Bullut:u is clear that only bad weather had prevented the new moon from being
seen on the‘29th’; by the next evening, indeed, the moon was no longer new.
His question to the king suggests that the month should perhaps begin not
when the moon was actually sighted, but rather when it should have beenfirst
visible. This suggestion would contradict the inference from the astrological
omen lists that new moon pre/postdictions were not used to determine the
beginning of the month. The contradiction may be resolved in several ways. It
may be argued that the seventh–century astrological omen lists were compila-
tions of much earlier traditions, reflecting a period when pre/postdictions were
still not used for determining the calendar month. Alternatively, it may be
argued that although in the seventh century the calendar was still solely based
on new moon sighting, astrologers such as Bullut:u were attempting to intro-
duce the principle of new moon pre/postdiction, and petitioning the king to
recognize its calendrical legitimacy.
Insufficient confidence in the legitimacy of new moon pre/postdictions—or
perhaps in their astronomical accuracy—may explain why some astrologers of
the same period, facing a similar conflict between pre/postdiction on one
evening and sighting on the next, urged the king to obtain reports of new
moon sightings from other localities. The following letter was probably ad-
dressed to King Assurbanipal (669– 633 BCE) from one of his leading scholars:
To the king, [my lo]rd: your servant Adad-[šumu-usur]. Good health to the king,
[my lord]!...I observed the (crescent of the) moon on the 30th day; it was high,
(too) high to be (the crescent) of the 30th. Its position was like that of the 2nd day.
(So) if it suits the king, my lord, the king should wait for the report from Assur
beforefixing the date. Perhaps the king, my lord, will say:‘Why didn’t you decide
(about the matter)?’Am I [...]? The king should [ask] the scri[bes]: the
days...^30The author of this letter was presumably hoping that the report from the city
of Assur would attest a new moon sighting on the (end of the) 29th, and thus
confirm his own postdiction.^31 A similar request for other reports of new
moon sightings is made in the following letter (dating from the same period);
again, the astrologer seems to lack confidence in the evidence of his pre/
postdiction, which is why he asks for other reports to be sought:
...(There were) clouds.We did not (see) the moon, probably because of the
cl(ouds). The king, my lord, should send messeng(ers) to the cities of Assur (and)
Arbela, to go (and)find out definitely about the m(atter), (and to inform) quickly
the king, my lord. (The report) of (Calah)...^32(^30) Parpola (1970–83) i, no. 119 (also ii. 101–2); (1993) no. 225; see Beaulieu (1993) 66–7n.4.
The remainder of the text is unfortunately lost.Wacholder andWeisberg’s translation (1971) is
incoherent (see also Huber 1982: 7). Brown (2000) 276 rejects any precise dating. 31
In this case it was only a postdiction, based on the height of the moon at itsfirst sighting.
(^32) Parpola (1970–83) i, no. 323 (see also citation of ABL 895. 5–10, ibid. ii. 337).
80 Calendars in Antiquity