“There are of course very many library tablets that
purport in their colophons
to
be the work of Ashurbanipal that quite clearly were not, but quite apart from
the
uniquely long and poetic colophon, would an ordinary scribe dare to proclaim
“I
am Ashurbanipal, king of the world, king of Assyria” as part of
a
tablet colophon’s content?”.
Alasdair Livingstone writes:
Ashurbanipal: literate or not?
Although many
rulers and monarchs in the Ancient Near East lay claim to various kinds of
wisdom, relatively few claim literacy, and of these Shulgi and Ashurbanipal
were by far the most vociferous. While it may never be possible to actually
test the veracity of Shulgi’s assertions, the purpose of this article is to
present and discuss for the first time some evidence that has direct bearing on
the question of Ashurbanipal’s literacy. …. Serious commentary on this issue
commenced almost twenty-five years ago with some observations by S. Parpola,
who wrote that the literacy claims “can well have more truth in them than a
critical modern reader would a priori
be inclined to think” …. More recently S. J. Lieberman returned to the matter
and pointed out the proliferation of phrases in colophons of tablets in the
king’s libraries that insist that the tablets were for his own use, such as ana tamarti sˇitassiya, “for my review
in reading”, ana tamarti sˇarrutiya,
“for my royal review”, ana taäsisti
tamartisˇu, “for study in his reviewing”, ana taäsisti sˇitassisˇu, “for study in his reading”, and ana tamrirtiya, “for my examining”. ….
Lieberman
considered that this and other evidence demonstrated clearly that the king was
making intelligent use of individual tablets that were “gathered in his palace
for his own (Lieberman’s italics)
study”. ….
….
Most recently Jeanette Fincke has
had the opportunity of giving consideration to the Ashurbanipal literacy
question in her report on the British Museum’s Ashurbanipal Library Project. ….
Under the subheading ‘Ashurbanipal’s interest in the scribal art’ she
emphasises the king’s concern with that art, including an actual preoccupation
with old tablets as claimed in his inscriptions and she cautiously allows the
possibility that he could read cuneiform tablets, albeit perhaps not with the
much flaunted expertise. …. She refers to simple writings and explanations in
some scholarly letters, suggesting that this was to make them easier for the
king to understand. These writings, and especially the glosses in the
correspondence of the astrologer Nabû-ahhe-eriba, are part of the subject
matter of a discussion by P. Villard of Ashurbanipal’s education. …. The
purpose of the present contribution is to bring the debate on the literacy
question further by presenting and discussing some new evidence.
The clearest
claim to literacy is made in the inscription known to modern scholarship as L ….
Parts of this are quoted by Pongratz-Leisten, Villard and Fincke. …. Their
translations differ not only from each other in certain details, but also from
the present writer’s rendering of the relevant passage ….
….
Fincke in her
previously quoted article translates “I am enjoying the cuneiform wedges (sc.
writing) on stone(s) from before the flood”, as if the word were to be derived
from äadû, “to enjoy”, which is
indeed how it was understood ninety years ago by Streck. ….
The relevant passage in the letter
from Balasî to Esarhaddon concerning Ashurbanipal’s education and referred to
above reads as follows “To whom indeed has the king done such a favour as to me
whom you have appointed to the service of the crown prince, to be his master
and that I read with him his excercise?” (rev. 5–9). The latter part of this in
Assyrian is ummansˇu anakuni liginnu
(written li-gi-in-nu) aqabbâsˇsˇuni, and this phrase will be
referred to again below.
A number of relevant dates relating
to these matters were put forward by S. Parpola. First it is worth looking at
the proposed dating of the letter just quoted. Parpola’s commentary on the
letter dates it to Du<uz, or late June, 671 BC … and refers to a second
letter, this time addressed to Esarhaddon by Nabû-ahhe-eriba, where a detailed
excursus on dating is given. ….
Damien Mackey’s comment: As I see it, Esarhaddon
and Ashurbanipal were one and the same:
Era of
Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal to be absorbed into Chaldean age
(1)
Era of
Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal to be absorbed into Chaldean age
Alasdair
Livingstone continues:
With the exception of the tutelage
clauses the two letters are responding in a similar vein to the same message
from the king. Parpola’s suggestion is that this was sent out at the same time
to both scholars and that they may even have collaborated in their response.
The second letter, however, mentions a four month long absence of the king. The
only event that fits this is the Egyptian campaign, which Esarhaddon is known
to have lead personally. The dates of this four month campaign are given by the
Babylonian Chronicle and supply the Du<uz, 671 date for the king’s return to
Assyria and the letter. …. One year earlier, as shown by the date given in
Esarhaddon’s succession treaty, Ashurbanipal and his brother Sˇamasˇsˇum-ukin
had respectively been appointed as heirs to the thrones of Assyria and
Babylonia. ….
Damien Mackey’s comment: Shamash-shum-ukin was
the Crown Prince, the son of Ashurbanipal, not his brother:
Fitting
Ashurbanipal’s so-called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme
(3) Fitting
Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme
Alasdair
Livingstone continues:
According to a letter from another
scholar this event apparently coincided with their marriages, in Ashurbanipal’s
case to the lady Libbi-ali-sˇarrat, no doubt a scion of an Assyrian noble
family. …. he was to become king, and to reign for thirty-nine years. We do not
know how old he was when he became king, but we may suspect that he was at
least in his later teens. If one is to take the letter at face value, then at
this age, and also already with the mighty status of crown prince, Ashurbanipal
was being passed into the tutelage of a scribe, yet one of the most senior
masters of the scribal art and cuneiform literature of the time. It might be
thought likely, and evidence in favour of this will be given below, that
Ashurbanipal had at this stage already received some education and was moving
on to a higher phase.
….
One might
wonder whether any of the actual materials relating to the process of education
were kept within Ashurbanipal’s collections, and in this connection some
tablets will be brought forward for discussion that, like the letters, have
previously not been linked to the literacy question. There are a number of
prayers that have Ashurbanipal’s name in them as supplicant that are unusual in
their style of writing. One example is K 8005+, published here as Fig. 3 with a transliteration and
translation in the Appendix.
The prayer is
of sˇu.íl.lá type[1]
and in l. 26’ one can read and restore [a-na-ku
ìr-ka man].sˇár-dû-a dumu dingir-sˇú sˇá dingir-sˇú asˇ-sˇur du.[dar-sˇú dasˇ-sˇur-ri-tu4],
“[I am your servant], Ashurbanipal, the son of his god, whose god is Asˇsˇur
and whose goddess is [Asˇsˇuritu]!”. The script is very clear, the wedges of
the individual signs do not overlap or overrun laterally and there is clear
space between the lines. Also, the script is large, well over half a centimetre
in height. It is instructive to compare a different copy of the same prayer, K
6692, Fig. 4, also previously
unpublished, now transliterated and translated in the Appendix. The corresponding
line here is [a-na-ku ìr-k]a
nenni a nenni sˇá dingir-sˇú nenni du.dar-sˇú nenni-[tu4], “[I am your servant] so-and-so, the son of
so-and-so, whose god is so-and-so, whose goddess is so-andso”. The idea of
course was that an individual might pay a professional scribe to prepare for
him a copy of the prayer with his own name inserted. In this case one has a
typical clearly and well written Ashurbanipal library hand, with script 3 mm in
height. The fact that it has been possible here to compare the writing on two
tablets that are duplicates apart from the supplicant line is not the main
point. The script of the tablet on fig. 4 is exceptionally well written, but in
its size and general execution resembles the script of thousands of other
tablets in the Ashurbanipal libraries. The script on the fig. 3 tablet on the
other hand is almost unique, distinguished by the large size and clearness of
the signs. It was not of course unusual for the names of kings to be inserted
in sˇu.íl.lá or other types of prayers but in this case the uniqueness of the
tablet, coupled with the fact that Ashurbanipal’s name is mentioned as the
supplicant, and seen in the context of the evidence for literacy that has
already been advanced, make it seem likely that this was a tablet that he was
intended to copy as an exercise. Of course, it could not be ruled out that he
wrote it himself, but the other explanation seems more likely.
….
A further twist in the Ashurbanipal
literacy question that has hitherto not been highlighted is the fact that there
are some tablets in the Ashurbanipal libraries that have in their colophons the
line “I am Ashurbanipal, king of the world, king of Assyria”. These include
three tablets listed by H. Hunger … of which two are a chemical and technical
recipe … and a lexical text … while the third is a fragment bearing only a
short section of the colophon. …. These three pieces have a remarkably similar
ductus and are written in a somewhat idiosyncratic manner in script roughly
half a centimetre high.
What is perhaps most remarkable is
the extremely long twenty-five line colophon, mainly consisting of supplication
and prayer to Nabû and Tasˇmetu, especially unexpected on tablets of such
mundane subject matter and reminiscent of Ashurbanipal’s claim in the court
poetry to enjoying a special relationship with these deities. …. In ll. 9–20
one reads “For my life, the protection of my vitality, prevention of illness,
the confirmation of the foundation of my royal throne, I placed (it) in the
library of the temple of Nabû in Nineveh of the great lord, my lord, for all
time. In future, O Nabû, look on this work with joy, and constantly bless my
kingship. Whenever I call out to you, take my hand! As I repeatedly go into
your temple, constantly protect my step. As this work is placed in your temple
and stands firm before you, look constantly with favour and ever consider my
wellbeing!” Like a student, the king is to place his tablet in the temple of
Nabû. ….
There are of
course very many library tablets that purport in their colophons to be the work
of Ashurbanipal that quite clearly were not, but quite apart from the uniquely
long and poetic colophon, would an ordinary scribe dare to proclaim “I am
Ashurbanipal, king of the world, king of Assyria” as part of a tablet
colophon’s content? An historical event that makes this seem unlikely is
recorded in a document relating to provincial affairs. …. The governor of the
city of Arkuäi in Kasˇiari, one Sˇumma-ilani had said “After my son is born I
will call him Ashurbanipal!” As a result of this gross act of insubordination
he was immediately apprehended by the higher provincial authorities and sent to
the river ordeal. One did not play lightly with the name of the king.
….
[1] See in general W.
Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen
„Gebetsbeschwörungen“. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 5 (Rome 1976).
