A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  The Tablets of the Library Collection in Nineveh Written by Assyrian Scholars

  Despite the lack of research and recorded data, it is possible to also provide a rough general overview of the tablets from Nineveh written in Assyrian ductus (i.e. by Assyrian scribes). By subtracting the aforementioned 3,505 tablets in Babylonian ductus from the total of 25,051 rejoined tablets and fragments in the Nineveh collection of the British Museum, we are left with 21,546 items in Assyrian script. About 2,500 of them belong to the royal correspondence, which leaves 19,046 scholarly and literary texts, including divination reports. Many of these texts deal in one way or another with divination, 1,745 (9.16 percent) alone with celestial and meteorological omens. Despite this large number, the percentage of celestial omens within the omen corpus in Assyrian script is much smaller than among the tablets written in Babylonian ductus. Altogether, it seems reasonable to assume that 35 percent or more of the Assyrian library texts were concerned with divination. Religious texts in Assyrian ductus seem to make up a similar portion of the total. The remaining texts, including medical treatises, epics and myths, historical texts, and various other compositions, easily comprise more than 20 percent of the library texts. All in all, one can say that the vast majority of the scholarly and literary compositions known from first millennium BCE Mesopotamia are attested with at least one copy among the tablets from the libraries of Nineveh.

  Abbreviations

  Asb Prism A

  Assurbanipal (inscription of) Prism A.

  CTN IV

  D.J. Wiseman and J.A. Black, Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû, Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud IV, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1996.

  OIP 2

  D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, Oriental Institute Publications II, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1924.

  SAA VII

  F.M. Fales and J.N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple Administration, State Archives of Assyria VII, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992.

  SAA VIII

  H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings, State Archives of Assyria VIII, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992.

  SAA X

  S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, State Archives of Assyria X, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993.

  SAA XI

  F.M. Fales and J.N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military Administration, State Archives of Assyria XI, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1995.

  SAA XV

  A. Fuchs and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III, State Archives of Assyria XV, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2001.

  SAA XVI

  M. Luukko and G. van Buylaere, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon, State Archives of Assyria XVI, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002.

  SAA XVII

  M. Dietrich, The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib, State Archives of Assyria XVII, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2003.

  SAA XVIII

  F. Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Assurbanipal and Sin‐šarru‐iškun from Northern and Central Babylonia, State Archives of Assyria XVIII, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2003.

  References

  Bezold, C. 1889–96. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum, London: The British Museum. Vol. I (1889), Vol. II (1891), Vol. III (1893), Vol. IV (1896).

  Borger, R. 1996. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

  Fincke, J.C. 2003/04. “The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh: Report on the British Museum’s Ashurbanipal Library Project,” Archiv für Orientforschung 50, 111–49.

  Fincke, J.C. 2004. “The British Museum’s Ashurbanipal Library Project,” Iraq 66, 55–60.

  Fincke, J.C. 2007. “Omina, die göttlichen ‘Gesetze’ der Divination,” Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch‐egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 40, 131–47.

  Fincke, J.C. 2010. “Astrologische Omenreporte aus Assur: Mondfinsternisse im Monat nisannu,” in: S.M. Maul and N.P. Heeßel (eds.), Assur‐Forschungen. Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle «Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur» der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 35–63.

  Fincke, J.C. 2012. “The School Curricula from attuša, Emar and Ugarit: A Comparison,” in: W.S. van Egmond and W.H. van Soldt (eds.), Theory and Practice of Knowledge Transfer: Studies in School Education in the Ancient Near East and Beyond. Papers Read at a Symposium in Leiden, 17–19 December 2008, PIHANS 121, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 85–101.

  Fincke, J.C. 2013. “The Solar Eclipse Omen Texts from enūma anu enlil,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 70, 582–608.

  Fincke, J.C. 2014. “Babylonische Gelehrte am neuassyrischen Hof: zwischen Anpassung und Individualität,” in: H. Neumann et al. (eds.), Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien. 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, 17.–21. Juli 2006, AOAT 401, Münster: Ugarit‐Verlag, 269–92.

  Frahm, E. 1999. “Nabû‐zuqup‐kenu, das Gilgamesch‐Epos und der Tod Sargons II.,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51, 73–90.

  Frahm, E. 2005. “On Some Recently Published Late Babylonian Copies of Royal Letters,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2005, 43–6.

  Frahm, E. 2010. “Counter‐texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere,” in: A. Tsukimoto (ed.), Conflict, Peace and Religion in the Ancient Near East, Orient: Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 45, Tokyo: The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (Nippon Oriento Gakkai), 3–33.

  Frahm, E. 2012. “Headhunter, Bücherdiebe und wandernde Gelehrte: Anmerkungen zum altorientalischen Wissenstransfer im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr.,” in: H. Neumann (ed.), Wissenskultur im Alten Orient. Weltanschauung, Wissenschaften, Techniken, Technologien. 4. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient‐Gesellschaft 20.–22. Februar 2002, Münster, CDOG 4, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 15–40.

  Frame, G. and George, A.R. 2005. “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting,” Iraq 67, 265–84.

  Goldstein, R. 2010. “Late Babylonian Letters on Collecting Tablets and Their Hellenistic Background: A Suggestion,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69, 199–207.

  Gurney, O.R. and Finkelstein, J.J. 1957. The Sultantepe Tablets I, London: The British School of Archaeology at Ankara.

  Gurney, O.R. and Hulin, P. 1964. The Sultantepe Tablets II, London: The British School of Archaeology at Ankara.

  Howard, M. 1955. “Technical Description of the Ivory Writing‐Boards from Nimrud,” Iraq 17, 14–20.

  Hunger, H. 1968. Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, AOAT 2, Kevelaer/Neukirchen‐Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker.

  Hunger, H. and Pingree, D. 1989. MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform, Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 24, Horn: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne.

  King, L.W. 1914. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. Supplement, London: The British Museum.

  Lambert, W.G. 1962. “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16 (1962) 59–77.

  Lambert, W.G. 1992. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of The British Museum: Third Supplement, London: The British Museum.

  Lambert, W.G. 2007. Babylonian Oracle Questions, Mesopotamian Civilizations 13, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

  Lambert, W.G. and Millard, A.R. 1968. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of The British Museum: Second Supplement, London: The British Museum.

  Layard, A.H. 1853. Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon with Travels in Armenia, Kurdistan and the Desert: Being the Result of a Second Expedition Undertaken for the
Trustees of the British Museum, London: John Murray.

  Lieberman, S. 1987. “A Mesopotamian Background for the So‐Called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical Hermeneutics,” Hebrew Union College Annual 58, 157–225.

  Livingstone, A. 2007. “Ashurbanipal: Literate or Not?,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 97, 98–118.

  Mallowan, M.E.L. 1954. “The Excavations at Nimrud (Kalu),” Iraq 16, 59–163.

  Maul, S.M. 1994. Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch‐assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Baghdader Forschungen 18, Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

  Maul, S.M. 2003. “Omina und Orakel. A. Mesopotamien,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10, 45–88.

  Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. “Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire,” Centaurus 14, 97–135.

  Parpola, S. 1986. “The Royal Archives of Nineveh,” in: K.R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries: Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Leiden, 4–8 July, 1983, PIHANS 57, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 223–36.

  Parpola, S. and Watanabe, K. 1988. Neo‐Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria II, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

  Pedersén, O. 1998. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.

  Pongratz‐Leisten, B. 1999. Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien. Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. State Archives of Assyria Studies X, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

  Reade, J.E. 1986. “Archaeology and the Kuyunjik Archives,” in: K.R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries: Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Leiden, 4–8 July, 1983, PIHANS 57, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 213–22.

  Reade, J.E. 2000. “Ninive (Nineveh),” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, 388–433.

  Smith, G. 1875. Assyrian Discoveries: An Account of Explorations and Discoveries on the Sites of Nineveh, During 1873 and 1874, New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

  Talon, P. 2005. The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth, Enūma Eliš, State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts IV, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

  Wiseman, D.J. 1955. “Assyrian Writing‐Boards,” Iraq 17, 3–13.

  Wiseman, D.J. and Black, J.A. 1996. Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû, Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud IV, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

  www.fincke‐cuneiform.com/nineveh/index.htm: J.C. Fincke, Nineveh Tablet Collection, website created in November 2003.

  Further Reading

  For the various cuneiform libraries and archives that are known to have existed between 1500 and 300 BCE, see the pioneering survey by Pedersén 1998. A general overview of the tablets from Nineveh and a more detailed description of the tablets written in Babylonian ductus is given by Fincke 2003/04. Frame and George 2005 discuss the history of the Nineveh tablet collection based on a number of newly edited texts. Evidence for the literacy of Assurbanipal and other members of the royal family can be found in Livingstone 2007. For excellent overviews of the find spots of the Nineveh tablets see Reade 1986 and 2000. The archival texts from Nineveh are published in various volumes of the series State Archives of Assyria (SAA). For the hundreds of scholarly and literary compositions attested at Nineveh, individual editions should be consulted.

  Note

  1 The authenticity of this and the two other letters (CT 22,1 and BM 45642) that deal with Assurbanipal’s tablet collecting in Babylonia is not entirely certain. All of the letters are Late Babylonian copies. Instead of taking them as copies of genuine documents (Fincke 2003/4 and 2005; Frame and George 2005), or at least as based on genuine letters (Frahm 2005: 44), Goldstein 2010 understands them as creations of the Hellenistic age and reflections of the intellectual climate of an era dominated by the great project of creating the Library of Alexandria.

  CHAPTER 22

  Assyrian Legal Traditions

  Frederick Mario Fales

  What ties the ship to the wharf is a rope, and the rope consists of fibres,

  but it does not get its strength from any fibre which runs

  through it from one end to the other, but from the fact that

  there is a vast number of fibres overlapping.

  (Wittgenstein 1964: 87)

  The Many Strands of Assyrian Legal Traditions

  Introduction

  The debate on what constitutes a particular “legal tradition” is quite heated at present, especially among jurists. It is stimulated, almost on a daily basis, by evidence that certain facets of the all‐pervasive globalization process may not agree – and sometimes openly clash – with the norms of the single partners involved. From this recognition, with its manifold solutions (see in general Legrand‐Munday [eds.] 2003), stems an equally rich theoretical discussion: which are the historical factors to be singled out as prime movers of a particular system of legal beliefs and practices – ideological/religious tenets, economics with its attendant ethics, or the broader history of mentalités? This issue is usually treated by looking at extant legal traditions of long duration, in order to verify their degree of adaptation to political/cultural shifts over time – cf. e.g. the cases of England, China, Islam, Hinduism, etc. – at times, however, risking an exceedingly compartmentalized approach (as noted by Krawietz 2012). Of course, the quest is much more daunting when applied to long dead and buried states of Antiquity – although one of these, the Roman Empire, has bequeathed us a body of jurisprudence from which many “civil law” systems of today descend.

  Here the question of the possible debt that later juridical traditions owe to the ancient Near East need not be taken up – cogent observations on the matter have been brought forth of late (Westbrook 2003a; cf. Magdalene 2013). It is, in fact, risky to apply classifications anchored in the paradigms of Roman jurisprudence to ancient Near Eastern law. Recent approaches to the latter are rather based on the interconnections between philology and semiology or between written sources and archaeology, or are modeled on anthropological‐historical categories such as ethnicity and gender, or seek functional grids linking law and economy (cf. Liverani 2008). Just to give an example, a fundamental aspect of Mesopotamian thought in its 3000‐year development, which a purely “Romanistic” paradigm has difficulty in framing within its key concepts of ius and fas (Zaccagnini 2008: 42), regards the divine foundations of justice – as e.g. personified by the god Šamaš – and the permeation of divine jurisdictional principles not only within the fabric of human legal authority and its effects, but also well beyond this intellectual and social domain. As is well known, some later cultures would come to uphold and develop, whereas others would skirt or reject, the deeply embedded Mesopotamian notion that all forms of interaction between humans in peace and war, and even of contact between humanity and the gods – from the vast universe of divination to religious belief and ritual concerning the fate of the individual and of all mankind – rested on an overarching assumption concerning the existence of righteousness in the Heavens (Wilcke 2007; Démare‐Lafont 2011); and it may be safely said that one of the backbones of modernity (including its laws) lies in this basic opposition of cultural choices.

  ***

  Moving closer to home, we may first of all note that the foundations and procedural developments of Assyrian law – especially insofar as they were connected to an ever‐increasing importance of the role of the city‐god and later national god Assur – are sufficiently complex as to require a detailed historical investigation. Already a general comparative outlook reveals numerous characteristics which set Assyrian legal traditions uniquely apart from that of other political formations of the ancient Near East. Even more significant, however, is the fact that these traditions underwent various inner shifts over time, as visible in the textual but also the archeological record. In the course of some thirteen centuries (ca. 1900–600 BCE), the Assyrian juridical sys
tem proves to reflect and incorporate not only political and ideological changes of major import, but also innovations taking place in legal procedure and its institutional foundations. In sum, taking up the famous Wittgenstein analogy quoted above, a bird’s‐eye view of the many different “fibers” (or perhaps more aptly, larger “strands”) that constitute the “rope” linking together Assyrian normative beliefs and practices over the chronological division of Old, Middle, and Neo‐Assyrian periods – such as will be attempted by way of common brackets and specific case studies in this essay – is bound to follow rather closely the transformations that Assyrian society and culture experienced in each of these phases (outlined in brief in the following paragraphs).

  The Old Assyrian period

  The Old Assyrian (OA) period presents the profile of an economically goal‐oriented society with a regionalist range of interests; only defensive measures were implemented for the city of Ashur, placed on a high ridge above the Middle Tigris, whereas no dominance was exerted on territories lying outside the immediate range of its rural hinterland (Veenhof and Eidem 2008). Since the earliest population of the city‐state was of Akkadian stock, and since Ashur was part of the provincial system of the large state formations of Southern Mesopotamia in the late third millennium, the political‐institutional fundamentals which we find in place around 1900 BCE show some analogues with these prior contexts, such as the role of the king as “steward” (išši’akkum) of the local deity – a numen loci bearing the same name as the city (Lambert 1983) – and as intermediary between the god and the community.

  Differently from elsewhere, however, the OA king’s political and legal powers were framed within a comprehensive system of civil government of oligarchic nature, dominated by the great merchant families of Ashur, in which the city assembly (puḫrum) and the year‐eponym (līmum) played a crucial role; thus his status was that of a “first among equals,” whereas absolute rulership of the city‐state was reserved for the god Assur (Larsen 2000). In this capacity – albeit through the mediation of the human king and the assembly – the deity could exercise his power to promote equity and social justice in favor of common citizens who had become poor and debt‐ridden, in line with many similar Mesopotamian royal measures of this age: a text records the fact that Assur “had mercy on his city,” by allowing indebted real estate owners to redeem their property under extremely favorable conditions (Veenhof 2003: 472–3).