What was sacrificial divination for?
How did it work? (e.g., SAA 4: 280)
- Ritual posing of query TT – on clay TT or on papyrus TT – in front of Šamaš
- Ritual TT induction of signs into body of sacrificial animal
- Systematic examination and recording of entrails TT :
- Disposition of organs – ideally healthy on the right, diseased or deformed on the left
- Disposition of fortuitous markings TT on organs – e.g., "foot" mark, "weapon" mark
- Consultation of standard omen collection TT (bārûtu) for particular meanings
- Compilation of written report TT , counting favourable TT and unfavourable omens
- Followed by discussion with the king
What made it trustworthy?
- Trustworthiness in science/scholarship - as much about social status of reporter as about "objective" believability
- Who is believable as much as what is believable
- Diviners were high status, literate practioners, close to the king, and high-cost materials
- But anyone at all could have an ominous dream or observe an ominous event
- The ritual itself was controlled, systematic, initiated and repeatable on demand
- The theory of extispicy incorporated many means of finessing the outcome – not "cheating" but looking for deeper meanings
- Extispicy had a pedigree at least a thousand years old, but continually underwent revisions and refinements, in consultation with the king
Extispicy was primarily a means for the king to take high-risk decisions in discussion with his (human) advisors without undermining his absolute authority – or his credibility if the risk failed.
Further reading
- Starr, Queries to the Sungod, 1990: 'The practice of extispicy', pp. XXXVI-LV
- Veldhuis, 'Reading the signs', 1999
- Veldhuis, 'Divination: theory and use', 2006
- Guinan, 'Left/right symbolism', 1996
- Guinan, 'A severed head laughed', 2002
- Lipton, 'Epistemology of testimony', 1998
- Park, 'Divination and its social contexts', 1963
Content last modified: 07 Jul 2012.