Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:01:17.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Royal hermeneutics: Observations on the commentaries from Ashurbanipal's libraries at Nineveh*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Eckart Frahm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The British excavations at Nineveh, initiated in 1845 by Austen Henry Layard, produced about 30,000 clay tablets or fragments of tablets, most of them coming from the citadel mound of Kuyunjik. This textual material can be divided into two main groups: on the one hand, library tablets, consisting of literary, lexical and historical texts, rituals, medical compendia, Sumerian prayers and above all omen texts, and on the other, archival documents, such as letters, contracts and administrative notes. The great, and rather unique, potential of the texts from Kuyunjik lies in the fact that they reveal to us, more than any other repository of cuneiform tablets ever found, how culture, represented by the first group of texts, and politics, represented by the second, were related to each other in ancient Mesopotamia.

While the archival documents from Kuyunjik date to the reigns of several Assyrian rulers from the eighth and seventh centuries, the library texts seem to belong mostly, though not exclusively, to the reign of a single Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal (669 to about 630), a man deeply interested in the scribal arts of ancient Mesopotamia. His enthusiasm for reading and writing, which he seems to have shared with his wife, Libbāli-šarrat, can be traced back to his youth. From an autobiographical sketch about his intellectual socialization, we know that Ashurbanipal had received the education of a future scholar. In a passage somewhat reminiscent of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple, Ashurbanipal described the scribal training of his early years as follows:

I learnt the craft of Adapa the sage, the hidden mystery of the scribal art. I used to watch the signs of heaven and earth and to study them in the assembly of the scholars. Together with the able experts in oil-divination, I deliberated upon (the tablet) “If the liver is a mirror of heaven”. … I looked at cuneiform signs on stones from before the flood.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 66: Nineveh. Papers of the XLIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part One , 2004 , pp. 45 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Kathryn Slanski for her comments. Abbreviations are generally those of Archiv für Orientforschung 48/49 (2001/2002), 311–56.

References

1 For an overview see Pedersén, O., Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 BC (1998), 158–64Google Scholar, with earlier literature.

2 On the nature of Assurbanipal's tablet collection see Lieberman, S., “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipal's Personal Tablet Collection,” in: Abusch, T. et al. (eds.), Festschrift Moran (1990), 305–36Google Scholar.

3 Libbāli-šarrat's scholarly ambitions can be inferred from the letter SAA 16, No. 28. Is it possible that the anonymous woman, who in order to verify rumours about an insurrection against Assurbanipal, wrote the query SAA 4, No. 321 (cf. No. 322) to the god Manlaḫarban, may have been Libbāli-šarrat?

4 [š]i-pir ap-kal-li A-da-pà a-ḫu-uz ni-ṣir-tu ka-tim-tú kul-lat ṭup-šar-ru-tú / [gis]kim-meš an-e u ki-tim am-ra-ku šu-ta-du-na-ku ina ukkin um-ma-a-ni / šu-ta-bu-la-ku DIŠ bà-tú ma-aṭ-lat an-e it-ti abgal-ì-meš le-'-u-ti / ḫi-ṭa-ku gù-sum ab-ni šá la-am a-bu-bi (L4, I 13′–18′, Streck, M., Asb., 252 ff.Google Scholar; Bauer, Th., IWA, 84 f.Google Scholar; Borger, R., BIWA, 187 f.Google Scholar).

5 According to the catalogue K 1352 (CT 20, Pl. 1), the text belongs to Multābiltu, the final chapter of the canonical extispicy series, of which it is the 16th tablet. No actual manuscripts of Multābiltu XVI have been published so far, but from its title one might conclude that the tablet offered material similar to the esoteric equations between liver parts, stars and gods found in SpTU 4, No. 159. Whether the unpublished fragment K6137 belongs to Multābiltu XVI requires further studies; the tablet, booked as a potential source for Enūma Anu Enlil by Reiner, E., “Celestial Omen Tablets and Fragments in the British Museum,” in: Maul, S. M. (ed.), Festschrift Borger, CM 10 (1998), 236 Google Scholar, is designated as […]-ṭa-lat an-e in its colophon.

6 See Lambert, W. G., “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors,” JCS 16 (1962), 59–77 Google Scholar; Rochberg-Halton, F., “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts,” JCS 36 (1984), 127–44Google Scholar.

7 The omen reports were published by Hunger, H. in SAA 8 Google Scholar, the letters by Parpola, S. in SAA 10 Google Scholar. For an extensive commentary on the letters see Parpola, , LAS 2 Google Scholar.

8 For Balasî, and for all the other scholars mentioned in this article, see the respective entries in the Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Helsinki 1998–)Google Scholar.

9 SAA 10, No. 58: 16: iš-di-ḫu né-me-lu. Many similar glosses can be found in the reports of Nabû-aḫḫē-erība (SAA 8, Nos. 39–79): see Talon, Ph., “The Uses of Glosses in Neo-Assyrian Letters and Astrological Reports,” in Festschrift Fronzaroli (2003), 648–65Google Scholar.

10 There is no room for examples here. Some analysis of the rules of association employed by the Nineveh scholars ho dealt with astrological texts is provided by Brown, D., CM 18 (2000), 63–81 Google Scholar.

11 SAA 10, No. 60, r. 1 f., 10–14: Šumma izbu da“ana ana parāsi … kettu [ša] ubānu ina pānātuššu [lā] tallikūni lāmūqašu lā iḫakkim.

12 See Elman, Y., “Authoritative Oral Tradition in Neo-Assyrian Scribal Circles,” JANES 7 (1975), 19–32 Google Scholar; Brown, , CM 18, 156–60Google Scholar.

13 SAA 10, No. 23, r. 8–20. The reference to the commentary (kī annî ina mukallimti šaṭir) is in r. 13 f.

14 Due to limitations of space, this paper can provide only a very general overview. More in-depth information will be given in my forthcoming study on Mesopotamian commentaries. The remarks presented here are based on what I hope is a rather complete catalogue of Assyrian and Babylonian commentaries.

15 What ṣâtu as a philological term literally means is unclear. Suggested translations include “extraits, citations” ( Labat, R., Commentaires [1933], 15 Google Scholar), “explanation” ( Lambert, W. G., AfO 17 [1954–1956], 320 Google Scholar) and “forme ancienne, désuète” ( Civil, M., in: Durand, J.-M., Kupper, J.-R. (eds.), Mélanges Birot [1985], 74 Google Scholar; cf. already Meier, G., AfO 12 [1937–1939], 237 Google Scholar: “Archaismen”). For ṣâtu as a term for lexical lists see the recent remarks by Oelsner, J., OLZ 90 (1995), 383 Google Scholar. It seems that certain bilingual lists, e.g. ḪAR-ra, are called ṣâtu, while monolingual ones like Malku are called lišānu. But also sign lists of the tu-ta-ti type and grammatical texts were called ṣâtu, as appears from the “Esoteric Babylonian Commentary” published by Biggs, R. D. in RA 26 (1968), 51–8, r. 14f.Google Scholar: be-ma kešda(kiṣru!) šá ṣa-a-tum ana igi-ka tu: ta: ti / ù: a (dupl.: šá): ia: e (Biggs — and also Böck, B., JAOS 120 [2000], 616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar — translate kešda šá ṣa-a-tum as “collection of commentaries”, but this seems not to be in accordance with the context).

16 It is attested in ṣâtu commentaries on Izbu and Alu, see CAD N/2, 157b.

17 On Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, see Lieberman, S., “A Mesopotamian Background of the So-Called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical Hermeneutics,” HUCA 58 (1987), 204–17Google Scholar, Frahm, E., “Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, das Gilgameš-Epos und der Tod Sargons II.,” JCS 51 (1999), 73–90 Google Scholar and Guinan, A., “A Severed Head Laughed: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation,” in: Ciraolo, L. and Seidel, J. (eds.), Magic and Divination in the Ancient World, Ancient Magic and Divination II (2002), 7–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 The astrological commentary K 872 (AAT 58), a copy of an original from Babylon, was written by Aššur-mudammiq, son of Nabû-mušēsi, descendent of Bēl-kundiilā'ī. He may be identical with the Ashur scribe who copied the prayer LKA 51, while his father might have written the astrological reports SAA 8, Nos. 143–59, dating from 669 to 663/2. The astrological commentary K 3145 ( Rochberg-Halton, F., AfO Beih. 22, 225 f.Google Scholar), written ana malsût Kiṣi[r- …], should be attributed to Kiṣir-Aššur or Kiṣir-Nabû, descendants of the Bābu-šumu-ibni family, who left very similar commentaries in their library in Ashur. On Kiṣir-Aššur's relationship with Nineveh, see Villard, P., “Kiṣir-Aššur et la bibliothèque de Ninive,” NABU 1998, No. 16Google Scholar; on the transfer of knowledge in first-millennium Mesopotamia in general, see my forthcoming article “Head-hunter, Bücherdiebe und wandernde Gelehrte,” in CDOG 4.

19 Parpola, S., “Assyrian Library Records,” JNES 42 (1983), 1–29 Google Scholar; a new edition is provided in SAA 7, Nos. 49–56.

20 For texts from Kuyunjik written in Babylonian script see the website http://assyriologie.uni-hd.de/fincke/nineveh/, created by J. Fincke.

21 In at least one case, a commentary took the other way round. The extispicy commentary W 22729/14 (SpTU 2, No. 46), inscribed with Ashurbanipal's colophon 1, was found at Uruk, in the library of a Late Babylonian exorcist; see Farber, W., “Neues aus Uruk,” WeOr 18 (1987), 35 Google Scholar, and Frahm, E., “Zwischen Tradition und Neuerung: Babylonische Priestergelehrte im achämenidenzeitlichen Uruk,” in: Kratz, R. G., Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden (2002), 97 fGoogle Scholar.

22 Colophon b (H. Hunger, BAK, No. 318): ekal Aššur-bāni-apli … šar māt Aššurma kī pî ṭuppāni lē'āni gabari māt Aššur māt Šumeri u Akkadi ṭuppu šuātu ina tapḫurti ummânī ašṭur asniq abrēma ana tāmarti šarrūtīja qereb ekaltīja ukīn ša šumī šaṭru ipaššiṭu šumšu išaṭṭaru Nabû ṭupšar gimri šumšu lipšiṭ “Palace of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria. I wrote this tablet in the assembly of the scholars according to tablets and wooden writing-boards from Assyria, Sumer and Akkad, checked it, collated it and put it into my palace for my royal reading.” The colophon is attested on a number of extispicy commentaries.

23 For cultic commentaries and explanatory texts, see A. Livingstone, Explanatory Works; for Dub-ḫa-la tablets see the preliminary remarks by Koch-Westenholz, U., Babylonian Liver Omens (2000), 24 Google Scholar.

24 Due to the difficulties involved in classifying smaller fragments, this number is to be taken cum grano salis. I have counted fragments, even when they are rejoined, individually, in order to facilitate the quantitative evaluation of the different groups of commentaries. If one operates with rejointed fragments, the number of commentaries from Ashurbanipal's libraries amounts to 648, while there are 980 commentaries from Mesopotamia altogether.

25 Lambert, W. G., in: Eichler, B. L. et al. (eds.), Festschrift Kramer, AOAT 25 (1976), 314 fGoogle Scholar. In the following, only very selective bibliographical references can be given.

26 Lambert, W. G., BWL, 31–56 (ms. G)Google Scholar.

27 CT 13, 32 (Sm 747, now joined to numerous unpublished fragments). The catchline of this tablet refers to a commentary on another, so far unidentified religiousliterary text.

28 See Da-Riva, R. and Frahm, E., AfO 46/47 (1999/2000), 173 fGoogle Scholar.

29 Bottéro, J., “Les Noms de Marduk, l'écriture et la ‘logique’ en Mésopotamie ancienne,” in: Finkelstein-Gedàchtnisschrift (1977), 5–28 Google Scholar.

30 The number given in my Rencontre handout was too small.

31 Published together with the respective ḪAR-ra tablets in MSL V–XII. Since the ḪAR-gud manuscripts are never explicitly designated in their colophons as ṣâtu or mukallimtu, it is difficult to establish whether ḪAR-gud should really be characterized as a commentary, or rather as a lexical text in its own right.

32 On Šurpu ( Reiner, E., Šurpu, 50 Google Scholar), and on “Marduk's Address to the Demons” (cf. Lambert, , “Marduk's Address to the Demons,” in: Abusch, T. and van der Toorn, K. [eds.], Ancient Magic 1 [1999], 294 f.Google Scholar).

33 A catalogue of the Kuyunjik fragments belonging to Enūma Anu Enlil, with references to commentaries, is given by Reiner, E. in: Maul, S. M. (ed.), Festschrift Borger, CM 10 (1998), 215–302 Google Scholar. The number given by me includes fragments belonging to Sîn ina tāmartīšu, a serialized commentary attached to Enūma Anu Enlil.

34 Many of them now edited by U. Koch-Westenholz, Babylonian Liver Omens. The number given by me includes fragments belonging to Multābiltu, for which see above, n. 5.

35 Published by Böck, B., AfO Beih. 27 (2000), 238–56Google Scholar.

36 Mostly published by Leichty, E., TCS 4 (1970), 211–33Google Scholar.

37 Most of them ṣâtu commentaries on small tablets in Babylonian script (CT 41, Pls. 25–34, Meek, Th. J., RA 17 [1920], 140 f.Google Scholar). A mukallimtu commentary in Assyrian script was published by Langdon, S., RA 13 (1916), 27–33 Google Scholar.

38 On Iqqur īpuš ( Sayce, A. H., ZA 2 [1887], 333–5Google Scholar: K 98), on giskim texts (CT 41, Pl. 45: Rm 855) and on several different omen texts (2R 47: K 4387).

39 The first tablet was edited by Koch-Westenholz, U., “The Astrological Commentary Šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu Tablet 1,” in: La science des cieux — sages, mages, astrologues, Res Orientales XII (1999), 149–65Google Scholar.

40 The latter commentary was published by Meek, , RA 17, 190 f.Google Scholar: 82-5-22, 572.

41 The whole series seems to be covered by K 4593 (+) Sm 9 (+) Sm 1038 ( Meek, , RA 17, 144, 175, 180 Google Scholar).

42 Colophons a, b, 1 (Hunger, BAK, Nos. 317, 318, 325), and a colophon similar to o (Hunger, BAK, No. 328).

43 Mesopotamian Astrology (1995), 140–51Google Scholar.

44 SAA 8, No. 82: 5 f.

45 Brown, , CM 18, 68–72 Google Scholar.

46 As for the many negative omens reported to the king, there was of course always the possibility of performing a Namburbi ritual to ward off the evil predicted by them. This is in fact what Balasî suggests on behalf of the omen quoted above (SAA 8, No. 82: 10).

47 An interesting exception is a letter by Bēl-ušēzib, who writes about an Assyrian campaign against the Manneans and some omens relating to it; see Lanfranchi, G. B., “Scholars and Scholarly Traditions in Neo-Assyrian Times,” SAAB 3 (1989), 99–114 Google Scholar.

48 For similar ideas about divination, see Pongratz-Leisten, B., SAAS 10 (1999), 5 Google Scholar.

49 Besides the medical and diagnostic commentaries, hermeneutical treatises attested elsewhere in Mesopotamia but not in Nineveh include commentaries on Aa/Ea, the “Babylonian Theodicy”, botanical texts (Uruanna), grammatical texts, the Laws of Hammurapi, Maqlû, Nabnītu, Namburbi rituals, potency incantations (Šà-zi-ga), Tummu bītu rituals, and Udug-ḫul.

50 Good examples are provided by Civil, M., “Medical Commentaries from Nippur,” JNES 33 (1974), 329–38Google ScholarPubMed, and George, A. R., “Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney Smith — Part Two: Prognostic and Diagnostic Omens, Tablet I,” RA 85 (1991), 137–63Google Scholar.

51 See Cavigneaux, A., “Aux sources du Midrash: l'herméneutique babylonienne,” in: AuOr 5 (1987), 243–55Google Scholar.

52 See Assmann, J., “Text und Kommentar. Einfūhrung,” in: Assmann, J. and Gladigow, B. (eds.), Text und Kommentar (1995), 12 fGoogle Scholar.

53 Montaigne, , Essais, 3, 13 Google Scholar.