tabular sacrifice records and the cultic calendar of neo-babylonian uruk

Tabular Sacrifice Records and the Cultic Calendar of Neo-Babylonian UrukAuthor(s): Ellen RobbinsSource: Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 48 (1996), pp. 61-87Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1359771 .

Accessed: 25/10/2013 05:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Journal of Cuneiform Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 05:18:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1359771?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


TABULAR SACRIFICE RECORDS AND

THE CULTIC CALENDAR OF

NEO-BABYLONIAN URUK

Ellen Robbins Johns Hopkins University

Levine and Hallo categorize source material on ritual as either prescriptive or descriptive: A prescriptive text functions as a guide or manual for cultic practice, while descriptive texts refer to cultic events that have taken place.' Until the publication of the tabular sacrifice records, our knowledge of the cultic calendar of Neo-Babylonian Uruk was limited primarily to liturgical fragments and to prescriptive texts such as those found in Ritu- els Accadiens (RAcc.). The Uruk archives provide us with a wealth of descriptive ritual texts in the form of administrative records of allocations for cultic events; in particular, the collection of tabu-

lar sacrifice records allows us an overview of the Uruk cultic calendar as it actually functioned within a specific period.

In 1915, in an article entitled "The Babylo- nian Sabbath;' Albert Clay published six Neo- Babylonian tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection that record in ledger form daily enu- merations of sheep and goats disbursed by the Uruk temple administration for the regular offer-

ings.2 Since then, sixteen additional tabular records have appeared and in 1936 Fossey contributed a short article on the subject, again focusing on the rapport with sabbath institutions.3 Of the twenty- seven such tablets in the Yale Babylonian Col- lection, nine have appeared previously.4 John Carnahan recently discovered yet another in the collection of the Egyptian Museum and Plane- tarium in San Jose, California, pushing back the earliest date for this type of record well into the reign of Nabonidus.

As the number of published tabular records grew, it became apparent that patterns of fluctua- tion in the numbers of sacrificial animals could provide mute testimony to the calendar, scale, and relative value of cultic rites. The question of the relationship between this calendar and the He- brew sabbath is a subsidiary issue that knowledge

Preliminary versions of this paper were presented at the Yale Assyriological Seminar and the Columbia Seminar on the Study of the Hebrew Bible in January 1991. I would like to ex- press my appreciation for the warm hospitality and generous assistance provided by William Hallo, Ulla Kasten, and Paul- Alain Beaulieu of the Yale Babylonian Collection, and by Beatrice Andr&-Salvini at the Departement des Antiquites Orientales, Mus&e du Louvre. Special thanks to John W. Car- nahan who identified RC 709 in the Egyptian Museum and Planetarium as belonging to the group of tabular texts, to the Egyptian Museum and Planetarium for permission to publish the tablet from its collection, and to Ronald Wallenfels for the photographs of tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection. I have also profited from the suggestions of William Hallo, Paul- Alain Beaulieu and David Weisberg, who read drafts of this article.

1. B. A. Levine and W. W. Hallo, "Offerings to the temple gates at Ur," HUCA 38 (1967) 17-58; also Levine, "Ugaritic descriptive rituals," JCS 17 (1963) 105-11; and "The descriptive ritual texts of the Pentateuch," JAOS 85 (1965) 307-18; A. F. Rainey, "The order of sacrifices in Old Testament ritual texts," Bib 51 (1970) 485-98.

2. A. T. Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Baby- lonian Collection, YOS 1 (New Haven: Yale University, 1915),

75-81. In this study, regnal dates will be indicated as RN year/ month (in Roman numerals)/day; calendar dates as month (in Roman numerals)/day.

3. Ch. Fossey, "Etats mensuels d'animaux repartis pour sacrifices epoque neobabylonienne," RES (1936) I-VIII.

4. YOS 1 46-51; BIN 1 167; YOS 6 226; YOS 7 64.

61 JCS 48 (1996)



62 ELLEN ROBBINS

of lunar phase rituals within the Neo-Babylonian cultic calendar as a whole should help to put in

perspective.5

Date

The tabular records are dated over a period of twenty-eight years, extending from the end of the fifth year of Nabonidus into the sixth year of Cambyses (Table 1). Of the forty-one known tablets, thirty-eight are fully dated by month and

year. Two are dated within the reign of Nabonidus, and a third (text 1) can be dated roughly to the

period of native rule since the superscript lacks the title "King of the lands" employed by Achae- menid rulers.6 The bulk of tablets falls within the seven years that begin with the accession of

Cambyses; including intercalary months,7 those at hand cover well over a third of this period.

Function and Form of the Tabular Sacrifice Records

The tabular sacrifice records are monthly led-

gers from an administrative unit within the tem-

ple bureaucracy that provided sheep and goats for the regular offerings. With their consistent for-

matting, they suggest a highly organized temple administration whose procedures continued un- changed through the final years of native rule and well into the Achaemenid period.8 The texts rep-

resent a middle stage in record-keeping, monthly compilations of daily allocations that then served as source-material for audit accounts taking in

longer periods.9 These records concern allocations of sacrificial

animals for the SA.DUG4 (sattukku), the regular daily offerings.10 Although the terms SA.DUG4/ sattukku alternated with ginui as early as the

reign of Amel-Marduk,"1 the preferred orthograph remained SA.DUG4. From references to the same individual as "ISIPA SA.DUG4 and IeSIPA gin, Kiummel argues that NB SA.DUG4 should be nor- malized as ginii;'2 however, SA.DUG4 was also written syllabically as sattuk(ku) in closely related texts.13

The tabular records are small, averaging about 5.5 x 8.5 cm. They begin with a superscript of two to five lines (see Table 2) followed by a hori- zontal dividing line; beneath the superscript, the left side of the tablet is divided into columns by

5. This subject was treated in W. W. Hallo, "New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach," HUCA 48 (1977) 1-18.

6. The title "King of the lands" first appears in documents during the reign of Esarhaddon, but was not used as a royal title until the early Achaemenid period; it does not occur in

pre-Achaemenid tabular texts, but appears consistently there- after. See W. H. Shea, "An unrecognized vassal king of Baby- lon in the early Achaemenid period," AUSS 9 (1971) 51-67; 99-128; D. B. Weisberg, "A sale of property from the time of Esarhaddon, 'King of Lands'," in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, eds. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda: CDL, 1993), 297-99.

7. Three intercalary months are documented for this period: R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 (Providence: Brown University, 1956), 7.

8. Cf. P.-A. Beaulieu, "Neo-Babylonian Larsa: a preliminary study," Or 60 (1991) 78; J. A. Brinkman, "Neo-Babylonian texts

in the Archaeological Museum at Florence," JNES 25 (1966) 208-9.

9. YOS 7 74 (Cyrus 6/XI-8/II); YOS 7 8 (Nabonidus 151/ II-Cyrus 1/II), discussed in San Nicol6, "Materialien zur Vieh- wirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln III," Or NS 20 (1951) 141-45 (hereafter San Nicol6 III). NBC 4928 and YBC 3992 are examples of four-column sacrifice records from the

reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 10. For the term SA.DUG4/sattukku and its use through

the OB period, see R. M. Sigrist, Les sattukku dans l'Esumega durant la periode d'Isin et Larsa. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 11 (Malibu: Undena, 1984), 183-89.

11. Of two receipts for a quantity of salt dated to the reign of Amel-Marduk, one reads 11 bilat tabti SA.DUG4 sa ITI MN1 (GCCI 2 81: 1-2), the other 11 bilat tabti gina a ITI MN2 (GCCI 2 287: 1-2). Similarly the two alternate in BBS No. 36 i 26-28, ii 2: SA.DUG4 nuatu ipparisma batil... arra

be~lu imburma gina dUTU batil iqbima (during the severe famine, in the time of RN1) these SA.DUG4 were discontin- ued and ceased ... (In the reign of RN2, PN, the temple ad- ministrator, the seer) went before the king, his lord, and said "the gine^ of SamaS have ceased."

12. H. M. Kiimmel, Familie, Beruf und Amt im spatbaby- lonischen Uruk, ADOG 20 (Berlin, 1979), 84 n. 1. One might also cite G. McEwan, "Distribution of meat in Eanna," Iraq 45 (1983) 1. 69: I"SIPA gina; cf. RAcc. 64-65 passim; references in CAD G 81-82.

13. Nbn. 850: 2-3 (sat-tuk u guqqa a ITI.SIG4). Also the anomalous sd-tik in text 31: 3, 5, which Brinkman takes as a scribal error for SA.DUG4 (Brinkman, "Neo-Babylonian texts," 208 n. 62). On reading SA.DUG4 as sattukku, see San Nicol6 III 143 n. 1.



TABULAR SACRIFICE RECORDS AND THE CULTIC CALENDAR OF URUK 63

TABLE 1 Tabular Sacrifice Records

Text Date Museum No. Previous Publication

1 ?/I UCLM 9-2548 UCP 9/1 Pt. 2 49 2 ?/[X] YBC 3507 3 Nabonidus 5/XII RC 709 4 Nabonidus 13/IX YBC 7490 YOS 6 226 5 Cyrus 5/IX YBC 3974 YOS 1 46 6 Cyrus 7NI YBC 3970 YOS 7 64 7 Cyrus 9/111 AO 6857 TCL 13 145 8 Cyrus -/[VII] NBC 1195 BIN 1 167 9 Cambyses AccNII YBC 3963 YOS 1 47

10 Cambyses Acc/X YBC 3979 11 Cambyses Acc/XI VAT 8436 AnOr 8 65 12 Cambyses 1/II YBC 3968 13 Cambyses 1/IV YBC 3964 14 Cambyses 1N AO 6859 TCL 13 148 15 Cambyses 1NIII YBC 3976 16 Cambyses 1/X YBC 3961 YOS 1 48 17 Cambyses 2/II YBC 3977 18 Cambyses 2/IV SAKF 7 162 19 Cambyses 2N YBC 3959 20 Cambyses 2NIII YBC 3960 21 Cambyses 3/IV NCBT 1028 22 Cambyses 3N YBC 3962 23 Cambyses 3NI VAT 8480 AnOr 8 69 24 Cambyses 3NII YBC 3966 25 Cambyses 3/X YBC 3971 YOS 1 49 26 Cambyses 3/XII VAT 9198 AnOr 8 72 27 Cambyses 4N IB 168 Or 5 (1922) 45 28 Cambyses 4/XII VAT 8415 AnOr 8 75 29 Cambyses 5/I YBC 3958 30 Cambyses 5/II YBC 3965 31 Cambyses 5N(a) YBC 3972 YOS 1 50 32 Cambyses 5N(b) YBC 3975 33 Cambyses 5NII(a) YBC 3969 34 Cambyses 5N/VII(b) YBC 3980 35 Cambyses 5NIII YBC 3973 36 Cambyses 5/X AO 6860 TCL 13 169 37 Cambyses 6/I YBC 3967 YOS 1 51 38 Cambyses 6/II AO 6858 TCL 13 175 39 Cambyses 6/III AO 6861 TCL 13 176 40 Cambyses 6N YBC 3978 41 Cambyses 6?/IX VAT 8501 AnOr 8 78



64 ELLEN ROBBINS

TABLE 2

Superscript Formats

No. Date Format

1 ?/I la 2 ?/[X] 3 Nabonidus 5/XII la 4 Nabonidus 13/IX la 5 Cyrus 5/IX lb 6 Cyrus 7NI lb 7 Cyrus 9/111 3 8 Cyrus -NII! 2 9 Cambyses AccNII lb

10 Cambyses Acc/X lb 11 Cambyses Acc/XI lb 12 Cambyses 1/II 3 13 Cambyses 1/IV lb 14 Cambyses 1N lb 15 Cambyses 1NIII lb 16 Cambyses 1/X lb 17 Cambyses 2/II lb 18 Cambyses 2/IV lb 19 Cambyses 2N lb 20 Cambyses 2NIII 3 21 Cambyses 3/IV 3 22 Cambyses 3N 3 23 Cambyses 3NI 3 24 Cambyses 3NII 3 25 Cambyses 3/X 3 26 Cambyses 3/XII 2 27 Cambyses 4N 2 28 Cambyses 4/XII 4a 29 Cambyses 5/I 4b 30 Cambyses 5/II 4a 31 Cambyses 5Na 4b 32 Cambyses 5Nb 3 33 Cambyses 5NIIa 3 34 Cambyses 5NIIb 4b 35 Cambyses 5NIII 4b 36 Cambyses 5/X 4b 37 Cambyses 6/I 4a 38 Cambyses 6/II 4a 39 Cambyses 6/III 4a 40 Cambyses 6N 4a 41 Cambyses 6?/IX 4a

TABLE 2

Superscript Formats (with minor variations)

la. UDU.NITA[.MES] a ultu [bit] urui u lapani/pani LUSIPA SA.DUG4

ana SA.DUG4 u guqqi ga ITI MN MU x-KAM I RN LUGAL TIN.TIRki parsO

lb. UDU.NITA [.ME] sa ultu [bit] urui u lapani/pani LUSIPA SA.DUG4 ana

SA.DUG4 u guqqi ga ITI MN MU x-KAM I RN LUGAL TIN.TIRki LUGAL KUR.KUR parsi

2. UDU.NITA[.ME] sa ana SA.DUG4 u guqq2 [ga] ultu [bit] uri u lapani LUSIPA

SA.DUG4 ana SA.DUG4 parsfi ITI MN [U4 1-KAM] MU x.-KAM I RN LUGAL TIN.TIRki LUGAL KUR.KUR

3. UDU.NITA [.ME] sa ana SA.DUG4 u guqq2 Va [ultu u4 i-KAM] ITI MN [ga] MU x-KAM

I RN LUGAL TIN.TIRki LUGAL KUR.KUR ultu [bit] ura u lapani LUSIPA SA.DUG4

parsf

4a. UDU.[NITA].ME SA.DUG4 u guqq2 sa ultu [bit] ura u lapani LUSIPA SA.DUG4 ana SA.DUG4 [ga] ITI MN MU x-KAM I RN LUGAL TIN.TIRki LUGAL KUR.KUR parsfi

4b. UDU. [NITA].ME SA.DUG4 u guqq2 sa ultu [bit] ura u lapani LUSIPA SA.DUG4

[ana SA.DUG4] parsfi ITI MN MU x-KAM I RN LUGAL TIN.TIRki LUGAL KUR.KUR

vertical lines.14 Next to the columns of numerical entries the days of the month are listed in ordinal form. A comment to the right of some dates notes those days in which a special goat sacrifice occurs.

14. Although the inscribed four-column format becomes the norm after Cyrus 5, there are a small number of exceptions. These may represent the work of different scribes or

may have been drafts or records preliminary to the standard four-column format. Texts 20 (Cambyses 2/VIII) and 41 (Cam-




Other comments appear sporadically, becoming less frequent in more recent texts; these notes serve to explain increases in column figures and provide narrative aid for interpreting the numerical entries.

In two cases, we have duplicate tablets for the same month. The duplicates for Cambyses 5N/VII show a discrepancy in entries for carcasses; of the duplicates for Cambyses 5N one tablet is missing an entry for the 13th day of the month.15 The

missing line indicates that the tabular records themselves were compilations of daily data; after the end of the month the scribe apparently pre- pared a summary of disbursements for the month preceding. However, in the case of the duplicates, if one tablet was a draft or corrected copy of the other, it is surprising that both were preserved.

Following the superscript, inscribed vertical lines on the left side of the tablet organize the data in two, three or four columns. In a small number of tablets the columns are captioned:16

Texts 1, 3: P-ru-a / 'ISIPA SA.DUG4 / pag-ra uri-stable / SA.DUG4-shepherd /

carcass Text 4: u-ru-a /l SIPA SA.DUG4

uri-stable / SA.DUG4-shepherd Text 8: UR / pag-ru / UDU!P1 "SIPA

SA.DUG4 / pag-rru' uri-stable / carcass / sheep(!) of the

SA.DUG4-shepherd / carcass Text 31: a-ru-a / pag-ri / SIPA SA.TUK / pag-ri

urii-stable / carcass / sattukku- shepherd / carcass

The distinction between the urui-stable and SA.DUG4-shepherd seems to imply the existence

of a number of different stables or pens from which sacrificial animals were supplied. The uri- stable,17 like the E.GU4.MES u UDU.NITA.ME (bit alpe u immerd), housed sheep and full-grown oxen18 as well as goats, some destined for sacrifices known as hitpu that feature prominently in the tabular texts.19 The difference in stables did not involve separation on the basis of species, but served a purpose as yet unknown. Another means of distinguishing sacrificial animals based on location is found in the opposition between uri and qabi or qabuttu.20 San Nicolb suggested that this opposition distinguished those animals housed within temple grounds from those held

without;21 also possible would be some opposition that reflected a difference in feed, such as that between penned and foraging animals.

The categorical distinction represented in the separate columns may signify more than provenance; it may also concern relative value. A prescriptive ritual text from Uruk classified sheep for the daily sacrifices according to what the animals consumed: whether they were barley-fed (SE.BAR KU), milk-fed (kabri sa GA) or not barley-fed (SE.BAR la KU).22 Younger animals were prized both as naturally more pleasing and costly an offering (compare our distinction between lamb and mutton or between milk-fed veal and beef ). Some sheep were specifically milk-fed and confined

byses 6?/IX) have two inscribed columns with numerical entries for sheep carcasses overlapping the second vertical line. Text 34 (Cambyses 5/VII) utilizes three columns without vertical dividing lines; it appears to be a draft of its duplicate text 33, which shows the expected four columns.

15. Just as the ancient scribe omitted a line in the process of copying the text, so Clay, without comment, supplied the missing line, complete with numerical entries, in his edition of text 31 in YOS 1 50.

16. Cf. YBC 3992 (Nebuchadnezzar 38) with the caption: [x]/ lSIPA SA.DUG4/ .ME/pag-ra.

17. In a lexical list, 6-ru-4 is equated with UDU.Uriki (A. Leo Oppenheim and Louis F. Hartman, "The domestic animals of ancient Mesopotamia according to the XIIIth tablet of the series HIAR.ra = 6ubullfi," JNES 4 (1944) 1. 19 (hereafter Oppenheim and Hartman).

18. GCCI 1 335: 1-2 GU4 a ina E 4-re-e; YOS 3 56: 8 GU4 ... ana gind a DN ga MN1 u MN2 ana bit ura lirub.

19. YOS 7 8: 19-20 distinguishes the two stables: 61 UDU.NITA.ME 17 MAS.GAL ana h itpu ina E.GU4.MES u UDU.NITA.ME 140 UDU.NITA.ME ana urf.

20. Compare YOS 7 8: 20-21 x UDU.NITA.ME ana ur^ y UDU.NITA.ME ina babbani nukkusu z parrat ana qab6 nadna; YOS 7 160: 8-9 x kalume ultu qabd... ana SA.DUG4 ga dDN. For other texts referring to qaba and qabuttu, see CAD Q 42-43. We also find references to fowl in the qabuttu; it is uncertain what sort of distinction might apply in this case. Note also the opposition immeru sa urelimmeru sa seri (UCP 9/1 Pt. 2 50: 3-5).

21. M. San Nicolb, "Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln I," Or NS 17 (1948) 281 (hereafter San Nicolb I).

22. RAcc. 64: 5-8.



66 ELLEN ROBBINS

(ka-lu-a) in holding-pens where food sources could be controlled.23 In the totals of these accounts, milk-fed sheep were distinguished from barley- fed sheep and from non-barley-fed sheep of in- ferior quality (sa EGIR.MES).24 This distinction also appears in a Neo-Babylonian letter, in which

foraging oxen and sheep destined for cultic use were to be separated from suckling calves and lambs according to a written order to which the recipient was cautioned to refer.25

The basic regular daily sacrifice included nine

sheep, typically five from the urii-stable and four from the shepherd of the SA.DUG4 sacrifices. Occasionally we find somewhat different distributions. During the period beginning no later than Cambyses 3/IV and ending before Camby- ses 4N there is an unusually wide variety of distribution patterns; the usual daily pattern of five uri-stable sheep/four SA.DUG4-shepherd sheep is replaced either by eight ura-stable sheep/one SA.DUG4-shepherd sheep or by uri-stable sheep entirely.26 However, all variations in the distribution of the basic number of sheep share the same characteristic: uruf-stable sheep always replaced those from the SA.DUG4-shepherd.

Whatever the distinction in this classification system may have meant, on otherwise unmarked days of the month some animals from each class

appeared in the regular daily sacrifices at Uruk; increases in both columns on certain days show that both classes of animals were provided on

special occasions as well. It is possible to detect

patterns of preference for increases in one or the other columns by date, although until the source

of the distinction is clarified the significance of such patterns cannot be determined.

Some mention should be made of the kinds of animals disbursed for SA.DUG4 sacrifices. In prescriptive and descriptive texts from Neo- Babylonian Uruk, UDU.NITA SA.DUG4/gi-ni-e operates as a fixed expression. UDU.NITA may indicate sheep alone or both sheep and goats; pastoralists who raise sheep and goats often use a generic term that includes both. Hallock ad- dresses the problem of nomenclature in Achae- menid texts, translating UDU.NITA as "sheep" when goats were not mentioned, but as "small cattle" when they were.27 A comment in one of the earliest tabular records (text 4, Nabonidus 13) reads ina libbi 1 hitpi "among them one of the

hitpu-type:' It is possible that the note refers to an animal not included in the numerical entries, so that the phrase ina libbi refers not to the numerical entries but rather to the administrative division; otherwise the animal for the h itpu sacrifice, which in all other tabular records is a

young goat (MAS.TUR), would be understood to be included in the column figures for UDU.NITA. If the latter is the case, then either goats could have been among the animals represented in the column figures or in this early period sheep were also associated with the hitpu.28 In one of the tabular records, oxen seem to be included in the numerical data for animals from the urii-stable, since the number of oxen mentioned in the mar-

ginal note is identical with the numerical increase in the relevant column.29

Although UDU.NITA, literally "male sheep," appears to refer specifically to males, the term

interchanges with UDU and so may not neces-

sarily be restricted to males in this period.3" For 23. Although the translation of ka-lu-4 (kalUi) as "confined"

is far from certain, the interpretation in CAD K 105 sub kalfs as referring to salinized soil and thus to the animals that

forage upon it cannot be reconciled with its association with

"milk-fed" in RAcc. 64: 8; immeru kalui ginA [kabri] a izbi. McEwan derives kalA from kalamu "lamb" (Gilbert J. P. McEwan, Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia (Wies- baden: Franz Steiner, 1981) Freiburger Altorientalische Stu- dien Bd. 4, 135 n. 320; in RAcc., Thureau-Dangin leaves the term untranslated.

24. RAcc. 64-65: 24-31. 25. YOS 3 25. 26. Texts 22 (Cambyses 3VN) and 23 (3NVI) follow an 8/1

pattern; texts 21 (3/IV), 24 (3NII), 25 (3/X) and 26 (3/XII) show daily entries of live animals only in col. 1.

27. R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets (Chicago, 1969), 16; in the context of Elamite terminology, Hallock remarks "nor is it certain that 'goats' are not, in fact, a different breed of sheep!"

28. YOS 7 8: 19 may indicate that both sheep and goats may have been part of the bitpu offering; for this text see n. 19 above.

29. Text 2: 15-16 (ina libbi x ina mubhi minfatu sa AB.GU4.II.A).

30. Oppenheim and Hartman 1. 1: UDU.NITA = im-me-ri, 1. 7: UDU.NITA = zi-ka-ru, while the colophon refers to the text as UDU = im-me-ru; see CAD I/J sub immertu).




purposes of animal husbandry, there is nothing to be gained from a multiplicity of males, so for economic reasons these would tend to be the sacrificial animals of choice, as they were for human

consumption;31 whether males developed a sec-

ondary symbolic value is not known. Brinkman has somewhat overstated the absence of females

among sacrificial offerings.32 In the tabular records, females could be numbered among the

UDU.NITA in the column figures, as occurs in text 13: 6, where a note indicates the gender of additional sheep (ina libbi 7 kalum, 1 parrat) to be slaughtered in a particular rite. Cuts of meat from female yearling lambs and kids (parratu, uniqii) are included in a contemporary NB copy of an earlier list of prebends outlining the distribution of sacrificial remains.33 In addition to

gender, the other major classification of animals is by age. We infer from the occasional specifica- tion of lambs (SILA4/UDU.SILA4) that, in general, full-grown sheep constituted the bulk of the

offerings.34 The monthly tabular records confine themselves

to the small cattle used for the SA.DUG4 ceremonies, and do not give any indication of accom-

panying offerings, which included other animal sacrifices such as the fowl mentioned in a note on the reverse of text 16. In a prescriptive text, numbers of both oxen and sheep are given for the

daily sacrifices throughout the year (GU4.MES u UDU.NITA gine a fmisam kal satti).5 Since the ura-stable also held oxen destined for the regular sacrifices,36 the mention of only sheep and goats in the tabular records may simply reflect the lim-

ited range of this accounting procedure within the SA.DUG4 administration.

Nor should we assume that the figures that

appear in these texts indicate the total number of sheep and goat offerings, for the SADUG4 sacrifices represent an unknown fraction of the

offerings at Uruk on any particular day; furthermore there may have been outlays other than those noted that do not appear in the column

figures. An audit text, whose totals and propor- tions of sheep to goats differ from those found in the tabular records, indicates that the SA.DUG4 administration also disbursed sheep destined for

royal rites (niqe ?arri).37 The difficulty of determining what the "totals"

represent is illustrated in the following com-

parison. We have at our disposal two sources for the same month (Cyrus 7N/VI). The tabular record (text 6), in which approximately 75% of the column figures are preserved, shows column totals of 161 urui-stable and 92 SA.DUG4-shepherd sheep and 8 carcasses. The audit text for the same month notes 107 sheep for the SA.DUG4 sacrifices and 8 carcasses. 38 Discrepancies in these figures may be reconciled by the supposition that the audit text

represents sheep supplied by the SA.DUG4-shepherd, but excludes urui-stable sheep.39

According to the superscript, the tabular texts are archival records of the distribution of sheep and goats for the regular offerings known as

SA.DUG4 and guqqf.

The two types of offerings are distinguished in earlier texts but their relation cannot be established with certainty. In NB usage, SA.DUG4 refers to certain daily cultic

offerings, patterned on calendrical and lunar

sequences; like the SA.DUG4 the guqqi could be associated with specific days of the month, so that one could refer to the guqqai of a specific day. It

may be that guqqui offerings contained comple- mentary and/or additional foodstuffs that were

31. J. N. Postgate, "Some Old Babylonian shepherds and their flocks," JSS 20 (1975) 7.

32. Brinkman, "Neo-Babylonian texts," 207-8. 33. McEwan, "Distribution," 1. 93. 34. On the nomenclature of sheep and goats of various

ages, see B. Landsberger, "Studien zu den Urkunden aus der Zeit der Ninurta-tukul-AM-ur," AfO 10 (1935-1936) 152-59; Oppenheim and Hartman, "Domestic animals." In his publication of text 27 in Or 5 (1922), Deimel reads UDU.NITA.ME as UDU.MU.1.ME.

35. RAcc. 64-65. 36. TCL 13 182: 14 10 GU4 K!U.ME

ana SA.DUG4 sa DN; YOS 3 56: 8 GU4... ana gind ja DN sa MNI u MN2 ana bit uri ltrub.

37. YOS 7 8: 8-9. 38. YOS 7 74: 11. This text reports 25 sheep sent to the

Ebabbar, whereas text 6, which is heavily damaged, records at least two shipments to the Ebabbar of one sheep each.

39. This may be confirmed by comparing the total number of carcasses in YOS 7 74 with the column entries for carcasses from the SA.DUG4-shepherd in text 6.



68 ELLEN ROBBINS

offered daily, or that guqqui is the general term for regular non-daily temple sacrifices.40 The terminology for these rituals continued to evolve. A prebend sale from the reign of Darius continues to link ginai and guqqai, whereas in Seleucid prebend sales we find instead guqqui and eses'u referring to offerings that repeat on certain dates every month (sa arhussu kal satti, "monthly throughout the year").41

The tabular records also include a category for animals that died of natural or accidental causes.42 Such losses were indicated either in a note following the date or in later texts by separate column entries, which, when captioned, read pagru "carcass"; debits of carcasses also appear in audit texts.43 Such entries are relatively infrequent, averaging about seven per month. The number of columns devoted to carcasses reflects an evo- lution of the format of these texts. The earliest examples have two or three columns for numerical entries (texts 1, 3, 4, 5); the third column was employed for carcasses under the charge of the SA.DUG4-shepherd, while the carcasses from the

uri-stable were noted in a comment to the right of the date as pagru sa urui. Beginning with text 6 (Cyrus 7N/VI), each column for live animals is followed by a column for pagru entries, yielding a total of four columns for numerical entries.44

Cultic Calendar

The most important contribution of the tabular records lies in the information they provide on

the cultic calendar of Neo-Babylonian Uruk. The antiquity of this cult cannot be doubted, yet since we lack for other periods the precise data provided by these records, we cannot speak with certainty on its continuity in terms of terminology, calendar or scale. The numbers of animals sacrificed in SA.DUG4 and guqqfi rituals at Uruk exhibit remarkable internal consistency; this consistency allows us to reconstruct the Uruk cultic calendar during this period.

The basic number of sheep sacrificed each day was nine (Table 3), the gods' minimum daily re- quirement so to speak, a number that remains stable throughout the period covered by the texts;45 however, on many days the figures exceed this minimum. From texts for the same month in each of several years, we are able to ascertain patterns that repeat regularly from year to year. The expanded figures are in general quite regular; we find comparable increases on specific dates within particular months as well as on certain dates of every month. These patterns of increase are also reflected in the provenance of the additional sacrificial animals: events with the same calendar date show consistent increases in the numbers of SA.DUG4-shepherd sheep and sheep taken from the uri-stable. The patterns fall into several types:

(1) A unique pattern of increased offerings for each month (Nisannu, Ayaru, etc.), that we will refer to as the annual pattern.46 This pattern corresponds most closely to what is usually consid- ered a cultic calendar (Table 4).

40. guqqai offerings occur in a list of rituals in RAcc. 65: 35-39, where they are grouped with the non-daily festivals; they follow the lubugtu ceremony in RAcc. 66: 13; VS 6 258: 2, 7, 10. Cf. E. Gehlken, Uruk: Spatbabylonische Wirtschafts- texte aus dem Eanna-Archiv I (Mainz: von Zabern, 1990), 77.

41. McEwan, Priest and Temple 113-14 and passim. 42. According to San Nicol6, the term pagru excludes the

possibility of intentional slaughter; "Materialien zur Vieh- wirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln IV," Or NS 23 (1954) 356. However, in a NB lexical list pagru corresponds to UDU I~UG6, which Oppenheim renders "sheep of the butcher"; Oppenheim and Hartman, "Domestic animals," 160.

43. YOS 7 8:26 (Nabonidus 15-Cyrus 1); 7 74 (Cyrus 6/XI- 8/lI).

44. Exceptions are: texts 20 and 41 with two columns, the entries for carcasses placed over the vertical line following the second column; text 40, with five columns.

45. Text 1 shows lower daily totals, perhaps indicating a slightly lower daily minimum at the time of its composition. We have evidence from other cult centers that the number of sheep sacrificed daily was occasionally adjusted; for example, in a cylinder text Nabonidus asserts that he has added to the number of sheep for the daily offerings at the Egisnugal in Ur (YOS 1 45: ii 18-22; on this text see P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. (New Haven: Yale University, 1989), 131-32. Cf. VAB 4 92 ii 36-37; JEOL 20 57: 141, 144).

46. The general pattern of sacrifices in Kislimu existed at least as far back as the 38th year of Nebuchadnezzar, as appears from a comparison with the data in YBC 3992.




(2) A monthly pattern in which the same dates in each month are marked by a slight increase.

(3) An additional sacrifice at intervals of approximately seven days within each month, apparently regulated by the distinct phases of the moon (Table 5).

We assume that there exists a correspondence between the number of sheep disbursed on a particular date and the relative significance of that date within the cultic calendar. The sacrifice of more than ninety sheep on each of three consecutive days in Addaru, an enormous increase over the nine sheep in a typical daily rite, could not have been experienced as other than a major cultic event. The largest sacrifices, of from twenty to over ninety sheep, occur on 1/8; IV/15; VI/16; VII/8; IX/7, 8, 17, 28; X/16; XI/3; and XII/2-6, 20. These large increases are found in all preserved data from the stated months, with the detailed figures for corresponding dates in different years identical or nearly so. This annual pattern is so distinctive that in the cases of texts 2 and 8, where the names of the months are effaced, the column figures leave no doubt that the restoration is correct.

Increased numbers of sheep sacrificed on suc- cessive days indicate festivals extending over a period longer than a day; according to calendrical patterns of large increases, major multi-day ceremonies occurred on 1/8-11; VII/7-11; IX/3-10, 17-18 (-20?), 28-29; and XII/1-7 (-8?). It would be of great interest to identify these festivals more precisely. Some liturgical texts and administrative records mention dates of various festivals, but we must use this data with caution, aware of the possibility of variations over time and the certainty of variations with respect to location. Nevertheless as further source material on Neo-Babylonian festivals comes to light, comparison with the cultic calendar presented in the tabular records should provide a new dimension for study.

Only occasionally can we identify well-known festivals in the calendar of SA.DUG4 sacrifices. For example, the spring and fall akitu festivals correspond to a pair of calendrically and numerically symmetric four-day rites that occur on

I/8-11 and VII/7-11; column figures indicate that roughly five times as many animals were provided on the 8th as on each of the other days. The 8th day appears to be the highpoint of akitu festivals in Uruk, after the statues of the gods had reentered their sanctuaries; the following days show very modest increases in sacrificial activity, while the previous days at the beginning of the respective months show no increase at all except for VII/7, which has an increase of one above the usual pattern for the seventh day of each month.47 By contrast, the ritual activities at Babylon and Der that took place at the beginning of months I and VII are explicitly compared in a Neo-Assyrian letter.48 These commenced no later than Vii/3; in Babylon the festival climaxed on VII/8 with the opening of the gate and a festival meal offered to Bel, but this took place after days of other ritual activity.49

When the tabular records are compared with the prescriptive ritual for the Neo-Babylonian akitu festival for Tagritu in Uruk, 50we find a general agreement in the dates, where both show the greatest amount of ritual activity from the 8th through the 11th day of the month; however, the prescriptive text mentions a number of rites on the 1st, 6th and 7th day that are not reflected in numerical entries in the tabular records. On the other hand, the extraordinary number of sheep sacrificed on the 8th day according to the tabular records stands in contrast to the small increase on the 9th day, which is explicitly compared with the 8th day in the prescriptive text.51

Another question that arises is the extent of continuity in seasonal celebrations through contig- uous months, in particular whether the biennial

47. On the NB akitu festival in Uruk, see RAcc 86-111; M. E. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1993), 427-53.

48. LAB 5 253 (revised dates) = LAS 190 = ABL 956. 49. Unpublished text discussed by Parpola (LAS/2, com-

mentary on text 190). The new year rites in Babylon described in RAcc. 127-48 began several hours before dawn on the 2nd day of Nisannu.

50. RAcc. 66-67, 72 (TCL 6 39, 40); Cohen, Cultic Calen- dars, 431-33.

51. RAcc. 72: 11 (parsitu kima sa U4 8-KAM); Thureau- Dangin restores the same comparison in 1. 21.



70 ELLEN ROBBINS

TABLE 3

Daily Sheep Offerings*

Mo. Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

I ?[UCP949] 6 3 6 2 [ ]# [ ] 4 4 4 6 3# Cambyses5 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 6 4 5 4 6 5 55 16 8 6 5 9 5 9 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 Cambyses6 6 4 5 5 5# 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5# 57 9 8 6 8 6 8 6 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5

II Cambyses 1 6 4 5 5 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5# 7 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5? 4 5 4 5? 4 7 5

Cambyses2 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 6 5 4 5 4 5# 4 5 4 5 4# [] 8 7 5

Cambyses5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 6 5 6 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 8 6 7 5

Cambyses6 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 6 5 5 6 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 8# [] 5#

III Cyrus 9 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 8 11# 5 4 8 11# 5 4 5 4 5# 4 5 4 5 4## 6? 5

Cambyses6 6 4? 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5

IV Cambyses 1 6 4 5 13 114## 15? 4 5 4# 5 4 [] 5 [] 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 60 17#

Cambyses 2 6 4 5 13 5 4 15 4 5 4# 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 4 5 4# [ ] Cambyses 3 10 - 18 - 9 - 19 - 9 - 9 - 11 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 12 - [] -

V Cambyses 1 10 4 5# 5 5 4# 5 4 5 4# 5# 4 6 5 5 4 5 4## 5# 4 5# 4## 6 4 5 4 5 4# 6# 5

Cambyses 2 [] 4 5 5 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 4# 5# 4 5 4 5 4# 5 5 5 4 5 4 6 5##

Cambyses 3 13 1 9 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 10 1 8 1 8# 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8? 1 [1 1 10? 1

Cambyses 4 11 3 7 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 8 3 6 3# 6 3 6 3 6 3 7 3 6 3 6 3 8 3 Cambyses5 9 5 5 5# 5 4 5 4 6 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 6 5

9 5 5 5# 5 4 5 4 6 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 6 5

Cambyses6 8 5 5 5# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 4 5 4# [] 4 [1 4 [] 4 5 4 6 5#

VI Cyrus 7 10 4 6 4# 5? 4 [] 4 [] 4 [] 4## 7# 5 8? 4 [] 4# [] 7? 5 []# 5# [] 5 [] [ i [ ] Cambyses3 12 2 9 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 10 1 9 2 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1# 8 1 8 1 11 1

VII Cyrus- 8 3 6 4 5 4 5 12 [1 4# 5 4# 8 4 63 9 6 7 6 7# 6 7 5 4 5 4 5 4# 7 4

CambysesAcc. 6 4 6 4 5 4 5 4# 6 5 5 4 7 5 61 11 6 7# 6 7 6 14# 5? 4 [] 4 5 12## 6 12

Cambyses 3 10 - 10 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 12 - 72 - 13 - 13? - 13 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 11 -

Cambyses5 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 7 5 60 12 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 7 5 60 12 5 8 5 8 5 8# 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5

VIII Cambysesl 6 4 5 5 5# 4# 5# 4 9# - #9## - 11#-# 9 - 8 -8#8### 3# 9 3# 7 2 7 2 7 2 8 2

Cambyses 2 6 5 6? 5 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5# 5 4 5 4 5 6 5 7# 5 4 5 5 6 5 6 5

Cambyses5 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 4 5 6# 6 6 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5

IX Nabonidus13 5 4 5 4 6 5? 6 5 6 5 9 4 19 16 353 8 6 6 4 6? 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5

Cyrus5 7 3 6 4 6 4 6 5 6 5 9 4 31 4 60 11 7 6 6 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 7 4

Cambyses6? 6 4 5 4# 5 5 6 5 6 5 8 5 27 8 50 20 5 8 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5

X ?YBC3507 [] 7# [] 4## []# 4 [] 3# [] 3# 6# 3 7# 4 5 4 5 4 7 4 6 3 6 3 12 3 5 4 9# 2

CambysesAcc. 9 6 5 5## 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4# 6 5 5 4# 5 4 7 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4# 6 5

Cambyses1 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 6 5# 5 4 5 4 7 4 5# 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5

Cambyses 3 16 - 10 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 11 - 9# - 9 - 11 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 11? -

Cambyses5 9 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 4# 5 6 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 5#

XI CambysesAcc. 6 [] []# 5 25 4# 5 4 5 4 5 12 6# 5# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4# 5# 4 7 5

XII Nabonidus5 104#*41 25 53 35 51 34 56 29 58 22 8 5 4 14 4 4# 4 4 [] 4 [] 4 [] 4 [] 4# [ ] Cambyses3 15 - 71 - 95# - 91 - 91 - 76 - 13# - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9# - 9 - 9 - 9# - 11 -

Cambyses4 5 1050 21 77 18 73 1876# 15 61 16 7 4 7 4 6 4 6 4 6 4# 6 4 [1] 4 [] 4 [ ]

* # indicates one carcass.




TABLE 3

Daily Sheep Offerings

Mo. Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

I ?[UCP949] 8 8 4 3# 4 3 4 3 6 3## 4 4 6 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 3 5 - -

Cambyses5 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 - -

Cambyses6 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4

II Cambyses 1 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4! 5 4# 5 4 5 4 8 5 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 - -

Cambyses2 [] 4 [] []4 [] 4 # ## ] 6 [ ]# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4

Cambyses5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 Cambyses6 [] 4 5 4 5 4# 5' 4 5 4! 5 4 5 4# 5 4 6 6 6 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 - -

III Cyrus9 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4## 5 4 5 4# 5 4 - -

Cambyses6 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4

IV Cambyses 1 5# 4 8 4 8 4 8 4## 8 4 5 4 5# 4 5 4# 5# 4 5# 4 5 4 5 4 5 4## 5 4## - - Cambyses 2 [ ] 8# 5 4 [J 4 [] 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 7 [] 5 4 5 4 5# 4 Cambyses 3 9 - 13 - 1 - 13 - 13 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 10 - 9 - 9 - 9 -

V Cambyses 1 6# 4 6 4## 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5# 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4# 5# 4# 5 4 5# 4# 5 4 Cambyses2 6 5 [] 4 6 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4##15# 4 5 4 5 4xx Cambyses3 9 1 9 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8# 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8# 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8# 1 Cambyses4 7 3 7 3 6 3 6# 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6# 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 Cambyses5 6 4 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 [] 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4

6 4 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 Cambyses6 6 4 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4

VI Cyrus7 28 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4## 6 3 6 3 9 - 9 2? 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 Cambyses 3 31 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8! 1 [1 1 [ ] 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1

VII Cyrus- 7? - 5 4## 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 6 3# 5 4 5# 4 5 4 5 4 5# 4 6 3 6 3 CambysesAcc. 5# 4## 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4## 5 4 5 4 5 4 5## 4## 5 4 5 4# 5 4# 5 4$ 5 4 -

Cambyses 3 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9# - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 -9 - 9 - Cambyses 5 [ 4? 4# 5 5 ] 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4

5 4 5# 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4# 5 4

VIII Cambyses 1 7 2## 7## 2 7## 8 7 2 7# 2# 7 2 7# 2 7# 2 7 3 8 4 8# 5## 6# 3 6# 3#5# 3 - -

Cambyses2 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 8 5 4 5 4 5 4 - -

Cambyses5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 6 6 5 8 5 4 5 4 5 4 - -

IX Nabonidusl3 5 4 14 6 7 4 5 5? 5 5 5 [4] [5 4] 5 4 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 17 13 8 [1 [ 7+] Cyrus 5 5 4# 14 6 7 4 5 4 5 4 [5] 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4# 5 4 25 4 10 6 - -

Cambyses 6? 5 4# 11 9 7 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4# 71 18 5 8 - -

X ?YBC3507 25 3# 6 3 6 3## 7 3 6 3# 6 3# 6 2## [ ] 3# [] 3## [ 2 3 3 ] Cambyses Acc. 24# 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5# 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5# 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4## 5 4 Cambyses 1 24 4 5 4# 5 4 6 4 5 4# 5 4# 5## 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4## 5# 4 5 4# 5 4# 5 4 Cambyses3 [# ] 9 - 9 -10- 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 -10- 9 -9# - 9 - -

Cambyses 5 9 19 5# 4# 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5? 4 5? 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 [ ]

XI CambysesAcc. 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4 5# 4 5 4## 5 4 5 4 5 4 7 4# 5# 4 5 4 5 4 5 4

XII Nabonidus5 [ ] 5 [] [ ] 8 23 [] 4# 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4# 4 4 4 4## 4 5 4 4 - - Cambyses3 9 - 12 - 9 - 9 - 74- 9 - 9 - 9 - 9# - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9# - 9- Cambyses4 [ 1 5 4 5 4 55 14 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4# 5 4 5 4 5 4



72 ELLEN ROBBINS

TABLE 4 Patterns of Increase

Day 1 2 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Month I x x x x X x x x x x?

II x x xx x x x x? III x x? x x? x

IV x x x? x x x? X? X x Xx x V x x x x? x x x

VI x x x x x? [ ] x? VII x x x?lx? x X x xx x? x

VIII x x x x x x x? xxx -X X

IX x x? x x x X XX xx x x Xx x?x? x? x xx [] Xxx x x Ix? x X x x?

XI x x X x x x x

XII x X X X X X x x x? x? x? x? x x X

Key: 10 ? x ? 19; 20 < X < 29; X 2 30; ? ? 50% of texts. Bold outline indicates the presence of an explanatory comment (see Table 6).

akitu festivals were a continuation of festivals from the preceding month; Parpola speaks of an

"organic connection" between the Ulalu rituals and the New Year's festival in Tasritu.52 The data of the tabular records can neither disprove nor confirm such a supposition, but help to focus it somewhat more clearly; extraordinary cultic activity took place on the 16th of Ulflu,53 while Ad- daru had major festivals near the beginning and on the 20th of the month, not close enough to the month following to speak of any real continuity.

In addition to the akitu festivals, we might rea- sonably expect to be able to identify other festivals that appear as major events in the tabular records. According to the latter, by far the largest number of animals were disbursed for a festival celebrated during the first seven or eight days of Addaru, and it is remarkable that we find so few references to a festival occurring on these dates

elsewhere in the literature. LKU 51, dated roughly within the same period as the tabular records, gives a summary of some ritual activities for the last nine months of the year and mentions activities for a festival for Belet-of-Uruk in Addaru; what remains of the text specifies rituals on the second, third and fifth days of the month. YOS 3 25 details the delivery of sacrificial animals at the beginning of Addaru. This seems rather scant corroboration for a cultic event of such

magnitude.54 In those cases where there is only one witness

to a date, it is not clear whether an increase on that date indicates a regular festival. As we have only one tabular record for month XI and one text in which the data for IV/15 are preserved, it is not possible to ascertain whether increases on XI/3, 6, 15, 26, and IV/15 represent events of regular occurrence or singular disbursements. The festival on XI/6 referred to simply as njpeSu (text 11: 10) may have been regular. Of the re-

52. LAS/2 commentary on text 287; see also the commen-

tary on text 190. 53. One of the days for ablution rites (rimkani) for Sin and

Samav in the Assyrian cultic calendar; see G. Van Driel, Cult

of Aifur (Assen, 1969) 90. 54. For a general discussion of Addaru festivals, see Co-

hen, Cultic Calendars, 340-42.




TABLE 5. Patterns of hitpu Days

a. undamaged tablets

6/13/20/26 Text 22**1 6/13/20/27 Texts 241; 28; 29++

6/13 Texts 14*; 18+ 6/13/20 Text 21 ++ 6/13/21 Texts 7; 13**,++

6/13/-/27 Text 38**,++ 6/-/21/27 Text 30*

6/14/20/27 Text 231'1 6/14/21/27 Texts 8; 19**; 25 6/14/21/28 Texts 17; 26

7/13/20/27 Text 41 7/13/21/28 Text 20

7/13 Text 40 7/14/21/27 Texts 2; 152; 39* 7/14/21/28 Texts 5; 9; 11**; 31++=32;

33=34; 35**; 36; 371,'

-/-/-/28 Text 3

-/-/-/- Text 10

b. damaged tablets

6/[ 1/20/27 Text 12**,++ 6/[ ]/21/27 Text 27++

6/[ ] Text 16 7/14/[ ]/[] Text 4++ 7/[1 ]/21/27 Text 6

[]//[]/-[I] Text 1

Frequency (with respect to all tablets excluding duplicates)

Day 6 51% 7 41%

13 33% 14 46%

20 20% 21 56%

26 2.5% 27 41% 28 31%

* Previous month had 29 days. ** Previous month had 30 days. + Following month had 29 days. ++ Following month had 30 days. 1Depends on placement of intercalary month. 2Additional hitpu on the 28th (see Table 6, Keys 1, r).

maining dates, the large increases on IV/15 and XI/3 far exceed the one or two additional sacrificial animals that typify ad hoc events in the tabular records, although large figures for occasional disbursements are found in the audit accounts. Further evidence that IV/15 is in fact a major date in the annual calendar is found in a roughly contemporaneous letter that mentions a festival on this date; however this letter raises more ques-

tions than it answers. Weisberg places the letter

during the early Achaemenid period;55 Beaulieu dates it to just before the fall of Babylon, con-

cluding that it concerns a festival for IJtar whose cult statue had been moved to Babylon in the face of the Persian invasion.56 If the earlier date is

55. D. B. Weisberg, "A Neo-Babylonian temple report," JAOS 87 (1967) 8-12.

56. P.-A. Beaulieu, "An episode in the fall of Babylon to the Persians," JNES 52 (1993) 241-61; he suggests that once the cult statue of Belit Eanna had been moved to Babylon, Nabo- nidus may have adapted the Uruk ritual of IV/15 for his own purposes.



74 ELLEN ROBBINS

correct, the question remains whether the writer refers to a festival that under normal circum- stances would have taken place in Uruk. Accord- ing to the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series, the rites at the Esagila and other temples were maintained in the difficult period just prior to the con- quest, when many cult statues had been removed to Babylon;57 the extent to which this statement applies to the rites of displaced gods and their cult statues over and above the minimum daily offerings has yet to be determined.58 It is also possible that the local cult continued its activities despite the absence of the cult statue or with a temporary replacement.59

Unlike the larger increases in the tabular records that always follow the annual pattern, smaller increases occur on both a regular and an irregu- lar basis. The vast majority of tabular records indicate these events only implicitly, by means of increases in column figures that tend to be comparable for the same calendar dates. All regular increases are noted in Table 4, where a question mark indicates increases found in 50% or fewer of the texts; to summarize that table here, small increases in the number of sacrificial animals (other than those of major festivals cited above and those occurring on the same dates every month, which will be discussed below) are found regularly on: I/5?; 11/8, 14, 15, 24; IV/2-4, 14?, 17-20, 27?; V/I, 12?, 16-17; VI/1, 7?, 8, 15, 26?; VII/15?; VIII/10-11, 24-26; X/1, 10, 19; XI/6, 15, 26; XII/17.

LKU 51 and AO 646760 highlight certain liturgical dates within both the annual and monthly pattern, and while there is some overlap with dates showing increases in the tabular records, the area of intersection is far from complete. The descriptions in LKU 51 agree only in limited respects with the data of the tabular records, giving the impression that it deals with a different sub- set of rituals. This makes correlations, such as the

relatively small increase on IV/27 and a festival for Dumuzi and Belet-of-Uruk on that date in LKU 51: 28-31, at best tentative.

The vesting of divine statues involved a ceremony known as the lubuitu. The lubuitu is not mentioned explicitly in the tabular records, although figures for the required sheep may be included among the unexplained increases in column figures. It is suggestive that LKU 51 indicates lubugtu ceremonies on V/1, VI/1 and VII/8, while unexplained increases occur on these dates in the tabular records, even taking into account the expected increases on the first of every month. Further evidence for clothing ceremonies on VI/1 and VI/16 is found in receipts for fabric for

lamahusiu garments during the reign of Neb- uchadnezzar.61 Provisionally we can conclude that regular clothing ceremonies took place on V/1; VI/1; 16; and VII/8. It is uncertain whether reference to the lamahusiu-garment of Ayaru (tugNIG.LAM a ITI GU4) in a receipt dated II/2 (YOS 17 253) indicates a clothing ceremony of regular date, which then might correspond to one of the regular increases in the tabular records for that month.

In addition to the indications of cultic events marked by increases in column figures, occasionally we find more descriptive details in notes following the date (Table 6). Various comments appear in the earlier texts; after Cambyses 4, the content of notes is limited almost entirely to remarks about kinds of animals supplied for additional regular sacrifices. These laconic comments

57. BHT pl. 13 iii 17-18; TCS 5 7: 17-18. 58. YOS 19 94: 1-6; Beaulieu, Reign, 221-22. 59. LAS 190: r. 6 with commentary. 60. F. Thureau-Dangin, Tablettes d'Uruk (Paris: Geuthner,

1922), 48; S. Langdon, "Calendars of Liturgies and Prayers," AJSL 42 (1925/26) 120-23.

61. BIN 1 152: 19; YOS 17 112: 3-4 (both VI/1, 16); 249: 4 (VI/16); GCCII 388: 7 (V/1, VI/4, 16; VII/8; Uruk). Receipts for fabric and garments are discussed in D. B. Weisberg, "Wool and linen material in texts from the time of Nebuchad- nezzar," El 16 (1982) 218*"-26*. According to these texts, wool and other materials used in clothing manufacture had been disbursed to weavers only days before the ceremonies were to take place: YOS 17 301, dated VI/15, lists fabrics received by weavers for garments of various deities presumably for use in a ceremony on the following day, while YOS 17 305 mentions alum, which is used in dyeing, for the lubustu sa U4 4-KAM sa ITI DU6, and is dated that same day! For lubuftu ceremonies in Sippar, see G. Giovinazzo, "La 'cerimonia della vesti- zione' (lubuvtu) nei testi achemenidi datati al regno di Ciro," AION (1981) 527-59.




indicate either a specific ritual, the type of animal supplied, or disbursement of animals to individuals and other divisions within the temple complex62 or to other cult centers, indicated by the name of a city, a temple, or its god. Remarks that refer to places and individuals do not follow a calendric pattern.

Most regular festivals only appear as increased column figures on certain dates; when specific rituals are mentioned in marginal notes, the number of additional animals supplied is usually reflected in the column figures. Although the presence of explanatory comments is unusual, the occasional indication of specific rituals in marginal notes enables us to fill in some details of the skeletal calendar. An instance of such extrapola- tion involves the ritual slaughter that is noted as ina libbi 8 ina KA.ME nukkusft "of these, 8 are slaughtered at the gates":'63 LKU 51:9 refers to eight sheep for a gate ceremony on [111]/9, while a gate ceremony is noted on this date in text 7; however the other tabular record for this date (text 39, Cambyses 6) has no increases or note.

The gate ceremony on IV/2, including eight lambs, corresponds to a ritual in LKU 51:17, where the missing day in LKU 51 may now be restored. This ritual should be classified as an annual event of regular occurrence. Two records that date from consecutive years note a gate ritual on IV/2; a record from the same month of the following year has no comment on that date, but the gate ritual is indicated implicitly by an identical increase in column figures.64 In such cases it may be possible to extrapolate notes from one or more records to others with the same calendar date, where the

latter may indicate a cultic event only implicitly by means of increased column figures.65

A more problematical example from the same month concerns IV/14. Two of the three records for this date (texts 13, 21; text 18 is damaged at the relevant day) refer to sheep provided for the ceremony associated with the restoration of divine jewelry known as the Sukuttum and for Nergal and Belet-Eanna.66 In the tabular records, shipments of animals to cult centers outside the Eanna were sometimes designated by the names of local deities; sheep supplied for the cult of Nergal and Belet-Eanna were sent to Udannu, while those for Samas went to the Ebabbar in Larsa.67 We are presented with two basic questions: whether the two items listed are related, and whether two records are alone sufficient to indicate a fixed date in the annual calendar for rites that are known to occur on other dates as well.

Although transfers of animals for both the

gukuttum and Nergal and Belet-Eanna are listed on the same day, they are also found as separate line items. The audit text YOS 7 74 gives totals for Udannu, for the gukuttum and for the Ebabbar, implying that these were distinct disbursements. Furthermore, other occasions for the gukuttum are not apparently calendrical. One sheep for the gukuttum was provided on VII/1 (text 8, dated during the reign of Cyrus), but no other records show an increase or note on that date. YOS 7 74, covering the period Cyrus 6/XI-8/II, debits one sheep each for the gukuttum in Cyrus 7/VI and Cyrus 7/VII, and these are the only gukuttum noted for the entire audit period.68

62. Sheep were allotted to various officials (texts 3; 24, 28); SA.DUG4 sheep were also supplied to the bit akiti (text 1); the bit tillu (texts 9; 11; 27?); the bit girginakki (text 28); the bit reditti (YOS 7 8: 8); and perhaps the E GIS.GIGIR (Text 15; alternative and more plausible reading, E.BABBAR.RA).

63. Texts 7: 10, 12 (Cyrus 9/1II//7, 9); 13: 6-7 ina libbi 7 ka-lum 1 par-rat ina KA.ME nu-uk-ku-su (Cambyses 1/IV/2); 18: 6 (Cambyses 2/IV/2). Contrary to Brinkman's note on the latter text, ina babani does not mean "indoors" but rather "at the gates," referring to a specific ritual ("Neo-Babylonian texts," 208).

64. Texts 13 (Cambyses 1/IV); 18 (Cambyses 2/IV); cf. text 21 (Cambyses 3/IV).

65. Small increases occur on V/12 in four of five examples from month V. Of these, text 27 shows a note for this date, which was restored by Deimel without explanation. I have been unable to collate the tablet, now in the Vatican Museum.

66. Text 13 (Cambyses 1/IV/14); ina libbi 2 ana dIGI.DU u dGASAN I.AN.NA / 1 ina mubbi gukuttum; text 21 (Camby- ses 3/IV/14): ina libbi 1 ina muhhi ukuttum/ 2 ana dIGIDU u dGASAN i.AN.NA. It should be noted that the column figures in text 21 show an increase of three sheep for that date, whereas text 13 shows no increase in column figures.

67. YOS 7 8: 15-16; San Nicolb III 137; Beaulieu, "Neo- Babylonian Larsa," 58-60; "UBARA (EZENxKASKAL)ki Udannu," ASJ 13 (1991) 99-100.

68. Included in the audit period is Cyrus 7NI which is also represented by text 6, unfortunately not well-preserved. The



76 ELLEN ROBBINS

TABLE 6 Marginal Explanatory Comments

Month Year Text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15116 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

I - 1 c [ ] j c [ ] - Cambyses 5 29 * * * *

Cambyses 6 37 * * * *

II Cambyses 1 12 * [ * *

Cambyses 2 17 * * [ ] * *

Cambyses 5 30 * * *

Cambyses 6 38 * *

III Cyrus 9 7 * d d *

Cambyses 6 39 * *

IV Cambyses 1 13 d b * * k,g *

Cambyses 2 18 d * * [ ] Cambyses 3 21 * * g,k a a a *

V Cambyses 1 14 * *

Cambyses 2 19 * * * *

Cambyses 3 22 * * *

Cambyses 4 27 * [h?] [ ] * *

Cambyses 5 31 * * * * 32 * * * *

Cambyses 6 40 * *

VI Cyrus7 6 * [1] [ ] * 1 *

Cambyses 3 23 *

VII Cyrus- 8 g k * e a a a * *

Cambyses Acc. 9 h * a a a,e e,* e *

Cambyses 3 24 q * aa * * *

Cambyses 5 33 * aa a * * * 34 * aaa * * *

VIII Cambyses 1 15 * a a * k? * a a * 1/r -

Cambyses 2 20 * a a * a a *

Cambyses 5 35 * a ** a *

IX Nabonidus 13 4 [u ] [* al * [ ] Cyrus 5 5 c * c c * c c * k c c c * ec Cambyses 6? 41 * * * *

X - 2 kl *,m b* * * [ ?]

Cambyses Ace. 10 Cambyses 1 16 * [ ] t Cambyses 3 25 a * * * I *

Cambyses 5 36 * * * s

XI Cambyses Ace. 11 f * * h * *

XII Nabonidus 5 3 k f * n -

Cambyses 3 26 * * [u] * *

Cambyses 4 28 * k *1 p * *




TABLE 6 Key

Contents/Ritual Texts * MASTUR hitpilu passim; 2 ina libbi 1 MAS.TUR hitpi 7 1 hitpi 16; 31 ina libbi 1 hitpi 4 (see also 1; r)

a ina libbi x UDU.SILA4/SILA4 4!; 5!; 8; 9; 15; 17; 20; 21; 24; 25; 33; 34; 35 b ina libbi 6/- ina muhhi minaitu ?a AB.GU4.HI.A 2; 13 c 1; 1/3 pagr i sa uri2 1; 5

1 pagri sa MAS.TUR 'ra URI 19 d ina libbi 8 ina KA.ME nukkusft 7; 18

ina libbi 7 kalum 1 parrat ina KA.ME nukkusi 13 e 7 UDU.NITA.ME ana njpegu a lilissi siparri 9

ina libbi 8/7 ina muhhi nrupefu a lilissi 9 ina libbi 1 rikis lilissu 8

f ina libbi 8 ana nepevu 11

g (ina libbi) 1 ina muhhi gukuttum 8; 13; 21 h ina libbi 1 ana bit rtil1lu 9; [27?]1

ina libbi 1 [ ] ina muhhi rtil'lu ga dlGI.DU 11

j [ina libbi ] 1 ina muhhi minuitu sa bit akitu 1

Other cult centers (see also h; cf. YOS 7 74: 20) k (ina libbi) 2 ana dlGI.DU u dGASAN E.AN.NA 3; 13; 21; 28

ina libbi 4 ana dlGI.DU ia Udannu 5 ina libbi 8/6 ana Udannu 8; [151 ina libbi 3 ana "ruUdannu sapru 2 ina libbi 10 ana KUD-as! (parasu) sa ITI BAR ana Udannu2 3

1 ina libbi 1 ana dUTU (Larsa) 6 ina libbi 1 ana E.BABBAR.RA (Larsa) 6; 25 1 MAS.TUR hitpi ana E.BABBAR.RA3 15

Miscellaneous

m ina libbi 1 ana bit alpi (E.GU4) ta Sarri 2 n 8 ana IuTIN.TIRki.ME [u lUBAR.S]Ipki.ME 1 ana 3

DUMU LU.GAL.rME?' p [ina] libbi 1 ana bit girginakku (I.IM.GUI.LA) 2 ana l'ummani 28

q 2 MAS.GAL 16musahhire sa l'qipi 24 r 1 MAS.TUR hitpi ana E.GIS.GIGIR3 15 s ana amaru 36

t 2 MAS.TUR ultu bit ura ana x UZ.[TURMUSEN?] nadin...4 16 (written vertically on reverse) u ina libbi 1[ ] 4

ina libbi ana [ ] 26

IDeimel (Or 5, 45) restores this note in its entirety in his transliteration of IB 168, on what basis is unspecified; I have not been able to collate the tablet, which is now in the Vatican Museum.

2Text 3 reads ana UBARAki, identified as Udannau by Beaulieu, "UBARA (EZENxKASKAL)ki = Udannu," ASJ 18 (1991) 97-109. 3Possible readings. 4See YOS 17 90: 4 UDU.NITA SA.DUG4 2 UZ.TUR.MUSEN.ME sent to Udannu from Uruk.



78 ELLEN ROBBINS

Certain regular festivals included sacrificial animals whose kind or age were specified in the notes. Most frequently this involved the allocation of lambs (UDU.SILA4; SILA4), where the sacrifice of

younger animals may be an indication of higher quality parallel to the quantitative index of relative value. All four records for VII/9-11 include the comment ina libbi 1 UDU.SILA4/SILA4. This note also appears in two of the three texts for VIII/10-11, 25-26; the third text has this note only on days 10 and 25 although days 10-11 and 25-26 show corresponding increases in column

figures. Similarly, all three records for IV/17-20 show increased column figures; in two of these texts there is no comment following the date, while one reads ina libbi 1 UDU.SILA4 for days 17-19. In such cases, it is not clear whether the lack of comment indicates that lambs were not

provided, or whether the notes were optional, and

might appear only on the first day of a multi-day ceremony.

Marginal notes that refer to types of animals

usually correspond to increases in column figures. A general exception is found in the hitpu notes, discussed below, where there is no increase presumably because of the different species involved.

Although the expression ina libbi, "therefrom,' in

the notes would seem to imply that the number of animals that follows was included in the column figures, this was not always the case. Text 13

reports a normal total of nine in the column

figures for Cambyses 1/IV/14, but the marginal note states that some animals were supplied to

Nergal and Belet-Eanna, as well as for the gukuttum, while, for the same date two years later, text 21 contains a similar comment with corresponding increases in column figures.

We expected to find some correlation between dates that regularly show increases and signifi-

cant dated festivals known from other sources. As we have seen, there are certain methodological difficulties in comparing the festivals indicated numerically in the tabular records with what is already known. It is equally difficult to find any correspondence between the regular daily sacrifices as represented in the tabular records and those found in the prescriptive ritual.69 RAcc. 64- 65 specifies the contents of the daily ritual: the sacrificial animals, along with libations, barley and bread, and various kinds of fruit, that constituted the material of the divine "meals:' In the

prescriptive ritual, the four daily meals of Anu, Antu, IJtar and Nana require a daily total of fifty sheep, of which twenty-five are sheep of lesser

quality that had been fattened but not fed barley (UDU.NITA kabrfitu sa arkatisunu sa SE.BAR la ikulu), twenty-one are two-year-old pure, first-

quality sheep fattened on barley (UDU.NITA reitfitu maraitum ebbati sa 2 sanati SE.BAR ikulu),70 and four are gine-sheep that have been milk-fed (UDU.NITA kal~ gined kabri sa izbi).71 Here animals are classed in three distinct cate-

gories rather than in the two categories of the tabular records (uri-stable; SA.DUG4-shepherd). When we compare the numbers with those in the tabular records we find little congruence; one

possible point of agreement lies in the four sheep that are labeled gind in the prescriptive account, and in the descriptive texts are classified as com-

ing from the SA.DUG4-shepherd. In addition to the pattern of the annual calen-

dar that is seen in the increases specific to particular months, we also find monthly calendrical

patterns: one on certain fixed dates of every month, another on varying days corresponding to lunar phases. A small increase occurs on the 1st, 2nd, 7th and 15th day of each month, suggesting that these days were marked by a slightly elabo- rated variation in the ritual.72 It should be noted that the increase for the 1st and the 2nd days of sum of daily figures in text 6 is much higher than the total

shown for this month in the audit text. YOS 7 74: 11 specifies that in Cyrus 7/VI one sheep was supplied for the vukuttum, while twenty-five sheep were sent to Ebabbar (the numbers can be restored using the totals); the latter figure is unprece- dented in the tabular texts for a miscellaneous disbursement. This figure cannot be checked against text 6, which notes one sheep for the Ebabbar, but is otherwise damaged where additional notes might have been found.

69. RAcc. 64-65, 80-86. 70. Cf. HAR-ra = hubullu xii 2: UDUSE = im-me-ri ma-ru-ti 71. AO 6451: 25; RAcc. 64. 72. The only exceptions occur on the first and second days

of the ninth month where in some cases no increase over the minimum is found.




the month appears in different columns depend- ing on the date, with a typical distribution of 6

ura-stable sheep/4 SA.DUG4-shepherd sheep on the 1st day and 5/5 on the 2nd; again we cannot tell in what way the difference in provenance reflects variation in value. The prescriptive text mentions a special regular offering of ten boiled sheep to Anu, Antu, and the seven planets on the 16th day of every month which is not represented in the tabular records;73 on the other hand, the text explicitly compares this offering to that of the 16th day of Tebitu which is a day of substantial increases in our texts and was elsewhere a festival for Ishtar.74 LKU 51 mentions the 1st, 2nd, 7th and 15th days of the months as days on which the lamentation-priests and musi- cians were on duty (ilki sa kale^ u nadr); however, also included in the list are the 6th and 14th, which do not appear as special days in the monthly pattern. Another text gives the liturgical prayers specific to the 1st, 2nd, 7th and 15th days of each month, as well as for the 14th and 20th.75

The history and significance of these fixed days of the month we can only surmise. They appear to relate schematically to the completion of the first lunar phases (new crescent, first quarter and full moon),76 although inclusion of the 2nd day of the month is not readily explained in terms of lunar phenomena. Observance of these dates may reflect an older ritual related to the waxing moon, which is accorded special status in the conceptual outlook of many ancient and medieval societies.

Whatever the connection between these dates and lunar phenomena, we find another type of sacrifice in the tabular records that plainly follows actual lunar phases. According to these texts, a special goat sacrifice took place on the 6th or 7th (first quarter), the 13th or 14th (full moon), the 21st or 22nd (third quarter), and the 27th or

28th (final visibility) of each month.77 Variations appear to reflect lunar observations within a particular month.

It is worth noting that first visibility is not included; that is, the new moon, which according to the small increase in column 1 for the 1st day of each month seems to have been celebrated mod- estly, did not have a concomitant goat sacrifice. Unless animals for new moon celebrations were provided from a stable outside the SA.DUG4 administration, the evidence of the tabular records indicates that the new moon was accorded minimal recognition in the Uruk cultic calendar, much less recognition, one might add, than in the late Israelite festival calendar.78

On lunar phases other than the new moon, goat sacrifices are usually noted in the tabular records as 1 MAS.TUR hitpi "one kid [of/for] the hitpu."79 Had these offerings been sheep rather than goats, this ritual would have appeared in the texts only as a small increase in column totals for these days, not easily distinguishable as a group. Only the fortuitous difference in species alerts us to the existence of a Neo-Babylonian lunar phase ritual.80

It has been assumed that hitpu is the name of a particular sacrifice, taking place on specified dates. The designation of certain animals as ana hitpu [sic],81 parallel to such expressions as ana SA.DUG4, lends credence to the supposition, although it should be noted that no prepositional phrase of this type appears in the tabular records. Language used for ritual practice, for objects and procedures, often derived from the language of ordinary life. The origin of the term hitpu lies in

73. RAcc. 65 rev. 32-34. 74. SAA 3 7 (NA); Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 335-386; cf. the

undated Uruk festival of Istar in RAcc. 111-17. 75. AO 6467, Thureau-Dangin, Tablettes d'Uruk, 48. 76. These dates overlap to some extent with the dates of the

efsesu festivals of the Ur III period, which are also assumed to reflect lunar phases; see Sigrist, Les sattukku. However after this period the dates of the esiesu seem to shift considerably, and the term essefu takes on an almost generic aspect.

77. In text 22, the last goat sacrifice occurred on the 26th of the month. We raise here the practical difficulty of determining the day of last visibility, the day before the moon actually no longer appeared in the night sky; perhaps this was solved by some aspect of the moon's appearance on the day of last visibility (size, shape, length of visibility).

78. Num 28:11-15. 79. On NB MAS.TUR (lit. "small goat," probably a yearling)

read as gada, see Landsberger, "Studien," 159); followed by San Nicol6 III 139; Gehlken, Uruk, 20.

80. The use of goats for sacrificial purposes occurs elsewhere in purification rites (BBR 26 ii 1: MAS.ZU tanakkisma sarra tukappar; also iii 20).

81. YOS 7 8: 19 (see n. 19 above); cf. OECT 9 40: 2; 9 45: 8 sa hitpani.



80 ELLEN ROBBINS

an aspect of sacrifice that is in essence a descrip- tion, what Levine has called an "orientation, which refers to some procedure or material employed in the rite, from a temporal designation, or from its motive or purpose.82 In the case of hitpu, the sparse evidence of verbal and adjectival occurrences of IBtp indicates a method of slaughter.83

We do not have enough data to determine whether this then became a technical term for a

specific sacrifice or simply continued to designate a mode of slaughter, characterizing or playing a

part in certain sacrifices that nonetheless were known by another name. The term h itpu occurs

infrequently, always with reference to ritual sacrifice, yet in contexts that are not particularly in- structive.84 By the Seleucid period, if not earlier, hitpu is associated with lubugtu or ritual clothing ceremonies for divine statues, and apparently involved sheep; prebend sales designate a share in UZU ZAG.LU UDU.NITA i hi-it-pime [gd tug/l]u- bu-gd-a-tP gab-bi id An-tu4 "the shoulder cut of

sheep for the hitpu sacrifices of all the clothing ceremonies of Antu."85 It seems that the term

hitpu in the context of the lubugtu does not refer to particular rites associated with lunar phases, but rather to some aspect of the lunar phase rituals that was shared with those of the lubugtu.86

The variety of monthly distributions of h itpu dates may be seen in Table 5. A pattern with

hitpu offerings on the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days of the lunar month is found in only 20% of the cases. In just over half of the tablets, the first hitpu note falls not on the 7th but on the 6th day of the month.87 Almost one-fourth make no mention of a hiitpu at last visibility or at third quarter or both, while three texts lack a hitpu note at full moon. Text 15 is anomalous in that it notes a

hitpu in the comments on both days 27 and 28, with the latter given a specific destination.88

%0itpu and Sabbath

At first glance, the presence of hitpu notes characterizes the tabular records; of forty-one tablets only two fail to mention hitpu offerings.89 However, the significance of the hitpu ritual in the calendar of regular offerings should not be overstated, since the note is necessitated not by the importance of the rite but for administrative reasons, to specify a change in species and/ or method of slaughter. Viewed proportionately within the calendar, the lunar phase ceremony had a minor place; yet hitpu notes have received a disproportionate share of the attention given these texts, as their roughly seven-day intervals bear some resemblance to sabbatical institutions. However, unlike the Hebrew sabbath, the basis of the lunar-phase ritual is self-evident; it repeats not according to fixed intervals but to phenomena linked to the lunar month. If the Hebrew sabbath originated in the lunar cycle, it is hard to

imagine how such an important element of the Israelite cultic calendar could lose all trace of its lunar origin, falling on any date within the lunar month, while at the same time a lunar calendar and other true lunar rituals were scrupulously maintained.

82. B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Leiden: Brill, 1974) 5-7.

83. Scheil (MDP 10 no. 2 n. 3) proposed to understand the opposition gEftum/hatapi in terms of ordinary butchering vs. cultic immolation.

84. E. W. Moore, Neo-Babylonian Documents in the Univer- sity of Michigan Collection (Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan, 1939), 52: 20 mentions a paspasu bitpu in a list of various offerings; TCL 12 112: 4 (Nabonidus 15): h itpi ITI AB U4 20-KAM.

85. OECT 9 40: 2-3; 9 45: 8 (on this text, McEwan, Priest and Temple, 82-83); OECT 9 50 (L. T. Doty, "Akkadian bit pir- isti," in Cohen, Snell and Weisberg, The Tablet and the Scroll 88); OECT 9 60: 7-8; further references in Beaulieu, "The impact of month-lengths on the Neo-Babylonian cultic calendar," ZA 83 (1993) 80 n. 34.

86. Beaulieu ("Impact," 76-87) compares the rites in terms of their connection with lunar phases rather than fixed calendar dates based on a NB letter from the qipu of the Ebabbar temple in Larsa to the satammu of the Eanna temple at Uruk indicating a relation between the dating of a clothing ceremony at Larsa and the length of the preceding month.

87. Observation of the first quarter moon on the 6th of the month would have occurred especially in those months when atmospheric conditions had delayed sighting the new crescent.

88. Careful collation of the tablet yields the possibilities a-na Ebabbar or a-na E.GIS.GIGIR.

89. Text 10, which is unique in that it has no marginal notes at all, and text 1, which is damaged at some of the relevant dates.




In general, we should differentiate between the duration of a ritual and the intervals that punctuate its performance; too often in the literature, Babylonian seven-day rituals are confounded with seven-day cycles. Although we know of Baby- lonian rituals of seven-day duration,90 we have no evidence of any interest in fixing short-term intervals in Babylonian ritual practice. The intervals between occurrences of the hitpu vary from six to eight days. All in all, no connection can be found between the uneven intervals of the Neo- Babylonian hitpu offerings and a periodic sabbatical cycle.

Non-Calendrical Disbursements

Unlike the events discussed up to this point, some of the disbursements indicated by increases in the column figures show no evidence of calendrical patterning; these disbursements typically involve minimal increases.91 In some cases we are given the occasion for such allocations in comments following the date; from an accounting point of view, the notes served to explain unusual non-calendric disbursements.

The only comment concerning a non-calendric ritual involves the copper kettledrum on various days in month VII.92 Text 9 (Cambyses AccNII) reports kettledrum ceremonies on VII/11, 14, 15. Other records for VII/14, 15 have no marginal notes or show atypical increases on these dates. We expect increases on VII/11 as this was the final day of the Tagritu akitu festival; however,

the figures for VII/11 in text 9 are unusually large, perhaps the reflection of a political event, the sudden death of Cyrus and Cambyses' accession to the throne in the previous month.

The most common non-calendrical entry concerns the transfer of sheep to sanctuaries outside Uruk proper, either to the Nergal and Belit Eanna temples in Udannu93 or to the SamaS temple Ebabbar in Larsa. These shipments appear to be occasional, although some are specified for particular rituals.94 An audit text covering the period from Nabonidus 15!/II through Cyrus 1/II shows that on two consecutive Addarus a combined total of 31 sheep were dispatched to the Ebabbar temple to make up for an interruption (ana batlu) in the regular offerings, while a combined total of 96 sheep were sent to Udannu over three years,95 some perhaps in response to disruptions in the cult that occurred when lightning struck the Nergal temple and set it ablaze; Beaulieu dates this event in the seventeenth year of Nabo- nidus, less than two weeks before the fall of Baby- lon to Cyrus.96 In YOS 7 74: 20-21, the totals take into account most, but not all, of the categories of items that appear in the tabular records, including SA.DUG4-sheep, gukuttum, and the sheep sent to Udannu and to the Ebabbar for the tillu.97

90. See E. Kingsbury, "A seven-day ritual in the Old Baby- lonian cult at Larsa," HUCA 34 (1963) 1-34; also A. S. Ka- pelrud, "The number seven in Ugaritic texts," VT 18 (1968) 494-99.

91. Exceptions occur on Cambyses AccNII/11, 14, 15, discussed below; Cambyses 1/IV/15, discussed above; Cambyses Acc/XI/3; Cambyses 6?/IX/28.

92. Texts 8: 12: rikis lilissu (Cyrus -NII/7); 9: 16-17, 20- 21, 23-24: nepesu a lilissi/lilissi siparri (Cambyses AccNII/ 11, 14, 15). Although the kettledrum was played during lunar eclipses, which might account for days 14 and 15 in text 9, there was no lunar eclipse on this particular date (late Sep- tember/early October 530 BCE.); J. Britton, "Scientific astron- omy in pre-Seleucid Babylon," Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens, ed. H. D. Galter (Graz, 1993), 65. On mid-month "eclipse" festivals when there was no eclipse, see Beaulieu, "An episode," 253-56.

93. On Udannu, see Beaulieu, "UBARA," 97-109; R. Zadok, Repertoire Geographique des Textes Cundiformes Bd. 8 (Wies- baden: Reichert, 1985), 317. To the references to Udannu listed in these publications, we should add texts 2: 2; 8: 9; 15: r221; YOS 7 74: r51, 15, 17, 21. Following Beaulieu's remarks on the reading of the place name BADki as Udannu, we should include text 3: 12 as well; P.-A. Beaulieu, "Kissik, Doru and Udannu," Or 61 (1992) 413-16.

94. Text 3: a-na KUD-as ITI BAR a-na BADki. Compare YOS 17 90: 1-4 (4 UDU.NITA SA.DUG4 2 UZ.TURMUSEN. ME a-na KUD-ras1 ?d ki-nu-nu ?d i-dan-ni) with the vertical note on text 16 (2 MAS.TUR ultu bit urui ana 2 UZ. [TUR.MUSEN] nadin; also YOS 7 74: 11, 20: ana tillu ana E.BABBAR.RA. Text 15 may refer to a hitpu goat sent to the Ebabbar (see n. 88).

95. YOS 7 8: 15-18, such large numbers sent outside Uruk proper are without precedent in the tabular texts; also see YOS 7 74: 4, 11, where the two monthly line items include 20 and 25 sheep respectively for the Ebabbar.

96. Beaulieu, "UBARA," 101-3. 97. Although either dul-lu or til-lu are possible readings in

the tabular records, the audit text YOS 7 74: 20, on the same subject, reads x UDU.ME ana SA.DUG4 y ana til-lu ana E.BABBAR.RA, where the reading dullu is excluded. This



82 ELLEN ROBBINS

If these localities were dependent on Uruk, as administrative records and correspondence between these cities and Uruk requesting cultic materials indicate,98 then the numbers of sheep dispatched there according to the tabular records and audit texts seem surprisingly small.

There are also very occasional ad hoc disbursements that are not always reflected in the column figures: these include the king's stable (text 2: 2); the bit akitu (text 1: 20);99 the bit tillu (text 9: 9); and various officials (texts 3: 34-35; 24: 7-8; 28: 22-23).

In summary, the descriptive data of the tabular records yield a schematic portrait of the main events of the cultic calendar of regular offerings for sixth century Uruk. This calendar followed an annual pattern of dated festivals and a monthly pattern that included fixed dates and actual lunar phase phenomena. These records provide us with a fundamental framework for viewing the cultic calendar as a whole, as well as for appraising the relative significance of special calendric rites.

Calendar (Table 7)

The data provided by the tabular records con- stitute a unique source for our understanding of the state of calendar reckoning in the sixth century. Equally important, the study of these texts opens a new perspective on the functional inte-

gration of intercalated months into the cultic calendar, and leads to a greater appreciation of the

problems entailed in the use of an adjusted lunar calendar for cultic purposes.

The tabular records exhibit certain traits of the official Neo-Babylonian calendar known or sur- mised from other sources. During this period, calendar reckoning did not operate mechanically. The sequence of full and hollow months is not systematized. Arbitrary month lengths had not been imposed; any particular month may contain

29 or 30 days. Thus the lunar months forming the basis of the cultic calendar at Uruk were determined either by observation or pronouncement, but certainly not by schematization. The percentage of 30-day months agrees with the expected norm (53%); there is no evidence to indicate that the timing of regular sacrifices was affected by the length of the previous month(s).100

Although we know that, in principle, full months of 30 days are slightly more frequent than hollow months of 29 days, apart from the small number of hollow months attested in the tabular records and the astronomical diaries, all months of known

length contain 30 days. This is a consequence of the nature of the evidence; texts dated the 30th of a given month obviously show that the month in question contained 30 days, while texts dated the 29th give no indication of month length. The month-length data in the tabular records published here add substantially to the group of known 29-day months, which should be incorporated into the detailed list compiled by Huber;1o0 additional months of 29 days not found in Huber include Nabonidus 5/XII (text 3); Cambyses AccNII (text 9); 1/II (text 12); 1/IV (text 13); N/VIII (text 15); 2N (text 19); 2N/VIII (text 20); 5/I (text 29); 5/VNIII (text 35). Also the following months with 30 days should be added to Huber's list: Nabonidus 13/IX (text 4); Cambyses Acc/X (text 10); Acc/XI (text 11); 2/IV (text 18); 3/IV (text 21); 3N (text 22); 3/ VII (text 24); 4N (text 27); 4/XII (text 28); 5/II (text 30); 5/V (texts 31, 32); 5/VNII (texts 33, 34); 6N (text 40).102

YOS 1 50 (text 31, Cambyses 5N, duplicate of text 32) was incorrectly dated to Cambyses 5/I. This is apparent both from collation and from the calendrical pattern of sacrificial offerings. The entries for these dates in Huber should be corrected accordingly, including the month lengths. We can also use the straightforward restoration of month

makes it necessary to rethink the existence of NB dullu "ritual," and at the same time to postulate the existence of a specific ritual "tillu."

98. Beaulieu, "UBARA," 98-105; "Kissik," 400-5; "Neo- Babylonian Larsa"; "Impact," 76-77.

99. Cf. YOS 3 25: 27-28.

100. As suggested by Beaulieu, "Impact." 101. P. J. Huber, Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur

III, Occasional Papers on the Near East 1/4 (Malibu: Undena, 1982), Appendix A-1.

102. The following texts further document 30-day months already listed by Huber: Cambyses 2/II (text 17); 3N/VI (text 23); 3/XII (text 26).




TABLE 7 Calendar Data

Month Preceding Following Text Date hitpu dates length month month Source

1 ?/I - 29 2 ?/[X] 7/14/21/27 3 Nabonidus 5/XII -/-/-128 29 4 Nabonidus 13/IX 7/14/[ ] 30! 30 BM 56496 5 Cyrus 5/IX 7/14/21/28 29 30 Str Cyr 204 6 Cyrus 7NI 7/[ 1/21/27 30 7 Cyrus 9/II 6/13/21/- 29 8 Cyrus -NII! 6/14/21/27 30 9 Cambyses AccNII 7/14/21/28 29

10 Cambyses Acc/X - 30 11 Cambyses Acc/XI 7/14/21/28 30 30 12 Cambyses 1/II 6/[14?]/20/27 29 30 30 BIN 1 113; VS 4 69; 13 Cambyses 1/IV 6/13/21/- 29 30 30 TCL 13 147 14 Cambyses 1N 6/13/-/- 30 29 15 Cambyses 1NIII 7/14/21/27/28 29 16 Cambyses 1/X 6/[13?]/-/- 30 17 Cambyses 2/II 6/14/21/28 30 18 Cambyses 2/IV 6/13/-/- 30 29 19 Cambyses 2N 6/14/21/27 29 30 20 Cambyses 2NIII 7/13/21/28 29 21 Cambyses 311V 6/13/20/- 30 30 22 Cambyses 3/VN 6/13/20/26 30 30 * 23 Cambyses 3/VI 6/14/20/27 30 * 24 Cambyses 3/VII 6/13/20/27 30 25 Cambyses 3/X 6/14/21/27 29 26 Cambyses 3/XII 6/14/21/28 30 27 Cambyses 4N/V 6/[ ]/21/27 30 30 Str Camb 244 28 Cambyses 4/XII 6/13/20/27 30 29 Cambyses 5/I 6/13/20/27 29 30 30 Cambyses 5/II 6/-/21/27 30 29 31 Cambyses 5/V(a) 7/14/21/28 30 30 Str Camb 287 32 Cambyses 5/V(b) 33 Cambyses 5NII(a) 7/14/21/28 30 34 Cambyses 5/VII(b) " 35 Cambyses 5/VIII 7/14/21/28 29 30 36 Cambyses 5/X 7/14/21/28 30 37 Cambyses 6/I 7/14/21/28 30 * 29 38 Cambyses 6/II 6/13/-/27 29 30 30 39 Cambyses 6/III 7/14/21/27 30 29 40 Cambyses 6/V 7/13/-/- 30 41 Cambyses 6?/IX 7/13/20/27 29

*Depends on location of intercalary month.



84 ELLEN ROBBINS

names in YOS 7 74 to supplement the single uncertain reference to the intercalary month Cyrus 6/XII2 in Parker and Dubberstein.

The astronomical diaries show that intercalated months were true lunar months containing 29 or 30 days. One suggestion that can be made on the basis of the tabular records is the length of intercalary Ulaflu in the third year of Cambyses.'03 The texts for that year include months 4, 5, 6104

and 7 and thus span intercalary Ulailu. Since all of these were full months of 30 days, we can infer from the low probability of a run of five consecutive full months that in the third year of Cambyses intercalary Ulalu contained 29 days.

Although none of the tabular records is actually dated to an intercalated month, the existence of a

specific pattern of ritual activities that character- ized each month of the year leads to questions about the integration of intercalary months into the cultic calendar.105 What was the cultic status of an intercalated month? Which cultic pattern would it have followed? Another question concerns the location of the intercalated month within the cultic calendar, whether the month in which the "normal" pattern of cultic rituals took place preceded or followed its namesake. Since the two months that were subject to intercalation, especially Addaru, involved extensive cultic activity, it is highly improbable that the corresponding intercalated months followed the same pattern. This

supposition is confirmed by the audit text YOS 7 74 whose monthly data from Cyrus 6/XI through Cyrus 8/II include intercalary Addaru in Cyrus' sixth year: in the two relevant months, Addarul and Addaru2, Addaru2 shows a percentage increase of 67% in the total number of SA.DUG4 sheep as compared to the previous month (80 vs. 134).

A last question concerns the geographic range of the Uruk cultic calendar. The lunar month was the basis for administrative record keeping and the structuring principle of the regular cult. The hitpu notes also indicate an unusual interest in lunar phenomena at Uruk; since the data are un- schematized, actual observation seems the most likely explanation. Where did such observations take place? Special lunar phase ceremonies are documented only for Uruk, so the observations on which such ceremonies depended should also have been local.106 However, available evidence indicates that in other respects Uruk depended upon Babylon for its calendar; in the period covered by the tabular records, orders to add intercalary months originated at royal command or from

Esagila temple officials in Babylon and were sent to officials of the Eanna temple in Uruk.?07 We do not know whether month lengths were strictly local; if they were, Uruk may have differed from Babylon with respect to month length and new moon for any particular month. Evidence for calendric authority flowing from Babylon indicates that if synchronism of month lengths existed, orders to follow certain new moons would also have traveled in the same direction, from Baby- lon to Uruk.

Finally, we must consider the spatial bound- aries of the local Uruk calendar. Based upon the material connections between Uruk and the cult centers at Udannu and Larsa, synchronism in month length within the region of the Uruk es- tablishment is probable; this seems to be confirmed by a NB letter in which a temple official in Larsa acknowledges a report from Uruk on the

length of the preceding month.108 Synchronism would imply authority and hierarchy within various temple administrations.

103. The existence of this month is well-documented; to the citations in Parker and Dubberstein may now be added NBC 4789, recently published in Beaulieu, "Kissik," 406-7.

104. Huber cites another text dated the 30th of this month. 105. The treatment of intercalary months in the cultic

calendar will be the subject of a separate study.

106. On local observations in ancient Egypt, see W. A. Ward, 'The present status of Egyptian chronology," BASOR 288 (1992) 61-62.

107. See LAS/2 Appendix Q 6.2; commentary on text 190; Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 1-2.

108. Beaulieu, "Impact," 77-78.




RC 709 -•

w •'.'

(Te xt 3) •:

r it rioc

Copy by John W Carnahan.

~9~ rIT,

TT ~~

:I-u C,

Toyb onW anhn



86 ELLEN ROBBINS

YBC 8958 (Text 29)

...........

WE.....

...............

L.IL

•::::...:• :. ? s cw r I

............. .. .. . I

...

p

-.....




YBC 3969 (Text 33)

...........

wii

'Nor.

.................

I Ai lM ......

... .. .....

..... lip

•r•-•

? "

. ? ? ... , •

