Ume Tabuti "I giorni favorevoli.".

• Author: Biggs, Robert
• Position: Book review

UME TABUTI "I giorni favorevoli." By MARIA CRISTINA CASABURI. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies, vol. 8. Padua: SARGON EDITRICE, 2003. Pp. vi + 152, plates. (Paper).

The texts studied in this volume deal with months and days, favorable or unfavorable, both in general and for specific activities. We have for several generations depended on Rene Labat's edition, Hemerologies et menologies d'Assur (Paris, 1939), long out of print and in some ways out of date. A new edition is therefore welcome.

The author sees these texts as sort of a professional agenda for the baru (diviner) and the asipu (exorcist). The texts differ from iqqur ipus, which is similar to divination texts in having a protasis and an apodosis, whereas these have designations as favorable or unfavorable. There is evidence that exorcists had a strong tendency to follow the advice of the hemerologies, especially concerning days considered dangerous. The degree of danger of an umu lemnu, "evil day," is determined by the numerical value of the date: 1, 7, 9, 14, 19, 21, 27 (probably a mistake for 28), 29, 30. Only days 1, 7, 14, and 21 correspond in theory to the four phases of the moon. Days 28, 29, and 30 are days when the moon is invisible. Day 19 is traditionally the day of Gula's anger. Reciting a penitential psalm (sigu) is always connected with days 6, 16, 26, and 28.

Although the author has collated the Assur tablets for this edition, the tablets have generally deteriorated since they were published, so improved readings based on collation are few. It should be noted that the transliteration represents the current condition of the tablets, though the translations are restored based on what could be read in Ebeling's copies. One fragment used by Labat in 1939 is now lost. Two of the tablets have known find-spots at Assur; one may have belonged to the Assur temple, and the others probably to individuals.

I include here brief comments on a few passages:

No. 1. Here and elsewhere the author translates [.sup.d.B]E as Bel (following Labat, apparently) rather than Enlil.

No. 8. DINGIR.MAH is translated as Dingirmah rather than expected Belit-ili.

No. 19. Read the stative na-qu-ud instead of na-qu-tu.

No. 48. (See the note on p. 122.) I fail to see how PA ka-nu can correspond to sapattu, "fifteenth day," and I suspect the text is corrupt here.

No. 69. This section includes two obscure passages. SE NU ina-ah, "the barley will not...." This passage is cited CAD nahu B as...