Source: https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6342.4-starting-at-ebla-the-city-and-its-music
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:14:39+00:00

Document:
Publication of the royal archives, spanning some forty-five years and at least three kings—Yigriš-Halab, Yirkab-Damu, and Yiš’ar-Damu—is incomplete.  Yet they already reveal a vibrant, cosmopolitan musical world.  Numerous singer-musicians (NAR), dancers (NE.DI), and acrobats or ‘cult dancers’ (ḪÚB) came from other palaces to perform for royal occasions like feasts, wedding celebrations, and religious festivals (temple-musicians per se remain elusive, as no temple archive has been found).  Mari, Nirar, Kish, Emar, Tuttul, Nagar, and Aleppo are all attested as sources of musical exchange, with performers often travelling in the train of royal or aristocratic visitors.  Local Eblaite musicians active in and about the palace are revealed by repeated appearances in distribution lists.  Some have names that suggest an origin outside of Ebla itself.  That singer-musicians can be named individually shows the relative prestige that members of this profession might achieve when steadily visible to the world of kings and notables.  Some singer-musicians must have traveled in their turn to foreign centers, but such movements remain invisible, not involving palace disbursements on the home end.
A group of some twenty female singers (NAR.MÍ), and a number of dancers, were apparently housed among the royal women, presumably performing within the palace, and perhaps at festivals involving women. There is no evidence to show that they were also concubines, as commonly at OB Mari; but this would hardly be surprising.  As to the female mourners who are attested for the funeral of a royal princess,  we do not know if this involved more than raw ululation, nor whether there was some overlap with the palace musiciennes.
Ebla thus represents a sophisticated, regionally interconnected music-culture prevailing throughout North Syria. It is appropriate that the first attestation of kinnārum should come from such an environment. It is found in the so-called Ebla Vocabulary, a massive bilingual lexical collection developed during several generations following the introduction of cuneiform to the city.  The scribes glossed kinnārum with Sum. BALAĜ, quite decisive evidence that, at least in third millennium Babylonia, the Sumerian word could refer to a stringed instrument.  This equation cannot be dismissed as scribal confusion.  After all, the kinnārum was equally known, we saw, to the scribes of ED Mesopotamia, where it was also associated with the balang.  Nor can performance context be made the sole basis of these connections, so that the lamenting lyre of the west becomes the functional equivalent of the Mesopotamian lamenting drum. For BALAĜ appears in another Eblaite text where there is clearly no question of lamentation—a ‘BALAĜ-man’ (LÚ.BALAĜ) who appears in company with a group of cult-dancers/acrobats (ḪÚB) as recipients of textile disbursements.  Elsewhere the instrument of a NAR is a BALAĜ.  These designations recall the NAR.BALAĜ of Sumerian texts, and Ušumgal-kalama, Ningirsu’s balang-god who was not a lamenter but a nar.  So the scribes’ equation of BALAĜ and kinnārum was clearly not based on ‘genre’ alone: they must have seen some organological similarity between the two instruments.  At Ebla, therefore, the expressions LÚ.BALAĜ and NAR.BALAĜ will mean simply ‘kinnārum-singer’.
Besides the many NAR known at Ebla, palace records attest to the maintenance of another musical class, the BALAĜ.DI. In some texts, they appear as a group of nine.  Elsewhere, four BALAĜ.DI are specified in connection with a kind of ‘cultic chapel’ (É.NUN), presumably a dedicated location in which they often operated.  These BALAĜ.DI are usually interpreted as lamentation-priests, on the basis of early Sumerian usage.  They are indeed known to have performed in such a context (see below), and this function helps account for the otherwise conspicuous absence from Ebla of Sum. GALA.  Although the comparative evidence is good as far as it goes, it should not dictate too rigid an interpretation of the BALAĜ.DI’s musical character at Ebla itself. It is intrinsically likely, first, that the city’s lamentation practices were rather distinct from those of contemporary southern Mesopotamia. Moreover, Sumerian BALAĜ.DI meant originally merely a player of the balang; its application to lamentation-singers is thus a specialized development,  and it is unclear where the Eblaite usage falls along, or branches from, this continuum.
Now the scribes equated BALAĜ.DI with na-ti-lu-(um) in their own language.  This has been plausibly derived from the root *nṭl, ‘raise up’, so that BALAĜ.DI/nāṭilū(m) is “he who lifts [sc. the voice]”; a comparable semantic development is noted for the Hebrew cognate nś’, where the context is lamentation.  From here, and the equation BALAĜ = kinnārum, it is an easy inference that the BALAĜ.DI of Ebla performed to the lyre; the two entries in the Ebla Vocabulary are in fact adjacent. We shall see further evidence in Chapter 12 of lyric lamentation to the knr. But since the BALAĜ-kinnārum of Ebla was definitely used for more than lamentation-singing, clearly the distinction between NAR and BALAĜ.DI relates to their respective functions more than the instruments used. And the BALAĜ.DI of Ebla probably had some broader purview than lamentation alone, to judge from their association with the ‘cultic chapel’ (É.NUN). Obviously this professional ‘segregation’ of the BALAĜ.DI from the NAR equally implies some social difference. While it would be rash to draw a hard line between secular and sacred—since NAR could perform at religious festivals, royal weddings, and so on—it does seem likely that the BALAĜ.DI were responsible for the main liturgical functions required by the palace. As such, their range would not have been limited to lamentation.
The text appears to preserve the incipit of an actual lamentation.  The song’s character is confirmed by the rite’s outcome, since the ‘angered’ goddess is induced to “make shine” the royal couple. In Sumerian tradition, Nintu was a goddess of childbirth whose powers became associated specifically with the begetting of kings.  So this was evidently a kind of symbolic rebirth.
The importance of this passage lies in the word translated here as “sounds” (i-a1ba-ad). Fronzaroli would read this as /yilappat/ and derive it from the root *lpt (‘touch’), pointing to Akk. lapātu, which can be used to describe the playing of a stringed instrument (compare Greek psállein).  If this is right,  it corroborates the argument above that the kinnārum was employed in lamentation-singing at Ebla. Admittedly the present performance configuration is hardly clear. With the standing group of BALAĜ.DI apparently excluded, the possibilities envisioned by Fronzaroli are that “the man of Harugu” accompanies either himself in reciting the lament, or the king and queen as they do so.  Unfortunately the identity and role of “the man of Harugu” is entirely obscure. And the passage is so laconic that one should not rule out the further involvement of the BALAĜ.DI. They may have completed the former sequence, but are now employed in a further lament for which only the three key new participants are specified.
Figure 6. Seated/enthroned lyrist with animals. Unprovenanced North Syrian cylinder seal, ca. 2900–2350. Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem, 2462. Drawn from SAM no. 70.
It seems quite certain, at least, that the instrument was already considered to possess special powers. This is well illustrated by a cylinder seal in the Bible Lands Museum (Figure 6), apparently from North Syria to judge from stylistic parallels, which also indicate a third millennium date.  A seated, perhaps enthroned, figure (male?) plays an instrument not dissimilar in shape to contemporary Sumerian lyres, but lacking a bull’s-head. In motion before the musician are two animals, perhaps a dog and a lion (or equid). It is a very early example of a motif—lyrist facing or surrounded by animals—which had a long history in the Syro-Levantine sphere.  Later parallels suggest that the seal may reflect wisdom traditions associated with lyre-playing and/or the use of lyre-music to symbolize a harmonious realm—the wise and powerful ruler prevailing over the wild forces that threaten social and political stability.  Whatever the precise interpretation, the importance of the lyre itself is suggested by its careful rendering and central placement. Well out in front of the musician, in an impossible playing position, the lyre is fully represented, practically independent of its player—an object of interest and significance in its own right.
[ back ] 1. Matthiae 1989:259; Stieglitz 2002:215 and n1, 216; Archi 2006:99.
[ back ] 2. Michalowski 1985; Archi 1988b; Matthiae 1989:256–266; Archi 1997.
[ back ] 3. Archi 1978–1979; Stieglitz 1990; Archi 1993; Archi 1994; Pomponio and Xella 1997 (87–88, 245–248 for Kura and Barama).
[ back ] 4. Archi 2006:98.
[ back ] 5. Archi 2006:98; Tonietti 2010:71–72.
[ back ] 7. For these archives, their dating, and the kind of information they provide, Archi 1986a; Matthiae 1989:221–298; Archi 1992; Archi 2006:101–109.
[ back ] 8. The musical evidence spans the entire period of the archive, but becomes more detailed from the reign of Yiš’ar-Damu: see Tonietti 2010:73. See especially the stimulating survey by Biga 2006, with some references to unpublished material.
[ back ] 10. Tonietti 1998; Biga 2006; Tonietti 2010:75–79.
[ back ] 11. Textile-payments to the NAR were generally done by the group on an annual or biannual basis: Tonietti 1989:118–119; Tonietti 2010:73–74. That they were not monthly, and never involved foodstuffs, has suggested that the NAR did not actually reside in the palace: Biga 2006:30. More recently, however, Biga writes: “À la cour d’Ébla vivaient … chanteurs” (Biga 2011:490); cf. Tonietti 2010:83 (“attached to the palace”).
[ back ] 12. Tonietti 2010:75.
[ back ] 13. Cf. Biga 2011:490.
[ back ] 14. Musiciennes at Ebla: Tonietti 1988:115; Archi et al. 1988:273; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, *Musik A II), noting that the feminine determinative is otherwise unknown in connection with NAR; Biga 2003:65; Biga 2006:26, 28, 30; Tonietti 2010:74–75; cf. Ziegler 2006b:34.
[ back ] 15. Tonietti 2010:84.
[ back ] 16. Tonietti 1988, especially 106–109, 117; Archi et al. 1988:271; Tonietti 1989; Matthiae 1989:283; Catagnoti 1989:176; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, *Musik A II); Feliu 2003:36; Biga 2006:25–26; Tonietti 2010:74. For Mari, see p73–76.
[ back ] 17. Tonietti 1988:107–108, who speculates about “un cambiamento della situazione musicale, forse nel tipo di utilizzazione dei NAR.MAḪ”; cf. Tonietti 2010:74.
[ back ] 18. Cf. Archi et al. 1988:272–273 (temple of Dagan and elsewhere); Tonietti 1988:118; Biga 2006:26; Tonietti 2010:82.
[ back ] 19. See generally Archi 2006:106–109; Tonietti 2010:70.
[ back ] 20. See p54, 531; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 1a.
[ back ] 21. So DCPIL:58.
[ back ] 22. See p54; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 4c.
[ back ] 23. LÚ.BALAĜ: ARET 15.1 25 obv. VII.1 (§24): Tonietti 2010:80.
[ back ] 24. TM 75.2365 rev. XII.17–20; ARET 15.1 23 obv. VII.14–15 (§34). See Archi et al. 1988:273; cf. Tonietti 2010:80.
[ back ] 25. See p28.
[ back ] 26. The appearance of BALAĜ in various compounds in Sumerian lexical texts might suggest a looser usage for a variety of lyres, or even stringed instruments generally: see Krispijn 1990:6–7; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 1b, 4b.
[ back ] 27. Nine BALAĜ.DI appear in four texts cited by Archi et al. 1988:273; cf. Fronzaroli 1988:12; Matthiae 1989:283; Conti 1990:160; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:140, 162–163, cf. 171; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, *Musik A II); Tonietti 2010:80.
[ back ] 28. Tonietti 2010:83, with this translation of É.NUN; for the possible cultic implications of the word, see Conti 1990:118n253 with references. The texts are ARET 12 773 I.1–2 (wool); 874 XIV.11–12; cf. 709 I.3–4 (wool). A further textile disbursement for one BALAĜ.DI is recorded in ARET 3 44 V.1.
[ back ] 29. BALAĜ.DI in Sumerian sources: Hartmann 1960:124, cf. 64; RlA 8:469 (Kilmer, *Musik A I).
[ back ] 30. Noted by Tonietti 2010:85, also suggesting a correlation with the lack of Sumerian names among the NAR of Ebla (by contrast with the Sumerian names borne by the NAR of Mari present at Ebla: Tonietti 1998:89–97).
[ back ] 31. Pettinato 1992:277–278.
[ back ] 32. Ebla Vocabulary §571: Pettinato 1982:264.
[ back ] 33. Fronzaroli 1988:12–13; Fronzaroli 1989; Fronzaroli 1991:33; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:42. This interpretation is accepted by Conti 1990:160; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, *Musik A II); Tonietti 2010:83. Pettinato 1992:237, finds this plausible (237), but at 209 gives some credence to the alternative proposal of D’Agostino 1988:79n19 (looking rather to the root *ndr, attested in Hebrew in the sense of “giurare”). For another interpretation, see Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 3c2.
[ back ] 34. The texts are TM.75.G.1823+, TM.75.G.1939+, and TM.75.G.1672. See the edition of Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993 (ARET 11); also Pettinato 1992, partial edition with alternative reconstruction. Chronology: Fronzaroli 1992:178–183; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:XI, 21, 72; Biga 2011:487; Biga and Capomacchia 2012:20–22.
[ back ] 35. Whereas a ‘prescriptive ritual’ lays out required actions, a ‘descriptive ritual’ gives an account of “what transpired on special cultic occasions.” See the good theoretical discussion of Levine 1983; cf. Levine 1963a:105 (quotation).
[ back ] 36. Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:XI et passim.
[ back ] 37. Biga and Capomacchia 2012 (“rifondazione dei valori sacrali rappresentati dalla coppia regale in rapporto agli antenati del re,” 25). For the importance of the queen, and tentative suggestions about hierogamy, Pettinato 1992, with the contribution by P. Pisi, “Considerazioni storico-religiose sulla regalità ad Ebla,” 313–341 (complicated by the differing textual reconstruction of Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993); cf. Pomponio and Xella 1997:87, 245, 333).
[ back ] 38. See the account of Fronzaroli 1992.
[ back ] 39. For the identification of the royal mausoleum, Fronzaroli 1992:173–175.
[ back ] 40. Fronzaroli 1992:164–165, 180–181; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:47–48 §85. Three-seven day cycles at the mausoleum itself is made explicit by ARET 11 3 §11–14 (this text is abstracted from ARET 11 2). For Kura and Burama, see Pomponio and Xella 1997:87, 245, 333.
[ back ] 41. ARET 11 1 §85, 88, 91; 2 §89, 92, 95.
[ back ] 42. Cf. Biga and Capomacchia 2012:24, emphasizing that all three versions of the text, including its ‘handbook’ form (ARET 11 3 §12), call for lamentation. The BALAĜ.DI’s participation is presumably implied by further allusions to lament elsewhere, if this is the correct interpretation of SI.DÚ: Fronzaroli 1988:13; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:25 §11. The passages in question are ARET 11 1 §11, line 6 (restored) and §13, line 16 ≈ 2 §16, lines 8, 18. Cf. also ARET 11 1 §32, line 20 (with note on p34 §32).
[ back ] 43. Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:42 read ti-’à-ba-nu here as a derivative of *ḥbn, ‘be angered’. But cf. Pettinato 1992:209, who would see rather a reference to song via the corresponding Sumerogram at ARET 11 2 §66, line 22.
[ back ] 44. Fronzaroli 1992:171; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:25, 42.
[ back ] 45. ARET 11 1 §63–65 ≈ 2 §66–68 (all translations after Fronzaroli).
[ back ] 46. Tonietti 2010:85.
[ back ] 47. See Jacobsen 1973:286–289, 293–295; cf. Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:42 §65. Regarding the Ebalite equivalent of Nintu, Pomponio and Xella 1997:333 write only that “elle était vraisemblablement vénérée comme un variante locale” of similar powers, noting that no equivalent is found in the lexical lists.
[ back ] 48. For this interpretation, see Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:79 §79.
[ back ] 49. For this obscure figure, see Fronzaroli 1992:167, 172; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:35–36 (suggesting that he was a village chief or son thereof).
[ back ] 50. ARET 11 1 §75–77 ≈ 2 §79–81 ≈ 3 §12.
[ back ] 51. Fronzaroli 1988:13; Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:45. For the Akkadian usage, CAD s.v. lapātu, 1p, 4d; Kilmer 1965:263, 13; RlA 8:464 (Kilmer, *Musik A I).
[ back ] 52. Note the alternative interpretation of Pettinato 1992:213.
[ back ] 53. Fronzaroli and Catagnoti 1993:45 §77; cf. Fronzaroli 1988:29–31.
[ back ] 54. Following Schmidt 1994:4–12 and Pardee 1996b in connection with Ugarit, ‘funerary’ refers to one-time rites associated with the death of a king, notably burial and his successor’s accession. ‘Mortuary’ relates to the ongoing maintenance of the royal dead, comparable to the Mesopotamian kispu ritual (for which see generally Tsukimoto 1985; for the problematic connection with Ugarit, see with further references Pardee 1996b; TPm:176–178).
[ back ] 55. See p29.
[ back ] 56. Compare the Aegean vintage festivals where the lyrist Linos was lamented in what appears to be, as Homer describes it, a quite cheerful occasion: see p308.
[ back ] 57. Note, however, the arguments of Schmidt 1994 against the currency of ‘beneficent dead’ in this early period.
[ back ] 58. See Archi 2001; Stieglitz 2002. Cf. also Archi 1986b; Archi 1988a; Biga and Pomponio 1987; Archi et al. 1988:212–215; Matthiae 1989:253; Archi 1993:16; Archi 2006:98.
[ back ] 59. For the intentional if mysterious patterns of veneration that emerge from these cultic texts, see Stieglitz 2002:220–222.
[ back ] 61. See p134–147.
[ back ] 62. Biga 2006:30 alluded to a wool-distribution to BALAĜs of the crown prince’s palace (TM 75.G.2337 obv. VII 47, reign of Yiš’ar-Damu), but the recipients were actually the BALAĜ.DI lamenters; I thank her for confirming this (correspondence, 10/1/2009).
[ back ] 63. Pettinato 1979:27–28, 111–112; cf. Baldacci 1992:277; Selz 1997:176.
[ back ] 64. Fronzaroli 1997.
[ back ] 65. See p54; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 4d and 4e.
[ back ] 66. Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem no. 2462. See with references SAM:110 no. 70, where it is dated ca. 2900–2350 BCE.
[ back ] 67. Cf. DCPIL:53 and index s.v. ‘animals:lyrist and’.
[ back ] 68. See index s.v. ‘order, symbolized by music’.

References: §571
 §85
 §11
 §85
 §89
 §12
 §11
 §11
 §13
 §16
 §32
 §32
 §66
 §63
 §66
 §65
 §79
 §75
 §79
 §12
 §77