Ph.D. Thesis, Groningen State Uni-versity

– (2000): Sumerian proverbs in their curricular context, JAOS 120,383–399

– (2006): Divination: theory and use, in: A. Guinan et al. (eds.), If aman builds a joyful house. Assyriological studies in honor ofErle Verdun Leichty. CM 31. Leiden/Boston, 487–497

Winitzer, A. (2003): UD-gunû as manzazu/naplaftu in TIM 9 79, NABU2003/104

– (2006): The generative paradigm in Old Babylonian divination.Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University

– (2011): Writing and Mesopotamian divination. The case of alter-native interpretation, JCS 63, 77–94

"A New OB Collection of Padânum and Related Omens in Los Angeles," ZA 103 (2013): 162-82.

Documents

Transcript of "A New OB Collection of Padânum and Related Omens in Los Angeles," ZA 103 (2013): 162-82.