The Micro-Zodiac in Babylon and Uruk: Seleucid Zodiacal Astrology

The Circulation ofAstronomical Knowledge in

the AncientWorld

Edited by

John M. Steele

leiden | boston

For use by the Author only | © 2016 Koninklijke Brill NV

Contents

List of Figures and Tables vii

Introduction 1

1 The Brown School of the History of Science: Historiography and theAstral Sciences 5

Francesca Rochberg

2 Astral Knowledge in an International Age: Transmission of theCuneiform Tradition, ca. 1500–1000b.c. 18

Matthew T. Rutz

3 Traditions of Mesopotamian Celestial-Divinatory Schemes and the4th Tablet of Šumma Sin ina Tāmartišu 55

Zackary Wainer

4 The Circulation of Astronomical Knowledge between Babylon andUruk 83

JohnM. Steele

5 TheMicro-Zodiac in Babylon and Uruk: Seleucid ZodiacalAstrology 119

M.Willis Monroe

6 Virtual Moons over Babylonia: The Calendar Text System, ItsMicro-Zodiac of 13, and theMaking of Medical Zodiology 139

John Z. Wee

7 On the Concomitancy of the Seemingly Incommensurable, or WhyEgyptian Astral Tradition Needs to be Analyzed within Its CulturalContext 230

Joachim Friedrich Quack

8 Some Astrologers and Their Handbooks in Demotic Egyptian 245Andreas Winkler


vi contents

9 The Anaphoricus of Hypsicles of Alexandria 287Clemency Montelle

10 Interpolated Observations and Historical Observational Records inPtolemy’s Astronomy 316

Alexander Jones

11 Mesopotamian Lunar Omens in Justinian’s Constantinople 350ZoëMisiewicz

12 A Parallel Universe: The Transmission of Astronomical Terminologyin Early Chinese Almanacs 396

Ethan Harkness

13 Mercury and the Case for Plural Planetary Traditions in Early ImperialChina 416

Daniel Patrick Morgan

14 Calendrical Systems in Early Imperial China: Reform, Evaluation andTradition 451

Yuzhen Guan

15 The Twelve Signs of the Zodiac during the Tang and Song Dynasties: ASet of SignsWhich Lost Their Meanings within Chinese HoroscopicAstrology 478

Shenmi Song

16 On the DunhuangManuscript p.4071: A Case Study on the SinicizationofWestern Horoscope in Late 10th Century China 527

Weixing Niu

17 Were Planetary Models of Ancient India Strongly Influenced by GreekAstronomy? 559

Dennis Duke

Index of Modern Authors 577Index of Subjects 579Index of Sources 582


© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004315631_007

chapter 5

TheMicro-Zodiac in Babylon and Uruk:Seleucid Zodiacal Astrology

M.Willis Monroe

Introduction

The Hellenistic period in Mesopotamia provides a rich context in which tostudy the transmission of knowledge both from earlier Mesopotamian sourcesas well as on to other cultural horizons. This period benefits from the incred-ible richness of the source materials and the interconnected social, historical,and geographical contexts in which they are found and can be analyzed. MarkGeller has characterized the interconnectedness of the scholarly texts of thisperiod as representing a “globalisation of knowledge in the ancient Mediter-ranean world …”1 It is important to note that this “globalisation of knowledge”is the beneficiary of a period of intense scribal production which functionedto distill millennia of Mesopotamian knowledge into innovative new texts andformats which found commonality with other scholarly work in other cultures.In reference to the process of transmission Ulla Koch has noted that duringthis period omen material, in particular, went through a period of remarkableinnovation where new texts were developed using old content and conceptstogether with newmaterial.2 An excellent example of this process is the groupof tablets which preserve the micro-zodiac series from Babylon and Uruk.These texts combine the micro-zodiac, a new astrological concept, with longstanding Mesopotamian knowledge. This paper aims to describe this processthrough a re-analysis of the micro-zodiac texts in light of new sources whichpreserve more of this astrological series.

Before continuing it is worth outlining the specific form of themicro-zodiactexts. The overriding astrological structure of these texts is a scheme whichextends the zodiac by sub-diving each zodiacal sign into twelve equal partseachnamed after the original twelve signs of the zodiac, essentiallymultiplyingthe zodiac by itself. EachMajor sign (and I use here the termsMajor andminor

1 Geller (2010: 3).2 Koch-Westenholz (1995: 162).


120 monroe

for the two classes of signs) then has twelveminor signs starting with the samesign for theMajor-minor pair. This scheme creates a total of 144 unique pairingsallowing, in the Mesopotamian mind-set, a plethora of further analogous linksand associations, as well as creating a schematic structure on which to hangreferences to existing texts of Mesopotamian knowledge.

The Mesopotamian scribes of the Hellenistic period were heirs to a liter-ary tradition stretching back thousands of years encompassing collections ofknowledge concernedwith all aspects of daily life and celestial affairs. This col-lected knowledge allowed these scholars to compose and tie together diversegroups of knowledge in new formats and compose creative texts that wereunique to this period. The main urban centers of Babylon and Uruk were cen-ters of textual production and reception with scribes in both cities working onsimilar texts. The similarities and differences between textual traditions foundin both sites illustrate interesting trends in scribal culture during the Hellenis-tic period. The micro-zodiac texts from Babylon and Uruk exhibit remarkablestability in content, but at times radical differences in format.3 These textstherefor serve as an example of how knowledge could be created, transmitted,and experimented with through the work of close-knit scholarly communities.

The known micro-zodiac tablets come from Uruk and Babylon. The geo-graphic separation between the preserved tablets makes subtle changes in tra-ditions between scribal families working in different cities more apparent. Thevarying traditions, especially in the case of this astrologicalmaterial, sheds lighton the ways in which knowledge could be shifted and restructured into neworganizational formats.

Mesopotamian astrology diverges in the late period into two primary newdisciplines, that of horoscopy on one hand and descriptive texts like themicro-zodiac on the other.4 The former follows on the traditional systemof divinatorylogic;5 although very few of the horoscopes actually include a fortune for theclient they clearly fit into an older tradition of birth omens. The descriptivetexts diverge from this form of divinatory logic, specifically the idea of a pro-tasis and apodosis. In fact the descriptive texts seem to deal exclusively withthe regular, predicted occurrence and their potential natural or inherent influ-

3 By using the term content here I am not referring to the composition as a whole but to thesmall pieces of text in individual cells contained within the overarching micro-zodiac table.The format is the way in which these small pieces of text are related to each other physicallyon the surface of the tablet.

4 These are both in addition to the continuation of the long-standing celestial omen material,in particular the series Enūma Anu Enlil.

5 Rochberg (2009).


the micro-zodiac in babylon and uruk 121

ence over aspects of daily life. The analogous relationships created in thesetexts begin to approach the idea of a natural affinity or attribute rather thatimplied prognostication as in traditional conditional logic.What is clear is thatthe micro-zodiac was not created for a predictive purpose. Instead it lays outthe various affinities between Major and minor signs and the varied contentincluded in the table: medicine, deities, diet and behavior. The micro-zodiaceschews explicit conditional logic and problems of impossibility for a descrip-tive format that is wholly predictable.

Looking at the various fragments of the micro-zodiac both from Uruk andBabylon one can begin to see how such a descriptive text was compiled andused. An analysis of texts over time and space allows for the creation of amodelof textual transmission specific to the extant texts but applicable to awider tra-dition.MartinWorthington inhis bookonAkkadian textual criticismhasnotedthat the study of variants in texts can inform us of the “geography of textualtransmission in antiquity.”6 While Worthington is primarily concerned with“reconstructing the original wording of a composition”7 (what he terms textualor lower criticism), many of his methods still apply when working with largeraspects of text, revealing historical and geographical traces of transmission.Collecting these divergent patterns or traditions reveal patterns in theway textswereworkedwith and recopied innewcontexts. In the case of themicro-zodiacthe evidence is sparse at best, but two distinct geographical locations allow forsome recognitionof textual traditions. In this case, the differencebetween textsfrom Babylon and those from Uruk. At the same time the different formats ofthe micro-zodiac including a tabular layout, as well as other unique formatsgive hints at the production and conception of the text in its scholarly con-text. The unknown question with all of this late material in Mesopotamia isto what degree Hellenistic theoretical thought influenced the work of Babylo-nian scholars. Certainly many of the ideas that the scribes working with themicro-zodiac used quickly found currency in Greek astrology: the zodiac, trip-licities, and hypsomata among other concepts. In regards to the new texts writ-ten during this period and their associated novel concepts and formats, Kochattributes some of this creativity to the development of mathematical astron-omyduring this period.8 Certainly,more accurate predicativemethods allowedfor the creation of horoscopes and other texts.

6 Worthington (2012: 39).7 Worthington (2012: 1).8 Koch-Westenholz (1995: 162).


122 monroe

Any discussion of transmission must also include a tentative discussion ofdirections of influence and potential historiography of a text. However, in thecase of the micro-zodiac where the content has been collected from a widerange of traditional, but opaque, sources, it is difficult to identify individualpieces of original text. Worthington in his discussion of Urtexts quotes Eliza-beth Bryan, “trying to identify what is original to the author is ‘a characteristicproduct of print culture’.”9 It is difficult especially in the case of a text such as themicro-zodiac where the concept of novel and original content is a rare occur-rence, and much of the novelty in this case is the combination of excerpts intoa new format.

The majority of the currently published tablets of the micro-zodiac serieswere first noted in an article by Abraham Sachs on Babylonian horoscopesin 1952.10 He made mention of the scheme and in a footnote catalogued thetablets on which it could be found. Ernst Weidner subsequently edited mostof the known tablets and published a comprehensive study of the material in1967.11 Already, prior toWeidner and Sachs’ studies, a number of these texts hadbeen identified, in particular the famous examples which feature depictionsof the zodiacal signs inscribed on the surface of the tablets. These fragments,one in the Louvre joining to one of two more fragments in Berlin, as well as afew fragments in the British Museum, formed the bedrock of Weidner’s studyof the micro-zodiac series. Since then little work has been done investigatingthese texts further. Instead, the texts have often appeared in studies of widerastrological material as an important example of a unique concept in lateBabylonian astrological practice.

Structure of the Micro-Zodiac Tablets

The micro-zodiac scheme subdivides each sign of the zodiac into the twelvesigns of the zodiac, creating Major-minor sign pairs. For eachMajor sign in thezodiacal series, there are twelvemoreminor signs associated with it, theminorsigns startingwith the same sign as theMajor sign. Tab. 5.1 illustrates the overallschematic pattern. Each sign has twelve signs under it and the sequence rotatesin a predictable and logical way, each rowmoving one space to the left, with theleftmost sign rotating out and reappearing on the right. This overall pattern isimportant for locating and identifying smaller fragments of the larger series.

9 Worthington (2012: 42).10 Sachs (1952).11 Weidner (1967).



In its basic form, each side of each tablet of the series is assigned to a Majorsignwith twelve columns, one for eachof theminor signs. Thiswould, in theory,create a total of six tablets, each with two Major signs, one on the obverse andanother on the reverse of the tablet. Situated within this overall scheme is alarge collection of typically Mesopotamian knowledge: medical ingredients,cultic observances, omen material, and advice for daily action. Arranged in aspreadsheet, with theminor signs demarcating the columns, each rowcontainsa different subset of knowledge.

The first row is a collection of medical material taken from the stone, plant,and wood tradition.12 In the micro-zodiac texts, however, a further item isadded to the traditional stone, plant andwoodmaterial: a place, either a templeor gate, or sometimes just a city. Most probably these lists referred to medi-cal ingredients to be used to create poultices, amulets and other treatments inaccordance with the time specified in the scheme. What is important to noteis that these lists of ingredients are unique to each combination of Major andminor sign, meaning that there are 144 possible combinations of the ingredi-ents, although many of the individual ingredients themselves are repeated inone column or another.

Following on from this initial row there follows three rows termed byWeid-ner as a, b, and c, according to their order on Weidner’s main exemplars fromUruk. These three rows contain a range of information relevant to each minorsign, and in rows a and b, unlike the initial medical material row and row c,the content remains the same regardless of which Major sign the minor sign isassociated with. This stability of these two rows, a and b, creates a very usefulmethod for identifying and locating material on smaller fragments within thelarger series.

Row a contains short excerpted material from celestial omens, mostly apo-doses, but a few protases. Each cell of the row begins with “ki” meaning “placeof” presumably associating these omen excerpts with the particular situationdesignated by theminor sign. The second row, b, lists days associatedwith gatesand gods. The gates are generally named as gates of certain gods. This sectionseems tobe advising the reader towhich godsprayers and/or offeringswouldbeparticularly effective and has some parallels in the material found in hemero-logical texts.13 Again these two rows, a and b, have the same contents underthe same minor-sign even within different tables assigned to different Major-signs. Row a under the minor-sign Aries will always be the same, give or takeorthographic differences and small differences in word choice.

12 Heeßel (2005).13 For the hemerological texts, see Livingstone (2013).


124 monroe

table 5.1 TheMicro-Zodiac Scheme

AriesAries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo

TaurusTaurus Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo Libra

GeminiGemini Cancer Leo Virgo Libra Scorpio

CancerCancer Leo Virgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius

LeoLeo Virgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn

VirgoVirgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius

LibraLibra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces

ScorpioScorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces Aries

SagittariusSagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces Aries Taurus

CapricornCapricorn Aquarius Pisces Aries Taurus Gemini

AquariusAquarius Pisces Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer

PiscesPisces Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo



Libra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces

Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces Aries

Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces Aries Taurus

Capricorn Aquarius Pisces Aries Taurus Gemini

Aquarius Pisces Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer

Pisces Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo

Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo

Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo Libra

Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo Libra Scorpio

Cancer Leo Virgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius

Leo Virgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn

Virgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius


126 monroe

The last row, c, contains daily advice for activities to engage in or avoid, verysimilar to hemerological material such as the Babylonian Almanac.

The novelty of these texts, which is part of their appeal, is in associatingthese well-known and long-standing Mesopotamian cultural traditions witha new form of schematization, the zodiac, and a further iteration, the micro-zodiac. Whereas before this material was linked to the calendrical traditionor organized in a linear prosaic format, here they gain extra significance andmeaning by invoking the rich figures of the zodiacal signs in connection withtheir content.

Catalog of Micro-Zodiac Tablets

The micro-zodiac texts appear during a time of important scribal activity insouthernMesopotamia. The scribeswriting andpresumablyusing these tabletswere deeply engaged with the development of astronomical predictive meth-ods and the reception of older Mesopotamian knowledge. Most of the tabletsin the collection of the British Museum were either excavated by Rassam orpurchased from dealers during the later 19th century. We can provisionallyassign these tablets a rough location, Babylon.14 The quantity of astronomi-cal and astrological tablets in these collections at the British Museum suggeststhat they were coming out of contexts rich in scholarly material, either tem-ple libraries, or house archives. The tablets in Berlin and Paris were found inUruk.

Only one tablet, vat 7847, preserves a dated colophon, which records thatthe text was written in Uruk from an old writing board by Anu-ab-uter andowned by his father Anu-bēlšunu. The date is fragmentary but gives the king’sname as Antiochus. Better dating is provided by the identification of this Anu-bēlšunu with a well-known scribe active in the Seleucid period.15 Anu-bēlšunuhad a lengthy career where he served as both scribe and owner to a variety ofscholarly tablets, including the micro-zodiac text mentioned above, as well aswitnessing a number of sales, and receiving property through division. Laterin his life he is only listed as the owner of tablets, generally written by hisson Anu-ab-uter. Anu-bēlšunu’s scholarly material is typical of Uruk scribes atthis period, a mix of kalûtu, astronomical and astrological material. Luckily hisbirth date is known, thanks to the preservation of a horoscope that he probably

14 Reade (1986).15 Ossendrijver (2011).



table 5.2 Catalogue of micro-zodiac tablets

Museum number Major sign(s) preserved Publication

w 22554/7a Gemini and Cancer vonWeiher (1993: number 167)vat 7847 + ao 6448 Leo and Virgo Weidner (1967: text 2)vat 7851 Taurus Weidner (1967: text 1)k. 11151 + BM 68063 +76348 + 82976 + 83006

Aries, Taurus, Gemini,Cancer, and Leo

Weidner (1967); much has been addedsince Weidner’s publication of this text.

bm 32517 + 32716 Libra and Scorpio Unpublishedbm 33535 Sagittarius Hunger (2007)bm 34572 Gemini and Cancer Weidner (1967: text 3)bm 35784 Weidner (1967: text 4)bm 36292 Aquarius and Pisces Unpublishedbm 38452 Cancer Unpublishedbm 39680 Gemini Unpublishedbm 39788 Unpublishedbm 41041 Unpublishedbm 41583 Libra and Scorpio Weidner (1967: text 4)bm 42288 + 43414 +43716 + 42644

Aries Unpublished

wrote for himself.16We therefore know that hewas an active scholar fromaboutthe ages of 20 to 83, (229b.c.e.–168b.c.e.). His son, Anu-ab-uter, was similarlyproductive, but has received less scholarly attention.

Here follows a descriptive catalogue of the micro-zodiac tablets (summa-rized in Tab. 5.2).Most of the smaller fragments that have come tomy attentionand are currently unpublished but will be edited in my forthcoming disser-tation. Even among this small collection of texts a few joins have come tolight.

Descriptive Catalogw 22554/7

This text from the excavations in Uruk was first edited by von Weiher inSpTU iv and later re-editedbyHunger.17 It preserves both sides of a tabletwhich

16 Beaulieu and Rochberg (1996).17 vonWeiher (1993: number 167), Hunger (2007: 149).


128 monroe

contained the micro-zodiac tables for theMajor signs Gemini and Cancer. Theobverse and reverse are interchanged in von Weiher’s copy and edition of thetext. The only remaining material is from rows a, b, and c and a small partof the numerical scheme on the obverse (Gemini) and rows a, b, and c onthe reverse (Cancer). Both sides contain the last three columns of the Majorsigns. The numerical scheme here can be restored andwould have started with1;50.

vat 7847 + ao 6448These two halves of the same tablet were separated after illicit excavation andeventually made their way into two different collections, the VorderasiatischeMuseum and the Louvre respectively. They remain the best preserved copy ofa micro-zodiac tablet currently known. Not surprisingly Weidner used themas a core part of his treatment of the micro-zodiac. Together they preserve allsections of the micro-zodiac for the Major signs Leo and Virgo. After the tableon the reverse the tablet contains a long list of glosses some of which referenceastronomical terminology. These two halves are perhaps best known for theillustrations in the upper portion of the tables on each side. The obverse hasLeo the lion standing on the back of the constellation Hydra with the planetJupiter drawn and labeled. The reverse shows on the left edge the constellationCorvus biting the tail of Hydra from the obverse side and in the center of theband Virgo standing facing the planet Mercury.

vat 7851This tablet is unfortunately missing all but the top edge of the micro-zodiactable, however its illustration of Taurus makes it clear that it would havecontained thematerial for theMajor sign Taurus. The band of illustration at thetop of the table contains a depiction of the Pleiades (with the label “mul.mul”),the moon showing a hero fighting a monster in its interior,18 and finally thedrawing of Taurus the bull. The image of themoonhas been discussed at lengthby Beaulieu. Preserved on the reverse near the bottom edge is a piece of acircular astrolabe similar to those discussed by Horowitz.19

k. 11151+Weidner published the central part of this tablet in his study of the micro-zodiac. However, since then many more pieces have been added to it, expand-

18 The image of the moon has been discussed at length by Beaulieu (1999).19 Horowitz (1998).



ing its dimensions greatly. The joined fragments all belong to collections clearlyfrom Babylonia which solves the issue of the Kuyunjik number, which mustsimply be a error in accessioning.20 With the new pieces, it is now clear thatit contains six Major signs of the micro-zodiac on each side in an abbreviatedform. Thewholemicro-zodiac table has been condensed to three rows,with theomission of row a and some of the other extraneous material. This tablet rep-resents a new form of the micro-zodiac that will be commented upon later inthis article. The text does not preserve any zodiac names for either theMajor orminor sign designations, but identification of its content can be done throughparallel sections. Interestingly the order of the rows mirrors that of the Uruktablets, with themedical material first, followed by rows b and c (omitting rowa).

bm 32517 (+) 32716These two small fragments clearly are part of the same tablet all though aphysical join is not possible. The smaller of the two, bm 32516, shows obviouscontinuation of the incised lines on the larger fragment and preserves thenames of two micro-signs which follow those preserved on the larger piece.The obverse and reverse are both preserved in part and contain the middlepart of the micro-zodiac table for the Major signs Libra and Scorpio. On theobverse, Libra, the ends of three columns with row a are preserved as well asthe numerical scheme. The reverse, Scorpio, preserves the beginning of thetable with the minor-sign names and a small part of the introductory omen.The identification of this text can be made through two features. First thenumerical schemeon the obverse is not preserved fully, but the extent numbersallow the total range to be determined which limits the identification to onlytwo signs. This in conjunction with the preserved material from row a helpsto identify the location, i.e. if one of the two signs specified by the numericalscheme were present in the preserved contents of row a it could be ruled outbecause row a for that sign should be on the left edge of the tablet not in themiddle. Secondly the omen on the reverse has direct parallels withmaterial onbm 36746, edited by Rochberg.21 This fragment preserves part of the Scorpioomen as reconstructed by Rochberg which in conjunction with the numerical

20 It seems initial joins were done by Lambert (2007:10). The accession dates of at least oneof the joined tablets is 82-9-18, a lot which Reade notes as from Sippar with intrusiveelements. (Reade 1986:xxxiii) The join fragments from this collection almost certainlybelong to the intrusive fragment from Babylon and are not from Sippar.

21 Rochberg-Halton (1984).


130 monroe

scheme on the obverse identifies this fragment with the major signs Libra andScorpio as mentioned above.

bm 33535Hunger published this complete tablet in an article in 2007.22 It contains twosections of the micro-zodiac in a slightly different format. Instead of a tabularlayout this tablet lays out the micro-zodiac material in a linear arrangementwith the medical material first, then row b, followed by a section of ritual andmedical instructions. Only two minor signs, Gemini and Cancer of the Major-sign Sagittarius, are present in this alternate format. Interestingly the ritualsection is given in terms of month long periods, so the minor-sign Gemini isassociated with the month Simanu, and the minor sign Cancer with Du’uzu.Onewould expect that theminor sign would be associated with small intervalsof time since they make up two and a half days (or degrees) of the entire year.This may be a case of scribal confusion, however, as Gemini and Cancer aszodiacal signs, governing the entire lunar month, are both analogous for themonths Simanu and Du’uzu. Still the use of the phrase “from the 1st to the30th day” with both month designations seems to run counter to the overallstructure of the micro-zodiac.

bm 34572This larger fragment was included in Weidner’s study of the micro-zodiac. Itpreserves a vertical slice of the center of the table of two Major signs, GeminiandCancer. Both sides contain all rows of content and the numerical scheme atthe bottom. The identification of this piecewas aided by the addition of a smallfragment to the right side of the obverse, which happened after its publicationby Weidner. This small fragment preserves the edge of the tablet allowing forthe full sequence of the micro-signs to be reconstructed. The method is asfollows: since the micro-signs form a loop of twelve items the last micro-signon the right edge of the table is the sign before the first sign on the left edge.Since the Major-sign is the same is the first minor-sign on the left edge, havingthe right edge allows for the left edge and subsequently the Major-sign to bereconstructed. This method can be applied to both the obverse and reverse ofthe tablet, although technically only one is required.23

22 Hunger (2007).23 All of these texts show a very characteristic pattern in the curvature of the physical tablet.

The obverse is flat, and the reverse has a significant convex shape. Thus, if enough of a



bm 35784This small fragment preserves the beginning of the table for the minor-signsLibra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius. Only the minor-sign names and the beginningof the medical section are preserved; there are small unreadable traces ofthe initial omen. The lack of an edge or later rows currently prohibits theidentification with a Major-sign.

bm 36292This tablet preserves parts of themicro-zodiac table for theMajor signs Aquar-ius andPisces. The obverse contains the endof the rowa cells for sixminor-signcolumns, and the numerical scheme. The reverse preserves traces of the initialomen, the labels, the minor-sign names, and the first two rows of the micro-zodiac table. The fact that the left edge is preserved on both the obverse andreverse makes its identification quite easy. The row a material on the obverseand the numerical scheme both start with their first column which allows forthe positive identification of the first minor-sign and thus the Major-sign forthe obverse. Furthermore the reverse contains the first column of the minor-signs, in this case Pisces. In addition, on the reverse, there are two rows afterthe traces of the initial omenwhich preserve the labels that would normally befound on the illustration section of the Uruk tablets. The first label in this casereads “Pisces”, securing its identification.

bm 38452This tablet probably joins the next two texts to form one larger micro-zodiactext for the Major-signs Gemini and Cancer. On this small fragment only themedical material for four minor-signs of Cancer are preserved. The identifica-tion of this fragment rests on a small section of a row after themedicalmaterial.In this section thenumber 1;50 is preserved roughly in the samehorizontal posi-tion as the name of the minor-sign Scorpio written two rows above it. On theLeo side of vat 7847 + ao 6448 in a similar section the number 1;40 is writtensimilarly close to the sameposition, under Scorpio. Following the pattern of thenumerical system used in these texts it follows that this small fragment wouldcome on the side prior to Leo, i.e. Cancer.

tablet is present it is immediately obvious which is the obverse and reverse, regardless ofwhether the content reveals where in the micro-zodiac series it belongs.


132 monroe

bm 39680Like the tablet above, this small fragment only preserves a small section of themicro-zodiac table but luckily the medical material preserved on this pieceparallel material on bm 34572 allowing for its identification as belonging totheMajor-sign Gemini. The small complete section here preserves themedicalsection for the minor-sign Capricorn under the Major-sign Gemini. If it is partof the same tablet as the previous fragment it would be from the obverse.

bm 39788This small fragment preserves a small piece of the end of the micro-zodiactable before the numerical scheme. Its placement in the series is uncertainbut judging from the script and color of the clay it most likely belongs withthe previous two fragments. It is at this point uncertain whether this fragmentwould join the obverse or reverse of the larger tablet.

bm 41041This small unpublished piece was brought to my attention by Jeanette Finckeand Christopher Walker. It preserves row b and c from the minor signs Cancerand Leo; no hints to the Major sign of this fragment remain.

bm 41583This fragment preserves the table for twoMajor signs: Libra and Scorpio. It wasbrieflymentioned byWeidner, whonoted the existence of themedicalmaterialon its reverse. The obverse preserves both row a and b for the Major signLibra, and the reverse contains fragmentary portions of the medical materialfor Scorpio. In both cases only the right edge of the side is preserved whichaided in the tablet’s identification through the rows on the obverse, throughthe same method as used above for bm 34572.

bm 42288 + 43414 + 43716These three fragments were joined in the British Museum by the author andrepresent a slightly unique form of the micro-zodiac table. Unlike the othertablets mentioned here both sides of this tablet refer to the Major-sign Arieswith the beginning of the table starting on the obverse and then continuingonto the reverse. This is contrary to most examples of the micro-zodiac whereeach side of the tablet is assigned to a uniqueMajor-sign. Curiously, theminor-sign headings begin roughly in themiddle of the tablet judging by the thicknessvisible due to its fragmentary nature. This suggests that other material wasinserted above the micro-zodiac table on this particular tablet. In general thecolumns on this text are much longer and narrower than as found on the



other examples of the micro-zodiac, perhaps giving a reason for the fact thatit contains only a single sign. Another distinguishing factor is that this tablet,despite its Babylonian provenance, follows theUruk order of the rows, with themedical material first, followed by rows a and b (row c is not preserved on thistext) (see below). This is somewhat similar to k11151+, however both of thesetexts diverge from the normal layout in other ways as well.

bm 42644Lastly, this small fragment preserves a small section of the micro-zodiac tableon its reverse, containing parts of the medical section as well as row c. Theobverse has the beginning of a list of stars. While the lack of micro-zodiacalcontent on the obverse is puzzling, one potential solution solves the issue. Thematerial on the reverse is located near the top of themicro-zodiac table for thatside,making thematerial on the obverse near the end of the tablet. Other texts,in particular vat 7847 + ao 6448 have non-tabular non-micro-zodiac materialafter the table included on the tablet. The list of stars could be a collection ofrelated material inserted after the end of the tabular layout on the obverse.

Discussion

The overriding feature of all these texts is the organizational pattern of Majorand minor signs, as explained above. This scheme is inherent to the micro-zodiac and serves as the framework onwhich the rest of the text rests. After thisoverarchingorganizational structure the texts also, for themost part, all includefour rows of content which show a remarkable amount of textual stability.These four rows, explained above, have their own rules governing the content.Twoof them, a and b, repeat their contents the sameminor sign under differentMajor signs, i.e. row a for theminor sign Aries is always the same content, withonly minor variations. The other two rows contain unique content for eachcombination of Major and minor sign. These general features allow for theidentification of fragments, and also illustrate some of the divergent formatsbetween the various recensions of the text.

The two main traditions, Babylon and Uruk, exhibit distinct differencesbetween their tablets. The most obvious difference between them is the lackof any illustrations on the tablets from Babylon. With the recently identifiedtablets from Babylon which belong to the micro-zodiac, this now makes theHypsomata-bilder as Weidner called them, a minor part of the series whereasthey were previously considered to be one of its defining features. Obviouslythese illustrations are still immensely important for their astronomical and


134 monroe

art historical content but their association with the micro-zodiac scheme isrestricted to the two larger fragments from Uruk.

Interestingly, in a few cases the tablets from Babylon have vertical wedgesor other markings between two horizontal rulings, where the image wouldbe on a text from Uruk, suggesting that its inclusion was a potentiality neverrealized on the Babylon tablets.24 In either case its clear that the combinationof the planets, signs, and other celestial objects whether illustrated or justwritten made up a fundamental part of the beginning section of the micro-zodiac table. Another substantial difference between the two traditions is there-ordering of the rows (see Fig. 5.1). The tablets from Babylon preserve themedical material section first, just as the Uruk material. However after thisinitial row theBabylonmaterial reverse the order of the rows, so that they runc,b, anda as opposed to the opposite fromUruk. This is the case on all Babyloniantablets except k11151+ and bm 42288+ both of which have their own additionaloddities in their layout.

The re-ordering of the rows brings up an interesting development in theorganization of knowledge present on themicro-zodiac. Even though the rowsare found in a reversed order the content is roughly the same, albeit withminororthographic changes or differences in vocabulary. It is important to notethat even with these two substantial differences the content between the twotraditions is similar enough to solidify these geographical distinct exemplarsas part of one continuous textual tradition. In fact the re-ordering of rows, butmaintenance of the content in the same rows supports the idea that this textwas stable across its geographical range. In addition the re-ordered rowsmightsuggest that the content itself came from stable sources which were excerptedin different formats but the same general organizational structure.

The text k. 11151+ illustrates another aspect of how the content itself stayedthe same while the layout changed dramatically. k. 11151+ was originally identi-fied by Weidner as part of the microzodiac series, however at that time it wasa small fragment with a few lines. Since the publication many more pieceshave been joined, roughly tripling it in size, as was mentioned in the catalogabove. The traditional micro-zodiac material all have roughly the same for-mat, a large table governed by a Major sign, with columns assigned to minor

24 These tablets are: bm 32517+ and bm 36292. bm 34572 includes a band at the top wherethe image would be. Within this band the planet Jupiter is written. The images fromUrukhave the names of the celestial bodies depicted written as labels. It is possible that theinclusion of Jupiter in this band on bm 34572 is referencing the use of labels on the Uruktexts.



figu

re5.1

Layo

utof

typica

lmicro-zod

iact

ablets

from

Uru

k(va

t78

47+)

andBa

bylon(b

m34

572)


136 monroe

signs. Four main rows were found on the other tablets, the medical material,and rows a, b, and c. This text, however, preserves a different configurationof the scheme. Missing are all references to the zodiac, no overarching Majorsign, and nominor sign labels for each column. Each section is marked off by adouble ruling, the first row is themedical material and the second row is b, andthe third, c; this ordering follows, with the omission of row a, the order fromUruk. Thanks to the addition of these new joins we are able to locate much ofthe row b, and cmaterial in the wider series. Tracking the rows b, and c, acrossthe sections they always rotate one column to the left as we go down the tablet,which mirrors the movement of each individual minor sign through the series(as illustrated onTab. 5.1 above). This allows us to assignminor signs to all of thepreserved columns. From there the medical material, which remains uniquefor each combination of Major and minor sign pairs could be used to locate aduplicate section on another tablet with the sameMajor sign as the subsectionof k. 11151+. A small, badly preserved sectionparallels the samemedicalmaterialsection from bm 34572, of which bm 39680 is a duplicate. This identificationthen links this subsection with the Major sign Gemini, working backwards wefind that the first section of this tablet is assigned to the Major sign Aries, andthus it is most likely that this tablet contained six Major signs on the obverseand six on the reverse, which is unfortunately not preserved. The last sectionpreserved here would then be theMajor sign Leo which allows for comparisonwith vat 7847 + ao 6448, and in fact themedicalmaterial section here parallelsthe tablet from Uruk. This new format means that the whole micro-zodiacseries could be found in abbreviated form on one tablet.

Interestingly, the overarching tabular layout which could be seem to char-acterize the micro-zodiac material is absent from at least one more examplefromBabylon. The text bm 33535,mentioned above, contains part of theMicro-zodiac for the Major sign Sagittarius. Not only is this text in a linear layout,unlike the other examples of the micro-zodiac, it also includes a ritual section,which gives hints at how the material in the micro-zodiac could have beenused. It would be tempting to suggest that this text represents an early formof the micro-zodiac, pre-tabular format, however the orthography of the zodi-acal constellations, “pa” for Sagittarius, and use of themul₂ sign suggests a laterdate. Similarly k. 11151+ seems to be predicated on the development of a stabletext for themicro-zodiac as it eschews anymention of theMajor orminor-signswhichdesignate the layout of the text. Both of these texts suggest that theywereexcerpted froma stable tabular formof themicro-zodiac such as themany frag-ments listed in the catalog above.

However, the collection of exemplars and their particular features give hintsto the development of the text over time. Specifically the wide variety of



formats and content found in the Babylonian exemplars suggests that the textwas initially developed there. In contrast the examples from Uruk, few thoughthey are, all present a homogeneous interpretation and representation of thetext. Both k. 11151+ and bm 33535, although perhaps hinting at later use of thetext illustrate the creativity at work with the scribes who perhaps were thecomposers or related to the composers of the overall micro-zodiac series.

The micro-zodiac, as it is currently preserved, presents a number of exem-plars frombothBabylonandUruk. These exemplars all attest to a sharedknowl-edge of associations and references for each of the cells in the larger table withtheir unique combination of Major andminor sign pairs. What is not the sameamong all exemplars however, is the format that this knowledge takes. The con-nections with previous texts suggest that themicro-zodiac and related contentwere assembled at some point in to a standard scheme. Later, it is clear thatat some point the micro-zodiac was set out in a tabular layout which provedto be very popular, as the majority of our fragments preserve the content inthis format. This tabular format was used in various ways and perhaps eveninfluenced further developments such as the final two tablets discussed above.However, even among this small corpus there are a few tablets where show themicro-zodiac in different formats, both linear paragraph based layouts, as wellas different tabular formats. Unfortunately only one text preserves enough ofa colophon to give it a relatively secure dating. The other texts are difficult todate as the paleography and choice of signs are all relatively similar. Some ofthe micro-zodiac tables even use both old and new ways to write the zodi-acal signs simultaneously, in a few cases the two forms are written together.While there is little secure data to pinpoint the location of most of these textsin time and place, the threads of knowledge which run through the variousforms and recensions of this text hint at a remarkable story of composition,borrowing and creative reuse during the Seleucid period by Mesopotamianscholars.

References

Beaulieu, P., 1999, “The Babylonian Man in the Moon”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51,91–99.

Beaulieu, P., and Rochberg, F., 1996, “The Horoscope of Anu-Bēlšunu”, Journal of Cune-iform Studies 48, 89–94.

Geller, M., 2010, Look to the Stars: Babylonian Medicine, Magic, Astrology and “Meloth-esia”, Max Planck Preprint Vol. 401. (Berlin: Max-Planck-Inst. für Wissenschafts-geschichte).


138 monroe

Heeßel, N.P., 2005, “Stein, Pflanze undHolz. Ein neuer Text zur ‘medizinischen Astrolo-gie’ ”, Orientalia 74, 1–22.

Horowitz, W., 1998, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, Mesopotamian Civilizations 8(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).

Hunger,H., 2007, “How toMake theGods Speak:ALateBabylonianTabletRelated to theMicrozodiac”, in M.T. Roth, W. Farber, M.W. Stolper, and P. von Bechtolsheim (eds.),Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, June 4, 2004, Assyriological Studies 27. (Chicago:Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago), 141–152.

Koch-Westenholz, U., 1995,MesopotamianAstrology: An Introduction toBabylonianandAssyrian Celestial Divination (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press).

Lambert, W.G., 2007, Babylonian Oracle Questions (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).Livingstone, A., 2013,Hemerologies of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Bethesda: cdl

Press).Ossendrijver, M., 2011, “Science in Action: Networks in Babylonian Astronomy”, in

E. Cancik-kirschbaum, M.V. Ess, and J. Marzahn (eds.), Babylon: Wissenskultur inOrient Und Okzident/ Science Culture Between Orient and Occident (Berlin: WalterDe Gruyter), 213–221.

Reade, J.E., 1986, “Rassam’s Babylonian Collection: The Excavations and the Archives”,in E. Leichty, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum vi (London:British Museum), xiii–xxxvi.

Rochberg, F., 2009, “Conditionals, Inference, and Possibility in Ancient MesopotamianScience”, Science in Context 22, 5–25.

Rochberg-Halton, F., 1984, “New Evidence for the History of Astrology”, Journal of NearEastern Studies 43, 115–140.

Sachs, A.J., 1952, “Babylonian Horoscopes”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 6, 49–75.Von Weiher, E., 1993, Uruk: spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat u 18, Aus-

grabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte, Bd. 12. (Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern).Weidner, E., 1967,Gestirn-Darstellungenauf babylonischenTontafeln (Vienna: Böhlau in

Kommission).Worthington, M., 2012, Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism (Boston: De Gruyter).


Documents

The Micro-Zodiac in Babylon and Uruk: Seleucid Zodiacal Astrology