Abnormal Interests

« Report of a Very Bad Teacher
Main
Latrines at Qumran »

November 13, 2006

Bowing, Scraping and Scribal Traditions

In my most recent mega-post, now a couple of months old, on scribal schools, I argued that there was a scribal school in Jerusalem during the Amarna Age. But the argument was not definitive. You may remember that Moran has argued that the Amarna scribe from Jerusalem was from Syria and not homegrown. While, this is not an argument against a scribal school in Jerusalem at the time, if true, it would argue that the Jerusalem scribe was not trained there. I took a somewhat different tack and suggested that while the work of the Jerusalem scribe did show all the "northern" elements that Moran indicated, the most important indication of "southern" training was in what were truly unique, specific phonetic or orthographic elements, in his style. In short, the northern elements are an indication of conservatism in the scribe's training while the "southern" and specifically Jerusalemite elements are an indication that his training was local.

At the time, I wrote that post, I had read through a paper by Morris that I found interesting but irrelevant to the issue at hand. I also thought there was something flawed in the paper. She looked at all the "greeting" formulae in the Amarna letters that were from vassal states and weighted them in order of obsequiousness. She rated the three elements of these "greeting" formulae separately. For example, the addressee statement "Say to the king of Egypt (EA 52)" got 1 point while "Say to the king, my lord, My Sun, my god, and the Sun in the sky, (e.g. EA 235)" got 5 points. The same was done with the addressor statement and then the statement of obsequious proper. She then averaged their scores. From this she (191-102) concluded,

That the rulers of each city-state were allowed a specific range of greeting formulas divvied out according to their perceived rank in the empire cannot confidently be asserted. There are certainly variations in formulas from letter to letter sent by the same vassal, often correlating with the degree of urgency communicated. What is interesting, however, is that each geographic area maintained a generally consistent ranking level of obsequiousness - despite the occasional change of ruler or variation in political fortune. The kings of the northern frontier and those of the coastal lowland of Canaan, for example, employed mutually exclusive greeting formulas, and one expects that the nature and number of their respective imagined prostrations would in fact be consistent with those performed in reality if the vassal were granted an audience with the king. The rest of the Levant exhibited a less stark division of formulas; yet the cities in the southern hill country, with the exception of Qiltu, utilized consistently higher-status greeting formula than those used on the Phoenician coast and in northern Canaan. . . .

She goes on to draw out a number of subordinate implications of these observations.

In the paragraph quoted above, Morris notes that the "cities in the southern hill country, with the exception of Qiltu, utilized consistently higher-status greeting formula." The actual numbers she assigns to them are as follows: Jerusalem - 2 (but see below), Shechem - 2.7, Gimti-Kitmil - 2.7, Qiltu - 3.8. For the sake of comparison, Ugarit rates a 2.2 and Ashkelon gets a 5.

It is true that Jerusalem stands out as unique among its neighbors. Of this Morris says, "The fact that Abdi-Heba's letters are relatively free from unctuous epithets and the like may have to do with his perceived status as a 'friend of the king'."

But are there other explanations that may account for the differences in obsequiousness? I would like to consider two possibilities. But before I do, it is important to remember that there are more basic differences in letter greeting formulae than the level of obsequiousness. A higher-level consideration is the direction and nature of subordination. The formulae used when writing to a subordinate and the formulae when writing to an equal is quite different than in these letters from a subordinate to a superior. It is on the subordinate to superior class of letters that both these remarks and those in Morris' paper focus.

The first possibility is that the amount of bowing and scraping may reflect how much good will the subordinate actually feels. Harris, 191, indicates the same thing. Nowhere is this seen more than in the letters to the pharaoh from the unrelenting Rib-Hadda of Byblos (Gubla). For example, in EA 84, Rib-Hadda lays it on fairly thick. (I follow Moran's (1987) translations for citations of the Amarna letters. Translations of the letters from archives of Ugarit are mine):

Say to the king my lord, Sun of all countries: Message of Rib-Hadda, your servant, footstool for your feet. I fall at the feet of the Sun, my lord, 7 times and 7 times. May the Gubla lady grant power to the king my lord.

Using Morris' rating system, this would earn a 3.3 [(3 + 4 + 3)/3, if you read the article you'll see how I got these numbers.] In this letter Rib-Hadda expresses outrage over the activity of 'Abdi-Ashirta, throws in a few additional complaints and asks for help.

But is EA 90 he is a little more pointed, and somewhat more hopeless,

Say to the king, my lord: Message of Rib-Hadda, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord, my Sun, 7 times and 7 times.

By my calculations, Morris would give this greeting a 2.7 [(2 + 3 + 3)/3]

Notice that when he writes to the Pharaoh's ambassador in EA 93 he is even more to the point. He is also very unhappy.

To Amanappa: Message of Rib-Hadda. I fall at your feet.

That is all the bowing and scraping he does for this guy before he gets to his bitter point. Under Morris scheme this would earn a 1 [(1 + 1 + 1)/3] and a very weak 1 at that.

What may be more interesting is that the most common greeting to the Pharaoh from Rib-Hadda of Byblos is represented in EA 89,

Rib-Hadda says to his lord, king of all countries, Great King: May the Lady of Gubla grant power to the king, my lord. I Fall at the feet of my lord, my Sun, 7 times and 7 times.

This "greeting" would be rated a 2.7 or better on Harris' scale except for one thing. Rib-Hadda puts his name first. While more expansive than any such letter of which I am aware, this is the order that one would expect in a letter from a superior to a subordinate! I'll get back to this in a moment.

Morris, 191, might argue that these variations reflect an allowable but specific range of greeting formula. But the difference within the letters from Byblos alone, between 2.7 and 3.3 on Morris' scale, is quite big. It is only slightly less than the difference between Tyre (3), Megiddo (3.1), Sidon (3.3), Beirut (3.4) and Pelia (3.7) of Phoenicia and Northern Canaan or Gezer (4), Akko (4.45), Lachish (4.8) and Ashkelon (5) of the Coastal Canaan and the Shephelah. If there is such a range for each vassal, it is a significant range. This is particularly true when an anomalous order of the greeting is included in the mix of options. In addition, we have many letters from Rib-Hadda but from other vassals we have as few as a single letter. It is hard to know what the distribution of "greeting" formulae would look like if there were a large sampling from every vassal city.

This brings me to the second possibility. Another part of the variation that Morris attributes to vassal privilege and relationship may well be the result of varying scribal traditions. A complete survey is beyond the scope of this or perhaps any blog post. I will only look at a couple of letters to the King of Ugarit from subordinates and at the Amarna Jerusalem letters by way of illustration.

Let's start with the greeting formulae from the Amarna letters of Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem.

Say to the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, 7 times and 7 times. (EA 285, 286, 287, 289, 290)

Say to the king, my lord, my Sun: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, 7 times and 7 times. (EA 288)

Using Morris' scheme one gets a 2.3 [(2 + 2 + 3)/3] score for the first referenced greeting and a 2.7 [(3 + 2 + 3)/3] for the second. From these, I calculate an average over all six letters of 2.39. I'm not sure how Morris, 184, got an average of 2 (see above). In any case, it is still substantially below the score of other nearby cities. The real thing to notice here is how very uniform these formulae are. The second one only differs from the first of which there are five instantiations by the addition of the words, "my Sun."

Now let's turn to a rather small sampling of letters found at Ugarit. I have not tried to be comprehensive at all. Of course, I have selected from among letters from a subordinate to a superior. Here are a few examples.

Say to the king of Ugarit, my lord: Thus says Mašnappya, your servant. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, 2 times 7 times. [RS 17:391, PRU IV, 226]

Say to the governor/overseer of the land of Ugarit, my lord: Thus says Eppiqu, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord, 2 times 7 times. [RS 17:392, PRU IV, 226]

Notice that the first letter (RS 17:391} is to the king himself while the second is to the šâkin. But they both use exactly the same formula.

Say to the king of Ugarit, my lord: Message of Šumiy[anu(?)], your servant. I fall down at the feet of my lord. [RS 20.33, Ug. V, 69 (the famous letter of the general)].

Say to Hashmiteshub, my lord: Message of Amisramru, your servant. I fall down at the feet of my lord. [RS 20.184, Ug. V, 97, from the king of Ugarit of to Hashmiteshub.]

A letter from the king of Ugarit to the king of Egypt is badly broken but the reconstructed beginning must have read something like this.

Say to the king of Egypt, my lord, . . . warrior king, . . . lord of the lands, my lord: Message of . . . your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord 2 times 7 times. [RS 20.182, Ug. V, 111]

While the first part of the "greeting formula" is expanded, perhaps giving a fuller title of the king of Egypt, the remainder of the formula is quite vanilla and very much like that of the letter Mašnappya send to the king of Ugarit. We also have two letters from Ugarit in the Amarna archives that contain the introduction material.

[Say to the king], my Sun, [my lord: Message of Amm]istam[ru, your servant. I fall at] your [feet] 7 [times and 7 times.] [EA 45]

To the king, the Sun, my lord. Message of Niqm-Adda (Niqmandu), your servant: I fall at the feet of the king, my lord. [EA 49]

It appear that the scribe in Ugarit attempted to comply with Egyptian vassel standards in these two letters. However, I think the Egyptian court may have found the greeting in EA 49 somewhat brisk.

And finally, a letter found at Ugarit from the king of Amurru to the king of Ugarit,

Say to the king of Ugarit, my lord: Message of Parsi, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord. [RS 20.162, Ug. V, 115]

Notice that this formula is identical to that used in RS 20.33.

When one compares the beginnings of subordinate letters from the archives of Ugarit with the Amarna letters from Jerusalem to the Pharaoh one sees a fairly common, relatively low, level of obsequiousness. There are of course differences. The "I fall at the feet" formula are slightly different when the number of deep bows is enumerated. The king of Ugarit appears to use somewhat fuller address in his letter to the Pharaoh than in other letters in the Akkadian archives from Ugarit and it is even fuller than that used by the scribe of the Jerusalem warrior prince.

I think one can see the role of differing scribal traditions in many of these similarities and differences. It is clear that the formulae are modified to fit the occasion. But the underlying basis seems quite consistent both at Ugarit and at Jerusalem.

With the understanding that my analysis is very limited, it appears that the Jerusalem scribe may have been steeped in a more northern tradition when it comes to these greetings. This is not at all surprising. As I said, much of his language at the grammatical level is also "northern" in the same since.

Does this add weight to Moran's claim that the scribe of Jerusalem was from Syria? Well, it depends a little on how you look at it. If you look at the distribution of "greeting" formulae presented by Morris, 186, you might think so. However, one would need to go to northern Syria before one found the consistent use of comparable formulae. Methodologically, one must account for the "southern" elements in the Jerusalem scribes work As Moran, 293, himself said, "If we may define the Jerusalem scribe in geographical terms as a 'northerner,' he is no less a 'southerner' too." I think it easier to explain the "northern" elements, including the "greeting" formulae, in terms of a linguistically conservative Jerusalem scribal training environment than by assuming that a Syrian scribe picked up the "southern" elements of his writing style while in Jerusalem. Of course, if he did pick them up there, he got them from an already established scribal tradition. Either way, I still think the preponderance of the evidence points to there being a scribal school in Jerusalem in the Amarna Age. Of course, a more detailed study than this would be necessary to increase confidence that scribal traditions influenced these formulae but I do think I have offered enough to suggest that they did.

Update: November 14, 2006
Added material on EA 45 and 49

References:

Posted by Duane Smith at November 13, 2006 7:10 PM | Read more on Scribal Schools |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1936

Comments

Posted by: Charles at November 14, 2006 6:43 PM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: