1 - A 3405. An Unusual Astronomical Text From Uruk (Steele, 2000)

c Springer-Verlag 2000
Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 55 (2000) 103135.
A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

John M. Steele
Communicated by A. Jones
Introduction
The Tablet Collection of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago contains several astronomical texts among the series bearing registration numbers A 3400ff.
These tablets, all bought from dealers, apparently come from Uruk.1 The majority of the
texts contain mathematical astronomy and have been published by Otto Neugebauer in
his Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (Lund Humphries, London, 1955). One (A 3456) is
a collection of observations of Mercury and the dates of solstices, equinoxes and Sirius
phenomena for the years SE 116 to 132.2 A 3405, the text discussed here, contains a
collection of the dates and longitudes of planetary phenomena and lunar eclipses for the
period SE 60 to 70.
In answer to a query by Neugebauer, A 3405 was identified by J. Schaumberger as
containing planetary observations from the same period as those cited by Ptolemy in
his Almagest. Working from a photograph, Neugebauer and Abraham Sachs studied A
3405, and in his 1948 classification article Sachs described it as follows:
[A 3405] covers astronomical phenomena for the years 6070 SE, though it seems likely
from what can be read of the colophon that the text was written about 50 years later. The
sections are arranged by year, subsections month by month. Within this framework, on
the relevant days of the month, there appear the following entries: a. The Planetary Phenomena [i.e., the characteristic Greek Letter phenomena] . . . but in contrast to similar
information in all four of the main categories of non-tabular texts [i.e., Diaries, Almancs,
Normal Star Almanacs, and Goal Year Texts] . . . they are accompanied by the mention of the exact degree within the zodiacal sign. b. Lunar eclipses with indications of
the moment of opposition, the longitude, the eclipse magnitude, and the type of node. In
mentioning the type of node and in giving the exact degree within the zodiacal sign for the
longitude, the eclipse items deviate from those found in the four main types of non-tabular
astronomical documents. No other information whatsoever is given. The logograms for
This is certain for many of these texts (including A 3405) on account of the colophon. See
O. Neugebauer, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (Lund Humphries, London, 1955), 4.
2
H. Hunger, A 3456: eine Sammlung von Merkurbeobachtungen, in E. Leichty, M. De
Jong Ellis and P. Gerardi (eds.), A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs
(University Museum, Philadelphia, 1988), 201223.
104
J.M. Steele
Mercury and Jupiter are given in the abbreviated forms GU4 and BABBAR, which are
otherwise exceedingly rare.3
Nothing further was written about the text bar a brief comment by Neugebauer in
1951 that it proved exceedingly interesting in many respects.4 It was catalogued by
Sachs in his Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (Brown University Press,
Providence, 1955) as number *1479. In their book Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia
(Brill, Leiden, 1999), p. 178, Hermann Hunger and David Pingree summarise Sachss
description of A 3405, and remark, although without detailing their reasons, that it is
highly likely that the longitudes were computed by means of ACT-type systems. A full
edition of A 3405 has now been prepared by Hermann Hunger for publication in volume
5 of A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia
(Osterreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien). What follows is based upon his
transliteration of the text, generously made available to me in advance of publication.
Any errors of interpretation etc. are, of course, my own.
As Neugebauer remarked, A 3405 is indeed exceedingly interesting. Its contents
are unique: no other text contains a mixed collection of data for the planets with degrees
of longitude given for the phenomena. In the ACT ephemerides, planetary longitudes
are never rounded to the nearest degree, whilst the NMAT texts such as the Diaries never
give degrees within zodiacal signs. Furthermore, data from different planets are never
combined in the ACT ephemerides.
A 3405 is made additionally interesting by its colophon. This reveals that the text
was written more than 50 years after its contents, unusual in itself, and that it was owned
by Anu-bel-sunu, son of Nidinti-Ani, who is well known from the ACT material and
from his horoscope.
I offer below an astronomical interpretation of the data recorded on A 3405. In doing so, however, I must acknowledge that several (perhaps unsurmountable) problems
remain, in particular with the dates of the Mercury phenomena and the lunar eclipse
data. In the final section of this paper I discuss the importance of this text in the broader
context of Mesopotamian astronomy and astrology of the Seleucid period, and offer
some suggestions for why it was compiled.
The text
When complete A 3405 contained 4 columns on each of the obverse and reverse.
Columns IV (obverse) and V (reverse) are now destroyed, and little remains of column
III (obverse). Within each column, each line is devoted to a single astronomical phenomenon, with the exception of the eclipse data which are spread over 2 lines. The beginning
of each year is separated from the last by a horizontal ruling, and the new year number
begins the next entry. When a new month starts, the month name is given before the day
A. Sachs, A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,

Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2 (1948), 271290.
4
O. Neugebauer, The Babylonian Method for the Computation of the Last Visibilities of
Mercury, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95 (1951), 110116, esp. 111.
105
number; otherwise the day number was considered sufficient. Month names follow the
usual Uruk conventions with Month XII2 written DIRI rather than the Babylon norm
DIR-SE.
The astronomical data comprises lunar eclipse possibilities and the usual Greek
Letter phenomena for the planets.5 For the inner planets that is:
: first visibility in the east (KUR . . . IGI)
: last visibility in the east (KUR . . . S U)
: first visibility in the west (SU . . . IGI)

. . . S U)
: last visibility in the west (S U

and for the outer planets:
: first visibility in the east (. . . IGI)
: stationary point in the east (. . . US)

: acronychal rising (. . . ana ME a)
: stationary point in the west (. . . US)
: last visibility in the west (. . . S U)

where . . . is the longitude of the phenomena. In addition to being highly abbreviated,6 there is some difference between the terminology used for these phenomena and
the usual Babylon conventions. In particular, the logogram KUR is used for east/morning, whereas texts from Babylon usually have NIM. Longitudes are given to the degree
within the zodiacal signs. The logograms used for the signs are the usual ones for Uruk
(eg., LU for Aries, GIR-TAB for Scorpio, zib for Pisces). The names of the planets
Mercury and Jupiter are abbreviated to GU4 and BABBAR respectively (instead of the
7
normal GU4 -UD and MUL-BABBAR).

A schematic translation of A 3405 is presented in Table 1. Note that horizontal alignment is not preserved in this translation. For further textual details, see the full edition
in Sachs-Hunger. Several scribal errors are evident in the text. I have marked likely
corrections to the text in the margin. Most of these are the addition or subtraction of an
extra sign for 10. The reasons for these proposed corrections are given in the discussion
below. In this discussion, I have highlighted those numbers I correct by underlining the
(uncorrected) number in the text.
Astronomical commentary
The astronomical data recorded on A 3405, namely the dates and longitudes of the
Greek Letter phenomena of the planets and several lunar eclipse possibilities, must have
I follow here the traditional definitions of the planetary phenomena. In the light of P. J.
Huber, Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III (Undena Publications, Malibu, 1982) and
should probably be defined as first disappearance rather than last visibility.
6
ina
Through the omission of the preposition ina. We would normally expect, eg., ina S U
. . . S U.
7
This abbreviated name for Mercury is also found in A 3456.
II
13, [. . .]
(eclipse) 22,[x]0 H
p AB LAL
28, Venus Sag 25
28, Mercury Sag 5
X, 4, Saturn Sag 19
10, Jupiter Vir 10 + x
12, Mars
[. . .] 25
24, Mercury [A]qu 8
XI, 18, Mercury [A]qu 30
29, Venus [Pi]s 1
XII, 6, Mercury [ Aq]u 23
7, Jupiter Vir 11
XII2 , 10 Mercury Pis 23
SE 62, I, 3, Saturn Sag 26
9 Mercury Tau 18
10 Jupiter
Vir 7
II, 15, 1 after sunset, Sag 11
(eclipse) 30,20 H
p AB SIG
24, Mercury Gem 30
28 Saturn Sag 23
III, 19 [Mercury] Gem 28
IV, 8, Mercury Can 17
29, Saturn
Sag 19
V, 17 Jupiter Vir 22
[. . .]
25 Mars Lib 1
[V]I [. . .]
14 [. . .]
25, Jupiter [ Ca]n 26?
IV, 4, Venus Can 28
6, Mercury Leo 3
12, Saturn
Sco 26
24, Mars Leo 23
24, Jupiter Can 30
26, Mercury Can 28
V, 18, Mercury Leo 18
VII, 9, Mercury Sco 8 DIB
26, Mercury Sco 21
VIII, 9, Saturn Sag 5
11, Mars Sco 7
12, Mercury Sco 14

29, Jupiter Leo 17
IX, 11, Saturn Sag 7
14, 20 before sunset Gem 26
(eclipse) 11,40 H
p AB LAL
28, Mercury Sag 28
X, 27, Jupiter Leo 13
29, Mercury Aqu 25
[XI], 24, Mercury Pis 16
[XII, 1]7, Mercury Pis 13
[2]7, Jupiter
Leo 8
[SE 61 . . .]
[. . . Venus] Ari 12
[. . .] Saturn Sag 15
[. . .] Mercury [ . . .]
20 + [x . . .]
VIII [. . .]
IX, 10 + [x . . .]
20 + [x . . .]
29 [. . .]
X, 5, Mer[cury . . .]
15, Mercury [ . . .]
21, S[aturn . . .]
XI, 5, Ma[rs
. . .]
[. . .]
XII [. . .]
[. . .]
I[II . . .]
10 + [x . . .]
IV, 4 [. . .]
25 [. . .]
V [. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
III
IV (destroyed)
Table 1. Schematic translation of A 3405 (note: horizontal alignment is not preserved)
28 18
106
J.M. Steele
17, Jupiter 10 + [x . . .]
26, Mercury [ . . .]
V, 22, Sa[turn . . .]
VI, 12, Mercury [ . . .]
14, Jupiter [ . . .] 6
29, Mercury [. . .] 10 + [x]
VII, 18 Mercury [. . .]
22, Mercury Aqu 6

XI, 2, Mercury Cap 22
15, Venus Aqu 28
XI, 8, Mars Sco 3
16, Mercury Pis 4
16, Saturn Pis 28
XII2 , 14, Mercury Ari 27
17, Saturn Pis 29
27, Mars Lib 27
Colophon
[SE 70 . . .]
SE 68, I, 1, Ma[rs
. . .]
25, Mer[cury . . .]
28, [. . .]
III, 9, Mer[cury . . .]
28, Sa[turn . . .]
30, Venus [ . . .]
IV, 3 Mercury [ . . .]
14, 50 [. . .]
(eclipse) 10,20 [H
p AB LAL]
VII, 11, Mercury Lib 4

VIII, 2, Jupiter Tau 12
16, Mercury Sco 8
17, Saturn
Pis 15
IX, 24, Venus Sag 12
29, Mercury Cap 16
X, 3, Jupiter
Tau 6
13, 24 after sunrise
(eclipse) 35,10 H
p AB SIG
[(eclipse) . . .] 20 H
p [AB] SIG
[. . . Jupiter] Gem 15
[. . . Mer]cury Sag 29
[. . . Mer]cury Cap 16
[. . . Mer]cury Cap 4
[. . . x] + 10 Jupiter
Gem 10
[. . . Mer]cury Aqu 16
[. . . Mer]cury Ari 12
[. . .] Saturn Ari 9
[. . .]
26 Sa[turn . . .]
XI, 6, Mer[cury . . .]
9, Jupiter [ . . .]
22, Mars [ . . .]
24, Mer[cury . . .]
28, Sa[turn . . .]
XII, 8, Ju[piter . . .]
23, Mer[cury . . .]
[. . . x] + 3 after sunrise Cap 21

(eclipse) 6,10 H
p AB LAL
15, Mars Can 7
19, Mercury Can 11
23, Saturn Pis 24
V, 29, Mercury Vir 16 DIB
VI, 5, Jupiter , Tau 6
17, Saturn Pis 20
23, Mercury Lib 8 DIB
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .] Mercury [. . .]
[. . .] 5 [. . .]
VI
VII
IIIVIII
Table 1. (cont.)
V (destroyed)
28 25
15 25
12 22
6 16
107
108
J.M. Steele
come from one of three sources: (i) observation, (ii) non-mathematical astronomical
texts such as Almanacs or Normal Star Almanacs, or (iii) mathematical astronomical
texts such as the ACT ephemerides.
Several considerations count against option (i). When complete the text contained
a complete run of planetary phenomena over an eleven year period, with no indication
of bad weather preventing observation of any of the events. Furthermore, the observations recorded in the Astronomical Diaries and the planetary compilations at most
only give the location of the celestial body at the time of the observation to the sign
of the zodiac in which it occurred, occasionally with a statement that it was at the
beginning (SAG) or at the end (TIL) of that sign. Never is the position of the planet
given to the degree within a sign, as in A 3405. In any case, it is quite possible that
the zodiacal signs in which the planetary phenomena are said to have occurred were
not observed but calculated.8 The only precise observations of the positions of the planets in the Diaries are given with respect to the Normal Stars and, although Huber has
shown that the Babylonian zodiac was sidereal and related to these Normal Stars,9 only
infrequently are Normal Star observations reported on the same nights as the planetary
phenomena.
We have a small number of occasions when there is overlap between A 3405 and a
preserved Diary fragment:
Diary
A 3405
SE 60, VII, 11: Mercury omitted

SE 60, VII, 26: Mercury omitted
SE 60, VII, 27? : Mars in Lib
SE 60, VIII, 6: Saturn at beginning of Sag
SE 60, VIII, 13: Mercury in Sco
SE 60, VIII, 17: Jupiter in Leo
SE 60, XII, 21: Jupiter
in Leo
SE 62, IV, 29: Saturn
SE 60, VII, 9: Mercury at Sco 8 omitted

SE 60, VII, 26: Mercury at Sco 21
SE 60, VIII, 7 Mars at Sco 7
SE 60, VIII, 9: Saturn at Sag 5
SE 60, VII, 12: Mercury at Sco 14
SE 60, VIII, 29: Jupiter at Leo 17
SE 60, XII, 27? : Jupiter
at Leo 8
SE 62, IV, 29: Saturn at Sag 19
Clearly there is very little agreement between the observations in the Diaries and
the data on A 3405. Indeed, there are discrepancies of up to 12 days in the date of
the phenomena, which immediately suggests that the data on A 3405 cannot have been
observed. Even though A 3405 comes from Uruk and the Diaries from Babylon, we
would not expect observers located at these two cities to be in such disagreement. We
have another Uruk text (A 3456) which contains observations of Mercury phenomena
for SE 116 to 132.10 Here there are only discrepancies of a couple of days with ob8
See A. Sachs, Classification, 289 for the argument behind this statement.
P. J. Huber, Ueber den Nullpunkt der babylonischen Ekliptik, Centaurus 5 (1958), 192
208. See also the fragmentary star catalogue published by A. Sachs, A Late Babylonian Star
Catalogue, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 6 (1952), 146150 which gives the longitudes within
zodiacal signs of several Normal Stars.
10
H. Hunger, A 3456.
9
109
servations in the Babylonian Diaries, which is what we would expect from observers
located in these two cities. Thus, it seems highly likely that the data on A 3405 were not
observed.
Option (ii) also seems an unlikely source for the astronomical data on A 3405. Both
Normal Star Almanacs and Almanacs contain the dates and zodiacal signs of the Greek
Letter phenomena of the planets. However, as with the planetary data in the Diaries,
precise longitudes within the zodiacal signs are never given. Theoretically, it would be
possible to obtain planetary longitudes either from the distances to the Normal Stars
given in the Normal Star Almanacs, or from the dates of the entrances of the planets
into zodiacal signs given in the Almanacs. However, this seems to me to be unlikely,
especially given the relatively small number of non-mathematical astronomical texts
recovered from Uruk.
This leaves us with option (iii), namely that the planetary data in A 3405 came from
the texts of mathematical astronomy. As we shall see below, this is almost certainly the
correct option. Babylonian planetary theory has as its principal goal the prediction of all
future dates and longitudes of a particular Greek Letter phenomenon of a planet given an
initial date-longitude pair. Two general systems were developed to obtain these results,
which for convenience we call Systems A and B. In System A, the synodic arc between two consecutive phenomena of the same kind is functionally dependent upon the
longitude , whereas in System B it is functionally dependent upon the previous value.
The synodic time t is usually given by adding a constant to . Two lunar theories
are known, also called System A and B because they treat the longitude of successive
syzygies in a way analogous to the respective planetary theories. For a full treatment of
Babylonian mathematical astronomy, I refer to reader to the works of Neugebauer and
others.11
To test whether the data in A 3405 comes from the ACT texts it will be necessary to
discuss each planet in turn. Unfortunately, the longitudes in A 3405 are only expressed
to integer degrees and for some phases of particular planets there is only a small amount
of data preserved. It may not always be possible, therefore, to assign a unique model to
all the data. Furthermore, it may be that some of the data was calculated by models that
are currently unknown. Due to the comparatively small amount of data preserved it is,
however, not possible to uncover the details of any new models from this text. It will be
useful to note that the years SE 61, 64, 66, and 69 all contained an intercalary Month
XII2 .
(i) Mercury
Due to the relatively short mean synodic period of Mercury (c. 116 days) more
Greek Letter phenomena are preserved in A 3405 for this planet than for the other four
11
See, for example, O. Neugebauer, ACT, idem, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975), A. Aaboe, On Period Relations in Babylonian Astronomy,
Centaurus 10 (1964), 213231, and N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998).
110
J.M. Steele
combined. This gives us a good chance of identifying the model by which the data was
calculated. Two systems for Mercury, A1 and A2 , are known. In System A1 , only
and are calculated independently; and are determined by adding pushes whose
length is dependent upon the longitude of the preceding phase. Let us recompute the
dates and longitudes of and over the period covered by A 3405. For the initial
longitude is taken as Cancer 28 and the date as SE 60, IV, 26. For , the initial longitude
as Scorpio 8;30 and the date as SE 60, VII, 9.
Mercury
System A1 Longitude
System A1 Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Can 28
Sco 13;37,30
Pis 14;10
Can 13;40
Lib 27;30
Aqu 22;40
Gem 29;20
Lib 11;22,30
Aqu 1;10
Gem 15
Vir 25;15
Cap 11;15
Gem 0;40
Vir 9;7,30
Sag 25;7,30
Tau 9;30
Leo 23
Sag 9
Ari 18
Can 26;52,30
Sco 23;52,30
Pis 26;30
Can 21;53,20
Lib 26;45
Pis 5
Can 7;33,20
Lib 20;37,30
Aqu 13;30
Gem 23;13,20
Lib 4;30
Cap 22
Gem 8;53,20
Vir 18;22,30
Cap 4;22,30
60, IV, 26
60, VIII, 15;8,9
60, XII, 19;11,18
61, IV, 22;11,57
61, VIII, 9;32,36
61, XII, 8;13,15
62, III, 18;23,51
62, VII, 3;57
62, X, 27;15,9
63, III, 14;35,48
63, VI, 28;21,27
63, X, 17;52,6
64, III, 10;47,45
64, VI, 22;45,54
64, X, 12;16,33
65, II, 0;9,42
65, V, 17;10,21
65, IX, 6;41
66, I, 19;12,39
66, V, 1;35,48
66, IX, 1;6,27
66, XII2 , 8;14,36
67, IV, 7;8,35
67, VII, 15;30,54
67, XI, 27;16,33
68, IV, 3;20,33
68, VII, 19;55,22
68, XI, 16;18,31
69, III, 29;32,30
69, VII, 14;19,49
69, XI, 5;20,28
70, II, 25;44,27
70, VI, 8;44,16
70, IX, 28;14,55
Can 28
Sco 14
Pis 13
60, IV, 26
60, VIII, 12
60, XII, 17
Aqu 23
Gem 28
61, XII, 6
62, III, 19
63, X, 15
67, XI, 24
68, IV, 3
68, VII, 18
Lib 4
Cap 22
Cap 4
69, VII, 11
69, XI, 2
111

Mercury
System A1 Longitude
System A1 Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Sco 8;30
Aqu 25;10
Gem 2;39
Lib 20;25
Aqu 8;56,40
Tau 18;3
Vir 26;5
Cap 22;43,20
Tau 3;27
Vir 1;45
Cap 6;30
Ari 18;51
Leo 7;25
Sag 20;16,40
Ari 4;15
Can 13;5
Sag 4;3,20
Pis 19;39
Gem 25;39
Sco 17;50
Pis 4;30
Gem 11;3
Sco 1;36,40
Aqu 18;16,40
Tau 26;27
Lib 10;5
Aqu 2;3,20
Tau 11;51
Vir 16;45
Cap 15;50
Ari 27;15
Leo 21;25
Sag 29;36,40
Ari 12;39
60, VII, 9
60, X, 29;10,39
61, II, 10;10,18
61, VII, 1;26,57
61, X, 23;29,16
62, I, 6;6,15
62, V, 17;38,51
62, IX, 17;47,47
63, I, 2;2,6
63, V, 3;50,45
63, IX, 12;6,24
63, XII, 27;58,3
64, IV, 20;2,42
64, IX, 6;25,1
64, XII, 23;54
65, III, 6;14,39
65, VIII, 0;43,38
65, XI, 19;49,57
66, II, 29;20,36
66, VII, 25;2,15
66, XI, 15;12,54
67, I, 25;16,33
67, VI, 19;20,52
67, X, 9;31,31
68, I, 21;12,30
68, VI, 8;21,9
68, X, 3;50,8
69, I, 17;8,27
69, V, 24;33,6
69, IX, 28;8,45
69, XII2 , 13;4,24
70, IV, 10;45,3
70, VIII, 22;27,22
70, XII, 9;0,21
Sco 8 DIB
Aqu 25
60, VII, 9
60, X, 29
Aqu 8
Tau 18
61, X, 24
62, I, 9
68, I, 25
68, VI, 12
Vir 16 DIB
Cap 16
Ari 27
69, V, 29
69, IX, 29
69, XII2 , 14
Sag 29
Ari 12
The longitudes of and computed by system A1 are in good, but not perfect,
agreement with those found in A 3405: all are within 1 of the System A1 values. However, the dates are in very poor agreement with those given by System A1 . For , only
one date, SE 68, IV, 3 is exactly as expected; the others generally being two or three days
earlier. Similarly, for , only the date SE 60, X, 29 is in agreement with the computed
date; the others being up to five days late.
In System A1 and are calculated using pushes from the longitudes and dates
of and respectively. These pushes are dependent upon the position of the planet in
the ecliptic at and . Several tables for computing the pushes are preserved. They are
112
J.M. Steele
published as ACT 800a to 800e.12 Below I give the longitudes and dates of and
calculated using pushes. In the first pair of columns the pushes have been applied to the
longitudes and dates calculated using System A1 above. In the second pair the pushes
have been applied to the and data preserved on A 3405 (dates in parenthesis were
calculated by applying pushes to the recorded dates, but using longitudes taken from
System A1 since they are not preserved in the text). The final pair contains the preserved
and data on A 3405.
Mercury
A1 + Pushes
Longitude
A1 + Pushes Date
+ Pushes
Longitude
+ Pushes
Date
Text
Longitude
Text Date
Leo 21;44
Sag 27;10
Ari 8;26,40
Leo 5;26,40
Sag 5;40
Pis 24;6,40
Can 19;14,40
Sco 14;53,30
Pis 8;51,20
Can 3
Lib 26;37
Aqu 16;15
Gem 16;45,20
Lib 7;0,30
Aqu 8;7
Tau 22;28
Vir 20;4
Cap 23
Tau 0;12
Leo 20;27,30
Cap 7;52,30
Ari 15;54
Leo 14;48,26,40
Sag 4;40
Ari 2;20
Can 28;33,46,40
Sco 26;30
Pis 17;54
Can 12;19,4,40
Sco 7;6
Pis 2;8
Gem 26;4,26,40
Lib 18;49,30
Aqu 17;5
60, V, 21;18
60, X, 1;8,9
61, I, 13;27,58
61, V, 15;58,37
61, IX, 19;42,36
61, XII2 , 9;39,55
62, IV, 9;47,11
62, VII, 8;13,30
62, XII, 5;51,49
63, IV, 3;35,48
63, VIII, 0;24,27
63, XII, 2;7,6
64, III, 28;21,45
64, VII, 22;10,39
64, XI, 27;36,3
65, II, 15;47,42
65, VI, 14;58,21
65, X, 22;41
66, II, 3;24,39
66, V, 26;47,3
66, X, 17;6,27
66, XII2 , 28;24,36
67, V, 1;49,55
67, VIII, 25;25,54
67, XII1 , 24;36,33
68, IV, 26;6,6,20
68, VIII, 27;47,52
68, XII, 20;48,31
69, IV, 19;54,43,20
69, VIII, 18;13,46
69, XII, 17;0,28
70, III, 18;43,20,20
70, VII, 9;24,46
70, XI, 12;57,25
Leo 21;44
Sag 27;40
Ari 7;40
60, V, 21;18
60, IX, 27;40
61, I, 11;40
Leo 18
Sag 28
60, V, 18
60, IX, 28
Pis 24;20
Can 17;44
61, XII2 , 7;20

62, IV, 10;10
Sag . . .
Pis 23
Can 17
61, IX, 28
61, XII2 , 10
62, IV, 8
12
(63, XI, 29;15)
(67, XII, 21;20)

(68, IV, 25;45,33,20)
(68, VII, 25;52,30)
Sco 6;32
Pis 2;8
69, VIII, 14;13,49

69, XI, 13;40
Aqu 16;44
See O. Neugebauer, ACT, 293295 for a summary of these tables.
67, XII, 23
68, IV, 26
Can 11
Sco 8
Pis 4
Aqu 16
69, IV, 19
69, VIII, 16
69, XII, 16
113
Mercury
A1 + Pushes
Longitude
A1 + Pushes Date
Leo 2;57
Sco 22;30
Pis 17;10
Can 17;0,12
Vir 4;25
Pis 0;32,36,40
Can 0;27,24
Lib 15;7,40
Aqu 13;14,13,20
Gem 14;27,36
Lib 13;49
Cap 25;22
Tau 25;37,12
Leo 21;25
Sco 6;58,53,20
Ari 5;14
Leo 19;28
Sag 22;35,46,40
Ari 13;49,12
Leo 10;13,48
Sag 2;1,20
Pis 26;30
Can 26;31,24
Sco 16;43,6,40
Pis 10;16,40
Can 9;58,36
Lib 25;23,40
Aqu 21;8,13,20
Gem 23;13,12
Lib 8;17
Aqu 5;53,20
Gem 5;42
Vir 24;25,20
Cap 17;33,33,20
60, IV, 1;56,21

60, VIII, 24
60, XI, 23;10,39
61, III, 25;42,6
61, VII, 16;26,57
61, XI, 17;52,40
62, II, 18;42,15
62, VI, 5;48,1
62, X, 10;18,40,20
63, II, 11;43,30
63, V, 1;47,45
63, X, 2;24,24
64, II, 4;44,15
64, V, 29;33,42
64, IX, 23;28,21
64, XII2 , 25;36
65, IV, 20;29,59
65, VIII, 19;46,58
65, XII, 15;41,33
66, IV, 15;55,24
66, VIII, 10;7,55
66, XII, 9;12,54
67, III, 12;29,9
67, VII, 4;20,52
67, XI, 3;31,31
68, III, 5;29,54
68, VI, 24;20,9
68, X, 26;58,21,20
69, II, 28;30,39
69, VI, 14;15,36
69, X, 20;12,5
70, I, 21;31,24
70, V, 14;54,3
70, IX, 11;22,42
+ Pushes
Longitude
+ Pushes
Date
Text
Longitude
Text Date
Sco 22
Pis 17
60,VIII,24
60, XI, 23
Leo 3
Sco 21
Pis 16
60, IV, 6
60, VII, 26
60, XI, 24
Aqu 29;32
Can 0;24
61, XI, 17;32

62, II, 21;36
Aqu 30
Gem 30
61, XI, 18
62, II, 24
63, X, 5
(68, III, 9;17,24)

(68, VI, 27;49,10)
Lib 7;44
Aqu 6;4
Gem 5;24
Cap 16;52
69, VI, 18;50

69, X, 21;4
70, I, 22;24
10 + x
67, XI, 6
68, III, 9
68, VI, 29
Lib 8 DIB
Aqu 6
69, VI, 23
69, X, 22
Cap 16
The longitudes are on the whole in fairly good agreement with those given by applying pushes to the longitude of and . For , discrepancies of up to 3 degrees exist,
but for , discrepancies never exceed 1 degree. The cause of these discrepancies is not
known; sometimes they are reduced when we apply the pushes to the longitudes of
and which were recomputed using System A1 rather than the longitudes recorded on
A 3405. However, in about as many cases the opposite is true. The dates obtained from
the pushes, however, often deviate considerably from those recorded on the text. Once
more, sometimes it is possible to reduce the discrepancy by using the recomputed System A1 dates, rather than those preserved in the text, but sometimes this has the opposite
effect. Another possible explanation for the discrepancies may be that the pushes were
not applied accurately, which is quite common among the preserved ACT material. For
114
J.M. Steele
example, in ACT 301, the length of the pushes are assumed to be constant within each
sign.13 The date SE 61, IX, 18 for is most likely a scribal error for SE 61, IX, 28.
Although the agreement between the preserved longitudes of Mercury on A 3405
and those calculated by System A1 is not perfect, they are clearly too close to result
from mere coincidences. The only other well known ACT scheme for Mercury, System
A2 , only roughly fits the preserved data, with many serious discrepancies. This is only
to be expected, of course, since the synodic arcs which result from applying Systems
A1 and A2 differ by up to 10 in some parts of the zodiac.14 Therefore, I conclude that
the longitudes of Mercury were indeed computed by System A1 . The discrepancies in
longitude may simply be due to scribal errors resulting from copying from a longer
ephemeris, which may itself have contained errors. However, the discrepancies between
the System A1 dates and those preserved in our text are more serious, and are less likely to be the result of simple scribal errors. It is worth noting here, therefore, that for
the preserved System A2 ephemerides the standard relation between synodic time and
synodic arc was not used.15 Instead the difference between these two quantities varied,
possibly depending upon the longitude. Perhaps some similar correction was applied to
the System A1 dates in this text.
Finally, let me remark on the use of the term DIB omitted after the longitude on
three occasions. Because Mercurys orbit results in a variation of both longitude and latitude, certain phases of its visibility are occasionally missed. Ptolemy (Almagest, XIII, 3)
writes that around the beginning of Scorpio, Mercury does not appear as an evening-star,
and at the beginning of Taurus, it does not appear as a morning-star. He then correctly
explains that this is caused by the highly negative latitude of the planet in these sections
of the zodiac, and the fact that the ecliptic is only slightly inclined to the horizon. Even
at greatest elongation from the sun, then, the planet does not rise high enough above the
horizon to become visible. Although not explained in these terms, the fact that phases of
Mercurys visibility do not occur when the planet is in certain sections of the zodiac was
known to the Babylonians. Several examples are found in the Diaries where a date of first
appearance (and the subsequent last appearance) is followed by DIB, indicating that the
phenomena did not occur.16 The date and rough position of the phenomena must then
have been calculated, as was also the case when bad weather prevented observation.
In the Almanacs also, some of the predicted phenomena are marked DIB, indicating
that they were not expected to prove visible.17 Obviously some criterion was applied to
the predicted dates or positions of Mercurys phases to determine whether they would
be omitted, but we do not yet know what that criterion was. In the ephemerides, some
phases of Mercury are marked DIB. Again, we do not know the exact basis upon which
O. Neugebauer, ACT , 294295 and 318321.

See figure 7 on p. 78 of O. Neugebauer, Babylonian Planetary Theory, Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, 98 (1954), 6089.
15
O. Neugebauer, ACT , 298.
16
S U-
su DIB Mercurys last appearance in
Eg. Diary 283a, obv. 8: . . . GU4 -UD ina S U
the west, omitted.
17
Eg. LBAT 1174, obv. 3: . . . GU4 -UD NIM UD.DA IGI DIB . . . Mercurys first appearance
in the east, omitted.
13
14
115
this was done, but Neugebauer estimates that within reasonably small errors, is omitted between Aries 10 and Taurus 20 (hence also omitted between Aries 24 and
Gemini 5 ), and is omitted between Libra 0 and Scorpio 5 (hence also omitted
between Libra 18 and Scorpio 30 ).18 In A 3405, is said to be omitted on SE 60,
VII, 9 at Scorpio 8 and on SE 69, V, 29 at Virgo 16 , and is omitted on SE 69, VI,
23 at Libra 8 and, although it is not marked, also on SE 60, VII, 26 at Scorpio 22
since the preceding was omitted. This seems to suggest that the region of the zodiac
in which Mercury does not appear as an evening-star was considered to be somewhat
longer than in the usual ephemerides. None of the preserved appearances of Mercury as
a morning-star are marked with DIB, as is to be expected since they do not take place in
Aries or Taurus.
(ii) Venus
Our knowledge of ACT type schemes for Venus is hampered by the small number of texts preserved: 9 ephemerides, 1 (at that time unidentified) template text, and 3
procedure texts were published in ACT,19 and a further 3 texts have been published subsequently.20 At the heart of all of these Venus texts is the period relation that 5 synodic
periods are very close to 8 years. More precisely, after 5 synodic periods, the longitude
of a phenomenon decreases by 2;30 , and the date by 4;10 tithis. The equivalence of 8
years with 5 synodic periods is used in the Goal-Year texts, and was probably known
much earlier. It is implied in a unusual omen text from the time of the Assyrian king
Assurbanipal (7th century BC),21 and is stated explicitly on BM 45728 which probably
dates to before the 4th century BC,22 BM 41004, probably from the 4th or 5th century
BC,23 and LBAT 1515, obv. 8. Furthermore, these last three texts also state that after 8
years the Venus phenomena will recur 4 days earlier, and (in BM 41004 only) 4 back
to the west.
The 8 year period of Venus is used directly in all of the ephemerides. Thus, if one
knows the date and longitude of one phenomenon, the date and location of the phenomenon 8 years hence can be determined simply by reducing the date by 4;10 tithis and the
longitude by 2;30 . This is just what is done in System A0 , although in the preserved
ephemerides, 4;10 tithis is approximated by 4;5 days; in Systems A1 and A2 , however,
the change in date is approximated by 4 days, and for System A2 , the longitudes are
decreased by 2;40 rather than the expected 2;30 . In order to use this 8 year rule to
18
O. Neugebauer, HAMA, 404.

ACT 400ff, 812, 815, 821b, and 1050.
20
BM 36301, BM 37151, and BM 33552.
21
H. Hunger, Kryptographische Astrologische Omina, in M. Dietrich and W. Rollig (eds.),
lisan mithp urti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden (Butzon & Bercker, Kevelaer, 1969), 133
145.
22
F. X. Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel I (Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
Munster in Westfalen, 1907), 4548.
23
Text E in O. Neugebauer and A. Sachs, Some Atypical Astronomical Cuneiform Texts I,
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21 (1967), 183218.
19
116
J.M. Steele
calculate all future events, however, one needs to know the dates and positions of the
five phenomena within the first 8 year period. Several systems are known to obtain this
information. The simplest, known as A0 , just uses the mean synodic arc for the planet. In
Systems A1 and A2 the synodic arcs and times are determined by the sign of the zodiac
in which the preceding phenomena took place. Due to the small amount of preserved
material, the synodic arc used in Systems A1 and A2 are not known for all signs of
the zodiac. Because these synodic arcs are not modified when they result in a crossing
between zones, these systems are not true System A schemes. A true System A scheme
does exist, however. It was used in calculating the template text ACT 1050.
A 3405 contains only 7 Greek letter phenomena for Venus: 4 first visibilities in the
west, 2 last visibilities in the east, and 1 first visibility in the east. They are:
SE 60, IV, 4
[SE 60, . . . ]
SE 61, IX, 28
SE 61, XI, 29
SE 68, III, 30
SE 69, IX, 24
SE 69, XI, 15

Cancer 28
Aries 12
Sagittarius 25
Pisces 1
[. . .]
Sagittarius 12
Aquarius 28
First let me remark that apart from two obvious scribal errors (on SE 69, IX, 24, must
be at Sagittarius 22, and must taken place on SE 69, XI, 25 not SE 69, XI, 15), all of
the data are consistent with the 8 year rule where we can make the following pairs (t
and are given as an excess of integer months and signs):
SE 60, IV, 4: Can 28
SE 61, IX, 28: Sag 25
SE 61, XI, 29: Pis 1
SE 68, III, 30: [. . .]

SE 69, IX, 24: Sag 22
SE 69, XI, 25: Aqu 28
t = 4 days, = ?
t = 4 days, = 3
t = 4 days, = 3
Because the longitudes are not given more precisely it is not possible to say whether
= 3 reflects a rounding of 2; 30 or some other close value.
The method by which the intermediate phases were calculated is not fully determined
by the preserved data. However, the following information may be drawn from the text
(t and are given as an excess over integer years and complete revolutions of the
zodiac):
SE 60, IV, 4: Can 28
SE 68, III, 30: [. . .]
SE 60, IV, 4: Can 28
[SE 61, . . .]: Ari 12
[SE 61, . . .]: Ari 12
SE 60, IV, 4: Can 28
SE 68, III, 30: [. . .]
SE 61, IX, 28: Sag 25
SE 69, IX, 24: Sag 22
SE 61, XI, 29: Pis 1

SE 69, XI, 25: Aqu 28
[SE 10, . . .]: Ari 12
SE 61, IX, 28: Sag 25
SE 61, XI, 29: Pis 1
SE 61, IX, 28: Sag 25
SE 69, IX, 24: Sag 22
SE 61, XI, 29: Pis 1
SE 69, XI, 25: Aqu 28
t = 235 tithis, = 213

t = 235 tithis, = ?
t = ?, = 254
t = ?, = 253
t = ?, = 319
t = 174 tithis, = 147
t = 174 tithis, = ?
t = 61 tithis, = 66
t = 61 tithis, = 66
117
This allows us to narrow down the possible means by which the text was computed. The
first pair of data shows that for the synodic arc is about 213 and the synodic time
about 235 tithis when Venus is near the end of Cancer. Thus, the data cannot have been
calculated using System A0 , since then the synodic arc would be 215;30 and the synodic
time 233;10, irrespective of the initial longitude. This is also the case for the second pair
of data, as it should be since this pair is 8 years after the first pair. The synodic arcs
and times for in Cancer are not known for Systems A1 or A2 . The System A scheme
uncovered by Hamilton,24 would also not quite give the required synodic arcs, and in
any case it is not known how this scheme would be used to obtain synodic times.
It is known from procedure texts and elsewhere that several schemes existed for
subdividing the synodic period of Venus, sometimes into as many as 11 sections. Using
one of these schemes, it is possible to obtain longitudes and dates for all of the Greek
Letter phenomena from an initial date-longitude pair. However, none of the currently
attested schemes fit the data on A 3405 very well. Sections 11 to 16 of the procedure text
ACT 812 states that and are separated by 331;30 when is in Aries, where our text
has 319 . Sections 17 to 24 of that same tablet state that the and are separated by 60
tithis, where our text has 61 tithis.25 BM 33552 has and separated by 60 days (rather
than tithis), with a mean velocity of 1;15 /day.26 BM 37151 also implies that the velocity
is 1;15 /day, but this time lasting either 62 (?) days (or tithis?) or 56 days (or tithis?).27
In A 3405 and are separated by 61 tithis and 66 . Finally, BM 36301 implies that
to lasts 70 tithis with a velocity of 1;12 /tithi.28 None of these schemes dividing the
synodic arc agree perfectly with the material preserved on A 3405; however, it is quite
possible that other schemes were also known. Unfortunately, we are unable to deduce
many details from the small amount of Venus data preserved on A 3405.
(iii) Mars
Two ACT systems are known for Mars: System A and System B. In System A, the
phases , and are treated independently and calculated by the usual system A
rules. The two retrograde phases, and
, however, are treated as satellites of . Four
schemes for calculating these retrograde arcs are currently known (called by Neugebauer
24
N. T. Hamilton and A. Aaboe, A Babylonian Venus Text Computed According to System
A: ACT No. 1050, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 53 (1998), 215221. Note the error
in Table 1 of this article: last line of the table: wi for between Capricorn 18 and Cancer 12
should read 215;30 .
25
O. Neugebauer, ACT , 336339.
26
J. P. Britton and C. B. F. Walker, A 4th Century Babylonian Model for Venus: BM 33552,
Centaurus 34 (1991), 97118.
27
A. Aaboe and P. J. Huber, A Text Concerning Subdivision of the Synodic Motion of Venus
from Babylon: BM 37151, in M. De Jong Ellis, Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of
Jacob Joel Finkelstein (Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut, 1977), 14.
28
Text C in O. Neugebauer and A. Sachs, Atypical Astronomical Cuneiform Texts I. See
also the further discussion by J. P. Britton and C. B. F. Walker, A 4th Century Babylonian Model
for Venus.
118
J.M. Steele
R, S, T, and U),29 but others may well have existed. System B is only attested on one
small fragment, ACT 510.30
The following data is preserved for Mars on A 3405:
SE 60, IV, 4
SE 60, VIII, 11
SE 61, X, 12
SE 62, V, 25
SE 63, XI, 5
SE 67, XI, 22
SE 68, I, 1
SE 69, IV, 15
SE 69, XII, 8
SE 69, XII2 , 27

Leo 23
Sco 7
[. . .] 25?
Lib 1
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
Can 7
Sco 3
Lib 27
Although this is not a great amount of information, it is possible to say at least that
and are consistent with System A, as is shown below:
Mars
System A Longitude
System A Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Sco 7;30
Cap 11;15
Ari 0;56,15
Tau 25;37,30
Can 7;5
SE 60, VIII, 11
SE 62, X, 8;22,52
SE 64, XII2 , 21;41,59
SE 67, II, 10;1,6
SE 69, IV, 15;6,28
Sco 7
SE 60, VIII, 11
Can 7
SE 69, IV, 15
Mars
System A Longitude
System A Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Leo 23;40
Lib 1;20
Sco 17
Cap 25;30
Ari 11;37,20
SE 60, IV, 24
SE 62, V, 25;27,52
SE 64, VIII, 4;45,44
SE 66, X, 6;53,36
SE 69, I, 16;38,58
Leo 23
Lib 1
SE 60, IV, 24
SE 62, V, 25
The retrograde phases are determined from the date and location of . To check
whether they are consistent with System A, therefore, it is necessary to first recompute
a run of s over the period of the text, as I have done below:
See O. Neugebauer, ACT , 305306 and A. Aaboe, A Late-Babylonian Procedure Text for
Mars, and Some Remarks on Retrograde Arcs, in D. A. King and G. Saliba (eds.), From Deferent
to Equant: A Volume of Studies in the History of Science in the Ancient and Medieval Near East
in Honor of E. S. Kennedy (The New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1987), 114.
30
This was recognised by Peter Huber. See A. Aaboe, On Babylonian Planetary Theories,
Centaurus 5 (1958), 209277, esp. 246.
29
119

Mars
System A Longitude
System A Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Gem 9;45
Can 16;30
Leo 16;30
Vir 22
Sco 3
SE 61, VII, 10;45,32

SE 63, VIII, 11;8,24
SE 65, IX, 4;46,16
SE 67, X, 3;52,8
SE 69, XII, 8;30
Sco 3
SE 69, XII, 8
It is now possible to extract the lengths of the retrograde arcs from of the preserved
and :
SE 61, VII, 10: Gem 9
SE 63, VIII, 11: Can 16
SE 67, X, 3: Vir 22
SE 67, X, 3: Vir 22
SE 69, XII, 8: Sco 3
SE 61, X, 12:
[Tau] 25?
SE 63, XI, 5:
[. . .]
SE 67, XI, 22: [. . .]
SE 68, I, 1:
[. . .]
SE 69, XII2 , 27: Lib 27
t = 92 tithis, = 14?
t = 84 tithis, = ?
t = 49 tithis, = ?
t = 88 tithis, = ?
t = 49 tithis, = 6
In all of the known retrogradation schemes, the length of the retrograde arc is dependent
upon the longitude of . For to , it may vary between 6 and 7;30 . It is only possible to extract one retrograde arc for to from A 3405: when is 8 in Scorpius,then
is 6 behind . The 4 currently attested retrogradation schemes give this arc as 6;24
(R and S), 6;30 (T) and 6;43,30 (U). Since the 6 implied in A 3405 is the result of
rounded longitudes, we can only say that it is consistent with all of the currently known
retrogradation schemes. According to ACT 500 the length of time between and is
47;55,4 tithis. The two preserved timed intervals in A 3405 are 49 tithis, which may simply be a consequence of the rounding of the day numbers. The retrograde arc between
and
is also preserved once on A 3405: when is 9 in Gemini, then
is 14 behind
. From known retrogradation schemes, we would expect about 17 ; however, the longitude of
is damaged and so we should not read too much into this. The length of the
interval between and
is not known for the retrogradation schemes. Since the retrograde arc
= 5/2( ), Neugebauer postulated that the corresponding time
intervals may follow the same rule.31 This would mean that the two stationary points
are separated by 119;47,40 tithis. However, as he later noted, this amount considerably
exceeds the true time interval.32 In A 3405 this time interval appears to be dependent
upon the longitude of , but is about 90 tithis, which is not too far wrong.
For the parts of direct motion, it is known that there existed for Mars at least two
methods for subdividing the synodic arc (and presumably also the synodic time).
These are based upon the concept of steps, defined as i = wi /Z.33 From the
procedure text ACT 811a we know that when we are dealing only with mean moO. Neugebauer, ACT , 306.
O. Neugebauer, HAMA, 459460.
33
O. Neugebauer, HAMA, 420421, which is based upon A. Aaboe, Period Relations, who
designated these steps I rather than .
31
32
120
J.M. Steele
tion, = 33, = 60, and = 58. This text does not

discuss the case of true motion as System A attempts to model but from some dateless lists of longitudes of the phenomena of Mars, Aaboe-Sachs extracted the rule that
= 33i , = 63i , and = 55i .34 Unfortunately, no standard
ephemerides for Mars that give (in different columns) longitudes for the consecutive
phases are known at this time and so it is impossible to tell whether this method of
dividing the synodic arc was used rigorously in practice. On A 3405, the difference in
longitude between on SE 60, IV, 4 and on SE 60, VIII, 11 is 74 , and 33i = 73 ,
which is nearly the same. However, the difference in longitude between on SE 69,
IV, 15 and on SE 69, XII, 8 is 116 , whereas 66i = 127 . Unless other texts come to
light, however, it is impossible to say whether this is evidence for a variant scheme for
subdividing the synodic arc, or just a discrepancy in this text.
(iv) Jupiter
Jupiter is better represented among the preserved ACT material than any other
planet. We know of two main System A type schemes (plus variants), and two
System B schemes. A further scheme of the System A type has been identified in a Greek
source, 35 and may also be of Babylonian origin.
The following Jupiter data is preserved on A 3405:
SE 60, III, 25
SE 60, IV, 24
SE 60, VIII, 29
SE 60, X, 27
SE 60, XII, 27
SE 61, X, 10
SE 61, XII, 7
SE 62, I, 10
SE 62, V, 17
SE 67, XI, 9
SE 67, XII, 8
SE 68, IV, 17
SE 68, VI, 14
SE 69, VI, 5
SE 69, VIII, 2
SE 69, X, 3
SE 70 [. . .]
SE 70 [. . . x] + 10
34

Can 26
Can 30
Leo 17
Leo 13
Leo 8
Vir 10 + x
Vir 11
Vir 7
Vir 22
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .] 10 + x
[. . .] 6
Tau 6
Tau 12
Tau 6
Gem 15
Gem 10
A. Aaboe and A. Sachs, Some Dateless Computed Lists of Longitudes of Characteristic

Planetary Phenomena from the Late-Babylonian Period, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20 (1966),
133. See also O. Neugebauer, HAMA, 424425.
35
J. P. Britton and A. Jones, A New Babylonian Planetary Model in a Greek Source, Archive
for History of Exact Sciences 54 (2000), 349373.
121
It is immediately possible to reject all of the System A schemes as the method of calculation. In these schemes the synodic arc between consecutive phenomena can never be
less than 30 , but we have several instances in this text where this occurs. For example,
the synodic arc between on SE 60, X, 27 and SE 61, XII, 7 is 28 and between
on
SE 60, XII, 27 and SE 62, I, 10 it is 29 . It therefore seems likely that one of the System
B schemes was used to calculate this data. Below I give calculated runs of , and
by means of System B, in each case starting at the minimum of the zigzag function.
Jupiter
System B Longitude
System B Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Leo 17
Vir 15;15,30
Lib 15;19
Sco 17;10,30
Sag 20;50
Cap 26;17,30
Pis 3;33
Ari 10
Tau 15;46
Gem 19;10,30
SE 60, VIII, 29;40

SE 61, X, 10;0,45
SE 62, X, 22;9,30
SE 63, XII, 6;6,15
SE 64, XII2 , 21;51
SE 66, II, 8;23,45
SE 67, III, 28;44,30
SE 68, IV, 17;50,15
SE 69, VI, 5;8
SE 70, VI, 20;2,45
Leo 17
Vir 10 + x
SE 60, VIII, 29
SE 61, X, 10
[Ari] 10 [+x]
Tau 6
SE 68, IV, 17
SE 69, VI, 5
Jupiter
System B Longitude
System B Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Leo 13;25
Vir 11;40,30
Lib 11;44
Sco 13;35,30
Sag 17;15
Cap 22;42,34
Aqu 29;58
Ari 6;58,30
Tau 12;11
Gem 15;35,30
SE 60, X, 27
SE 61, XII, 7;20,45
SE 62, XII, 19;29,30
SE 64, II, 3;26,15
SE 65, II, 19;11
SE 66, IV, 6;43,15
SE 67, IV, 26;4,30
SE 68, VI, 15;10,15
SE 69, VIII, 2;28
SE 70, VIII, 17;57,45
Leo 13
Vir 11
SE 60, X, 27
SE 61, XII, 7
[Ari] 6
Tau 12
Gem 15
SE 68, VI, 14
SE 69, VIII, 2
[. . .]
Jupiter
System B Longitude
System B Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Leo 8
Virgo 6;15,30
Lib 6;19
Sco 8;10,30
Sag 11;50
Cap 17;17,30
Aqu 24;30
Ari 1;33,30
Tau 6;46
Gem 10;10,30
SE 60, XII, 29;40

SE 62, I, 10;0,45
SE 63, II, 22; 11,35
SE 64, IV, 6;9,10
SE 65, IV, 21;52,49
SE 66, VI, 9;24,20
SE 67, VII, 28;41,55
SE 68, VIII, 17;44,52
SE 69, X, 5;0,49
SE 70, X, 20;30,16
Leo 8
Vir 7
SE 60, XII, 27
SE 62, I, 10
Tau 6
Gem 10
SE 69, X, 3
[. . . x+] 10
122
J.M. Steele
Unfortunately not enough and data are preserved to make an attempt at recalculating by System B worthwhile. Nevertheless, it is clear that the , and
data
are in very good agreement with the reconstructed System B data. There are occasional
discrepancies, but these are very small, except for an obvious scribal error (SE 69, VI,
5 at Taurus 16 not Taurus 6). Indeed it may be possible to eliminate some of these
by further refining the chosen initial values of the longitude, date and zigzag function.
Since all the data are rounded to integer degrees and days, however, there is probably
little to be gained by attempting this. Furthermore, the rounded data also prevent us from
choosing between System B and System B (whose parameters vary only slightly) as the
method of computation.
(v) Saturn
We know of two main schemes for Saturn. System A, which is attested on two procedure texts and three template texts (although with variations),36 and System B which
is known from several ephemerides and procedure texts.
The following Saturn data is found on A 3405:
SE 60, IV, 12
SE 60, VIII, 9
SE 60, IX, 11
SE 61, [. . .]
SE 61, X, 4
SE 62, I, 3
SE 62, II, 28
SE 62, IV, 29
SE 63, X, 21
SE 67, X, 26
SE 67, XI, 28
SE 68, III, 28
SE 68, V, 22
SE 69, IV, 23
SE 69, VI, 17
SE 69, VIII, 17
SE 69, XII, 16
SE 69, XII2 , 17
SE 70, [. . .]

Sco 26
Sag 5
Sag 7
Sag 15
Sag 19?
Sag 26
Sag 23
Sag 19
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
[. . .]
Pis 24
Pis 20
Pis 15
Pis 28
Pis 29
Ari 9
Recalculating by System B we find excellent agreement with this data. For , we

begin with 11;42 increasing and 23;9 tithis increasing for the longitude and date zigzag
functions respectively. For , 11;42 and 23;45 tithis, both increasing; for , 11;30
36
A. Aaboe and A. Sachs, Dateless Computed Lists.
123
and 23;9 tithis, both increasing; for

, 11;18 and 23;7 tithis, both increasing; for ,
11;30 and 23;21 tithis, both increasing.
Saturn
System B Longitude
System B Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Sag 7;20
Sag 19;12
Cap 0;56
Cap 13;2
Cap 25;20
Aqu 7;50
Aqu 20;32
Pis 3;26
Pis 16;32
Pis 29;50
SE 60, IX, 11;50

SE 61, X, 4;59
SE 62, IX, 28;20
SE 63, X, 22;51
SE 64, XI, 15;38
SE 65, XI, 9;35
SE 66, XII, 3;54
SE 67, XI, 28;15
SE 68, XII, 22;38
SE 69, XII2 , 17;23
Sag 7
Sag 19
SE 60, IX, 11
SE 61, X, 4
[. . .]
SE 63, X, 21
[. . .]
SE 67, XI, 28
Pis 29
SE 69, XII2 , 17
Saturn
System B Longitude
System B Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Sag 15
Sag 26;36
Cap 8;36
Cap 20;42
Aqu 3
Aqu 15;30
Aqu 28;12
Pis 11;6
Pis 24;12
Ari 7;30
SE 61, I, 9;27
SE 62, I, 3
SE 63, I, 26;45
SE 64, II, 20;42
SE 65, II, 24;9
SE 66, III, 9;12
SE 67, IV, 3;45
SE 68, III, 28;30
SE 69, IV, 23;27
SE 70, IV, 18;36
Sag 15
Sag 26
[. . .]
SE 62, I, 3
[. . .]
Pis 24
SE 68, III, 28
SE 69, IV, 23
Text Longitude
Text Date
Sag 23
SE 62, II, 28
[. . .]
Pis 20
SE 68, V, 22
SE 69, VI, 17
Saturn
System B Longitude
System B Date
Sco 29;48
Sag 11;18
Sag 23
Cap 4;54
Cap 17
Cap 28;18
Aqu 11;48
Aqu 24;30
Pis 7;24
Pis 20;30
Ari 3;48
SE 60, II, 11;30

SE 61, III, 4;39
SE 62, II, 28
SE 63, III, 21;33
SE 64, IV, 15;18
SE 65, IV, 9;15
SE 66, V, 3;24
SE 67, V, 27;45
SE 68, V, 22;18
SE 69, VI, 17;3
SE 70, VI, 12
124
J.M. Steele
Saturn
System B Longitude
System B Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Sco 26;30
Sag 7;48
Sag 19;18
Cap 1
Cap 12;54
Cap 25
Aqu 7;18
Aqu 19;48
Pis 2;30
Pis 15;24
Pis 28;30
SE 60, IV, 12;40

SE 61, V, 5;47
SE 62, IV, 29;6
SE 63, V, 22;37
SE 64, VI, 16;20
SE 65, VI, 10;15
SE 66, VII, 4;22
SE 67, VI, 28;41
SE 68, VII, 23;12
SE 69, VIII, 17;33
SE 70, VIII, 12;30
Sco 26
SE 60, IV, 12
Sag 19
SE 62, IV, 29
Pis 15
SE 69, VIII, 17
Saturn
System B Longitude
System B Date
Text Longitude
Text Date
Sag 5
Sag 16;30
Sag 28;12
Cap 10;6
Cap 22;12
Aqu 4;30
Aqu 17
Aqu 29;42
Pis 22;36
Pis 25;42
Ari 9
SE 60, VIII, 9
SE 61, IX, 2;21
SE 62, VIII, 27;48
SE 63, IX, 19;39
SE 64, X, 13;36
SE 65, X, 7;45
SE 66, XI, 2;6
SE 67, X, 26;39
SE 68, XI, 21;24
SE 69, XII, 16;21
SE 70, XII, 11;30
Sag 5
SE 60, VIII, 9
[. . .]
SE 67, X, 26
Pis 28
Ari 9
SE 69, XII, 16
[. . .]
There are two instances where the text does not agree with this recomputation. The
date of first appearance () in SE 63 is given as day 21 of Month X, whereas our recomputed date is day 22. It may be possible to change the recomputed dates slightly in
order to correct this, but I see little to be gained by such an attempt. The day number in
the text may simply be a scribal error. Saturns last appearance () in SE 69 is said to
be at 28 in Pisces, but this is most likely a scribal error for 25 .
(vi) Lunar eclipses

Information is preserved in A 3405 about 7 lunar eclipse possibilities. In addition to
the date of the eclipse, the moons longitude is given to the nearest degree, the time of
the eclipse relative to sunrise or sunset, and a number followed by H
p AB and either LAL
or SIG, which I will call . The preserved data is summarised below:

Date
Time
SE 60, IX, 14
SE 61, IX, 13
SE 62, II, 15
SE 68, IV, 14
SE 69, IV, [. . .]
SE 69, X, 13
SE 70, [VIII, . . .]
20 before sunset
[. . .]
1 after sunset
50 [. . .]
3? after sunrise
24 after sunrise
5? [. . .]
Longitude
Gem 26
[. . .]
Sag 11
[. . .]
Cap 21
Can 16
[. . .]
11,40 H
p AB LAL
22,[x]0 H
p AB LAL
30,20 H
p AB SIG
10,20? [. . .]
6,10 H
p AB LAL
35,10 H
p AB SIG
[x],20 H
p AB SIG
125
Two systems for calculating longitudes of syzygies (and much more besides) are
known from the ACT material.37 In one, the longitude is calculated by means of a two
zone step function; in the other a zigzag function is used. Thus these two systems are
similar to Systems A and B of the planetary theory, and indeed it is customary call
them by these names. Although System A is found predominantly on texts from Babylon, at least two (probably three) ephemerides calculated using this system are from
Uruk.38 Conversely, System B is found fairly evenly at both sites, although most of the
older texts are from Uruk.
The longitude function of a System A full moon ephemeris, known as column B, is
calculated by a step function with two zones: a fast arc stretching from 13 in Pisces to
27 in Virgo with a characteristic velocity w1 = 30 per month, and a slow arc from
27 in Virgo to 13 in Pisces with a characteristic velocity w2 = 28;7,30 per month.
System A has such a tight theoretical structure that, with only very occasional minor
variations, all of the ephererides are connectable. It is possible, therefore, to recompute
a complete System A lunar ephemeris over any period. Below I compare the results of
these recomputed System A longitudes with the longitudes on A 3405:
Date
System A Longitude
Text Longitude
SE 60, IX, 14
SE 62, II, 15
SE 69, IV, [. . .]
SE 69, X, 13
Gem 24;52
Sag 9
Cap 18;52,30
Can 15;16
Gem 26
Sag 11
Cap 21
Can 16
The poor agreement between System A and A 3405 indicates immediately that the
eclipses were not calculated by means of this System.
37
For a detailed discussion of the ACT lunar schemes, see O. Neugebauer, ACT, 4185, and
idem, HAMA, 474540.
38
ACT 1 (probably), ACT 2, and W 22340a. This last text is published as number 99 in
H. Hunger, Spatbabylonische
Texte aus Uruk Teil I (Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1976).
126
J.M. Steele
In the other ACT lunar theory, System B, the longitudes of syzygies are calculated
using a zigzag function with a maximum value for the solar velocity of 30;1,59 per
month, a minimum of 28;10,39,40 per month, and a monthly difference of 0;18. The
period of this zigzag function, 12;22,8,53,20, gives the number of lunar months after
which there is a precise return of solar velocity (in other words, the number of mean
synodic months in an anomalistic year). Unlike System A, System B ephemerides are
not necessarily connectable, and so we cannot reconstruct a System B lunar ephemeris
for an arbitrary date. As only 4 longitudes are preserved on A 3405, it is not possible to
perform a rigorous test of whether they were computed by System B. However, we can
at least say that they could have been. For example, computing according to the System
B rules beginning with a velocity of 30 per month on the descending branch we get:
Date
System B Longitude
Text Longitude
SE 60, IX, 14
SE 62, II, 15
SE 69, IV, [. . .]
SE 69, X, 13
Gem 26;1
Sag 11;0,9,20
Cap 21;26,36,40
Can 16;45,33,40
Gem 26
Sag 11
Cap 21
Can 16
Outside of the ACT corpus, we know of a handful of texts dealing with eclipse possibilities which use a more primitive longitude scheme.39 These assume that after 12
months, the longitude of the syzygy increases by 1 rotation less 10;30 , and after 11
months the longitude increases by 1 rotation less 10;30 and 1 sign. Since there are 33
six month intervals and 5 five month intervals between eclipse possibilities in one Saros
of 223 months, this implies a solar progress in one Saros of 18 rotations + 10;30 , in
turn implying a year length which is very nearly correct.40 Adding on another 12 months
we obtain 235 months = 19 complete rotations, which is simply the Metonic cycle, and
may well have been the basis for these schemes.41 Dividing the progress in longitude
over 12 months by two to yield the progress in six months gives 174;45 . In the texts,
however, the six month progress in longitude alternates between two values with this
as the mean. In all probability this was done simply to avoid fractions of 0;45. Attested
pairs are 175 and 174;30 , 176 and 173;30 , and 175;30 and 174 . In each case the
higher value is for the progress in longitude from ascending to descending node, the
lower from descending to ascending node.
39
BM 36599+36941 with duplicates BM 36737 and BM 47912 published a Texts B, C and
D in A. Aaboe and A. Sachs, Two Lunar Texts of the Achaemenid Period from Babylon, Centaurus 14 (1969), 122. BM 36737 was joined to BM 36580 and republished as Text S in J. P.
Britton, An Early Function for Eclipse Magnitudes in Babylonian Astronomy, Centaurus 32
(1989), 152, and in A. Aaboe, J. P. Britton, J. A. Henderson, O. Neugebauer, and A. J. Sachs,
Saros Cycle Dates and Related Babylonian Astronomical Texts (American Philosophical Society,
Philadelphia, 1991). BM 36651+36719+37032+37053 (reverse known as Text L) and BM 36400
were published as Texts E and F in this latter work.
40
A. Aaboe and A. Sachs, Two Lunar Texts of the Achaemenid Period, 18.
41
J. P. Britton, An Early Function for Eclipse Magnitudes, 33.
127
We can see straight away that a longitude scheme of this kind could not have been
used to give the longitudes of the eclipse possibilities in A 3405. Between SE 62, II, 15
and SE 69, X, 13 there are 6 twelve month intervals and 2 eleven month intervals. In
these schemes, this corresponds to a decrease in longitude over full rotations of 144 .
However, in the text we have a decrease of 145 .
The situation regarding the times of the eclipses is particularly unclear. In both System A and System B ephemerides, the time of syzygy is given in a column known as M.
In System A these are recorded with respect to sunset, which would seem to preclude
System A as the source of the timings given in A 3405. However, in System B they
are quoted relative to the nearer of sunrise or sunset, as we have in this text. In the
non-mathematical astronomical texts such as the Diaries, predicted eclipse times relate
not to the moment of syzygy but instead to the moment that the eclipse was expected
to begin. These were calculated either by applying the Saros period to earlier eclipse
records, or by estimating the time from observations of the lunar six.42 It is worth noting
that the times of the eclipses given in A 3405 agree better with modern computations of
the time these eclipses began than the time of syzygy. However, we should not draw too
much from this since only 4 timings are fully preserved.
The numbers I have called must relate to either the magnitude of the eclipse or
the latitude of the moon at that time. Below I compare with modern computations
of the magnitudes and latitudes. ( and indicate ascending and descending latitude
respectively.)
Date
Computed Magnitude
Computed Latitude
SE 60, IX, 14
SE 61, IX, 13
SE 62, II, 15
SE 68, IV, 14
SE 69, IV, [. . .]
SE 69, X, 13
SE 70, [VIII, . . .]
11,40 H
p AB LAL
22,[x]0 H
p AB LAL
30,20 H
p AB SIG
10,20 [. . .]
6,10 H
p AB LAL
35,10 H
p AB SIG
[x],20 H
p AB SIG
1.03
1.46
0.51
1.32
1.12
Penumbral
Penumbral
0.8
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.3
1.6
1.0
It is my belief that represents the magnitude of the eclipse. In the ACT material,
magnitudes of eclipses are given in
and related columns (
and
). Taking the
maximum magnitude of an eclipse as c, as one would expect magnitudes increase from
0 to c. However, because of the way column
is defined, magnitudes then decrease
again from c to 2c.43 This is because it is useful to make
a continuous function that
42
See J. M. Steele, Eclipse Prediction in Mesopotamia, Archive for History of Exact Sciences
54 (2000), 421454.
43
For details, see O. Neugebauer, Studies in Ancient Astronomy VII: Magnitudes of Lunar
Eclipses in Babylonian Mathematical Astronomy, Isis 36 (1945), 1015 and A. Aaboe and J. A.
128
J.M. Steele
can be calculated not only when an eclipse is possible, but for all syzygies. When
is
greater than 2c it simply acts as a mathematical function without any direct astronomical
significance.44 In System A,
is determined from column E which characterises the
latitude of the moon. It has the units SI fingers, and the maximum magnitude c =
17;24 fingers. In System B,
is calculated directly and is measured either in fingers or
in terms of the greatest possible eclipse magnitude. Thus c = 18 fingers or 1 maximum
eclipse.
Assuming that is measured in fingers (and so 11,40 should be read 11;40, etc.),
then we see that those values close to 18 indeed correspond to the largest eclipses. The
greatest value of is 35;10, which is just larger than 2c (34;48) in System A, and just
smaller than 2c (36) in System B, and again as we would expect this is a very small
eclipse (in fact penumbral). In the observational texts, a total lunar eclipse is defined
to have a magnitude of 12 fingers. In System B, therefore, the maximum magnitude of
an eclipse is taken to be 3/2 that of a total eclipse. Thus
values between 12 and 24
fingers should correspond to total eclipses. All of the values in this range do indeed
correspond to total eclipses. In addition, the eclipse on SE 60, IX, 14 has a value of
11;40, i.e., just less than totality. Modern computations give this eclipse a magnitude
of 1.03 (i.e., just total), so the Babylonian calculations are not far wrong. However, the
eclipse in SE 69, IV has a of 6;10 and modern computation gives this eclipse as total
also with a magnitude of 1.12. Perhaps 6;10 is a scribal error for 16;10 (mistakes of 10
are common in this text).
In support of my interpretation of as the eclipse magnitude is the fact that it is
followed by the term H
p AB. This term, sometimes written in other texts in the fuller form
H
p AB-rat, seems to mean disc in the broad sense of the moons disc, or sometimes the
more technical eclipse magnitude.45 H
p AB is even used to refer to column
in some
of the ACT ephemerides.
Comparison of the computed latitudes with immediately suggests that we interpret
the logograms LAL and SIG as increasing and descending latitude respectively. A better
way of expressing this would be to say that LAL indicates that the eclipse takes place
near the ascending node, and SIG near the descending node. Similar usage is attested,
eg, in ACT 135 which is also from Uruk.46
To summarise, I suspect that the lunar longitudes were taken from a System B
ephemeris or eclipse text such as ACT 135, and that the function is closely related to
the System B function
or one of its family. However, with the small amount of data
preserved, this can be no more than a working hypothesis.
Henderson, The Babylonian Theory of Lunar Latitude and Eclipses According to System A,
Archives Internationales dHistoire des Sciences 25 (1975), 181222.
44
Neugebauer reserved
for the function when it was calculated only for eclipse possibilities,
and used
and
for those functions calculated for all syzygies. For simplicity, I call all these
functions
since the difference between
and
or
is irrelevant for the present discussion.
45
O. Neugebauer, ACT, 197198. See also A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986), 90.
46
O. Neugebauer, ACT, 162.
129
(vii) Summary
I have shown above that the astronomical data on A 3405 is on the whole consistent
with having been calculated by means of ACT schemes. But does this imply that it does
indeed come from these ACT schemes? In my opinion, the answer to this question is
yes. Comparison of the dates of the planetary phenomena on A 3405 with the dates of
the observations in the Diaries showed considerable discrepancies which prove that the
A 3405 data cannot have been observed.
The dates of planetary phenomena calculated by the ACT schemes may vary considerably from the true dates of the phenomena.47 Nevertheless, the dates in A 3405 are,
with the exception of those for Mercury, in very close agreement with dates given by the
ACT schemes. Similarly, ACT longitudes can vary by a considerable amount from the
true longitudes of the phenomena. Taking the first visibility in the east () of Mercury
as an example, the synodic arc around Capricorn in System A1 is about 10 greater than
that given by modern computations, and about 10 less around Taurus.48 Nevertheless,
the longitudes of in A 3405 are in exact agreement with the System A1 values in this
part of the zodiac. Thus the longitudes for the Mercury data almost exactly fit an ACT
scheme that does not itself always agree well with the actual astronomical situation.
Although not so extreme, similar arguments could be made for the other planets.
Probably the most convincing argument, however, is not that any individual planet
almost exactly fits an ACT scheme, but rather that they all fit so well. For example,
with the moon we only have four longitudes. If this information was all that had been
preserved on the text, it could rightly be argued that, although these longitudes can be
fitted into a lunar System B scheme, this is nothing more than coincidence. However,
the fact that they are preserved on a tablet where all of the other data is consistent with
ACT methods allows us to say that this lunar data is highly likely to also come from an
ACT scheme. The internal self-consistency of the tablet if it is assumed to have been
calculated by ACT methods is striking.
Context
At the end of column VIII, 10 lines of a colophon are partially preserved:
12[x] x
13[ .tu]p-pi Id 1-EN-su -nu A sa
14I N i-din-tu4 -d 1lu GALA d 1
15 ma-r u` Id sin-TI-IR UNUGki -u
16 q`atId 1-AD-GUR DUMU.A-su
d 1-d EN-LIL-LA
17 lu UMBISAG DIS-UDki
itu
18 UNUG
GAN <UD>-14-KAM
19 [MU-1]-me-21 IAn-ti-i-i-ku-su LUGAL
47
See, e.g., figures 2.2ff in N. M. Swerdlow, Babylonian Theory of the Planets, which compare
observed and theoretical synodic times with those from the ACT schemes.
48
A. Aaboe, On Babylonian Planetary Theories.
130
J.M. Steele
20 [. . .] UDU-IDIMmes
21 [. . .] 30
12 [. . .]
13 [Tab]let of Anu-bel-sunu, son of
14 Nidinti-Ani, lamentation priest of Anu,
15 descendant of Sin-leqe-unninn, the Urukean.
16 Hand of Anu-aba-uter, his son,
17 .tupsar Enuma
Anu Enlil.
18 Uruk, Month IX, the 14th,
19 [year 1]21, king Antiochus.
20 [. . .] planets
21 [. . .] moon? .
The owner and scribe, Anu-bel-sunu and his son Anu-aba-uter, are both well known
from astronomical texts found at Uruk (see Table 2), as well as other texts including an
illustrated astrological text which links zodiacal signs with the names of cities, temples,
planets, trees and stones,49 a ritual text,50 the mathematical text TU 33, and various
administrative documents.51
The date that A 3405 was written fits in well with the dates of the texts mentioned
above. Most of the ACT texts from Uruk may be dated to between about SE 90 and
SE 150. Although the site from which these tablets were recovered is unknown, the
German excavations of 1912/13 were made in the vicinity of the Res sanctuary,52 and
many of the tablets were probably found at this time. The colophons of a number of the
astronomical texts indicate that the astronomers had some connection with the temple,53
and this led Neugebauer to suggest that the chronology of the Uruk ACT texts may have
been related to the history of the Res sanctuary. He argues that this astronomical activity
may have ceased around SE 173 with the destruction of the Res sanctuary, shortly after
the occupation of Babylonia by the Parthians. However, a text published in 1984 indicates
49
E. Weidner, Gestirn-Darstellungen auf babylonischen Tontafeln (Hermann Bohlaus Nachf.,

Graz, 1967), text 2.
50
W. R. Mayer, Seleukidische Rituale aus Warka mit Emesal-Gebeten, Orientalia 47 (1978),
431458.
51
See H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1968), D. B. Weisberg, The Late Babylonian Texts of the Oriental Institute
Collection (Undena Publications, Malibu, 1991), 3637, and the tablets cited in G. J. P. McEwan,
Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia (Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1981), 12, and P.-A.
Beaulieu and F. Rochberg, The Horoscope of Anu-Belsunu, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 48
(1996), 8994, esp. 9394 and n. 1821.
52
O. Neugebauer, ACT, 10.
53
See F. Rochberg, The Cultural Locus of Astronomy in Late Babylonia, in H. D. Galter
(ed.), Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens (Graz, 1993), 3145 and idem,
Scribes and Scholars: the .tups ar Enuma
Anu Enlil, in J. Marzahn and H. Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift fur
Joachim Oelsner anlalich
seines 65. Geburtstages am 18.

Februar 1997 (Kevelaer, Butzon & Berker, 1999).
131
Table 2. Astronomical texts owned or written by Anu-bel-sunu and Anu-aba-uter

Text
Owner
Scribe
Date Written
Contents
ACT 102
Anu-bel-sunu
SE 121, XII, 12
ACT 135
Anu-bel-sunu
[Anu-aba-uter]
SE 12[1], I
ACT 163
Sama
s-et.ir
Anu-aba-uter
ACT 165
Anu-aba-uter
ACT 171
Anu-aba-uter
ACT 194
Anu-aba-uter
Ana-balatsu-iqb
SE 13[0], VI, 28
ACT 400
Anu-bel-sunu
Anu-aba-uter
ACT 501
Anu-aba-uter
Anu-uballit.
SE 124, IX, 4
ACT 600
Sama
s-et.ir
Anu-aba-uter
SE 118, VII, 12
ACT 640
Anu-bel-sunu
Anu-aba-uter
SE 119
ACT 802
Anu-aba-uter
NCBT 1232
System B lunar
ephemeris for
SE 121
System B eclipse text
for SE 113130
System B auxiliary
lunar text for SE
117
System B auxiliary
lunar text for SE
137156
System B auxiliary
lunar text for SE
115124
Daily lunar positions
for SE 130
Venus System A0 for
SE 111135
Mars System A for SE
123202
Jupiter System A for
113173
Jupiter System B
for 131161. Also
procedure text ACT
820 for Jupiter
Procedure text for (at
least) Saturn
Horoscope of Anubel-sunu placing his
date of birth as SE
63, X, 2
that the Res sanctuary was still functioning in at least SE 203.54 Furthermore, a text
containing a summary of astronomical observations for the years SE 212 to 214 almost
certainly also comes from Uruk,55 and indicates that astronomical activity did not cease
54
W 18568, published by K. Kessler, Eine arsakidenzeitiche Urkunde aus Warka, Baghdader Mitteilungen 15 (1984), 273281. See also S. Sherwin-White, Seleucid Babylonia: A Case
Study for the Installation and Development of Greek Rule, in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White,
Hellenism in the East (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1987) 131.
55
BM 140677, published by A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related
Texts from Babylonia Volume III (Osterreichische

Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 1996),
406ff.
132
J.M. Steele
in the city after the Parthian conquest. It seems more likely that the concentration of
astronomical material in the first half of the second century of the Seleucid Era is related
purely to the excavations; perhaps they come from a small number of private or temple
archives.56
Although the date when A 3405 was written is similar to that of the other ACT texts,
its contents are significantly earlier, covering the years SE 60 to 70. Among the general
ACT corpus, the texts are usually contemporary with their contents, or else contain calculations for the near future. Why, therefore, does this tablet contain calculations for
this earlier period? Furthermore, why does it contain material for all of the planets and
for lunar eclipses arranged chronologically? Collections such as this are not attested in
any other ACT texts.
I think we can discount the possibility that this computed material was gathered
together so that it might be compared with the observational record to test the reliability
of the astronomical models. The owner and scribe of A 3405 knew of many more ACT
planetary schemes than were used in compiling this text, so why should these particular
ones have been chosen for comparison? In any case, it would seem much more sensible
to collect together data for a particular planet calculated by all the known schemes, and
then compare these with observations. Furthermore, I would question the idea that there
existed such a simple relationship between observation and theory in Babylonian
astronomy that theory would be tested in this way.57
A more tempting answer to this question is to see A 3405 as a collection of astronomical material used in making horoscopes. Only 28 horoscopes are known to us today.58
Most are from Babylon, but five are from Uruk (one of these is a duplicate, another contains two horoscopes). Although all of these horoscopes have certain features in common
(in particular they all contain positions of the sun, moon and planets in the zodiac),59
it seems to me valid to divide them into two subsets based upon their provenance since
there are noticeable differences between the texts from these two sites. In particular,
none of the Uruk horoscopes includes references to eclipses, solstices or equinoxes or
the lunar three, data which is frequently recorded in the examples from Babylon, but do
sometimes contain a statement about the moons latitude which is never found in the
horoscopes from Babylon. Furthermore, the Uruk horoscopes have a tendency to give
longitudes with degrees (5 out of 5 texts) whereas this is rare in the texts from Babylon
(3 out of 22, all of which are comparatively late in date). Not all of the Uruk horoscopes
give degrees of longitude for all of the heavenly bodies, however. Texts 5 and 9 record
56
Private archives containing among other things astronomical texts did exist at Uruk. See,
for example, the tablets from the library of Iqsa collected in E. von Weiher, Spatbabylonische
Texte aus Uruk Teil II (Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1983). On archives from Late Babylonian Uruk
generally, see O. Pedersen, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500300 B.C. (CDL
Press, Bethesda, Maryland, 1998), 202213.
57
The only detailed discussion of the relationship between observation and theory in Babylonian astronomy is F. Rochberg-Halton, Between Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomical Texts, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991), 107120.
58
Horoscopes are cited by their text number in F. Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopes (American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1998).
59
Or, occasionally, non-zodiacal constellations.
133
them only for the sun and moon; text 10 and 11 (duplicate) for the Sun and the visible
planets (Mercury was said to be too close to the sun to be visible on that date); and
the two horoscopes on text 16 give degrees of longitude for the five planets and, for
horoscope b only, the moon.
What was the source of the degrees of longitudes in the horoscopes? Sachs, basing
his comments on only the 6 horoscopes that were identified at the time, suggested that
they come from the mathematical ephemerides.60 Working from the complete corpus of
currently known horoscopes, however, Rochberg has given a more cautious statement:
we lack the evidence to conclude in any positive way that ACT tables or methods were
used by the scribes who prepared horoscopes.61 The argument against identifying the
ACT texts as the source of the degrees of longitudes is that ACT planetary and lunar
theory has as its primary goal the calculation of the dates and longitudes, etc., of particular phenomena (the Greek Letter phenomena for the planets, syzygies for the moon)
rather than longitudes at arbitrary times. This latter goal was apparently only treated as
a secondary problem by the Babylonian astronomers, although their methods for its solution were mathematically highly astute. The very fact that such interpolation methods
were developed, however, means that they could have been used in making horoscopes,
if the astronomers so desired.
Since the longitudes are only given to the degree, or occasionally half degree, in the
horoscopes, they could also have been calculated simply by a straightforward, probably
linear, interpolation between the longitudes of Greek Letter phenomena in an ephemeris.
In this respect, a text such as A 3405 which brings together all the planetary data would
have been extremely useful, and this could explain why the longitudes in A 3405 are
rounded to the nearest degree. Lunar eclipses are not recorded in the preserved Uruk
horoscopes, but a statement concerning the latitude of the moon often is, and this is
given for each lunar eclipse possibility in A 3405. However, A 3405 does not provide
solar and lunar longitudes, except on the date of a lunar eclipse possibility.
We must also consider whether any plausible sources exist apart from the ACT
schemes for calculating degrees of planetary longitudes. Rochberg has argued that most
of the contents of the Babylonian horoscopes could have been taken from the Almanacs.62 For the planets, these texts contain, for each month, the date of the Greek Letter
phenomena together with the zodiacal sign in which it occurs, and the dates when the
planets enter into each sign. Interpolation between the dates of the sign entries would
give the planetary longitudes for any required date, providing the planet did not change
the direction of its motion. However, the Almanacs do not provide information on the
longitude of the sun or moon.
At Uruk, and probably also as Babylon, horoscopes were apparently written by the
same group of scribes who wrote the ACT texts of mathematical astronomy. Anyone who
60
A. Sachs, Babylonian Horoscopes, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 6 (1952), 4975.

F. Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopy: The Texts and their Relations, in N. M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999),
3959, esp. 48.
62
F. Rochberg-Halton, Babylonian Horoscopes and their Sources, Orientalia 58 (1989),
102123.
61
134
J.M. Steele
made horoscopes would almost certainly have been a member of the intellectual elite,
most likely a .tups ar Enuma
Anu Enlil. Only these individuals would have had access to,
not to say understanding of, the necessary astronomical data on which a horoscope was
based. Despite the remarks above about the utility of Almanacs for casting horoscopes, it
seems to me more likely that the astronomical data in the Uruk examples was taken from
the ACT texts. Too few non-mathematical astronomical texts have been recovered from
Uruk to suggest any large-scale programme of astronomical observation comparable to
that undertaken in Babylon. Without these observations, texts such as Almanacs cannot
have been produced on a regular basis. Therefore, the only source from which astronomical material could be taken when a horoscope was commissioned, perhaps 20 or 30
years after the date of its contents, were the texts of mathematical astronomy which were
either already prepared, or could be calculated fairly readily when required. At Babylon
with its long programme of astronomical observation, however, it seems quite possible
that Almanacs, which were apparently prepared for each year from at least SE 50, could
have been consulted and used to compile a horoscope, as Rochberg has argued.
Returning to A 3405, although we cannot say conclusively whether longitudes in the
horoscopes were taken from texts such as this, the very fact that it contains calculated
data for a period some 60 years before it was written seems to me to be highly suggestive.
Indeed, I can see no other reason why this text might have been compiled except that
it was to do with horoscopes. Horoscopes are, after all, the only astronomical texts that
were by necessity written after perhaps some years after their contents. By a remarkable chance, NCBT 1232, a text in the Newell Collection of Babylonian Tablets housed
at Yale University,63 contains the horoscope of a certain Anu-bel-sunu, and Francesca
Rochberg has argued that this is the same Anu-bel-sunu, son of Nidinti-Ani, descendent
of Sin-leqe-unninn known to us from the ACT material, and owner of A 3405. He was
born on SE 63, X, 2, one of the years covered by A 3405. Could this text have provided
the material for his own horoscope? Unfortunately, no direct comparison can be made
since that part of A 3405 corresponding to the date of his birth is destroyed. It must
be noted, however, that Anu-bel-sunus horoscope does not give degrees of planetary
longitudes, only degrees of longitude for the sun and moon.
I think it is reasonable to speculate, therefore, that A 3405 was prepared to assist in
making horoscopes for clients who were born between SE 60 and 70. If this was the case,
which I repeat we have no direct evidence for, then it would mean that Anu-bel-sunu
and his son Anu-aba-uter prepared horoscopes. This suggestion does not seem to me
to be too untenable since Anu-bel-sunu did own astrological as well as astronomical
tablets. Counting against this suggestion, however, is the fact that the clients for whom
a horoscope was cast using A 3405 would be over fifty years old at this time.
Irrespective of whether A 3405 was indeed used to make horoscopes, the text is of
considerable importance since it is the first example we have of a text compiled from
ACT ephemerides. These ACT texts were not just theoretical exercises, then, but had
some function whatever that may have been. At the moment we do not know whether
A 3405 is an example of a standard type of text that was regularly compiled, or an in-
63
NCBT 1232 has been published by P.-A. Beaulieu and F. Rochberg, The Horoscope of
Anu-Belsunu, and as text 9 in F. Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopes.
135
dividual text written for some particular purpose. Perhaps other texts similar to A 3405
will one day surface, whether it be from the ground or the depths of a museum collection.
However, the fact that a text of this type would be compiled from ACT ephemerides
would make it in a sense disposable. If one were used on a day-by-day basis, for
example in compiling horoscopes, then it would be subject to wear and tear, and perhaps
it would even eventually be discarded by the owner once it was no longer considered
useful, whereas the actual ACT ephemerides may have been only consulted irregularly
to compile these texts, and thus remain in a better condition. One cannot discount, however, the simple accidents of excavation for the fact that other texts similar to A 3405
are not currently known.
Acknowledgements. I am deeply indebted to Hermann Hunger for sending me a copy of his transliteration of A 3405 in advance of publication, and for several useful discussions during the course
of this research. I also wish to thank Alexander Jones and John Britton for their help in unravelling
various parts of this text. This research was made possible by the award of a Leverhulme Trust
Research Fellowship.
Department of Physics
University of Durham
South Road
Durham, DH1 3LE
England
(Received May 17, 2000)

1 - A 3405. An Unusual Astronomical Text From Uruk (Steele, 2000)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 - A 3405. An Unusual Astronomical Text From Uruk (Steele, 2000)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

c Springer-Verlag 2000

Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 55 (2000) 103135.

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

A. Sachs, A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

: last visibility in the east (KUR . . . S U)

: first visibility in the west (SU . . . IGI)

: last visibility in the west (S U

: stationary point in the east (. . . US)

: stationary point in the west (. . . US)

: last visibility in the west (. . . S U)

normal GU4 -UD and MUL-BABBAR).

12, Mercury Sco 14

Table 1. Schematic translation of A 3405 (note: horizontal alignment is not preserved)

22, Mercury  Aqu 6

VII, 11, Mercury Lib 4

[. . . x] + 3 after sunrise Cap 21

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

SE 60, VII, 11: Mercury omitted

SE 60, VII, 9: Mercury at Sco 8 omitted

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

61, XII2 , 7;20

(63, XI, 29;15)

(67, XII, 21;20)

69, VIII, 14;13,49

See O. Neugebauer, ACT, 293295 for a summary of these tables.

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

60, IV, 1;56,21

61, XI, 17;32

(68, III, 9;17,24)

69, VI, 18;50

O. Neugebauer, ACT , 294295 and 318321.

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

O. Neugebauer, HAMA, 404.

SE 68, III, 30: [. . .]

SE 61, XI, 29: Pis 1

t = 235 tithis,  = 213

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

SE 61, VII, 10;45,32

tion,  = 33,  = 60, and   = 58. This text does not

A. Aaboe and A. Sachs, Some Dateless Computed Lists of Longitudes of Characteristic

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

SE 60, VIII, 29;40

SE 60, XII, 29;40

Recalculating by System B we find excellent agreement with this data. For , we

A. Aaboe and A. Sachs, Dateless Computed Lists.

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

and 23;9 tithis, both increasing; for

SE 60, IX, 11;50

SE 60, II, 11;30

SE 60, IV, 12;40

(vi) Lunar eclipses

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

Texte aus Uruk Teil I (Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1976).

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

E. Weidner, Gestirn-Darstellungen auf babylonischen Tontafeln (Hermann Bohlaus Nachf.,

seines 65. Geburtstages am 18.

A 3405: An Unusual Astronomical Text from Uruk

Table 2. Astronomical texts owned or written by Anu-bel-sunu and Anu-aba-uter

Texts from Babylonia Volume III (Osterreichische

: last visibility in the west (S U

: stationary point in the east (. . . US)

: last visibility in the west (. . . S U)

22, Mercury Aqu 6

t = 235 tithis, = 213

tion, = 33, = 60, and = 58. This text does not