Talk:Akkadian royal titulary/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This will take me some time, since I need to also check references. But I'm looking forward to the challenge. -- llywrch (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

While I check references, I have some questions about this article for you.

• The title of this article is "Akkadian royal titulary"; however, it also includes a discussion of Neo-Babylonian & Assyrian titles. I'm confused. Why are later styles included? Was it to evoke the grandeur of earlier rulers, much as the Early American Republic uses titles & phrases evocative of the earlier Roman Republic (e.g., "Tribune", "Senate", etc.)? If it is to evoke, there is no mention of this intent in the article.

They are included because both the Babylonians and Assyrians spoke and wrote in the Akkadian language and because many of the titles brought up here spanned centuries of use within several different empires, united by the fact that the titles were always rendered in Akkadian. In some cases, titles would absolutely be embraced because a ruler wished to evoke the grandeur of previous great kings. I think this is adressed in the article; "In the Akkadian-speaking kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia", "Patterns of arrangement and the choice of titles and epithets usually reflect specific kings, which also meant that later rulers attempting to emulate an earlier great king often aligned themselves with their great predecessors through the titles, epithets and order chosen". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• I notice this article discusses the Assyrian title "King of All Peoples" which was not used in Akkadian times; yet it omits the better known "King of Kings". Either include both, or omit both.

King of Kings, "šar šarrāni", is in the tables of titles under "Dominance over Mesopotamia". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• In the tables listing the various titles, when the related articles on the individual titles are linked, the link is to the Akkadian words, but the article title is in English. While this is permitted, why did you link the Akkadian words & not the English. (And earlier in the article, the English words appear without the original Akkadian.)

Originally this was because some of the titles have alternative interpretations but looks like I forgot to add them (e.g. "šar kiššatim" is usually interpreted as "King of the Universe" but some researchers translate it as "King of the Totality" or "King of All"). I could change the link to the english word or add some more interpretations, whichever you think would work best. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• A last thought. Because the tables listing all of the titles are so comprehensive, I feel that including the section "Examples of titularies" is overkill. You could remove it without any loss of information.

I thought that since full titularies were often individual it might be interesting to include some of them. Maybe Esarhaddon's ridiculously long titles is a bit overkill but I thought it was a bit funny. I could remove Esarhaddon's and perhaps incorporate one or two of the others in the "History" section above where differences and similarities between titularies are discussed. E.g. Sargon II's and Nebuchadnezzar II's titles could be incorporated under the section discussing Assyrian and Babylonian titles and Antiochus's titles could be added under the one discussing the titles of Cyrus and Antiochus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your replies. -- llywrch (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Coming back after an unintended break has allowed me to look at this article with both fresh eyes, & a chance to figure out exactly what was my central point in my critique above. And there are a couple of points that i need to make.

• First, I want to compliment you for using this article to build on the research of other, related GA articles. Far too often one or more people will promote articles to a GA level in a given area (e.g. train stations, cars, battleships), yet fail to take the next step & use these Good Articles to create a more general Good Article (e.g. economic effects of rail transport, the history of cars or car manufacturers, history of naval warships). Here you have done that, which has been both a good thing (for the most part) -- yet in one instance a bad thing.

Thank you. I wrote the GA:s King of the Four Corners, King of the Universe, King of Kings and King of Sumer and Akkad and thought that an overview-type article might be a good idea. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• However, since the lead mentions "royal traditions" of titulature, I'd expect some account of those traditions, viz. when one style came into use, fell out, maybe some commentary about it. But I saw none. Much of the rest of this critique focuses on that omission.
  • The title šar kiššatim, which is the probably oldest in this list, is translated "king of the universe", a meaning that is somewhat incorrect. Literally it means "king of Kish" (which I expect you know), & it had this sole meaning in Sumerian times, before Sargon of Akkad. However, "king of Kish" had originally the connotation of being a more prestigious title than king of any of the other Sumerian city-states: evidence suggests the king of Kish was the first amongst equals or had some other kind of hegemony over the other Sumerian kings. Of course, when Sargon of Akkad subjected the Sumerian city states to his rule, he not only titled himself "king of Sumer & Akkad" but meaningfully assumed the title šar kiššatim. In the generations that followed, the connotation of this title changed to "king of the universe", much as later Europeans took the Roman cognomen Caesar & used it the name for the title of "Emperor" (e.g. German kaiser, Russian tsar).
    The complexity & evolution of this title is fairly well documented, & should have been included in this article. (I'd be glad to help you with sources on this.)

Yes I'm aware of the complex history of šar kiššatim and it should absolutely be discussed at greater length in this article due to its prominence and its earlier use. I'm just not sure how to effectively bring it in; šar kiššatim by its literal meaning of "King of Kish" appears (from what I've read) to mainly be a Sumerian thing, once Sargon adopted it the title was quickly equated to meaning something like "King of the Universe"/"King of the World", which is the meaning that later users applied to it as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on this title under "Origins". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll mark this bit as "done"  Resolved. -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• • There is a large gap in the history section of this article: nothing is said for the period between the Third dynasty of Ur & the Neo-Assyrian kings -- a gap of over a thousand years. If one looks in the table, there are a few bits -- Hammurabi is mentioned as styling himself "ruler of the four quarters", & Adad-nirari as adopting šar kiššatim ("king of the universe") -- but that presentation confuses the reader, IMHO.
    I did some research on the titles used during these years, & found that the original title the Assyrian kings adopted was išši’ak Aššur ("governor of Assur"), which implies a different role for the Assyrian king from his Sumerian & Babylonian counterparts. So when Adad-nirari adopted the style šar kiššatim, he was clearly breaking with tradition & looking to southern Mesopotamia for ideological antecedants. It is of interest that his successors reverted to the older title išši’ak Aššur, which was used down to the reign of Tukulti-Urta I. (I don't know what the ideological implications were of these different styles; this is where I would turn to a secondary source to explain. Or, since you are just cataloging the titles, you could refrain from exploring these implications. Ars longa, vita brevis.) Daniel David Luckenbill's Ancient Records of Assyria & Babylonia, although a bit dated, usefully collects a translation of all of the Assyrian royal inscriptions from the earliest times down to the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire; I suggest you use his work as a source for further Assyrian examples, & continue to fill in this gap.

I'd argue that there isn't really a gap per se, the use of "governor" rather than "king" as a ruling title and general trends in Assyrian and Babylonian royal titles (which would be the main royal titles during this period as these were the main Mesopotamian kingdoms) are mentioned, it just happens that all the examples used are Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian which is a problem, yes. I was not aware of Luckenbill's work so many thanks for introducing it to me! It'll be very helpful with my ongoing work on the Assyrian kings and for examples in this article. I've added two older Assyrian royal titularies to the "examples" section and have incorporated a bit more information on the early rulers in the "history" section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

My point was that the change in Assyrian style also indicated a change in ideology. Originally the Assyrians saw their king as the vicar of their god, but under Sumero-Akkadian influence began to adopt their styles. Ada-nirari was the first to do so, but the practice did not take root until later generations. -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Assyrians continued to see their ruler as a vicar or champion of Ashur until the end of their civilization; the final Assyrian king Ashur-uballit II was formally titled only as "crown prince" because he couldn't be crowned at the city Assur and thus couldn't be formally bestowed with the kingship by their god. The change of title to the Sumeri-Akkadian "king" might just have been a power move or maybe influenced by some other kingdom doing the same (maybe Babylon, they were also titled as "governors" for a while?), I'm unsure and I don't know if there are sources that touch on the "why" of the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• • As for Babylonian usage, I'm finding that harder to find examples. There is Hammurabi, but he narrows this gap only a bit. I suspect that part of the problem is that much of the period between Hammurabi & the Neo-Babylonian period the Kassite dynasty ruled southern Mesopotamia: their kings appear not to have used any of these titles. I know that in the Amarna letters, the two Kassite kings simply referred to themselves as "king of Karaduniash". Maybe they did not see themselves as part of this tradition?

If I remember correctly, the Kassites did use some of the other titles but Babylonians don't seem to have ever gotten as extreme with their titles as the Assyrians (in particular the Neo-Assyrians) did (with the Neo-Babylonian rulers there is even a trend of smaller titularies; such as Nebuchadnezzar's titles). I also had trouble finding sources on the Babylonian kings and as far as I know, Babylonian royalty is in general a lot more spotty than Assyrian in what we have left (as far as I know there are several kings between the Kassites and the rule of the Assyrians where the only thing we know are names). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the Kassite practice: I found two examples of their style in Benjamin R. Foster's Before the Muses, 3rd ed. (2005) ISBN 1-883053-76-5 One of their early kings, Agum II had three paragraphs of titles after his name in one document (p. 361), while one of the Kurigalzu (several had that name, but Foster admits he is unsure to which this document applies) appears on p. 365 as:

Kurigalzu, great king, mighty king, king of the universe, favorite of Anu and Enlil, nominated (for kingship) by the lord of the gods am I! King who has no equal among all the kings his ancestors, son of Kadashman-Harbe, unrivalled king ...

Moreover, letters -- which I would expect would contain many examples of royal titulary -- usually lack any royal title. Letters to a king would simply address him as "my lord", & letters from one king to another address the royal recipient simply as "my brother". As you wrote, it is hard to find anthologies of Babylonian royal documents; looking to Amazon, the more interesting translations are priced well beyond the budget of the average Wikipedian. (And to think that when I purchased my copy of ANET new in the late 1970's for $42.68, I thought that was a very steep price!) -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, letters are surprisingly unhelpful in figuring out royal titles (can't blame them though, Imagine how much time and writing space would be wasted writing down several paragraphs of titles). I've added the titles of Kurigalzu to the "Examples of royal titularies". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I found little to criticize in the rest of the article. (I'm not going to object if you keep the examples of titulature at the bottom. You have good reason to keep them. But if I may make a suggestion, you might want to replace some of the examples with others from earlier kings.) One item that stood out was that the citation to Marc Van De Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC didn't match my copy of his work; checking the ISBN codes, I found that I owned the first edition, while the one cited was the 2nd edition; this needs to be indicated. (Especially since Amazon is advertising a third edition to be released in the next few months!)

Yes, added that the one cited is the second edition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll mark that one as "done" too  Resolved, although it is not a deal-breaker. -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Another item is that for the table of titles, it might be better to match the examples not to secondary sources, but translations of primary ones. I mentioned Luckenbill's work as one source; the venerable Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament would be another. William Moran's translation of the Amarna Letters is still in print. If you are interested in finding primary sources for these titles, I can help you. The issue of primary vs. secondary sources here is a non-starter: you aren't taking primary sources & synthesizing novel conclusions from them, but merely using them to attest to facts in a common-sense manner. Further, doing this helps our readers in their quest to go beyond our work to learn for themselves As I said above, it's when we need to interpret these facts we should rely on reliable secondary sources, which we then report in a NPOV manner.

One problem would be that none of these translations supply the original Akkadian forms of the titles (so the table can't be entirely supported by the translated primary sources) but I agree that using translations of primary sources to beef up the lists of examples for some of the titles might be a good idea, if that's what you're getting at. If you know of any more sources than the ones you have already mentioned you're more than free to share! Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my point is to help the average reader who does not know Akkadian. (I have only seen one class offered in Akkadian when I was in college, & it was something of a one-off during Summer term. Despite the instructor's credentials, it only attracted 2 students.) As long as the translation presents the original language faithfully -- translators sometimes pick the wrong word or phrase to offer a paraphrase for -- IMHO it shouldn't be a problem. To the best of my knowledge, there is no established Wikipedia practice concerning quoting translations vs. original text. As if more than a few are skilled enough with ancient languages like Akkadian to make use of the original text; Latin & ancient Greek may be another matter, though. -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. I've added Luckenbill's work under "external links" since it is accessible online. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I had never thought to look online for a copy. Excellent! -- llywrch (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope these comments help you more than my first gathering. Feel free to respond about any of these points. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Llywrch: I've responded to all the points, definitely valid concerns, think some of them need more discusssion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, I've been watching your responses here. Will get back to you shortly about them, Xmas season permitting. (But be assured, this is at the top of my TODO list.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we're almost finished with this. I'd like to see your response to whether to include any Kassite examples before I conclude this. (And take one last pass thru the article just to be sure I didn't miss anything.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Completed my final pass. Let's make this a GA. -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

At long last! Thank you for the thorough GA-review! Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)