BM 76829: a small astronomical fragment with important implications for the Late Babylonian astronomy and the Astronomical Book of Enoch (Q2029474)

The authors publish a small fragment of a Late Babylonian tablet. The obverse of the tablet ``assigns numerical values to sectors assigned to zodiacal signs, while the text on the reverse seems to relate zodiacal signs with specific days or intervals of days. The system used on the obverse also presents a new way of representing the concept of numerical `zero' in cuneiform, and for the first time in cuneiform, a system for dividing the horizon into six arcs in the east and six arcs in the west akin to that used in the Astronomical Book of Enoch.'' The text is furthermore compared to what is found in astronomical texts from Qumran. However, all this can safely be forgotten after \textit{J. Steele} published a different reading and interpretation of the tablet in [``An alternative interpretation of BM 76829: astrological schemes for length of life and parts of the body'', Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. (to appear; \url{doi:10.1007/s00407-021-00279-y})]. At the end of each line on the obverse, the authors read \textit{a-na}, ``for'', followed by a single digit number from 30 to zero (which the authors understood as being represented by an empty space). Steele reads \textit{a-lid} where \textit{lid} is the first part of the sign \textit{na}, and took the second part of \textit{na}, a single vertical wedge, to be the number sign ``1''. Thereby the strange ``zero'' is replaced by the number 1. The other numbers become 1,30, 1,20, etc. The word \textit{alid} means ``born''. Thus, the text contains astrology: ``(if a child) is born in the region of zodiacal sign x''. As Steele shows, such considerations are attested in other cuneiform astrological texts. I have no doubt that his reading is correct. Steele also shows that there is no need to assume that the horizon is divided into twice six arcs in this text. The numbers can much better be restored to a single zigzag function covering the whole year or the whole zodiac. The values used occur in other schematic astronomical cuneiform texts which Steele discusses in detail. He then proposes to see in these numbers a reference to the possible length of life of the newborn child. The numbers range from 1 (i. e. 60) to 2 (i. e. 120). On the reverse just the names of 8 zodiacal signs (in their order) are preserved. Only in four lines remnants of signs preceding these names can be found. The authors read one as the number ``29'' and the next as the word for ``month'', taking this to mean day 1 of a month. From this they assume a difference of two days between the lines because a ``normal'' month has 30 days. They go on and investigate possible restorations for the (broken) day numbers. Under the influence of their interpretation of the obverse and in comparison with the Astronomical Book of Enoch they draw far-reaching conclusions about possible connections. It has to be pointed out that only the (uncertain) number 29 is legible. That the word for ``month'' automatically would mean ``day 1'' remains to be shown independently. The reconstructions are very hypothetical, to say the least. Steele [loc. cit.] reads the remnants of signs before the names of the zodiacal signs as body parts. For this too he can find parallels in other cuneiform astrological texts. One may have doubts about his readings but the assumptions of the authors are far less likely. In sum, this tablet has no implications for the relations of Babylonian astronomy to the Astronomical Book of Enoch.