The Increment (ṣibtu)

1. The Increment (ṣibtu)

The ṣibtu(m) – the Increment or the Increase (Gr. Auswuchs)– is identified with the papillary extension or processus papillaris; Hussey 1948: 29; Jeyes 1989: 72; Koch 2000: 64–65; Leiderer 1990: 134–141; Meyer 1987: 172–175; Starr 1990: xlv.

Perhaps this liver part would have better been designated in English as the ‘Appendix’ to tie the noun ṣibtu, ‘addition’ more meaningfully with the verb from which it derives – (w)aṣābu, ‘to add, to append.’ A comparison can be made to Hebrew, where the anatomical appendix is called תּוֹסֶפְתָּן and is derived from the verbal root י.ס.פ, a cognate of the Akkadian (w)aṣābu. See more below. Since the term Increment is accepted in the literature by now, we leave it as is.

The omen compendia of the ṣibtu are not plentiful, and the place of the ṣibtu in omen literature diminishes after the Old Babylonian period.

The Old Babylonian compendia include YOS 10 35, Nougayrol 1945: 81–85 (AO 7029); 85–90 (AO 7033), OBE 10, and TIM 9 81 (Jeyes 1989: 72; Koch 2015: 85). From the Post Old Babylonian period there are KUB 4.66 iii (un-edited; Riemschneider 2004: 58), CUSAS 18, Appendix ix (written by the diviner Kuzzi), and Heeßel 2012, no. 1 (Bārûtu Excerpt), ii 82–84 and iii, 2–5. The ṣibtu is represented in the Bārûtu in Koch 2000, no. 72 (pan tākalti, Tablets 11–12 = K 4102 + K 10623). The state of preservation of the Nineveh tablet is poor.

Many examples of ṣibtu omens brought by Jeyes (1989: 72) demonstrate the tie between the Increase in the protases and in the various increases (or losses thereof) in the apodoses: estates, property, harvest and vice versa, seizure by the crown of estates, loss of property, and destruction of crops by pests. As Koch (2000: 65) surmises, the symbolic value of the part is the crops and the market. Indeed, Multābiltu Tablet 1 (Koch 2005: 93), 13 explains thus:

ebītum | šubat nēḫti | šumma ṣibtu ebât ebūr māti iššir

Thickness = peaceful dwelling. (As in the omen) If the Increment is thick, the harvest of the land will succeed.

Any harmful mark threatening the body of the Increment results in a negative omen, predicting financial losses. Cf. Pan takālti Commentary 6 (Koch 2000, no. 83, p. 420), 24:

šumma elēnu ṣibti šīlu nadi nušurrê ŠE-am šaniš kurru iššaqqal

If above the Increment a Hole lies, decrease of barley; alternatively, crop prices will rise (lit. the kur-measure will be weighed).

3.Writing

The liver part ṣibtu(m) ‘Increment’ is written either syllabically (ṣi-ib-tum, ṣí-ib-tam) or with the logogram MÁŠ. The equation between MÁŠ and the reading ṣibtu is evidenced in the Practical Vocabulary Assur (Landsberger and Gurney 1957–58), § 913: uzuMÁŠ = ṣi-ib-tú.

Similar to other liver parts, logographic writing seems to have succeeded phonetic writing; there are logographic examples in the OB period, but phonetic writings in the MB period onward are rare if documented at all.

It should be noted that the logogram MÁŠ used for this liver part ṣibtu is the same one used for the general word for ‘divination’ (Akk. bīru). However, these two writings originate from different sources. The writing MÁŠ for ‘divination’ appears to have been an abbreviation of the term MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD (Akk. bārû) ‘diviner.’ In contrast, the liver part ṣibtu is written with MÁŠ, simply because it is identical to the logogram used for ṣibtu ‘interest’ (Goetze 1947: 7). Hence, it relies on its simplex meaning, which is an increase or increment of a particular surface of the liver, playing back into its social aspect in the apodosis, that of increasing when the omen is favorable or decreasing when the omen is negative.

The question is obviously why, starting in the Ur III period, the word ‘interest’ was written with the sign MÁŠ (literally ‘goat’). Eilers (1973: 205), drawing parallels from other languages, argued that because interest is the new capital added to the fund every year, it was likened to a new kid born to the herd every year; see Steinkeller 1981: 139 ff.; also Selz 2000: 195. This is very tentative and unconvincing. We argue that the reason for the writing MÁŠ for ṣibtu, ‘interest, increase’ is because it was a close homophone to the word ṣabītu ‘gazelle.’ This word is usually written MAŠ.DÀ, but cases are found for MÁŠ.DÀ and perhaps even for MÁŠ; Hershkovitz 2023: 114–118. Thus, the conclusion is that the writing of MÁŠ for the liver part ṣibtu confirms that this term is identical to ‘interest,’ that is to say, the term should be analyzed as deriving from (w)aṣābu ‘to increase,’ rather than ṣabātu ‘to seize’; see CAD/Ṣ: 158, s.v. However, note that there is a homophone ṣibtu, ‘seizure, attack,’ derived from ṣabātu; CAD/Ṣ: 163–166. Usually, it is written either phonetically or partially logographically as DIB-it. In contexts of medical omens, it is used to denote an attack or seizure of a disease. Rather exceptionally, the writing of ṣibtu, ‘seizure,’ with the MÁŠ sign (albeit four times out of several dozens of phonetic spellings) can be seen in a list of more diseases in a few late Neo Assyrian legal documents (in the Gewährleistungsklausen; Radner 1997: 178), no doubt because of a confusion between the two homophonous words.

Indeed, although the common opinion is that ṣibtum, Increment (or ‘interest’), is a derivative of the verb (w)aṣābu, Meyer (1987: 172) translates the term as Greifen, implying a derivation from ṣabātu ‘to seize.’ Interestingly, even in ancient times, there seems to be an uncertainty about the word's gender, which ultimately points to its original meaning. Starr (1990: xlv+n.161) has noted that ṣibtum was given a fem. stative, šalmat, ‘is sound,’ šaknat, ‘is placed,’ or (w)aṣbat, ‘is protruding,’ agreeing with the gender of the word. But there were some cases in which the word was given a mas. stative, šalim, ‘is sound,’ as if the word were a masculine form built on the verb ṣabātu. The stative šalim is seen in two Old Babylonian extispicy reports (YOS 10 19, 18; Nougayrol 1967: 220, A 18) and a few Neo-Assyrian extispicy reports. In SAA 4, there appear MÁŠ šal-mat (x2), MÁŠ DAR-át (x1) against MÁŠ SILIM-im, šá-lim (x4); sometimes the form is unmarked, as in MÁŠ GAR, MÁŠ DAGAL, and MÁŠ BAR. In these cases, the scribe was not clear about ṣibtum, whether it was a seizure (mas.) or an increment (fem.). The confusion of gender perhaps can be seen as a deliberate attempt at playfulness, adding a degree of further interpretation into the writing MÁŠ in extispicy texts. In the canonical Bārûtu, the feminine stative is kept throughout.

There is, however, a notable play between similar sounding words to ṣibtu in the protasis. Consider this case, Nisḫu KAR 151 (Koch 2005, no. 32, p. 275; Heeßel 2012, no. 70), 26:

šumma ina nīdi kussê […] ṣibta(MÁŠ) iṣbat

If in the Throne Base [so-and-so] seizes the Increment.

And in one case, we found a play between ṣibtu in the protasis and ṣabātu in the apodosis.

YOS 10 35, 5 (Increment omen compendium; see CAD/S: 290) 

šumma x[…ina mašk]an ubāni ṣibtim sinništum kussê iṣabbat

If the [so-and-so (is placed) at the posi]tion of the Increment’s Finger, a woman will seize the throne.

4. Attestations

YOS 10, 46 ii. 36–37 (Weapon omen compendium); cf. Richter 1994: 233–234; Winitzer 2017: 157.

šumma(DIŠ) kakki (gišTUKUL) ri-ṣi ṣí-ib-tam iṭ-ṭù-ul re-eṣ-ka bu-ši-ka i-ka-al

 If the Weapon of the Ally faces the Increment, your ally will eat up your goods.

 Old Babylonian Extispicy Report (Ammiṣaduqa Year 11), Goetze 1957: 96, no. 3 l. 8.

 MÁŠ aṣ-ba-at

 The Increment is enlarged.

Heeßel 2012, no. 30, l. 19 (Gallbladder compendium; KAR 150)

 šumma(BE-ma) i-na i-mi-ti marti(ZÉ) pí-iṭ-rum MÁŠ iṭ-ṭú-ul šu-lum MU.1.KÁM

šumma ina imitti piṭru ṣabita iṭṭul šulum šatti

If there is a fissure on the right of the gallbladder and it faces the Increment, well-being for one year.

Pān takāklti Tablet 11–12 (Koch 2000: 391–392; also in Heeßel 2012, no. 86, 14), r13

BE KI.TA-nu MÁŠ GÌR i-šá-riš eṣ-ret GIG-uṣ MUNUS.MEŠ

šumma šaplānu ṣibti šēpu išāriš eṣret muruṣ sinnišāti

If below the Increment a Foot is drawn in a straight line, sickness of women.

5. Reference List:

Eilers, W. 1973

Goetze, A. 1957

Heeßel, N.P. 2012

Hershkovitz, Y. 2023

Laroche, E. 1952

Leiderer, R. 1990

Radner, K. 1997

Richter, T. 1994

Selz, G. J. 2000

Steinkeller, P. 1981