Gratitude in Mesopotamia

In his Assyrian dictionary, Simo Parpola lists the term karabu as meaning "to thank." One of the definitions that the Chicago Assyrian dictionary lists for karabu is:

to invoke blessings upon other persons (for a specific purpose) before the images of the gods, to pray to the gods.

Parpola also list karibu as meaning "thankful."

So in ancient Mesopotamia, like ancient Egypt, to thank someone was to pray to the gods on their behalf. As in Egypt, gratitude involved god.

This seems a long way from the modern world, and would be were it not for the fact that a relative of this Mesopotamian term has survived into English in two different forms. One of the Hebrew words related to karabu is kerub or cherub. The actual Akkadian cognate is thought to be karibu "thankful." The cherubim (the plural form of cherub) were woven into the curtains surrounding the tabernacle of Moses. In the temple of Solomon they were erected in three dimensions and larger than life surrounding the throne of God. 

The general depiction of the cherubs throughout the West Semitic world shares similarities, even though Phoenician and Israelite cherubs were not identical in form. The Phoenician word and the general form was borrowed into Greek as the gryps, which is the origin of English gryphon or griffin.

In a way, gratitude allows the cherubim to be in the presence of God and behold his face.

New Data on Ulisum

Just this morning the Journal of Near Eastern Studies posted a new issue with an article by Nashat Alkhafaji and Gianni Marchesi called "Naram-Sin’s War against Armanum and Ebla in a Newly-Discovered Inscription from Tulul al-Baqarat."

The inscription gives us much more information about Naram-Sin's campaign into the area around Ebla. The information it provides is material we had not even dreamed about knowing before.

The new inscription published in the article is also important for the on-going discussion about the location of Ulisum, about which I once wrote an article. The inscription gives us one clue about the location of Ulisum that we did not previously have, but it does not supply enough information to positively locate the site.

Congratulations to Alkhafaji and Marchesi for publishing this important inscription.

A Mesopotamian Joke

Many jokes about ancient Mesopotamia flounder because either the person telling the joke or the audience does not know enough about Mesopotamia to pull it off (usually the former). Sometimes, however, it works: I thought this was funny.

The Daily Grind

Most ancient literature was written by elites for elites. The concerns of the typical peasant does not enter into the question. The peasants were normally not noticed. It comes as something of a pleasant surprise when a mention does appear, such as this one, from a tamitu text that has a lot of Old Babylonian (ca. 2000-1600 BC) material though the tablet seems to be Neo-Assyrian (ca. 900-650 BC) in date (at earliest it dates to the time of the patriarchs, at latest it dates to just before Jeremiah's time):

the oxen, the sheep, the donkeys, the people, the ploughing oxen, the oxherds, and their supervisors, the bird-catchers, the look-outs, who leave this city daily, and in the environs of this city, moving about for one league, a half, or two-thirds, by day-time perform the duties assigned to them, by night entering this city for their rest:

(W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2007], 29.)

A number of things is interesting about this ancient description of the daily commute. The modern commute is generally from the suburbs to the city. This commute is from the city to the fields outside. Both the people and the domestic animals live and sleep within the city and work in their fields outside the city walls, and these could be up to more than ten kilometers away on foot. This gives some indication of what daily life was like for the poorer classes of people in ancient Mesopotamia.

On Historical Discrepancies

One of the disciplinary leitmotifs of biblical studies is the search for discrepancies or inconsistencies or contradictions in the text. Supposedly discrepancies or inconsistencies indicate different sources since we all know that human beings in general and source critics in particular are entirely free from inconsistencies. Supposedly inconsistencies with historical or archaeological evidence indicates that the account is not historical.

Unfortunately, inconsistency is a staple with ancient history. Take for example the history of Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar). A poetical account from Assyria tell us that in 856 BC. the Assyrians under Shalmaneser III conquered the Aramaean forces of Bit-Adini under the ruler, Ahuni, at Til-Barsip, resettled Assyrians in the city, reorganized it as a royal residence, and renamed it Kar-Shalmaneser.

We know Aramaeans were in the city because tablets bearing Aramaic inscriptions were found there. The Assyrians also left a provincial palace which is attested archaeologically, as is an expansion of the town to cover 50 hectares. Assyrian statuary, murals, and mosaics have been found.

So from Assyrian sources we know that the Assyrians conquered the Aramaic speaking nation of Bit-Adini in Til-Barsip in 856 BC. These seem to be supported archaeologically.

Now, as it so happens, a number of inscriptions from the ninth century BC. were also discovered at Tell Ahmar. From these inscriptions, in Hieroglyphic Luwian, we learn that Tell Ahmar was the home of a pair of dynasties of Luwian speakers throughout the entire ninth century. The kingship seems to have passed from Hapatilas to Ariyahinas to Hamiyatas's father (whose name is missing) to Hamiyatas to Hamiyatas's son (whose name is also missing) and back to Ariyahinas's son. These Luwian speaking rulers ruled a country called Masuwari.

The Hittite style architecture and the statuary is also attested archaeologically at the site.

So the contradictions here are huge. They include the name of the country (Bit-Adini vs. Masuwari), the names of the rulers (Ahuni vs. Hamiyatas or Ariyahinas), and whether or not there was an Assyrian invasion. There have been a variety of attempts to make sense of the historical and archaeological record but the inconsistencies are plainly there. None of those who have dealt with the evidence (Lipinski, Hawkins, Akkermans and Schwartz) seem to deny that any of the evidence that they work with was not historical or accurate; none of them deny the Assyrian conquest or the account left in poetic form.

Tell Ahmar is now on a island in a lake created by the Tishrin dam on the Euphrates and part of the tell has washed away. It is also located in the Kobane province of Syria and so not an ideal place to excavate at the moment. So it is unlikely that there will be any additional help from archaeology for a resolution of the contradictions at the moment.

Inconsistencies and discrepancies are a standard part of the historical and archaeological record. The existence of inconsistencies does not mean that the events did not take place or were not historical, nor does the fact that the historical accounts were couched in poetic form, despite what some biblical scholars might think. Navigating through such discrepancies is what historians do. Different historians will propose different theories to resolve the discrepancies in the historical evidence. The usual method of deciding which historical theory is to determine which theory best accounts for the available evidence.

Brushing the King's Hair

Sometimes mundane details appear in ancient texts that show how human the ancients were.

Speak to my lord: Thus says Erra-gamil, your servant.

May Shamash and Nergal keep you in good health for 3600 years for my sake!

The king rose early in the morning, dressed his hair, and made his son sit on the throne. But he with his help sets out over and over for Kashir, saying thus: "When they treat my city badly [. . .]

(M. Stol. Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 17.)

 Even the king needed to get up and brush his hair.

Where Your Treasure is

What we consider valuable might vary with the culture. Consider the following Old Babylonian letter coming from what is now Iraq (about 1800-1600 B.C.):

Speak to Belshunu: Thus says Shamash-hazir.

May Shamash keep you in good health! I write to you time and again and you do not pay attention to my words. They are wasting wood and dung, so that you (must) be very alert. With respect to the wood I will treat you like an enemy of Marduk! Let the door of the staircase be sealed. Do not give one single piece of wood, apart from the one . . . that you give each time as a funerary offering. Take care of the matter of the wine, and if there is barley in the hand of the gardener, receive it from him. If not, have him brought in and confine him to the house.

(M. Stol, Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 15-17.)

For us, it is easy to envision wood as a valuable resource, over which careful stewardship was expected. It is harder to envision dung as a valuable resource to be watched and warded, but even it was not wasted in the ancient world. It had its uses: fertilizer, fuel, filler in pottery, and so on. Sometimes what ancient people valued is by us counted but dross and refuse.

What to Buy for a Wedding Gift?

The custom of giving wedding gifts stretched back into antiquity. Here is an example from the Old Babylonian Period (about 1800-1600 BC) from Mesopotamia (modern Iraq):

Speak to Sin-eribam: Thus says Shamash-magir.

May Shamash keep you in good health for 3600 years for my sake! I will give my daughter to a husband, but I do not have anything that I can give. Now I have dispatched to you Shamash-hazir, Sin-malik and Bitum-rabi together with Puzur-Ishtar. On the day that you see their faces, take the silver (that is) on hand, and buy and send me two slaves (and) three slave-girls; please!

(M. Stol, Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 7.)

It gives new meaning to the saying that if you don't know what to give someone, give of yourself. I guess in this case, if you don't know what to give someone, give someone else.

I Have Your Back

Ancient correspondence is both fascinating and frustrating: Fascinating because it tell interesting parts of stories, and frustrating because the stories are fragments and the correspondence is often one sided. AbB 9:6 is one such case. It comes from the Old Babylonian period (about 2000-1600 BC) from Mesopotamia (modern Iraq):

Speak to Sin-iddinam: Thus says Marduk-mushallim. May Shamash and Marduk keep you in good health! As you know, Silli-Shamash, the head of the Sutians, (is a man) who acts in my interest. Whenever I write to him, he acts very much according to my wish. Let him file his complaint before you, and give him a fair trial according to the regulations of my lord.

(M. Stol, Letters from Yale [Leiden: Brill, 1981], 5.)

A couple of things are interesting in this letter. One is that Marduk-mushallim is not necessarily asking Sin-iddinam to decide the case in Silli-Shamash's favor, only that it be conducted justly or normally (išariš). Apparently juridical proceeding were not always so conducted. The other thing is the way that Marduk-mushallim expresses his trust in Silli-Shamash. He finds him trustworthy because he can ask him to do something and it will be done.

Because of the trust, Marduk-mushallim is willing to act for Silli-Shamash by asking that he be treated fairly.

AbB 9:1

Troubles that seem very modern are actually nothing new. This is an Old Babylonian letter written in Akkadian written in what is now Iraq about 1600 B.C. It is now in the Yale Babylonian collection (YBC 4519). It provides a window into the politics of petty tyrants three and a half millennia ago:

Speak to Sin-magir: Thus say Ipqu-Ishtar and Sin-ituram your colleagues.

May An and Inanna, Shamash, Iggalla, and Amurrum, your god, keep you in good health forever for our sake!

Concerning the report that was, in your words,

"Because Hadi-amer-Shamash has taken an oral promise to somebody else upon himself, he is keeping me waiting":

do not be slow always to stand firm against him. You tell him this, as follows:

"The fact that you speak in a decietful way is an insult to me. People will say

'Hadi-amer-Shamash has removed him from that office, even though he was trustworthy'.

What did you think that I was that you have given my office to somebody else in my absence?".

Thus speak to him and he shall answer you immediately.

And now Nabi-ilishu's intentions are prone to unseemly things in that he wants to oust the honourable . . . Apil-Sin from the temple of Enlil. If this is proper, tell him that he must not seek out complaints. But don't you know that Apil-Sin is ours? Do not be negligent about this!

May An and Inanna, Shamash, Iggalla, and Amurrum, your god, keep you in good health forever for our sake! (M. Stol, Altbabylonische Briefe 9: Letters from Yale [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 3, format altered).

The letter shows that the ambitious jockeying for position is nothing new. It is as despicable now as it ever was.

Kill the Kids

Esarhaddon had a different way to punish "the guilty soldiers who plotted to make my brothers rule over Assyria." He admits: "I killed their children." (Esarhaddon 1 ii 8-11). He deemed this punishment sufficiently severe (kabtu) for their heinous crime of not supporting him.

But Esarhaddon was actually not next in line for the throne, his brothers were. At least one of them, however, had assassinated his father in order to claim the throne, only to be out-maneuvered by Esarhaddon. In a military coup it is seen as important to kill the old guard. The soldiers might have been loyal, but had the misfortune of having been loyal to the wrong side.

The Disappearance of the Chaldeans

From time to time it is worth taking stock of how we know what we know, or what we think we know. Sometimes certain obvious facts need to be pointed out lest we take them for granted, or worse, assume they are not true.

An example of this is the Chaldean origin of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. It is generally assumed that the Nebuchadnezzar, who sacked Jerusalem and took the Jews captive into Babylon, was part of a dynasty that was Chaldean in origin. Thus the Jews were captive in Babylon, in Chaldea, and the Chaldeans were another name for the Babylonians. That may not be the case though. As Paul-Alain Beaulieu points out in a recent article:

Not only do we find no ancient claim for the Chaldean origin of the dynasty, but the term Chaldean does not appear even once in late Babylonian cuneiform documentation. (Paul-Alain Beaulieu, "Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources," in Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., ed. Angelika Berlejung and Michael P. Streck [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013], 33.)

Beaulieu points out that there are over 60,000 late Babylonian sources (ibid., 31). The Chaldeans did exist; they appear in Neo-Assyrian sources. Apparently, in Neo-Babylonian times, though, they no longer thought of themselves as Chaldeans. Another alternative is that Chaldeans may have always been an outsider designation (by Assyrians, Jews, Greeks, Romans).

This has some implications for those who would argue that Abraham's Ur of the Chaldees was located in southern Babylon based on the fact that the Neo-Babylonians thought of themselves as Chaldeans. As far as we know, they didn't.

Nergal-erish

R. L. Siddall (The Reign of Adad-Nirari III [Leiden: Brill, 2013]) discusses the role of the Assyrian official, Nergal-erish, during the reign of Adad-Nirari III. (I am dropping the diacritics from the quotations.)

Nergal-erish was a governor (p. 106), not a military man (p. 108), and has been "characterised as a conniving, murderous aspirant" (p. 107). After all,

If Ninurta-kudurri-usur's account is accurate, then it is possible that Tabnea had previously been treacherous and Nergal-erish was ordered to murder the governor of Suhu. (p. 110).

Some have noticed that some of Nergal-erish's inscription have been erased.

Scholars have suggested that the erasures could have been undertaken because Nergal-erish was disgraced and thus removed from the royal administration, or that his rebuilding project was a failure. (p. 111).

Some have suggested that

the magnates' unwillingness to relinquish their political authority created a power struggle at the expense of the empire. (p. 103).

These suggestions are difficult to evaluate so many millennia after the fact.

What is indicative is that Nergal-erish alone suffered erasure of his name from monuments. (p. 111).

So,

If Nergal-erish was the only official whose name was defaced from monuments, then it is more plausible to postulate that he was disgraced and his career was removed from the public royal monuments. (p. 112).

One also notes that

The stability of the Middle Euphrates region seems to have come to an end soon after the close of Nergal-erish's term. Following his probable removal, the Middle Euphrates region fell from Assyrian control. (p.118).

Or, perhaps, Nergal-erish was responsible for the collapse of the Middle Euphrates region and so was removed from office and had his name defaced from the monuments. At this remove it is too difficult to tell on the scanty evidence whether Nergal-erish was responsible for holding the region together or tearing it apart. He may have done both.

Assyrian Ideology

Mario Liverani usually has an interesting way of looking at the ancient Near East. His Marxism is prominent but he tends to think things through carefully and uses real data which sets him apart from many other Marxists.

In his classic article on Assyrian ideology and propaganda he explains the rationale for ideology:

In the case of imperialism it [ideology] has the aim of bringing about the exploitation of man by man, by providing the motivation to receive the situation of inequality as "right", as based on qualitative differences, as entrusted to the "right" people for the good of all. (Mario Liverani, "The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire," in Power and Propaganda, ed. Mogens Trolle Larsen [Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979], 298.)

One might be inclined to think, as many of my colleagues see to, that purveyors of ideology and the propaganda associated with it are simply cynically concocting and promoting it for their own selfish reasons, as a justification to the benighted subjects for their exploitation. Liverani, however, points out that such is a mistake. The ideology is for the exploiters to justify their exploitation to themselves:

The authors of the ideology and beneficiaries of the imperialism (i.e., the Assyrian ruling class), also need to be ideologically motivated. It is not that they do not have sufficient motivation in terms of power and economic benefits (they are the only ones to have them). . . . What I mean by this is that an effective, victorious, enduring imperialism is generally a self-convinced and even fanatical imperialism. It is anything by an ordinary criminal set-up deliberately prompted merely by practical motives. (Liverani, "The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire," 299.)

So, in an empire that seizes and exploits the resources of others, the exploiters fanatically believe they are justified in their exploitation.

Sumerian Tyrants

Normally we look at Sumerian kings through either through their royal inscriptions or their administrative records, both official portraits. Piotr Michalowski has some interesting observations about the flip side of those documents:

An Old Babylonian copy of an inscription placed on an illustrated stele with representations of scenes from victory over the highland land of Zabšali contains these words:

(Šu-Sin) killed both the strong and the weak, heads of the just and wicked he piled up like (heaps) of grain, corpses of their people he piled up like sheaves. . . . their established cities and villages he turned into (empty) tells, destroyed their walls, blinded all the young men of the cities he had conquered, and made them serve in the orchards of Enlil, Ninlil, and in the orchards of all the great gods; he donated all the women of the cities he had conquered to the weaving establishments of Enlil, Ninlil, and the great gods.

These seemingly contradictory portraits of a Sumerian sovereign are, of course, hardly unique as far as tyrants are concerned. And yet the word "tyrant" is scarcely, if ever, used in describing ancient Mesopotamian kings. Instead, they are usually portrayed, in the manner of their own propaganda, as heroic and patriotic, bringing together quarrelling smaller political units for the common good. . .  . In the study of early Mesopotamia, we invariably favor periods of centralization of authority, if for no other reason than that such times provide more ample documentation. But this sort of centralization is the anomaly rather than the norm; in the third and early-second millennia, it accounts for 250 years or so at most. We may celebrate the various civil accomplishments of the famous kings associated with these times—namely, Sargon, Naram-Sin, Šulgi, or Hammurabi—but we should also remember the piles of corpses and shattered lives that they left in their wake. (Piotr Michalowski, The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 11-12.)

It's 1984 BC

Piotr Michalowski makes the following observation:

Although contemporary evidence is still sparse, it appears that sometime under Ur-Namma and Šulgi the masters of the academies wiped the literary slate clean and discarded all but a few of the old compositions that went back to Early Dynastic times. They kept most of the lexical teaching tools but discarded old narratives, replacing them with materials written in honor of the contemporary ruling house—royal hymns, stories about their Uruk ancestors, and so on. (Piotr Michalowski, The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 9.)

So, according to Michalowski, the Ur III kings were not only reformers but systematically rewrote the historical and literary record. Fortunately they overlooked Lagash which has provided a treasure trove of inscriptional material unedited by the Ur III censors. The problem with Orwell's novel 1984 is that it aimed to be futuristic.

One irony, however, is that most of our literary accounts of the Ur III period come from the Old Babylonian period and have a tendency to depict the Ur III monarchs in less than flattering terms.