Chapter 22 of Šumma ālu contains omens listing the sighting and behaviour of snakes in the protasis and their associated implications for the future in the apodosis. It is the first chapter in Šumma ālu with omens describing animals as a portent and the first of overall five (known) chapters with snake omens (Chapters 22-26).

The essential elements of each protasis of a snake omen are the sign DIŠ, which we read Akkadian šumma ‘if’, usually directly followed by the subject MUŠ (except for the first section of Chapter 22, discussed below), Akkadian ṣēru ‘snake’, various additional elements, and finally the clause-final verb, which (usually) describes the action or behavior of the snake.

Sources

Chapter 22 is represented by a wide range of manuscripts, which may indicate a high level of copying activity and its importance in the scholarly circles. As many as five manuscripts can be regarded as so-called ‘standard manuscripts’ (K 01350+, K 02128+, K 06071+, 1880-07-19, 280, BM 036389+), preserving the standard form of the entire chapter with only small variants between them. In addition, there are two manuscripts with snake omens (SU 1951, 079+, VAT 10905+) containing the text of all snake omen chapters, 22-26. These two multi-column manuscripts are an important contribution to the reconstruction of Chapter 22.

Three excerpt manuscripts collect a selection of omens from Chapter 22 (K 12140, Sm 1980, 1879‑07‑08, 319), another excerpt manuscript (K 09510+) collects omen samples from Chapters 22 as well as 23, and another (K 02935+) has excerpted omens from three chapters, 22, 23 and 24. A so-called forerunner manuscript (VAT 13804) from the Middle Assyrian capital Assur can be associated with Chapter 22, containing a few omens in the same sequence as the standard text, but skipping a few individual omens within that sequence (see Heeßel 2007: 42).

A notable characteristic of Chapter 22 of Šumma ālu is that sections in the omen sequence appear as parallels in two other, distinct divinatory series from the 1st millennium: Sakikkû (Heeßel 2001-2002) and Iqqur īpuš (Labat 1965, 124-127).

Finally, a late Babylonian commentary text present on two duplicates (BM 129092 and W 22585,0) deals with the omens of Chapter 22 (and Chapter 23), where scribes cited the snakes omens or parts of them on the manuscript, adding explanations or elaborations on their content.

State of reconstruction and updates to previous editions

A total of 91 omens can be reconstructed for Chapter 22, bearing in mind that an unknown number of omens was lost between omens 22.43 and the next preserved omen, counted as 22.44’. We do not have direct proof hat omen 22.91’ is the actual last omen of the chapter, but compared to the length of other chapters with animal omens in Šumma ālu the omens lost here would probably be no more than twenty. Apart from the break in the middle and at the end of the sequence, the current reconstruction of Chapters 22 recounts almost all omens originally included. Of these 91 omens, 75 can be reconstructed in full, for five omens we can only reconstruct the protasis fully, for five only the apodosis, and 6 omens remain fragmentary. Disregarding the omens of Chapter 22 completely lost, we can account for almost 90% for the content of the chapter.

Compared to older editions of the chapter, our new revised edition represents a step forward in reconstructing Chapter 22 as far as currently possible with the available sources, including the rectification of erroneous readings of cuneiform signs and misleading translations. These are detailed in the philological commentary on the individual omens. Special note should be taken of the omen count diverging from that in the edition of If a City 2 (Freedman 2006): starting at our omen 22.38, our count is one higher than Freedman’s. We have chosen to add the omen now counted as 22.38 which is preserved only on one of two standard manuscripts into the regular sequence, assuming that it was omitted in the other. Freedman also does not account for the gap in the sequence of omens, which we locate between 22.43 and 22.44’.

A fragment, BM 37038, not included in Freedman’s edition, has been joined by the staff of the British Museum to manuscript BM 36389+.2 and now appears transliterated in our score. Likewise, researchers at the Electronic Babylonian Literature Project, led by Enrique Jiménez, have recently joined the fragment K 15580 to the excerpt text K 09510+.

Structure

The principal organisation of omens in divinatory lists is based on the content of the protasis. This is clearly recognisable from the internal division of chapters within an omen series, for example, the chapters within the animal omens of Šumma ālu are based on the animal species that plays the main role in the protasis. Likewise, within a single chapter, such as Chapter 22 with snake omens, subdivisions in the sequence can be determined according to the content of the protasis. Based on the protases in Chapter 22, we can roughly speak of seven sections.

Various kinds of pivots (a connecting element that can be realised at different linguistic levels) are involved in the connection of the individual, protasis-generated sections. In other words, the sections within a chapter can be shown to be linked to each other and not randomly arranged. Such pivots are not bound to follow the content of the protasis only, but may have a paradigmatic function within the apodosis. Following, I give a brief overview of the seven identified sections in Chapter 22, with a reference to the pivotal element where possible.

The first section, 22.1-22.34, is distinguished by the inclusion of a temporal framing in the protasis. The protases begin according to the pattern ‘If in month X (between day Y and day Z), a snake ...’. This type of protasis coincides with those in calendrical omens, such as in the divinatory series Iqqur īpuš (see Labat 1965). In fact, several snake omens in Chapter 22 of Šumma ālu are found as very close parallels in Iqqur īpuš (see Labat 1965). Specific times in the calendar were instrumental in the logic of ancient Mesopotamian divination. According to both the 'hemerologies' (see Kikuchi 2019) and the Diviner's Manual (see Oppenheim 1974, 206), the month in which an omen occurs renders it favourable or unfavourable.

In the first section of Chapter 22 of Šumma ālu, the chronological enumeration of the time frame in the protasis forms an organisational principle of the paradigm here. The order of the omens is guided by the order of the months. The first twenty omens of the section (22.1-22.20) specify the time of the protasis as being within the first month of the calendar year, Nisannu, either ‘on the first day of Nisannu’ (22.1, 22.2, 22.5), ‘between the first and the thirtieth day of Nisannu’ (22.3, 22.4, 22.7-22.20), or ‘between the first and the fifteenth day of Nisannu’ (22.6). Thereafter, omen 22.21 functions as a pivot, elaborating ‘on the New Year’s Festival, on the first day of Nisannu, or on the first day of Ayyāru, either all day or all night’. Variations follow in 22.22 (‘in Nisannu or in Ayyāru’) and 22.23 (‘between the first and the fifteenth day of Ayyāru’). Omens 22.24-34 each list simpler protases occurring in each month from Ayyāru (Month II) to Addaru (Month XII). Especially the sequence of 22.26-22.34 (Duʾūzu to Addaru), where the pattern of each protasis is šumma ina MN ṣēru amēla īmur ‘If in MN a snake stares at a man’, is an example of omen sequence generation which Winitzer (2017, 234) terms ‘pointillism of the paradigmatic type’, in other words, the exact repetition of the protasis involving only the variation of one single lexical element. Only the protasis of omen 22.33 is slightly elaborated by ‘in Šabāṭu, in the middle of winter’.

The protasis of omen 22.35 opens the second section of chapter 22, dropping the temporal element of the previous section. The pivot between the two sections is found in the content of the apodosis: both the apodosis of 22.34 and 22.35 contain eklet namrat "it will be dark, (but then) it will become bright", but the apodosis of 22.35 agglutinates an (unfortunately fragmentary) addition as well as an alternative apodosis separated by a Glossenkeil: ‘distress?, behind [... an u]nwilling one, in unhappiness [...] ... : he will be well]’.

The protases of the second section, 22.35-22.43, deal with various types of interaction between the client and the snake. With omen 22.41, the text becomes fragmentary, after 22.43 the sequence breaks off completely, leaving us with a presumably modest number of omens that have been entirely lost. 22.44' is also still fragmentary but starting at 22.45' we can define a section (22-45'-22.49') in which the snake comes into physical contact with the man. The protasis of omen 22.50' is somewhat fragmentary, but the repetition of the hole (ḫurru) still establishes a connection to the previous omen and the section in which it is embedded.

The section 22.51-22.66' is very homogeneous, for in the protasis the paradigmatic sequence exclusively varies the verb that names the action of the snake. A detailed analysis of this section is offered below as a case study.

The next very brief section (22.66'-22.68') is already introduced with the protasis of 22.66'. The pivot here is the explicitly violent behaviour of the snake, associated with violence in the apodosis. 22.69'-22.81' is marked by the more detailed definition of the locality of the snake's action in relation to the man's body, such as the right or left side or a specific part bodypart. 22.82'-22.84' switches from the man as client to a baby, 22.85'-22.91' to a sick man. This section is found as a parallel in the diagnostic series Sakikkû (Chapter 2, omens 19-30; see Heeßel 2001/2002, 31-42; Labat 1951, 8-11).

Case study: 22.51’-22.66’

The following case study is meant for illustrating the paradigmatic generation of the omen list by variant repetition of the protasis. This phenomenon is prevalent throughout the omen lists; it might be called the primary engine of omen list generation on the vertical level.

The section from Chapter 22 presented below (omens 22.51’-22.66’) was chosen for its illustrative use of pointillistically exchanging a single element within an otherwise static protasis, in this case, the verb which describes the action of the snake. ‘Pointillism of the paradigmatic type’ is the term used by Winitzer (2017: 233-237) to denote this type of complex gradation. The linguistic driver in our section is semantics, all verbs describing movement of varying degrees, some arguably synonymous. Certainly, the generation of apodoses on the vertical level is apparent in the presented section as well, though here, we can observe more variety in how this is done.

22.51’    If a snake dies in front of a man – he will see the downfall of his adversary.

22.52’    If a snake is pushed down in front of a man – he will kill his adversary.

22.53’    If a snake rears up in front of a man – (there will be) flooding and conquest.

22.54’    If a snake crawls around in front of a man – (there will be) flooding.

22.55’    If a snake is speeding in front of a man – (he will be) granted a wish.

22.56’    If a snake stands in front of a man – (there will be) a conquest by the king’s hand.

22.57’    If a snake strides in front of a man – (there will be) chaos.

22.58’    If a snake repeatedly interwines in front of a man – strife will constantly pursue him.

22.59’    [If snakes] are entwined in front of a man – he will be distressed.

22.60’    [If a snake] eats itself in front of a man – a heavy attack (will occur).

22.61’    [If] a snake hisses in front of a man – that man will consume his property.

22.62’    If a snake strikes in front of a man – whatever he is planning will work out.

22.63’    If a snake continuously appears in front of a man – that man’s property will be diminished, he will continuously suffer from unhappiness.

22.64’    If a snake goes up in front of a man – that man will be killed by a murderer.

22.65’    If a snake falls in front of a man – he will see the downfall of his adversary.

22.66’    If a snake bares its fangs (and) hisses in front of a man – that man will be seized in a rebellion.

Protasis

The sequence of verbs in the protasis generated by ‘pointillism of the paradigmatic type’ displays a pattern highlighted by the use of different colours in the table above. This pattern can be identified on the basis of considering the repetition of sound patterns (phonological repetition) and verbal forms (morphological repetition).

Marked in orange, three verbs with the first radical /m/ and the /u/-Ablaut appear in the G-stem preterite typical for omen protases: imūt (22.51’) – imṣur (22.57’) – imqut (22.66’). Of these, imṣur also takes up a sibilant, in this case /ṣ/, as do a number of protasis verbs in the sequence as well: izqup (22.53’) – izziz (22.56’) – izziq (22.61’) – ikaṣṣaṣ (22.66’). A close phonological affinity to this use of sibilants appears in the brief protasis of omen 22.59’, inazziq ‘he will be distressed’. Even though this apodosis is not paired with any of the phonologically relevant protasis-verbs, the placement between izziz (22.56’) and izziq (22.61’) is significant. The co-occurrence of the sibilants with the unvoiced guttural plosives /q/ or /k/ is embodied by this apodosis in the same way as by all the highlighted protasis verbs except izziz, which has only the sibilant /z/ as its consonantal radicals.

A phonological affinity might be located between the consequtive protasis verbs ittapaṣ (22.52’) and izqup (22.53’), which both display the co-occurrence of a sibilant and the consonant /p/. More relevantly, ittapaṣ and the verbs ittallak (22.54’), ītegger (22.58’), and ītakkal (22.60’) (highlighted in grey) stand out morphologically due to the implementation of the t-stem or tan-stem. This also entails the phonological realisation of the /t/ consonant. ittallak especially is reminicent of ittanallak in the apodosis of 22.63’, which in turn is morpho-syntactically parallel with iṣṣabbat in the apodosis of 22.66’, displaying the combination of sibilant and labial plosive as found in in ittapaṣ. The verbal slot in the protasis of 22.66’ is occupied by two verbs, ikaṣṣaṣ unappaḫ, which in combination provide the consonants /ṣ/ and /p/ as well. These ‘twin verbs’ function within the pointillistic sequence as an agglutinative change: instead of one verb, now there are two. The durative phonological pattern of the duplicated middle radical and the /a/-vowels creates a connection between them, though unappaḫ is notably in the D-stem.

Returning to the phonological patterns within the paradigmatic sequence of protasis-verbs, we have marked in purple the verbs ilsum (22.55’), kitpulū (22.59’), ilputa (22.62’), and īli (22.64’) since all of them make use of the liquid /l/; kitpulū and ilputa furthermore combine it with /k/. Perhaps ilputa functions as a bridge between kitpulū and the phonologically similar ikappudu in the apodosis of 22.62’. In return, ilsum and īli might be intended to form phonological connections with mīlum in the apodoses of 22.53’ and 22.54’ as well as mimma mala in the apodosis of 22.62’.

The stative verb sadir in omen 22.63’ stands out among the others as it does not prove an immediate phonological affinity, except perhaps through an affiliation of the sibilant /s/ with the frequent appearance of /z/ or /ṣ/, the dental /d/ with the frequent /t/, and the liquid /r/ with the frequent /l/. Since all the verbs except sadir and kitpulū (22.59’) are active in the third person singular and thus begin with the vowel /i/, it might not be irrelevant that sadir and kitpulū do display and /i/-vowel as well. Regarding kitpulū, it should also be mentioned that this verb can only be interpreted as plural since it is written syllabically (kit-pu-lu), after which we reconstruct an unfortunately unpreserved plural subject ṣērū 'snakes'. The Gt-stem expresses a reflexive interaction between the two (or more) snakes entwined with each other. The protasis verb in the preceding omen, 22.58’, is written logographically, GIL.MEŠ. The main manuscript used for this section of Chapter 22, K 02128+, preserves a singular subject, MUŠ, as does (apparently from the handcopy) the manuscript SU 51/79+. For this reason, GIL.MEŠ needs to be interpreted as a Gtn-stem rather than a plural, as ittanallak written DU.MEŠ in the apodosis of omen 22.63’. However, omen 22.58’ as preserved on BM 36389+.1, has a plural subject, MUŠ.MEŠ. In that case, the verb GIL.MEŠ is clearly a plural. The ambiguity between this use of the MEŠ-marker (or the reduplicated spelling such as DU.DU for ittallak in omen 22.54') was thus present both for the ancient scribes at the time and for today's philological investigation.

Apodosis

Various links and patterns are generated in the sequence of apodoses by syntactic, semantic, lexical, and phonological repetition.

The first two omens in the case study, 22.51' and 22.52', are semantically linked by the involvement of the bēl dabābišu ‘his (the man’s) adversary’ in the apodosis. Compared to omen 22.51’, omen 22.52' shows an intensification of the semantic content: whereas 22.51' merely describes the adversary’s downfall (i.e., his defeat in court against the client of the omen), 22.52' expresses the death of the adversary. It is striking, however, that the verb in the protasis of 22.51' means ‘it dies’, thus matching the semantic content of 22.52'; the verb in 22.51' means ‘it is pushed down’, in accordance with the ‘downfall’ in the apodosis of 22.51'. This builds a chiastic structure of the form Protasis(A)+Apodosis(B);Protasis(B)+Apodosis(A), which, arguable, binds the two separate omens of the couplet even closer together.

22.64’ and 22.65’ somewhat relate to 22.51’ and 22.52’. The semantic meaning of šāgišu išaggissu ‘he will be killed by a murderer’ (22.64’) aligns with the protasis verb idâk ‘dies’ (22.52’). The exact same apodosis as in 22.51’ is repeated in omen 22.65’. There, the verb in the apodosis means ‘to fall’, the verbal lexical equivalent to the noun ‘downfall’ in the apodosis of the omen.

Second to the type of complex gradation termed by Winitzer as ‘pointillism of the paradigmatic type’ (see above), is that of ‘pointillism of the agglutinative type’, where the full protasis or apodosis may be repeated exactly, but an additional element is attached to it to distinguish it from the former. Interestingly, however, the reverse case is found in the relationship between the apodoses of omens 22.53’ and 22.54': the second of the two apodoses is decimated compared to the previous one in 22.53'.

The rest of the sequence of apodoses can be divided into two parts: 22.55’-22.60’ and 22.61’-22.66’. Omens 22.55’-22.60’ provide phonological relationships between some of the lematta, as kašād (22.55’), kišitti (22.56’), tēšû (22.57’), irteneddīšu (22.58’), and kašdu (22.60’) all play with the compination of the sibilant /š/ and the dental /t/ or /d/.  kašād, kišitti, and kašdu are also lexical repetitions. 22.55’ and 22.56’ form a syntactic couplet, both are genitive constructions with similar semantic meanings of conquering (kašādu, kišittu); the syntactic structure is extended in 22.56’ by one lemma through the agglutination of an extra noun in the status constructus, qāt. ṣāltu in 22.58’ and tību in 22.60’ are morphologically parallel. The apodosis of omen 22.59’, inazziq, as discussed above, has clear phonological relationships to verbs in the protasis sequence. In the sequence of apodoses, inazziq ‘he will be distressed’ fits the semantic field of ‘chaos’ (22.57’), ‘strife’ (22.59’), and ‘attack’ (22.60’). (On the meaning of nazāqu as ‘to be distressed, upset’ rather than ‘to worry’ or ‘to grieve’ see Sibbing-Plantholt 2021, 371.)

The remaining sequence of apodoses, 22.61’-22.66’, is characterised first and foremost by the excat repetition of amēlu šū ‘that man’ in 22.61’, 22.63’, 22.64’, and 22.66’. Many apodoses in the snake omens begin with this reference to the client in the nominative. A triplet of omens, 22.61’-22.63’, is generated in part by this repetition of amēlu šū in the first and last of the three, but also through the phonological variant repetition displayed by the verbs ikkal (22.61’) – imaggar (22.62’) – iggammar (22.63’). imaggar and iggammar are even exact inversions of the first and second radical (magāru – gamāru). The coincidence of makkūršu in 22.61’ and 22.62’ designates the two protases almost synonymous. The apodosis of 22.62’ seems to be sandwiched between the two, mimma mala as I’ve argued above, might relate to mīlum in the apodoses of 22.53’ and 22.54’ and perhaps to protasis verbs with the radical /l/, such as ilputa (22.62’) and īli (22.64’).

An important pivot from omens 22.63’ to the last three omens in the case study is that it has a double apodosis: after amēlū šū makkūršū iggammar, there is an addition of ina lā ṭūb libbi ittanallak. This ties together with the apodosis of 22.66’, amēlu šū ina bārti iṣṣabbat, on the basis of exact repetition (amēlu šū), variant repetition (ina + lā ṭūb libbi vs bārti), and the morphological and phonological repetition between ittanallak and iṣṣabbat. The apodoses of omens 22.64’ and 22.65’ have already been discussed above: šāgišu išāggissu (22.64’) relates semantically to imūt in the protasis of 22.51’ and idâk in the apodosis of 22.52’; maqāt bēl dabābišu immar (22.65’) is an exact repetition of the apodosis of 22.51’ and a variation to the apodosis of 22.52’.

Conclusion

The formal analysis of a small section of snake omens in Chapter 22 of Šumma ālu  has elucidated some aspects of the intricate web build by ancient Mesopotamian scribes in the construction of such omen lists. The syntactic structure of the protases is relatively simple, but an examination of the phonology of each varying verb reveals an alternating pattern of verbs with similar phonological properties. The repetition of these is thus flexible in its order, but their recurrence also creates a link with earlier omens. The frequency of sibilants among the protasis verbs, especially /ṣ/, can be interpreted as an analogy with the snake itself, named ṣēru in Akkadian, and whose hiss might sounds similar to the sibilants employed in the sound patterns of the omens. Especially nazāqu ‘to be distressed’ and the derived noun niziqtu ‘distress’ are associated with hissing snakes (Sibbling Plantholt 2021, 369; Rendu Loisel 2016, 294). A whole sequence of apodoses in Chapter 22 is made up of only niziqtu (22.25-32). This example shows that the Mesopotamian scholars made associations on several cognitive and linguistic levels at the same time: on the one hand, a snake triggers distress in humans encountering them, on the other hand, the word for distress sounds similar to the hissing of a snake.

Regarding the structural set-up of the omen sequence in the case study, we see that several associations are expressed in a complex simultaneity. Semiotic links work not only on the syntagmatic level of the individual omen, connecting protasis and apodosis, but even more strikingly within the paradigmatic structure overall: the vertical sequence of both protasis and apodosis and their interplay binds the individual syntagmatic elements together and interweaves individual elements into an entire textual fabric in a distinctive fashion perfected by the ancient Mesopotamian diviner-scribes.

I thank Nicole Lundeen for reference to secondary literature on nazāqu.