One of the most absorbing passages in the present correspondence occurs in no. 65, a letter by the enigmatic anonymous writer, where he gives vent to feelings of jealousy in protecting his own field of expertise against intrusive outsiders. He is very indignant at the teaching of specialised scholarly skills of the son of the goldsmith Parruṭu of the queen's household.
Our author's anger can be better understood when bearing in mind the importance of exorcism, extispicy and astrology at that time, and taking into consideration that their practice by people not authorised by the king was considered potentially harmful to the ruler himself and the whole monarchy.[[109]]
It is virtually certain that the unnamed son of the goldsmith is identical with Nabû-sagib. the author of no. 81 who in this letter actually identifies himself as '"the son of the goldsmith Parruṭu of the queen's household.[[110]] The content of no. 65 may help explain why Nabû-sagib personally wrote a letter to the King. No. 81 relates to the delivery of jewellery. a matter that can easily be imagined to have been part and parcel of the work of royal goldsmiths. Of Course, Nabû-sagib probably was a goldsmith, as his father, but he did not necessarily have to be a practitioner of the craft himself. Thus he might well have prepared the Pazuzu-heads mentioned in no. 65:4 himself, unless - more likely - there were several of those heads at the goldsmith's workshop.[[111]]
Anyway, Nabû-sagib could also be visualised as a type of courier, interme- diary or apprentice. who was. among other things. running errands for the goldsmiths of the queen's household. Be that as it may. it is known that some people were specialised in two or more different occupations,[[112]] while others may even have held I wo or more offices at the same time.[[113]] The necessary prerequisites needed for many professions consisted of a wide variety of different skills. Scholars are good examples of this, since their education clearly was multi-faceted.[[114]] In the letter authored by Nabû-sagib, we witness him responding to an earlier missive of the king concerning the jewellery which the king had ordered Nabû-sagib to deliver to the palace, but which obviously had failed somehow to arrive, since Nabû-sagib explains: "I gave them (= the jewellery) to the gate-guard, Atanha-ilu, along with a letter, saying, 'Deliver them to the king, my lord!'" (r.4-6). This reference to another letter, probably also written by Nabû-sagib, which unfortunately has not survived, is interesting. since it suggests that there may have been still further letters written by him. The passage also illustrates the strict policy of ad- mission to the royal palace: it shows that a person belonging to the household of the queen could not automatically enter the royal palace, even if delivering important and valuable items.
In the light of the previous discussion. it is not surprising that an exorcist called Nabû-sagib is actually attested. It seems quite possible that this exorcist is identical with Nabû-sagib the goldsmith's son.[[115]] At least the passage in no. 65 supports the assumption, clearly indicating that he received instruction in exorcism and that it was his plan (or his father·s or someone else' s plan) to become a scholar. The disapproving letter by the enigmatic anonymous writer may, of course, have led to actions intended 10 prevent the teaching of scholarly skills to the goldsmith's son, unless the king was already familiar with the maller, or unless some other significant factors favoured such an education. If the king did not know anything about the matter before reading or hearing the letter by the enigmatic anonymous writer. we might be informed of his reaction in another letter (no. 18). Unfortunately. in its present state. this letter cannot offer any further context whatsoever to elucidate the matter.
At this point it seems appropriate to ponder briefly whether a goldsmith's son could under any circumstances have become an exorcist. A categorical 'no' would in principle probably be the correct answer, the reason being that scholarly occupations, like many other ones, were strictly tied to family traditions.[[116]] Hence influential families of exorcists and other scholarly families would presumably have considered it an outrage if an outsider tried to "invade" their esoteric disciplines. Such a situation would not have been tolerated without protest. Actually, this is what happened in no. 65.
Nevertheless, the case might have been different if a protégé of the queen was in question, or even better, if the person concerned was a protege of the queen mother. This possibility appears quite tempting to us, even though it has to be admitted that it involves some problems. We do not really know if the household of the queen was separate from the queen mother's household in the Neo-Assyrian period.[[117]] If there was only one entity, the household of the queen, then it might have been under the queen mother's control if she was alive.[[118]] If there were two separate entities (the queen's and the queen mother's households), they may have been so closely knit together that they partly shared the same palace(s), and so on. [[119]] A third possibility is that the household of the queen was a permanent institution even if there was, temporarily, no principal queen living. [[120]] In the first case, the living queen mother might still have been the most honoured person of the household, but not necessarily always the most influential person.
While a comprehensive study of the queen 's household in the Neo-Assyrian period is beyond the scope of the present volume, we shall take a closer look at the queen's household referred to in the letters of goldsmith Parruṭu and his son Nabû-sagib, because it is essentially relevant to our enquiry. To establish the identity of the queen(s) under whom Parruṭu and his son served, we must, of course, first consider the dates of the relevant letters. As noted in Table I above, no. 65 can be certainly dated to 672-669. The dating of no. 81. by Nabû-sagib, is less clear, but it is also likely to come from the period 672-669.
During this period, Ešarra-hammat is known to have been an influential queen. Apparently she was the mother of Assurbanipal and Samas-sumu- ukin, and ber importance, known from a handful of sources, would make her a good candidate here.[[121]] However, her early death (according to the Assyrian calendar in 673-XII-5/6, i.e. about February 7, 672 B.C.), rules her out.[[122]] Besides, it is not known if Ešarra-harnmat ever played an active political role. In the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to decide if another wife of Esarhaddon was nominated queen after the death of Ešarra-harnmat. Libbali-sarrat, the wife of Assurbanipal, was hardly called queen already in Esarhaddon's reign. So the most likely candidate for the queen of 672-669 is the queen mother Naqia.
Certainly, Naqia was influential enough to have a son of a goldsmith educated and become an exorcist, thus breaking the tradition of passing that esteemed profession from father to son. Moreover, Parruṭu himself was probably an exceedingly wealthy man. We do not see any obstacle in identifying him in one legal document (SAA 6 253, date lost), in which he sells a large estate to Issar-duri, the queen mother's scribe. This legal document does not expressly inform us of any tangible connections between Parruṭu and the scribe (the profession or position of the former is not mentioned in the document), but in general land sales were often carried out between parties who were familiar with each other. At the time when Parruṭu hired a Babylonian to teach his son, it is evident that the former was not intended to teach the mere rudiments of cuneiform writing to Nabû-sagib. Hence Nabû-sagib had presumably already acquired his basic education in the queen (mother)'s household. either from Tssar-duri or some other scribe working for the queen's household, before the unnamed Babylonian scholar taught him spe- cialised sciences.[[123]]
Jn our opinion it is not to be ruled out that Nabû-sagib enjoyed a special position in the queen (mother)'s household and thus might have gained a unique opportunity to learn the challenging and appreciated craft of the exorcist. More evidence is, of course, needed. but we are tempted to propose that the initiative lo train a goldsmith's son to become a scholar, or more precisely an exorcist in this case, came from the queen mother Naqia in person: she herself is known to have had recourse to extispicy, astrology and oracles.[[124]]
109 See Parpola, Iraq 34 (1972) 32 and Festschrift Röllig p. 321 n. 18.
110 The identity of the goldsmith's son in no. 65 was already inferred by Parpola, without stating the name of the person in question, see Festschrift Röllig p. 321 n.18.
111 Evidence for goldsmiths or other metal workers producing Pazuzu-heads and figures is discussed in R. Klengel-Brandt, "Ein Pazuzu-Kopf mit Inschrift", Or. 37 (1968) 81-84. It is not excluded that magical treatments were performed by goldsmiths in some instances, as suggested by Klengel-Brandt (ibid. 83), even though this suggestion was to a great extent based on misreading the word ṣarrāpu "goldsmith" occurring in the inscription published a zabbu, a kind of ecstatic; for the corrected reading, see S. Parpola, "The Reading of the Neo-Assyrian Logogram LÚ.SIMUG.KUG.GI 'Goldsmith'", SAAB 2 (1988) 79f.
112 For example, Nabû-ašared, a priest or official of the Aššur temple (PNA 2/II p. 806 s.v. Nabû-ašared 5), seems to have been quite versatile. He writes to the king "I myself sketched the royal image which is in outline", and remarks on a royal image, "I myself do not agree with this and I will not fashion (it so) ... I myself should fashion the [bod]y, [but] they [don't a]gree (SAA 13 34:14-15, r. 7-8 and 15-17).
113 Some military personnel were able to carry several professional titles within the same year. Therefore it is sometimes difficult to decide whether different choices or only different descriptions of the same office were meant in reality, see SAA 14 o. XIIIff for Aššur-killanni and ibid. p. XV for Balasî. It seems possible that some occupations were only secondary "part time-jobs", like the function of a judge in court.
114 Therefore, it is not possible to say with certainty whether, e.g., the scholars who bore the title "chief scribe" indeed were first and foremost scribes. In general, Mesopotamian scholars can, despite the professional titles they bore, often view as versatile, not confined to a certain field, but applying their theoretical and practical skills in a variety of ways.
115 In PNA 2/II p. 866, Nabû-sagibi, son of Parrutṭu and goldsmith of the queen's household, and Nabû-sagibi, exorcist at the royal court (SAA 7 1 i 14), are (understandably!) treated separately as nos. 1 and 2.
116 See LAS II p. XVIIf.
117 So interpreted by Melville Naqia/Zakutu pp. 9, 19 and especially 105ff.
118 On the influence of the queen mother in the queen's household, the "harem", see e.g., E. Leichty, Cane p. 949. Leichty's views about the harem are challenged by Melville in her Naqia/Zakutu, p. 2. How little we actually know about the queens and other royal woman of the Neo-Assyrian empire is aptly summarised in Kuhrt ANE p. 526ff. However, some new evidence for the Neo-Assyrian queens is available, see, e.g., S. Dalley, "Yabâ, Atalya, and the Foreign Policy of Late Assyrian Kings", SAAB 12 pp.83-98.
119 ND 2093:6-7 and SAA 13 108 may support this. "The queen mother's household" (bēt ummi šarri) is explicitly mentioned only twice, in SAA 6 255:2 (dated 678) and ND 2093:7 (629).
120 The career of Milki-nuri is interesting in this respect. So far he is explicitly attested as "eunuch of the queen" only in SAA 14 1-6. For the problem of dating some of the documents from his dossier (e.g., SAA 14 2-7), cf. n. 9 above. Otherwise Milki-nuri appears at the end of the reign of Esarhaddon (nos. 20 r.2, 60 r.12, 63 s.1) and at the beginning of the reign of Assurbanipal (SAA 14 1, dated 668) c.f. L. Kataja, SAAB 1 p. 66.
121 That Ešarra-hammat was the mother of Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukin seems certain, see Weissert, PNA 1/I p.160f s.v. Aššur-bāni-apli, and Radner, PNA 1/II p. 406f s.v. Ešarra-hammat.
122 For the Assyrian date of Ešarra-hammat's death see Grayson Chronicles pp. 85:22 and 127:23, and Borger Esarh. p. 124: 673/2 (c.f. Ibid., p. 10 10§). For the Julian date, see LAS II pp. 190 and 382 (Appendix A).
123 That the queen mother had more than one scribe in her service becomes evident from SAA 6 253 in which her scribe Issar-duri acts as a purchaser and another scribe of hers is mentioned (name not preserved) as a witness (r.10). By name, als Asqudi (SAA 325:2, listed in Melville Naqia/Zakutu p. 108) is known to have been a scribe of the queen mother.
124 See Melville Naqia/Zakutu p. 27ff and SAA 9 1 v 13, 2 i 13; SAA 10 201, 313; SAA 13 76-77, 188.
Mikko Luukko & Greta van Buylaere
Mikko Luukko & Greta van Buylaere, 'The Goldsmith and his Son', The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon, SAA 16. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 2002; online contents: SAAo/SAA16 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2022 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa16/petitionsanddenunciations/thegoldsmithandhisson/]