Журнал «Восток (Oriens)»

Институт Востоковедения РАН

Статьи

Babylonian Scholars Working for Ashurbanipal’s Library? Some Colophons with Cryptography and Learned Writings

Аннотация

DOI 10.31857/S086919080030027-6
Авторы
Аффилиация: Еврейский университет в Иерусалиме
Журнал
  • Восток. Афро-азиатские общества: история и современность
  • 2024 год
  • № 2
Страницы 189 - 210
Аннотация The article explores evidence for Babylonian scholars working for Ashurbanipal’s library. The colophons of Ashurbanipal’s library tablets are usually highly standardized and, as opposed to the colophons of private or temple libraries, do not contain any information about copyists. The colophons on Babylonian tablets found at Nineveh normally are very short and provide only theinformation about the original tablet. The colophons of the two scions of the prominent family of lamentation priests, descendants of Šumu-libši, the lamentation priest of Mardukat Esagil, contain their names written cryptographically. The article suggests the decipherment of this cryptography. Analysing this cryptography and juxtaposing it with the other Šumu-libši-related colophons on the tablets found in Assyria sheds light on the input of Babylonian scholars in creating the library of Ashurbanipal.
Ключевые слова
Получено 03.11.2024
Дата публикации
Скачать JATS
Статья The colophons of tablets written in Babylonian ductus and found in Nineveh shed light on work of Babylonian scribes for the Ashurbanipal’s library enterprise.1 It is well known that Ashurbanipal ordered Babylonian scholars to copy tablets for his library and apparently generously rewarded them for their work.2 But there were also Babylonian scribes who worked at Nineveh, as is clear from the colophon of K. 10129, which states Nineveh(ninaki) for the place of writing of the tablet [May, 2022, p. 160] and from SAA 11 156, which reports on Babylonians copying scholarly texts.3
1. All the abbreviations in this article are taken from Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archaologie.

2. BM 28825: 24-36 [Frame and George, 2005, p. 274].

3. ABL 447 = SAA 11 156 is a list of scholars working for the royal library. Although S. Parpola [LAS II, p. 458 and SAA 11: XXIX] dates this letter to the reign of Esarhaddon (ca. 670), but this is evidence of employment of Babylonian scholars at the Nineveh court, which gives a picture of arrangement of their work for a royal library. One of them, Ninurta-gimilli, son of šandabakku was put in irons. Typically, all the texts mentioned in this letter are healing texts. S. Parpola [1972, p. 33] discussed the matters of compulsory work and indoctrinated education of Babylonians at the Assyrian court.
Of all the tablets written in Babylonian ductus and found at Nineveh, which might belong to the library of Ashurbanipal very few—only 93—have some kind of a colophon.4 Eight among these 93 have various types of the so-called “Ashurbanipal’s library colophons.” Most of the rest 85 colophons are reduced to captions only. Sometimes the catchlines are followed by the statement that the tablet was copied “in accordance with its original” more rarely specifying the kind of this original, but nothing else.5 Indeed very few—39 colophons on Babylonian tablets from Nineveh—bear some information beyond captions and reference to their originals and contain names of their copyists or owners, scribal professions, formulas etc.6
4. This number does not include the colophons of astronomical and extispicy reports and naturally not five tablets dated to the reign of Sennacherib, among them two from the private collection of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu.

5. All these are treated in this article in one way or another. See below, pp. 17-18, 20.

6. This number includes also colophons with traces of names.
Among these few colophons with names of the scribes a group of seven colophons stands out, since these seven not only name their copyists, but these names are written cryptographically. These seven tablets belong to two descendants of Šumu-libši at Nineveh: DN-šumu-ibni and DN-zēru-ibni. Šumu-libši family was the most prominent kalû family in Babylon. One of the descendants of Šumu-libši, Šumu-uṣur, the kalû, is the scribe of a kudurru-grant given by Marduk-zākir-šumi I to Ibni-Ištar//Ḫunzu, kalû of Ištar of Uruk and scribe of Eanna in the second regnal year of this king (856 BCE).7 Besides, there are seven NB colophons on tablets deriving from Babylonia that mention Šumu-libši, mostly as an ancestor [HES I, p. 247, 273-274].
7. AO 6684 [see Thureau-Dangin 1919].

Šumu-libšis in Assyria

The ancestor Šumu-libši (written in Sumerian—mMu-na-ti-la) appears in the Nineveh list of names [Lambert, 1957, p. 12]. Scholarly activities of descendants of Šumu-libši are probably attested in Assyria better than in Babylonia.8 Babylonian scholars could have been brought to Assyria as prisoners of war and some of them had to write tablets for the royal library as palace slaves.9 Among these POW were also kalûs, including some descendants of Šumu-libši. The kalû Itti-Marduk-balāṭu, descendant of Šumu-libši (his father, grandfather and address are mentioned as well), was dedicated to Bēl by Nabû-bēlšunu together with four other prominent Babylonia scholars [SAA 11 153 = K. 6]. Professions are indicated only for him and the exorcist, both heading the list. The manumission is written in Assyrian ductus and the manumitter is either Nabû-bēlšunu of the N4 library or his namesake, the palace scribe.10
8. Although they are well attested in Babylonian documents [HES I, p. 241 n. 132; Nielsen, 2015, p. 380].

9. See above p. 2, fn. 3.

10. SAA 11 140, the list of four soldiers.

Šumu-libši’s Assyrian Descendants and Tablets

Some Babylonian scholars came to Assyria voluntary and were apparently even invited by kings. They made remarkable carriers at the court.11 The family of descendants of Šumu-libši at least at the beginning was affiliated with Ḫarrān, a city that had a special significance for Esarhaddon [May 2017, p. 518-520]. Nabû-zēru-iddina, the kalû of Sîn and the king, son of Urdu-Ea kalamāḫu of Sîn of Ḫarrān, left six kalûtu texts, written in Assyrian ductus.12 Both Nabû-zēru-iddina and Urdu-Ea corresponded with Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal on matters related to their profession.13 We do not have scholarly tablets written by Urdu-Ea, but all tablets by Nabû-zēru-iddina were found at Nineveh. Colophons of two texts of Nabû-zēru-iddina indicate that they were copied from the tablets of the “house” of Šumu-libši, kalamāḫu of Esagila.14 This claim points out that the Ḫarrānean Šumu-libšis brought from Babylon some of their ancestral library. Nabû-zēru-iddina heads the group of kalûs in the list of experts, SAA 7 1.
11. The first known dynasty of Neo-Assyrian royal scholars originated from Dēr, including Issarān-mudammiq, the saggamaḫḫu of Ashurnasirpal II, and the ummânu of Adad-nērārī III (name lost). Nick name of one of them was Babilāja [see May, 2015, p. 92, n. 71 for details].

12. Nos. 1-4. Other two tablets are K. 14576 and Sm. 80, both flakes of colophons [see also HES I, p. 254-255].

13. SAA 10 338-346. Urdu-Ea is also mentioned in SAA 10 29, 238, 240, 287, 377 and co-authors SAA 10 1, 25, 212.

14. Appendix, nos. 1 and 2. The “house” here indicates that the composition on the tablet was created by Šumu-libši or his descendants, and not that it was just a part of his library. Cf. bultu bīt Dābibī, “prescriptions of the house of Dābibī”.
Only two kalûtu tablets were found at Ḫuzīrīna [STT 232]. One of them is a copy of the tablet of Šumu-libši (no. 5). This is the only tablet related to Šumu-libši among those discovered in Assyria, which does not originate from Nineveh. It belonged to Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti, son of Ḫarriri, the lamentation priest(?) of Marduk.15 Not only the original of this tablet is said to be of Šumu-libši’s, but there are some common features in the colophon of no. 5 and the colophons of Nabû-zēru-iddina (nos. 1-4). These similarities prove that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti studied in the same school as Nabû-zēru-iddina and most probably himself was a descendant of Šumu-libši. But unlike the latter’s Ḫarrānean descendants, he (or his father) was the lamentation priest(?) of Marduk as well as Šumu-libši himself. This is the only attestation (if at all) for a lamentation priest at Ḫuzīrīna. The tablet, however, was most probably not written there but purchased in some way by this library owners.
15. mdpa—kar-ir—zimeš a mḪar-⸢ri⸣-ri (see no. 5). In Assyria “A” not followed by -šu šá still means just “son,” for instance in the colophons of the same Nabû-zēru-iddina [Sm. 80, 1881-2-4, 306, K. 20627, K. 3238], and not descendant like in Babylonia. Assyrians normally wrote “descendant” as šà.bal.bal.
The colophons of all descendants of Šumu-libši found in Assyria contain some learned writings. ḫé.gál, the ideographic writing for libši in Šumu-libši also means abundance. This writing is attested in four colophons on tablets by Nabû-zēru-idinna (Appendix, nos. 1-4). In two of these colophons Nabû-zēru-idinna stated that he copied the tablets of his ancestor Šumu-libši. There he uses ḫé.gál to write libši twice: first in order to designate that the original was the product of “the house” of Šumu-libši and then he repeats this writing in the name of his forefather in order to stress his connection with the famous kalû.16
16. In nos. 1 and 2.
Despite their highly cryprographic name writings, Nineveh-based descendants of Šumu-libši, who wrote in Babylonian ductus, did not use any cryptography or learned writings for the name of their ancestor, with probably one uncertain exception (no. 9). There are no cryptographic or learned writings of this family name in all the bulk of the documents that mention descendants of Šumu-libši affiliated in Babylonia. Outside of Assyria it is attested only once as mmu—ḫé.gál in a colophon of the MB copy of the hymn to Ištar [HS 1879]. The colophon of this tablet written with archaising grammar and peculiar archaising sign forms says that it was copied by ŠEG5.ŠEG5-bēlu-rēṣušu, descendant/son of Šumu-libši (ŠEG5.ŠEG5—á.daḫ—a.ni dumu mmu—ḫé.gál) from the original dated to the ascension year of Ḫammurabi [von Soden and Oelsner 1991, p. 339-341]. Clearly in the first millennium the learned writting ḫé.gál, which kept the Sumerian precative suffix on one hand and alluded to the additional meaning abundance, on the other, is typical of those Šumu-libšis, who wrote in Assyrian ductus. Apparently they were connected to this ŠEG5.ŠEG5-bēlu-rēṣušu, probably descendants of the scribe of the MB tablet from Jena, and/or had in their possession tablets with this writing. Learned writing ḫé.gál appears also in a single colophon from Huzīrīna. The colophon of the tablet of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (no. 5, STT 232) utilises it to state that the tablet was copied from the Babylonian original of Šumu-libši. This writing points to the connection between the Assyrian descendants of Šumu-libši, who held top positions at the court, and the Huzīrīna scribes. The scribe of STT 232 definitely was in contact with Nabû-zēru-idinna from Nineveh and most probably was himself a descendant of Šumu-libši, maybe of the same Assyrian branch of this family. Besides, he as well as Nabû-zēru-idinna in all his colophons,17 uses “a” to write “son,” which is very common in Babylonia, but atypical for Assyria.18
17. Including Sm. 80 = BAK 524, which did not preserve any other cryptograthyc writings.

18. See also fn. 15.
But Nabû-zēru-iddina applies also typical Assyrianisms, such as preudo-Summerogram nir.gál.zu nu.mu.un.téš (no. 1), which is only found in Assyria and is never written syllabically. This is, as well as libir.ra.bi gim ab.sar ba.an.è,19 “cryptogram” found so often that it cannot be called such any more.
19. See below, p. 17.
Nabû-zēru-idinna also uses an archaism aštalû, “musician,” to designate his profession. For the first millennium this term, the use of which is limited to Mari, is a hapax.20 In this colophon he repeatedly uses the sign en in divine names (den.zu; den.ki) and two consequent šà21 signs for ina libbi, thus creating sign plays. He applies the writing den.zu, common in Assyria but rare in Babylonia, also in no. 3.
20. See eštalû, “a type of singer”, in OB Mari [CAD E 377b-388a s.v. eštalû] and HES I, p. 67, 254-255 with n. 268.

21. šà for possessive preposition is most unusual.
Not only scholars were brought to Assyria but also tablets (e.g., nos. 14 and 15). The ill-famed Ashurbanipal’s “tablet hunt” was not the first Assyrian tablet hunt. A massive import of scholarly compositions from Babylonia was undertaken already by Tiglath-pileser I and Tukultī-Ninurta I. Private libraries, as those of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu’s, also owned Babylonian tablets. The remarkable colophon of K. 3054 (no. 6) states that this Udug-ḫul tablet was copied from the Babylonian original of a descendant of Šumu-libši (name not preserved), written in the time of Shamanesser III and Nabu-apla-iddina, kings of Assyria and Babylonia respectively. Two very high-ranking scribes were involved creation of this tablet: “the chief of the scribes of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria” and “the chief of the scribes” and “the scribe of the temples, which are inside Arbela.” The names are broken, but the first one is apparently Issār-šumu-ēreš, the only chief scribe of Ashurbanipal, we know about. Issār-šumu-ēreš is for the first time attested in the colophon of a tablet with a very complicated esoteric numerological text, which his grandfather, the famous Assyrian scribe Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, wrote for the studying of his grandson in 684 BCE [May 2018a, p. 117, 132-133; K. 2670]. Thus Issār-šumu-ēreš was an advanced student, when Ashurbanipal was still a small child or probably even a baby. He was also the chief scribe of Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal’s father. Consequently, it might be assumed that he was too old to perform his duties of the king’s ummânu in Ashurbanipal’s late reign.22 But the Synchronistic King List only names one chief scribe for Ashurbanipal [Grayson 1980-1983, p. 120 (iv 16′)], which means that Issār-šumu-ēreš was not replaced, when retired. Issār-šumu-ēreš should have been the scribe of K. 3054 and the son or descendant of the chief scribe of the temples of Arbela (name also broken), who appears in the colophon of this tablet after the chief scribe,—the collator of it. Not only the colophons of the descendants of Šumu-libši, but also the colophon of Ashurbanipal’s chief scribe (no. 6) on the tablet copied from the Babylonian original of a descendant of Šumu-libši uses cryptography and learned writings. These are a cryptographic writing ká.diš.diš for Babylon and rare learned and cryptographic writing gù.gú.sum (miḫiṣtu) for “stroke (of the stylus), cuneiform wedge, inscription.”
22. S. Parpola suggest ca. 678-650 BCE as the time of Issār-šumu-ēreš’s activity at the court, based on his letters, reports etc. [LAS II, p. 7].
Another instance Babylon written using diš.diški also stems from Nineveh, but from the tablet in Babylonian script is K. 5824 + K. 10337 (EAE LIX-LX). There the provenience of the original is written as áš-áb-diš.diški. Enrique Jiménez has most plausibly suggested that it must be read as Bax-áb-diš.diški and interpreted as Bāb-ilī [Jiménez 2015].23 áš = zíz, “emmer” is unique in writing the name of Babylon and might be a hint at the city’s riches. As pointed out by Andrew George diški or diš.diški is a common cryptography for Babylon, playing on diš = 60 = Anu = ilu [George, 1992, p. 254.]. Moreover, since diš = li524 Rykle Borger discusses plays on diš.ú = li5-ú = lē’û, “wooden board” in conjunction with ká.diš.diški/ká.diški for Babylon [Borger, 1956, p. 31].
23. Reading Áš-šur!x( = šar5?)ki is much less probable, nonetheless these might be sign plays of the scribe.

24. Labat 1988, no. 480; an = li4/le4 (no. 10).
Besides two texts from Nineveh, no. 6 in Assyrian ductus and K. 5824 + in Babylonian, the use of diš to write Babylon in colophons is only attested in three more Babylonian tablets. Among them two kalûtu-texts owned by Bēl-ikṣur//Iddin-Papsukkal from Borsippa were found at Nineveh (nos. 14 and 15); at least one of these two was copied by the apprentice lamentation priest Nabû-balassu-iqbi, son or descendant of Bēl-iškun. It is not a coincidence that in the colophon of no. 14 Bēl-ikṣur’s ancestrial name25 is rendered as mŠá-diš.luḫ. The third text, a lexical list from Babylonia, belonged to Nabû-balassu-iqbi//Miṣiraja.26 K. 3054 + (no. 6) is the only Assyrian tablet, in whose colophon, diš is utilised to write Babylon. Nabû-zuqup-kēnu and his descendants were devoted to the Babylonian traditions [May 2018a, May 2022].
25. In no. 15 brocken off.

26. BM 46537: gaba.ri ká.diški.
It is worth noticing that those descendants of Šumu-libši, who wrote in Assyrian ductus did not use cryptographic or learned writings in their own names and names of their fathers, but only in the name of their ancestor. Contrarily, the descendants of Šumu-libši, who wrote in Babylonian ductus richly applied cryptography in their own names, but not in the name of their forefather.27
27. With one possible exception, but in any case this was not ḫé.gál, see pp. 5-6, 15.

Tablets of Šumu-libši’s in Babylonian Script Found at Nineveh

A group of seven tablets found at Nineveh and written in Babylonian ductus by two descendants of Šumu-libši is interesting against this backdrop. They might shed light on some aspects of creation of Ashurbanipal’s library. None of the seven texts is a kalûtu-text. All these tablets use cryptographic writings in PNs, DNs and professional titles. These are tablets of two scribes DN-šumu-ibni and DN-zēru-ibni. Their patronym is never indicated. Because of the cryptography, the reading of the theophoric element in their names is a crux.28 Of seven tablets, five—two by DN-šumu-ibni and three by DN-zēru-ibni—preserved the names of the scribes. Remarkably, in their colophons both appear as scribes and not as owners, which is expressed by giš in nos. 7, 11 and 13 and by šuII in no. 9.
28. See the discussion below, pp. 10-11.
Both these scribes consistently apply the same cryptography to write the theophoric element in their names. Important, they write it differently. DN-šumu-ibni uses dku.sud.nun.tu in nos. 8 and 9, where his name has been preserved. Despite the scribal show off, his writing is defect since in all five copes of the gods lists, including the OB one, it is written as ku.sud.nun.ku.tu.29 In no. 7 the name of the scribe is broken, but it can be restored as mdku.sud.nun.tu—mu—dù, as well based on the dku.sud.nun.⸢tu⸣ in his professional title. Although in the gods lists ku.sud.nun.ku.tu is mostly associated with Sumuqan, this writing implies many allusions.30 This is the reason why the DN in these seven colophons is purposely never indicated clearly.
29. See Litke, 1998, p. 48, I 238 (dku.sud.nun.ku.tu); 127–128, III: 95 (dku.sud.nun.ku.tu), and p. 36, An : Anu ša amēli I: 106 (K. 4349; dku.sud.nun.ku.tu). The writing must derive from the second millennium since I: 238 is known in the OB copy—AO 5376. This might be an echo of some kalûtu lore because I 239, which refers to the wife of dku.sud.nun.ku.tu, appears also in Emesal lists [MSL IV, p. 4 and Borger, 1998, p. 19, I 10 = K. 13672 and 13682, both written in Assyrian script, as well as K. 4349 and K. 4340 + 1879-7-8, 294].

30. Thus R. Litke [1998, p. 48] comments “For the reading of the name, see under Tablet III 95. Here, dku.sud.nun.ku.tu appears in the circle of dNin.urta only as the brother-in-law of dNin.urta. In Tablet III 95, he appears among the sons of dnin.mar.ki; in Tablet VI 230, he is equated with dmar.tu; and in An : Anu šá amēli 106, he is identified with dSumuqan(dgìr). dku.sud.nun.ku.tu was apparently viewed as an ideogram for dSumugan/Saman/Šaḫan. Cf. CT 12 37:46a ( = CT 12 35:29a), where the name is explained as: Sum-man-nu šá gud ‘Summanu of cattle’.” I: 239 “describes dNin.u4.zal.le as the wife of dku.sud.nun.ku.tu and the sister of dNin.urta.”
In all three colophons of DN-zēru-ibni his name survived and it is written either as mdkur.gal—numun—dù (nos. 11 and 13) or as mdkur.gal—numun—ib-[ni] (no. 12). dkur.gal initially designated Enlil.31 But Richard Litke suggests that dkur.gal might be also associated with dmar.tu.32 In fact in An : Anu šá amēli d.kur.gal appears just five lines above dku.sud.nun.ku.tu (ll. 101 and 106 respectively), both as alternative writings for Sumuqan. dmar.tu immediately (l. 102) follows d.kur.gal, so all three writings of DNs found in these colophons might refer to Sumuqan.
31. See Beaulieu, 2005, p. 35-39 with n. 44 and with further references for dkur.gal standing for Enlil. dkur.gal s for Enlil appears also in the gods list [Litke, 1998, p. 38 I 154], one of the copies of which is OB.

32. Litke, 1998, p. 236, commentary to An : Anu šá amēli I 101.
Cryptography in the divine name appears also in the title of Šumu-libši only in the colophons of DN-šumu-ibni. In his three colophons it is written as dku.sud.nun.⸢tu⸣ in no. 7 and as dkur.gal in nos. 8 and 9. The colophons of DN-zēru-ibni never give the title of his ancestor. This and some other peculiarities of writing seem to point out that no. 10, where dmar.tu is found in the title of the lamentation priest Šumu-libši, was written by DN-šumu-ibni.33
33. See below, pp. 12-13.
Although Sumuqan was venerated in the first millennium Assyria,34 in this period he is not attested as a theophoric element neither in Assyrian, nor in Babylonian names. Sumuqan is also never attested in kalûtu corpus and there is no evidence for kalûs as his priests. Nabû-zēru-iddina calls his ancestor the “lamentation priest of Esagil” (nos. 1, 3, 4); Issār-šumu-ēreš(?, no. 6)—the “lamentation priest of Marduk.” In Babylonia he is called the “lamentation priest of Marduk” as well in the aforementioned grant of Marduk-zākir-šumi I35 and in other documents.36 Besides nos. 11-13, dkur.gal in PNs is only found in a single colophon:37 the Urukean exorcist Anu-ikṣur wrote his name as mdkur.gal—ik-ṣur. Thus it must be assumed that dkur.gal, literaly “the Great Mountain,” stands for the head of the local pantheon,38 in the case of Babylonians DN-šumu-ibni and DN-zēru-ibni,—Marduk but with allusion to Aššur, the head of the Assyrian pantheon and the deified mountain of the city Aššur [Lambert 1983]. As Andrew George has shown, the very aforementioned lines of An: Anu šá amēli 100-105 identify Sumuqan and dmar.tu as the “Great Mountains.” Ea was a “Great Mountain” too [George, 2009, p. 13-14]. Apparently dku.sud.nun.tu and dmar.tu in the colophons of DN-šumu-ibni stand for Marduk as well.39 Thus DN-šumu-ibni must be read as Marduk!-šumu-ibni and DN-zēru-ibni as Marduk!-zēru-ibni.
34. Wiggermann, 2013: 309.

35. AO 6684 iv 24 mmu—ùru a mmu—líb-ši lúšú damar.utu dub.sar. Reading of F. Thureau-Dangin ]1919, p. 130] is outdated.

36. VAT 175231 [George, 1992, p. 231 and pl. 50.

37. IM 74366 = W 22307/15

38. U. Gabbay [HES I, p. 265 with n. 288] has pointed to the connection between Ea, another head of the pantheon, and dmar.tu.

39. For dku.sud.nun.ku.⸢tu⸣ = dmar.tu, see VI: 230 [Litke, 1998, p. 217]. For dkur.gal interchanging with dmar.tu in MB names, see Brinkman, 1976: 145 n. 30. Unlike Sumuqan, Amurru (dmar.tu) is attested in Akkadian (but not Amorite!) names of all periods including NA [Beaulieu 2005 passim]. He is also addressed in a number of hymns and lamentations, some of them in Emesal [Klein 1997, p. 99-102 with further references]. In the first millennium Amurru was well established in both Assyria and Babylon in the entourage of Aššur and Marduk respectively [Beaulieu, 2005, p. 43-45]. He also was perceived as a “Great Mountain” [ibid., p. 37-41]).
Interesting in this connection are six tablets from Dēr which apparently derive from the library of Iqīšāya//Ēkur-zākir (Uruk 10), of which five are kalûtu-tablets written by Nidintu-Anu from Dēr, the lamentation priest of Issarān/Anu(-rabu) and his son Anu-zēru-līšir [Oelsner, 1995]. This is the evidence of the close connection between Dēr and Uruk because both were centres of the cult of Anu. On the other hand, Dēr was the source of scholarship for Assyria too.40 It is plausible that rendering the name of the head of the pantheon as dkur.gal came to Assyria and to Uruk, from Dēr, the seat of Anu-(rabu)/Issarān.41
40. See above, p. 4 with fn. 11.

41. The route of descendants of Šumu-libši from Babylon to Assyria is impossible to trace.
Besides distinct differences in cryptographic writings of the theophoric elements in their names, the colophons of Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-zēru-ibni contrast in a number of other features. Marduk!-šumu-ibni (nos. 7-9) never refers to his own title, but always gives the title of their ancestor, Šumu-libši. Marduk!-zēru-ibni mentiones his ancestor only in one colophon (no. 12), and writes libši phonetically as líb-ši, while Marduk!-šumu-ibni always use ideogram gál for it. For the profession of Šumu-libši Marduk!-šumu-ibni uses a great variety of ideograms: in his three colophons three different ideograms are used: playful and apparently cryptographic lúlagab42 appears in no 7, rare lúla-gar43 in no. 8 and common lúgala in no. 9. As has been pointed out above,44 he also varies writing for Marduk in the title of Šumu-libši: dku.sud.nun.⸢tu⸣ is found in no. 7, dkur.gal in nos. 8 and 9.
42. Gabbay designates it as “rare.” He only knew of two instances MLC 1852 and BM 42286, both Babylonian [HES I, p. 66].

43. See HES I, p. 67 for lúlagarmeš.

44. P. 10.
All the aforementioned differences between the colophons of Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-zēru-ibni suggest that no. 10 was written by the former, as has been already proposed above.45 There Marduk!-šumu-ibni not only mentions the title of his ancestor, but again uses different ideograms in it: he uses lúšú, which can be also read as lú én, for kalû; Marduk is rendered as dmar.tu in this colophon; libši is written with gál.
45. P. 11.
While proudly and skilfully referring to the title of his ancestor, Marduk!-šumu-ibni never mentions his own. The only case among these seven colophons (nos. 7-13), when the profession of the scribe is named is no. 12. Marduk!-zēru-ibni designates himself as lúsamán.lá ⸢maš.maš!⸣ [a-g]a-aš-gu-ú. Although the tablet is not intact, the traces of maš.maš (fig.1) are clear and there is no place for uš.ku, as suggested by Uri Gabbay [HES I, p. 256, n. 287]. The genre of the text—therapy with stones—is also typically exorcistic, which fits the scribe’s title. Finally, agašgû is typically found only in the colophons of healers. Fig. 1. Name, ancestral name and the title (lúsamán.lá ⸢maš.maš!⸣ [a-g]a-aš-gu-ú) of Marduk1-zēru-ibni (no. 12, K. 2542 + ) Agašgû is an extremely rare Sumerian “loan word” usually applied as a modifier in the titles of young apprentices and healers. Once it is used as a substantive standing on its own (STT 301) and twice as an epithet for an apprentice (STT 192 and VAT 10382). VAT 10382 written probably by just(?) an apprentice is loaded with learned and cryptographic writings. The end of the line, which might contain the profession is, however, broken off and the indication of scribal specialisation could follow after agašgû. Both texts were written by Nabû-eṭiranni from Ashur. Besides Assyrian colophons agašgû is only known in Ludlul I: 75 [BWL, p. 34], all preserved copies of which are Assyrian,46 and in a single Babylonian colophon of the Gula Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi written by a “young exorcist,” by coincidence, Nabû-eṭir [Lambert, 1967, p. 115; BAK 435]. All the texts but one (UET 6 204) that use agašgû were written in Assyria and among them only no. 12 is in Babylonian ductus.
46. In NB school tablet BM 36386 + [Oshima 2014: 389, ms I:s] agašgû is not preserved, although the beginning of the line is there.
In Assyrian colophons besides, VAT 10382 by Nabû-eṭiranni, agašgû appears in three colophons from the library of the healer and the priest of Bābu, Qurdī-Nergal discovered at Ḫuzīrīna. These are STT 192, STT 64, and aforementioned “Babylonian Almanac,” STT 301, which was written by Nabû-eṭiranni in 678 BCE for the studying of five of his colleagues. Their titles are given in this colophon as well. One of them (name broken) was an “agašgû”—in this case this is a title in its own and not a modifier,—another was a “young physician,” (lú*[a].zu ṣe-eḫ-ri). The “Babylonian Almanac” (STT 301) is a list of favourable days—a typical exorcistic text. STT 64 was written by the son of Qurdī-Nergal, Mušallim-Bābu47 and STT 192 was written by Qurdī-Nergal himself, while still a young apprentice. Qurdī-Nergal, who copied STT 192 being an apprentice, however, became a healer, a priest of Bābu. Apart from Ḫuzīrīna, agašgû is found in VAT 8256, a tablet of a young physician, the son of an “Assyrian” scribe. Agašgû is probably only once used in conjunction with kalû in undated LB litany from Ur, UET 6 204 (P346289), in which it is rendered unclearly: ⸢a?⸣-ga-aš-gu?-ú.
47. Agašgû in his title lacks the last syllable or two. There is also a mistake and an erasure in the first line of this colophon.
The physical appearance of tablet 1881-2-4, 202 (colophon no. 9) by Marduk!-šumu-ibni is distinct and differs from that of the other tablets of this group. It is made of a brown-reddish clay, while the other tablets have light brown-yellowish colour typical for most of Ashurbanipal’s library tablets. Besides cryptograms, Marduk!-šumu-ibni uses also some other peculiar writings in its colophon. He applies dím in -ibni, which is not standard rare writing of this verb for PNs. dím is used as ideogram for “architect” [May, 2018b, p. 256-257] and alludes to the primary meaning of banû—“to build,” while normally in PNs this verb is understood as “created.” Šumu-libši in the colophon of this tablet is rendered as mmu—gál.ṢUR with ṣur written clearly, though over erasure. ṣur = amar is a part of one of ideograms used for Marduk (damar.utu). This does not explain what the scribe could mean by replacing -ši by ṣur in the name of his ancestor, who was a lamentation priest of Marduk, but there is no any better interpretation for this writing. Could he for some reason omit of forget to write at least four signs in mmu—gál-ši kalû damar.utu? All the above described features of this seven tablets with the differences between tablets of Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-zēru-ibni are summarized in the Comparative Table below.
No. Tablet no. Content Copyist Name writing Title of Šumu-libši Writing of Šumu-libši Title of the tablet scribe
7 K. 2294 EAE excerpt tablet [Marduk!-šumu-ibni] md[ku.sud.nun.tu—mu—dù] lúlagab dku.sud.nun.t[u] […] ——
8 K. 2848 (+ Sm. 1088 + Sm. 1531) obv. catalogue of terrestrial omens; rev. catalogue of astrological omens (“Diviner's Manual”) Marduk!-šumu-ibni mdku.sud.nun.tu—mu—d[ù...] lúla-gar dkur.gal mmu—gál-ši ——
9 1881-2-4, 202 Šumma ālu XIX Marduk!-šumu-ibni mdku.sud.nun.tu—mu—dím.ma lúgala dkur.gal mmu—gál.ṢUR ——
10 K. 6145 ? (sherd with a colophon) [Marduk!-šumu-ib]ni [mdmar.tu—mu—d]ù lúšú dmar.tu/ lú én mar.tu mmu—gál-ši ——
11 K. 2285 + K. 3717 + K. 12709 (+) K. 2719) + K. 3014 (+) K. 3856 + K. 10467 Šumma ālu VII Marduk!-zēru-ibni mdkur.gal—numun—dù […] […] ——
12 K. 2542 + K. 2772 + K. 2991 + K. 3300 + K. 6030 + K. 10223 + K 13382 + DT 85 + DT 170 Xth paragraph of the “Seal of Ḫaltu.” Marduk!-zēru-ibni mdkur.gal—numun—ib-[ni] —— mmu—líb-ši lúsamán.lá ⸢maš.maš⸣ [a-g]a-aš-gu-ú
13 K. 2246 + K. 2994 + K. 3578 + K. 3605 + K. 3614 + (K. 2324 + K. 6152) EAE L (Aššur numbering), EAE LIV (Assyrian Niniveh numbering), EAE *LVII (Babylonian Niniveh numbering) Marduk!-zēru-ibni mdkur.gal—numun—dù —— —— ——

Comparative Table of Babylonian Tablets by Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-zēru-ibni in Ashurbanipal’s Library

Assyrianisms and Further Peculiarities in the Colophons of Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-zēru-ibni and Other Nineveh Babylonian Tablets

Besides agašgû, which might be an Assyrian influence in no. 12, Marduk!-zēru-ibni uses Assyrian-style sequences li[bir.ra.bi g]im ab.sar ba.an.è for “in accordance with its original written and collated” in no. 13. Babylonians use more simple variants for kî pî tuppi and šaṭirma bari/išturma ibri. libir.ra.bi gim ab.sar ba.an.è is only attested in Assyrian colophons,48 libir.ra, “(ancient) original” very typical in Assyrian colophons, but extremely rare in Babylonian ones, is in fact a playful writing as well since it is in the first place the writing for the D-stem of labāru, “to last long.” Thus its usage in colophons alludes to the meaning of labāru D. But libir.ra.bi gim ab.sar ba.an.è, actually a learned writing with elements of cryptography, is found in Assyrian colophons so often and is so common that we do not perceive it as a cryptogram.
48. But note some other colophons from Nineveh in Babylonian ductus: K. 2236 + K. 2891 (+) K. 6195.
Another Assyrianism appears in no. 12 by Marduk!-zēru-ibni. It is gišle.u5.um which is standardly used in Assyria for a “wooden tablet.” But in all the bulk of colophons on tablets written in Babylonia it only appears twice.49 At Nineveh gišle.u5.um is found in a group of eight more tablets written in Babylonian ductus, the colophon of which states that they were copied from a wooden board. Of them only four mention scribe’s personal details. Two of them are 1883-1-18, 751—a flake with a colophon by Nabû-u... [son of] …x-Nabû descendant of …, and K. 2777 + , a Namburbi copied by a apprentice exorcist …-ilāni. Rm 2, 127, a commentary on an Elamite calendar by [Nabû-nāṣir]//Ea-pattā[ni] originally belonged to Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, which means that the use of gišle.u5.um by Babylonians in Assyria started already in the times of Sennacherib.50 Others five (K. 151, a on a ritual against pests and bad weather; K. 2773, K. 6117, both Namburbis; K 3664 + , a building ritual; and 1881-2-4, 233, a dream ritual) have absolutely uniform subscripts which says: kî pî gišlē’î lā bari šaṭir, “written in accordance with uncollated wooden board.” The wooden original of K. 2777 + is marked as uncollated. In 1883-1-18, 751 the part, where the state of the original should have been specified is broken off. Additionally, 1879-7-8, 150 (EAE VII-XIV) has [k]i-i pi-i gišle.⸢u5⸣.[um] too. In all of these colophons lē’û is rendered as gišle.u5.um.51 The colophon of K. 3561 + K. 6141 reads [kî pî gišle].u5.um šá mu 11kam dim—⸢ibila⸣—sum-n[a šar Bābili šaṭir-ma bari], “[In accordance with the wooden] board of the 11th year of Adad-apla-idinn[a, king of Babylon, written and collated].” K. 10129 by an apprentice scribe Nabû-šāpik-zēri, with [ki-m]a gišle-u5-ma gaba.r[i ... ] is a good instance of a young Babylonian corrupting the Assyrian ideogram.52 In 1891-5-9, 51 (a flake) gišle.[ u5.um?] is even written with an Assyrian form of le.53 All these tablets stem from Nineveh and have an appearance of Ashurbanipal’s library tablets. gišle.u5.um in them clearly results from Assyrian influence.
49. VAT 14521 is an Eršaḫunga, which belonged to Nabû-šumu-iddin/Nabû-gāmil//Iddin-Papsukkal, a lamentation priest of Sîn. It was found in the library of Eanna at Uruk, but was brought there from Ur. The text has other Assyrian parallels in SAA 20 15 and in the text copied by Nabû-zēru-iddina (no. 1). BM 93016 = 1882-9-18, 3737, Enūma eliš IV tablet from Borsippa was written by Nā’id-Marduk//Nappāḫu and installed by him at Ezida.

50. In K. 75 + K. 237, a commentary on EAE V(?) by the same scribe, also from the collection of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, the “wooden board” is broken off [May, 2018a, p. 131].

51. They all actually consist of this only line. K. 3664 and K. 2773 have al.til before it.

52. But his colophon also indicates the place of writing—Nineveh (ninaki) [see May, 2022, p. 160].

53. […ki-i] pi!(Text—pa)-i dub gišle.[u5.um]. This one also has sar repeated three times, traces of [ba.an?].è and had name of the scribe indicated. K. 3853 (+ K. 13287) has traces of ki-i ka gišl[e.u5.um].
Finally, colophon no. 12 contains a unique formula (iv 27-28) that invokes the one, who sees the tablet to restore it in joy. This is the most elaborated colophon of Marduk!-zēru-ibni. His other two colophons (nos. 11 and 13) are less sophisticated than those of Marduk!-šumu-ibni (nos. 7-10).

Personal Handwritings Features of Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-zēru-ibni

Besides the differences in style of the two scribes there are also features that distinguish the handwriting of the each of them. Thus in signs nu and numun Marduk!-zēru-ibni always writes the diagonal wedge over the horizontal one, in his ma and gal the upper horizontal is always longer than those below it. Contrarily, in Marduk!-šumu-ibni’s handwriting in nu and numun the horizontal is written over diagonal and his upper horizontals in ma and gal are not as protruding as those of Marduk!-zēru-ibni and sometimes are not protruding at all. The differences are quite obvious in the way each of the two writes dkur.gal—the cryptogram, which they both use (fig. 2 a-b). a b Fig. 2a. dkur.gal by Marduk1-šumu-ibni (no. 8, K. 2848 + ); 2b mdkur.gal by Marduk1-zēru-ibni (no. 11, K. 2285 + )

Summary

There is no doubt that Babylonian scholars worked for Ashurbanipal’s library copying Babylonian tablets for the king. They did it at Nineveh.54 The colophons of Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-šumu-ibni shed light on some aspects of their work.
54. See above, pp. 2-3. In Babylonia they did it too [Frame and George, 2005].
Five of the seven tablets by Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-šumu-ibni, the descendants of Šumu-libši, the lamentation priest of Marduk, have a typical appearance of the Ashurbanipal’s library tablets (nos. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13). No petrography or any other clay analysis was made for them,55 but they apparently were produced at Nineveh. No. 10 and no. 9 (the flake) are brownish, but no. 10 looks like some other tablets from Nineveh library, which have the same colour. None of these tablets have Ashurbanipal’s library colophons, but they all bear the names of the copyists. Taking into consideration the history of Šumu-libši’s descendants in Assyria, it seems most plausible that these two scribes, who are definitely somehow related, probably brothers, arrived at Nineveh either on their own will or as captives and worked for the royal scholarly enterprise.
55. Jonathan Taylor, personal communication.
Despite the differences between the two scribes their common descent and the similarities in style marked by the use of cryptography distinguish them from other scribes and point to their common training. At Nineveh they probably were allowed to put their own names in the colophons, but were only copyists, not owners of the tablets. Despite their prominent kalû-family descent, they did not copy kalûtu-texts but scholarly texts of any kind, apparently on demand. Four of their colophons, nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12, make clear that their main job at Nineveh was copying uncollated wooden tablets obviously from Ashurbanipal’s Babylonian loot.56 Some other Babylonian tablets, the colophons of which do not give any names, among them two identical Šumma ālu V tablets from Ashurbanipal’s library (K. 2307 and K. 196), as well as K. 45 + with parallels to many Šumma ālu tablets, including Šumma ālu V, and K. 3698 + (Šumma ālu XX), could have been copied by Marduk!-zēru-ibni as well. These tablets also belong to the group of tablets copied from uncollated wooden boards. In K. 2307 the only line of the colophon, besides the caption, is ki-i ka gišzu la ba-ri-i šá-ṭir. K. 196 and its colophon are identical to that of K. 2307, but in the latter this line is broken. Some tablets with gišle.u5.um and any other tablets copied from wooden boards57 could also be the product of Marduk!-zēru-ibni’s or Marduk!-šumu-ibni’s work.
56. See Frame and George, 2005, p. 265 (BM 45642: 12, gišda šá gišmes.má.gan.nu, “boards of sissoo-wood” and BM 28825: 16, 1, 12 gišda šá gišmes.má.gan.nu, “72 boards of sissoo-wood”) for the wooden tablets from Borsippa and Babylon, which these cities provided to Ashurbanipal, and Parpola 1983, esp. p. 4-6. See also Frame and George 2005, p. 277-278 for the wooden boards brought from Babylonia to Nineveh in general.

57. See above, pp. 17-18.
There are tablets with other kinds of texts in Babylonian ductus at Nineveh, in the colophons of which scribes or owners are not indicated, but the original is described as the original from a certain city, mostly from Babylon,58 a collated original (K. 8666), or just a wooden board (K. 2050 +).59 Some Babylonian handwritings at Nineveh are very similar, apparently due to the use of the same clay and styli. Their copyists can probably be identified through the further investigation, comparing the handwritings of authorized and unauthorized tablets. But as follows from SAA 11 156, there were many Babylonian scribes working at the Assyrian court and copying tablets in Babylonian script. They were not supposed to put their names in the colophons and only indicated the kind of an original, in most cases wooden boards. Some of these probably were wooden boards of sissoo-wood from Babylon and Borsippa, prepared by these cities on the king’s demand.60
58. K. 5824 +, K. 3561 + K. 6141, K. 90; K. 2898 + ; 1879-7-8, 121 + 1879-7-8, 125.

59. Additionally there are K. 6114 + ; K. 3016; K. 2874; K. 2874 + ; K. 2932 + ; K. 45 + (parallel to Šumma ālu V, VI, VII, X, XIII, XIX, XXI); K. 3698 + (Šumma ālu XX); K. 4795 (also say that it is an exerpt) and K. 2939 (only says that it is exerpt) in Babylonian ductus, the colophons of which are even shorter. Their colophons only state that the tablets accord with their original and do not give any further details, such as the information on the provenience of this original, the names of the copy’s scribes, owners or else.

60. See above, fn.56.
Marduk!-zēru-ibni, probably the younger of the two Babylonian descendants of Šumu-libši at Nineveh, was more committed to get himself accepted and to make a career at the Assyrian court. He also eagerly applied Assyrianisms. He has chosen not the profession of a lamentation priest, hereditary for the people of his descent, but the profession of an exorcist, more valued in Assyria and especially at the court, than that of kalû. Apparently he did not have much choice. Kalû was not very much honoured and demanded scholarly profession in Assyria. There were not many positions for kalûs in Assyrian temples and the place of the chief lamentation priest of the king was already occupied by the Ḫarrānean branch of Šumu-libšis. In Assyria kalûs often dealt with issues not related to their profession.61
61. Gabbay, 2014, p. 116-122. In SAA 7 1 kalûs are the last group of scholars of “Mesopotamian” profession, followed only by augurs, estrange to Mesopotamian culture, and by Egyptians.
Both Marduk!-šumu-ibni and Marduk!-zēru-ibni tried to upgrade their status at the court. They used playful writings in order to impress their Assyrian colleagues and employees. The cryptography they used to write Marduk in their names and in Šumu-libši’s title is alluding to Aššur. Marduk!-zēru-ibni consistently applied dkur.gal, which makes this allusion more apparent. We can only speculate if the king’s chief kalû Nabû-zēru-iddina, their high-positioned Assyrian “extended family” member of Marduk!-šumu-ibni’s and Marduk!-zēru-ibni, provided a protection to his “poor Babylonian relatives” and helped them to be accepted at the court. It well might be that the Marduk!-šumu-ibni’s and Marduk!-zēru-ibni’s scribal show-off targeted to impress particularly their Assyrian “relatives.” As learned and playful writings in Nabû-zēru-iddina’s colophons show, the Assyrian branch of Šumu-libšis liked to boast of their erudition too. But their tablets prove their rather Assyrian education with some Babylonian elements. Nabû-zēru-iddina’s use of aštalû clearly points out that the Assyrian connection to Mari was well remembered by the descendants of Šumu-libši employed at the Assyrian court. He also applied Assyrianisms like nir.gál.zu nu.mu.un.téš.62 But Nabû-zēru-iddina also states (no. 1) that he copied the wooden board from Babylon, produced by the “house of” his ancestor Šumu-libši, which his family most probably brought with them to Assyria. Nabû-zēru-iddina could certainly read Babylonian ductus and probably could write in Babylonian script too. His application of “a” for “son” also demonstrates some Babylonian preferences in use of ideograms for common words.
62. See above pp. 6-7.
Of course, there are also Babylonian tablets in Ashurbanipal’s library, which were brought from Babylonia, like nos. 14 and 15. But these cases are rare and the majority of the tablets in Babylonian ductus stemming from Nineveh were copied in the capital of Assyria.

Appendix: The Colophons63

63. The numbers of the tablet fragments, which do not bear the colophon appear in parenthesis. The references to copies and editions relate to colophons in the first place.

  • 1881-2-4, 306

    • Copy: — Edition: Elat, 1982, p. 14-16; LAS II, p. 452 no. 12 Provenience: Nineveh Text: Assyrian war ritual BAK 500 CDLI no. P452180 Ruling Rev. 6′ ⸢né⸣-pe-ši ša šuII lúgala ni-ṣir-ti [x x x x] Ruling 7′ e-nu-ma lugal it-ti lúkúr-šu du14 ip-pu-šu (the rest of the colophon follows after some space; it is more dense and written with smaller signs) 8′ ki-i pi-i gišzu-’i gaba-ri tin.tirki šá ér.šà.ḫun.gámeš šá é mu—ḫé.gál 9′ gala.maḫ É-sag-íl mdag—numun—sum-na áš-ta-lu-u d30 a mìr—dÉ-a 10′ gala.maḫ den.zu šà šà uruḪar-ra-an šà.bal.bal mmu—ḫé.gál 11′ gala.maḫ É-sag-íl a-na igi.du8.a-šú iš-ṭur-ma íb-ri 12′ nir.gál.zu nu.mu.un.téš den.ki u dAsal-lú-ḫi Rev. 6′ Ritual for the handling by a lamentation priest. Secret […]. Ruling 7′ “When the king fights his enemy.” 8′ In accordance with the wooden board, original from Babylon, Eršaḫunga-songs of the house of Šumu-libši, 9′ chief lamentation priest of Esagila, Nabû-zēru-idinna, the (cult) singer of Sîn, son of Urdu-Ea, 10′ chief lamentation priest of Sîn, who is in the midst of Ḫarrān, descendant of Šumu-libši, 11′ chief lamentation-priest of Esagila, for his learning wrote and collated. 12′ Trusting in you (sg.), oh Sîn and Marduk, will not be deceived!

    2. K. 3238 +

    Copy: BL 158 [Langdon 1913, pl. 50] Edition: LAS II, p. 452 no. 11 Provenience: Nineveh Text: unkin-ta eš-bar til-la (He, who makes decisions in the country) BAK 499 CDLI no. P394891 Ruling Rev. 4′ ĝuruš-kala-ga-šu-du7-[mà ki-bal-la gul-gul-la] 5′ šal-šú nis-ḫu unkin-ta eš-bar til-la 6′ gim ka gišle-[’i la]-bi-ri […] 7′ šá é mmu—ḫé.gál gala.maḫ […?] 8′ mdag—mu—sum-na šú d30 u lugal a mìr—dÉ-a 9′ [šà.bal.ba]l mmu—ḫé.gál šú.maḫ iš-ṭur-ma íb-ri Ruling Rev. 4′ “… my hero perfect in strength [who destroys a hostile land]!” 5′ The third excerpt of unkin-ta eš-bar til-la (He, who makes decisions in the country). 6′ In accordance with the old wooden board 7′ of the house of Šumu-libši, chief lamentation priest 8′ Nabû-zēru-idinna, the lamentation priest of Sîn and the king, son of Urdu-Ea, 9′ [descendant] of Šumu-libši, chief lamentation priest, wrote and collated.

    3. K. 4240 +

    Copy: — Edition: Borger, 1998, p. 31 Provenience: Nineveh Text: Emesal vocabulary BAK — CDLI no. P395458 Ruling Rev. ii′ 4′ ma? […] ii′ 5′ dub-min-kam*-ma dìm-me-[er] […] ii′ 6′ eme-sal-la [nu] al-til ii′ 7′ mdag—numun—sum-na gala den.zu ii′ 8′ u lugal ii′ 9′ [mar] mìr—dÉ-a šú.maḫ ⸢d⸣erasedlugal ii′ 10′ [šà.bal.ba]l mmu—ḫé.gál šú.maḫ É-sag-íl ii′ 11′ [iš-ṭur-ma] íb-[ri] Rev. ii′ 4′ … ii′ 5′ Second tablet of “Deity …” ii′ 6′ of Emesal. [Not] finished ii′ 7′ Nabû-zēru-idinna, the lamentation priest of Sîn ii′ 8′ and the king, ii′ 9′ [son] of Urdu-Ea, chief lamentation priest ii′ 10′ [descendant] of Šumu-libši, chief lamentation priest of Esagil ii′ 11′ [wrote and] col[lated]

    4. K 20627 + K 20682 + K 20861

    Copy: — Edition: Borger, 1998, p. 35 Provenience: Nineveh Text: Emesal vocabulary (only colophon preserved) BAK — CDLI no. P419019 1′ dub 3[kam*.ma?...] 2′ eme-sal-la [al-til]64
    64. So Borger.
    3′ mdag—numun—[sum-na kalû dSîn u lugal] 4′ a mìr—dÉ-a gala.[maḫ dSîn u lugal] 5′ [šà.bal. ]bal mmu—ḫé.gál 6′ [kalû É]-⸢sag⸣-íl iš-ṭur-ma ⸢íb⸣-[ri] 1′ The thir[d] tablet [of…] 2′ of Emesal. [Finished]. 3′ Nabû-zēru-[idinna, the lamentation priest of Sîn and the king], 4′ son of Urdu-Ea, [chief] lamentation priest [of Sîn and the king], 5′ [descen]dant of Šumu-libši, 6′ [lamentation priest of E]sagil wrote and collated.

    5. Su 1951, 27

    Copy: STT 232 Edition: Ambos 2004, p. 19; Maul 1988, p. 48 Provenience: Ḫuzīrīna Text: Building ritual (ritual for replacing a temple door); Eršaḫunga prayer. BAK 381 CDLI no. P338551 Ruling Rev. 40 ki-i pi-i imgíd.da gaba.ri ⸢tin⸣.tirki šá m⸢mu?⸣—ḫé.gál šú 41 dub!65 mdpa—kar-ir—zimeš a mḪar-⸢ri⸣-ri [šú?] ⸢d⸣amar.utu
    65. Oelsner 1993, p. 146; Ambos, 2004, p. 197.
    Rev. 40 In accordance with the long tablet, original copy from Babylon of Šumu-libši, the lamentation priest.
    1. Tablet of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti, son of Ḫarriri, [the lamentation priest? of] Marduk. 

    6. K. 3054 (+ K. 9398 + K. 21396)

    Copy: CT 16 38 Editions: Geller, 2016, p. 433 (only catchline) Provenience: Nineveh Text: Udug-ḫul XII BAK 502 CDLI no. P394777 Special physical features: the colophon is even more dense than the main text Double Ruling Rev. iv 17′ [én imin-bi an]-⸢na⸣ ḫa-la ba-an-ús ⸢gù⸣[du11-ga]-bi nu-sa666
    66. Catch line of the tablet XIII.
    iv 18′ [dub 12kám] ⸢udug⸣-ḫul-a-kám ⸢gim?⸣[labīrišu? lē’i?]uriki gaba.ri ká.diš.diški iv 19′ [ša m…]ud dumu mmu—gál-ši lú⸢uš⸣.[ki] damar.utu iv 20′ [ina tarṣi mdŠul-ma]-nu—maš lugal kur Aš+šur u mdag—a—⸢sum-na⸣ lugal ká.dingir.raki iv 21′ […i]š-ṭu-ru šà-tir-ma sa-niq [ba]-rì gù.gú.sum up-pu-uš iv 22′ [šatir?]⸢lú⸣gal dub.sarmeš šá mAš+šur—⸢dù⸣— a lugal kur Aš+šur iv 23′ [bari?] gal dub.sarmeš ⸢ù dub.sar é dingirmeš⸣ šá qé-reb urulimmu—dingir Rev. iv 17′ [Incantation: “These Seven], whose voice is unpleasant, imposed division on heaven.” iv 18′ [12th tablet] of Udug-ḫul (Evil Demons). In accordance with its original, wooden tablet] from Akkad, copy from Babylon, iv 19′ [that PN], descendant of Šumu-libši, the lamentation priest of Marduk, iv 20′ [in the reign? of Shalma]neser, king of Assyria and Nabû-šumu-iddina , king of Babylon. iv 21′ […w]rote. Written, checked, collated, an inscription made. iv 22′ [Written by? …] the chief of the scribes of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria iv 23′ [Collated by? …] the chief of the scribes and the scribe of the temples, which are inside Arbela.

    7. K. 2294

    Copy: ACh 2. Suppl. 86 Edition: — Provenience: Nineveh Text: EAE excerpt tablet CDLI no. P238157 Ruling Rev 4′diš ina itibará man ina murub4 a[n?…] Ruling 5′ki-i ka tup-pa šá a-na[…] 6′šá-ṭir-ma è giš md[ku.sud.nun..tu—mu—dù a mmu—gál-ši] 7′lúlagab dku.sud.nun..⸢tu⸣ Ruling Rev 4′“If in Nisannu the Sun in the middle of the s[ky?...].” Ruling 5′In accordance with the tablet, which for […] 6′written and collated. Wrote [Marduk!-šumu-ibni, descendant of Šumu-libši] 7′lamentation priest of Marduk!.67
    67. See the discussion on pp. 9-11.

    8. K. 2848 (+ Sm. 1088 + Sm. 1531)

    Copy: III R 52, 3 Edition: Virolleaud, 1911, p. 113; Oppenheim, 1974, p. 198 n. 7. Provenience: Nineveh Text: “Diviner's Manual,” obv. catalogue of terrestrial omens; rev. catalogue of astrological omens CDLI no. P238187 Ruling Rev. 34′⸢ki⸣-i ka gišzu sar-ma igi.kár šuII mdku.sud.nun..tu—mu—d[ù...] 35′a mmu—gál-ši lúla-gar dkur.gal […] Rev. 34′In accordance with the wooden board written and collated. Hand of Marduk! -šumu-ib[ni], 35′descendant of Šumu-libši, lamentation priest of Marduk! […].

    9. 1881-2-4, 202

    Copy: CT 38 25 Edition: Freedman, 1998, p. 284 Provenience: Nineveh Text: Šumma ālu XIX BAK 444 CDLI no. P237000 Special physical features: colophon is written on a convex side Ruling Rev 4′ [diš ina é na bir]-ṣu igi.du8 bir-aḫ ⸢é⸣ [na] 5′ […] dub 19kam* diš uru ina sukud-e gar-in 6′ [ki]-⸢i⸣ ka gišzu nu è-i sar 7′ [qāt?] mdku.sud.nun..tu—mu—dím.ma68 a mmu—gál.ṢUR69 over erasure […]
    68. Freedman 1998: 284 –mu-kim-ma.

    69. H. Hunger read Šumu-ikṣur here. Freedman 1998: 284: dmu—iq-bi. U. Gabbay [HES I, p. 255, n. 278] collates as mmu—gál-ši!, but there is clearly ṣur on the tablet, which must be considered as scribal mistake and amended to ši. Alternatively it can also be some attempt at cryptography.
    8′ […] lúgala dkur.gal Ruling Rev 4′ [“If in a man’s house a light] flash is seen—dispersal of the [man’s] house “. 5′ […]19th tablet of If a City is Set on a Height. 6′ Written in [accordan]ce with an uncollated wooden board. 7′ [hand? of] Marduk!70-šumu-ibni, descendant of Šumu-libši,
    70. H. Hunger: Sumuqan.
    8′ … lamentation priest of Marduk!.

    10. K. 6145

    Copy: — Edition: HES I, p. 256 n. 288 Provenience: Nineveh Text: a flake of a colophon CDLI no. P238613 Rev. 1′ […] 2′ [mdmar.tu —mu—d]ù a mmu—gál-ši lúšú dmar.tu/lú én mar.tu Rev. 1′ […] 2′ [Marduk!-šumu-ib]ni?, descendant of Šumu-libši, lamentation priest of Marduk!.71
    71. See the discussion on pp. 10-11.

    11. (K. 2285 + K. 3717 + K. 12709 (+) K. 2719) + K. 3014 ((+) K. 3856 + K. 10467)

    Copy: — Edition: Freedman, 1998, p. 138, 140-143 (text a2) Provenience: Nineveh Text: Šumma ālu VII CDLI no. P238156 Rev. 15′′[diš ina] ⸢é lú ina zi⸣[…] 16′′gim ka gišzu nu ba-⸢ri⸣[…] 17′′a-mi-rù gim sumun-ma lá ⸢a?⸣[…] 18′′giš mdkur.gal—numun—dù […] Rev. 15′′[“If in the House of a Man in… .” 16′′In accordance to the uncollated wooden board … . 17′′The one who sees (the original) and not… . 18′′Wrote Marduk!-zēru-ibni … .

    12. (K. 2542 + K. 2772 + K. 2991) + K. 3300 + (K. 6030 + K. 10223 + K 13382 + DT 85 + DT 170)

    Copy: AMT 29, no. 4 (K. 3300 + K. 10223) Edition: Schuster-Brandis, 2008, p. 192–193, no. 17 Provenience: Nineveh Text: Xth paragraph of the na4kisib ḫalti (kunuk ḫalti, “Seal of Ḫaltu”) CDLI no. P237751 Ruling Rev. iv 24 [na4šu.u nitá u munus] na4pa na4ni-bu na4šu-bu-u iv 25 [x]-⸢ú?⸣ pir-su na4kišib ḫal-tu4 nu ⸢al.til⸣ iv 26 [ki]-i pi-i gišle.u5.um iv 27 [GN]ki sar a-mi-ri gim sumun-ma iv 28dar-ma ḫad-da-a li-šal-lim iv 29[qāt?] mdkur.gal—numun—ib-[ni] iv 30[mār m]mu—líb-ši lúsamán.lá ⸢maš.maš!⸣ iv 31[a-g]a-aš-gu-ú Rev. iv 24 [male and female shells(?)], ajartu-shell, (ja)nibu-stone, šubû-stone(?) . iv 25 Xth paragraph of the “Seal of Ḫaltu.” Not finished.iv 26 In accor[dan]ce with the wooden board iv 27 from GN written. The one who sees (it), in accordance with the original iv 28may he forever restore (it) in joy. iv 29[Wrote] Marduk!-zēru-ibni iv 30-iv 31 [descendant of] Šumu-libši, junior apprentice of an exorcist.

    13. K. 2246 +

    Copy: AAT 42;AAT pl. 42 = ACh Ishtar 20 Edition: ACh Ishtar 20 (lines 37′-38′) Provenience: Nineveh Text: EAE L (Aššur numbering), EAE LIV (Assyrian Niniveh numbering), EAE *LVII (Babylonian Niniveh numbering), Venus (mulDil-bat) BAK 465 CDLI no. P238154 Ruling Rev. 37′ [dub 5]⸢7⸣? kam*diš ud an d+en.líl.[lá ...] Ruling Rev.38′ [diš mul]uga([ú.na]ga.ga)mušen kaskal dutu kur-ud ganba(ki.lam) [tur-ir] 39′ li[bir.ra.bi g]im ab.sar ba.an.è giš72 mdkur.gal—numun—dù
    72. This seems to be the earliest use of it.
    Rev.37′ 2+[ 5]⸢7⸣?th [tablet]of Enūma Anu Enlil 38′ [“If Āribu] catches the path of the Sun, the business [will be reduced].”73
    73. CAD M I 94 s.v. maḫiru.
    39′ In [accordance with its original] written and collated. Written by Marduk!-zēru-ibni.

    14. K. 5168 + (K. 5171 + K. 5189 + K. 5354 + K. 6099 + K. 8728 + K. 10728 + K. 11219 + K. 13412 + K. 13935 +) K. 13949 (+ K. 16931)

    Copy: — Edition: — Provenience: Nineveh Text: 1st tablet of balag en zu sá mar-mar BAK 476 (only K. 13949) CDLI no. P238371 Ruling Reviv′ 58′′[…]-ma gig-ga-b[i ?] ma-a x x iv′ 59′′ […] x zu mar-ṣi-[iš…] ⸢x x⸣ pu * ⸢x⸣ iv′ 60′′imdub 1kam* en ⸢zu⸣ sá mar-mar nu al.til iv′ 61′′[gaba].ri e.ki gim sumun-šú md+en—ik-ṣur a mŠá-diš.luḫ iv′ 62′′ [...]gišza ⸢x x x x x⸣ ne?-ri74 ú-šeš-tir-ma
    74. Gabbay [HES I, p. 256] suggests DN—e?-te?-ri, but such a spacing of the name signs and the orthography itself would be highly unusual.
    iv′ 63′′[…]⸢x (x) ⸣ ba?-ri Ruling Reviv′ 58′′… iv′ 59′′[…] grievously […]x x x (x) iv′ 60′1st tablet of ‟Wise Lord, planner”. Not finished. iv′ 61′′[Origin]al from Babylon. According to its old original Bēl-ikṣur, descendant of Iddin-Papsukkal. iv′ 62′′... caused it to be written and iv′ 63′′… collated.

    15. K. (5174+) K. 10595 (+ K. 11174 + K. 13941 + K. 14110 (+) K. 18655)

    Copy: HES II, pl. 14 Edition: HES II, p. 28 Provenience: Nineveh Text: 3rd tablet of the (balag) gu4-ud nim é-kur-ra BAK 429 CDLI no. P238374 Ruling Reviv 44′ [an ki-bi-ta] ki-áĝ-bi-ta šà-zu ḫa-m[a ḫuĝ-e] ⸢e⸣-lum me-na-šè Ruling iv 45′[ér-šèm]-ma dnin-urt[a]-kam* iv 46′[ér-šèm]-ma gu4-ud nim kur-ra iv 47′[1 u]š 39 àm mu.bi.im dub 3kam*.ma iv 48′[gu4-u]d nim kur-ra zag.til.la.bi.⸢šè⸣ en 1 uš iv 49′[m]u.šidmeš ér.šèm.ma-šú gaba.ri ká.diški iv 50′[kīma la]-bi-ri-šú md+ag—tin-su—⸢iq⸣-bi iv 51′[mār md+e]n—gar lúšamán.lá lúga[la iš-ṭur ib]- ⸢ri⸣ iv 52′[im md+e]n—ik-ṣur a m[mu—dpap—sukkal/mŠá-diš.luḫ] iv 53′[x x x x] ⸢x x x x ⸣[x x x x] Ruling Reviv 44′ May [heaven and earth] with their love [calm] your heart on my behalf! Honoured one, how long? Ruling iv 45′ It is an [Eršem]ma of Ninurta, iv 46′an [Eršem]ma gu4-ud nim kur-ra (‟Elevated Ox of the Land/Ekur”) iv 47′x+99 lines of the 3rd tablet of iv 48′[gu4-u]d nim kur-ra Completed; including 60+x iv 49′[l]ines of its Eršèm]ma. Original from Babylon. iv 50′[In accordance with] its old original of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi iv 51′[son/descendant of B]ēl-iškun, apprentice lamentation pr[iest has written and coll]ated. iv 52′[Tablet of Bē]l-ikṣur, descendant of [Iddin-Papsukkal] iv 53′…