¹ Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings, II, London, 1907, pp. 15–24, 121–127Google Scholar. (B.M. 96152).

² Smith, S., Babylonian Historical Texts, London, 1924, pp. 22–26, Pl. IVGoogle Scholar.

³ Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, pp. 50–54, Pls. VI–VIIIGoogle Scholar.

⁴ ibid., pp. 54–66, Pl. XII, cf. Gadd, C. J., The Fall of Nineveh, London, 1923, p. 23Google Scholar.

⁵ C.T. XXXIV, Pls. 46–50.

⁶ Rare phonetic writings of this name vary between Sataran (Weidner, E. F., A.f.O IX(1933–1934), pp. 98–99Google Scholar; XVI (1952–3), p. 24) and Ishtaran (Sjoberg, A., Z.A. nf. XX (1961), p. 54Google Scholar; C.A.D. I-J, p. 274). This could indicate an initial consonant cluster st or sht, impossible to render in cuneiform, a difficulty recognised in Elamite inscriptions of the late period, see Paper, H., The Phonology and Morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite, Ann Arbor, 1955, p. 13Google Scholar; G.A.G. §7c.

⁷ For studies of the period, see Olmstead, A. T., A.J.S.L. XXXVIII (1922), pp. 78–81Google Scholar; Böhl, F. M. Th., Orientalia Neerlandica, Leiden, 1948, pp. 117–122Google Scholar.

⁸ F. M. T. Böhl, loc. cit., pp. 123–136; Goetze, A., J.N.E.S. III (1944), p. 43Google Scholar.

⁹ Babylonian Chronicle ii, 35–39. Luckenbill, D. D., The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago, 1924, p. 38Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Babylonian Chronicle ii, 38–44.

¹¹ D. D. Luckenbill, op. cit., pp. 38–41.

¹² cf. Saggs, H. W. F., The Greatness that was Babylon, London, 1962, p. 111Google Scholar.

¹³ Harran inscription, rev., 6–12, III R 29; Streck, M., Assurbanipal, 2, Leipzig, 1916, p. 60Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Annals, edition B, v. 84–85, Piepkorn, A. C., Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, I, Chicago, 1933, p. 60Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Babylonian Chronicle iii, 44, ina ^araḫululi ^dŠtaran (KA.DI) u ilāni ša Dēr^KI (45) ana Dēr^KI ittalkū ‘In Elul Shtaran and the gods of Der went to Der.’ Esarhaddon Chronicle, line 3, S. Smith, op. cit., pp. 1–21, Pls. I—III; cf. Borger, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Graz, 1956, pp. 121–125Google Scholar; Oppenheim, A. L. in A.N.E.T., pp. 301–303Google Scholar.

¹⁶ E.g. Anu rabû ^dŠarrat-Dēr^KIdNiraḫ ^dBēlit-balāṭi ^dKurunitum ^dSakkut ša Bube^KIdMār-bīti ana Dēr^KI ālišunu utīr ‘I returned Great Anu, the Queen of Der, Niraḫ, Belit-balaṭi, Kurunitum, Sakkut of Bube, Marbiti, to their city of Der.’ R. Borger, op. cit., p. 84, § 53, rev. 42–43, cf. p. 74, § 47, 20–21.

¹⁷ Lewy, H., J.N.E.S. XI (1952), pp. 271–276Google Scholar.

¹⁸ iii, 41–42.

¹⁹ V.S. IV, no. 1, Sippar, 20th, Araḫšamnu, Hallushu 5.

²⁰ Annals, edition B, iv. 79–86; A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., p. 60.

²¹ Cameron, G. G., History of Early Iran, Chicago, 1936, pp. 185–188 has 663 B.CGoogle Scholar.

²² Annals, edition B, v.82–vi.8; A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., pp. 68–70.

²³ kī m-Ummanigaš illikanni šēpēia iṣbatūni u emūqia issišu ašpurūni illikūni itti ^m.Teumman immaḫṣūni B.M. 132980, to be published. The restoration of Ummanigash is shown on a relief from Ashurbanipal's palace at Nineveh, B.M. 124802, b; Layard, A. H., Monuments of Nineveh, Second Series, London, 1853, Pl. 48Google Scholar; Paterson, A., Assyrian Sculptures, Palace of Sinacherib, The Hague, n.d., Pls. 65–66Google Scholar. See above Pl. III, b.

²⁴ anāku aptalaḫ ^m.■Ummanigaš ammei mār šarri šarru udâ raspu šū H.A.B.L. no. 1385, 13–15. It is also possible that the letter was written while Ummanigash was in Assyria. H.A.B.L. no. 290 may refer to his intriguing while there.

²⁵ cf. H.A.B.L. nos. 998, 1380.

²⁶ Annals, edition B, vii.3–43; A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., pp. 76–78.

²⁷ Esarhaddon Chronicle rev. 12; Chronicle of the Years B.C. 680–625, 5–7, S. Smith, op. cit., Pls. III, IV.

²⁸ Lewy, H., J.N.E.S. XI (1952), p. 279, n. 82Google Scholar, argues that Sennacherib had the dedication inscribed on an object made for Marduk when his statue was in Assur, and accordingly restores ana ^dMarduk in K.2411, ii, 1′. The traces after DINGIR are more consonant with ŠÁR than with AMAR.UTU as written in the rest of the text, and the inscriptions discussed here together with the Chronicle entries show sufficiently that the object was taken from Babylon in the first place. If this was the text later erased (see below) when Ashurbanipal sent the object to Babylon, his action becomes less impious than Mrs. Lewy regarded it. Another of Sennacherib's spoils was the seal of Tukulti-Ninurta I, from which the inscriptions were also copied on to a clay tablet, see Wiseman, D. J., Iraq XX (1958), pp. 19–22Google Scholar.

²⁹ Sidersky, M., J.R.A.S., 1929, pp. 767–772Google Scholar.

³⁰ Most recently studied by Barnett, R. D., Iraq XII (1950), pp. 40–42Google Scholar.

³¹ Salonen, A., Die Möbel des alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki, 1963Google Scholar, has collected most of these, see further in C.A.D.

³² A. Salonen, op. cit., Taf. XLVIII.

³³ ibid., Taf. LIV.2.

³⁴ nalbanātē, see Iraq XII, p. 41, n. 1Google Scholar; apparently anything cast in a mould, perhaps balusters here.

³⁵ Annals edition C, i.32–43; M. Streck, op. cit., p. 148 (col. x), cf. A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., p. 4, n. 17 and p. 101; Bauer, Th., Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, II, Leipzig, 1933, p. 21Google Scholar and B.M. 83–1-18, 600, ibid., p. 31, I, Taf. 62; the collection of building inscriptions on a prism from Nineveh, Thompson, R. C., The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, London, 1931, p. 30, Pl. 14, i, 39–54Google Scholar; the inscription from the Ishtar temple at Nineveh, Thompson, R. C., A.A.A. XX (1932), p. 82, Pl. XCII, 45–48Google Scholar. ^iṣnarkabtu ṣīrtu rukub ^dMarduk etelli ilāni bēl bēlē ina ḫurāṣi kaspi abnē nisiqti agmura nabnitsa ana ^dMarduk šar kiššat šamē u erṣēti sāpin nakrēia ana širiqti ašruq ^iṣmusukkanni išši darê ša pašallu litbušat abnē nisiqti za'nat ana maiāl taknê ^dBēl u ^dBēltīa šakān ḫašādi ana ēpiš ru'āme nakliš ēpuš ina bāb ḪI.LI.SÙ maštak ^dṢarpanit ša kuzbu salḫu addī.

³⁶ Tablet: Weidner, E. F., A.f.O. XIII(1939–1941), pp. 205–207Google Scholar, obv. 27–31. K.2411: Craig, J. A., Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, I, Leipzig, 1895, Pls. 76–79, i.12–18Google Scholar; M. Streck, op. cit., pp. 292–303, column numbers reversed; Th. Bauer, op. cit., p. 50, n. 1. ina ūmē šūma ṣindu _iṣnarkabti šar ilāni ṣīrtu rukub bēl bēlē ^iṣereš ^iṣmusukkanni iṣṣi darê (K.2411 inserts maiāl taknê) ša ḫurāṣi litbušat abnē nisiqti za'nat ana maiāl ^ilBēl … K.2411 continues: abnē nisiqti za'nat [x x x] ša šusḫura itatiša (so read rather than Bauer's i-ta-t[u]-u-šá) [one line missing] ^dMarduk ^dṢarpanit ina rutāme kīniš kunnat ana napištia arak ūmēia ana širiqti ašruq.

³⁷ dabābu ša ina muḫḫi ^iṣerši ša ina muḫḫi ^iṣkussî ša ^dBēl ša ina bīt ^dAššur karratuni paššuṭuni šumu ša ^{m. d}Aššur-bān-apla ina muḫḫi šaṭiruni ^araḫsiwani ūmi ₂₇KÁM limmu ^m.Awianu ˻ana˼ Bā[bil]i^KI u[tirru]

³⁸ Text translated and studied in relation to the excavations by Weissbach, F. H., W.V.D.O.G. LIX (1938), pp. 49–79Google Scholar; cf. Unger, E., Babylon, die heilige Stadt, Berlin, 1931, pp. 165–187, 237–240Google Scholar and Parrot, A., Ziggurats et Tour de Babel, Paris, 1949, pp. 80–84Google Scholar.

³⁹ Unger, E., R.L.A. I, p. 355Google Scholar; F. H. Wiessbach, loc. cit., and Z.A. N.F. VII (1933), p. 261.

⁴⁰ An inscription dated 639 B.C. records the presentation by Ashurbanipal to Marduk of a couch of ebony (^iṣušû) which could be a replacement for one destroyed in the Shamash-shum-ukin war, Nassouhi, E., A.K. II (1924–1925), pp. 98–100Google Scholar; Unger, E., R.L.A. I, p. 356Google Scholar. This may not be a different couch but the same one, the scribe being confused over the woods (for sissoo see Gershevitch, I., B.S.O.A.S. XIX (1957), pp. 317–320Google Scholar, where evidence for dishonest substitution of sissoo for ebony in classical times is given. A text cited by Thompson, R. C., D.A.B. p. 289Google Scholar, shows that the two were associated, cf. the Throne-base Inscription of Shalmaneser III, l. 49, Iraq XXV (1963), p. 56 and Pl. XGoogle Scholar). The fragment B.M. 83, 1–18, 600 (see n. 35) mentions another couch (or is it the same one?) as made of ^iṣušû ^iṣmusukkanni. It seems possible that ^iṣušû (^GIṠKAL) may denote ‘hard wood’ when adjacent to ^iṣmusukkanni and be synonymous with the phrase ìṣṣì daré, also descriptive of that wood, just as ^abanušû is ‘hard stone, diorite’. Thus only one couch may be concerned. It is more likely that the larger couch was a gift of Nebuchadrezzar or another Babylonian king. The strong connection with the throne and Esagila militates against identification of either with the one said by Herodotus to stand in the shrine atop the ziggurat (Book I, 182). Perhaps the table of which he knew beside a throne in the lower shrine was really the couch in Esagila (Book I, 183). The earlier tablet describing Esagila does not mention the furnishings, K.A.R. 364; Unger, E., Babylon, pp. 250–252Google Scholar; Weidner, E. F., A.f.O. XX (1963), p. 116, Taf. VII, VIIIGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Perhaps in the shrine on top of the ziggurat, as Herodotus reports (Book I, 182); cf. Böhl, F. M. T., Z.A. nf. V (1930), p. 96Google Scholar; C.A.D. G (5), s.v. gigunu.

⁴² Pallis, S. A., The Babylonian Akitu Festival, Copenhagen, 1926, pp. 154–156Google Scholar.

⁴³ King, L. W., Chronicles . ., II, pp. 77, 167, lines 16–18Google Scholar; cf. S. A. Pallis, op. cit., pp. 44–47, 137–139.

⁴⁴ šatti ¹⁶KÁM) šarru la-pan ^amēlnakri a-na Bābili^KI i-tir-ba. S. Smith, op. cit., p. 24, Pl. IV.

⁴⁵ ibid.

⁴⁶ H.A.B.L., no. 301.

⁴⁷ Klauber, E. G., Politisch-religiöse Texte aus der Sargoniden Zeit, Leipzig, 1913, no. 102Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ erēbu may have the connotation of entry by force, C.A.D. E (4), pp. 266–7.

⁴⁹ Ashurbanipal's annals, Rassam prism, vi.7–18, recount the recovery of treasures paid by Shamashshum-ukin to the Elamites; M. Streck, op. cit., p. 50.

⁵⁰ See Olmstead, A. T., History of Assyria, London, 1923, pp. 444–5Google Scholar. Ashurbanipal annals, edition B, vii.22–35; A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., p. 76.

⁵¹ Annals, edition B, vii. 30–31; A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., p. 76. For this location see Goetze, A., J.C.S. VII (1953), p. 56Google Scholar.

⁵² Chronicle of the Years B.C. 680–625, 13–15, ‘On Adar 27 the army of Assyria and the army of Babylonia fought a battle at ḫirit and the army of Babylonia fled the battlefield and were heavily defeated.’ adar 27 ummāni ^mātAššur u ummān ^mātAkkadi^KI ṣaltum ina ḫi-rit ēpušūma ummān ^mātAkkadi^KI ina taḫaz ṣēri ibbalkitūma abiktišunu mādiš šakin, S. Smith, op. cit., p. 24, Pl. IV. For the omission of the determinative before Ḫirit, cf. ibid., p. 17 on Baza. Hirit is almost certainly identical with the ālḫarutu, one of two ‘fortresses of Babylonia’ (birāte ša ^mātKarduniaš, the other was ḫirimu) captured by Ashurnaṣirpal in the east-Tigris country (A.K.A., p. 163); the ^mātḫirutu described by Sargon as one of the regions of Gambulu (Ḫilimu was another, Annals, year 12; Winckler, H., Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, Leipzig, 1889, line 264Google Scholar); the place ḫuratu captured by Shilhak-Inshushinak of Elam in the Diyala area (c. 1160 B.C; Scheil, V., M.D.P. XI (1911), no. 92, line 68Google Scholar); possibly with Ḫararatum destroyed by Sennacherib (with Ḫirimma; Babylonian Chronicle ii.24–25). In earlier times Hirit occurs in a Mari text as a centre of unrest in Babylonia (A.R.M. II, no. 30, 5Google Scholar) and in a list of towns of the Third Dynasty of Ur as a settlement beside the Irninna canal (Kraus, F. R., Z.A. nf. XVII (1955), pp. 45–75Google Scholar, Text A, iii. 14, 15). The name of the district on the southern border of which it lay is broken in the text, but the editor restores Akshak, situated in ancient times on the east of the Tigris, near the mouth of the Diyala (cf. Barnett, R. D., J.H.S. LXXXIII (1963), p. 19Google Scholar). With Ḫiritum are listed three other towns, of which one, Namzium, is mentioned in a text from Khafajah, supporting this general location (Gelb, I. J., Sargonic Texts from the Diyala Region, Chicago, 1952, no. 201Google Scholar); cf. Lewy, H., Or. NS XXIV (1955), p. 281Google Scholar.

⁵³ Parker, R. A. and Dubberstein, W. H., Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, Providence, 1956, p. 6Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Luckenbill, D. D., Annals of Sennacherib, p. 51, line 23Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles . ., p. 50, Pl. VII, line 8Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ H.A.B.L. no. 1117, 6–12.

⁵⁷ Lines 17, 18.

⁵⁸ Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles . ., pp. 5, 6, 9, 92Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Cf. Sennacherib's campaign against Merodach-Baladan in 703 B.C, S. Smith, , The First Campaign of Sennacherib, London, 1921, pp. 13–15Google Scholar, and the attack of Cyrus, Smith, S., Isaiah, Chapters XL–LV, London, 1944, p. 46Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Rassam prism, iii.107–130, iv.84, 92; M. Streck, op. cit., pp. 30–32, 38–40.

⁶¹ Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles . ., pp. 95–96Google Scholar.

⁶² Chronicle of the Years B.C. 680–625, rev. 1.

⁶³ mārē ^mātAššur ša ašpura ana kitri ^{m. d}Nabû-bēl-šumāte mār ^{m. d}Marduk-apla-iddin ša kīma ibrī u tappê naṣar mātišu ittanallakū ittišu ša ^{m. d}Nabû-bēl-šumāte ina pirṣāti ina šāt mūši uṣṣabbitu iklū ina kilī ^m.Indabigaš šar ^mātElamti uitu bīt sibitti ušēṣaššunūti. A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., p. 80.

⁶⁴ Salonen, A., Hippologica Accadica, Helsinki, 1956Google Scholar; ‘Notes on the Stem R-K-B in Akkadian’ Ar.Or. XVII (1949), pp. 313–322Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Annals, edition B, vi.17–vii.2; A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., pp. 70–76.

⁶⁶ H.A.B.L., nos. 832–838.

⁶⁷ E. G. Klauber, op. cit., no. 105.

⁶⁸ A. T. Olmstead, op. cit., pp. 444–457.

⁶⁹ ibid., p. 466; G. G. Cameron, op. cit., p. 194.

⁷⁰ H.A.B.L., no. 960.

⁷¹ H.A.B.L., no. 963.

⁷² Edition B, vii.67–68; A. C. Piepkorn, op. cit., p. 78; ^m.dMarduk-šar-uṣur ^amēlšūt-rēšia ša ibšimūšu ina danani.

⁷³ K.1609 C.T. XXXV, 47; Th. Bauer, op. cit., p. 46.

⁷³ G.A.G. §166.

⁷⁵ G.A.G. §172.

⁷⁶ Del.H.W.B. s.v.

⁷⁷ Cf. C.A.D. E (4), s.v. eseru A; for the nuance ‘to examine’ see Held, M., J.C.S. XV (1961), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ C.T. XVIII, PL 4, K.4375, iv.42–48; Salonen, A., Die Türen des Alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki, 1961Google Scholar, s.v. sanāqu.

⁷⁹ Langdon, S., Die Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, Leipzig, 1912, p. 90, ii.1–3, p. 80, i.6–9, p. 118, ii.57–iii.10Google Scholar. aššum limnim u šiqqišu ana Bābilam la sanaqam.

⁸⁰ These and similar texts have been discussed by Oppenheim, A. L., Iraq XVII (1955), pp. 69–89, especially pp. 76–77Google Scholar.

⁸¹ P.S.B.A. X (1888), p. 146, Pls. 4–6, now B.M. 113235Google Scholar.

⁸² Annals, Rassam prism, iv.44–45; M. Streck, op. cit., p. 36.

⁸³ ibid., 41–96; pp. 36–40.

⁸⁴ References now listed by Brinkman, J., J.C.S. XVI (1962), p. 93Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ King, L. W., Chronicles …, II, p. 54Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ e.g. Chronicle of the Years B.C. 680–625, rev. 2, 5.

⁸⁷ Chronicle Relating to Events from the Eleventh to the Seventh Centuries B.C, obv. 14–18, edge 1–3; L. W. King, op. cit., I, pp. 195–199, II, pp. 61–68, 149, 151.

⁸⁸ B.M. 33428; Strong, S. A., J.R.A.S., 1892, pp. 350–368Google Scholar; Winckler, H., Altorientalische Forschung I, 1893, pp. 254–263Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Babylonian Chronicle i.81–88.

⁹⁰ C.T. XXXIV, Pl. 44.

⁹¹ Virolleaud, C., L'Astrologie chaldéene, Paris, 1904–1912, second supplement, no. 68, rev. 16Google Scholar.

⁹² B.A. V (1906), p. 633, 26–27Google Scholar; cf. Š.L. sub UR; ana ittišu 6.i.28, 32.

⁹³ Annals, room 14; H. Winckler, Die Keilinschrifttexte Sargons, line 86.

⁹⁴ H.A.B.L., no. 519, rev. 8.

⁹⁵ Wiseman, D. J., Iraq XVII (1955), pp. 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. the colophon of K.8664, cited above, suggesting that text was unusual in being copied directly from the couch on to the tablet.

⁹⁶ e.g. C.T. XXVII, Pls. 18, ll. 6 (MU.MEŠ ultu libbi … na-as-ḫa), 28 (ZI ^ḫa); 47, l. 21; 48, l. 20. Dr. Gadd ingeniously suggests that the puzzling signs might be read iš-téš-ši-ta, ‘first(ly)’, perhaps with a double-entendre of the DIŠ, but the values required for UR and DA are not found at this period. Dr. Oppenheim suggested the possibility of reading nammer.

⁹⁷ Kruckmann, O., Neubabylonische Rechts- und Venwaltungs-texte, Leipzig, 1933, nos. 1, 84, 157, 227Google Scholar;Conteneau, G., T.C.L. XII, nos. 85, 97Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ Nicolo, M. San, Babyloniscbe Rechtsurkunden, I, Munich, 1951, nos. 8, 12Google Scholar; V.S. I, no. 36, iii.15Google Scholar; C.T. XXII, no. 1; Ebeling, E., Neubabylonische Briefe, Munich, 1949, no. 1Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Strassmeier, J. N., Babyloniscbe Texte, Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, Leipzig, 1889, no. 345Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Keiser, C. E., B.I.N. I, nos. 105, 111, 115Google Scholar; Dougherty, R. P., Archives from Erech of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods (Goucher College Cuneiform Inscriptions II), Yale, 1933, nos. 123, 407Google Scholar; Tremayne, A., Records from Erech, Y.O.S. VII, Yale, 1925, nos. 84, 135, 136, 156, 169, 170, 180, 195Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ See Lambert, W. G., J.C.S. XI (1957), pp. 1–14 on scribal familiesGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰² Landsberger, B., Bauer, Th., Z.A. nf. III (1927), pp. 61–65Google Scholar; Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles . ., pp. 1–5Google Scholar. A new edition of the Babylonian Chronicles is being prepared by A. K. Grayson.

¹⁰³ Gadd, C. J., Iraq XV (1953), p. 128Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ C.T. XXXIV, Pls. 46–50.

¹⁰⁵ Smith, S., Babylonian Historical Texts, pp. 98–123, Pls. XI–XIVGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Op. cit.

¹⁰⁷ L. W. King, Chronicles . ., nos. I, II, VI.

¹⁰⁸ S. Smith, op. cit., pp. 1–21, Pls. I–III. The sign on the edge of the tablet (ippiru, J.R.A.S. 1925, p. 166Google Scholar; C.A.D. 7, pp. 164–5Google Scholar) shows that this document belongs to the same category as the first mentioned in n. 107, which is similarly marked. Its content places it with the ‘Extracts’ rather than with the second type, as Landsberger and Bauer, loc. cit.

¹⁰⁹ S. Smith, op. cit., pp. 22–26, Pl. IV.

¹¹⁰ ibid., pp. 2–3; rev. 8–14: Chronicle of the Years B.C. 680–625, 1–8.

¹¹¹ Line 10.

¹¹² Lines 18, rev. 1, 2, 3, 7.

¹¹³ H.A.B.L., no. 545, 7–13.

¹¹⁴ According to the hemerology of Assur, Nisan 7 preceded a festival of Nabu and the restrictions of that day reappear on Nisan 21, the day of reckoning of Shamash, whence it may be deduced that the seventh was also a day of reckoning, the festival following the pronouncement of the Fates, the result of the reckoning. However, the day mentioned could be the seventh day of any month, as the other days of the moon's phases are also days of reckoning, the fifteenth and twenty-first. See Labat, R., Hémérologies et Ménologies d'Assur, Paris, 1939, pp. 54, 62Google Scholar; Langdon, S., Babylonian Menologies and Semitic Calendars, London, 1935, p. 70Google Scholar; Landsberger, B., Der Kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrer, Leipzig, 1917, pp. 135–136Google Scholar. If the posited divine audit is accepted, its origin may lie in the Sumerian belief of an annual judgement of mankind on New Year's Day by Nanshe with Nidaba, goddess of writing and accounts, beside her, see Kramer, S. N., History Begins at Sumer, London, 1958, p. 156Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Op. cit., p. 4.

¹¹⁶ Esther vi.1; ii, 23.

¹¹⁷ Op. cit., p. 4.

¹¹⁸ B.A.S.O.R., 143 (1956), p. 33, n. 23Google Scholar; cf. Moran, W. L., Biblica XL (1960), p. 296Google Scholar.