The Figure of Nabopolassar in Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Historiographic Tradition: BM 34793 and CUA 90
2017; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 76; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/690464
ISSN1545-6978
Autores Tópico(s)Archaeology and Historical Studies
ResumoPrevious articleNext article FreeThe Figure of Nabopolassar in Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Historiographic Tradition: BM 34793 and CUA 90Rocío Da RivaRocío Da RivaUniversity of Barcelona Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe origins and circumstances surrounding Nabopolassar’s seizure of power are among the most intriguing features of the history of first millennium bc Mesopotamia; with his reign (626–605 bc) Babylonia began a new era of economic development and political stability.1 His figure and exploits are inextricably linked to the overthrow of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and to the formation and configuration of the Chaldean kingdom. A generally well-documented period in contemporary sources, it also had a long-lasting echo in later historiographic tradition.2 A brief review of the figure of Nabopolassar in Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic sources and the (re)edition of the historiographic texts BM 34793 and CUA 90 are the foci of this study.Documentary Sources about NabopolassarRoyal inscription3 and archival texts4 are the most important primary sources at our disposal for reconstructing the historical events pertaining to Nabopolassar’s reign, and most of these documents have already been edited and commented on. Around 1,500 economic and administrative texts are dated to this period, most of them from the institutional archives of the Ebabbar and Eanna temples at Sippar and Uruk respectively.5 However, these texts do not shed a great deal of light on historical events. The inscriptions mention building projects and pious activities of the king in several cities of Babylonia, and also offer some glimpses into the circumstances of his accession to the throne; but apart from this, they are not very informative regarding political developments of the time. Among the non-contemporary sources, the most important are the Babylonian Chronicle Series.6 The Chronicles are not preserved for the whole duration of the reign, yet they can serve as the basis for the reconstruction of the succession of events during this period, and as such were used by E. N. von Voigtlander (1963)7 and by later authors Andreas Fuchs (2014),8 although of course the Chronicles should be approached with a certain amount of caution.Among the sources used to date the reign of Nabopolassar, one could mention the Uruk King List, also known as King List 5,9 and the Ptolemaic Canon.10 The Uruk King List, dated to the late third century bc, mentions the length of the reigns of several kings from the seventh century and continues until the third century bc. Together with the Babylonian King List,11 the Uruk King List is a useful text for reconstructing the chronology of Babylonia in the last centuries of the first millennium bc. The Ptolemaic or Royal Canon is a list of rulers of ancient Babylonia, the Near East, and Ptolemaic Egypt, compiled by the astronomer Ptolemy of Alexandria (second century ce) to date astronomical phenomena. The Canon was preserved in several astronomical texts by later authors, who tended to continue the list up until their own times. This brief document, which is based on astronomical information from ancient Babylonia, remains the backbone of the chronology of the ancient Near East. Its essential accuracy has been corroborated by other Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources. Finally, we should also mention the Astronomical Texts recording planetary and lunar phenomena, which often include some data on historical events.12More valuable from a historiographic point of view are the historical-literary narratives emanating from a group of scholars from Hellenistic times connected above all with the Esagil, Marduk’s temple in Babylon, but also with other centres of worship and learning, such as Uruk.13 Recent studies have stressed the importance of Babylonian historical narratives created in this period and have demonstrated that, when reflecting on political issues of their times, scholars from Hellenistic Babylonia used a wide choice of historical royal figures as subjects, thus creating a literary space that was at a safe distance from contemporary politics. Assyrian and Babylonian kings of the second and first millennia (the Chaldean kings among them) were used as models for these historical narratives.14These texts lack an archival context and their provenance is uncertain, but research carried out in the history of the collections of the British Museum (where the majority of these texts are currently preserved) has shed light on their scholarly background and origin.15 The center of this cultural production was the library of the Esagil, active from the latter years of the fourth century until approximately the middle of the first century bc.16 The time-span of the Esagil libraries has been established on the basis of the documents that we believe pertained to them, but we lack an archaeological context that supports this dating. Most of the digs undertaken in Babylon in the last quarter of the nineteenth century were either unrecorded or illicit, and the chronology, origin, and circumstances of the composition of the Esagil texts are therefore unknown to us.17Inside the framework of the intellectual production of the Esagil, a number of compositions (including the two texts studied here) deal with the figure of Nabopolassar. They all share the same themes, articulated in a variety of genres, texts, and plots depending on the format or style of the texts. The most popular topics we find in these texts dealing with Nabopolassar are his rise to power from an obscure background, the intercession of Marduk and the support of both the Esagil priests and the Babylonian noblemen, the military victory over Assyria and its humiliation and destruction, the reconstruction of Babylon, and the episode with the Medes/Umman-Manda.In these compositions, Nabopolassar is depicted as a model of a just and pious king, a man who, by means of his profound piety and reverence of Marduk, had liberated Babylonia from the Assyrians. His antagonist is either the Assyrian king Sîn-šar-iškun or the usurper Sîn-šum-līšir. Nabopolassar fought against both of them for the liberation of Babylonia at various times early in his reign.18 Assyria was Babylonia’s archenemy in the Nabopolassar inscriptions, and this idea was transmitted to later Achaemenid and Hellenistic tradition and adapted in its narratives. Nabopolassar was the avenger of Akkad, a symbol of resistance to foreign domination. The language of vengeance and divine providence that we encounter in these compositions was probably inspired by the king’s original inscriptions, which scholars of the Esagil consulted and in all probability were on display in the city. Chronicles narrating Nabopolassar’s military exploits were circulating in Babylonia by the fifth century bc, and copies of the texts were probably available in the fourth century bc as well.19 All these various materials (some original first-hand sources, others borrowed from other historiographic traditions) were reprocessed and edited into a variety of literary compositions. These extremely heterogeneous texts do not conform to a single genre, and pose obvious methodological difficulties: their relation to each other and their intertextual connections are important issues that are not easy to define with the information available to us at present.Some of these texts, such as the Uruk Prophecy, deal with the figure of Nabopolassar as one of a number of kings in the general context of the Babylonian monarchy.20 The Prophecy is a vaticinium exeventu, and makes predictions about eleven unnamed Mesopotamian rulers, the last three of whom have been identified as Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar and Amēl Marduk. The main purpose of the text is to bear witness to the importance of the city of Uruk, which we know was the hometown of Nabopolassar’s family.21Other compositions, such as the Dynastic Prophecy22 and the celebrated Babyloniaca of Berossos comment on past events with much more detail. The Dynastic Prophecy describes the rise and fall of empires and dynasties in prophetic terms. As in other texts of prophetic type, the rulers are not mentioned by name, but the content of the text is enough for us to identify them. The first prophecy preserved describes the downfall of Assyria and the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Interestingly, the text mentions Nippur (a city that played a crucial role in the Assyrian-Babylonian conflict), restoration works in Esagila and Ezida, and the construction of the (southern) palace of Babylon. All these events are linked to Nabopolassar’s reign and find confirmation in other documentary sources.For its part, the Babyloniaca of Berossos (third century bc) contains a history of Babylonia in three books, written in Greek but told from a Babylonian perspective.23 The original work is lost, but some fragments survive in summaries abridged by later authors. Nabopolassar’s reign and the transfer of political power to his son Nebuchadnezzar, originally contained in Book III, is referred to in two narratives that have come down to us by way of Josephus.Information on Nabopolassar, his deeds and his background can also be found in an intriguing Seleucid colophon,24 in which he is called “king of the Sealand.” Historically, the Sealand was the southernmost region of Babylonia, on the shores of the Persian Gulf, politically independent in the middle of the second millennium bc. The assignation of the title “king of the Sealand” for Nabopolassar has no historical basis,25 for at the end of the seventh century this area belonged to the administrative realm of Uruk and was no longer an independent kingdom, but it coincides with the tradition that points to a “southern” origin for Nabopolassar’s dynasty.26 Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that Nabopolassar came from a royal dynasty. So the royal title of the colophon seems to be fraudulent, and the other information in the text itself is also unreliable. The text mentions that Nabopolassar had stolen wooden tablets related to the rituals of Anu and the priests and the temples of Reš and Eanna in Uruk: “according to the formulation of the tablets that Nabopolassar, the king of the Sealand, had stolen from Uruk” (TU 38 rev. 47). Kidin-Ani of Uruk (the lamentation priest of Anu and Antu, of the Ekurzakir family, high priest of Reš) had seen the tablets in Elam during the coregency of Seleucus I and Antiochus I, and had had them copied in order to take the texts back to Uruk. As noted by Tom Boiy, the mention of Nabopolassar in the colophon “raises some suspicion because the cult of Anu did not become important to Uruk before the fifth century bc.”27This reference to Nabopolassar as a thief of ritual tablets is highly surprising, as is the fact that they ended up in Elam. The Nabopolassar tradition is normally highly positive, and this is the only association of the sovereign with a sacrilegious action. This episode involving Elam and Uruk casts a negative light on a well-known passage in the Nabopolassar chronicles (ABC 2: 15–1728) in which, just after his coronation, the king “returned to Susa the gods of Susa that Assyria had deported and assigned to a residence in Uruk.” But perhaps this negative episode has to be interpreted in a broader perspective. In many of these late historiographic compositions, the main characters (Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc.) are presented in a positive as well as in a negative light. This may be due to the existence of different traditions, but the partiality of the surviving sources does not allow us to appreciate the diversity of such traditions.Other Hellenistic texts deal with Nabopolassar in a far more detailed way and are much more informative about the transmission, perception, and reception of his figure in the later periods. Two well-known examples are the fragmentary historical-literary compositions the Nabopolassar Epic29 and the Epic Fragment No. 9 (Night clashes in Cutha).30 The Nabopolassar Epic narrates the events that led to the death of the Assyrian king, Nabopolassar’s victory over Assyria, and the founding of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom, illustrated in the text by the royal coronation.31The Epic Fragment No. 9 (Night clashes in Cutha) deals with historical events contemporary to those mentioned in the Nabopolassar Epic, but the text is too poorly preserved to be fully understood.32 Some lines on the reverse are sufficiently comprehensible, however, to make an attempt at a contextualization. As in the previous text, a king and the city of Cutha appear in the context of a battle taking place during the night. It is tempting to link this text to the events narrated on the obverse of the Epic, namely to the Assyrian-Babylonian confrontation prior to the coronation of Nabopolassar. The text also refers to the god Nergal and his temple in Cutha, the Emeslam. A chief diviner called Ṣalla is mentioned, perhaps in connection with rituals, predictions, or divination omens to overcome the (Babylonian) king’s enemy, for there is a mention of the king’s happiness and the defeat of the Assyrian enemy by the camp of Akkad. The figure of this Ṣalla is puzzling, since he is not attested elsewhere in the related documents. I would link this fact to the use of anachronisms (especially toponyms) and other fictional elements in the compositions to give the impression of a remote historical past. The remainder of the text, narrated in the first person by the monarch, recounts a nightly arrival in Cutha (the city wall is mentioned twice), measures taken to protect the city, and some further clashes. Nergal, patron of Cutha, and Erra, the warrior god, are depicted as protectors of the king. Grayson suggested some similarities between this tablet and the Adad-šuma-uṣur Epic (for example, the format of the tablet and the hand of the scribe),33 but a direct study of the tablets dismisses this possibility. In my opinion, the Epic Fragment No. 9 could be physically related to the Nabopolassar Epic (even if the tablets do not join directly); it is very similar in terms of its size, shape, script, the presence of firing holes, and its style and structure. The two may have belonged to the same series, collection,34 or even the same tablet, but they are too fragmentary to allow any definitive conclusions.Among the texts dealing with Nabopolassar’s accession to the power, we also have the (fictional) missives Declaring War and the Letter of Sîn-šar-iškun.35Declaring War is a letter ostensibly written by Nabopolassar—on a tablet dating to the Achaemenid or Seleucid period—with a series of accusations leveled at an unnamed Assyrian (probably the king Sîn-šar-iškun), written in the past tense on the obverse. The Assyrian’s criminal record contains the worst atrocities that one might imagine: the seizure of booty, burglary in the Esagil temple, the stealing of city property, the murder of the city’s highest representatives, and further outrages such as imprisoning rebels, filling the land with disorder, inciting unrest and rebellion, and so on. These scenes of utter disorder and chaos represent the exact opposite of the Babylonian idea of a prosperous and successful reign, and anticipate Nabopolassar’s intention to restore order and normality. In this context, the use of the first person in the text provides a high degree of veracity and directness. Nabopolassar states “I am the reigning man” (obv. 9), and then proceeds to narrate how, as soon as he was selected and supported by Marduk, the natural order of things began to be restored.Of course, the use of this literary topos of stressing the perfidy of the opponent and of invoking divine assistance is a common practice in Assyrian and Babylonian texts narrating conflicts in the royal succession. In his inscriptions, Nabopolassar presents himself as a man whose deep piety has earned him divine assistance; thus, in C12/1 8–12: “Šazu (…) perceived my intentions and he placed me, the insignificant one who was not even noticed among the people, to the highest position in my native country. He called me to the lordship over land and people (…).”36 This appears with different words in Declaring War (obv. 12–15) as: “[to] avenge Akkad, he inspected my omens, he examined my royal heart, he selected me for dominion over the lands and the peoples of all the lands, all of them, he placed in my hands.”The Assyrian atrocities described on the obverse of the letter serve to justify Nabopolassar’s intention to avenge his country expressed in the present-future tense on the reverse of the letter. The revenge is taken with the support of Marduk, and the basic idea is that Nabopolassar was selected by the god to fulfill a divine plan. Once Nabopolassar is appointed, he proceeds to restore the situation to normal, recovering Esagil and Babylon’s property from the hands of the enemy (rev. 4). The text proceeds with an enumeration of the punishments reserved for Assyria and the announcement of the coming confrontation (rev. 10–14): “[Because] of the crimes against Akkad which you committed, Marduk, great lord, [and the great gods] shall call [you] to account […] I shall destroy you […].”The “fictional” response to this missive is a fragmentary letter allegedly written by Sîn-šar-iškun to Nabopolassar on the eve of the conquest of Nineveh. As with the previous “missive,” this one is the Seleucid copy of a non-preserved original from the Esagil.37 In the missive Sîn-šar-iškun adopts a very humble tone, calling Nabopolassar “my lord” and clearly subjugating himself to the king—perhaps, with the Babylonian armies at the gates of his capital, in an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the impending and inescapable military confrontation. The idea that Nabopolassar was ordered by Marduk to avenge Akkad is also present in the text.38 Geert De Breucker noted the similarities in the tradition reflected by the letters and the Berossos stories (namely the omission of the Medes in the Babylonian war against Assyria).39 The authenticity of this text is a matter of debate.40 In my opinion, both this letter and the Nabopolassar one could either be fictional missives based on genuine ones, or compositions simulating letters and based on previous documents—perhaps not even letters, but narrative texts of sorts—describing the events during the latter years of the Assyrian Empire from a Babylonian perspective, and rendered in the form of “fictional” letters with a historical basis.Finally, another later source on the figure of Nabopolassar is the fragmentary historical-literary text CUA 90, which I have tentatively called (following its first editor, Eckart Frahm) the Reconstruction of Babylon, dated to the Seleucid period and written in Standard Babylonian.41 The text will be fully edited below as Text No. 2. According to the colophon, the tablet was copied by the junior exorcist Nabû-šum-iškun for Nabû-kīn-aplu of the Ileʾe-Marduk family. The text deals with the reconstruction of Babylon, in particular of Esagil and E[temenanki(?)], structures which had been deserted for some time. The text mentions a monarch but his name is not preserved. The building projects referred to are not specific enough to certainly identify the king, but it is probably Nabopolassar, who, as his royal inscriptions state, reconstructed Etemenanki and the city walls. Nabopolassar also fought against the Assyrians, which may explain the reference in the text to cities in the north of Babylonia, near the Assyrian border. As we will see, there are certain phraseological parallels between Nabopolassar’s royal inscriptions and this text.Text EditionsText No. 1: The Nabopolassar Epic42The Nabopolassar Epic, preserved in a single fragment (BM 34793 = Sp 2, 286 + 525) illustrates the existence of an epic or legend of sorts built around the figure of Nabopolassar, dealing with diverse episodes of his life and reign, especially his early years and the circumstances of his accession to power. In other words, this is a narrative about the foundation of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. the Nabopolassar Epic is also one of the few Akkadian texts in which a coronation ceremony is described. The fragment poses problems of interpretation: it is uncertain which side of the tablet is the obverse and which is the reverse. A direct collation of the tablet does not solve this problem, either. The obverse(?) has two columns preserved: I(?), with only one fragment of a sign, and II(?), with twenty lines which are incompletely preserved. The reverse(?) has two columns: III(?), with twenty-two lines, and IV(?) in which only some signs are preserved in eight lines. For the text and translation, see Figure 1; for photographs, see Figures 2–3.Figure 1. Text 1: BM 34793 (Sp 2, 286 + 525), transliteration and translation.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFigure 2. BM 34793 (Sp 2, 286 + 525), obverse.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFigure 3. BM 34793 (Sp 2, 286 + 525), reverse.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe obverse(?) of the tablet (column II[?]) seems to deal with disorders in Cutha and a fight between the Assyrians (in the person of a chief eunuch) and Nabopolassar, which ended in the latter’s favor. Nabopolassar’s opponent is probably the Assyrian eunuch and usurper Sîn-šum-līšir, the rab ša-rēši of the young Assyrian king Aššur-etēl-ilāni. (Sîn-šum-līšir himself also occupied the Babylonian throne for a short period of time.43) Sîn-šum-līšir is never mentioned by name; perhaps in an attempt to denigrate his figure, he appears as “the almighty chief eunuch” (rab ša-rēši) or simply “the Assyrian.”44 The column begins with an unspecified ritual involving a mašmaššu-priest, and there is also a reference to someone called Aḫḫēa, undoubtedly a significant character in the narrative, who has not been identified. In the following section, there is a speech which mentions the god Nergal, and then someone else (perhaps Nabopolassar, or maybe the Assyrian king) boasts of having killed his opponent’s noblemen. Tragic events in the city of Cutha are described in the following lines: a clash of the Babylonian and Assyrian armies and the dramatic image of blood being shed in the city’s canals. The following lines deal with an Assyrian (probably the chief eunuch), who very theatrically appears on the roof of a palace unsuccessfully imploring for his life to be spared, and the king (Nabopolassar) ordering him to be killed. Then there is a reference to Nabopolassar and the property of the Assyrian (obv. II 18′: [b]u-še-e šá mAššur ki-a-⌜a⌝); perhaps it is meant here Sîn-šum-līšir, the chief eunuch, but it is too fragmentary to clarify. The rest of the column is broken and difficult to translate.The reverse of the tablet describes Nabopolassar’s coronation ceremony. If the identification of the obverse/reverse is correct and the defeat of the Assyrians preceded his crowning, this means that Sîn-šum-līšir died before Nabopolassar took actual control of the state. The chronicles are less detailed on these particular events, and the city of Cutha is not mentioned in them, but from the evidence of ABC 2, it is clear that Nabopolassar’s victory precedes his coronation.45The physical setting of the ceremony is not indicated, or at least it is not preserved in the text, but it was very likely celebrated in the Esagil, Marduk’s temple in Babylon, where the New Year Festival was held. It is interesting to see that the assembly of princes played a predominant role in the coronation procedure, indicating the existence of a council of chieftains who supported Nabopolassar and endorsed his political claims—perhaps warlords who had fought with him against the Assyrians. At the same time, Bēl (Marduk) grants Nabopolassar royal power. The following lines describe the ritual performance: the assembled officials and high dignitaries of the land bestow upon Nabopolassar the insigniae of kingship, sitting in front of him and blessing him, expressing the wish that he should avenge Akkad. At the end of the text, the divine triad (Marduk, Nabu, and Nergal) consecrates the king. The ceremony seems to be held in two different places. The first may be the Esagil(?), where the princes of the land are assembled; they grant Nabopolassar the royal accoutrements (rev. III 3–12). The performance then moves to the kummu, perhaps the cella of Marduk(?),46 where a smaller circle of people, the noblemen of Akkad, approach Nabopolassar and bless him, proclaiming him king of Babylon by means of a recitation.47 From the narrative, it is clear that unlike most contemporary coronation procedures and in contrast to many aspects of Babylonian political activity, the ceremony is not public and open.48 But it can be assumed that after the ceremony the new monarch presented himself to the people, in an open, public ceremony.49The coronation passage from the Nabopolassar Epic is unique. Coronation rituals and enthronement ceremonies are well attested in other periods and cultures of the ancient Near East, but not in the form of historical-literary texts.50 We have, however, some interesting parallels in the Assyrian documentation of the second and first millennia, and in Babylonian literature.The Middle Assyrian Coronation Ritual (known as the “Müller ritual”) describes the coronation of the king in the Aššur temple.51 The high priest of the main Assyrian god plays a leading role; the high officials of the court and palace “eunuchs” appear in the ritual performance and in the consecration of the king in his office. Pongratz-Leisten draws attention to this fact: the palace notables “are assigned at least a symbolic part in [the king’s] enthronement.”52 The Middle Assyrian coronation involves the humiliation of the king (he is slapped in the face by the high priest of Aššur), similar to the degradation endured by the Babylonian monarch during the New Year Festival. No such humiliation can be inferred from the enthronement narrated in the Nabopolassar Epic. Beate Pongratz-Leisten correctly stresses the main difference between the Babylonian and the Assyrian concepts of kingship, illustrated in the respective rituals: “This humiliation was not so much a temporary degradation in status as in the Babylonian case, but was intended to stress the Assyrian king’s inferior status vis-à-vis Aššur, i.e., his stewardship, with kingship being reserved for the supreme god.”53 The coronation described in the Middle Assyrian Coronation Ritual is much longer than the episode preserved in the Epic, and involves performances, prescriptions, and recitations that take place in different parts of the temple. As in the Nabopolassar Epic, the ritual action in the Middle Assyrian text is dynamic, involves verbal and non-verbal acts, and is not circumscribed to a single physical space.The second Assyrian text dealing with the enthronement of Assyrian kings is the Ashurbanipal Coronation Hymn.54 The hymn, here addressed to the sun-god Šamaš, was a central aspect of the coronation ritual. Hymns are speech acts that accompanied the performed sequences of non-verbal actions (in this case the actual coronation ceremony). According to Pongratz-Leisten, this ceremony was also performed in the Aššur temple.55Another well-known enthronement ceremony in the Mesopotamian documentation is that of Marduk, narrated in Tablet IV of Enūma Eliš.56 Of course, the god’s coronation is much more elaborate than a king’s, but the episode in the Nabopolassar Epic contains similarities to the episode in the Enūma Eliš: the presence of an assembly, a ritual performance involving weapons, blessings, and so on.57 The poem was a key aspect of the enactment and portrayal of Babylonian kingship, as it revolved around “the Marduk ideology” and his role as guarantor of royal empowerment.58Commentary to Text 1 (BM 34793)Copy: Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts, 80–81; photographs: Figs. 2 and 3; collation: January 2014.A striking feature of this tablet is the presence of the so-called “firing holes,” perforations made in the wet clay with the blunt part of the stylus. Other Esagil tablets from Hellenistic times, such as the Astronomical Diaries and related material, and many historical-literary, ritual, and practical texts also show the presence of these holes. Their function is unknown, but they were probably not related to the firing process of the tablet; they may have had a practical scribal use.59 In this text, the perforations are particularly clear on the reverse of the tablet, in lines 6 (two “firing holes”), 8, 13, 16, and 22. In all these cases, the holes are situated in unwritten parts of the line, so they may have helped the scribe to arrange the text in the space allotted for the writing.Column I(?) of the obverse(?) and column IV(?) of the reverse(?) are too fragmentary for translation.Obv.(?) II(?)Approximately two lines are missing at the beginning of the column.2′ The presence of an exorcist or incantation-priest points to a ritual of sorts being performed on the eve of the nocturnal battle; unfortunately, the tablet is not well preserved.3′ The terms zīqtu and zīqu are mainly attested in Neo-Assyrian ritual and religious texts (see CAD Z, p. 133). The first editor of the text drew attention to the presence of Assyrianisms.604′ Note the Late Babylonian form ultaḫḫiṭuʾ. Other late features in the text include the ʾ at the end of plural verb forms (passim in the text) and -nu for -ni in l. 14′.5′ This Aḫḫēa is otherwise unknown; he might have been the incantation-priest mentioned in l. 2′, or someone related to him. In this sense, there is a similar passage in the Epic Fragment No. 9 (see above) in which a certain Ṣalla, a diviner, is referred to in a fragmentary context. According to Geert De Breucker,
Referência(s)