Skip to main content

Formation and Administration of the Collections of Literary and Scholarly Tablets in First Millennium Babylonia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 265))

Abstract

Mesopotamia of the first millennium B.C. was divided into Babylonia in the south of present-day Iraq and Assyria in the region of nowadays Mosul. Babylonia and Assyria both formed part of the Sumero-Akkadian culture which combined elements of the Sumerian and Akkadian traditions; these traditions were conveyed by the cuneiform writing system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    (Geller 1997, ZA 2007)

  2. 2.

    Except for Urartu, a state that was situated between lake Van and lake Urmia; this state disappeared at the beginning of the sixth century. Further, the Achaemenids also developed a cuneiform script to record the ancient Persian language.

  3. 3.

    Concerning the definition of archive, cf. (Jursa 2005, 4–6).

  4. 4.

    (Charpin 1986, 430–1).

  5. 5.

    The purpose of the following lines is to differentiate the uses of the second millennium from the ones of the first millennium discussed here. Regarding the second millennium, cf. the contribution of C. Proust in this volume.

  6. 6.

    Concerning these domains, cf. infra.

  7. 7.

    It should be noted that the works were transmitted by means of successive copies, thus more or less important variations occur on the tablets throughout the first millennium due to scribal errors, new interpretations in the form of glosses etc. A good example of the effect of the copying on works that became canonical works is considered by J. Bottéro in his analysis of the Manuel de l’exorciste (Bottéro 1996, 65–112).

  8. 8.

    Concerning Sin-leqe-unnini and his descendents, cf. (Beaulieu 2000).

  9. 9.

    (Van Dijk, Mayer 1980 (BaM, 089)).

  10. 10.

    This thematic division is inspired by the one adopted by (Wiseman and Black 1996, 4 and 9–36).

  11. 11.

    (Weitemeyer 1956).

  12. 12.

    There are the ‘catalogues’ of the wax tablets of the library of Aššurbanipal in Nineveh, but these resemble more inventories than a classification device. Catalogues and lists of works should not be confused either, see for example the Manuel de l’exorciste (Bottéro 1996, 65–112).

  13. 13.

    (Boiy 2004, 273).

  14. 14.

    There are other types of priests in charge of the temples, but only the most important professions regarding the scholarly practices will be considered here.

  15. 15.

    (Parpola 1993, 122).

  16. 16.

    This is the term used by Marduk-šapik-zeri in line 35 on the reverse of the tablet (Parpola 1993, 124).

  17. 17.

    The translation of the tablet K 3050 + K 2694 is based on P. Villard’s translation (Villard 1997, 137).

  18. 18.

    For Oppenheim, the function of the palace libraries of Nineveh was to provide the king and his counselors with the texts that allow understanding the will of the gods with respect to the king. We shall consider this below.

  19. 19.

    (Wiseman and Black 1996).

  20. 20.

    (Pederse´n 1998, 209–10).

  21. 21.

    (Clancier 2009a, 105–213). There are other important collections such as the library of the Ezida, the temple of Nabū in Borsippa, whose reconstruction is not yet finished.

  22. 22.

    The tablets were published – in the form of hand-copies of the tablets - by (Van Dijk, Mayer 1980).

  23. 23.

    See (al-Jadir 1987) for a rapid introduction to this discovery.

  24. 24.

    Concerning the second millennium, cf. the contribution of C. Proust in this volume.

  25. 25.

    (Cavigneaux 1981a, 1981b, 1999).

  26. 26.

    Concerning teaching in Babylonia during the late period, see (Gesche 2001) who suggests these two levels in the education of the scribes. However, this division is not systematic: texts aimed at teaching cuneiform writing were discovered in the private libraries of the exorcists in Uruk (SpTU V; 276 and 277).

  27. 27.

    The epigraphic discoveries of locus Ue XVIII have been published in the series Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, first inserted in the collection ADFU, Ausgrabungen der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka for SpTU 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. ADFU 9, 10 and 12) then in AUWE, Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka Endberichte for SpTU 4 and 5 (i.e. AUWE 12 and 13). SpTU5, the last volume of the series, gives the transcription, translation and hand copies of the texts.

  28. 28.

    The principal member of this family is Anu-ikur; the collection sometimes bears his name.

  29. 29.

    As in the preceding case, this collection sometimes bears the name of Iqiša, the main protagonist of this library.

  30. 30.

    A list of stones, weights of foodstuffs, wood, animals, clothes: probably a delivery for the temple.

  31. 31.

    Further, there were 56 lexical lists not attributed to either library. This mass of texts – texts that were a privileged aid for teaching- does not call into question the follow conclusions, quite the reverse.

  32. 32.

    (Clancier 2009b, 113–5).

  33. 33.

    As regards the collection of Anu-ik□ur, this concerns for example the following tablets: SpTU 1, 44; 46; 48; SpTU 2, 8; SpTU 3, 69; 76; SpTU 4, 161. As regards the collection of Iqiša: SpTU 2, 9; 10; 21; 32; 33; 34; SpTU 3, 72; 97. Let us note that many tablets are damaged to the point that it is not longer possible to know their exact content. In these conditions it becomes almost impossible to identify an extract, the elements of analysis being too tenuous. Therefore it is most probable that the number of extracts is an underestimation. In a similar way, when only one tablet of a series has been copied, it is also possible to consider it as an extract. Nevertheless, the problem of the representativeness of the collections can be posed. In particular, the wax covered wooden tablets are lacking.

  34. 34.

    (Clancier 2009b).

  35. 35.

    SpTU 3, 101.

  36. 36.

    Concerning the commentaries, cf. (Durand 1979).

  37. 37.

    The case of the library of the Ebabbar of Sippar, discovered in the eighties, will be left aside; an exhaustive publication of its texts still remains to be done. This library seems to have been the working library of the haruspices of the temple.

  38. 38.

    I have followed the typology of the editors (van Dijk and Mayer 1980).

  39. 39.

    BaM 2,8. It is a list of gods on a tablet also containing extracts of both the ritual of the lamentation-priest and the preparation of the lilissu (skin that was fixed on a big tambourine). There are also other lists, but none are for an educational purpose. It is preferable to designate them as works of erudition: BaM 2,88 (list of kings of Babylon from Kandalanu to Seleucus II i.e. from 647 to 226); BaM 2,89 (list of the apkallu and ummânu, a sort of dynasty of Sages extending from the organization of the world to the great families of Mesopotamian scholars); BaM 2,91 (commentary of a list of gods ?); BaM 2,98 (sort of compass rose).

  40. 40.

    BaM 2, 6; 12; 65 and 75 are document that belonged to a student at the end of his training; their quality of achievement permitted the incorporation into the library.

  41. 41.

    BaM 2, 8; 76; 77; 80; 91; 92; 93; 94.

  42. 42.

    It seems conceivable that the mathematical texts might have been of use to the lamentation-priests for the writing of the documents of mathematical astronomy.

  43. 43.

    O. Neugebauer published the texts of mathematical -or theoretical- astronomy in ACT, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (Neugebauer 1955). The corpus of texts is composed of 312 tablets of which 201 come from Babylon, the rest comes from Uruk; they all date -or can be dated- from the Late Babylonian period. Since O. Neugebauer’s work, about fifty supplementary documents of this type have been identified (cf. Aaboe 1968, 1969, 1971; Aaboe and Hamilton 1979 and for a bibliography of these texts and of the ACT, cf. Hunger and Pingree 1999 and Steele 2002, 293).

  44. 44.

    These documents are also named ‘Greek-Letter Phenomena’ because (Sachs 1948, 274) designated the phenomena described in them using Greek letters. Cf. also (Neugebauer 1975, 386) and (Boiy 2004, 30).

  45. 45.

    The documents of this type have been published in ACT, supplemented by (Aaboe 1968, pl.1 (A,B,C and D); pl. 2–3; 1971, pl.1 (A,B,C and D)) and (Steele 2002, 298–301).

  46. 46.

    (Neugebauer and Sachs 1956, 131).

  47. 47.

    The direct observations of celestial phenomena are principally documented in Babylon (with some very rare texts in Nippur and Uruk). They gave rise to the establishment of documents that are called astronomical diaries; these diaries will be considered below with respect to Babylon.

  48. 48.

    These are daily observations of the sky. They were completed by notes on the remarkable events of the day, the price of grain on the Babylonian market or the level of the Euphrates. The reference publications of these texts are the Diaries.

  49. 49.

    I shall not compare these libraries with the royal Assyrian libraries or the library of the Esagil in Babylon. The conditions of their discovery do not permit us to be certain that all the rooms are known.

  50. 50.

    Further, the important number of texts of medicine and exorcism that were present in the temple libraries seems also to reflect the favorable position held by the exorcists. Indeed, besides the exorcists’ great erudition revealed by the private libraries in Babylonia and Assyria, their sole number was important. Thus, in Babylon whereas the Esagil employed 6 haruspices (rations list BM 78997), 14 astronomer-astrologists (rations list YBC 11549), 50 lamentation-priests (rations list CT 44, 84), there were more than 100 exorcists (rations list HSM 1893.5.6).

  51. 51.

    The library of the Esagil in Babylon is an exception to this rule since, as major astronomical centre, it held a number of astronomical data texts both astronomical diaries and documents of mathematical astronomy. Further, a historiographic tradition having developed there, the Esagil became the major production centre of historical texts in the Achaemenid, Hellenistic and Parthian periods.

  52. 52.

    With respect to this literature, see (Hunger 1992 and Parpola 1993).

  53. 53.

    (Clancier 2009a, 206).

  54. 54.

    (Oppenheim 1964, 19–20).

  55. 55.

    It would be possible to add to this the large library of the Ezida, other temple of Nabu, in Borsippa. And although it is in a very bad state, it seems that the main library of the Bīt Rēš might also have similar features.

  56. 56.

    Although we cannot discuss this phenomenon in more detail, the preservation of texts is far from being the only activity of the temples. Several disciplines were developed in the temples during the Hellenistic period, for instance mathematical astronomy, erudite practices that led to the creation of commentaries and an important historiographical tradition informing us today of Hellenistic history from a Babylonian standpoint. This erudite environment seems quite far from an ossification at the end of the third and beginning of the second centuries B.C. (Clancier 2009a, 255–317).

  57. 57.

    (Rochberg 1991, 108–9).

  58. 58.

    (Landsberger 1965).

  59. 59.

    Two come from Nippur: Diaries 5, 63 and Diaries 5, 57. Five may come from Uruk: Diaries 5, 82; Diaries 5, 74; Diaries 1, -463; Diaries 5, 103 and Diaries 3, -99 C. Other than Diaries 1, -463 and Diaries 3, -99 C are lunar and planetary texts. Let us note that, in the case of this last town, the only true astronomical diary is the one discovered in the library of the lamentation-priests of the Bīt Rēš, the others are in fact compilations of eclipses according to an 18 year period. The attribution of the text Diaries 3, -99 C poses a problem and is not certain. The remaining astronomical journals come from Babylon, i.e. 522 tablets. Concerning the erudite activities of the Esagil cf. (Beaulieu 2006).

  60. 60.

    This phenomenon concerns the library tablets, but not the legal documents such as contracts or other official texts (e.g. title deeds). In this case, it is the original tablet – with possible double originals- containing the text, the list of witnesses and the seals that was to be kept.

  61. 61.

    PN: personal name.

  62. 62.

    The term šešgallu, the Akkadian form of the Sumerian šeš.gal, literally means ‘big brother’. As it represents a religious function it could be translated by ‘great priest’; however this does not shed light on the function itself. Thus it seems preferable to keep the Akkadian term (CAD Š/2: 336).

  63. 63.

    SpTU 1,2. 5’[kīma] sumun-šú sar-ma ba-rù ù up-puš 4 ga[ba-ri gišd]a níg.ga d[60 u an-tu 4 ] 6’[im] ¹d60.šeš.gál-ši a šá ¹ki-din- d60 šà.bal.bal [¹é-kur-za-kir] [maš.maš d60 u an-tu 4 ] 7’[šeš].gal-i šá é re-eš unugki-ú qa-atd60]-din-su-[e mârišu] 8’[ana] a-ha-a-zi-šú gíd.da u4.meš-šú din zi.[meš-šú u kunnu išdēšu išurma] 9’[ina unug]ki u é re-eš é en-ú-ti-šú ú-k[in] (…).

  64. 64.

    There are even some references to copies made from magallatu i.e. parchment scrolls. This case is very rare and raises the question of the possible passage of certain categories of texts from clay to parchment in Babylonia during the Hellenistic period (Clancier 2005, 90–1).

  65. 65.

    Concerning the curriculum of the apprentice scribe, see (Cavigneaux 1982 and 1999).

  66. 66.

    (Gesche 2001).

  67. 67.

    For some examples among others:SpTU 3, 65 et 74; ACT 123 et 123a.

  68. 68.

    (Oppenheim 1970, 25).

  69. 69.

    ACT 101 where Anu-ah-ušabši, a descendent of Ekur-zakir, wrote for his son Ina-qibit-Anu.

  70. 70.

    SpTU 1, 126 and also TCL 6, 27 = ACT 501.

  71. 71.

    This case is documented in the house of the āšipu of the family of Ekur-zakir in Uruk, where tablets were found agglomerated in lumps and waiting to be reused (Hoh 1979, 28). Concerning tablet recycling, cf. (Faivre 1995 and Charpin 2003, 490).

  72. 72.

    (Charpin 1985) and cf. the case of literary and erudite tablets in association with the archives of the Esagil 2, in (Clancier 2009a, 195–200).

  73. 73.

    Nevertheless, the scribe Šamaš-eir, son of Ina-qibit-Anu, descendent of Šipkat-Anu, mentions in tablet TCL 6, 38 that he went to Elam to consult the original and this during the Hellenistic period. This original was in fact an Urukean tablet taken by Nabopolassar (king of Babylon from 626 to 605). Such an explanation in a colophon is extremely rare.

  74. 74.

    Certain historical texts such as the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian chronicles were regularly copied. This is no longer the case in the Hellenistic period when, however, this type of document was very popular. The preliminary publication by R. van Spek of the Babylonian chronicles of the Hellenistic and Parthian periods (www.livius.org) gives access to such documentation.

  75. 75.

    The discoverers of the palace libraries of Nineveh did not record their archaeological context with enough care for us to be able to get a precise idea of them.

  76. 76.

    The classification of these texts was not recorded. This is a surprise considering the recent date of the German excavations in this sector i.e. 1969–1972 (Schmidt 1972, 56). Further, it is impossible today to know which tablets were -and which ones were not- on these shelves by merely reading the excavation reports and the publications of the texts.

  77. 77.

    These texts were lexical lists (al-Jadir 1998, 714).

  78. 78.

    (al-Jadir 1987, 23).

  79. 79.

    (al-Jadir and al-Adami 1987, 30).

  80. 80.

    (al-Jadir 1991, 194).

  81. 81.

    (al-Jadir 1991, 194).

  82. 82.

    (Pedersén 1998, 194).

  83. 83.

    (al-Jadir 1987, 20; Pedersén 1998, 194).

  84. 84.

    (Pedersén 1998, 155).

  85. 85.

    The tablets of these rooms, discovered by H. Rassam at the beginning of the 1880s, were mixed up and badly registered; this makes their use very difficult today.

  86. 86.

    This designation covers all the god’s possessions and not only his library.

  87. 87.

    Concerning the topographical situation of the library of the Esagil, cf. (Clancier 2009a, 180–5).

  88. 88.

    Concerning this question, cf. (Clancier 2005, 90–1).

  89. 89.

    Concerning these questions, cf. (Geller 1997). Concerning the last dated or datable cuneiform tablets, cf. (Sachs 1976).

References

  • Aaboe, Asger. 1968. Some lunar auxiliary tables and related texts from the late Babylonian period, KDVSMM 36/12. Copenhague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaboe, Asger. 1969. A computed list of new moons for 312 B.C. to 316 B.C. from Babylon: BM 40094, KDVSMM 37/3. Copenhague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaboe, Asger. 1971. Lunar and solar velocities and the length of lunation intervals in Babylonian astronomy, KDVSMM 38/6. Copenhague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaboe, Asger, and Norman T. Hamilton. 1979. Contributions to the Study of Babylonian Lunar Theory, KDVSMM 40/6. Copenhague.

    Google Scholar 

  • al-Jadir, Walid. 1987. Une bibliothèque et ses tablettes dans le quartier sacré de Sippar. Archeologia 224: 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • al-Jadir, Walid. 1991. Le quartier de l’É-BABBAR de Sippar (Sommaire des fouilles de 1985–1989, 8–11èmes campagnes). Mésopotamie et Elam, CRRAI 34, Mesopotamian history and environment, Occasional publications 1. Gand: 193–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • al-Jadir, Walid. 1998. Découverte d’une bibliothèque dans le temple de la ville de Sippar (Abu Habbah). In XXXIV. International Congress, CRRAI 34. Ankara: 707–715, planches: 206–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • al-Jadir, Walid, and al-Adami, H. 1987. Tablets from Sippar. NABU 1987/2: 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. 2000. The Descendants of Sîn-lêqe-unninni. In Assyriologica et Semitica, ed, Marzahn J., Neuman H. and Fs Oelsner, AOAT 252: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. 2006. De l’Esagil au Mouseion: l’organisation de la recherche scientifique au ive siècle avant J.-C. . In La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, ed, Briant P. and Joannès F. 17–36. Persika 9: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boiy, Tom. 2004. Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 136. Peeters: Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottéro, Jean. 1996. Mythes et rites de Babylone. Genève: Slatkine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavigneaux, Antoine. 1981a. Le temple de Nabû ša Harê. Rapport préliminaire sur les textes cunéiformes. Sumer 37: 118–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavigneaux, Antoine. 1981b. Texts from Babylon: Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša harê 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavigneaux, Antoine. 1982. Lexikalische Listen. RlA 6: 609–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavigneaux, Antoine. 1999. Nabû ša harê und die Kinder von Babylon. In Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschicht, wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Modern, ed, Renger J. 385–392. Saarbrücken: Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpin, Doınimque. 1985. Les archives du devin Asqudum dans la résidence du ‘‘Chantier A’’. MARI 4: 453–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charpin, Doınimque. 1986. Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammu-rabi (XIX-XVIII e siècles av. J.-C.). Genève-Paris: Librairie Droz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpin, Doınimque. 2003. Esquisse d’une diplomatique des documents mésopotamiens. Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 160: 487–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clancier, Phillipe. 2005. Les scribes sur parchemin du temple d’Anu. RA 99: 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancier, Phillipe. 2009a. Les bibliothèques en Babylonie dans la deuxième moitié du Ier millénaire. AOAT 363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancier, Phillipe. 2009b. Le Manuel de l’Exorciste d’Uruk, dans Et il y eut un esprit dans l’Homme. Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie, eds, Faivre, X. and B. Lion et C. Michel. De Boccard: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, Jean-Marie. 1979. Un commentaire à TDP I, AO 17661. RA 73: 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faivre, Xavier. 1995. Le recyclage des tablettes cunéiformes. RA 89: 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, Mark J. 1997. The last wedge. ZA 87: 43–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gesche, Petra D. 2001. Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr., AOAT 275. Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoh, M. 1979. Die Grabung in Ue XVIII 1. In U.V.B. XXIX–XXX, ed, Schmidt J. 28–35. Bagdad-Berlin..

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunger, Hermann. 1976. Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil I. Ausgrabungen der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 9. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunger, Hermann. 1992. Astrological reports to assyrian kings. SAA 8. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunger, Hermann. 2002. Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia. Volume V: Lunar and planetary texts. Vienne: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunger, Hermann, and Pingree, D. 1999. Astral sciences in mesopotamia, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, nahe und der Mittlere Osten 44. Leiden, Boston et Cologne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jursa, Michael. 2005. Neo-Babylonian legal and administrative documents. Typology, contents and archives. GMTR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsberger, Benno. 1965. Brief des Bischofs von Esangila an König Asarhaddon. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, nieuwe reeks 28/6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer, Otto. 1955. Astronomical cuneiform texts: Babylonian ephemerides of the seleucid period for the motion of the sun, the moon, and the planets. Londres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer, Otto. 1975. A history of ancient mathematical astronomy Vol. 3. Berlin: Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer, Otto, and Sachs, A.J. 1956. A procedure text concerning solar an lunar motion: BM 36712. JCS 10: 131–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, Adolph L. 1964. Ancient mesopotamia – portrait of a dead civilization. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, Adolph L. 1970. La Mésopotamie: Portrait d'une civilisation. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parpola, Simo. 1993. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian scholars to the kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal II, SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersén, Olóf. 1998. Archives and librairies in the ancient near East, 1500–300 B.C. Bethesda: CDL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochberg, Francesca. 1991. Between Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomical Texts. JNES 50: 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, Abraham J. 1948. A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period. JCS 2, pp. 271–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, Abraham J. 1976. The latest datable cuneiform tablets. In Kramer anniversary volume, Fs. Kramer, ed. B.L. Eichler. AOAT 25: 379–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, Abraham, and Hunger, H. 1988. Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia. Vol. I Diaries from 656 B.C. to 262 B.C. Vienne: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, Abraham, and Hunger, H. 1989. Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia. Vol. II Diaries from 262 B.C. to 165 B.C. Vienne: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, Abraham, and Hunger, H. 1996. Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia Vol. III Diaries from 165 B.C. to 61 B.C. Vienne: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Jürgen. 1972. Grabung in Ue XVIII 1. dans J. Schmidt U.V.B. XXIX–XXX., Bagdad et Berlin: 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, M.J. 2002. Some lunar ephemerides and related texts from Babylon. Babylonische Archives 1: 293–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, Jan, and Mayer, W. 1980. Texte aus dem Rêš-Heiligtum in Uruk-Warka, BaM Beiheft 2, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Weiher, Egbert. 1982. Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil II. Ausgrabungen der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 10. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Weiher, Egbert. 1988. Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil III. Ausgrabungen der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 12. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Weiher, Egbert. 1993. Spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat U 18. Teil IV. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka Endberichte 12. Mayence: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Weiher, Egbert. 1998. Spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat U 18. Teil V. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka Endberichte 13. Mayence: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villard, Pierre. 1997. L’éducation d’Aššurbanipal. Ktèma 22: 135–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitemeyer, Mogens. 1956. Archive and library technique in ancient Mesoptamia. Libri 6/3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, Donald J, and Black, Jeremy A. 1996. Litterary texts from the temple of Nabû, CTN 4. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Clancier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clancier, P. (2010). Formation and Administration of the Collections of Literary and Scholarly Tablets in First Millennium Babylonia. In: Bretelle-Establet, F. (eds) Looking at it from Asia: the Processes that Shaped the Sources of History of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 265. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3676-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics