ORIENT Volume 49, 2014 The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria Uri Gabbay The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria Uri Gabbay* The article deals with the kalû priest and his repertoire (kalûtu) in Assyria. It is argued that the ofice of kalû was a Babylonian institution, gradually imported into Assyria, until its inal acceptance in Assyrian religion in the seventh century BCE. The article irst discusses individual kalûs and their ancestral affiliation according to Assyrian sources. Then it proceeds to survey the copyists of kalûtu literature and the Neo-Assyrian libraries in which kalûtu tablets were found. Following, the serialization of the kalûtu literature in Nineveh is discussed vis-à-vis evidence from other Assyrian cities on the one hand, and Babylonia on the other hand. In addition, the way in which the Assyrian king related himself to the kalûtu literature is examined. Finally, the article points at some possible inluences of the kalûtu literature on Neo-Assyrian literature. Keywords: kalû(tu), Assyria, libraries, Nineveh, serialization I. Introduction The following article will deal with the kalûtu literature and the priest associated with it—the kalû—in Assyria.1 Although the reconstruction of kalûtu literature is largely based on materials from Nineveh and important information on the kalû priest is provided by Neo-Assyrian letters and reports, it will be argued in this article that the ofice of kalû was a Babylonian institution, gradually imported into Assyria beginning at the end of the second millennium BCE, and that although fully integrated into Assyrian religion in the seventh century BCE, the kalû and his repertoire still maintained their foreign nature in Assyria in some aspects. The first part of the article (II) will deal with the kalû himself in Assyria, mainly according to letters, reports, administrative documents, and colophons dating to the Neo-Assyrian period. The second part (III-VII) will deal with the position of the kalûtu literature in Assyria, speciically in Nineveh.2 II. The kalû in Assyria 1. The kalû and the āšipu: The main temple personnel in the irst millennium BCE Before turning to the position of the kalû in Assyria, the following section will present a general sketch of the kalû in the irst millennium BCE, based mainly on Babylonian materials, but on Assyrian texts as well. *Senior lecturer, Depertment of Archaeology and Ancient Near East, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1 I would like to thank Dr. Amitai Baruchi-Unna and Dr. Daisuke Shibata for reading and commenting on an earlier version of this article. I am also grateful to Dr. Jaume Llop for providing me with an important reference regarding the Middle Assyrian period (see II.3). I thank Dr. Gene McGarry for correcting my English. Abbreviations are according to RlA (= Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie), vol. 12, Berlin 2009–2011, iii–l. 2 For previous studies dedicated to kalûs and kalûtu in the Neo-Assyrian period, see Krecher 1966, 18–28; Menzel 1981, 233–237; Cohen 1988, 15–23. Vol. XLIX 2014 115 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths The kalû was one of the most important personnel in the temple cult of Babylonia. The kalû (Sumerian gala) was associated with the nāru musician (Sumerian nar) in the third and second millennia BCE due to the musical performance that was part of his cultic repertoire (Gelb 1975; Shehata 2009). In the irst millennium BCE, the kalû was still occasionally associated with the nāru, but he was also associated with the āšipu. Both the āšipu and kalû were considered the two most significant cultic personnel and were in charge of most major cultic occasions. The repertoires of both the kalû and the āšipu were attributed to the god Ea.3 The cultic activity of the kalû is especially associated with the regular calendrical temple cult (Gabbay, forthcoming a, 158–168). But the kalû could also perform many of the important noncalendrical rituals in Mesopotamia, such as the mīs-pî initiation ritual for cultic images, building rituals, canal-digging rituals, battle rituals, and rituals to avert the harm of malevolent omens.4 Nevertheless, such non-calendrical rituals are mostly much better known from the repertoire of the āšipu,5 and in general the āšipu and his repertoire were more prominent in the cult of the irst millennium BCE in relation to the kalû and his repertoire. Like the āšipu, the kalû’s interests were not limited to his cultic duties but included other religious and scholarly knowledge, such as celestial and terrestrial omens, medicine, and astronomy (e.g., SAA 10, 160). Thus, like āšipus, kalûs are known as copyists of scholarly literature not directly related to their repertoire, and as senders of scholarly letters and reports to the king (see II.3 and III.2.i below). However, although both the kalû and the āšipu were scholars as well as clergymen, there was a growing tendency for scholarly literature to be associated with the āšipu, rather than the kalû.6 Thus, according to the “āšipūtu-manual,” which lists the curriculum of the āšipu, diagnostic texts and physiognomic omens were actually included in the corpus of āšipūtu, and the same manual also recommends the study of other divinatory and medical texts for the education of the āšipu.7 In short, the kalû was considered one of the most important cultic personnel in the temple; his repertoire, quite large in quantity, was part of the basic temple cult and was divinely attributed; and his scholarship was part of the scholastic tradition of Mesopotamian learnedness. Nevertheless, he was somewhat inferior in status to his colleague the āšipu. 2. The kalû and the āšipu in Assyria The cultic importance of the kalû is also reflected in sources from the Neo-Assyrian period, especially dating to the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. 8 Kalûs and kalamāḫus, often associated with speciic cities, are documented in a variety of sources.9 The kalû in Assyria is traditionally associated with the nāru musician,10 but may also act as the equal of the āšipu, as 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lambert 1962, 64, I:1–4; for kalûtu as the “wisdom of Ea,” see also in the colophon “Asb. type o” below (III.2.ii). Restoration and initiation of cultic image: TuL 27 (Walker and Dick 2001, 228–245; Farber 2003); BaM Beih. 2, 1–3 (Mayer 1978, 443–458). Building rituals: Ambos 2004, 171–197. Canal digging ritual: Ambos 2004, 198 (see Gabbay 2005). Battle ritual: Elat 1982. Rituals to avert malevolent omens: Caplice 1970, 118–124; cf. also, e.g., RAcc, 34–38: 16–rev. 24. For the cults of the āšipu, see Jean 2006. For the scholarly distinction between the kalû and āšipu (as well as other functionaries), see Frahm 2011, 19. For the latest and most updated edition and analysis of the “āšipūtu-manual,” see Jean 2006, 62–82. Note that the kalû receives the neck, the regular Babylonian portion distributed to kalûs (cf. Beaulieu 2000, 10–11, with references), in SAA 12, 81, i: 16’ (later reign of Esarhaddon onwards). 116 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria seen in instances where a ritual is carried out by both an āšipu and a kalû (each according to his own repertoire).11 In addition to mastering his professional cultic repertoire, the kalû, according to Neo-Assyrian sources, is also a scholar who shares the study of Mesopotamian wisdom with other cultic professionals—and in particular the āšipu—as seen in the reports by the Assyrian kalû Urad-Ea to the Assyrian king that refer to divinatory knowledge, as well as in other sources (see II.3 below). On the other hand, as in Babylonia the kalû seems to be inferior to the āšipu, and he and his kalûtu repertoire are mentioned much less frequently than the āšipu and his āšipūtu in NeoAssyrian sources. In the Neo-Assyrian period, however, the kalû’s status slips even lower with respect to the āšipu. Thus, although the chief or royal kalû is attested as corresponding with the king on various matters, the number of attestations is much smaller than those featuring āšipus (see II.3 below). In the scholarly realm too, although the kalû reports to the king on celestial matters, exhibiting his knowledge of the divinatory corpus, only a few such reports by an Assyrian kalû (namely, Urad-Ea) are known (SAA 8, 181–183). In addition, rituals containing a performance by the kalû are mentioned much less frequently in the royal correspondence than rituals of the āšipu.12 Another unusual phenomenon is that when the repertoire of the kalû does appear in the Neo-Assyrian correspondence, many of the attestations refer to Eršaḫuĝas, although this genre is not the most signiicant part of the regular repertoire of the kalû and does not necessarily belong to the kalûtu series (see III.2.ii with n. 64 below). This odd status of the kalû in Assyria was already observed by Radner (2009, 222–223): 9 10 11 12 Cf. the following selected sources and references according to city (in alphabetical order; not including evidence from colophons, which is treated below): Arbela: SAA 13, 138: rev. 17. Assur: PKT 40, i: 11, rev. iv: 13 (see n. 16 below); StAT 2, 258: 3; note also ritual texts from Assur and Nineveh dealing with the performances of kalûs in Assur (e.g., Menzel 1981, T 61, no. 35, rev. vii: 13’, T 74, no. 36, B ii’: 6’–13; Maul 2000). Ḫarrān: Urad-Ea, kalû of Sîn of Ḫarrān (see II.3 and II.4 below). Khorsabad: Sargon installs a kalamāḫu (“surmaḫḫu”) when he builds Dūr-Šarrukin (Fuchs 1994, 236:157; see VI.1 below). Kurba’il: CTN 2, 35: 6 (see n. 10 below). Nimrud: letters by or concerning the kalû Pūlu (SAA 13, 131–134; see II.5 below); SAA 13, 128: rev. 10; Mallowan 1966, 270, ig. 251. Nineveh: Urad-Ea and his son Nabû-zēru-iddina (see II.3 and II.4 below); cf. also SAA 7, 1, rev. i: 1–7. Note that Watanabe (1979, 277) suggested that foreign kalûs are mentioned in CTN 3, 121: 7 and 10 (ŠÚ.MEŠ), but this is most unlikely. CTN 2, 35 documents the sale of an estate in Kurba’il by singers (nārū) and the kalû Kurba-ilāya (line 6). SAA 7, 142: 6–7, lists provisions to kalûs and male and female singers. The undated document SAA 11, 151, ii: 8’–10’, lists kalû(s) and nārus. In SAA 12, 95: rev. 11–12, from Kalḫu, a kalû acts as a witness, listed with the chief singer (nārgallu) of Nabû. The nārus are paired with kalûs also in inscriptions of Esarhaddon, see Leichty 2011, 101, no. 45: 6’–8’, 116, no. 54: 12’, and see also n. 11 below. For a Middle-Assyrian attestation, see MARV 4, 74, discussed below (II.3). Another interesting association of the kalû, perhaps indicating that he was a eunuch (related to his role as a cultic singer), may be seen in StAT 2, 258 (Assur; probably late eighth or early seventh century), which documents the sale of a house, adjoining, among others, the house of Nabû-šadâni, the kalû (line 3), as well as the house of Nabûuṣuranni, the ša É MÍ-KUR (“he of the house of the queen”; likely to be a eunuch) (line 5), and the house of Kulu’u, the ša É A-MAN (“he of the house of the crown prince”; the name likely referring to him being a eunuch, see the translation “[Emasculated] devotee” of this name in Baker 2000, 636; cf. Gabbay 2008, 51–52; George 2006, 175– 177) (line 6). See SAA 8, 163: 7 (written by Adad-šumu-uṣur, king’s āšipu); SAA 13, 189: 9’; SAA 10, 212: rev. 9–11. Note the cultic performance by a kalû and an āšipu in Sennacherib’s Bavian inscription, Luckenbill 1924, 81: 27 (cf. Bagg 2000, 348: 27). See also the enumeration of āšipus, kalûs, and nārus together in inscriptions of Esarhaddon; see Leichty 2011, 114, no. 53: rev. 1, 207, no. 105, vi: 23–24, 224, no. 110, i: 3’–4’. Compare, for example, the reference in SAA 10 to ca. twenty Namburbi attestations, one attestation each of Šurpu and Maqlû, over five (Akkadian) Šuilas, and over ten references to incantations (šiptu), all related to āšipūtu, as opposed to only ive attestations of Eršaḫuĝas and ive attestations of a performance with the lilissu, both related to kalûtu. In addition the kalû profession is mentioned only twice in the corpus of letters in SAA 10, while the āšipu is mentioned over twenty times. Cf. references in the index of SAA 10, 322–372, s.v.v. Vol. XLIX 2014 117 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths While the presence of singers and musicians at court is well known from the Middle-Assyrian records, lamenters are not attested at all so far; but it must be pointed out that also the Neo-Assyrian attestations are surprisingly rare, and the lamenters are more often than not missing when the royal scholars are listed as a group in Neo-Assyrian texts. It may not be pure coincidence that theirs is by far the smallest group in the surviving scholarly correspondence of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. In the following I would like to take Radner’s observation as a starting point and demonstrate how, according to my understanding of the preserved material, the kalû and his repertoire were not part, at least not an integral or signiicant part, of Assyrian cult in the Middle Assyrian and early Neo-Assyrian period, but that over time, especially under the Sargonids, they gradually entered into the Assyrian cult. 3. The kalû in Neo-Assyrian correspondence and administrative records As noted by Radner (2009, 222–223, cited above), the kalû seems to be almost entirely absent from the Assyrian cult in the Middle Assyrian period according to archival documentation.13 There is only one Middle Assyrian administrative document that mentions kalûs, MARV 4, 74, from Kār-Tukulti-Ninurta, dated to an unplaced eponymate during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I.14 The document lists rations of food for various persons, among them singers (lines 15, 25, 42: za-ma-ru), as well as kalûs (lines 18, 41). Some of the individuals listed in the document are Kassites, i.e., Babylonian deportees (lines 36–37), and in fact the rations listed in line 41 are for a ka-lu-ú kaš-ši-ú, “Kassite (= Babylonian) kalû.”15 This agrees well with the Babylonian origins of the kalûtu corpus, and more speciically with Tukulti-Ninurta I’s report on bringing Eršaḫuĝa tablets from Babylonia to Assyria (see III.1 below). There is only one other mention of a kalû in this period, in the colophon of KAR 9+, an Emesal composition that seems to belong to the late Middle Assyrian period (see III.1 below). When one looks at early Neo-Assyrian records, the kalû is likewise hardly attested.16 As noted by Radner (2009, 223, n. 8), for example, an edict dated to Assurnasirpal II contains a list of scholars and cultic functionaries in the sequence ṭupšarru—bārû—āšipu—asû, but the kalû is absent (SAA 12, 82: 6 and 83: rev. 5); later too, in SAA 10, 7, the kalû is absent from a similar sequence of cultic professions (ṭupšarru—bārû— āšipu—asû—dāgil-iṣṣūri). When the kalû does appear within this sequence, he is mentioned after the other main cultic and scholarly professionals, followed only by foreign professionals, as seen in SAA 7, 1, which lists experts in the following order: ṭupšar-Enūma-anu-enlil—āšipu— bārû—asû—kalû, followed only by the foreign augurs (dāgil-iṣṣūri)17 and Egyptian scholars and scribes. The placement of the kalû between the traditional Mesopotamian professional scholars and the foreign ones attests both to his inferior rank among the Mesopotamian group and to his 13 14 15 16 17 Among the various cultic professionals known from the Middle Assyrian period, the kalû is not attested (see Jakob 2003, 509–540), except for a single recent attestation discussed immediately below. I am most thankful to Dr. J. Llop, who kindly brought this tablet to my attention and provided me with information about it. Similarly, the singers listed in the following line (42) are also designated as Kassites: za-ma-ru kaš-ši-ú. A relatively early attestation is CTN 2, 35: 6, from the reign of Adad-nerari III. In addition, a late copy of an earlier document may refer to the installation of a kalamāḫu in Assur during the reign of Šalmaneser (probably III): PKT 40, i: 11, rev. iv:13 (Menzel 1981, T 18–19, no. 16, i: 11, rev. iv: 13’; for this text, with previous literature, see Meinhold 2009, 483). For the foreign, Syrian-Anatolian origin of augurs, see Radner 2009, 223–238. 118 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria perception as a foreign, non-Assyrian professional, due to his Babylonian associations. The low number of attestations of the kalû, and his absence or low rank in relation to other cultic personnel and scholars, especially in earlier periods of the Neo-Assyrian empire (before the Sargonids), may indicate that he held a relatively less signiicant status than he did in Babylonia, where although secondary to the āšipu, he was still a most significant actor in the religious, cultic, and scholastic realms. It is likely that later, when the Neo-Assyrian kingship began ruling over Babylonia in some way or the other, due to Babylonian inluence on Assyrian religion the kalû and his repertoire gained more signiicance in cult, although they still did not have a natural place in the traditional temple hierarchy. The ambiguous status of the kalû in the Neo-Assyrian court is demonstrated by the correspondence of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal with kalûs. Only three Assyrian individuals corresponding with the king could be identiied as kalûs. These are Urad-Ea and his son Nabûzēru-iddina (Radner 2011; see below) and the kalû Pūlu from Nimrud (SAA 13, 131–134; see below).18 Of special interest are the irst two, namely Urad-Ea, the kalamāḫu of the king and the god Sîn, known from letters and reports dated mainly to 673–669 BCE, and his son Nabû-zēruiddina,19 known from a few letters and from colophons of scholarly and religious texts written by him (see II.4 and III.2.i below). These two were considered part of the “inner circle” of scholars regularly corresponding with the king and advising him on different matters (S. Parpola, in SAA 10, xxv–xxvii). Indeed, Urad-Ea’s mastery of knowledge not connected to kalûtu is seen in his astronomical reports to the king (SAA 8, 181–183). On the one hand, the kalû’s inclusion among these high-ranking scholars points at his high status. On the other hand, the number of letters and reports that he composed himself is very small compared to the output of other functionaries: seven letters by Urad-Ea and two letters by his son Nabû-zēru-iddina (SAA 10, 338–346), mostly matter-of-fact communications regarding cult and the performance of Emesal prayers (usually in relation to the king), as opposed, for example, to ifty-six by the king’s exorcist Adad-šumuuṣur, and thirty-nine and ifteen by the chief exorcists Marduk-šākin-šumi and Nabû-nādin-šumi, respectively (S. Parpola, in SAA 10, xxvi), all usually elaborate correspondences exhibiting a more personal relation with the king. Urad-Ea is also mentioned in letters by other scholars (SAA 10, 29, 238, 240, 287, 377) and appears as cosender of a few letters (SAA 10, 1, 25, 212), but is never mentioned irst in the senders’ introduction to these letters. In SAA 10, 212, which Urad-Ea coauthored according to the introduction to the letter, he is mentioned in the third person while the main writer, Adad-šumu-uṣur, appears in the irst person.20 4. The Šumu-libši family in Assyria One other factor distinguishes Urad-Ea from some of the other prominent scholars corresponding 18 19 20 In addition to these kalûs, who wrote in the Assyrian dialect to the king, there is also a Babylonian kalû, Bēl-šumuiškun, who wrote three astrological reports to the king (SAA 8, 469–471). See also III.2.i below, ad Iddin-Papsukkal. Note that mARAD-dé-a, mentioned as the “father” of the scribe Nabû-le’i in the colophon of CTN 4, 187 (written in Babylonian script), is not the kalamāḫu Urad-Ea discussed above, as Radner (2011, 1397) supposed. Rather, this is most probably Arad-Ea, the ancestor of a scholarly Babylonian family; see Lambert 1957 and recently Lambert 2005, xiv–xv. Note also Issar-šumu-ēreš’s assurance to the king in SAA 10, 29: 1’, that Urad-Ea’s puriication ritual was performed well, implying perhaps that the king was not entirely secure about the effectiveness of his chief kalû’s rituals, and needed the assurance of his chief scribe and scholar for this. Vol. XLIX 2014 119 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths with the king. At least four members of the “inner circle” belonged to the prominent family of Gabbu-ilāni-ēreš,21 and were descendants of the well-known scholar Nabû-zuqup-kēnu (Parpola 1983b, xvii-xx; Frahm 1999, 78–79; Šašková 2010). These are Nabû-zuqup-kēnu’s sons Nabûzēru-lēšir, the chief scribe and king’s scholar, and Adad-šumu-uṣur, the king’s exorcist; and later their sons Issar-šumu-ēreš and Urad-Gula, respectively (S. Parpola, in SAA 10, xxvi; Šašková 2010). This family is known to have served the king for many generations; many of its prominent igures changed residence when the capital changed in order to stay close to the king (Šašková 2010). The family afiliation of Urad-Ea is also known (from colophons; see below). He belonged to the prestigious family of Šumu-libši, whose history is linked not to the Assyrian court but to the city of Babylon. Šumu-libši was considered the chief kalû of the Esaĝil itself, and his family included several kalûs associated specifically with the city of Babylon, as well as scribes and scholars from various periods (Gabbay, forthcoming a, 241–242). In opposition to the Gabbuilāni-ēreš family of scholars and exorcists, discussed above, who had served the king for some generations, following him from one capital to the next, Urad-Ea and Nabû-zēru-iddina, although writing in the Neo-Assyrian dialect and script, traced their origins to a Babylonian family.22 In the beginning of his career Urad-Ea was not connected to the king’s residence; he was originally the chief kalû of Sîn in Ḫarrān, according to the colophon of a ritual text mentioning the performance of Emesal prayers (Elat 1982, 13–16; cf. Hunger 1968, no. 500). The connection to Ḫarrān may also be seen in SAA 10, 338, dealing with the akītu festival of Sîn in Ḫarrān (cf. Novotny 2002, 193, with n. 11). Accordingly, Urad-Ea’s blessing formulas in his letters invoke Sîn and Nikkal (following Nabû and Marduk) (SAA 10, 338–344). Later, Urad-Ea is designated in a colophon of the Emesal Vocabulary as the chief kalû of the king (K.4240; Borger 1998, 31), and in the colophon of the Emesal text BL 158+ and in Sm.80 (only colophon preserved), as chief kalû of Sîn and the king, probably indicating that he followed the king to Nineveh and perhaps served there in the cult of Sîn.23 A letter referring to instructions for a performance with the lilissu in the palace may indeed indicate Urad-Ea’s presence in Nineveh at this time (SAA 10, 341).24 In colophons, Urad-Ea’s son Nabû-zēru-iddina identiied himself as a kalû of the king and of Sîn,25 suggesting that he resided in Nineveh. His letters begin with an invocation of several high-ranking gods, including Sîn and Nikkal, but they do not occupy a dominant position in the sequence (SAA 10, 345–346).26 Besides Urad-Ea and his son, a kalû of the Šumu-libši family is also mentioned in SAA 11, 153, a seventh-century tablet from Nineveh listing Babylonian individuals belonging to 21 22 23 24 25 26 Use of the designation “family” for the afiliations with Gabbu-ilāni-ēreš and with Šumu-libši (and others) below is for the sake of convenience, and the two do not necessarily refer to the same social afiliation. For a discussion of the concept of family lineage and kin groups, see Nielsen 2011, 1–19. Note that according to Radner (2011, 1397) even the writing of Urad-Ea’s name “with -dÉ.A betrays his Babylonian origins” (in Assyrian names this theophoric element is often written a-a). For a temple of Sîn (and other gods) in Nineveh, see Frahm 1998, 117–118. Note also Urad-Ea’s mention in Nineveh in SAA 7, 5, i: 51 (cf. Radner 2011, 1397), but this does not necessarily indicate his permanent residence there (cf. M. Fales and N. Postgate, in SAA 7, xix). BL 158+ (cf. Hunger 1968, no. 499) and K.4240 (Borger 1998, 31); probably also in K.20267+ (Borger 1998, 35) and Sm.80 (cf. Hunger 1968, no. 524). Note Nabû-zēru-iddina’s mention with other kalûs in Nineveh in SAA 7, 1, rev. i: 1–7, but this does not necessarily indicate his permanent residency there (cf. M. Fales and N. Postgate, SAA 7, xix). 120 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria prestigious families who were exempted from claims by a certain Nabû-bēlšunu and returned to their kin houses in Babylon to serve Marduk (cf. Nielsen 2011, 60–61). These individuals include the kalû Itti-Marduk-balāṭu/ Šāpik-zēri/ Balāssu, belonging to the family “of the house of Šumulubši” (qin-ni šá É mMU-lu-ub-ši lúGALA) (lines 6–11). Members of the Šumu-libši family are also known from colophons of religious and scholarly tablets from Nineveh; see III.2.i below. The Sultantepe tablet STT 232 was written by Nabû-ēṭirnapšāti, a descendant of the Ḫarriru family27 and a kalû(?) of Marduk, and is a copy of a tablet from Babylon that probably belonged to the Šumu-libši family.28 5. The kalû as an “outsider” in the Assyrian temples? There may be some indications that the kalû was regarded as an “outsider” in Assyrian temples, although this is somewhat speculative. In two instances, a kalû is suspected by other temple clergy to have stolen precious materials from the temple (SAA 13, 128 and 138). In other instances in which persons are suspected of theft from temples, these are not high-ranking clergy, and usually not even cultic functionaries, but rather other professionals who were involved with the temple institution, such as shepherds or guards (S. Cole and P. Machinist, in SAA 13, xviii– xix). This may indicate the kalû’s status as something of an alien among the temple staff, despite his high rank. If the charges against him were correct, this may indicate his own perception of himself as an outsider in the temple, despite his important cultic status. If the charges were false, this may indicate that because he was perceived as an outsider by colleagues, he was easy to blame for internal problems in the temple. The tension between the kalû’s high cultic status and the accusation of theft is nicely demonstrated in the last words of Aššur-ḫammatu’a in a letter he sent to the king, blaming Nabûēpuš, a šangû of Ea in a temple in Arbela, of theft: “Nabû-ēpuš who committed the robberies is a kalû: no one beside him (is allowed) in the parakku!” (SAA 13, 138, lines rev. 15–18).29 The kalû’s status allows him to enter the parakku, the inner cella of the god, but this also turns him, especially in an environment which does not easily accept him, into a likely suspect in any theft of its contents. Another interesting case is SAA 13, 134, a complaint letter against Pūlu, a kalû from Kalḫu, who was probably active during the reign of Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal.30 He is described in the letter as changing the traditional rites of the temple, perhaps referring to an attempt to change the Assyrian rites to Babylonian ones. Indeed, Pūlu himself is portrayed in two other letters as an active, meticulous scholar and priest, showing great interest in cultic matters; he checks 27 28 29 30 For this family, see Nielsen 2011, 174–177. See Maul 1988, 46–52. The small space for the cultic profession before the name of Marduk, as well as the content of the tablet, makes it likely that [ŠÚ] is to be restored; cf. Maul 1988, 52. The family name is written mM[U?]-ḪÉ. GÁL(-)šú; see Maul 1988, 52 (but cf. Oelsner 1993, 146). Note that ŠÚ at the end of the name may stand for kalû or serve as a phonetic complement in the writing of the name (Šumu-libšu). As suggested to me by Daisuke Shibata, it may not be mere chance that Sultantepe yielded a tablet related to this family, of which another member, namely Urad-Ea discussed above, served (in the early period of his career) as a kalû of Sîn in the nearby city of Ḫarrān. S. Cole and P. Machinist, in SAA 13, 110, translate “he is not to ascend the dais,” understanding e-la-šú as a verb, but this would be awkward, and e-la-šú is to be understood as a preposition followed by a pronominal sufix (so already CAD E, 74a). For the dating of this letter, see Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 249. Vol. XLIX 2014 121 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths anomalous kidneys in the sacriicial sheep and informs the king about them (SAA 13, 131 and 133). In the complaint letter SAA 13, 134, as in the two other complaints against kalûs mentioned above, the writer implies that Pūlu’s access to sacred zones makes him a suspect in the theft of temple property, by hinting at the precious goods found there (lines 30–rev. 4). III. The corpus of Emesal prayers in Assyrian libraries 1. Emesal literature in the libraries of the Neo-Assyrian period (besides Nineveh) From the end of the second millennium BCE, Babylonian literature, including religious texts, began entering into Assyria. Twenty-four known Middle Babylonian tablets found their way from Babylonia to Assur (Weidner 1952/53, 200).31 Most of them contain omens (which could potentially assist the king; Heeßel 2011), and only one of these tablets contains an Emesal text (KAR 375; Enlil Balaĝ). In addition, while many other bodies of literature are preserved in Middle Assyrian tablets (written in Assyrian ductus) from Assur, there are very few such tablets in Emesal, and these few contain Eršaḫuĝas (or compositions related to this genre; see below), closely associated with the king. In fact, a literary account of Tukulti-Ninurta I recalls his plundering of Babylonian tablets and bringing them to Nineveh, and lists Eršaḫuĝas as the only Emesal examples among the various genres of Babylonian literature.32 While kalûtu literature is richly documented in Nineveh, elsewhere in Assyria it usually appears in a much smaller proportion in relation to other corpora, especially the corpus of the kalû’s close colleague, the āšipu, as well as omen literature. Besides Nineveh, which will be dealt with later, Emesal tablets and other texts related to the kalû are known from Assur, Nimrud, and Sultantepe. Libraries at the last two sites, Nimrud and Sultantepe, have yielded a signiicant amount of literary, scholarly, and religious texts, but the number of Emesal tablets is extremely small. At Assur, the corpus of Emesal texts, although larger than that from Nimrud and Sultantepe, is also relatively small in relation to other corpora. When Emesal tablets are found in these three sites, they are more likely to contain Eršaḫuĝas and Šuilas, which are associated with the king, than Balaĝs and Eršemas, the core of kalûtu literature. Following is a short summary of the Emesal materials found in the various Assyrian cities (listed alphabetically) apart from Nineveh, which will be treated separately:33 Assur: Up to now the number of Emesal texts from Assur was not very large, but this impression will probably change with the publication of new tablets by Stefan Maul. Still, the number of Emesal texts from Assur is small in relation to other genres attested there, especially texts related to āšipūtu. Of course, these proportions could be misleading, since many of the literary, religious, and scholarly texts from Assur came from a library belonging to an āšipu (Maul 2010). The Emesal texts from Assur seem more locally oriented, as they contain a relatively large number of tablets with Šuilas, mostly directed to Aššur, that have been associated with the Assyrian king by the addition at the end of a blessing naming him; the king was probably also involved in their performance.34 In addition, of the few published manuscripts of Balaĝs, two 31 32 33 Weidner (1952/53) assumed that these formed part of the library of Tiglathpileser I, but this has been questioned by Lambert (1976b, 85–86, n. 2); for this collection, see also Pedersén 1985, 31–42; Heeßel 2011, 372–373. Lambert, 1957/58, 44, B: 6; see Hallo 1992, 780. The following paragraphs are based on my presentation of this material and its discussion in Gabbay, forthcoming a, chapter IX. 122 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria relatively early fragments (which may belong to the same tablet) are locally oriented, containing the Balaĝ zi-bu-um zi-bu-um addressed to Aššur.35 The other published Emesal material from Assur contains Eršaḫuĝas, known to be associated with the king, and perhaps Ritual Eršemas that end with typical Eršaḫuĝa formulas and may indicate a similar ritual performance.36 In addition to these, there is a summary tablet including the Balaĝ nir-ĝál lú è-NE with its Eršema,37 and a Middle Babylonian tablet containing a Balaĝ to Enlil (KAR 375; see above). The small number of published texts from Assur which preserve colophons does not allow a clear description of their writers. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the (late)? Middle Assyrian tablet KAR 9+, which contains a partly syllabically written Eršaḫuĝa or Ritual Eršema with the incipit dutu-gin7 è-ta (Maul 1988, 82–89; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 64), was written by a kalû (Nabû?-ēṭir). Another tablet, KAR 99+305+, a Neo-Assyrian syllabically written summary tablet of the Balaĝ nir-ĝál lú è-NE (including its Eršema), was written by the apprentice Nādin-šumiilu, son of Marduk-uballiṭ(?), a kalû, son(?) of Nabû-[…], whose profession was connected to Aššur, for the viewing (tāmartu) of a certain Tukultī-Marduk (Hunger 1968, no. 226; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 92). Apart from this, KAR 346, containing the Šuila mu-lu é-a ku4-ra-zu-ta, was probably written or owned by Nabû-ubalissu / Nabû-ēpuš / Nabû-kettī-īde, the Assyrian scribe (Maul 1998, 170, 176; Shibata forthcoming, text no. 14). That the copyist (or owner) of this tablet was a “scribe,” perhaps related to the Assyrian court, and not a kalû may be due to the importance of the Šuila in the royal cult.38 (Khorsabad): The colophons of two tablets from Nineveh, BM 121055 (Eršaḫuĝa) and BM 122647 (ritual and Eršaḫuĝa), name Nabû-kabti-aḫḫēšu, son of the palace scribe of Sargon (Maul 1988, 347–352, nos. 103–104). Maul (1988, 352) proposed that the father of this individual may be identiied with an āšipu of the same name from Assur, but it is more likely in my opinion that he should be identiied with the palace scribe of Sargon bearing this name, known from SAA 6, 31, a legal tablet relating to his purchase of land in Dūr-Šarrukin (Bagg and Baker 2001, 838, ad 1). If so, it is likely that the original provenance of the tablets was Dūr-Šarrukin (Khorsabad), and that they were later brought to Nineveh.39 Nimrud: The Nabû temple library in Kalḫu contains only Šuilas, some of which were locally reoriented to address Nabû and Kalḫu (see IV below).40 CTN 4, 171 is a Middle Assyrian tablet that may contain a Šuila to Aššur.41 In addition, there is one tablet containg an unidentiied Balaĝ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Šuila mu-lu é-a ku4-ra-zu-ta to Aššur (Maul 1998, 183–188; Shibata, forthcoming, no. 14): VAT 10791 (Maul 1998, 195)+; VAT 10460 (Maul 1998, 196)+ (+) KAR 106+KAR 337b; KAR 346(+)(+); VAT 14406; Ass. A 3315. Šuila alim-ma umun an ki-a (Shibata, forthcoming, no. 3): VAT 14127+. Šuila ur-saĝ úru ur4-ur4 (Cooper 1988; Shibata, forthcoming, no. 8): KAR 310 = KAR 337a; photo: Cooper 1988, 93. LKA 33 and VAT 10556b, cited by E. Ebeling in LKA, ix. See Cohen 1988, 342–346. KAR 161 (Eršaḫuĝa; Maul 1988, ad no. 1); KAR 9+348+ (Eršaḫuĝa or ritual Eršema dutu-gin7 è-ta; Maul 1988, 82–89 and pls. 65–66; Löhnert 2009, 178–179, text A2; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 64); LKA 21 (Eršaḫuĝa or Ritual Eršema; Maul 1988, 303–306 and pl. 69; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 114). KAR 99+KAR 305+; Cohen 1988, 468–469; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 92. Cf. a similar phenomenon in Nineveh, 4R2, 9+ (see III.2.i below, ad Gabbu-ilāni-ēreš). However, since the tablets were written by the son of the palace scribe, it is also possible that he copied the tablet after Sargon’s reign, already in Nineveh. Šuila mu-lu é-a ku 4-ra-zu-ta to Nabû: CTN 4, 165 and CTN 4, 177(+)178 (Maul 1998, 160–183; Shibata, forthcoming, no. 7); Šuila [ ... dîg]ir? an ki-a in-ti ti-la [ ... ]: CTN 4, 173 (Shibata, forthcoming, no. 10). See Shibata, forthcoming, ad no. 4, n. 290. I thank D. Shibata for pointing out to me that the ductus of this tablet is (late) Middle Assyrian. Vol. XLIX 2014 123 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths or Eršema written in Babylonian script (CTN 4, 175). Sultantepe: Only two Emesal texts are known from Sultantepe: 42 STT 155 (Eršema umunĝu10 za-e; Cohen 1981, 136–138, no. 13; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 13) and STT 156 (Balaĝ abzu pe-el-lá-àm; Cohen 1988, 47), as well as STT 232, a cultic text containing a building ritual that mentions the performance of Emesal texts (Maul 1988, 46–52; Ambos 2004, 196–197). Unsurprisingly, STT 232 was probably written according to an original stemming from the collection of the Babylonian Šumu-libši family (see II.4 above). 2. The kalûtu literature in the libraries of Nineveh The situation is of course entirely different in Nineveh, which contains the entire corpus of kalûtu, in a few copies, and which actually mostly represents the Babylonian kalûtu tradition (see below). According to library records from Nineveh, Emesal texts (designated kalûtu) were among tablets seized from Babylonian scholars and taken to Nineveh.43 Indeed, the tablet collection of Assurbanipal’s library was composed not only of tablets written in Nineveh in Assyrian script, but also of tablets written in Babylonian script, many of which had been copied in Babylonia and brought to Nineveh (Fincke 2003/2004). i) kalûs in colophons of tablets in Nineveh An interesting picture arises from the examination of colophons naming kalûs, mostly but not exclusively on Emesal tablets brought to the royal libraries of Nineveh from elsewhere, usually Babylonia. These kalûs belong to the most prominent Babylonian families associated with kalûs, especially Šumu-libši, Iddin-Papsukkal, šá-DIŠ.LUḪ, and Sîn-lēqi-unnīni, as well as Šangû-Sîn. Šumu-libši: As noted above (II.4), this was a prominent family of kalûs from Babylon that traced its origins to Šumu-libši, kalamāḫu of Esaĝil. As discussed above, the chief kalûs of the Assyrian king, Urad-Ea and his son Nabû-zēru-iddina, were members of this family. Six tablets found in Nineveh, mostly containing compositions related to Emesal texts and bearing colophons, were written by Nabû-zēru-iddina at various stages of his career.44 According to these colophons, Nabû-zēru-iddina and his father were descendents of the Šumu-libši family. Only one of these tablets, BL 158+(+), belongs to an Emesal prayer (Balaĝ ukkin-ta eš bar til-la). Three other tablets are also connected to the kalû: the kalû battle-ritual 81-2-4, 306 (Elat 1982, 11–16) and two tablets of Emesal Vocabulary (K.4240+ and K.20627+). The other two fragments, Sm.80 and K.14576, only preserve the colophons. These tablets were probably part of the private library of Nabû-zēru-iddina, and may have moved with him from Ḫarrān to Nineveh, and perhaps later 42 43 44 Note that STT 50, 51, 124, 192–196, listed by Jean (2006, 158) as Eršaḫuĝas and ritual texts for the covering of a drum belonging to the kalûtu corpus, are actually Akkadian prayers with the rubric Eršaḫuĝa (cf. Mayer 1976, 398; Oshima 2011, 124) that do not belong to the corpus of kalûtu, and texts concerning the instruments used for āšipūtu (cf. Schramm 2008, 94–99), respectively. Parpola 1983a, 12, no. 1, i: 15’, 14, iii: 1’ (SAA 7, 49, i: 19’, iii: 2’); perhaps also umun-ĝu10 in Parpola 1983a, 27, col. A: 6’ (SAA 7, 54, i’: 6’), and perhaps also in the previous lines, see Parpola 1983a, 28. Note also Eršaḫuĝas mentioned in Lambert 1976a, 314, K.14067+Rm.150: 9, also likely to be an inventory of tablets brought from Babylonia to Nineveh (see Lambert 1976a, 313). Cf. also the mention of kalûtu in a late description of Assurbanipal’s tablet collecting, Frame and George 2005, 274:9. BL 158+(+) (cf. Hunger 1968, no. 499); K.4240 (Borger 1998, 31); K.20267+ (Borger 1998, 35); 81-2-4, 306 (Elat 1982, 13–16; cf. Hunger 1968, no. 500); Sm. 80 (cf. Hunger 1968, no. 524); K.14576. All tablets were collated from the original or from photographs. 124 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria within Nineveh, from his own collection to the royal collection. The colophons of the two tablets that directly bear on the cultic duties of the kalû (BL 158+ and 81-2-4, 306) speciically trace the text on them to the “house of Šumu-libši,” perhaps referring here to the actual estate of this family in Babylon.45 Except for the tablets written by Nabû-zēru-iddina, other tablets written by Babylonian members of the Šumu-libši family and found in Nineveh do not contain Emesal texts. This attests to the broad knowledge and scholarly interests of the members of this family, beyond their professional literature: CT 16, 38 (Udug-ḫul), written in Assyrian script, is a copy from a tablet that was originally written by a member of the Šumu-libši family. The colophon of this tablet states that it is a copy (made by the chief scribes of Assurbanipal and of Arbela) of a tablet from Babylon written by […-Mar]duk(?) // Šumu-libši, kalû(?) of Marduk,46 during the reigns of Šalmaneser III and the Babylonian king Nabû-apla-iddina. Two Babylonian tablets from Nineveh, 81-2-4, 202 (CT 38, 25; Šumma-ālu; see Freedman 1998, 284; Hunger 1968, no. 444), and K.2848 (3R, 52, 3; “Diviner’s manual”; photograph: Oppenheim 1974, 213–214), were written by a kalû of dKUR.GAL named dKU.SUD.NUN.TUšumu-ibni(?), descendant of Šumu-libši. dKUR.GAL and dKU.SUD.NUN.TU are both titles of Sumuqan/Šakkan,47 which would supposedly yield the name and title Sumuqan-šumu-ibni, kalû of Sumuqan. However, it is possible that these are sophisticated writings for a different god, namely Ea, who is identiied with Sumuqan/Šakkan.48 If so, the writings would indicate the name and title Ea-šumu-ibni, kalû of Ea, which would be more appropriate for a Babylonian scholar. Two other Babylonian tablets from Nineveh, K.2719+K.3014 (Šumma-ālu; Freedman 1998, 138) and K.2542+ (lists of therapeutic stones; Schuster-Brandis 2008, 192–193; photograph: Horowitz 1998, pls. 8–9), mention an individual with a name very similar to Sumuqan/Ea-šumuibni, namely dKUR.GAL-zēru-ibni (likely to be understood as Ea-zēru-ibni, as in the name above). According to K.2542+ this individual was a descendant of Šumu-libši and probably a novice kalû.49 The Babylonian fragment K.6145 from Nineveh, which preserves only one line, obviously from its colophon, mentions [ ]-ibni, descendant of Šumu-libši, kalû of dMAR.TU (again likely to be a sophisticated writing for Ea through a syncretism with Sumuqan).50 This individual is probably to be identified with the individual(s) named in the colophons of the four tablets mentioned above. Iddin-Papsukkal: The Iddin-Papsukkal family was a well-known family from Borsippa, with 45 46 47 48 49 50 See SAA 11, 153: 6–11, cited in II.4 above; cf. Nielsen 2011, 60–61. Copy: [ ]-UD DUMU mMU-líb-ši lúA.[B]A dAMAR.UTU; cf. Hunger 1968, no. 502. The title “scribe of DN” is unusual (cf. CAD Ṭ, 157–158). According to a digital photograph, the sign after LÚ seems to be UŠ (for UŠ.[KU] = GALA). KU.SUDNUN.<KU>.TU: Litke 1998, 48, An-Anum I: 238 with note, 127–128, An-Anum III: 95 with note, and 236, An-Anu ša amēli: 106. KUR.GAL: Litke 1998, 236, An-Anu ša amēli: 101. Litke 1998, 138, An-Anum III: 198: d.MIN (= su-mu-qa-an) é-a; cf. George 2009, 13–14. Schuster-Brandis (2008, 193) reads mu-kal-lim, but this should be read MU-líb-ši (for this spelling, see Lambert 1957); she also reads the profession as lúŠAMAN.LÁ ┌TUR┐, but this should probably be read lúŠAMAN.LÁ U[Š!?.K]U?. Litke 1998, 236, An-Anu ša amēli: 102: dmar-tu = dsumuqan šá su-ti-i, as well as 217, An-Anu VI: 230: dKU.SUD. NUN.KU.TU = dmar-tu. Vol. XLIX 2014 125 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths whom many kalûs were associated.51 One Babylonian Emesal tablet belonging to a member of the Iddin-Papsukkal family is known from Nineveh: K.3328 (Balaĝ úru àm-ma-ir-ra-bi; Cohen 1988, 829; Volk 1989, 10 and pl. V), written by Bēl-šumu-iškun // Iddin-Papsukkal. It is possible that he is to be identiied with the Babylonian kalû Bēl-šumu-iškun, author of three astrological reports to Esarhaddon (SAA 8, 469–471). šá-DIŠ.LUḪ: This family was also associated with Borsippa, and many kalûs are associated with it (Gabbay, forthcoming a, 243). The reading of the name is uncertain. It cannot be ruled out that the writing actually represents the Iddin-Papsukkal family or some branch within it (Waerzeggers 2010, 601; Gabbay, forthcoming a, 243, n. 154). The šá-DIŠ.LUḪ family is represented in the Nineveh libraries by the kalû Bēl-ikṣur // šá-DIŠ.LUḪ, who is mentioned in K.5168+ (irst tablet of the Balaĝ en zu sá mar-mar) and probably in K.5174+ (Balaĝ gu4-ud nim kur-ra with Eršema; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 28), most likely as the owner of the tablets who commissioned other scribes to write them for him.52 In K.5168+ that scribe’s name is not preserved, but he was probably a son or descendant of DN?-ēṭer(i)? (x x e?-ṭè?-ri). K.5174+ names Nabû-balāssu-iqbi, son or descendant of […]-iškun? ([ ] x GAR), an apprentice kalû(?) (lúŠAGAN.LÁ lúG[ALA?] x), as the scribe of that tablet. According to these colophons, the tablets were copies from Babylon, but since the šá-DIŠ.LUḪ family is associated especially with Borsippa, perhaps the tablets originated in Borsippa. Šangû-Sîn: In the Nineveh libraries this family is represented by the tablet K.69 (Craig 1895)+ (Balaĝ a gal-gal buru14 su-su), which was written by Itti-Marduk-balāṭu // Šangû-Sîn. This family is otherwise not directly associated with kalûs, but Bab. 13987, a Neo-Babylonian building ritual from Babylon involving the kalû, was written by a member of this family (cf. Ambos 2004, 188, colophon C). Sîn-lēqi-unnīni: This family is a well-known family from Uruk, with which kalûs were associated (Beaulieu 2000). BL 189+(+) (cf. Gabbay 2007), the second tablet of the Balaĝ a úruĝu10 im-me, was written by Nabû-ēṭir of the Sîn-lēqi-unnīni family (Hunger 1968, no. 458). It is likely that this tablet was brought to Nineveh from Uruk (Gabbay 2007). (Gabbu-ilāni-ēreš): The colophon of 4R2, 9+ from Nineveh (Šuila ù-mu-un nir-ĝál dìm-me-ere-ne to Sîn), indicates that it was written by the chief scribe Issar-šumu-ēreš, son of Nabû-zērulēšir (of the Gabbu-ilāni-ēreš family) (Sjöberg 1960, 166–178; Shibata, forthcoming, no. 6). For this individual, see II.4 above. As Emesal texts are usually written by kalûs, it is remarkable that this tablet was written by an individual who is not a kalû. It may be no coincidence that this is a manuscript of a Šuila, whose performance was connected to the king and not only to the kalû, and was therefore copied by a scribe directly associated with the palace.53 ii) Placement and purpose of Emesal texts in the two main libraries of Nineveh As noted and discussed by others, the “library” of Assurbanipal was actually comprised of a few 51 52 53 Cf. Waerzeggers 2010, 79 with n. 348; Frahm 2011, 217 with n. 1016; Nielsen 2011, 214–216; Gabbay, forthcoming a, 242–243. Another tablet most probably written by the same scribe, although not preserving the colophon, is BA 10/1, 4a+, the second tablet of the Balaĝ en zu sá mar-mar (including its Eršema nam-mu-un-šub-bé-en; Cohen 1981, 29–35, no. 29; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 22). Cf. the same phenomenon in KAR 346 from Assur, where a Šuila is copied by a “scribe”; see III.1 above. 126 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria collections of tablets within the acropolis of Nineveh, situated in different places and assembled for different purposes.54 The Emesal texts, too, belonged to different collections in Nineveh. Since the exact ind spot within Nineveh was not systematically registered, the main evidence for the location of the tablets comes from colophons, when preserved. The colophons of Emesal texts usually explicitly indicate two locations of the tablets, namely the palace (referred to in several forms of colophons) and the library of the Nabû temple.55 The “palace library”: The “palace library” was organized both as an institutional library (the “palace”) and as a private scholarly library of Assurbanipal. The institutional nature of this library is unique, since usually institutional libraries are connected to the temple; a “palace library” is an institution otherwise unknown from ancient Mesopotamia. Most preserved Assurbanipal colophons of Emesal tablets belonging to this group note that the tablets simply belong to the palace of Assurbanipal, at times stating his piety to the gods (often the god to whom the prayer is addressed and Nabû), with no purpose stated for the copying of the tablets. For example:56 (Copied and collated according to its original). Palace of Assurbanipal, king of the world, king of the land Assur, son of Esarhaddon … who trusts in Marduk and Zarpānītu. May he who trusts you not be shamed, oh Nabû! Often, only the irst two phrases appear, without Assurbanipal’s family afiliation and the piety statement.57 These two types of colophons do not necessarily imply Assurbanipal’s personal and scholarly involvement in the production and use of the tablet, but rather the institution of the “palace” (cf. Lieberman 1990; Frame and George 2005, 278–279). There are, however, rare cases in which a personal scholarly involvement of Assurbanipal is stated, which would indicate a greater tendency towards a private scholarly library context for those specific tablets (cf. Lieberman 1990), rather than the more institutional context of the former group:58 Assurbanipal, great king, mighty king, king of the universe, king of the land Assur … I copied, checked, and collated this tablet in the assembly of the scholars according to tablets and writing-boards, exemplars from the land Assur, the land of Sumer and Akkad. For my royal viewing, I placed (it) in the midst of my palace. Whoever erases my inscribed name and writes his own name, may Nabû, the scribe of everything, erase his name! This colophon nicely demonstrates the combined nature of the “palace library.” It is both a place of scholarly activity of Assurbanipal himself, used for his “viewing,” i.e., for study and reference,59 but also as an institutional library, as the placing (kunnu) of tablets almost always refers to an institution, normally the temple library, but here indicating the institution of the “palace,” which naturally combines both the private or professional residence of the king, as well 54 55 56 57 58 59 See Reade 1986; Lieberman 1990; Pedersén 1998, 158–165; Frame and George 2005. See Reade 1986; Lieberman 1990; Pedersén 1998, 158–165. Another library in Nineveh, in which at least one Emesal tablet was probably found, was located in the Ištar temple of Nineveh (the tablet is BM 128025, a Šuila to Ninlil reoriented to address Ištar-of-Nineveh; see Shibata, forthcoming, no. 15 with n. 504); see Reade 2005, 382. Colophon “Asb. type v” (Hunger 1968, nos. 334 and 335), e.g., BL 19, BL 192+, CT 51, 189, 4R2, 27, 2+ (Shibata, forthcoming, no. 3); cf. Maul 1988, 126–127. A similar colophon (“Asb. type h”; Hunger 1968, no. 322) is preserved on Sm.954 (AL3, 34–36; Cohen 1981, 131–135, no. 34.2; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 42). Colophon “Asb. type a” (Hunger 1968, no. 317), found, e.g., on 82-5-22, 541 (+) Rm. 2, 494 (Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 28) and BL 9a+BL 73 (Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 54). Colophon “Asb. type b” (Hunger 1968, no. 318), preserved on two Emesal tablets: BA 5/3, 23 (Eršema an-na za-e maḫ-me-en, Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 62) and BM 128083 (Cohen 1988, 830; see Borger 1990, 31). It is possible that the different “palace” colophons indicate different locations in the palace. Note the same purpose in the colophon of KAR 99+ (see III.1 above). Vol. XLIX 2014 127 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths as the institution of kingship. As noted, the more common “palace colophons” do not give any indication as to the purpose of the tablets that bear it. Still, they must have had some practical purpose. Unlike the Emesal tablets of the “temple library,” which are usually multi-columned and very large (see below), the “palace” Emesal tablets are small and single-column, i.e., easy to handle and hold. Indeed, unlike the “temple library” Emesal texts, which are distributed into “tablets” (tuppu) (see below), the “palace” texts are distributed into smaller units of “extract copies” (nisḫu). These tablets were not used for making other copies, but were themselves copies from other tablets, probably made mainly for study and for practice before ritual occasions, and perhaps also for scholarly study (this may be indicated by the colophon “Asb. type b” cited above). There is one more category that should probably be associated with the palace library. These are tablets (often also designated as tuppu) brought from other places in Assyria and Babylonia, such as the tablets discussed above (III.2.i). The very likely mention of the palace of Assurbanipal in the colophon of one of these tablets makes it probable that the Babylonian tablets were all placed in the “palace library.”60 Nabû-Temple library (girginakku): Colophons of Emesal texts indicating that they were located in the “temple library” (girginakku), which was housed in the temple of Nabû in Nineveh, are preserved so far on ten tablets (Hunger 1968, no. 328; Gabbay, forthcoming a, 276). As with other genres found with speciic colophons relating to this location,61 the characteristic colophon from the temple library refers specifically to the genre of Emesal texts. The kalûtu colophon is found on tablets containing Balaĝs (including their Eršemas), Ritual Eršemas, and at least one Šuila tablet,62 as well as the Nineveh kalûtu catalogue 4R2, 53+, but is not known from Eršaḫuĝas.63 The kalûtu catalogue indicates that the kalûtu series consisted of Balaĝs (including their Eršemas), Ritual Eršemas, and Šuilas (and no Eršaḫuĝas),64 corresponding exactly to the genres on the tablets that were indeed placed in the girginakku as kalûtu literature according to their colophons. Following is a translation of this colophon:65 For Nabû, perfect son … — Assurbanipal, the ruler, favored by Aššur, Bēl, and Nabû, shepherd, provider of the shrines of the great gods, establisher of their regular offerings …— For the preservation of his life, the length of his days, the well-being of his offspring, the establishment of his throne of kingship, the hearing of his prayers, the acceptance of his supplications, for handing over the ones disobedient to him, According to tablets, copies from the land of Assur and the land of Akkad, I wrote on tablets, checked, and collated the wisdom of Ea, kalûtu, secret of an apkallu sage, which is appropriate for the appeasement of the hearts of the great 60 61 62 63 64 65 See 79-7-9, 239 (Cohen 1988, 829) + Rm.373 (BA 10/1, 31): [KUR mAN.ŠÁR-DÙ-A MAN ŠÚ MAN] ┌KUR┐ AN.[ŠÁRki]. Cf. also Reade 1986, 220. E.g., the bārûtu colophon, preserved in BM 122636+; see Koch-Westenholz 2000, 171–172. Cf. also the colophons in Hunger 1968, nos. 327, 338, 339. K.3113+K.16728 (Shibata, forthcoming, no. 18). Another possible Šuila preserving this colophon may be 4R2, 28, 2 (Schwemer 2001, 189–190, 1018–1019). DT 209 (Maul 1988, 276 and pl. 43, no. 66) is probably a Balaĝ that contains formulae otherwise known mainly from Eršaḫuĝas (but also Eršemas); it does not have a genre subscript designating it as an Eršaḫuĝa, which is usually the case for Eršaḫuĝas in Nineveh. Cf. also Maul 1988, 277. The exclusion of the Eršaḫuĝa genre from the category of kalûtu may be explained by its literary distinction from the rest of the Emesal genres, since it deals with the individual lament and not with a lament over a city or temple; also, unlike the rest of the Emesal genres, it is recited by the king and not the kalû alone (Maul 1988, 26–27). Colophon “Asb. type o”; see Hunger 1968, no. 328; Borger 1970, 168; Gabbay forthcoming a, 276–279. 128 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria gods. I deposited (it) in the library of Ezida, the temple of Nabû of the midst of Nineveh, my lord. Therefore, Nabû, king of the entirety of heaven and earth, look happily at this library! As for Assurbanipal, the servant, who reveres your divinity—daily at the setting up of the (Balaĝ) prayer (ina šakān takribti), announce his life! May I praise your great divinity! As seen in this and other temple library tablets, the tablets belonging to the temple library were dedicated, since they are not a private or royal possession, but rather the temple’s possession, or theologically Nabû’s possession. The act of dedication, as is customary in the dedication of other objects in ancient Mesopotamia, is accompanied by a prayer by the dedicator, here Assurbanipal, asking for his life and stability of his kingship. Unlike the “palace library” tablets, which are always single-column, small in size, and distributed into nisḫus, the “temple library” tablets can be very large, two-column, containing a much larger amount of text, and are always divided into “tablets” (tuppu), i.e., the strict scriptural-textual distribution and not the practical one. What was the purpose of the tablets in this location? Unlike tablets from private libraries that were written for didactic, scholarly, or practical reasons, temple library tablets never have a purpose written on them. They are dedicated to the temple and its god, and the dedication includes a request for the good fortune of the writer, their dedicator. Their textual purpose, therefore, is not practical: it is “scriptural.” Of course, this scriptural nature also has a practical side to it: it provides an excellent Vorlage from which other manuscripts can be copied. IV. Kalûtu and local Assyrian traditions While the Nineveh material exhibits mostly the expected Babylonian tradition, with very few local allusions, some of the tablets from Assur and Nimrud incorporate local traditions related to those cities and their gods. In Nimrud, there is one (and perhaps a second) manuscript of the Šuila mu-lu é-a ku4-ra-zu-ta that is directed to Nabû (and not to Marduk, as in the rest of the manuscripts of this composition), supplemented with epithets related to Nabû and Borsippa, and most importantly, also Kalḫu (Maul 1998, 160–183; Shibata, forthcoming, no. 7; see III.1 above),66 as well as one possible Middle Assyrian Šuila to Aššur (CTN 4, 171; see III.1. above). In Assur too one inds many manuscripts of the Šuila mu-lu é-a ku4-ra-zu-ta to Aššur, perhaps based on a composition originally to Enlil (Maul 1998, 192–194), which was locally directed to the god Aššur and his city Assur (Maul 1998, 183–188; Shibata, forthcoming, no. 14; see III.1 above). A unique case is the Balaĝ zi-bu-um zi-bu-um to Aššur, sharing its incipit with an Enlil Balaĝ (Cohen 1988, 347–373; Löhnert 2009, 385–445), and known in Assyria as an independent composition to Aššur. This is the only such Balaĝ. Manuscripts of this Balaĝ were found in Assur (Cohen 1988, 342–346). The Balaĝ even entered the canonical grouping and sequence of Nineveh as indicated by its inclusion in the Nineveh catalogue 4R2, 53+ (but see below), and by at least one tablet that contains this Balaĝ (with its Eršema) (81-7-27, 107; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 16 and pl. 10). This seems to be an early attempt to create a locally oriented Assyrian Balaĝ tradition, an attempt that was later abandoned in favor of the regular Babylonian tradition.67 When did these local changes occur? To begin with the Šuilas: Maul (1998, 190–191) noted 66 For the cult of Nabû in Kalḫu and his akītu festival, see Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 96–101, 104–105; Maul 1998, 183. Vol. XLIX 2014 129 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths that since the Šuila mu-lu é-a ku4-ra-zu-ta is otherwise known as a Marduk Šuila, listing names and epithets of Marduk and Babylon, it does not seem to be the basis of this Šuila directed to Aššur; instead, Aššur epithets were added to an Enlil Vorlage to create this Šuila. In fact, this hypothesis inds support from D. Shibata’s identiication of the fragment K.14827 from Nineveh, written in Babylonian script, which contains a version of this Balaĝ directed to Enlil and Nippur, not to Marduk and Babylon (Shibata, forthcoming, no. 14). According to Maul (1998, 190–191), the Assur version mentioning Enlil/Nippur and Aššur/Assur must point to the traditional, preSennacherib identiication of Aššur with Enlil, rather than his identiication with Marduk, known from Sennacherib’s reign. The same could be said of the Aššur Balaĝ zi-bu-um zi-bu-um. It is likely that this is a preSennacherib attempt to harness the Babylonian Enlil tradition to Aššur. It is signiicant that this is the only known attempt to create a new Assyrian Balaĝ; later, the Babylonian tradition was simply taken over in Assyria. Its place in the Nineveh canon is suggestive of its ambiguous nature. On the one hand, this Assyrian Balaĝ did find its way into the Nineveh canon, and is listed in the Nineveh catalogue 4R2, 53+, i–ii: 15, after the Enlil Balaĝ of the same name. On the other hand, a remark following it notes that it is an “Aššur Balaĝ,” i.e., it is excluded from the corpus of “Enlil Balaĝs” in which it is listed. Aside from the Assyrian Balaĝ zi-bu-um zi-bu-um in Nineveh, there is one Šuila to Ninlil, preserved in BM 128025, probably from the Ištar temple in Nineveh, that exhibits a local tradition of Ištar of Nineveh, and is likely to have been recited during the akītu festival in Nineveh (Shibata, forthcoming, no. 15). The rest of the tradition found in the kalûtu corpus of Nineveh is strictly Babylonian. V. The serialization of Emesal prayers: Assurbanipal’s kalûtu?68 The focus of the following section is the serialization of the kalûtu literature, making use especially of evidence from Nineveh, which is compared to texts from other provenances. The Nineveh libraries present the most consistent serialization of various groups of texts,69 including the Emesal texts. The basic tools for the reconstruction of the serialization of Emesal texts are the Nineveh catalogue of Emesal tablets 4R2, 53+70 and the catchlines on tablets. 67 68 69 70 It is possible that it is not by chance that the Balaĝ zi-bu-um zi-bu-um is the only known Balaĝ to Aššur. Unlike other Balaĝs, it does not contain a lamentation over a destroyed city but rather calls the god to rise (zi-bu-um zi-bu-um, “Rise! Rise!”), which in the cultic sphere probably refers to a procession, but theologically signiies rising towards battle. Such a motif is usually absent from Enlil Balaĝs, and calling him to rise (for battle) is indeed unique to the Balaĝ zibu-um zi-bu-um of Enlil (Cohen 1988, 347–373; Löhnert 2009, 385–445). The Balaĝs do not wish to call Enlil to rise up, since this also triggers his rage, which can turn back against his own city. On the contrary, the Balaĝs seek to calm Enlil, usually by seating him back on his throne. The call to battle is found in Ninurta Balaĝs, where Ninurta serves as Enlil’s avenger. After the title of Ulla Jeyes’s (1997) article “Assurbanipal’s bārûtu.” The following paragraphs are based on my discussion of this material in Gabbay, forthcoming a, chapter VIII. For various discussions on the serialization and canonization of other groups of texts in Nineveh, cf., e.g., Maul 1994, 216–221; Jeyes 1997. K.2529 (4R2, 53)+K.3276 (BL 103)+K.16853 (unpublished), new copy by S. M. Maul (unpublished). The Ritual Eršemas are known from two additional catalogues: BL 151 (new copy: Gabbay, forthcoming b, pl. 28) and K.2 (Gabbay, forthcoming b, pl. 28). For a summary and discussion of the catalogue, see Cohen 1988, 15–16. A transliteration of the catalogues with some notes is found in Gabbay, forthcoming b, chapter I, excursus 2 (cf. also Cohen 1981, 42–47). 130 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria As discussed above, like other bodies of literature, the corpus of Emesal prayers in Nineveh was based to a large extent on Babylonian materials. This raises two questions: Does the Emesal corpus and its organization reflect a purely Babylonian tradition, or does it have specifically Ninevite features? And secondly, if the tradition relected in Nineveh is Babylonian in nature, what is the relationship between Nineveh and other Assyrian cities in regard to the corpus of Emesal prayers and their organization? 1. Serialization of Balaĝs in and outside Nineveh The ixed sequence of Balaĝs is known almost only from Nineveh. While in Nineveh the last tablet (or nisḫu) of a Balaĝ (usually containing an Eršema) will have a catchline to the next Balaĝ,71 this is not the case in Babylonia, and while catchlines are attested in Babylonian tablets linking one tablet to the next within a composition, they do not occur on the last tablet of a composition to indicate the next Balaĝ. However, a group of extract tablets from Ur, perhaps dating to the seventh century BCE, contain excerpts of several Balaĝs (on each tablet), which are to a large extent, thought not entirely, parallel to the sequence of Balaĝs in Nineveh (Cohen 1988, 17; Black 1991, 33, n. 85; Cavigneaux 1993, 253–254). The situation in other cities in Assyria is less clear, due to the scarce attestations of Emesal tablets from Assyrian cities. KAR 99+, a summary tablet containing the entire Balaĝ nir-ĝál lú è-NE, including its Eršema,72 does not contain a catchline to the next tablet at its end. However, the nature of this tablet, which includes a shortened excerpt of the Balaĝ written syllabically, suggests it was not a standard text and thus not in its regular sequence, and not necessarily evidence for the non-existence of a sequence of Balaĝs in Assur. On the other hand, STT 155, from Sultantepe, containing the sixth and last tablet of the Balaĝ e-lum gu4-sún, has a catchline to the next Balaĝ (am-e bára-an-na-ra), corresponding to the Nineveh tradition (as evidenced by Sm.1259 and the sequence in the Nineveh catalogue 4R2, 53+, i–ii: 13–14) (Cohen 1981, 136–138, no. 13; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 13). Besides the sequencing of Balaĝs there is also a division of Balaĝs into two groups: “Enlil Balaĝs” and “Inana Balaĝs” (see the rubrics of the sums in the Nineveh catalogue 4R2, 53+, 41 and 60),73 roughly corresponding to Balaĝs addressed to male deities and Balaĝs addressed to female deities (Black 1985, 12; Cohen 1988, 17; Gabbay, forthcoming a, 195–198). The sequence of “Enlil Balaĝs” is arranged according to gods in the following order: Enki/Ea, Enlil (including Gula), Marduk, Utu/Šamaš, Iškur/Adad, Ninurta, Nabû, Nergal. This is followed by “external” (aḫû) Balaĝs.74 Was the enumeration of all these Balaĝs as one group of “Enlil Balaĝs” particular to Nineveh? 71 72 73 74 An interesting exception is Sm.954 (AL3, 34–36; Cohen 1981, 131–135, no. 34.2; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 42), which does not contain a catchline to the next Balaĝ. Incidentally, the Eršema preserved on this tablet is not one of the two Eršemas assigned to this Balaĝ in the Nineveh tradition; see Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 92. In addition to the “Enlil Balaĝs” and “Inana Balaĝs” there is also one “Aššur Balaĝ,” listed in the Nineveh catalogue within the “Enlil Balaĝs” due to identical incipits; see IV above. For the “external” (aḫû) Balaĝs, see Cohen 1988, 18–19; Gabbay, forthcoming a, 198. It should be noted that both groups are listed in the Nineveh catalogue 4R2, 53+ as part of the “series of kalûtu” (iškar kalûti), and hence one cannot distinguish between Balaĝs belonging to the “series” (iškaru) and ones “external” to it (aḫû), as is done (regarding omens) in SAA 10, 8: rev. 8; cf. Rochberg-Halton 1984; Lieberman 1990, 307–308. It is possible that although both groups shared the same level of textual transmission, it was only the first group, that of “regular” Balaĝs, that actually had a role in cult. Vol. XLIX 2014 131 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths Four tablets from late Achaemenid and perhaps early Seleucid Uruk, namely TCL 6, 56, TCL 6, 57, BaM Beih. 2, 17, and probably MLC 1852 (Cohen 1988, 812–813), contain a reference in their colophons to the group of “Enlil Balaĝs” (BALAG d50). The irst tablet, TCL 6, 56, from the reign of Artaxerxes, contains the Eršema ù-li-li en zu sá mar-mar (Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 4), belonging to the Balaĝ dutu-gin7 è-ta, which is a Balaĝ directed to Enlil (Löhnert 2009). TCL 6, 57 contains the Balaĝ nir-ĝál lú è-NE to Ninurta but is still designated as an “Enlil Balaĝ” (BALAG d50), indicating that this refers, as in the Nineveh catalogue, to the group of Balaĝs directed mostly to male deities. Similarly, BaM Beih. 2, 17 contains the Balaĝ úru ḫul-a-ke4 of Gula, but is also designated as an “Enlil Balaĝ” (BALAG d50), just as this Gula Balaĝ is part of the group of “Enlil Balaĝs” in the Nineveh catalogue (4R2, 53, i–ii: 12). Lastly, MLC 1852 (Cohen 1988, 812–813), was assigned by Cohen (1988, 605) “on the thinnest of threads” to the Balaĝ im-ma-al gù dé-dé of Inana, reading the traces of the sign before the remark NU AL.TIL as the end of DÉ. However, the composition on this tablet is most probably a Gula Balaĝ: it mentions the Lady of Isin (lines 2, 14, 18), preserves the standard Gula / Isin litany (lines 31–39), and adds Egalmaḫ(!?) and Erabriri to the standard toponym litany (rev. 29’–30’) (cf. Cohen 1988, 620–623). The signs after the break should be restored as the end of d50! (i.e., [BALAG diĝi]r!┌50!┐ NU AL.TIL), as in the tablets discussed above.75 Since the composition preserved on this tablet seems to be a Balaĝ of Gula, it is likely that it is either the Balaĝ úru ḫul-a-ke4 of Gula or mu-tin nu-nus dím-ma, both “Enlil Balaĝs” according to the Nineveh catalogue (4R2, 53+, i–ii: 11–12). The largest group of “Enlil Balaĝs” is those specifically addressed to Enlil (including Gula). Is it possible to ind a logic to the sequence of Balaĝs within this subgroup as attested in Nineveh? The evidence does not come only from Nineveh, indicating, perhaps, that even if the textual and sequential subgrouping was done in Nineveh, it was based on a more widespread Babylonian cultic tradition. The sequence of Balaĝs to Enlil in Nineveh (known from the catalogue 4R2, 53+ and from catchlines) may be divided into four subgroups. The irst subgroup includes the Balaĝs dutu-gin7 è-ta, u4-dam ki àm-ús, and am-e amaš-a-na (4R2, 53+, i–ii: 5–7), that share a similar predawn ritual context according to cultic attestations from various periods and localities (and not only Neo-Assyrian Nineveh), relected in their content as well (Gabbay, forthcoming a, 178–180). Three Balaĝs mentioned in the Nineveh catalogue, namely the Balaĝs e-lum di-da-ra, e-ne-èĝ-ĝá-ni i-lu i-lu, and an-na e-lum-e (4R2, 53+, i–ii: 8–10), form the second subgroup. These three compositions, when mentioned in rituals, again not only in rituals known from Neo-Assyrian Nineveh, are addressed to “the gods” (ana DINGIR.DIDLI) and not to a particular god.76 Following these Balaĝs to “the gods,” the two Gula compositions, Balaĝ mu-tin nu-nus dím-ma and Balaĝ úru ḫul-a-ke4 of Gula (4R2, 53+, i–ii: 11–12), form the third subgroup (which as seen above were considered “Enlil Balaĝs” also outside of Nineveh). Finally, the fourth sub-group includes Balaĝs to Enlil, namely the Balaĝs e-lum gu4-sún-e, am-e bára-an-nara, zi-bu-um zi-bu-um to Enlil (preceded by the Balaĝ of the same name to Aššur, but which is explicitly excluded from this group by the designation “Aššur Balaĝ”), and a-ab-ba ḫu-luḫ-ḫa of 75 76 Conirmed by collation, courtesy of Prof. Eckart Frahm. Caplice 1970, 118: 19–20; TCL 6, 48: rev. 1–2, 4, 6 (Linssen 2004, 31–32); RAcc, 92–93:r.10, 15 (Linssen 2004, 187). Note that the kalamāḫu Urad-Ea performs a ritual (dullu) “before Enlil” in a general apotropaic context during the substitute king ritual; see SAA 10, 212: 9–rev. 2. 132 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria Enlil (and perhaps also the following incipit [ ] x-bi nu-pà-da, although this may be a Marduk Balaĝ)77 (4R2, 53+, i–ii: 13–17/18), that are addressed to speciic gods in cultic texts (Gabbay, forthcoming a, 200–201). This group consists of various compositions that cannot be assigned to one of the previous three subgroups (i.e., predawn Balaĝs, Balaĝs “to the gods,” and Gula Balaĝs). To sum up, although this sequence of Balaĝs to Enlil is not known outside of Nineveh, the logic behind its subgrouping is mostly cultic, existing also in Babylonia. 2. Serialization of Ritual Eršemas in and outside Nineveh A parallel to the ixed sequence of Ritual Eršemas in Nineveh (as seen by the Nineveh catalogues and catchlines) is found only in CT 42, 21 (Cohen 1981, 118–121, no. 35.2; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 50), a tablet from Dēr that was brought to Uruk in antiquity (Oelsner 1995). The catchline to the Eršema lugal nam-ta-è follows the Eršema úru a-še-er-ra èn-šè ba-an-gul-e, which corresponds to the Nineveh sequence.78 However, other than this, there is evidence for a different sequence of Ritual Eršemas, also in Dēr. This is evident from the sequence of three Ritual Eršemas found on the tablets CT 42, 12, MLC 382, and CTMMA 2, 14;79 the last tablet also contains a list of other Ritual Eršemas by incipit, which were not copied, and a catchline (lines rev. 19–28; see Maul 2005, 97). This sequence does not correspond to that of Nineveh, and may relect a cultic grouping. Interestingly, CT 42, 12 (from Dēr) was probably written by the same scribe as CT 42, 21, which, as noted above, exhibits a correspondence to the Nineveh sequence. 3. Serialization of Šuilas in and outside Nineveh The serialization of Šuilas was not as rigid as Balaĝs and Eršemas. Catchlines preserved on manuscripts of Šuilas from Nineveh only partly correspond to the sequence found in the Nineveh catalogue (Shibata, forthcoming, I.3.4). Even in the Nineveh catalogue, it is explicitly mentioned that they are listed according to gods (unlike the other genres),80 and this may be an indication that the sequence of the composition was not textually fixed. The sequence of Šuilas in the Nineveh catalogue (4R2, 53+, rev. iii: 43–iv: 29) begins with the common numerical sequence of the gods, from Anu (= 60) to Adad (= 10), but continues in a sequence that seems to be based on some common cultic tradition, since it shares some similarities with the sequence of gods listed in a ritual, as well as in Neo-Babylonian administrative texts from Uruk. The ritual, directed against an enemy attack, is known from Nineveh (but is based on a Babylonian tradition, as there are no Assyrian characteristics in it).81 Even though not all the gods in the catalogue are listed in the ritual, the position of Nergal and Nuska in the ritual (lines 1’–7’) after the gods numbered 60–10 (Anu, Enlil, Ea, Sîn, Šamaš, Adad; lines 1–9) is in agreement with the sequence of gods in the Šuila section of the Nineveh catalogue. As to the Neo-Babylonian administrative texts from Uruk, the sequence of gods mentioned in some of the prebend sale texts from this period 77 78 79 80 81 Contra Black (1987, 35) and Cohen (1981, 45 and 1988, 18–19), who understand this line as a scribal remark and not as an incipit. See the colophon of BL 63 (Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 50), as well as 4R2, 53+ // BL 151, rev. iii: 2–3. Cohen 1981, 143–149, nos. 45, 53, 59; Maul 2005, 94–102, no. 14; Gabbay, forthcoming b, nos. 60, 71, 78. See 4R2, 53+, rev. iii: 43: ŠU.ÍL.LÁ.KAM*.MEŠ [šá? DINGIR.D]IDLI ┌MU┐.NE. Maul 1988, 33–39, rit. nos. 1–3. Note that the first line does not contain the personal name daš-šur-ZI(napišta)PAP(uṣur), as was understood in previous editions (Maul 1988, 33 and 37; Cohen 1988, 21), but the sequence of signs should rather be read as DINGIR.DIDLI! ┌šá!┐ ┌ZI┐ KÚR (= tīb nakri) (collated). Vol. XLIX 2014 133 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths and place (Beaulieu 1992, 55–56) is very similar to that of Nineveh, especially considering the distinction made there between male and female gods as in the Emesal tradition, including the Šuilas. In fact, the similarities between the sequence of the Uruk texts and the sequence of Šuilas are even closer than the similarities between the former and the god lists An-Anu and An-Anu ša amēli, which were pointed out by Beaulieu (1992, 55–60).82 4. Serialization of Eršaḫuĝas in and outside Nineveh Although tablets of Eršaḫuĝas from Nineveh often contain catchlines to the next Eršaḫuĝa (Maul 1988, 3–4), a ixed serialization of this genre does not seem to have existed, since the designation “tablet x” or a reference to a series of Eršaḫuĝas does not exist (see Maul 1991, 68).83 The only clear attestation for this comes from BM 121055 (Maul 1988, 349, no. 103) from Nineveh, written by the son of the palace scribe of Sargon, which is designated in the colophon as “Tablet 8 (of the) Eršaḫuĝa (series).” Other than that, the only other possible reference to a serialization comes from BM 76501, from Babylonia, which contains the remark AL.TIL in its colophon, referring to a serialization (Maul 1991, 69: rev. 6).84 5. Serialization in Nineveh: Conclusions Nineveh had the most complete and explicit serialization of the kalûtu series, in comparison to both Assyria and Babylonia. Cohen (1988, 20) assumed that this sequence was the product of the compiler of the Nineveh catalogue 4R2, 53+. However, it is possible that this serialization was based on some Babylonian traditions or criteria, both textual and cultic, even if not explicitly formulated in Babylonia. These elements were brought to an extreme textual formulation in Nineveh. Another way of looking at it, although less likely in my opinion, is that the similarities between the Nineveh material and some of the Babylonian materials, which are usually later, is due to an Assyrian inluence on Babylonia (Beaulieu 1997, Beaulieu 2010). In such a case, the inluence may have been transmitted by the priests, including kalûs, installed by Esarhaddon in the Esaĝil while restoring it.85 Although these may have been locals and not necessarily Assyrians brought in by Esarhaddon, he surely preferred such high functionaries to be pro-Assyrian. Nevertheless, although it is possible to see some Assyrian inluence on Babylonia in the ields of religion and textuality, it seems more likely to me that the textual materials from Nineveh represent Babylonia more than Assyria. VI. The relation of kalûtu to the Assyrian king and royal literature 1. Kalûtu and the king Emesal prayers relate to cities and temples, but references to the king are remarkably absent from most of them. How then did the Assyrian king, who was so dominant in the Assyrian religious life, relate to this more and more dominant body of literature in his land? 82 83 84 85 For a full discussion, see Gabbay, forthcoming a, 204–207. For DT 209, Maul 1988, 276, no. 66, see n. 63 above. Note also that Eršaḫuĝas do not belong to the series of kalûtu, strictly speaking; see III.2.ii with n. 64 above. Unless the tablet is actually a Balaĝ or an Eršema; cf. Maul 1991, 68. But according to the copy the genre designation does indeed seem to end with GÁ; see Maul 1991, 73. See Leichty 2011, 114, no. 53: rev. 1, 207, no. 105, vi: 23–24, 224, no. 110, i: 3’–4’. 134 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria The main involvement of the king with the kalû and his repertoire was through the Eršaḫuĝa genre (which was actually formally not considered part of the kalûtu corpus, see III.2.ii with n. 64 above). This genre differs from the other Emesal compositions in its personal nature, emphasizing the misfortunes of the individual and asking the gods for his deliverance, while other genres emphasize the misfortunes of the cities and temples. This individual nature was closely related to a speciic individual, the king; ritual texts attest that Eršaḫuĝas were performed in his presence and indeed often actually recited by him (with the help of dictation by the kalû; Maul 1988, 26–27), or in the presence of a representation of him, specifically, his garments, as seen in Neo-Assyrian letters (SAA 10, 338–339).86 Eršaḫuĝas are mentioned with other apotropaic rituals for the king during the period of a substitute king (and later his burial) in two letters to Esarhaddon by Mār-Issar (SAA 10, 351: rev. 14, 352: 19), as well as in an unassigned letter (SAA 10, 381: 2). Still, it is noteworthy that when Urad-Ea mentions the performance of Eršaḫuĝas to the king, as well as when he mentions a performance with the lilissu (probably implying a Balaĝ), he always assures the king that these performances will “bless the king.”87 This emphasis may relect an apologetic tendency: it may have been added by Urad-Ea, since it is not entirely clear why these texts, which do not mention the king at all, should have any effect on the king. Another way in which the king was involved in Emesal prayers was through the Šuila genre, which was performed in processions, especially during the akītu festivals of various cities (which in Assyria were connected to royal triumphal processions as well; see Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 79–83; Weissert 1997, 347–350). This genre (but only in Assyria!) often ends with a blessing of the kings participating in the processions by name, such as Assurbanipal and Sîn-šar-iškun (Shibata, forthcoming, I.4.4). But these are exceptions, as the most regular cult of the kalû involved the regular performance of Balaĝs and their accompanying Eršemas, which was unrelated to the king. However, the Assyrian king had a most prominent role in cult and theology, and so it is expected that he would attempt to associate himself with this cult. Indeed, Assurbanipal was able to involve himself in the performance of Emesal prayers. Just as Urad-Ea assured Esarhaddon that his speciic ritual performances would “bless the king,” so too Assurbanipal managed to involve himself with and beneit from the daily and most regular cultic performance of Emesal prayers that had nothing to do with him by stating the following in the colophon appended to Emesal tablets in the Nabû temple library of Nineveh: “As for Assurbanipal, the servant, who reveres your divinity—daily at the setting up of the (Balaĝ) prayer (ina šakān takribti), announce his life! May I praise your great divinity!” (see III.2.ii above). Thus, the king, through this phrase, asks that the regular daily performance of Balaĝs will also be a time of intercession in his favor. The king also had another way of connecting himself to kalûtu, at least institutionally. He was the one who was in charge, not always actively, of the temples and the cultic objects in them, as well as the appointment of their priests. Three inscriptions of Sargon and Sennacherib seem 86 87 Unusually, also when the lilissu is played, probably implying a special performance of a Balaĝ (but note the performance of an Eršaḫuĝa with the lilissu in Maul 2000, 406: 35’–36’; cf. Maul 1988, 26), the king’s garments are present as well in SAA 10, 340 (for the performance of a Balaĝ, although also with Er(šem)šaḫuĝas, over the king’s garments; see also RAcc, 36:26–27). SAA 10, 338: 16–17, 339: rev. 5–6, 340: rev. 5–[6]?, 341: rev. 2–3. Vol. XLIX 2014 135 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths to relate to the installation of the institution of kalûtu as part of these kings’ building enterprises. Sargon, when building Dūr-Šarrukin and initiating the cult of its temples, installs three categories of priests: nêšakku, ramku, and surmaḫḫu (Fuchs 1994, 236:157), the last a learned name for the kalamāhu, the chief kalû.88 Sennacherib, in an inscription exhibiting the Aššur-theology that incorporates Marduk’s characteristics, cultically covers and dedicates a lilissu drum, the main musical instrument of kalûtu in the first millennium BCE, for the pacifying of the heart (of Aššur), which is the purpose of kalûtu (Luckenbill 1924, 149; Frahm 1997, 221–222). In another inscription, Sennacherib mentions his installing of kalûs for the same purpose, “pacifying the heart” (Grayson and Novotny 2012, 84, no. 11).89 2. Emesal prayers and royal inscriptions As discussed in the previous section, the king was directly associated only with the Eršaḫuĝa and Šuila genres in cult. Did this association have a literary impact on other genres related to the king? In a recent article, Baruchi-Unna (2013) has shown how the prayer of Assurbanipal found in the episode of Marduk’s return to Babylon in the L4 inscription is closely related to Emesal literature. The prayer asks Marduk to return to Babylon after it has been destroyed by his anger, and to look favorably on the city. Baruchi-Unna (2013, 619–622) has shown that this prayer is related to Emesal prayers both thematically and theologically (the god’s anger causing destruction, the god looking favorably at his city), as well as in the vocabulary and phraseology used in it (especially kišādu turru, “to turn the neck”). Interestingly, while the theology portrayed in this prayer is in accordance with Balaĝ and Eršema prayers, the use of the phrase kišādu turru is almost exclusively used in Eršaḫuĝas,90 the more dominant genre in Assyria, especially in relation to the king, who is also the one who performs the prayer in the royal inscription (and perhaps also in reality).91 Since Emesal prayers deal with the destruction of Babylonian cities, it would be interesting to compare not only the restoration of Babylon discussed above but also the destruction preceding it. Is it possible to draw connections between the literary description of the destruction of Babylonian cities described in Emesal prayers and the actual destruction that befell Babylon during the reign of Sennacherib? From a literary point of view, the description of Babylon being destroyed by a flood in the Bavian inscription of Sennacherib (Luckenbill 1924, 83: 51–54; Frahm 1997, 154) is typical of descriptions of destruction in Emesal prayers.92 The same image is maintained in Esarhaddon’s inscription of the same event, although it does not name Sennacherib as actively bringing this flood, but rather attributes it to Marduk.93 Indeed, the theological 88 89 90 91 92 For the equation sur9 = kalû, see Veldhuis 1997/98, 120–121; Volk 2006, 94: 15; Gabbay, forthcoming a, 67. For another installation of kalûs in Assyria(?), cf. perhaps an inscription of Esarhaddon, Leichty 2011, 116, no. 54: 12’. Cf. references listed in Maul 1988, 415. Note also that maṣi, “enough,” mentioned in Assurbanipal’s prayer, is also quite frequent in Eršaḫuĝas; see references in Maul 1988, 440. This combination of motifs and vocabulary known from both Eršaḫuĝas and Balaĝs is in agreement with Assurbanipal’s claim that he paciied the gods of Babylon with a takribtu (i.e., a Balaĝ) and an Eršaḫuĝa; see Borger 1996, 45, iv: 88–89 (cf. Baruchi-Unna 2013, 621, n. 46). See, e.g., in reference to Babylon: úru a du11-ga a gi4-a-[zu?] tin-tirki a du11-ga a-ta mar-ra-[zu?] // a-lu4 šá na-AK-ru ú(-)šá-an-nu-[u(2)] (vacat) šá ana me-e sa-lu-[u(2)], “[Your] city which was ruined and looded (Akk: The city which the enemy looded)! [Your] Tintir (= Babylon), which was ruined and submerged in water!” (Eršema dilmunki niĝinna 1, lines 20–21; see Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 1, and parallels). 136 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria justiication for Babylon’s destruction appears only later, in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon. This theology is very close to the typical Babylonian theological perception, found most often also in Emesal prayers, of the raging god (Marduk) leaving his city and thereby causing destruction. Thus, for example, in the Babylon Prism A of Esarhaddon the following chain of events is portrayed (Leichty 2011, 196, no. 104, i: 34–ii: 9; see Brinkman 1983): Marduk became enraged and decided to abandon his city Babylon for a certain period of time (seventy years),94 leading to its destruction (under the reign of Sennacherib), and later was appeased (during the reign of Esarhaddon, after 11 years instead of 70, justiied through an exegesis of the cuneiform signs) and returned. This theology is also the theology that one encounters in Emesal prayers: Enlil (or Marduk) rages and leaves his city, causing its destruction; then he is asked to calm down (and consequently to return to his rebuilt city). In Emesal texts too, the destruction is limited in duration, as evident by the frequent use of the noun u4 // ūmu, “day,” for the destructive power. This is usually translated as “storm,” but the original meaning of the word as “day” signals the understanding of destruction as a temporary event (Gabbay, forthcoming a, 23, 29). This parallelism does not necessarily point at a connection between Emesal prayers and the royal inscription on a literary level. Rather, it refers to an acceptance of the common Babylonian theology of divine rage, abandonment, reconcilement, and return, which is most vividly portrayed in Emesal prayers. Nevertheless, it is still signiicant that this theology is found in inscriptions from Babylon, regarding Marduk and Babylon (cf. Cogan 2009, 166), but is never applied to Aššur and his land, Assur. VII. Emesal literature and Assyrian literary texts 1. Possible intertextual connections between Emesal literature and Akkadian literature from the Neo-Assyrian period Some themes or formulas characteristic of Emesal texts are occasionally found in Neo-Assyrian literary texts. Thus, although connected to other genres and to a common theology and not exclusively dependent on Emesal texts, the request for divine pacification at the end of royal prayers, as exhibited in SAA 3, 2 (rev. 20) and SAA 3, 4 (rev. ii: 17’), is reminiscent of the “heart 93 94 95 Cf. the description in Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Prism A, Leichty 2011, 196, no. 104, i: 34–41, and parallels; Brinkman 1983; Cogan 2009, 165–166. Note, however, that unlike Emesal texts, which do not mention any cause for the divine anger, the Esarhaddon inscription does mention the behavior of the residents of Babylon as a reason for Marduk’s wrath (Leichty 2011, 195, no. 104, i: 18–33 and parallels; cf. Brinkman 1983, 39–40; Cogan 2009, 166). Nevertheless, in the Esarhaddon inscription too, this bad behavior is not understood to be governed by human will, but by malevolent omens (lines i: 20–21 and parallels; Brinkman 1983, 39–40; note, however, that in two fragments from Nineveh, the malevolent omens occur after the human behavior and the divine wrath; see Leichty 2011, 220, no. 108, i–ii: 18’ and 244–245, no. 116, i: 1’–17’). Note also that in a different inscription from Babylon (Leichty 2011, 229–230, no. 113: 8–15), this behavior follows the divine rage and does not precede it, and thus cannot be the reason for it. It is signiicant that the version presented in this inscription may be the latest (dated after 672 BCE; cf. Leichty 2011, 229). In SAA 3, 2: rev. 20, the vocabulary is also identical with the Akkadian renderings found in Emesal texts. Thus linu-uḫ lib-bu-uk šá e-gu-gu lip-šaḫ ka-bat-[tuk] šá is-bu-us-su is lexically related to the very characteristic šà—ḫuĝ / bar—sed // libbu nâḫu / kabattu pašāḫu in Emesal texts. In SAA 3, 4, rev. ii: 17’, the heart paciication (found after a dividing line as in Emesal literature) is also connected to the physical rest on the goddess’s seat (nu-ḫi ma-rat d30 rimi-i šub-tuk-ki, “Calm down, daughter of Sîn, settle in your seat!”), a common perception in Emesal prayers (cf., e.g., Eršema ušum gùd nú-a, line 57: ḫuĝ-ĝá-u ní te-na dúr ki-a-ba-an mar-ra-ab // nu-uḫ šup-ši-iḫ šub-tú ne-eḫ-tú ti-šab, “Calm down! Be paciied! Take your seat of rest!”; see Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 3). Vol. XLIX 2014 137 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths paciication units” at the ends of Emesal prayers (Cohen 1981, 21–28; Gabbay, forthcoming a, 33–34).95 A structural feature that may be inluenced by Emesal prayers is found in SAA 3, 9, a NeoAssyrian literary composition praising(?) various cities. This composition contains two parts, each consisting of identical phrases, but enumerating different cities and temples. This is one of the most common features of the litanies of Emesal prayers (Krecher 1966, 42–45; Black 1991, 29–30). 2. STT 360 (SAA 3, 16) and Emesal literature One Assyrian text, STT 360 (SAA 3, 16) seems to be dependent, from a literary point of view (and not only theologically or ideologically) on Emesal literature.96 Deller (1965, 464) pointed out the afinity of this text with K.890 (SAA 3, 15), an elegy about a woman who died while giving birth: both compositions are written in the Neo-Assyrian dialect and known only from one tablet each, both are lamentful in nature, and both contain peculiar plene writings. There is another interesting parallelism between these two compositions: SAA 3, 16 is an independent composition influenced by the kalûtu body of literature (see below), and SAA 3, 15 is an independent composition inluenced by the āšipūtu body of literature, speciically the corpus of rituals and incantations dealing with a woman having problems in childbirth that describe her as a boat on the water (cf. Stol 2000, 62). Although an independent composition, the following motifs and inluences from the corpus of Emesal literature can be found in SAA 3, 16: General: The literary genre of SAA 3, 16, as of the Emesal prayers, is lament. Structurally, like Emesal prayers, which are divided into sections by the use of dividing lines, SAA 3, 16 is also distributed into sections by dividing lines. Lines 1–6: The mention of the “merchant” (tamkāru) is reminiscent of the epithet of Enlil as a merchant (dam-gàr) in Emesal prayers (Civil 1976). Note especially that a Balaĝ section describes the destruction caused by the “merchant” leaving his city (Löhnert 2009, 314–345), similar to the death of animals related to the “merchant” in the Assyrian composition. Note also that the description of the “merchant” as “giving a word/mouth” in the Assyrian composition (lines 2, 5: ša KA SUM-ni) recalls the characteristic destructive word (e-ne-èĝ) uttered by Enlil in Emesal compositions (Krecher 1966, 46–47).97 Lines 13–16: The description of turning the house into the house of a morning or evening god is reminiscent of the motif in Emesal prayers of the “house” (i.e., the temple) turning into the house 96 97 One more tablet is somewhat related to Emesal literature. This is a bilingual hymn, ending with a personal prayer for Bēl-Kundi-ilu’a, the chief scribe and scribe of Aššur’s temple, from Assur, written in Sumerian, with some Emesal forms (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1998). The descendants of this family were indeed engaged in scholarly and cultic knowledge, as seen in the colophons of tablets on which they are mentioned (Hunger 1968, nos. 504, 508–510, 518– 519, 526). Interestingly, one of these descendants, Marduk-šallim-aḫḫē, the composer of some letters to the king (SAA 13, 8–17) alludes in one of them to the lilissu drums, associated with the kalû’s repertoire, a subject not normally touched upon in letters not written by kalûs (SAA 13, 12: rev. 11–14) (it is assumed that this individual should indeed be identiied with the scribe bearing this name, descendent of Bēl-Kundi-ilu’a; this is also implied by the title given by S. Cole and P. Machinist, in SAA 13, 11, to the letters by him; cf. Baker 2001). Cf. also the use of the phrase ka—zé // pû nadānu in the Eršema umun-ĝu10 za-e, lines 16–19; Cohen 1981, 136, no. 13; Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 13. 138 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria of a phantom, referring to its abandonment. See, for instance, líl-la-aš mu-un-DU, “he turned (the House) into a (place of) phantoms” in a few Eršemas, as well as similar phrases in Balaĝs (usually using the verb ku4).98 Lines 17–23: The killing of professionals in the realm of their profession: “The shepherd has been killed amidst the sheep, the ploughman over the plough. The gardener has been killed in the orchard, the canal administrator has been killed amidst his exertions. We are crying bitterly. We have cried for our gardener, for our gardener, for our canal administrator, whose fruit we ate wholeheartedly, (who) was praised in grapes and wine” (translation following A. Livingstone, in SAA 3, 39). A passage literarily related to this is found in a Balaĝ to Enki, as part of the lament of the roaming goddess circling the outskirts of the city after its destruction: “My one of the ditches lies in the ditches (…)! My one of the canals lies in the canals (…)! My one who went to the vegetation was carried off. My one who went to the water was carried off. My one who carried vegetation does not carry vegetation for anyone, he was carried off. My one who carried water does not carry water for anyone, he was carried off!” (Cohen 1988, 55–56: 92–97). Lines rev. 5–8: The motif of birds and nests: Various motifs involving images of birds, including the chasing of birds from their nests, reed-beds, or hiding places, are known from Emesal prayers (Black 1996; Löhnert 2009, 280–282). VIII. Concluding remarks: The kalû and kalûtu in the Neo-Assyrian period as a relection of the Babylonization of Assyrian religion The kalûtu literature was not a traditional part of the Assyrian cult but was gradually introduced into Assyria from the end of the second millennium BCE. It is actually quite understandable why kalûtu literature was not part of the Assyrian religious tradition. As seen by the toponyms and gods mentioned in this corpus, the traditions and theology in them are centered in Babylonia and do not relate to Assyria.99 In addition, the Mesopotamian king is almost entirely absent from this literature, a phenomenon that does not comport with the central role the Assyrian king played in the cult of his land. When we do meet the Emesal texts in Assyria, there is a relatively high percentage of Šuilas, since this genre was closely associated with the king. Šuilas were probably performed in his presence during important festivals, such as the akītu festival, and they often named specific kings at their end, a phenomenon known so far only from Assyria. Unlike the more “conservative” genres of Balaĝs and Eršemas, the genre of Šuilas allowed Assyrian toponyms and gods to be added to the Babylonian ones. The other genre popular in Assyria is the Eršaḫuĝa, a personal Emesal prayer that is known to have been performed in the presence of the king (or a representation of him). In fact, when a ritual performance by the kalû is mentioned in correspondences to the Assyrian king, it is usually this genre which is mentioned. Therefore, it is not surprising that already Tukulti-Ninurta I brought Eršaḫuĝa tablets to Assyria from Babylonia, according to his epic. 98 99 See, e.g., Eršema šà-sud-ra e-ne-èĝ-zu, line a+10 (Gabbay, forthcoming b, no. 2; see also Gabbay, forthcoming b, chapter I, ad Table 3) and Cohen 1988, 103: a+210. An exception is the Balaĝ zi-bu-um zi-bu-um of Aššur (see IV above), but this is the only known Assyria-oriented Balaĝ. Vol. XLIX 2014 139 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths There is only one example of an Assyrian Balaĝ (zi-bu-um zi-bu-um to Aššur); apart from that, the Balaĝs are known in their Babylonian form, almost exclusively from copies dating to the seventh century BCE, i.e., during the period in which Assyrian religion was under much Babylonian inluence. This Babylonization of the Assyrian cult by the introduction of the Babylonian kalûtu repertoire is also evidenced by the fact that the best known kalûs in Assyria belong to the prestigious Babylonian Šumu-libši family, considered descendants of the kalamāḫu of the Esaĝil in Babylon bearing this name. As seen above, although the kalû had a high cultic status in the Assyrian temple cult, he may have been considered an alien element, externally introduced into the Assyrian temples under direct protection of the king. Thus, the evidence seems to indicate that the kalû and his repertoire were not an integral part of the original or traditional Assyrian cult. The process whereby the kalû and his repertoire were imported into Assyria, or at least grew more significant, was dependent on the ever increasing political involvement of Assyria in Babylonia, occurring in different forms and at various levels of intensity in succeeding periods, and which was accompanied by other cultural and religious Babylonian inluences on Assyria (cf. Frame 1999; Galter 2007). Thus, according to his epic, after Tukulti-Ninurta I’s sack of Babylon in the thirteenth century BCE, he brought back tablets of Eršaḫuĝas, closely associated with the royal cult. Nevertheless, in this period the evidence for Middle Assyrian Emesal texts, as well as Middle Babylonian Emesal texts found in Assur, is extremely scarce, especially in comparison to other genres (such as omens). Later, as the involvement of Assyria in Babylonia grew, especially from the eighth century BCE onwards in the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser III and especially Sargon, even more so during the reign of Sennacherib, and inally during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, when Assyrian religion in general became more and more Babylonized (Porter 1993, 137–153; Frahm 1997, 283), so did the place of the kalû and kalûtu in Assyrian cult grow. References Ambos, C. 2004: Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Dresden. Bagg, A. M. 2000: Assyrische Wasserbauten: Landwirtschaftliche Wasserbauten im Kernland Assyriens zwischen der 2. Hälfte des 2. und der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr., BaF 24, Mainz. Bagg, A., and H. D. Baker 2001: “Nabû-kabti-aḫḫēšu,” PNA 2/II, Helsinki, 838. Baker, H. D. 2000: “Kulu’u,” PNA 2/I, Helsinki, 636. –––– 2001: “Marduk-šallim-aḫḫē,” PNA 2/II, Helsinki, 726. Baruchi-Unna, A. 2013: “Genres Meet: Assurbanipal’s Prayer in the Inscription L 4 and the Bilingual Communal Lamentations,” in L. Feliu et al. (eds.), Time and History in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Barcelona, July 26–30, 2010, Winona Lake, 611–623. Beaulieu, P.-A. 1992: “Antiquarian Theology in Seleucid Uruk,” ASJ 14, 47–75. –––– 1997: “The Cult of AN.ŠÁR/Aššur in Babylonia after the Fall of the Assyrian Empire,” SAAB 11, 55– 73. –––– 2000: “The Descendants of Sîn-lēqi-unninni,” in J. Marzahn and H. Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für J. Oelsner anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997, AOAT 252, Münster, 1–16. –––– 2010: “The Afterlife of Assyrian Scholarship in Hellenistic Babylonia,” in J. Stackert et al. (eds.), Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, Bethesda, 1–18. Black, J. A. 1985: “A-še-er Gi6-ta, a Balag of Inana,” ASJ 7, 12–87. 140 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria –––– 1987: “Sumerian Balag Compositions,” BiOr 44, 32–79. –––– 1991: “Eme-sal Cult Songs and Prayers,” AuOr 9, 23–36. –––– 1996: “The Imagery of Birds in Sumerian Literature,” in M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, Cuneiform Monographs 6, Groningen, 23–46. Borger, R. 1970: “Bemerkungen zu den akkadischen Kolophonen,” WO 5, 165–171. –––– 1990: “Schlüssel zu M. E. Cohen, CLAM,” BiOr 47, 5–39. –––– 1996: Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, Wiesbaden. –––– 1999: “Zum Emesal-Vokabular,” in M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik: Festschrift für W. H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, AOAT 253, Münster, 17–37. Brinkman, J. A. 1983: “Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon,” JAOS 103, 35–42. Caplice, R. 1970: “Namburbi Texts in the British Museum,” Or. 39, 111–151. Cavigneaux, A. 1993: “Mesopotamian Lamentations,” JAOS 113, 251–257. Cavigneaux, A., and B. Kh. Ismail 1998: “Eine zweisprachige Hymne aus dem Haus des Beschwörungspriesters,” ASJ 20, 1–11. Civil, M. 1976: “Enlil, the Merchant: Notes to CT 15 10,” JCS 28, 72–81. Cogan, M. 2009: “Sennacherib and the Angry Gods of Babylon and Israel,” IEJ 59, 164–174. Cohen, M. E.1981: Sumerian Hymnology: The Eršemma, HUCA Supp. 2, Cincinnati. –––– 1988: The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia, Bethesda. Cooper, J. 1988: “Warrior, Devastating Deluge: Destroyer of Hostile Lands: A Sumerian Šuila to Marduk,” in E. Leichty, M. deJ. Ellis and P. Gerardi (eds.), A Scientiic Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, Philadelphia, 83–93. Craig, J. A. 1895: “K.69,” ZA 10, 276 with pls. I–III. Deller, K. 1965: “Neuassyrisches aus Sultantepe,” Or. 34, 457–477. Elat, M. 1982: “Mesopotamische Kriegsrituale,” BiOr 39, 5–25. Farber, W. 2003: “Singing an eršemma for the Damaged Statue of a God,” ZA 93, 208–213. Fincke, J. C. 2003/2004: “The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh,” AfO 50, 111–149. Frahm, E. 1997: Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, AfOB 26, Vienna. –––– 1998: “Sanherib und die Tempel von Kuyunjik,” in: S. M. Maul (ed.), Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: tikip santakki mala bašmu, Cuneiform Monographs 10, Groningen, 107–121. –––– 1999: “Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, das Gilgameš-Epos und der Tod Sargons II,” JCS 51, 73–90. –––– 2011: Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation, Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5, Münster. Frame, G. 1999: “My Neighbour’s God: Aššur in Babylonia and Marduk in Assyria,” Bulletin of the Canadian Society of Mesopotamian Studies 34, 5–22. Frame, G., and A. R. George, “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Asurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting,” Iraq 67 (1005), 265–284. Freedman, S. M. 1998: If a City is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Alu ina Mēlê Šakin, vol. I: Tablets 1–21, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 17, Philadelphia. Fuchs, A. 1994: Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen. Gabbay, U. 2005: “Three Emesal Compositions Mentioned in Rituals,” NABU 2005/65. –––– 2007: “The second tablet of the Balaĝ a úru-ĝu10 im-me,” NABU 2007/36. –––– 2008: “The Akkadian Word for Third Gender: The kalû (gala) Once Again,” in R. D. Biggs, J. Myers, and M. T. Roth (eds.), Proceeding of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, SAOC 62, Chicago, 49–56. –––– forthcoming a: Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods: Sumerian Emesal Prayers of the First Millennium BC, Heidelberger Emesal Studien 1, Wiesbaden. –––– forthcoming b: The Eršema Prayers of the First Millennium BC, Heidelberger Emesal Studien 2, Wiesbaden. Galter, H. D. 2007: “Looking Down the Tigris: The Interrelations between Assyria and Babylonia,” in G. Leick (ed.), The Babylonian World, New York and London, 527–540. Gelb, I. J. 1975: “Homo Ludens in Early Mesopotamia,” StOr 46, 43–75. Vol. XLIX 2014 141 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths George, A. R. 2006: “Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney Smith, Part Three: A Commentary on a Ritual of the Month Nisan,” in A. K. Guinan et al. (eds.), If a Man Buiilds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, Cuneiform Monographs 31, Leiden, 173–185. –––– 2009: Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 10, Bethesda. Grayson, A. K., and J. Novotny 2012: The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1, The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1, Winona Lake. Hallo, W. W. 1992: Review of Maul 1988, BiOr 49, 777–780. Heeβel, N. P. 2011: “Die divinatorischen Texte aus Assur: Assyrische Gelehrte und babylonische Traditionen,” in J. Renger (ed.), Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land: 5. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 18.–21. Februar 2004 in Berlin, Wiesbaden, 371–384. Horowitz, W. 1998: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, Winona Lake. Hunger, H. 1968: Babylonische und Assyrische Kolophone, AOAT 2, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Jakob, S. 2003: Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialkulter: Untersuchungen, Cuneiform Monographs 29, Leiden. Jean, C. 2006: La magie Néo-Assyrienne en contexte, SAAS 17, Helsinki. Jeyes, U. 1997: “Assurbanipal’s bārûtu,” in H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Heidlberg 6.–10. Juli 1992, HSAO 6, Heidelberg, 61–65. Koch-Westenholz, U. 2000: Babylonian Liver Omens: The Chapters Manzāzu, Padānu and Pān tākalti of the Babylonian Extispicy Series mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library, Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies, Copenhagen. Krecher, J. 1966: Sumerische Kultlyrik, Wiesbaden. Lambert, W. G. 1957: “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity (JCS XI, 1–14): Additions and Corrections,” JCS 11, 112. –––– 1957/58: “Three Unpublished Fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic,” AfO 18, 38–51. –––– 1962: “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors,” JCS 16, 59–77. –––– 1976a: “A Late Assyrian Catalogue of Literary and Scholarly Texts,” in B. L. Eichler et al. (eds.), Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, AOAT 25, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 313–318. –––– 1976b: “Tukulti-Ninurta I and the Assyrian King List,” Iraq 38, 85–94. –––– 2005: “Introduction,” in I. Spar and W. G. Lambert (eds.), Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C., CTMMA 2, New York, ix–xix. Leichty, E. 2011: The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4, Winona Lake. Lieberman, S. J. 1990: “Canonical and Oficial Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection,” in Tz. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, HSS 37, Atlanta, 305–336. Linssen, M. J. H. 2004: The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice, Cuneiform Monographs 25, Leiden. Litke, R. L. 1998: A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: da-nu-um and An: Anu ša amēli, New Haven. Löhnert, A. 2009: “Wie die Sonne tritt heraus!”: Eine Klage zum Auszug Enlils mit einer Untersuchung zu Komposition und Tradition sumerischer Klagelieder in altbabylonischer Zeit, AOAT 365, Münster. Luckenbill, D. D. 1924: The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2, Chicago. Maul, S. M. 1988: ‘Herzberuhigungsklagen’: Die sumerisch-akkadischen Eršaḫunga-Gebete, Wiesbaden. –––– 1991: “Zwei neue ‘Herzberuhigungsklagen,’ ” RA 85, 67–74. –––– 1994: Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonischassyrisch Löserituale (Namburbi), BaF 18, Mainz. –––– 1998: “Marduk, Nabû und der assyrische Enlil: Die Geschichte eines sumerischen Šu’ilas,” in S. M. Maul (ed.), Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: tikip santakki mala bašmu, Cuneiform Monographs 10, Groningen, 159–197. –––– 2000: “Die Frühjahrsfeierlichkeiten in Aššur,” in A. R. George and I. L. Finkel (eds.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, Winona Lake, 389–420. 142 ORIENT The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria –––– 2005: “Bilingual (Sumero-Akkadian) Hymns from the Seleucid-Arsacid Period,” in I. Spar and W. G. Lambert (eds.), Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C., CTMMA 2, New York, 11–116. –––– 2010: “Die Tontafelbibliothek aus dem sogenannten ‘Haus des Beschwörungspriesters,’ ” in S. M. Maul and N. P. Heeβel (eds.), Assur-Forschungen: Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle “Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur” der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 189–228. Mayer, W. R. 1976: Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen “Gebetsbeschwörungen,” Studia Pohl: Series Maior, Rome. –––– 1978: “Seleukidische Rituale aus Warka mit Emesal-Gebeten,” Or. 47, 431–458. Meinhold, W. 2009: Ištar in Aššur: Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 v. Chr., AOAT 367, Münster. Menzel, B. 1981: Assyrische Tempel, Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10/I–II, Rome. Nielsen, J. P. 2011: Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early NeoBabylonian Period, 747–626 BC, Leiden. Novotny, J. R. 2002: “A note on the Akītu-House at Ḫarrān,” in C. Wunsch (ed.), Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, 4 October 2002, Dresden 2002, 191–199. Oelsner, J.1993: Review of Maul 1988, OLZ 88, 144–147. –––– 1995: “Spätbabylonische Texte aus Dēr,” AoF 25, 265–268. Oppenheim, A. L. 1974: “A Diviner’s Manual,” JNES 33, 197–220. Oshima, T. 2011: Babylonian Prayers to Marduk, Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 7, Tübingen. Parpola, S. 1983a: “Assyrian Library Records,” JNES 42, 1–29. –––– 1983b: Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices, AOAT 5/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Pedersén, O. 1985: Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur I, Uppsala. –––– 1988: Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, Bethesda. Pongratz-Leisten, B. 1994: Ina šulmi īrub: Die Kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītuProzession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr., BaF 16, Mainz. Porter, B. N. 1993: Images, Power and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy, Philadelphia. Radner, K. 2009: “The Assyrian King and His Scholars: the Syro-Anatolian and the Egyptian Schools,” in M. Luukko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila (eds.), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola, StOr 106, Helsinki, 221–238. –––– 2011: “Urdu-Aia, Urdu-Ea,” PNA 3/II, Helsinki, 1396–1398. Reade, J. 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, 213– 222. –––– 2005: “The Ishtar Temple at Nineveh,” Iraq 67, 347–390. Rochberg-Halton, F. 1984: “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts,” JCS 36, 127–144. Šašková, K. 2010: “Adad-šumu-uṣur and His Family in the Service of Assyrian Kings,” in P. Charvát and P. Maříková Vlčkova (eds.), Who Was King? Who Was not King? The Rulers and the Ruled in the Ancient Near East, Prague, 113–130. Schramm, W. 2008: Ein Compendium Sumerisch-Akkadischer Beschwörungen, Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient 2, Göttingen. Schuster-Brandis, A. 2008: Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel: Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr., AOAT 46, Münster. Schwemer, D. 2001: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen, Wiesbaden. Shehata, D. 2009: Musiker und ihr vokales Repertoire: Untersuchungen zu Inhalt und Organisation von Musikerberufen und Liedgattungen in altbabylonischer Zeit, Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient 3, Göttingen. Shibata, D. forthcoming: Die Šu’ila-Gebete im Emesal, Heidelberger Emesal Studien 3, Wiesbaden. Sjöberg, A. 1960: Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der Sumerischen Überlieferung. 1. Teil: Texte, Stockholm. Stol, M. 2000: Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting, Cuneiform Monographs 14, Groningen. Veldhuis, N. C. 1997/98: “The Sur9-Priest, the Instrument ĝišAl-ĝar-sur9, and the Forms and Uses of a Rare Sign,” AfO Vol. XLIX 2014 143 Part II: Studies in Prophecy, Lamentations and Oaths 44–45, 115–128. Volk, K. 1989: Die Balaĝ-Komposition úru àm-ma-ir-ra-bi: Rekonstruktion und Bearbeitung der Tafel 18 (19’ff), 19, 20 und 21 der späten, kanonischen Version, FAOS 18, Stuttgart. –––– 2006: “Inanas ‘Tischlein Deck’ Dich,’ ” BaM 37, 91–116. Waerzeggers, C. 2010: The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives, Achaemenid History 15, Leiden. Walker, Ch., and M. Dick 2001: The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual, SAALT 1, Helsinki. Watanabe, K. 1979: Review of CTN 3, ZA 79, 272–278. Weidner, E. 1952/53: “Die Bibliothek Tiglatpilesers I,” AfO 16, 197–215. Weissert, E. 1997: “Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82-5-22,2),” in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki, 339–358. 144 ORIENT