copy) both support the reading in A+M. Critically, tablet C is the only tablet of the four
that shows evidence that it was carefully baked in antiquity.^1320 Such signs of careful
preparation for creating a durable text might be taken as an indication that the tablet was
authoritative. If this is so, how can such a significant divergence between an authoritative
copy of the text and three other sources for that text be explained?
In this instance tablet C is unlikely to be simply erroneous in respect of this reading.
Rather, the possibility arises that this variation reflects the reality that omen apodoses
could be changed according to other extraneous circumstances, whether this involves po-
litical, observational, or otherwise mitigating factors. Indeed, this phenomenon is preva-
lent in the astronomical reports to Neo-Assyrian kings.^1321 This shows that although fac-
tors such as tablet sequence or the sequence of individual omens may have been rela-
(^1320) S.J. Lieberman, "Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts," 330, notes that holes are generally bored
into carefully prepared tablets to ensure that these tablets do not explode during the firing process. 1321
The following examples are cited using the tablet numbers as found in H. Hunger, Astrological Reports
to Assyrian Kings (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992). Minor changes in these texts include refer-
ence to Venus as mulDili-bat in text nos. 51, 145, 156, 175, 338, 451, 538 and 539, against the title dNinsi-
ana in the tablets; additional phonetic complements in text no. 51 (BM 81-2-4, 86) 5, which has ŠE-am
(še’aam) versus ŠE in C r.17; and a lexical interchange in line 3 of text no. 175 (K121) and no. 247 (K1342),
which both have the word “LÚ.KÚR,” nukurtu, in place of “ERIN ma-at-ti,” ummani matti, as it appears in
A, F+H+J and VAT11253. More significantly, the dates given for the heliacal rising and setting of Venus
often stray considerably from the generalised dates given in EAE63. For example, see text no. 145 (K725)
line 5 against C 31. This phenomenon is most easily explained as relating to the observed movements of
Venus as against the formulaic movements unrealistically predicted in EAE63. Other letters give only
broad date ranges for risings that are dated specifically in EAE63. For example, text no. 451 (K13087+82-
5-22, 85) 1 gives the broad range “ina ITI.BÁR UD.1.KÁM EN UD.30.KÁM,” “between the 1st and the
30 th day of Nisanu,” where C 31 has “ina ITI.BÁR UD.2.KÁM,” “on the second of Nisanu.” Text nos. 538
and 539 (K8407 and 83-1-18, 319, respectively) lack a date entirely for the omen that appears at C r.25,
giving just the month name.