An Ox of One's Own: Royal Wives and Religion at the Court of the Third Dynasty of Ur 9781501505263, 9781501514470

Citation preview

T. M. Sharlach An Ox of One’s Own

Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records

General Editor: Gonzalo Rubio Editors: Nicole Brisch, Petra Goedegebuure, Markus Hilgert, Amélie Kuhrt, Peter Machinist, Piotr Michalowski, Cécile Michel, Beate Pongratz-Leisten, D. T. Potts, Kim Ryholt

Volume 18

T. M. Sharlach

An Ox of One’s Own Royal Wives and Religion at the Court of the Third Dynasty of Ur

ISBN 978-1-5015-1447-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0526-3 e-ISBN 978-1-5015-0522-5 ISSN 2161-4415 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: fidus Publikations-Service GmbH, Nördlingen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Table of Contents Preface 

 IX

Acknowledgements 

 XI

List of Illustrations 

 XII

Part I: Historical Introduction: Shulgi, King of Ur and His Wives Chapter 1: Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur   3 Chapter 2: Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court   31 Chapter 3: Queens and Concubines   53 Chapter 4: Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?   71 Chapter 5: Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti   101 Chapter 6: The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More   139 Chapter 7: The Death of Shulgi and his Wives   175

Part II: The Shulgi-simti Archive and the Shulgi-simti Foundation Chapter 8: The Shulgi-simti Archive    189 Chapter 9: An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence   211 Chapter 10: Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events to which the Shulgisimti Foundation Contributed   239 Chapter 11: Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen and the Concubine(s)   261

Part III: A Wider Lens Chapter 12: A Wider Context: Temple Households and Changes in the Roles Played by Royal Wives in Early Mesopotamia    289 Chapter 13: Conclusions   305

VI 

 Table of Contents

Bibliography 

 309

Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection  Index 

 333

 323

To Micha, who is awesome—

Preface “But, you may say, we asked you to speak about women and fiction—what, has that got to do with a room of one’s own? I will try to explain. When you asked me to speak about women and fiction I sat down on the banks of a river and began to wonder what the words meant… But when I began to consider the subject in this last way, which seemed the most interesting, I soon saw that it had one fatal drawback. I should never be able to come to a conclusion… All I could do was to offer you an opinion upon one minor point—a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction; and that, as you will see, leaves the great problem of the true nature of woman and the true nature of fiction unsolved.” Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own

This book speaks not to the question of women and fiction, but of women, their social status and their practice of religion in southern Mesopotamia in the late third millennium B.C. To some extent it is still impossible to sit down and write a book about women in ancient times, as so much of women’s experience was not recorded. So I, like Virginia Woolf, will probably never be able to come to a conclusion on this wider topic, except that for a woman to perform religious functions in Ancient Mesopotamia in a way that would leave a mark on the textual record, she must have resources and a space of her own. This work therefore looks at one archive centered around the religious activities of one royal wife from the Third Dynasty of Ur and considers whether this woman had, as it were, an ox of her own for sacrifice. The pages that follow are, and are not, about a woman who died some four thousand and fifty years ago. Despite the archive of cuneiform tablets left behind by scribes who worked for her, the woman herself remains a cipher. The fragments of data left do not allow us to know much about her, much less to feel that we know her. But insofar as we know, or can plausibly speculate, her life went something like this. Born at a time of change, upheaval and war, she (we do not even know her original name) somehow caught the eye of the king of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the mighty though now middle aged (or frankly elderly) Shulgi. Perhaps she was the daughter of a minor potentate in the northern regions whose father sought to curry favour with the amorous Shulgi, perhaps she was a girl or even widow taken as booty when Shulgi’s army came, saw and conquered, or perhaps she was a local Babylonian woman whose singing and dancing talents brought her to court. We may never know. In any case, she came to the palace and became a concubine of Shulgi’s, who may have been twenty or thirty or forty years her senior. She was given a new name: henceforth she would be known as Shulgi-simti, meaning

DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-204

X 

 Preface

something like “Shulgi (is) my pride.” To what extent this union would have been considered a “marriage” in the Babylonian sense is unclear. Shulgi, by this time, had already buried at least two wives and had numerous other concubines (at least five) tucked away in various palaces. Shulgi-simti did not monopolize Shulgi’s attention and was probably not high in the hierarchy at court. Still, at least at times, she held Shulgi’s favour and he referred to her as his “beloved” concubine. Probably they had children together. Like most women of her day, she was almost certainly illiterate. Shulgi-simti appears to have lived mainly in Ur. Though not particularly wealthy or powerful in her own right, the palace bureaucracy managed some economic interests on behalf of Shulgi-simti and the other concubines, chiefly in the form of small herding and weaving enterprises run by palace employees in the women’s names. Shulgi-simti, and probably other royal wives as well, helped support religious activities, chiefly sacrifices to various goddesses. Today we call these activities the ‘foundation of Shulgi-simti.’ They are documented in a series of tablets discussed in chapter eight, called the Shulgi-simti archive. We should keep in mind from the outset that there appear to have been other royal women who had very similar foundations. Such activities were underwritten by courtiers, male and female, who probably were trying to use their presence at court and support for such activities to gain preferment for themselves and their families. The extent to which Shulgi-simti herself oversaw or directed such activities is unclear. For at least about fifteen years, such an existence for Shulgi-simti is documented. Then Shulgi-simti died, around 2050 B.C. There is little evidence that her death was much noticed or mourned: the court was in a state of upheaval at this time, as the king himself had perished after forty-eight years on the throne. Another concubine, higher in rank to Shulgi-simti, also died right around this time. What really happened we cannot now know: perhaps the weather was particularly severe and disease festered in the close quarters of the palace. Perhaps one of Shulgi’s sons grew tired of waiting for the king to leave this mortal coil and hastened his end. Perhaps a more likely scenario is that Shulgi, who had to have been old, died of natural causes and the court revived an old Ur custom of human sacrifice, burying two of his concubines with him in his mausoleum. In any case, Shulgi-simti appears to have died much as she lived—a shadowy figure standing at the fringes of real power at the court, a partner (though certainly a very unequal one) to Shulgi in the last decades of his reign as he forged a tightly-knit state out of the anarchy of the preceding era.

Acknowledgements An Ox of One’s Own represents a book many years in the making. The project began with the generous funding and support of the Women’s Studies in Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School in 2004. I am profoundly grateful for this “fellow”ship and to the directors Ann Braude and interim director Karen King. Oklahoma State University has also been most generous in research support for this project between 2005–2016, as has the Oklahoma Humanities Council. Though the librarians at the O.S.U. library have been most diligent in tracking down books for me, I have profited much from the generosity of the tablet rooms at Penn and Yale, who have let me use their beautiful libraries. The Library of Congress and Johns Hopkins University libraries were also of great help. J. Pavelko helped me with some data entry in the early stages of the book. I am most grateful to the departmental secretaries, Susan, Diana and Exa, whose technical support and good cheer have helped more than they know. My primary intellectual debt is, as always, to my first teacher of Sumerian, Piotr Steinkeller. I would also like to thank U. Kasten, P. Jones, P. Machinist, M. Molina, P. Michalowski, D. I. Owen, C. Reichel, D. Snell, W. Sallaberger, G. Rubio, and J. Sasson for their help and encouragement over the years of this project. Initial research for the book began in 2004–5; the birth of my son in 2006 resulted in a hiatus in the project for some time. When I came back to the manuscript, it became clear to me how, even today, families change dramatically after children are born and women can easily still be defined primarily as someone’s wife or someone’s mother, which caused me to approach these royal women in a different way. Additionally, surrounded as I am by many intellectuals who have no idea what Assyriology is, I attempted to widen the scope of the book to address broader questions. I have attempted to keep special characters to a minimum for the ease of the non-specialist reader, who may however wish to note that š indicates a /sh/ sound. Numbers or accent marks (e.g. énsi or lú) serve to distinguish among different cuneiform signs with similar sounds that denoted different words. On a more personal note, I obviously owe a huge debt of gratitude to my family, loved ones and supporters (including my whole family, J., J. B., Sue, who wouldn’t let me not finish, and SAS and TN for breathing life into the project at intervals). Most of all I am thankful for my son, Micha, to whom this book is dedicated.

DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-205

List of Illustrations 1. Fragment from the Stele of Ur-Namma, now in the Penn Museum. Object B16674.14 (in chapter 1 p. 12) 2. Vector Map of Palaces, prepared by C. Reichel (in chapter 2 p. 36) 3. Clay Figurine of an unclothed woman from Ur, now in the British Museum, image AN312814001, (in chapter 6 p. 140) 4. Excavation Photos from Ur, Photo 1728, courtesy of the Penn Museum archives (in chapter 7 p. 183) 5. Excavation Photos from Ur, Photo 1688, also from the Penn Museum Archives (in chapter 7 p. 184)

Part I: Historical Introduction: Shulgi, King of Ur and His Wives

Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur The following pages are an attempt to place one archive — a fairly small one by the standards of its age — in its historical context. This book seeks to explore the three-way intersection between gender, religion and power, focusing on the evidence of one particular archive, the archive of Shulgi-simti, a wife of the great king Shulgi, who died about 2050 BC. Histories of the third millennium tend to focus on the first and the most important, and Shulgi-simti was neither. Neither Shulgi’s first wife nor even probably a chief wife, neither the mother of the crown prince nor necessarily even of Babylonian origin, Shulgi-simti and her archive may still shed some light on religious ideology and power politics at the Ur III court. Shulgi-simti herself is a shadowy figure about whom very little can be said with certainty. She was the wife—though certainly not the only wife—of Shulgi, the greatest king of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Shulgi ruled for almost fifty years, but Shulgi-simti’s existence is attested for less than two decades at the end of his reign. She appears to have died at about the same time as her husband. How did she come to be married to Shulgi and what was her exact position at court both with regard to the king and with regard to the other royal women? Where did she live? Who were her children? What financial and economic interests did she have and did she run them or were they operated in her name by palace authorities? Was she a prominent figure at court or a pawn who attempted to use other men’s ambitions to further her own? What religious beliefs are to be found in the remnants of her archive? Would it be accurate to describe this as “women’s” religion? Was Shulgi-simti’s position in any way comparable to other royal wives from early Mesopotamian history whose lives we know about? These are complex and wide-ranging questions. On the basis of our fragmentary evidence (a tablet here, a tablet there), we cannot expect to come to definitive answers, but we may at least move forward in understanding the life of the Ur III court, especially as experienced by royal wives. Some background on the fundamentals of Mesopotamian archives, the history of the Third Dynasty of Ur, and a very brief overview of Shulgi’s marital history are needed before we can proceed further.

DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-001

4 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

Cuneiform Archives Those studying ancient Mesopotamia are blessed with a plethora of documentation because clay, unlike papyrus or writing boards, tends to survive. While we do have numerous royal inscriptions, literary texts and even school exercises from the third millennium B.C., our chief source of data are administrative archives. Every historical archive contains information at numerous different levels. An economic or administrative archive, for instance, provides data, usually concerning expenditures or income. It was after all, for this purpose that the ancient scribe took up reed and clay, to make a semi-permanent record of transactions. It is generally not very problematic to understand the transaction recorded, though this is not always the case. It is often very difficult to go from the tablet recording the transaction, or more usually from a group of tablets recording similar transactions, to larger picture. Translating the tablets, identifying which tablets records similar transactions, working out who was who — that is, prosopography — when they worked, where, and for whom are all time-consuming tasks. But, especially with the aid of online databases and the foundation of previous studies, these facts can be established. Scholars then can accumulate a mass of data, often displayed in tabular form. The temptation is then to step back, admire the clean order imposed upon the original chaos and to stop there, to stay at this level. In other words, scholars of economic and administrative archives tend to answer questions of paleography, grammar, prosopography and archival placements, and turn less to bigger questions. What does all mean? Why does this archive matter? There are many good reasons for not moving towards the big questions: the field is young; many of the tablets are unpublished and labor of editing even 20 or 30 tablets for publication, much less several hundred or several thousand, is considerable. Establishing the facts is also extremely labor-intensive. Nothing at all can be done if a solid foundation in understanding the context of the tablet and its archival position is not in place. A further and quite important reason for stopping before we get to the bigger questions is the degree of risk. Economic/administrative tablets yield facts. Those of us who choose to study these sorts of materials, as opposed to say, hymns or epics, generally find facts and their solidity comforting. We may feel uncomfortable with the degree to which other sub-disciplines create models in the absence of hard data, or to be more blunt, the degree to which they appear to be making things up. We want historical fact, with no taint of historical fiction. Still, if archival studies remain at the level of hard facts, of charts and graphs, we risk sidelining ourselves from the writing of history. If we cannot explain why these archives matter, who will? What can we legitimately deduce from an archive such as Shulgi-simti’s? The following chapters will explore these questions in



Mesopotamian Royal Power 

 5

detail. But before we can approach Shulgi-simti, we must familiarize ourselves with the life and times of her spouse, Shulgi.

Mesopotamian Royal Power At the time of Shulgi-simti’s death, around 2050 B.C., Mesopotamian civilization was already very old. Egypt was from its earliest times ruled by strong centralized authority in the person of one king, but in contrast, early Mesopotamia had multiple city-states, with different traditions of rulership. By the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the traditions of kingship stretched deep into the past and encompassed various strands. The pious ruler is one ancient strand, particularly evident in Early Dynastic times of Sumerian city states such as Lagash. The king was chosen by the gods, awarded attributes from each. “E-anatum, ruler of Lagash – the one granted strength by Enlil, fed fine milk by Ninhursaga, given a good name by Inanna, granted wisdom by Enki, chosen in (her) heart by Nanshe, the powerful lady, Ningirsu’s subjugator of foreign lands, beloved friend of Lugalurub, beloved spouse of Inanna.”1 But the Mesopotamian royal persona could also follow an alternative pattern, wherein the king’s primary identity was as warlord. Certainly a large part of the surviving royal propaganda from the Sargonic Dynasty stresses the kings’ martial prowess, though it is important to note that prior kings had also had martial elements as well. Inscriptions of the warlord type do not usually list attributes the gods have given a king, but focus on the martial, as in a text written for the Sargonic king Rimush concerning a defeat of a city named Kazallu: “Rimush, king of the world, when he conquered Kazallu, [in] the battle with Kazallu, he struck down 12,052 men. He took 5,864 captives. Further, he captured Ashared, énsi [ruler or provincial governor] of Kazallu and destroyed its wall.”2 Kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur seem to have been trying to weave all these strands together into their own hybrid, perhaps with slightly greater stress on the tradition of the pious ruler, though warlord elements are certainly present. Compare two short inscriptions of Shulgi’s, for instance: “For the god Inshushinak, his lord, Shulgi, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the lands of Sumer and Akkad, built for him A’arkesh, his beloved temple.”3

1 M. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient Near East—Historical Sources in Translation p.13. 2 D. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods RIME 2, p. 51. 3 D. Frayne, Ur III Period RIME 3/2, p. 140.

6 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

“Shulgi, god of his land, the mighty, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, when he destroyed the land of Kimash and Hurtum, set out a moat and heaped up a pile of corpses.”4

(We shall see in chapter twelve how this embrace of both the pious ruler model and the warlord persona affected Shulgi’s women.) The third millennium Mesopotamian king was not exactly like other men. For one thing, he was an absolute ruler. I think it would be fair to state that every early Mesopotamian ruler had religious elements to his royal persona and concomitant duties. After all, at least theoretically, the king ruled because the gods chose him. Of course, as Postgate noted, “The need for divine approval does not cease with a ruler’s selection. Who takes on the role of ruler inherits with it ritual as well as secular responsibilities… As we learn from the self-advertisement of the rulers, there was a moral obligation to sustain the temples by granting them contributions. To the end of the last Mesopotamian dynasty… the kings included their care for the temples among their principal titles, this remaining integral to their moral claim to the right to rule.”5 In Lambert’s phraseology, kings ruled by divine ratification. “The appropriate god or gods were considered to have nominated kings and other rulers and to have given them power.”6 For most of early Mesopotamian history, the king was not believed to be a god and was not himself a priest, but was at some level the nexus between what we might call the “secular” and the “religious” realms.7 The resulting religious duties of royalty consisted chiefly, it seems, in the king allocating resources for sacrifices to the major gods and goddesses and attending the most important religious ceremonies. He had to ensure that the temples were in good condition and to provide whatever these gods needed on a day-to-day basis. Most usually the gods needed to eat; moreover, they dined frequently, and ate a variety of the highest quality foods. A meal might consist of cooked dishes, including beef, lamb or other roasted meats, as well as grains and breads, cheeses, fruits, including dates, figs and many more, cakes and syrupy sweets, all washed down with fine beer, or wine or milk as appropriate.8 The modern mind tends to wonder

4 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 41 (the first in Sumerian, the second in Akkadian, both from Susa). 5 J. N. Postgate, “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad,” in J. Sasson (ed.), CANE 1995, pp.397–8. 6 W. G. Lambert, “The Seed of Kingship,” in P. Garelli (ed.), Le Palais et la Royauté CRRAI 19, p. 427. 7 Some kings did of course declare themselves divine. 8 See W. Sallaberger and W. Mayer, “Opfer,” RlA 10 (2003): 95 and M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend p. 27. The distribution of food remnants is also dis-



The Third Dynasty of Ur and Shulgi’s Path to Power 

 7

what became of all these delicacies, said to be eaten by the gods, but on this topic third millennium sources are quite silent. In addition to his religious position and concomitant responsibilities, the Mesopotamian king had practical duties as well, which probably occupied the majority of his time and attention. The king had to secure, defend and maintain his borders. He was officially commander in chief. The king had to maintain the infrastructure—canals, roads, the messenger systems, etc. With regard to law, the king was officially the court of last appeal, and supposed to hear capital cases. Foreign policy and diplomatic relations stemmed from the king himself. Obviously, individual kings will have focused on some of these areas and delegated authority in others.

The Third Dynasty of Ur and Shulgi’s Path to Power A conventional description of the Third Dynasty of Ur would probably begin with its short duration— the dynasty lasted for only about a century, between 2112 and 2004 B.C. according to conventional chronology. Most stress its centralization; it was a strong unified state.9 There were five kings in total in this dynasty.10 Our principal focus in this chapter will be the first two kings of the dynasty— Ur-Namma and his son, Shulgi.11 The tidiness of the summary fails to express the untidiness of the earliest part of the period. If there is tidiness and order in the history of the Third Dynasty, it is probably there due to the reforms of Shulgi, whose complex path to power is, I believe, crucial to understanding his later reign.

cussed by van Driel, “Pfründe,” RlA 10 (2003): 520. 9 To quote just one example, Garfinkle commented on the explosion of records that survive from this period, “This very profusion of records has led to the presumption, common in the secondary literature, that this was an era of oppressive bureaucracy and state control.” S. Garfinkle, “Was the Ur III State Bureaucractic?,” pp. 55–61 in S. Garfinkle and J. C. Johnson (eds.), The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration BPOA 5. 10 Following Sallaberger, “Ur III Zeit,” pp. 121–414 in W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit OBO 160/3. [henceforth OBO 160/3]; previous generations of scholars have speculated on the exact genealogies of some of these kings, with previous scholarship noted in OBO. 11 I am here using conventional readings for the names. Ur-Namma used to be read Ur-Nammu; some current scholarship now advocates Sulge for Shulgi (e.g. Keetman, ZA 2010 p. 25 note 50). These are variant understanding of the cuneiform; for the reader’s ease, I am using the most commonly recognized forms with a minimum of diacritics and special characters.

8 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

After the collapse of the Sargonic Dynasty, the Mesopotamian city states, ever with a centrifugal tendency, slipped back into a patchwork of independent entities. This decentralized situation appears to have lasted somewhere between sixty and one hundred years.12 Regrettably, the sequence of events and chronology of this period are still unclear.13 Many, though certainly not all, of the citystates were ruled by men of foreign origin, that is, Guti or Gutians, “the stinging serpent of the mountains.”14 The original homeland of the Guti appears to be in the Zagros, the same region that would later be home to other conquerors of Mesopotamia, the Kassites.15 The Gutians’ stronghold in Mesopotamia appears to have been around the city of Adab.16 The Gutians may not have been the only foreign overlords in the Land: apparently some city-states in the east-central region had been subjugated by a man of

12 W. W. Hallo, “Simurrum and the Hurrian Frontier”, RAI 24 (= RHA 36, 1978), 71–83. See also Hallo, “Gutium,” RlA 3 (1971): 711. The most recent works on this subject are W. Sallaberger, “Relativ Chronologie von der Späten Frühdynastichen bis zur Altbabylonischen Zeit,” in J.-W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr pp. 30–31 and W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp, “The Gutean Period,” ARCANE 3 (2015): 114 and 130. Sallaberger and Schrakamp estimate that about 70 to 80 years for the Gutians is a good suggestion, but they observe that the evidence we currently have does not allow us to know more than that the bare minimum would be about 40 years and the absolute maximum 100 plus years. 13 It has been suggested that Gudea’s reign overlapped with the early rulers of the Third Dynasty (specifically, Ur-Namma): see Steinkeller, JCS 40 (1988): 51. As Flückiger-Hawker notes, there is no scholarly consensus on the early chronology of the period, Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition pp. 2–4. Some have even argued for as little as thirty years between the fall of Akkade and Ur-Namma. On this chronological problem, see W. Sallaberger, “Relativ Chronologie von der Späten Frühdynastischen bis zur Altbabylonischen Zeit,” pp. 15–43 in J. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr. 14 So described by Utu-hegal, see RIME 2, Sargonic and Gutian Periods, p.284. We know the Gutians controlled Umma; they probably controlled Urusagrig (Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium,” ZA 91 [2001]: 31). They also have controlled areas of the Adab province, especially around Dabrum, as H. Sauren describes, “Der Feldzug,” RA 61 (1967): 77–79. Their control of both sides of the Tigris “tied up” water needed further south, Steinkeller, “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium,” ZA 91 (2001): 32, which may in fact have been an impetus for Ur-Namma’s extensive canal work, as described below. 15 Frayne’s suggestion that Gutium was a place to be located at modern Ba’quba in the Diyala has met with few followers. D. Frayne, “The Zagros Campaigns of the Ur III Kings,” CSMS 3 (2008): 37. 16 P. Steinkeller, “Puzur- Inšušinak,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives; see also W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp, “The Gutean Period,” ARCANE 3 (2015): 123–125. Puzur-Inšušinak’s importance is very clear; his chronological position is less so.



The Third Dynasty of Ur and Shulgi’s Path to Power 

 9

Elamite (Iranian) origin from the city of Anshan named Puzur-Inšušinak.17 One of Ur-Namma’s inscriptions refers to that king’s reconquest of these territories in an unfortunately brief fashion: “At that time, Umma, Marad, GIRkal, Kazallu, Ușarum — those (cities) which had been subjugated by An[sh]an — by the might of the god Nanna, my lord, I established their freedom.”18

The relationship of the Gutians and Puzur-Inšušinak is currently unclear. Did Puzur-Inšušinak conquer the Gutians? Were they instead allies with contiguous territories? Or was Ur-Namma referring to events that occurred before his reign?19 This same conflict with the Elamites may be described in a tablet from Isin (which dates several hundred years later, though it announces it is a copy of an original Ur-Namma inscription). The beginning is lost. I quote most of the legible parts of the inscription in Frayne’s translation: … “Ur-Nammu, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the lands of Sumer and Akkad, dedicated (this object) for my [text: his] life. At that time, the god Enlil gave [?]… to the Elamites. In the territory of highland Elam they drew up against one another for battle. Their (?) king, Puzur-Inšušinak — Awal, Kismar, Maškan-šarrum, the [l]and of Eshnunna, the [l] and of Tutub, the [lan]d of Simudar, the [lan]d of Akkad, the peop[le] … I took as booty… I brought (the booty) to the god Enlil, my lord, in Nippur, (and) marked it for him. The remainder I presented as a gift to my troops.” 20 Thus, it seems that much of the north of the Land was controlled by foreigners, at least for a time. Meanwhile, some city-states in Sumer, such as Lagash, appear to have maintained their independence and some measure of economic prosperity, despite the Gutians and Elamites. The eleven-year rule of Gudea of Lagash, famous for his

17 P. Steinkeller, “Puzur- Inšušinak,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. 18 On Ur-Namma’s code, see C. Wilcke, “Der Kodex Urnamma (CU): Versuch einer Rekonstruktion,” in T. Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen pp. 291–333. The English translation cited here is from D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 inscription 20: prologue to the Ur-Namma code. p. 48. 19 This possibility is discussed in W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp, “The Gutean Period,” ARCANE 3 (2015): 124–125. 20 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 65 and 66. This passage is discussed by P. Steinkeller, “Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives p. 295 and D. Frayne, “The Zagros Campaigns of the Ur III Kings,” CSMS 3 (2008): 35.

10 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

statuary and building works, commemorated in poetry, seems to belong to this interim period.21 As time went on, reaction against the Gutians and Elamites appears to have grown, especially in Sumer. Gudea of Lagash was an important figure in what appears to have been a coalition of city-states against Puzur-Inšušinak.22 Gudea was probably not acting alone. Two other leaders, Utu-hegal of Uruk and Ur-Namma of Ur, were also heavily involved in wars in the north; either one or both may have been spearheading the wars, or possibly coming in a little later to perform mop-up operations.23 Utu-hegal, a ruler of Uruk, managed to gain control over most of the south, while campaigning against Gutians.24 Utu-hegal may, or may not, have controlled the key city of Nippur, seat of Enlil, the head of the pantheon, but he certainly claims that “it was Enlil who commissioned and supported his patriotic endeavors.”25 Utu-hegal does not seem to have held much (if any) territory in northern Babylonia.26 His center of power was Sumer, and certainly included Ur, where

21 The exact dating of Gudea’s reign is at present unresolved, as is the issue of which other kings ruled during his lifetime. Sallaberger and Schrakamp prefer an earlier date for Gudea, “The Gutean Period: A Problem of Third Millennium Chronology,” pp.120–121 in W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp (eds.), History and Philology, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE) 3. Arguing for a later date for Gudea and a synchronism with Ur-Namma’s reign, see P. Steinkeller, “Puzur-Inšušinak,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives pp. 298–301 and C. Wilcke, CUSAS 17 (2011): 32–37. 22 An account of the conflict can be found in H. Sauren, “Der Feldzug,” RA 61 (1967): 75–77. “Various data indicate very persuasively that Gudea of Lagaš too was part of the war on Puzur-Inšušinak.” “Puzur- Inšušinak,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives p. 298 and 301. Men from Tuttul and Gasur, for instance, appear in the Lagash province at this time. See also W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp, History and Philology, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE) 3 pp. 122–126. 23 Steinkeller believes that, as Gudea appears to have been contemporary with Ur-Namma and possibly very early Shulgi, it is more likely that Gudea was allied with Ur-Namma. “Puzur- Inšušinak,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives pp. 298–301. But as we have already seen in footnote 19, persuasive arguments for an earlier date for Gudea and his conflict with Puzur-Inšušinak have been put forward by Sallaberger and Schrakamp, History and Philology, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE) 3 pp. 120–125. 24 On Utu-hegal’s four-day offensive against Tirigan, see H. Sauren, “Der Feldzug Utuhengal’s gegen Tirigan und das Siedlunggebiet der Gutäer,” RA 61 (1967): 75–77. 25 J. Klein, “Nippur, A.” RlA 9 (2001): 535. 26 P. Steinkeller, “Puzur- Inšušinak,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives p. 297 note 35.



The Third Dynasty of Ur and Shulgi’s Path to Power 

 11

he set up a stele.27 But Utu-hegal was not destined to rule long (only about seven years) and he founded no dynasty. Instead, power passed to another man from another city, namely, Ur-Namma of Ur.28 It was Ur-Namma, not Utu-hegal, who would be counted as the official founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur, ruling for eighteen years.29 Ur-Namma had initially accepted Utu-hegal as his overlord as an early inscription shows.30 But the nature of the relationship between Utu-hegal and Ur-Namma is a matter of some uncertainty. With some understatement, Frayne observed, “The origins of Ur-Namma and his dynasty are not clear.”31 Early scholarship portrayed Ur-Namma as a vassal who Utu-hegal who rebelled, declared independence and fortified the walls of Ur as a mark of his new claims.32 Wilcke speculated that Ur-Namma might have been Utu-hegal’s brother on the basis of a restoration of a broken inscription, an argument which won wide acceptance for some decades.33 It is not impossible that Wilcke’s instinct was right, but the evidence is far from solid. More recently, scholarship has come

27 J. Reade, “The Utuhegal Stela from Ur,” BaM 27 (1996): 233. Frayne RIME 3/2 p. 7 and RIME 2 pp. 295–6. “Certainly there is unequivocal evidence that Ur formed part of Uruk’s domain during the first years of Utu-hegal’s reign…” Ur appears to have been under the control of another leader of Uruk, Kuda, earlier on in this interim period. Kuda is known variously as a sanga of Inanna and a king in the Uruk IV dynasty, see Frayne, RIME 3/2 pp. 6–7. 28 The best recent treatment on Ur-Namma is to be found in W. Sallaberger’s RlA entry for him, with previous bibliography, “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 422–431. 29 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p.9. How Ur became the capital is not known: “Welche Gründe ihn bewegten, Ur zur neuen Hauptstadt zu machen und eine neue Titular enzunehmen, wissen wir nicht.” C. Wilcke, “Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit,” Palais et Royaute p. 180. 30 For example, on UET 1.30. a diorite stele, Ur-Namma made a dedication to the goddess Ningal “on behalf of his overlord Utuhegal.” J. Reade, “The Utuhegal Stela from Ur, BaM 27 (1996): 229. 31 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 7. Similarly, Sallaberger commented “Die Herkunft U.s liegt im Dunkeln.” “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 423. 32 For example, in 1929, Gadd described Ur-Namma as an appointee of Utu-hegal who “began to feel his own city’s limits too narrow for him” and continued, “the powerful vassal soon broke into open rebellion and violently usurped the throne.” C. J. Gadd, The History and Monuments of Ur. London: Chatto and Windus, 1929, p. 109. In 1966, Hallo opined, “Ur-Nammu may have been a loyal vassal of Utu-hegal of Uruk during that king’s short reign of seven and a half years when Sumer as a whole was occupied with the expulsion of the Gutians. But at Utu-hegal’s death, if not before… he asserted his complete independence by the classical devices of building the walls of Ur, dating his own date formulas, dedicating his inscriptions to his personal gods and the gods of his own city, and other elements of the ‘pattern of usurpation.” JCS 20 (1966): 138. 33 C. Wilcke, “Königtum,” Palais et Royaute p. 180, and p. 193 footnote 67. It is often stated that Ur-Namma and Utu-hegal were brothers. The fraternal relationship is based on a single, damaged inscription published by Wilcke.

12 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

to re-evaluate the restoration and thus the fraternal theory.34 Possibly the most honest assessment of the state of the field right now is that we do not know. Uncertainty thus shrouds Ur-Namma’s rise to prominence. Utu-hegal apparently defeated a major Gutian leader, Tirigan,35 but he appears to have died in battle against Gutians and his body was carried off by the river. Thus Ur-Namma’s path to power appears to have been fortuitous or even accidental, following from the death of Utu-hegal. Ur-Namma took control of the south and would reign from Ur, approximately 2112- 2095 B.C.

Figure 1: Fragment from the Stele of Ur-Namma, now in the Penn Museum. Object B16674.14

34 W. Sallaberger, “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 424. 35 Tirigan appears to have been headquarted in Adab, as the Ur III manuscript of the Sumerian Kinglist shows: see Steinkeller “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List,” in W. Sallaberger and K. Volk (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: FS Wilcke pp. 273–281. Utu-hegal’s inscription tells us, in Frayne’s translation, “The envoys of Utu-hegal captured Tirigan along with his wife (and) children at Dabrum. They put handcuffs and a blindfold on him. Utu-hegal made him lie at the feet of the god U[tu] and placed his foot on his neck.” RIME 2 p. 287. It is unclear to me from this text whether we should assume that Tirigan was executed or simply imprisoned. Similar confusion about Tiriqan’s fate is reflected in the Old Babylonian omen tradition. Some omens refer to Tiriqan’s “disappearance;” others say he “died in the midst of his army.” See W. W. Hallo, “The Death of Kings,” in M. Cogan and I. Eph’al (eds.), Ah, Assyria —Tadmor FS p.156.



The Third Dynasty of Ur and Shulgi’s Path to Power 

 13

As king, Ur-Namma helped eject the enemies and unite disparate city-states together. How he accomplished these deeds is very unclear, 36 especially given that we do now even know how to order his extant year names.37 What is more apparent is Ur-Namma’s stress on what might be termed domestic policy, rebuilding infrastructure and the rule of law.38 Ur-Namma undertook numerous building projects in his newly consolidated territories, constructing an apparently new architectural style of temple, the ziggurat.39 Still more work on other temples and sacred buildings was also undertaken by him, for instance, the gipar (cloister) of the high-priestess at Ur.40 His year names and other inscriptions commemorate major road work as well.41 His canal projects were also numerous and rightly stressed in his royal inscriptions and year names.42 The ability to conscript enough labor to dredge and build canals appears to have been lacking in the Gutian interregnum. In a world where water was life, a solid network of canals ensured fertility and prosperity.43

36 As Hallo noted in his Reallexikon article on the Gutians, both Utu-hegal and Ur-Namma claim credit for throwing Tirigan, leader of the Gutians, out of the Land. “As usual, the actual course of events may have been less dramatic than the historical tradition paints it. We have already seen that the Gutian rule rested lightly and briefly on Sumer and Akkad; though there may have been a decisive military encounter, it does not really appear to have ended all at once.” W. W. Hallo, “Gutium,” RlA 3 (1971): 715. 37 On the year names, see Frayne, RIME 3/2 p.9 and “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 425–6. 38 Some of the projects begun by Ur-Namma were not finished by the time of his premature death, including the building of the wall at Ur (E. Flückiger-Hawker, Ur-Namma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition p. 127) or the law code, “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 426–7. 39 Ur-Namma built ziggurats in Ur, Uruk, Eridu and Nippur, P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p. 35 and W. Sallaberger, “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 428–9. 40 P. Weadock, “The Giparu at Ur,” Iraq 37 (1975): 106–7. 41 Frayne, RIME 3/2 pp. 14–15, “The year Ur-Namma, the king, put the road in order from below to above,” mentioned for instance in year name H and the prologue to the law code. A famous land survey, known as Ur-Namma’s cadastre, may also have been motivated by the roadwork projects. Here the city-gods confirm Ur-Namma as the legal owner of these territories. F. Kraus, “Provinzen des neusumerischen Reiches von Ur,” ZA 51 (1955): 64. 42 For example, year D, W. Sallaberger, “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 425. Ur-Namma was not of course the first Mesopotamian monarch to dedicate himself to canal building: the Early Dynastic ruler Ur-Nanše is known to have worked on at least nine canals in the Girsu-Lagash area. Bauer, OBO 160/1 1998 p. 447. 43 One should perhaps see here not just the actual fertility of the fields but also cosmic fertility, S. Tinney, “Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger: Context, Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literature,” JCS 51 (1999): 31–54.

14 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

Another aspect of Ur-Namma’s domestic policy reform was the creation of a new law code, to be used throughout his state. Ur-Namma’s monumental art and year names indicate that the legal push was begun in Ur-Namma’s reign.44 While stabilizing the home front appears to have been the major contribution of this king’s reign, Ur-Namma also dealt with foreign lands in an effort to reestablish trade networks. For instance, he acted to reestablish trade (presumably in copper and diorite) between Ur and Magan (Oman).45 The overall accomplishments of Ur-Namma’s reign are fairly well known, and his importance in making a stable state clear. Unfortunately, tablets from his reign are scarce and we do not yet know how to order his year names. As Steinkeller put it, “The chronology of Ur-Namma’s reign, which lasted eighteen years, is known very poorly. Even more to the truth, we know nothing certain about it.”46 Adding our lack of information on the chronology of the period, we are also unclear about concordances. Some have argued that Ur-Namma’s reign overlapped with that of Gudea of Lagash, but others suggest that Gudea was well earlier and that Ur-Namma lived at the same time as a ruler of Lagash named Nam-mahni.47 Ur-Namma’s family life is not well known. His wife, and the mother of the next king Shulgi, was a woman whose name was written SI.A-tum, possibly to be read Watartum.48 She was described as the spouse (dam) of Ur-Namma and the

44 D. Frayne RIME 3/2 p. 16, year name “H ii”. For the reconstruction of the code, see C. Wilcke, “Der Kodex Urnamma (CU): Versuch einer Rekonstruktion,” in T. Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. 45 D. Potts, “ ‘The Plant for the Heart Grows in Magan…’: Redefining Southeastern Arabia’s Role in Ancient Western Asia,” Australian Archaeology 48 (1999): 38; see also Frayne RIME 3/2 p. 16. See also C. Wilcke, “Eine Weinschrift Gudeas von Lagaš,” in A. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schoyen Collection, CUSAS 17, pp.33–34. 46 P. Steinkeller, “Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa,” in K. de Graef (ed.), Susa and Elam p. 298. 47 Advocating for the later date for Gudea, see P. Steinkeller, JCS 40 (1988): 47ff; discussed also by J. Renger, “The Daughters of Urbaba,” in B. Eichler (ed.), Kramer AV p. 368; Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma p.3. It is possible in Steinkeller’s view that Gudea’s death occurred actually in the reign of Shulgi. On the concordance with Nam-mahni, see Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 5. 48 A reading originally proposed by E. Sollberger, RA 61 (1967): 69 and advocated by P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77. The reading Watartum has been questioned by P. Michalowski, “Royal Women,” ASJ 4 (1982): 131. It may be of interest that Th. Jacobsen’s copy of Michalowski’s article (archived by the author for the Harvard Semitic Museum) has written here, “Why not Šiātum, “that one?” Frayne identified Damiqtum as Ur-Namma’s mother (RIME 3/2 p. 85 and p. 169), but this is quite uncertain. . See most recently F. Weiershäuser, who prefers to retain the SI.A-tum reading, “Geštinanna und die Mutter des Šulgi,” pp. 347–355 in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East



The Third Dynasty of Ur and Shulgi’s Path to Power 

 15

mother who bore Shulgi in two contemporary inscriptions.49 One is the seal of her servant.50 The second is a flat piece of agate dedicated to Inanna for the sake of her son Shulgi’s life, almost certainly inscribed after Ur-Namma’s death.51 Very little is known of her origins or her role in Ur-Namma’s kingdom. Two rather odd facts concerning her must, however, be noted. Ur-Namma was never considered a god either during his life or afterwards,52 but his wife — alone of all the Ur III rulers’ wives —was syncretized with a deity after her death. “After SI.A-tum had died, Shulgi established her official cult, in which she was venerated as one of the personifications of Geštinanna.”53 Geštinanna was a fairly minor goddess associated with vegetation who attempted to aid her brother, Dumuzi, in his conflict with his now-vengeful wife, the powerful Inanna-Ištar. Like Persephone, Geštinanna ended up serving half her time in the Netherworld. The other unusual feature about Shulgi’s mother is that, at least in Old Babylonian copies of Shulgi’s royal propaganda, she is replaced with an unnamed en-priestess. Contemporary votive inscriptions, specifically, an agate plaque, tell us unequivocally that SI.A-tum was Shulgi’s ama tu-da-ni, his birth-giving mother,54 but the hymn Shulgi G tells us “The en gave birth to a ‘faithful man’ from (the semen) which has been placed in her womb.”55 The en, a type of celibate priest(ess), normally the son or daughter of the royal house, served as an important link between the ruling family and the gods, but ens were, by virtue of their consecration, not parents. There have been speculations that Utu-hegal and Ur-Namma were not brothers but brothers-in-law: a Seleucid text from Uruk

CRRAI 54. She posits there may have been a statue of SI.A.-tum in the guise of Geštinanna that received offerings while the woman herself still lived. 49 P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77. 50 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 pp. 85–6. 51 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 pp. 167–171. 52 This fact has been noted by many, including P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p. 37. 53 P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 78. Most recently, see F. Weiershäuser, “Geštinanna und die Mutter des Šulgi,” pp. 347–355 in G. Wilhem (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 54, and also Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 25–29. 54 P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77: the plaque was published as BE 1. 15. 55 J. Klein, “The Birth of a Crownprince in the Temple,” in La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33, pp. 98–99.

16 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

identified Shulgi’s mother as Utu-hegal’s daughter.56 That is, Ur-Namma’s claim to power may have been based on his alleged marriage to Utu-hegal’s daughter. This is all highly speculative. In other words, it is possible that SI.A-tum provided the Uruk link to the dynasty, and that Ur-Namma and Utu-hegal were initially allied due to the marriage bond between the two houses. Speculation aside, the facts are slim about Shulgi’s mother. If Ur-Namma had secondary wives, they are not yet attested. It is quite likely he had only one wife. Now, as for Ur-Namma’s children, we know of only three. Shulgi, Ur-Namma’s only known son and his successor, will be discussed later in the chapter. We believe he was born while his father was king (so runs the claim in a royal hymn), and as his father ruled only eighteen years, Shulgi cannot have been very old at the time of his father’s death. But he cannot have been that young, either, as a marriage had been arranged for him with a woman (girl?) from the royal house of Mari while his father was still alive. Two daughters or Ur-Namma are known. Frayne lists only one, but evidence published since his edition of the royal inscriptions has revealed another. The first daughter was consecrated as an en-priestess of Nanna in Ur, taking on the clerical name En-nir-gal-an-na.57 Another daughter was named Ama-barag, which means “mother of the throne dais” or “mother of a ruler.”58 With such a name, one might expect that she would have been married off to a foreign potentate to bear a set of heirs, but she appears to have stayed home and married a local man. She appears occasionally in the Puzrish-Dagan documentation as late as Shulgi’s fourth decade of reign, at which point she must have been well past middle age herself. She is described clearly as nin9 lugal, “the king’s sister,” in several texts, such as Nisaba

56 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles p. 289, discussed also by C. Wilcke, “Eine Weinschrift Gudeas von Lagaš,” in A. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schoyen Collection, CUSAS 17, p. 32, and by F. Weiershäuser, “Geštinanna und die Mutter des Šulgi,” in G. Wilhem (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 54, p. 353 (the hypothesis presented in the latter of a Lagash origin for SI.A-tum does not seem to rest on a firm foundation). 57 D. Frayne RIME 3/2 p.85 and pp.87–88. 58 On barag meaning “ruler,” see P. Steinkeller, “On the Reading DI-dUtu,” JNES 74 (2015): 43 note 42, also PSD B pp. 140–141. On the name, see H. Limet, L’Anthroponymie Sumerienne p. 221 (he saw it as a probable abbreviation of a longer phrase). For a collection of texts in which Amabarag appears, see P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis p. 284 and footnote 463.



Shulgi, the Swashbuckling Hero 

 17

8.386.59 Ama-barag had at least one son, Nur-ili, who appears early in the reign of Amar-Sin, his cousin.60 After approximately eighteen years as king, Ur-Namma was killed in battle against a coalition that included Gutians and probably also Elamites (from Iran), probably near what was then to the north of the border of the territory controlled by Ur, in a place known as Simudar or Zimudar.61 Presumably the battle was lost. The untimely death of the king and the mourning rites for him were described in a lament apparently commissioned by his wife, now called “The Death of Ur-Namma.”

Shulgi, the Swashbuckling Hero Ur-Namma’s son, Shulgi, whose name can be translated as “native youth,” was enthroned, no doubt earlier than he had expected. It was Shulgi, then, who shaped the land into a single state ruled from the city of Ur: it was his military accomplishment, diplomatic skill and well placed reforms that established the success of the state. Historians of the period agree that Shulgi was the most important and influential man of the era. Jacob Klein summarized Shulgi’s importance thus: “Shulgi, the second and most important ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur, was remembered as one of the most enlightened kings of the ancient world. During his extraordinarily long reign, Shulgi brought about a political and cultural renaissance for Sumer that exercised tremendous influence on contemporaneous and future generations.”62 He continued, “Very much like the Hebrews’ Solomon or the Macedonians’ Alexander III ‘the Great,’ Shulgi was remembered as the outstanding individual of his age: a heroic leader and a patron of the arts and sciences.63

But the early years of Shulgi’s very long reign are fairly obscure.64 Shulgi may well have been fairly young when first crowned,65 and, insofar as we can tell from

59 Nisaba 8.386 is a text in the British Museum from the Shoe Archive, dating to S41 or 42 viii. As this text was published well after Frayne’s RIME 3/2, he could not have known of her. 60 AUCT 1.383 (AS3). 61 Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 20. 62 J. Klein, “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire.” p. 843 in J. Sasson (ed.), CANE vol. 1. 63 J. Klein, “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire,” in J. Sasson (ed.), CANE vol. 1 p. 843 and 856. 64 “Les débuts du règne de Šulgi nous sont mal connus.” H. Limet, “Au Début du Règne de Šulgi,” RA 65 (1971): 15. 65 As plausibly suggested by Klein, CANE p.844.

18 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

our admittedly very scanty historical records, no major reforms or expansions took place in the early part of Shulgi’s reign. The economic and administrative archives so plentiful from Shulgi’s third and fourth decades appear to be lacking for Shulgi’s first and second decades in power. Texts from these years have been found, for example at Ur, and at Lagash-Girsu, but they are few in number.66 Year names are one of the only sources available, and these tend to concentrate on religious and domestic matters. For instance, year three commemorates a lapis throne brought into Enlil’s temple, year eight records the caulking of a deep sea barge for the goddess Ninlil, while year fifteen marks the choice of a woman chosen by extispicy as the en-priestess of Ur’s patron god, Nanna. Some of Shulgi’s early reign consisted of finishing projects begun by his father, principally the legal endeavors and the completion of some of the ziggurrat building.67 He also continued with his father’s transportation program. Ur-Namma had built roads: Shulgi “strengthened” them and set up shady resthouses, well-staffed, according to one of Shulgi’s numerous hymns.68 Starting early in Shulgi’s second decade of rule, the year names begin to show evidence of major changes. To attain firm control over Mesopotamia, Shulgi instituted a number of reform measures, among them stringent accounting controls.69 By the middle of the period, this level of accountability would lead to an explosion of documentation. The total number of texts listed in the CDLI database for Shulgi year 8, for instance is 16 tablets;70 for Shulgi year 22, 10 tab-

66 Interestingly, the Ur texts before Shulgi year 30 appear to use the calendar (month names) of Lagash rather than local ones. Often this is a sign of political domination, but it seems unlikely that Girsu was Ur’s overlord at this time, so, as Frayne put it, “what specific conclusions we are to draw from this fact are unclear.” RIME 3/2 p. 7. 67 R. Zettler, “Archaeology and the Problem of Textual Evidence for the Third Dynasty of Ur,” BCSMS 38 (2003): 53. 68 This is Shulgi V, translated and discussed by P. Steinkeller, “On the Location of the Towns Ur-Zababa and Dimat-Enlil,” in J. Fincke (ed.), Festscrift für Gernot Wilhem pp. 381–2. 69 On the reforms, see P. Steinkeller, “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State,” SAOC (1987): pp. 19–41, and Grand Strategy, H. Waetzoldt, JAOS 111 (1991): 638 and W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 144–8. 70 CDLI accessed 1/16/2015. But for the purposes of knowing what was happening in the capitals, the early archives may be disappointing, as they predominately derive from provincial archives. Fourteen of the sixteen texts come from Girsu.



Shulgi, the Swashbuckling Hero 

 19

lets,71 for Shulgi year 25, 441 tablets,72 for Shulgi year 34, 480 tablets,73 and for Shulgi year 47, 2136 tablets.74 Archival material becomes more and more common throughout his reign. This exponential growth in archives is not accidental, of course: Shulgi’s seemingly quite extensive economic and administrative reforms involved a concomitant need for a “paper” (really clay) trail. Although some of these texts stem from provincial archives, especially from the southern provinces of Lagash and Umma, we begin to find tablets recording income and expenditure from the crown’s administration in the Nippur province. Most of these texts come from illicit excavations at a place known in Arabic as Drehem: the ancient name appears to have been first Esagdana Nibru, then Puzrish-Dagan.75 Under Shulgi’s guidance, the Ur III state would fundamentally change on many fronts. Aggressive military expansion and a series of dynastic marriages would shape the areas controlled by or allied with the royal house of Ur. At home, major governmental reforms would alter taxation, weights and measures, law, education and religion.76 The economic and administrative organization of the Land prior to Shulgi’s mid-reign reforms are not clearly known and may well have varied from place to place. We believe much of Babylonia to have been a patchwork of the kinds of land tenure and economic structures observable in the first three hundred years or so of recorded history, some vestiges of the old temple households with lands and enterprises centered on the estates of the city-states’ chief deities, some ves-

71 CDLI accessed 1/16/2015. Eight of the ten tablets known appear to derive from Umma. 72 CDLI accessed 1/16/2015. Still, few of these texts come from the capitals; 42 % were from Umma. 73 CDLI accessed 1/16/2015. Thirty-three of the texts from this year are assigned to Puzrish-Dagan. 74 CDLI accessed 1/16/2015. About 37 % of these tablets (813 documents) come from Puzrish-Dagan. 75 The archives from this location will be discussed in greater depth in chapter eight. A good general introduction to the problem can be found in M. Molina, “The Corpus of Neo-Sumerian Tablets: An Overview,” pp. 19–53 in S. Garfinkle and C. Johnson (eds.), The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia. 76 There has been a certain amount of ink spilt on the question of “Shulgi’s reforms” and what exactly they entailed. Steinkeller, following Sollberger, laid out a group of measures that Shulgi took to reform government in “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State,” SAOC 1987 and Waetzoldt questioned some of them (such as the creation of a standing army) in JAOS 111 (1991): 638, with further discussion in Sallaberger OBO 160/3. In his forthcoming book, Steinkeller concluded “Whether or not the transformations of Šulgi’s reign qualify to the called ‘a plan’, the fact remains that, during a period of time, massive and thorough re-organization of the administration and economy did take place, as a result of which Babylonia acquired a drastically different shape. This fact is undeniable.” Grand Strategy forthcoming.

20 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

tiges of the old palace-centered economies best attested for areas like Kish, and some private landholdings, perhaps with significant plots given over to the king’s favourites, as in the Sargonic era. Throughout, private enterprise probably flourished, perhaps especially for goods like fruit, ceramics or spices. Shulgi did not abolish private land or private enterprise or temple households, but he did apparently add a large-scale new royal sector on top of existing institutions, to which all the other elements were (at some level) connected and dependent. Shulgi’s reforms also included more ideological changes, revamping the conceptualization of kingship.77 Shulgi, following the precedents of kings of earlier times, declared that the king was no mere mortal, but a minor god, the ‘god of his land,’ or the ‘lamma-spirit of the Land.’78 This seems to have occurred after his twentieth regnal year: unfortunately, an exact date, or knowledge of the political climate which precipitated such a move remain unclear.79 As part of the royal refurbishment, he also altered the terminology for his wives. Now his junior wives would be called not “junior wife,” in Sumerian dam-banda, but lukur, a name for a kind of priestess thought to be a god’s junior wife.

Shulgi the King, Shulgi the God, Shulgi the Mediator By about his twentieth year of rule, as the pace of reforms appeared to be quickening and the long series of wars to control the northern trade routes was beginning,80 Shulgi altered the policy of his father Ur-Namma and began to write his name with the divine determinative. That is to say, Shulgi declared himself a god. This was not without precedent: Naram-Sin, the third king of the Sargonic period, was apparently the first Mesopotamian ruler to have done so, approximately one hundred and fifty years earlier. It is commonly pointed out that Naram-Sin’s claim to divinity had more hubris than Shulgi’s: Naram-Sin claimed that an assembly of citizens had asked the great gods to make Naram-Sin a city-god, the patron of

77 As Michalowski correctly observed, Shulgi’s consolidation of the Ur III state required both military action and shoring up “the ideological foundations of the kingdom.” P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p. 36. 78 Shulgi G: The lamma of his land (c.f. Ur-Namma, the lamma of his city), Foxvog, Heimpel and Kilmer, “Lamma/ Lamassu,” RlA 6 (1980–3): 451. 79 P. Steinkeller, “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List,” in W. Sallaberger and K. Volk (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: FS Wilcke p. 282. 80 P. Steinkeller outlines these wars and their progress in some detail in his forthcoming book, The Grand Strategy, which the author kindly made available to me in draft.



Shulgi the King, Shulgi the God, Shulgi the Mediator 

 21

Agade.81 Shulgi was the much vaguer and more modest god or protective spirit (lamma) of his land. How and why a human king could now be conceived of as in some way divine has been the subject of many erudite writings. Was it a major ideological change or a new terminology for the same, familiar roles? Was it a reaction intended to quell rebellion? Was it related to the alleged Sacred Marriage? Was it in reaction to his father’s sudden death in battle?82 The current study, focusing on Shulgi-simti and the other royal wives, obviously cannot delve too deeply into these issues of divine kingship; still, it must be addressed in some way as clearly Shulgi’s status affected the status of his wives. Whether Shulgi was a man, a mediator between the people and the gods, a demi-god or even a more fully-fledged divine being, his status would inform what religious roles were considered appropriate for his queen and other wives. But what was Shulgi? This is not so clear. In part, we simply do not have enough information, and different scholars have pieced together the same fragments of data in different enough ways that very different conclusions have been reached. For example, in a single volume on divine kingship published in 2008, two reputable scholars came to almost opposite conclusions about the importance of divine kingship to the Third Dynasty of Ur. Reichel stressed its importance: “Numerous royal inscriptions, hymns, and ritual practices bear ample witness to the ideological significance of divine kingship during this time period.”83 A divergent opinion was voiced by Michalowski, in the same volume, “Much has been made of early Mesopotamian divine kingship, but if the analysis presented here stands, its significance has been highly overstated. The phenomenon had a short shelf life, perhaps no more than a decade or so under Naram-Sin, and just over sixty years during the time of the Ur III kings.”84 The present study cannot attempt to solve these problems, which appear quite complex, but it may help to approach the complexity chronologically. At Shulgi’s birth, he was unquestionably and wholly human, with a human mother

81 This was on the Bassetki inscription, published by D. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods RIME 2 pp.113–4. 82 Previous scholarship has explored all these theories, reviewed for instance in P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p. 36. 83 C. Reichel, “The King Is Dead, Long Live the King,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4 p. 133. 84 P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p.41.

22 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

and father. Ur-Namma, his father, ruled about eighteen years,85 and if we are correct in assuming that Shulgi was a youth upon his father’s death, then Shulgi was probably born when his father was already king. And what sort of a king? Kings of Babylonia at this time often stressed their roles as mediators between the sphere of the gods and that of their servants, humankind. “Mesopotamian kings… were, first and foremost, mediators between the mundane and transcendent orders.”86 The earliest rulers of the Third Dynasty of Ur, Utu-hegal and Ur-Namma, appear as mediators between gods and humans. We see this, for instance, in the tale of Utu-hegal’s battle against the Gutians, “The Victory of Utu-hegal.”87 As historians, we would prefer the narrative to be choc-a-bloc with details about the two armies, the battle tactics, the decision making processes and so on, but in fact the bulk of the composition details Utu-hegal’s entreaties to the gods and listing the powers they have given him. At the start of the text, after a brief statement of the wrongdoings of the Gutians, “Enlil, lord of the foreign lands, commissioned Utu-hegal, the mighty man, the king of Uruk… to destroy their name.”88 Utu-hegal’s first act, upon receiving this commission, was to pray for help from Inanna. Eventually Utu-hegal addresses Uruk’s citizens, to muster and motivate the men. He does not, in the address presented in “The Victory of Utu-hegal” appear to say anything at all about the enemy or the resultant problems in the Land: the entirety of the address in the “Victory” centers on Utu-hegal as proxy for various divinities. “The god Enlil has given Gutium to me. My lady, the goddess Inanna, is my ally. The god Dumuzi-ama-ušumgal-anna has declared, ‘It is a matter for me.’ The god Gilgamesh, son of the goddess Ninsun, has assigned him (Dumuzi) to me as bailiff.”89 While Utu-hegal never claimed to be a god, third millennium B.C. Mesopotamian rulers did regularly claim to be not just able to converse with the gods but able to receive benefits from them as well. Winter noted that these benefits were sometimes physical and were thought to be visible in the bodies of the

85 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 9. 86 P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p.41. 87 Published by Frayne in RIME 2, Sargonic and Gutian Periods inscription 2, pp. 283–7 and in ETCSL T.2.1.6. The three extant copies of this text date from the Old Babylonian period (RIME 2 p.283), so, as with the hymns of Shulgi discussed below, there is a possibility that we are seeing an amalgamation of an original Ur III idea of kingship with later accretions. 88 D. Frayne, RIME 2 p.285. 89 D. Frayne, RIME 2 pp.285–6.



Shulgi’s Persona 

 23

rulers.90 The idea that the third millennium king was in some way related to the gods appears to have been widespread.91 For Shulgi’s first two decades of rule, he seems not to have strayed too far from this template of a king who, though in close contact with the gods and even perhaps related to them and for that reason given gifts by them, was still a mere man. Whether Shulgi’s subjects would have viewed him as anything more than a mediator in his third and fourth decades of rule cannot now be known. The rhetoric in literary productions ratcheted up— now Shulgi appeared as the offspring of the Uruk goddess Nin-sun and her heroic (but human) man Lugal-banda, making their mythological child, Gilgamesh, the brother of Shulgi. According to Michalowski, Shulgi was written into the heroic past of Uruk.92 It is difficult to understand why the Uruk mythology in particular was chosen if the family in fact did not have roots there, but this is a matter perhaps best left to the literary experts. Altogether, it seems safe to say that the idea of a king as the mediator between the gods and the black-headed people was well established in the early Ur III period and, despite his “elevation” to divine status, may still have been viewed as his central role.

Shulgi’s Persona One of the few kings who claimed to be literate,93 Shulgi would become a patron of literature, founding two scribal academies at Ur and at Nippur that would continue as centers of learning for hundreds of years.94 The Ur III period witnessed

90 I. Winter, “Touched by the Gods: Visual Evidence for the Divine Status of Rulers in the Ancient Near East,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p.92. 91 B. Pongratz-Leisten notes that this pattern continues from the third millennium well into the first (… “Sumerian theology had already developed the concept of not only an intimate but even a familial relationship between the king and the gods which survived until the end of Mesopotamian history.”) “When the Gods Are Speaking,” in M. Köchert and M. Nissinnen (eds.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel p.136. 92 P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p. 36. 93 As Lion has noted, though few rulers claimed to be able to read (and write), it is not impossible that some in fact possessed such skills; B. Lion, “Literacy and Gender,” in K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture p.102. 94 Just as with controversy over whether Paris or Bologna was the site of the first European university, Ur and Nippur appear to have vied with one another for prime status, Nippur claiming to be first— Vanstiphout, “The Old Babylonian Literary Canon: Structure, Function and Intention,”

24 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

the florescence of literature, with many important compositions in Sumerian literature written in these years, some quite possibly under the direct patronage of Shulgi.95 Although some of the more major works of literature were epic plays, part of the Gilgamesh cycle, Shulgi did not neglect himself. We are even able to glimpse his royal persona through hymns of praise to the king.96 Approximately thirty of these survive today (though we should note that some appear to have been composed after his lifetime); there, the king appears as a larger-than-life, swashbuckling hero, what we might call a Renaissance man, skilled in many different areas. “I, Shulgi, was born to be a mighty man.”97

It continues – “I am a knowledgeable scribe of Nisaba. I have perfected my wisdom, as well as my heroism and my strength… So that my name should be established for distant days and never fall into oblivion, so that my praise should be spread throughout the land and my glory proclaimed in foreign lands”…

In another hymn, we hear more of Shulgi’s skills – “I, Shulgi, king of Ur, have also devoted myself to the art of music. Nothing is too complicated for me… I am able to root out and undo crime. I have the ability to reconcile great matters with just one word… I provide justice in the legal cases of Sumer, I can give answers in all five languages… I also know how to serve the gods… The thirst and hunger of the gods

p. 1 footnote 1 in G. Dorleijn and H. L. J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Cultural Repertoires: Structure, Function and Dynamics. 95 Such as some elements in the Sumerian Gilgamesh cycle, the Aratta cycle, the Shulgi hymns, possibly the Curse over Agade, and many more: see for instance H. Vanstiphout, Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta p. 1; see also N. Veldhuis, “Sumerian Literature,” in G. Dorleijn and H. L. J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Cultural Repertoires: Structure, Function and Dynamics pp. 30–31. A. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh in the introduction p. xx, commented on some Sumerian Gilgamesh copies were “very probably directly descended from master copies placed by King Shulgi in his Tablet Houses.” 96 The extant copies of the hymns are from OB tablets, sparking considerable debate about whether they are “authentic”—see W. W. Hallo, “A Sumerian Apocryphon? The Royal Correspondence of Ur Reconsidered,” pp. 85–104 in Approaches to Sumerian Literature, Studies in Honour of Stip CM 35; F. Huber, “La correspondance Royale d’Ur, un corpus apocryphe,” ZA 91 (2001): 169–206, both with previous scholarship. 97 This is Shulgi hymn A (ETCSL composition T.2.4.2.01): we know that a version of this hymn existed in Shulgi’s time.



Shulgi’s Achievements in War and Statesmanship 

 25

are a cause of the greatest anxiety to me! I, Shulgi am the life of Sumer… I am Shulgi, whose shadow lies over the mountain lands. I am the king, the weapon, the downfall of rebel lands. Thus I have spread far and wide my everlasting renown.”98

Some scholars, in comparing such hymns from the time of Shulgi and later Mesopotamian monarchs, have noted that the earlier hymns “are focused on the exaltation of the king’s physical and intellectual abilities”..99 His acts and certainly also echoes of a forceful personality have not been erased by the passage of time.

Shulgi’s Achievements in War and Statesmanship Shulgi’s larger-than-life persona would seem rather flat had he not matched his boasts with actual larger-than-life achievements. Not since the time of the great Sargonic rulers like Sargon or Naram-Sin had the pace of conquest been so quick.100 The Ur III state, which had barely existed at the start of Ur-Namma’s reign, now in the space of about forty years would encompass a substantial heartland, along with a network of buffer and vassal zones. Subsequent kings did not add much to the territory already amassed by Shulgi. Between Shulgi’s 25th to 46th regnal years, wars occurred regularly. Steinkeller has convincingly argued that a chief purpose of these campaigns was access to trade routes.101 (We do not know whether Shulgi himself led his army north year after year or whether he trusted ministers and generals to do so.) The territorial expansion also involved a large building programme along the northern borders, demarking the limit between the Ur III state proper and the periphery or vassal settlements. Called the bàd ma-da, or “wall of the Land,” and completed around Shulgi year 36,102 this may not have been a continuous wall but a string of fortresses.103 Building was also moving at a furious pace at home, with

98 This is Shulgi Hymn B, ETCSL composition T.2.4.2.02. 99 G. Rubio, Review of N. Brisch, JCS 60(2008): 121. 100 S. Garfinkle has in fact suggested that, at least in the second half of Shulgi’s reign, there was a state of “constant warfare.” S. Garfinkle, “The Economy of Warfare in Southern Iraq,” p. 357 in H. Neumann, R. Dittman et al. (eds.), Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien CRRAI 52. 101 P. Steinkeller, Grand Strategy, forthcoming. 102 At least in its first phase. A second phase of this building was undertaken much later, by Shu-Sin, and called at that point bàd Muriq-Tidnim, “the Wall to keep the Tidnum at bay.” See P. Steinkeller, Grand Strategy forthcoming; the wall is also extensively discussed by P. Michalowski, The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur pp. 129 ff.. 103 P. Steinkeller, Grand Strategy, forthcoming.

26 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

huge gangs of workers from various provinces pitching in to help build Shulgi a magnificent structure in the Nippur province.104

The End Shulgi—“ the greatest king of the Land am I!”— appears to have promoted a larger-than-life image of his persona and his reign. It seems entirely fitting that he ruled almost three times longer than his father, topping the list for longest-reigning monarch of the Ur III dynasty. One would have to go back to the reign of Naram-Sin to find a previous king with a longer reign, as we have no way of knowing whether any such recollection would have lasted into the 21st century BC. Probably many denizens of Babylonia had never known another king by Shulgi’s fourth decade of rule. Shulgi’s age at this time is unknown. If he were very young at accession, he might only have been about 60 in his forty-eighth (and final) regnal year, though he may well have been quite a bit older. We do not know, and may never know, what caused Shulgi’s death. Funeral obsequies were well in train by the eleventh month of S48.105 Whether the demise of the first “divine” king in generations added complications to the funerary rites or burial proceedings is open to question. Steinkeller has argued, very plausibly, that Shulgi was said to have taken an astral form as a star, “the heavenly Shulgi,” after death.106 The suggestion has also been made that Shulgi was thought to act as a door-opener in the heavenly sphere.107

Royal Wives in Shulgi’s Reign When Shulgi was quite young, possibly before he even began his forty-eight year long rule, his father arranged for him a dynastic marriage with a woman (or girl) from the royal house of Mari. The bride changed her name to Taram-Uram, “She

104 P. Steinkeller, “Corvée Labor in Ur III Times,”pp. 347–424 in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD. 105 According to BCT 1.132, see P. Steinkeller, “How did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?” pp. 459–478 in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS with previous scholarship. 106 P. Steinkeller, “How did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?” pp. 459–478 in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS. 107 M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend p. 83 with previous scholarship.



Royal Wives in Shulgi’s Reign  

 27

loves Ur,”108 and there is little reason to doubt she was Shulgi’s chief wife in the early years of his reign. In fact, there is reason to believe she was the mother of the man who would eventually become the next king, Amar-Sin109 though alternate ideas have also been floated.110 Historical sources for the first two to three decades of Shulgi’s reign are sparse, so it is unsurprising that Taram-Uram is not attested during these years, but the fact that she does not appear once the sources resume suggests that she may no longer living.111 Shulgi then remarried, or promoted a junior wife to be his chief wife (dam). Her name is variously given in Sumerian as Geme-Sin but also apparently in

108 We may compare the name Taram-Agade, a daughter of Naram-Sin who seems to have married the ruler (endan) of Urkesh, Maiocchi, ZA 101 (2011): 200. The Sargonic bride loved her hometown; the Mari bride her husband’s capital. The name (and its Akkadian nature) has been the subject of some interest in the light of the date of the transition from Sumerian-speaking to Akkadian speaking. Woods correctly notes “The fact that a princess from Mari took the Akkadian name Tarām-Ur(i)am upon her marriage to Šulgi does not necessarily point to Akkadian as the vernacular of the Ur III court… Rather, the name may simply speak to her Mari origins and her native tongue, which, no doubt, was a dialect of Akkadian…” C. Woods, “Bilingualism, Scribal Learning, and the Death of Sumerian” in L. Schramer and T. Urban (eds.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures OIS 2, p. 107 note 72. 109 Boese and Sallaberger, AoF 23 (1996): 24–39, and RIME 3/2 pp. 167- 169: also my own “Beyond Chronology: The Šakkanakkus of Mari and the Kings of Ur,” pp. 59–70 in W. W. Hallo (ed.), Seals and Seal Impressions. As Boese and Salalberger show, Amar-Sin made death offerings to Taram-Uram’s father, king of Mari: this makes good sense if it is in fact his grandfather but very little if he were the son of another woman. Of course, it is also possible that Amar-Sin’s wife, Abi-simti, came from Mari, which would provide another reason for such sacrifices. He also may refer to himself in a royal inscription as the ‘One who Loves Ur’ in a deliberate reference to the meaning of Taram-Uram’s name (AoF 23 [1996]: 34.) 110 Michalowski, for instance, doubts that the marriage arranged by Ur-Namma was actually to Shulgi (“Of Bears and Men,” pp. 285–320 in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS.). Aside from a complete lack of evidence for any groom other than Shulgi, and note that no brothers of Shulgi are known, we must assume that diplomatic protocols of the time would have made the marriage of this lady to anyone other than the heir apparent highly insulting. 111 As pointed out by P. Michalowski, “The Men from Mari,” in K. van Lerberghe (ed.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East p.188. Boese and Sallaberger raise the possibility that she may have changed her name again: “Da, wie einleitend bemerkt, Tarām-Uram sicherlich einen sekundären ‘Thronnamen’ trägt, wird man nicht annehmen dürfen, sie habe ihren Name nein Zweites Mal geändert und verberge sich nun hinter einer der bekannten Frauen Šulgis.” Boese and Sallaberger, AoF 23 (1996): 35. While this interesting idea should not be dismissed out of hand, given the long interval between her marriage and the attestations of these other ladies, and keeping in mind the many health risks of the day, childbirth being one, it is perhaps more likely that she died young than that she was renamed.

28 

 Chapter 1 Historical Introduction: The Reigns of Ur-Namma and Shulgi of Ur

Akkadian, Amat-Sin. Known from the seal inscription of two of her servants, she seems to have been Shulgi’s chief wife prior to and during the reform in which he declared himself a god, as the first seal refers to her as the spouse (dam) of Shulgi and the second to her as spouse of the divine Shulgi.112 But Geme- (or Amat-)Sin’s star soon faded. She too disappears before the main bulk of the sources start up again. Did she die? fall from favor? One cannot know. Her death, like the rest of her life, remains shrouded in obscurity. Shulgi, who appears to have been almost relentlessly energetic, did not sit in his palace mourning his lost wives. At around this time, he reformed royal titulary, making his chief wife not a dam (spouse), albeit the spouse of a god, but instead dubbing her NIN, “lady,” a title tinged with divine overtones.113 And who was his NIN? This choice was important, not so much because this third chief wife114 could be expected to give birth to the next king – Amar-Sin was probably in his teens at least by this time, though one cannot be sure that he had already been designated as crown prince—nor because Shulgi needed the companionship of a suitably loving wife – an anachronistic projection; no, Shulgi needed a chief wife for political and practical purposes. The NIN had a number of important duties, if we follow the case of Shibtu of Mari, including taking care of the palace and the offerings in her husband’s absence and receiving foreign dignitaries. These could not properly be done by a mere concubine. Furthermore, marrying women from strategic neighboring regions cemented personal and political alliances, which, given the number of wars Shulgi fought, must have been essential. This was a two-way exchange. Shulgi provided numerous daughters as brides to the kings of neighboring polities. To name just one example, Shulgi married his daughter, Taram-Šulgi, to a ruler named Šudda-bani of Pašime (on the northeast coast of the Persian Gulf).115Another daughter went to the Iranian kingdom of Marhashi, and it is possible that Shulgi himself took a woman from this area, who would become his last queen, though under the Sumerian name Nin-kalla. In addition to all these chief wives, or queens, Shulgi also had a large number of concubines. The early ones we know almost nothing about. Shuqurtum appears to have been one such, but no doubt there were more. For the third and fourth decade of Shulgi’s long reign, we know more about his lesser wives, Shulgi-simti, Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and perhaps still more. There seems to have

112 That is, using the dingir sign before Shulgi’s name, D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 pp.169 and 171–2. 113 P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77–92. 114 At least third; should not discount the possibility that there may have been some between Taram-Uram and Amat-Sin. 115 P. Steinkeller, “Marhaši,” ZA 72 (1982): 24.



Royal Wives in Shulgi’s Reign  

 29

been some attempt to spread these women out in various palaces and to establish a clear hierarchy among them, but it seems likely that rivalries existed among these wives. The family circle must have been exceedingly complicated by this time. At least two of Shulgi’s former queens had died, but the memory of them had not faded. Was Amar-Sin’s position as crown prince secure at this time? No evidence survives to inform us. If Nin-kalla, his reigning queen, had sons, one presumes she would try to gain preferments for them, or even the crown. The aged king, probably preoccupied with the grueling wars to the northeast, may well have been adding harems of defeated rulers and pretty prisoners-of-war to his own already substantial “stable” of women. For these women, stakes were high to try to catch the interest of the king and put themselves, and their children, forward. Meanwhile, the established interests of Shulgi’s children from earlier marriages (children who were old enough to have grown children of their own) could be threatened by these new girls. Insecurity, rivalry and intrigue may have been the order of the day. Shulgi, the mighty man, the king of Ur, then, established order and prosperity in a Land which had known neither for some time, but had swung from the Gutians to Utu-hegal to Ur-Namma without long-lasting stability. Seemingly crafting a royal persona for himself that was a hybrid of the Sargonic warlord prototype and that of the ancient pious ruler attested in Early Dynastic Sumer, his reforms brought a new order – on his own terms. In the next chapter, we shall see how he ruled from not one but multiple royal centers, and we shall scrutinize his palace(s) and his court.

Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court Situating Shulgi physically – in his capital city, his palace and his court is not as easy as it might seem. We might assume that Shulgi’s capital and residence were at Ur, which after all was the seat of the dynasty, but it appears to have been much more complicated than one building in one city. The family line, it has been argued, originated from Uruk, not Ur. And the kings appear to have spent the preponderance of their time in the Nippur province. Mesopotamian kings had multiple palaces, of course. How many palaces did Shulgi regularly use? While multiple palaces and multiple centers of royal power may have been the order of the day, this chapter will argue that Shulgi, very late in his reign, shifted his focus to a newly-constructed residence in the Nippur province. We shall approach this problem from both archaeological and textual sources. Then we shall turn from the palace to the court, those people around the king. Naturally, a royal court was much more than a king’s immediate family. Scholars in contiguous fields of history have found it useful to distinguish between the inner and outer courts.1 We shall also attempt to identify some of the key sorts of courtiers during the Third Dynasty, especially late in the reign of Shulgi.

Places of Power: Ur, Nippur and Uruk in the Third Dynasty of Ur Students of early Mesopotamia are often bewildered or even perturbed by the great variety of capital cities they encounter in the late third millennium B.C.; they feel more at home once we reach the time of Hammurabi and Babylon was the undisputed capital for centuries. But the preconception that there should be one single, stable capital city is our idea, and does not seem to reflect native Mesopotamian conceptualizations of place and power. The notion of a constant flux, or rotation, in centers of power, first this city, then another, then another, appears closer to a native ideology. This was expressed with the Sumerian word bala, “rotation,” derived from a term for a spindle. This conception can be found most famously in the Sumerian King List, copies of which certainly existed in Ur III times. Other contemporary works of literature, such as the “Curse over Akkade” or the “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur” reveal a similar view:

1 See the collection of essays edited by A. J. Spawforth, The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-002

32 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

no one city was given rule over the Land forever; instead, power would shift from city-state to city-state according to the will of the gods. “Since the days of old when the Land was founded until (now) when the people have multiplied, who has (ever) seen a reign of kingship that is everlasting?”2 The shift in power from Akkade to Ur (and later from Ur to Isin or Larsa or Babylon) was therefore not likely to present an ideological problem. What was an ideological problem to those responsible for the composition of such literary texts was the idea that multiple city-states could vie for power at the same time. It may be for this reason, then, that the contemporary sources seem to elevate Ur as the seat of the dynasty, when in fact administrative and other documents make it clear that the Nippur province and Uruk were also major centers of royal control. Thus, there is considerable evidence that the Ur III state had three centers of royal power: Ur, the seat of the dynasty, Nippur, an important religious as well as administrative center, and last, Uruk.3 Uruk appear to have been the least important of these. Provincial tax payments (bala) were made to Ur and Nippur, more rarely to Uruk. Though Ur and Uruk lie well to the south of Nippur, the distances are not enormous: to travel between Ur and Nippur via waterways was a journey of about 161 km, or about 15 da-na in Sumerian metrology.4

Uruk “Warka (Uruk) is a puzzle,”5 commented Zettler, because it ought to have been very important, especially in the early Ur III period. Many scholars have argued that Uruk was the original home of the family that would become the Third Dynasty of Ur.6 Royal ideology of the Ur III kings lifted many elements of the Uruk tradition, including the claim to be Gilgamesh’s brother and son of Ninsun and

2 P. Michalowski, “History as Charter,” JAOS 103 (1983): 110. 3 W. Sallaberger, “Die Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur unterhielten Paläste (é-gal) in den drei Hauptstädten Ur, Uruk und Nippur,” “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 202. 4 P. Steinkeller, “On the Location of the Towns of Ur-Zababa and Dimat-Enlil,” in J. Fincke (ed.), Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm p. 380. 5 R. Zettler, “Archaeology and the Problem of Textual Evidence for the Third Dynasty of Ur,” BCSMS 38 (2003): 59. 6 In 1966 Hallo asserted “Uruk {was}, from all indications, the ancestral home of the dynasty”… JCS 20 (1966): 136. Lenzen went so far as to write, “Aus alle den vorlegten Arbeiten wird es deutlich, dass das Herrschergeschlecht der Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur in Uruk beheimatet ist.” H. Lenzen, “Die Beiden Hauptheiligtümer von Uruk und Ur,” Iraq 22 (1960): 127; P. Michalowski, “Durum and Uruk during the Ur III Period,” Mesopotamia 12 (1977): 83–96.

Uruk 

 33

Lugal-banda.7 The King can be referred to as the en of Uruk.8 Some have argued that Uruk was ruled directly by the royal family.9 These cultural appropriations make a good deal of sense with the model of dynastic origins in Uruk. But recent scholarship has questioned the notion of an Uruk origin for Ur-Namma’s family; Sallaberger concluded, “Die These, dass die Ur III-Könige in Uruk bestattet worden seien, ist hinfällig.”10 Aside from literature and myth, Uruk appears to have been a quiet backwater. The king and his court appear to have visited there rather than taken up any kind of long-term residence, and administrative records from elsewhere give little evidence of activities in Uruk. Uruk received only a tiny percent of the provincial tax payments, for instance. There are a few nebulous references to members of the royal family spending time in Uruk. One of the queens of the dynasty (unnamed, unfortunately) is attested with a residence in Uruk.11 Michalowski suggested that Uruk and a little of the territory nearby “were administered by the crown prince in a form of dauphinage.”12 While an intriguing idea, evidence for crown princes in Uruk is exceedingly thin and such an idea must be treated as speculation at this point. For the reign of Shulgi, especially its earlier parts, we have little idea of how much time (if any), the king might have spent in Uruk per annum. Later kings certainly travelled there by boat, especially Amar-Sin, who made several trips to Uruk in his eight-year long reign.13 Members of the royal family, especially women, did often celebrate the má-an-na, “Boat of Heaven,” festival there, as

7 Michalowski has written extensively on this subject, including CSMS 16 (1988): 21–22 and “The Mortal Kings of Ur,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4 p. 37. See also J. Klein, “Šulgi and Gilgamesh: Two Brother-Peers,” in B. Eichler (ed.), Kramer AV p. 271. 8 C. Wilcke, “Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit,”in P. Garelli (ed.) Palais et Royauté CRRAI 19, p. 184. 9 P. Michalowski: “Uruk… was under rule of the royal family, unlike all other major cities, which were run by state-appointed governors.” “The Mortal Kings of Ur,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4 p. 35. 10 W. Sallaberger, “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 424. 11 In Uruk is the ki NIN according to UET 3.906 and 909, discussed by J. Renger, “Hofstaat,” RlA 4 (1972–5): p. 442 (and many others), Neither text bears a year name: both record the allocation of small amounts of foodstuffs in months 4 and 5. 12 P. Michalowski, CSMS 16 (1988): 21. 13 One trip was at the end of Amar-Sin year 4, attested in PDT 1.478 (AS4. 12.20), a boat trip from Uruk back to Nippur. Another was in AS8, attested by AUCT 3.490 (AS8.7.15), again from Uruk to Nippur. An undated text CT 32, 103399, documents a king’s trip over many stops, from Uruk to Gaeš, from Gaeš to Ur, from Ur to Uruk and from Uruk to Nippur between days 9 and 19.

34 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

we shall see later on. It is possible that Uruk was never really a capital city in the reign of Shulgi but more a place where royalty often visited and which therefore had a palace for intermittent use.

Ur On the one hand, Ur was clearly the seat of the Dynasty and the capital city. Crawford’s chapter on Ur in the Ur III period is entitled, “Imperial Ur: The Public Face.”14 Royal inscriptions of the era and later king lists are unambiguous in attributing the dynasty to Ur. But, as we shall see, the Ur palace may well have been one of several used in the Third Dynasty. Though today of course Ur does not enjoy a coastal location, at the time it was a major seaport and a hub for trade (particularly in copper) from the Persian Gulf.15 But, if Steinkeller is right that the metal trade was in flux exactly at this time, with attempts to replace the maritime copper routes with overland ones to the east,16 overland routes that would not pass through and enrich Ur, then we must wonder how negative an impact this rerouting might have had on the local economy. Ur was small in comparison to other sites – only about 50–56 hectares in the Ur III-O.B. period.17 Stol estimated its population very roughly at 20,000 souls.18 (By comparison, Nippur was about 135 hectares, as we shall see later). Excavations at Ur have been extensive, not just the well-known 1922–34 works by Sir Leonard Woolley, but also earlier explorations by Taylor in 1854 and Thompsen in 1920, and work by E. Stone and Iraqi scholars beginning now.19 Published Ur III remains at Ur tend toward the monumental and the funerary: almost nothing is known of Ur III private houses or mercantile establishments, for instance, though these must have existed. Aside from artworks like the Stele

14 H. Crawford, Ur: The City of the Moon God pp. 83–97. 15 H. Neumann, Handwerk pp.33–34. 16 On Kimash in particular as a source of copper by the overland route, see P. Steinkeller, “Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa” in K. de Graef et al. (eds.), Susa and Elam p. 308. See also the soon-tobe-published Grand Strategy by the same author. 17 M. Molina, “Ur,” RlA 14 (2015): 357. 18 M. Stol, “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” OBO 160/4 p. 673, using the calculation of 200–214 people per hectare. 19 R. Zettler and W. Hafford, RlA 14 (2015): 367–8. We should expect excavation reports from Charpin and the current excavation team in future.

Ur 

 35

of Ur-Namma,20 important remnants from the Third Dynasty include the ziggurat started by Ur-Namma (a three-tiered structure whose base measures about 62.5 x 43 m),21 the temple of Ningal and cloister of the en-priestess of Nanna,22 a storage building called the Ganun-mah (about 57 x 57 m),23 a gateway used for legal proceedings known as Edubla-mah, the burial places (mausolea) of Shulgi and Amar-Sin located close to the old Royal Cemetery site, and finally a small building called the Ehursag.24 Was the Ehursag Shulgi’s palace? It does appear to have built by Shulgi, an act commemorated in his tenth year name.25 The status of this building has been debated, with some identifying it as a temple on the basis of the niched decoration, an architectural feature usually reserved for religious buildings,26 and its appearance in literary texts (principally hymns) as a temple.27 Other identifications of the building as a palace are based on the architectural configuration of rooms in the southwest of the building, “a plan typical of state apartments.”28 Yet another idea is that the building was intended for temple administrators.29 The textual evidence is not particularly helpful here, as the Sumerian é can refer equally to domestic households and gods’ households. The early date of the structure (around Shulgi year 10), that is, before that king’s deification, ought to argue for an initial identity as a royal residence. But it was surely not Shulgi’s only or even main residence. For once thing, the Ehursag is very small—at about 59x59 m square, it is only very slightly larger than the storehouse just to its north.30 In contrast, a minor palace such as the Sargonic palace at Nagar was almost double the size—93 x 111 m, and the Old Babylonian

20 For descriptions of the highlights of the excavations, see Woolley, Ur Excavations, especially volume VI, A. L. Woolley and P. Moorey, Ur of the Chaldees, and most recently H. Crawford, Ur: The City of the Moon God. 21 R. Zettler and W. Hafford, RlA 14 (2015): 372. 22 Zettler and Hafford, RlA 14 (2015): 374. 23 Zettler and Hafford, RlA 14 (2015): 373 (the same building is also sometimes called the Enunmah). 24 Zettler and Hafford, RlA 14 (2015): 375. 25 Zettler and Hafford, RlA 14 (2015): 375. 26 A. L. Woolley and P. Moorey, Ur of the Chaldees p. 161, C. Reichel, OIP Vol. pp. 133–4 and footnote 4. 27 A. George, House Most High p. 100, Woolley and Moorey, Ur of the Chaldees p. 161. 28 R. Zettler and W. Hafford, RlA 14 (2015): 375. 29 H. Crawford, Ur: The City of the Moon God p. 94. 30 R. Zettler, “Archaeology and the Problem of Textual Evidence for the Third Dynasty of Ur,” BCSMS 38 (2003): 53–54.

36 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

palace at Mari was 200 by 120 m.31 The Mari palace covered approximately 6 acres (2.5 hectares) in Old Babylonian times and had about 300 rooms and courts at ground level; quite possibly many more would have been reached on an upper storey.32 Sargon II’s Khorsabad palace and Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon palace were both about 320 x 290 m.33 The larger-than-life Shulgi seems to be unlikely to have confined himself and his very large family to such cramped quarters.

Figure 2: Vector Map of Palaces, prepared by C. Reichel

31 P. Miglus,”Palast B, Archäologisch,” RlA 10 (2004): 244 and 247. See also the figures calculated by Renger, who calculated the Ur palace at 3025 m2, the Early Dynastic Kish palace at about 7000 m2 and the Mari palace at about 25,000 m2, J. Renger, “Hofstaat,” RlA 4 (1972–5): 443. 32 J.-C. Margueron, “Mari,” in E. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East Vol. III pp.413–5. Also useful is D. Edzard, “Palast.A. Altbabylonisch,” RlA 10 (2004): 207. 33 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 196.

Nippur 

 37

“Rulers were not necessarily confined to a single palace,”34 however, and as we shall see, the Ur palace may well have been one of several used in the Third Dynasty. Zettler has suggested that the Ehursag was a very specialized type of palace that the king would use only when taking part in religious rites in the nearby “temenos,” or sacred area.35 Moorey and Woolley concluded that the seven or so domestic rooms here were likely for “priests and priestesses,” continuing, “The main palace of the Ur III kings may have been at Uruk or Nippur rather than at Ur; even if there, it is unlikely to have been on the Temenos platform.”36 In terms of religion, Ur was home to major shrines in its holy precincts, including the temple of Nanna, the moon god, and the residence of the en-priestess.37 The major festival in Ur was the Akiti. At least in later reigns of the Third Dynasty, the king and his court were sure to be present in Ur for this important event.38 But it was very commonplace for the king and his court to then repair back to the Nippur area once the festival was over, which leads one to wonder what percentage of the year the court really spent in Ur.39 Nippur, like both Ur and Uruk, also had royal status and must, in some sense, be considered a capital as well.

Nippur Nippur is both the name of a province and of a city in this era. There is ample evidence to suggest that the Nippur province was extremely important in the Ur III state; this province housed not only many of the main shrines of the head of the pantheon and other “Olympians,” but also the organs of government, the treasury, the accounting control centers etc. In addition to the city of Nippur itself,

34 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 195. 35 R. Zettler, BCSMS 38 (2003): 54 and RlA 14 (2015): 375. 36 A. Woolley & P. Moorey, Ur of the Chaldees p. 163. 37 “Mit dem Aufstieg Ur-Nammas zum Herrscher über das südliche Mesopotamien, das Land ‘Sumer und Akkad,’ wurde die Hauptstadt Ur auch zu einem zentralen Kultort des ganzen Landes.” W. Sallaberger, “Königtum und Kult,” p. 256. 38 W. Sallaberger, “Königtum und Kult in der Hauptstadt Ur,” in W. Seipel (ed.), Von Babylon bis Jersualem pp. 255–260. 39 In another publication, I used Shulgi Hymn A (which we know to have been extant in the Ur III period) to underline this point—the king made a return journey from Nippur to Ur, but it is important to note that he started in and returned to Nippur. T. Sharlach, “Shulgi, Mighty Man, King of Ur,” in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 60 takes up these matters more fully.

38 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

the province contained the sacred city of Tummal and the administrative bureaucracy we call Puzrish-Dagan. The city Nippur reached its maximum size in the Third Dynasty, possibly approximately 135 hectares.40 Its size seems to have shrunk in the Old Babylonian period, to about 100 hectares, thus leading Stol to estimate that it may have had a population of about 40,000 to 50,000 people,41 that is, more than twice the estimated population of Ur. Archaeological excavations at Nippur were carried out by the University of Pennsylvania from 1888 to 1900, but the results have not offered much clarification on this critical city in the Third Dynasty of Ur, in part because of matters beyond the excavators’ control: after 100 A.D., building projects by the Parthians, fond of especially large and deep trenches, destroyed most remnants of Ur III date.42 As van Driel and many others have pointed out, the “inadequate supervision and publication” of the Nippur excavation did not aid our understanding either.43 Some tablets from the Inanna temple were found, but regrettably they have little bearing on Shulgi-simti’s life. Nippur was governed by a local family, descended from one Ur-Meme; in addition to holding the governorship usually, members of this family also had close ties to the Inanna-Ishtar temple in Nippur.44 In the sphere of religion, Nippur’s status appears to have been higher than that of Ur itself. Klein refers to Nippur as “the national religious center of the empire,”45 showing how Shulgi’s reforms and building practices helped solidify Nippur’s religious eminence. This province was the seat of two major gods in the official state pantheon, Enlil and his wife Ninlil. As Sallaberger noted, Ur and Nippur both were key places both politically and religiously; trophies

40 M. Gibson, “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur,” in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial p. 41 and 51. 41 M. Stol, “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” OBO 160/4 p. 673. 42 G. Van Driel, “Nippur and the Inanna Temple,” JESHO 38 (1995): 393; R. Zettler, “Excavations at Nippur, The University of Pennsylvania, and the University’s Museum,” in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial p. 325. On the building methods used by the Parthians at Nippur, M. Gibson, “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur,” in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial pp. 35–36. 43 G. Van Driel, “Nippur and the Inanna Temple,” JESHO 38 (1995): 393. 44 R. Zettler, AfO 31 (1984); W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp. 191–2. See also B. Lafont, “Quelques remarques sur Nippur à l’époque d”Ur III,” pp. 113–118 in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial. 45 J. Klein, “Nippur,” RlA 9 (2001): 536.

Nippur 

 39

and thank-offerings were given by the king in both locations. Nippur, however, housed the main temple of Enlil, the head of the pantheon, or ‘Reichsgott.’46 Also located in the Nippur province were two other major centers, the first being Tummal, the seat of Ninlil’s worship (she was Enlil’s wife but had her own city and major temple establishment). Tummal’s location has not been pinpointed, but has plausibly been identified as the modern place Tell Dlehim, about 21 km south of the city of Nippur itself. The second major center in the Nippur province was a government complex very close to Tummal known by various names, in Arabic, Drehem, and, at least late in the reign of Shulgi, Puzrish-Dagan. Drehem was never excavated properly until now (illicit excavations resulted in the appearance of tablets from this archive starting around 1909) but the site was visited by archaeologists and Assyriologists.47 Current work there by Iraqi teams has yielded new information, including a small archive of a weapons specialist from after Shulgi’s reign.48 We may hope for more results in future. In certain respects, Nippur appears to have been more the capital than Ur. As Klein noted, coronations of the Ur III Dynasty took place first in Nippur, and only later in Ur and Uruk.49 When we can trace diplomatic visits, the destination was Nippur.50 Over the years, certain scholars have observed that the Ur III kings resided often at a palace somewhere in the Nippur province: to name just a few, Sollberger in 1956 referred to Nippur as the “residence des rois d’Ur,” 51 Sallaberger, Tsouparoulou and Steinkeller have all localized a palace in Puzrish-Dagan.52 Sallaberger has proposed this on the basis of two lines of evidence: first, indirect evidence from offerings, that show a goddess of the palace receiving offerings in Puzrish-Dagan, and second, the direct evidence of Shulgi’s own year name for year 39, in which he describes the construction as é dšul-gi, “the house-

46 W. Sallaberger, “Nippur als religiöses Zentrum Mesopotamiens im historischen Wandel,” 154–6 in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Die Orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel. The position of Enlil is also discussed by M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beitrage zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrhundert pp. 32 ff. 47 In 1924, for instance, Stephen Langdon visited the site, locating the mound about 6 miles south east of Nippur; R. Zettler, “Archaeology and the Problem of Textual Evidence for the Third Dynasty of Ur,” BCSMS 38 (2003): 59. 48 N. al Mutawalli and A. Shalkham, “From the Archive of ‘DI.KU5-mišar’- Excavation of Drehem,” Sumer 59 (2014): 93–112. 49 J. Klein, “Nippur,” RlA 9 (2001): 536. 50 To name just one example, when Tiš-atal and his 80 Ninevite emissaries came in SS3, they came to Nippur. Steinkeller, “Tiš-atal’s Visit to Nippur,” NABU 2007 #15 p. 14. 51 E. Sollberger, “Sur la Chronologie des rois d’Ur et quelques problèmes connexes,” AfO 17 (1954–6): 20. 52 C. Tsouparopoulu, “A Reconstruction of the Puzriš-Dagan Central Livestock Agency,” CDLJ 2013 p. 4, with previous bibliography.

40 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

hold (é) of Shulgi.”53 The king spent a substantial amount of time in the Nippur area and, at least by very end of his third decade of rule, appears to have built a major new palace for himself in the Puzrish-Dagan/ Tummal area. Steinkeller has traced work units from the province of Umma whose “objective apparently was the construction of a royal palace” Tummal near.54 The only attested occupation of Drehem was during the Third Dynasty of Ur, when it served as a major center for royal accounting and administration, especially richly attested for livestock and luxury good transfers. We will never know how many tablets were written and filed there: current estimates for the number of published Drehem texts consist of at least 15,700.55 Documents from the Puzrish-Dagan archive form the heart of this book, so we must take a little time to understand the shape of the archive. The main Puzrish-Dagan archive, as preserved, consists almost entirely of tablets about livestock, principally cattle, sheep and goats, though occasionally one might find mention of equids or gazelle. Tablets record income and/or expenditure, often of very large numbers of animals. A large proportion of the animals appear to have been brought under crown control from external sources, including taxes.56 Many of the animals were used to provision the official state shrines which depended upon the king’s largesse to supply the multitudinous animals needed for sacrifice, for instance in the shrines in the Nippur and Ur temples.57 Animals were also used as gifts for elites.58 The tablets discovered and published so far seem to belong to four fairly discrete entities: the main or classic Puzrish-Dagan livestock administration, run by a single bureau chief from Shulgi 43 to Ibbi-Sin 2,59 and three much smaller

53 Shulgi 39 in Sumerian is mu é puzur4-iš-ddagan-na é dšul-gi ba-dù, CDLI: D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 107; see also W. Sallaberger, “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 127. 54 P. Steinkeller, “Corvée Labor,” in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD especially pp. 362 ff. 55 This total, courtesy pf M. Molina and the BDTNS, is current as of October 2016. We may expect the total to continue to grow. A figure of 12k was found in W. Sallaberger, “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 125, updated to 14.6k by L. Feliu, Aula Or 31 (2013): 227. 56 As Steinkeller showed, a tax on areas under the aegis of the Ur III state but not directly integrated into the provincial structure (the gún ma-da) accounted for a significant percentage of the animals at Drehem. “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery,” SAOC 1987, pp. 19–41. 57 H. Limet, “Ur et sa region,” AoF 20 (1993): 120. 58 W. Sallaberger, “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan. Zur Bedeutung dieses Königlichen Archivs,” JEOL 38 (2003–4): 145–162. 59 W. Sallaberger, RlA 11 (2006): 126.

Nippur 

 41

archives: the Treasure archive,60 the Shoe Archive,61 and the “Early Drehem Series.” The “classic” Puzrish-Dagan organization for animal administration is in evidence from about the start of Shulgi 43 to the end of Ibbi-Sin 2, a period of 26 years.62 This then brings us to the fourth subset of tablets from Puzrish-Dagan: the so-called “Early Drehem Series,” which includes (but is not limited to) the archive of Shulgi-simti. A great deal of uncertainty surrounds the beginnings of the early Drehem archives and what exactly the place of Shulgi-simti’s archive was in relation to the other activities located at that site. One idea was that Shulgi-simti’s foundation was a forerunner of sorts, inspiring Shulgi to make a livestock center of his own there (which he then named Puzrish-Dagan), which he allegedly commemorated with his 39th, 40th and 41st regnal years.63 But an embryonic crown administration existed in Puzrish-Dagan well before Shulgi 39.64 Explaining how the “new” foundation seemed to already exist presented some awkwardness. Sigrist suggested that perhaps the new foundations were some new buildings in an already-existing accounting center.65 I have argued elsewhere that Shulgi’s 39th year name (and two follow-on years) more likely reflects the construction of his new palace in the Tummal/ Puzrish-Dagan area and does not refer to account-

60 The Treasure Archive, ranging in date from approximately Shulgi 36 to Su-Sin 9, details the expenditure of precious metals, and vessels made of these metals to elites, W. Sallaberger, “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 126–7. See also P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis. Das Staatliche Schatzarchiv der III.Dynastie von Ur. 61 The Shoe Archive details the expenditure of high-end footwear to elite individuals and members of the royal family. In one text, Shulgi-simti received a pair of “agate” (Sumerian du8-ši-a) shoes, (Nisaba 8.386, S41 or 42 month 8); these may have been colored greenish or perhaps even decorated with jewels, see Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis. Das Staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur. 62 W. Sallaberger: “Die Groβte königliche Verwaltung von Vieh in P. arbeitiet 26 Jahre vom 1.i. Šulgi 43 bis zum 30.xii. Ibbi-Suen 2.” “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 125. 63 This view is found for instance in C. Tsouparopoulu,: “From a small settlement concerned with the needs of Šulgi-simti, the site of Drehem later encompassed the business of the state that dealt with the distribution and management of livestock.” “A Reconstruction of the Puzriš-Dagan Central Livestock Agency,” CDLJ 2013: 1. 64 M. Sigrist, “Les Noms d’année,” in A. Kleinerman and J. Sasson (eds.), Why Should Someone who Knows Something Conceal It? Owen FS p. 225 dates the first mention of Esagdana Puzrish-Dagan to Shulgi’s 27th year. 65 This is the view of M. Sigrist, “Une telle formulation n’annonce donc pas nécessairement une espèce de nouvelle implanation appellee Puzriš-Dagan, mais seulement l’érection d’un temple ou palais en l’honneur de Šulgi sur un emplacement probablement déjà habité par ailleurs.” Drehem p. 13.

42 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

ing centers at all.66 In any case, prior to the establishment of the classic phase of Puzrish-Dagan, the Early Drehem Series shows us a smaller-scale crown administration at the same location, though in those early days it appears to have been known by an older name, Esagdana Nibru.67 Some aspects of the Early Drehem Series administration appear to have been just earlier variants of the same types of transactions found in the classic Puzrish-Dagan texts. “Eine Vorläuferorganisation in Esagdana ist mit dem Namen Narām-ili verbunden; die erste Urkunde aus P[uzrish-Dagan] gehört zu seiner Organisation.”68 It is fair to say, however, that the exact nature of the predecessor organizations and how they were integrated into royal accounting remains murky. Puzrish-Dagan, then, we know contained a large number of animals, herding officials, bureuacrats and their very careful record-keeping. We also know that Puzrish-Dagan had other establishments: a kitchen, a slaughterhouse and leather-workshops.69 An accurate estimation for the Puzrish-Dagan set-up might be utilitarian, and probably also odiferous. Locating a treasure storehouse and livestock depot near a palace makes eminent good sense, of course.70 One only hopes that the palace’s inhabitants were well downwind of the slaughterhouse and tannery. The Ur III state in the third and fourth decades of Shulgi’s reign was not a static place. Kings moved around amongst their palaces in Ur, Nippur and Uruk, and there may have been a shift through time as Shulgi’s new palace in the Nippur province absorbed more of the king’s attention and resources. Still, Ur remained the seat of the Dynasty and ideologically important. The kings had obligations to have coronations there and would be buried there. But, as I have argued, Ur was not the only, or even the predominant residence of Shulgi, whose court seems to

66 This argument is outlined in my “Shulgi, Mighty Man, King of Ur,” in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 60. 67 Steinkeller’s summary correctly stresses the continuity of purpose, despite the change of names (though he seems to view the foundational act as the administration, not a palace): “The original settlement, called Esagdana Nibru, seems from its very inception to have functioned as a key collecting center of tax contributions… This center was expanded in the year Šulgi 38, very likely to create animal corrals, slaughterhouses, leather workshops, and related facilities, which were necessary to process the vast numbers of cattle, sheep, and other animals that had at that time begun to be delivered as the so-called gún ma-da… We may assume that it was on occasion of this expansion that Esagdana Nibru was renamed Puzriš-Dagan. However, for one reason or another, this designation was never adopted at Umma, whose administration continued to use the original name.” “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography,” ZA 91 (2001): 65. 68 W. Sallaberger, “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 126. 69 W. Sallaberger, “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 126. 70 As already noted by many other scholars, including M. Sigrist, Drehem p. 16.



The Palace (An Overview) 

 43

have spent most of its time in the Nippur province (at least in his last decade or so of rule). The building of a residence for the divine king in the vicinity of Puzrish-Dagan explains why the organs of administration, that is, the tablets of the livestock and treasure archive of Puzrish-Dagan, are to be found there. But when we refer to Shulgi’s palace, or indeed any early Mesopotamian palace, what do we really mean?

The Palace (An Overview) The Babylonian palace (in Sumerian é-gal) was generally enclosed by walls and sometimes elevated above its surroundings on a terrace. “Within the walls, the palace was a world of its own, to which access was carefully controlled.”71 Located generally in a capital city, palaces were “not necessarily centrally placed within them.”72 A key  – or perhaps the key—element of a Mesopotamian palace was its throne-room.73 Palaces combined residential areas (for the king and his various family members) with service areas (such as the kitchen, storage or wash areas), but also of course were places where high-ranking professionals worked, for instance, in the chapels, treasuries and archives that may well have been part of the palace building itself. Courtyards were essential for ventilation and light but were also integral spaces within these palaces.74 It is not impossible that Mesopotamian palaces might have had considerable architectural variations: this has been demonstrated for New Kingdom Egypt, for instance.75 Mesopotamian tradition dictated that a temple, when rebuilt, should occupy exactly the same site as its predecessor, but this limitation was not relevant for palaces.76 Although there was in most periods a single main palace, it is not unheard of to have smaller buildings that served almost as palace annexes in different locations in the same city. Mari provides a good example of this. Assyrian history

71 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 196–7. 72 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 196. 73 D. O. Edzard, “Palast A. Altbabylonisch,” RlA 10 (2004): 206–7. 74 D. O. Edzard, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 206–7. One does not of course know whether the professionals would have lived in the palace or in private houses outside. 75 K. Spence, “Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt,” in A. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies p. 302. 76 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 196.

44 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

also provides examples of some individuals living in subsidiary buildings.77 As we shall see in chapter four, it was customary for the chief-ranking wife to have her own space. Courtiers and servants may well have lived outside the palace itself.78 With all these facts in mind, let us now turn our attention to Shulgi’s own palace(s).

Shulgi’s Palace(s) Exactly where Shulgi’s palace was is a matter of speculation. We have already briefly discussed the “palace” at Ur, the é-hur-sag (built as early as Shulgi’s ninth or tenth years of reign), and raised the question whether this building was the main residence or palace at Ur, or rather a structure used on sacred occasions.79 There are precedents for this—for example, in Early Dynastic Lagash, a small secondary palace was used by the royal family when they visited the town of Nigin to celebrate a local festival there.80 No larger palace is known from Ur, but it could be that it awaits excavation in some other area of the site. The king did not live in a single palace 360 days per year.81 The king seems to have regularly been in certain places at certain times, for instance for the celebration of religious festivals. But there could well have been situations which arose causing the king to have moved to another palace, possibly at times bringing the entire court, including all his wives and children with him. Though, given the number of people involved, this would have been logistically complex. There may of course have been times when Shulgi was in none of his Babylonian palaces, but rather in the field. It is regrettably unclear whether Shulgi ever went with his army on the numerous campaigns they waged in his third and fourth decades of rule. Certainly kings like Zimri-Lim of Mari did regularly go on campaign; there is no evidence for Shulgi on campaign known to me.

77 J.-C. Margueron, “Mari,” pp. 413–417 in E. Meyer (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East; also P. Garelli, “Hofstaat. B. Assyrisch,” RlA 4 (1972–5):447. 78 At Tell el-Amarna, for instance, houses of courtiers have been found in some number, especially in suburbs to the north and to the south, K. Spence, “Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt,” in A. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies p.308. 79 “Der 59x59 m. groβe P. in Ur stand auf der Südseite des Sakralbezirkes des Gottes Nanna und war möglicherweise eine auch für Kultzwecke genutzte Einrichtung.” RlA 10 (3/4): 244. 80 W. Sallaberger, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2006): 201. 81 The calendar in use at this time was lunar, thus the year would generally not have had 365 days. For a general discussion of the early Mesopotamian calendars, see my own, “Calendars and Counting,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World.



The Royal Court 

 45

Although the home of the Dynasty was clearly at Ur, we would be quite misguided in thinking that the king and his court spent all their time in that location alone. Other palaces existed. Located in a more geographically central location, Nippur and the settlements in its vicinity, such as the important sacred city of Tummal and the redistributive center called Esagdana and then Puzrish-Dagan, were critical for royal control.

The Royal Court Shulgi-simti and the other royal wives lived at what we would call “the court,” a concept deriving from the study of late medieval Europe. Because it is very easy to think or write of a court without actually defining how such a term could be applicable to the ancient Near East, and also because of a general lack of sources directly on this topic, we have tended not to define what a court might be for early Mesopotamia. In the context of the present work, it is clearly desirable to produce a more explicit model in which to place Shulgi-simti and her activities. Third millennium Mesopotamian writings have not left us with a very clear idea of what the court was or who might have been the chief officials. In a brief RlA entry published in the mid-1970’s, Renger attempted to define the Babylonian court as the king and his family, his administrators, and those who assisted the king.82 But even this rather vague definition has found little traction in subsequent scholarship, especially for earlier periods, which has tended to avoid the issue altogether. Even Paoletti’s 2012 book, Der König und Sein Kreis, whose title seems to presuppose some sort of discussion of the royal court, does not address the topic directly.83 The problem of the nature of the court is of course also present for later periods of Mesopotamian history, including the Neo-Assyrian period. Liverani raised these problems in a 2009 article, but without firm results. Liverani began by noting that the Neo-Assyrian king had two large roles: to run the empire and to maintain a healthy relationship with the gods. “In such a tremendous task he was tragically alone; but he used a large class of courtiers as instruments of government.”84 He continued, “Did the king sit down only in the throne room? Did he get out into the garden only to kill lions?… how did the Assyrian king live

82 J. Renger, “Hofstaat,” RlA 4 (1972–5): 435. 83 P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis BPOA 10. For the OB period, some attention has been paid to the king’s ministers, see for example, M. Stol, “Personen um den König,” pp. 735–57 in O. Loretz et al. (eds.), Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. 84 M. Liverani, “The King in His Palace,” Or. 78 (2009): 81.

46 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

inside his Palace? But I will not venture in this direction. For two reasons: first of all because I do not know much (we do not know much) about the topic, and secondly because this kind of question seems to me quite irrelevant to history.”85 I would argue that, on the contrary, a better notion of the court is essential to understanding power politics at the time, especially for the women of the court, who may have spent the vast majority of their time within the palace walls. So then how to approach the notion of the court? Since our concept of the court and court society is shaped by medieval European history, a brief foray into medieval understanding of the court may be salutary. The first lesson is that, even for people in medieval times, the court eluded definition. A man named Walter Map (a Welsh churchman in the service of Henry II of England) wrote “in the court I exist and of the court I speak, but what the court is, God knows, I know not.”86 The court could be a place where the king lives, but kings moved about, sometimes for political reasons, but also often for personal whims, such as a desire to go hunting or fear of a local outbreak of illness. Thus, while the court “was the physical space around the ruler,”87 that space was not permanent. The court was thus in some senses more of an assemblage of people, “the entourage or assemblage around the king.”88 This of course included the royal family (or elements thereof) but was not limited to them alone.89 There were also many courtiers, whose rank at court might be derived from holding a particular office, from their pedigree, or from royal favour. In medieval contexts, “court” could also refer to special occasions such as Easter or other religious festivals, as well as more secular events like marriages and tournaments, at which the king “held court” and would wear full regalia. Such events were referred to in contemporary sources as ‘solemn’ or ‘full’ courts.90 Medieval writers emphasized the court’s role in promoting a particularly refined taste and code of behavior (“courtesy”):91 the royal family might be

85 M. Liverani, “The King in His Palace,” Or. 78 (2009): 81. 86 Map’s work, De Nugis Curialium is quoted in M. Vale, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe p. 16. 87 M. Vale, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe p.24. 88 M. Vale, The Princely Court p.25. 89 Elias wrote of the French ancien regime, “What we refer to as the ‘court’… is nothing other than the vastly extended house and household of the French kings and their dependents, with all the people belonging to them.” The Court Society p.41. 90 M. Vale, The Princely Court p.55. 91 “Courts provided a context in which such habits and modes of behaviour were both acquired and perpetuated. Thus court culture is here seen from a broad viewpoint, in which, for example,



The Royal Court 

 47

expected to patronize the arts and the court milieu to define ‘high’ culture. Young nobles might be sent to court to be educated, though court culture was apparently viewed by some medieval writers as more likely to be a source of corruption.92 When we speak of a royal court for Early Mesopotamia, what do we really mean? A recent collection of essays edited by Spawforth as The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies93 commented on the lack of attention to defining the term court: “As the contributors to this book have found out, the court as a central entity within the monarchies which they study has often been taken for granted … or scarcely conceptualised at all…”94 While his desire for precision and his call for attention to what is clearly an important topic is laudable, we see that to nail down any one meaning for the term “court” for ancient Mesopotamia is as difficult as it is in medieval contexts. While we may be tempted to abandon the term ‘court’ due to these problems of definition, its very slipperiness is perhaps salutary. Replacing “court” with “royal sector” or “palace” or “royal functionary” may give us a feeling of solidity and stasis: if we learn only one lesson from our medieval colleagues, it is that the court was protean and subject to change at whim. The court can be a place, but court can also refer to the people who surround the king. Spawforth remarked, “This idea, that ‘the court’ is both the spatial framework of the ruler’s existence and also the social configuration with which he shares that space, is fundamental in modern attempts to define and analyze the court.”95 Another author in Spawforth’s volume, Kate Spence, described the Egyptian court thus: “The royal court was a social configuration reliant on the presence or proximity of the king. The dwelling place of the king formed the setting for court life, and spatial aspects of the palace were fundamental to configuring and expressing status within the court… The architecture was also of

habits of consumption, religious beliefs, devotional practices, modes of dress, and other markers or tokens of status and function, as well as patronage of the arts, are integral to its nature.” M. Vale, The Princely Court p.1. 92 Vale, The Princely Court p. 21. 93 A. J. S. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 94 Spawforth, Introduction to The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies p. 2. This sentiment is echoed by Brosius, in the same volume, with reference to the Near East in particular: “As far as I am aware, as yet there is no systematic discussion of ancient Near Eastern courts and court societies.” M. Brosius, “New out of old? Court and Court Ceremonies in Achaemenid Persia,” in Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies p.17, footnote one. 95 A. Spawforth, Introduction to The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies p.3.

48 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

immense importance in projecting the king’s authority and situating him physically in relation to other buildings.”96 Spawforth further distinguishes an inner from an outer court. The outer court consists usually of elites whose contact with the king was occasional, whereas the inner court consists of the ruling family and “those whom service or kinship kept more or less permanently in his vicinity.”97 Thus, we could envision the inner court as the king Shulgi himself, his womenfolk and children (and probably also various other relatives as well, such as his aunt, grandchildren and such), along with his most trusted ministers and servants. The Ur III court was not coterminous with the person of Shulgi, nor was it limited to just his family, however one defines that. Shulgi’s court also included courtiers often present in the palace: high functionaries, as well as servants, who cooked, cleaned, washed, cut hair, filled the braziers or any number of other domestic tasks. These people probably did not live in the palace itself. Some courtiers held office on the basis of service to the king’s person; others held more administrative positions. For instance, in Egypt, we can differentiate courtiers such as fan-bearers from courtiers such as the treasurer.98 There were also important positions held by those who were in charge of transportation (the gu-za-lá, chair-bearer, for example) and those who controlled access to more private royal areas, chiefly the title ì-du8, which we could render “porter, door-opener.” Then there were the visitors to the capitals: neighboring rulers or their emissaries, and also Shulgi’s appointees, such as governors or generals getting debriefed before returning to their homes and posts. There may well also have been religious experts and performers, who came at times before the royal presence.

Courtiers in the Third Dynasty of Ur But who served Shulgi regularly as his administrators? In other eras of Mesopotamian history, the monarch’s chief agent was the vizier (sukkal or sukkallu).99

96 K. Spence, “Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt,” in A. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies p.302. 97 A. Spawforth, Introduction to The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies p.4. 98 K. Spence, “Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt,” in A. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies p.288. 99 For example, in Middle Assyrian times, B. Faist, “Kingship and Institutional Development in the Middle Assyrian Period,” in G. Lafranchi and R. Rollinger (eds.), Concepts of Kingship in Antiquity p.19.



Courtiers in the Third Dynasty of Ur 

 49

Mythological texts from the late third millennium B.C. show deities relying on their sukkals, usually translated “vizer,” though the position appears more akin to what today might be called a “personal assistant.” It would not be unexpected, therefore, to find a vizier (sukkal) as the chief administrator in the Third Dynasty. Historical reality is not so simple. The title of sukkal, or more accurately, sukkal-mah was a very important title after Shulgi’s death, but at that point it referred to the Secretary of State, that is, the chief of the diplomatic or foreign service and the diplomatic corps stationed abroad. Scharaschenidze argued that the title sukkal-mah was limited to Lagash-Girsu in the time period in question (the last two decades of Shulgi’s reign).100 Later in the Ur III period, particularly in the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin, the king appears to have relied heavily on the services of at least two or three courtiers, Arad-Nanna, who held the title sukkal-mah, translated as Secretary of State or Grand Vizier, and Babati, who held the title pisan-dub-ba, or chief archivist.101 Stol has shown that in the Isin-Larsa period, courts continued to feature the pisan-dub-ba and sukkal, but also included an ugula é, gal-zu-unken-na and the ugula šu-i.102 Ur III courts post-Shulgi also prominently featured the zabardab5, “overseer of the cupbearers,” a ritual expert.103 All of these also held many other offices and honors. Each was based in, and in fact often was the provincial governor of, a major city. Arad-Nanna was based in the Lagash province, Babati at Ešnunna, the zabar-dab5 at Uru-sagrig. Each was tied to the king through marriage. For the latter Ur III period, then, these three offices, along with the kings themselves, appear to have been the lynchpin of royal control. However, there is very limited evidence to suggest that the zabar-dab5, the sukkal-mah or the pisan-dub-ba were at all influential prior to Amar-Sin’s third year.104 The offices existed, but the holders appear to have been minor function-

100 D. Scharaschenidze, “Die Sukkal Mah des Alten Zweistromlandes,” Acta Antiqua 22 (1974): 103–112. 101 On the importance of the zabar-dab5 and the sukkal-mah, see W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 pp.186–190. 102 M. Stol, “Personen um den König in altbabylonischer Zeit,” Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux (Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich) p. 736. Diviners, judges and merchants were also to be found at Isin-Larsa courts. 103 This office was discussed by W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 186. Michalowski’s translation of the term “chief butler” suggests that that person’s duties lay in the dining room, though Michalowski himself notes that the functions of the zabar-dab5 were as the state’s chief cultic official. P. Michalowski, “The Steward of Divine Gudea and his Family in Ur III Girsu,” in B. J. Collins and P. Michalowski (eds.), Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman p. 173. 104 As Scharaschenidze discussed, though there were persons with the title sukkal-mah prior to Arad-Nanna assuming that office in Amar-Sin 3, they were not nearly so prominent as he

50 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

aries and were not city governors or tied through marriage to the royal house then. Shulgi’s hymns are almost nauseatingly fulsome in their praises of that king: according to Shulgi B (admittedly known only from later copies and not necessarily extant in its full form in his lifetime, though this is not impossible, as he had the best motives for self-praise), Shulgi alone could handle anything— accounting, music, translations, sports, et cetera et cetera. Shulgi’s persona, as presented here, was of the man who could and did do it all himself. Certainly one has the impression of a man who did not delegate or rely heavily on the talents of others. I would therefore see a significant difference between the reigns of Shulgi and Amar-Sin/Shu-Sin. In the earlier period, the king does not appear to have used these offices as part of his ruling strategy. But if Shulgi was not receiving support from the zabar-dab5, the sukkal-mah or the pisan-dub-ba, who were his chief ministers? A detailed answer to this question must await a full-length monograph of its own, but at least in a preliminary fashion, we can identify at least one important courtier, Naram-ili. Naram-ili is attested in the Puzrish-Dagan archive from S26 to AS2, according to extant documentation.105 He was never head of the Puzrish-Dagan enterprise; he nevertheless was clearly a man of great influence and wealth, sometimes dealing with as many as 3100 cattle in a single year.106 As Jones and Snyder first noticed some decades ago, “Narâm-ilī is found most frequently in the royal service conveying animals designated as mu-TÚM lugal.”107 So it seems that Naram-ili was a highly placed minister prominent at court and closely connected to the royal family at this time. His seal inscription has puzzled many. Instead of the expected profession of animal fattener or scribe, his seal gives his title as ì-du8 sukkal.108 Sukkal is not problematic: the term can be translated “messenger,” though I have argued else-

was, D. Scharaschenidze, “Die Sukkal Mah des Alten Zweistromlandes,” Acta Antiqua 22 (1974): 104–106. See also P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis pp. 289–290 (the same could be said of the zabar-dab5). 105 On Naram-ili’s career, see M. Sigrist, Drehem pp.259–260 and C. Tsouparopoulu, “A Reconstruction of the Puzriš-Dagan Central Livestock Agency,” CDLJ 2013: 2. The tablet OIP 115.1 (S26.7.) attests to Naram-ili’s activities in S26, while AUCT 2.87 (AS2.10.-) is one of his latest appearances late in Amar-Sin’s second year. 106 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.260. 107 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty p.210. An example of Naram-ili in charge of taking animals described as mu-DU lugal and allocating them to the royal family is BPOA 6.110 (from S48): 5 gud mu-DU lugal ki-Naram-ili-ta, Nin-kalla received. On mu-DU lugal in general, see T. Gomi, Orient 11 (1975): 1–14: he discusses Naram-ili’s role with the mu-DU lugal on p. 5. 108 The seal impression can be found, for instance, on PDT 382, and RA 73 p. 30 note 30.



Courtiers in the Third Dynasty of Ur 

 51

where that it represents a man’s personal assistant who can serve as an emissary, thus, something like a 19th c. secretary. Reading Sumerian literature reveals many sukkals, such as Nin-šubur, sukkal to Inanna, and so on; hence the term is often translated ‘vizier.’ (Sukkal-mah, of course, is the Secretary of State, or the chief of the diplomatic service, sometimes described as Grand Vizier).109 The word ì-du8 is problematic, though its basic meaning is not unclear: lexically ì-du8 is equivalent to the Akkadian atû, rendered in German “Pförtner,” thus the term is generally translated as door-opener, or porter, or janitor. This is naturally quite unexpected in a man of this stature, causing Jones and Snyder to comment “The meaning of this is obscure:… ì-du8 cannot possibly be janitor in this context.”110 Sigrist also was puzzled: “Il est difficile d’expliquer cette function de portier.” We are thus faced with the problem: Naram-ili’s titles have to be translated something like, “emissary, door-opener,” yet his status is clearly that of a courtier very close to the king. If we look at the court structure the Mesopotamians attributed to their Netherword, ì-du8 appears to have been a person of some rank and standing.111 In the court of Enlil, in the Ekur, that god was served by two ì-du8 officials.112 It is possible that Naram-ili actually had a function in the palace than involved access to the king’s inner sanctum, but it is also possible that the position had evolved to represent a high courtier yet maintained an old, traditional name.113 Old Babylonian history can perhaps show us a parallel for the retention of a traditional courtier title even when the function had evolved—one Nabium-malik, for instance, held the title pisan-dub-ba, “archivist,” though his actual role was that of a general.114

109 T. Sharlach “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court,” JCS 57 (2005): 17–29. 110 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty p. 210. Kleinerman tentatively translated sukkal ì-du8 as “secretary of the doorkeepers,” which makes him sound like an accountant to porters, rather than perhaps the second most-powerful man in the court. Wu Yuhong translated “envoy and storage official,” which is also infelicitous. A. Kleinerman, “Doctor Šu-kabta’s Family Practice,” in D. Owen (ed.), Garšana Studies, CUSAS 6(2011): 177–179. Wu Yuhong, “Naram-ili, Šu-kabta and Nawir-ilum,” JAC 23 (2008): 9. 111 This office is well attested in the underworld hierarchy, along with the sukkal, chair-bearer (gu-za-lá) and šita6 (a kind of religious expert). See D. Katz, The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources pp. 154–176. 112 J. Renger, “Hofstaat,” RlA 4 (1972–5): 436–7. 113 As Erle Leichty pointed out to me (pers. comm.), English Knights of the Garter did not actually deal with garters. 114 M. Stol, “Personen um den König in altbabylonischer Zeit,” in O. Loretz and K. Metzler (eds.), Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux p. 736.

52 

 Chapter 2 Centers of Power, the Palaces and the Court

In any case, Naram-ili was a very influential and powerful man with immediate access to the royal family. One of Naram-ili’s sons, named Shu-kabta,115 was married to a princess, ME-Ištaran, best known from the records of their estate at Garshana. Shu-kabta combined the seemingly contradictory professions of general and physician.116 Another son, less well known, appears to have been another doctor, Nawir-ilum.117 Naram-ili distributed livestock to the royal family and had a role in at least some of the provincial bala payments.118 If I am correct, then, we may be seeing a large difference in the hierarchy of the courtiers and what they were expected to do from the time of Shulgi and then his successors. But, as “court studies” in other fields of history has shown over and over, “the power balance between king and courtiers was fluid and prone to rapid and major shifts.”119 As for the outer court, this seems to have consisted of Shulgi’s grown-up sons and daughters resident outside the palace or often outside the capitals, as well as appointees such as generals and provincial governors, also generally not resident in Nippur, Ur or Uruk. Occasionally foreign emissaries or foreign rulers themselves also visited court. We shall see in chapter nine that many of the persons of the outer court provisioned Shulgi-simti’s foundation with animals. In sum, this chapter has endeavored to show that “court,” “palace” and “capital” were complicated terms late in the reign of Shulgi. In the next chapter, we shall begin to consider Shulgi-simti and the other wives of Shulgi, first through an investigation of their official titles.

115 Shu-kabta’s servants either refer to Shu-kabta as the son of Naram-ili as on CUSAS 3.282, IS3.1.13; this was the seal of Ur-šuanna, or, interestingly, as his slave, as on the seal of Iškur-illat: šu-kab-tá a-zu/ árad na-ra-am-ì-lí/diškur-illat/ dub-sar/ dumu a-bí-a árad-zu, found for example on CUSAS 3.411 (SS7.2.-). One wonders whether Šu-kabta was adopted. 116 A. Kleinerman, “Doctor Šu-kabta’s Family Practice,” CUSAS 6 (2011): 177–179. 117 A. Kleinerman, “Doctor Šu-kabta’s Family Practice,” CUSAS 6 (2011): 177–179. Kleinerman speculates that a third medical figure, Ubartum, may be another sibling of Šu-kabta’s, but notes that little evidence can be marshalled to support this assertion. 118 As we see from tablets such as BPOA 6.110, Naram-ili’s payment of oxen to Nin-kalla in S48, or bala payments in Or.SP 47–49.485, a sealed bulla. 119 K. Spence, “Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt,” in A. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies p.299.

Chapter 3 Queens and Concubines Having set the scene, as it were, we may begin to look at women and more particularly, the chief subject of this book, Shulgi-simti, one of Shulgi’s many wives. She is commonly described as “queen,”1 but the evidence collected in the next chapters suggests, in my opinion, that she was third in rank among the wives and was a concubine. Obviously, the interpretation of her life and her archive is widely altered depending on which rank she held. In order to sort out this problem, we must look closely at the terminology for “queen” and “concubine” at this date. Another central issue in this book is investigating the degree to which women at that time had economic or religious agency. Did elite women have an ox of their own, as it were, for sacrifices? In order to address this question, a very brief overview of women’s legal and property rights in the third millennium appears at the beginning of the chapter. Third millennium women were members of patriarchal households, and while they had important roles to play within the family, they did not generally appear as professionals or holders of property in their own right. Widows of well-to-do men appear to have been the exception to this pattern.

Gender Relations: Households and Women Mesopotamian culture was, like most ancient cultures, patriarchal.2 Many studies have pointed out that for much of the ancient world, society was not organized as a network of independent actors, but in family units headed by the pater familias, in which all others—wives, sons and daughters, slaves and so on, were dependents. So scholars sometimes refer to the Near East as being made up of patriarchal

1 To name just a few examples, in W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.18, P. Michalowski, “Drinking Gods,” in M. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies p.31. 2 Claims, such as van de Mieroop’s, that our assertions of patriarchy are based on projections and preconceptions (Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History pp. 138–142), have been firmly refuted, e.g. by J. Cooper. “I would say, rather, that the sources themselves allow of no other interpretation. Women were, for the most part, under the legal authority of men…” J. Cooper, Review of Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History by M. van de Mieroop BASOR 327 (2002): 79–80. Tonietti aptly describes Mesopotamian women as under the ‘umbrella’ of a man’s protection: “In Mesopotamia, quindi, la grande maggioranza delle donne conduce la sua vita soto l’ ‘ombrello’ di una protezione maschile, passando dalle tutela del padre a quello del marito senza soluzione di continuita.” M.-V. Tonietti, “Ho stabilito mia moglie come padre e madre della mia Casa: Invecchiamento e Diritte delle donne nell’Antica Mesopotamica,” Storia delle Donne 2 (2006): 117. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-003

54 

 Chapter 3 Queens and Concubines

or patrimonial households.3 Women did have many legal rights and protections, but men were the heads of families. Most women did not have official jobs of their own, though it was certainly expected that they help with the family business. Women were, thus, interdependent, not independent. “Independence” is, of course, a loaded term, especially for Americans; and we may be conditioned to think that individualism, self-sufficiency and freedom of choice and action are essentials that should be denied to no man—or woman. But in the ancient Near East, the stress was firmly on the family and the household. In ancient Mesopotamia, a girl began life under the authority of her father and, upon her marriage (typically at age 14–20), became part of her husband’s family.4 In third millennium Mesopotamia, a regular man probably only took a second wife if the first wife proved to be infertile.5 Unless widowed, and even then probably only in exceptional cases, a woman could not act as the head of household.6 This does not, of course, mean that women had no choices or that they lived under oppression. No doubt many men consulted their womenfolk before making decisions. An ancient proverb in fact summarizes some stereotypical family roles: “A man’s waterskin is his life. A man’s sandals are his eyes. A man’s wife is his supervisor. A man’s son is his protective shade. A man’s daughter is his eager servant. A man’s daughter-in-law is his policeman.”7 Women were not of equal status with men, legally or economically; this is of course true for many (most?) civilizations in antiquity. One may compare the women of Republican Rome, for instance, who were always under the guardianship of either father or husband, who could make important decisions about

3 A thorough discussion of this problem can be found in S. J. Garfinkle, Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia, CUSAS 22 pp.14 ff. 4 M. Stol, “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995): 125 and Women in the Ancient Near East p. 66. 5 R. Westbrook, “Polygamie,” RlA 10 (2005): 600; see also M. Stol, “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995): 129. Other possible reasons and eventualities found in Old Babylonian documentation are discussed by R. Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law pp. 107–109; they include situations such as the illness of the chief wife, the woman’s misconduct (short of adultery) and holding priestess roles. It is unclear to me whether such eventualities would also have led to polygamy in the Ur III period. 6 Widows are discussed by M. V. Tonietti. “Ho stabilito mia moglie come padre e madre della mia Casa: Invecchiamento e Diritte delle donne nell’Antica Mesopotamica,” Storia delle Donne 2 (2006): 115–139. 7 Proverbs Collection 19.C.7, c.f. 6.1.21 (ETCSL.) More misogynistic proverbs can of course be found: “A malicious wife living in the house is worse than all diseases,” (Proverb Collection 1. 154) being but one example.



Women in the Economic Sector 

 55

the woman’s money or her marital status without consulting her.8 On average, ancient women’s roles existed within a household controlled by males. Child-rearing and domestic tasks were important, but many Mesopotamian women had in addition active roles in the family’s business: this is particularly well-documented for the women in the merchant families in Old Babylonian Assur, but there is no reason to doubt that such involvement in the work of the household was abnormal. As much of this book concerns economic activities in which women were involved, it will be helpful to spend a little time at the beginning laying out what the chief economic roles were for women within the family at this time.9

Women in the Economic Sector In describing the economy of the late third millennium B.C., one would say that the vast majority of jobs were held by males, certainly almost all of the bureaucratic professions we find recorded in cuneiform tablets, including scribes, granary supervisors, herders, brewers et cetera. The vast majority of land also appears to have been held by men.10 These men, however, were heads of households, in which the whole family and its dependents shared and participated. Generally we find women holding jobs only in certain professions, such as singers, nursemaids, prostitutes or priestesses.11 The majority of women do not seem to have owned property or herds or businesses of their own.

8 It would, however, be a mistake to see Roman women as powerless or supine; Cornelia, Sempronia and even Clodia (known also as Lesbia) are examples of well-educated women with considerable independence of action and social clout, and it is important to realize that, while the pater familias could legally make all the decisions for his daughter, who generally had no initiative or funds of her own, the same could be said of his son or his slaves! 9 There were of course some women in early Mesopotamia who operated outside the family (e.g. prostitutes, or perhaps certain types of priestesses); investigation into these women’s economic status lies outside the perameters of the present book. 10 Land tenure in the late third millennium B.C., especially the relative proportions of private land versus temple or palace-controlled property, remains an area in need of systematic evaluation. 11 Some previous scholarship made a sharp distinction between women who were under patriarchal authority and those who were no—for instance, I. Diakonoff, “Old Babylonian Ur,” JESHO 38 (1995): 92. Many professional women were not under patriarchal authority. It should be noted that various kinds of clergy could hold land, such as the en priests and priestesses, who were the chief clergyperson for a deity, and other priestesses, who lived together in cloisters. For an

56 

 Chapter 3 Queens and Concubines

Self-evidently, the economic foundation of the patriarchal household is that all members of the family share in the resources of the house, as administered by the pater familias or male head of household. The norm seems to have been for the various dependent members of the household not to have had their own separate properties, but there could be exceptions to this, especially in the case of married women. Women could be given gifts of property by their fathers or husbands. The form of the property varied, consisting often of slaves, but also in some cases houses or land, which they were free to rent out or alienate as they wished, it seems. Wilcke observed that slaves given in this way could be hired out as a possible income source.12 One wonders of course who performed the corvée service on any land women owned: the slaves may have been provided with that in mind. Civil has proposed that women, upon their marriage, could be given property termed sag-rig7, “a gift.” Normally this property took the form of a house, field, or garden, or possibly a slave or livestock; the gift was not something the husband could dispose of, being strictly the woman’s property.13 Instances of wives holding land stretch from the Pre-Sargonic period, e.g. woman named Barag-mezida, who sold a field described as sag-rig9-munus, a “woman’s gift-field,”14 to the Ur III period, when a woman named Sila-tur is attested as the owner of her dead husband’s house. Her house was forfeited to a son when she remarried a “stranger.”15 In another case, a widow appears to have inherited a great deal of her merchant-husband’s property: land, both inside and outside the town, 17 male slaves, 10 female slaves, and household utensils/ furnishings. The merchant’s sons (who may or may not have been her sons too) took the widow to court in an attempt to claim the property themselves.16 Possibly the awarding of property to women was somewhat controversial in Ur III times,

example of what appears to be a group of priestesses selling land in the Sargonic period, see P. Steinkeller, “Two Sargonic Sale Documents,” Or. 51 (1982): 355–362 (his text one). 12 C. Wilcke, “Care of the Elderly in Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.,” in M. Stol and S. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East pp. 48–9. 13 M. Civil, ”The Law Collection of Ur-Namma,” in A. R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schoyen Collection CUSAS 17 p. 271. 14 C. Wilcke, “Care of the Elderly in Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.,” in M. Stol and S. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East p.47. 15 C. Wilcke, “Care of the Elderly,” p.48. This is known from a legal proceeding (di-til-la) from SS4. As Wilcke notes, it is unclear whether she lost the house due to remarriage or due to the new husband’s “stranger” status. 16 This was Ur-DUN and his wife, recently discussed by H. Neumann, “Slavery,” OIS 7 (2011): 22–3 (with previous bibliography).



Women in the Economic Sector 

 57

as there seems to have been far more legal wrangling between sons and mothers than one might expect.17 A few women held land or conducted business as free agents. It seems that Naram-Sin’s queen held land of her own in the later Sargonic period.18 Ur III records tell us of a woman named Inna-šagga who bought a house “with her own hand” (presumably with her own money in her own name). She alone had title to it, and when, after her husband’s death, her husband’s heirs tried to claim the house, they were unsuccessful. 19 Similarly, Nin-melam, the wife of the governor of Umma, owned her own date orchards. Even when her husband fell from grace and his property was confiscated by the crown, the accountants made clear that she retained ownership of her property.20 Propertied women were probably limited to the elite classes and seem to have been a rarity. The economic roles of elite women in the late third millennium B.C. were not limited to land or house ownership. Most overviews of Mesopotamian history cite the well-known example of the governor’s wives in the Ur III period who exchanged commodities such as fish with one another over a period of a few years. 21 In one case, 870 fish moved between the neighboring city-states of Lagash and Umma. Whether the women did this as part of the ordinary responsibilities of a governor’s wife or whether there was some special circumstance or special relationship between the two women, we cannot not know: it is possible that even at the time, the situation would have been ambiguous. In comparison with their husbands, the scale of the economic transactions run by the wives was minor, but it is still worth noting that certain elite women had economic roles other than producing babies and textiles. In short, it seems as if women in third millennium B.C. Babylonia could own land (there were no overt legal barriers to this) but in practice very rarely did unless widowed. Shulgi-simti herself—and a number of the other concubines—do not appear to have owned any land themselves.

17 Another Ur III case in which a son sued his mother (and lost) was published by Molina: the property here appears to have consisted of a male and a female slave and a milk-producing cow, “Court Records from Umma,” FS Owen p. 213. 18 B. Foster, “Notes on Women in Sargonic Society,” CRRAI 33 p. 53. 19 C. Wilcke, “Care of the Elderly in Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.,” in M. Stol and S. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East p.50. This case was recorded in NSGU 2.99 20 M. Stepien, “The Economic Status of Governors in Ur III Times: An Example of the Governor of Umma,” JCS 64 (2012): 26. These texts date from Shu-Sin 1–4. 21 M. Stepien, “Economic Status,” JCS 64 (2012): 26.

58 

 Chapter 3 Queens and Concubines

The wife and mother, then, in a normal or average household belonged within a system of patriarchy but had an important and valued role to play. The situation becomes much more complex when we turn to the royal families of various dynasties, as kings were generally not monogamous.

Wives of the Ruler A ruler often had multiple wives. So it is interesting that the Early Dynastic sources from Lagash stress the primacy of the main wife, whom we might describe as “queen,” —it has been suggested that at this time rulers of Lagash, unlike their contemporaries in other locations, did not have junior wives or concubines.22 But by the Third Dynasty of Ur, the king certainly had a number of junior wives in addition to the chief wife, or “queen.” In the Ur III period, Shulgi, Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin each had one chief wife at any given time and then somewhere between three to seven concubines, as we shall see in more detail in the next chapters. It was also acceptable for the king to have more informal relations with female performers, usually labelled musicians or dancing girls. “The relatively large number of royal wives in the Ur III period raises questions concerning the relative status of these women as well as concerning problems of regal succession. For the most part scholars have assumed that only one woman was the real ‘queen’ and that the remaining royal ladies were ‘concubines’ or junior wives.”23 The queen, or chief wife, often seems to have come from abroad, a princess from a neighboring kingdom married into the royal family to cement diplomatic ties. Virtually nothing is known of the origins of the junior wives. They could have been the daughters of notables at home or abroad, or, if we draw from the lives of later Mesopotamian kings, they could have been dancing girls or prisoners of war who caught the fancy of the king. In the course of this book, I have referred to the concubines (Sumerian lukur) as junior wives of the king. Legally speaking, I am not at all sure that they were all formally married. When a citizen married, or a king married his chief wife, we should expect that verba solemnia were uttered, financial transfers of

22 Bauer, for example, concluded that the rulers of Early Dynastic Girsu-Lagash were monogamous: J. Bauer, “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der Mesopotamischen Geschichte,” in J. Bauer, R. Englund and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit OBO 160/1, p. 557. See also G. Marchesi, “Who was buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur?” Orientalia 73 (2004): 153–197, and M. Stol, “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995): 135: concubines are known at Ebla, not in Sumer. 23 P. Michalowski “Royal Women of the Ur III Period – Part III,” ASJ 4 (1982): 136.



Wives of the Ruler 

 59

dowry and brideprice changed hands, and that the usual ceremonies and banquets occurred,24 even if we have no record of them. But when a grey-haired monarch selected a twentieth girl, perhaps from amongst the daughters or the harem-women of a conquered neighbor25 or the dancers, as his latest love-interest, was this really a legal marriage? Perhaps the concubinage symbolized a stable relationship with one man (in this case, the king), so that the concubine’s children could be acknowledged as his; however, a concubine (unlike a wife) did not have the same status socially or legally as her mate.26 Possibly Shulgi’s lukurs were a mixed bunch. Some may have been daughters of petty principalities, legally married in an effort to cement peaceful relations. Some may have been women who caught the king’s roving interest without the necessity of any form of marriage. So while I retain the terms concubine and junior wife for these women referred to in the cuneiform record as lukur, actual legal marriages may or may not have been contracted. Regardless of the origin of the women, it does appear to have been the custom for the royal partners to take a new name. We have already seen how the Mari princess took on the name “She loves Ur,” in Akkadian Taram-Uram, but this renaming was already a centuries-old custom. In the Sargonic period, for instance, the bride of Šar-kali-šarri took on the name Tuta-šar-libbiš, which Frayne rendered “She has found the king of her heart” —he adds, “presumably an assumed marriage name.”27

24 On the various elements of the marriage, see R. Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law pp. 55–60. 25 From much later times, such as the reign of Esarhaddon, we actually have lists of his concubines, which included women from many ethnicities, 94 in all. Among these were apparently the entire harems of Gambulu and Egypt (Fales, “Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire,” in D. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature p. 65). This was not unique to Esarhaddon. It was not uncommon for the wives and daughters of a conquered ruler to be taken into the harem of the conqueror, for example princesses and singers were imported by such rulers as Tukulti-Ninurta II and Sennacherib,though their exact fates in Assyria remain unknown, see D. Edzard, “Prinz,” RlA 11 (2006–8): 2 and N. Ziegler, “Le Harem du Vaincu,” RA 93 (1999): 1–26. 26 As G. Clark notes, concubines in late Antique Rome were often slaves and remained so, Women in Late Antiquity p.32. 27 D. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods: RIME 2 p. 198.

60 

 Chapter 3 Royal Wives of the Ur III Court and their Titulary

Royal Wives of the Ur III Court and their Titulary To try to make sense of the dizzying profusion of Shulgi’s women, we should look closely at the terminology used for their titles, as well as other evidence attesting to their wealth and power to give us insight into the hierarchy of the court women. I do not believe Shulgi-simti was ever a chief wife, but rather a concubine, and not necessarily even the highest-ranking of the concubines. However, as parallels from other polygamous royal households show, the relative status of the various royal women may have been complex and constantly evolving, not monolithic and unchanging. Terminology is one way into the problem.

Royal Wives and their Titulary: The Chief Wife With a monogamous king, the situation is not complex. The king’s wife serves as his queen.28 The only difficulties arise in whether the consort has an official title (“queen”) or whether she is simply referred to as the wife of the ruler. During the earlier periods of Mesopotamian history, for instance in Early Dynastic period, we seem to see considerable local variation. In Lagash, wives of rulers were often referred to simply as the ruler’s spouse (dam). According to the evidence collected by Marchesi, this pattern (dam RN) appears to have been in use elsewhere, for example at Adab.29 But rarely, in certain circumstances, these same women referred to themselves with the title we usually translate “queen,” in Sumerian written with the sign NIN. For example, a famous Early Dynastic queen well-attested at Lagash, Barag-nam-tarrra, had a seal that identifies her as barag-namtar-ra/ dam lugal-an-da/ énsi lagaški (DP 14, pl vii), “Barag-nam-tarra, spouse of Lugal-anda, ruler of Lagash,” but a letter (VS 27.98) instead uses the title NIN.30 Marchesi concluded, “Thus it appears that the expression ‘queen (of GN)’ and ‘wife of PN, the king/ ruler of GN’ are equivalent in meaning and mutually exclusive.”31 Although it may have been the case for Early Dynastic Lagash that the rulers were, like the regular citizens, generally limited to one wife, certainly most rulers

28 It is important to keep in mind that queens in this era did not have political power, as Tonietti reminds us. M. V. Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL EN d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), Et il y eut un spirit dans l”Homme: Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie p. 262. 29 G. Marchesi, “Who was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur?” OrNS 73 (2004): 178–9. 30 G. Marchesi, OrNS 73 (2004): 178–9. 31 G. Marchesi, OrNS 73 (2004): 179.



Royal Wives and their Titulary: The Chief Wife 

 61

in early Mesopotamia had multiple wives, in part (one may imagine) to cement the succession.32 Concubines were literally junior, or little spouses (dam-bànda). The term dam tab-ba could also be used. Neumann notes that these two Sumerian terms are largely limited to lexical or literary texts: “Die sumerischen Termini für ‘Konkubine’ bzw. ‘Nebenfrau,’ dam-tab-ba und dam-bàn-da, sind bislang nur lexikalisch bzw. in literarischen Texten belegt,”33 but there are a handful of examples from Ur III times, especially after the reign of Shulgi, of men with both regular and dam-bànda wives.34 Insofar as we can tell, the norm for the Third Dynasty of Ur seems to have been a monogamous marriage: one man, one wife, one family.35 The man would generally call his wife “dam,” which is a gender-neutral term, “spouse, wife/ husband.” Exceptions to this small nuclear family could occur if infertility was a problem. Also exceptional was the royal family. In the Third Dynasty of Ur, especially from the middle of the reign of Shulgi on, wives were no longer dam RN (spouse of the king) or dam-bànda RN (junior spouse of the king). Shulgi’s early marriage to the princess from Mari who took the name Taram-Uram (this was presumably Shulgi’s first marriage, though we cannot be sure) is attested from a monument written for the then-king Ur-Namma. In this inscription, Taram-Uram is é-gi4-a, “daughter in law,” her relationship to Ur-Namma.36 While we might guess that she would have had the title dam Šulgi, Shulgi’s spouse, inscriptional evidence is lacking. We do know that the next attested wife of Shulgi’s, Geme-Sin, did use that title, dam Šulgi.37

32 M. Stol, “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995): 123–144. 33 H. Neumann, “Bemerkungen zu Ehe, Konkubinat und Bigamie in Neusumerischer Zeit,” in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique p. 135. 34 For example, in a British Museum text about provincial brewers over the years AS6-SS2, one man had children with both a regular and a dam-bànda woman, as noted by C. Wilcke, NABU 2005 number 74 and note 4. 35 H. Neumann, “Die Ehe in der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur war im Prinzip monogam und basass patriarchalischen Charakter.” “Ehe,” in La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique p. 132. 36 Boese and Sallaberger, AoF 23 (1996): 25 footnote 6. Michalowski’s speculation that TaramUram was married to someone else in the royal family is a) without any factual basis and b) goes against contemporary royal protocol, according to which a princess from a first-ranking kingdom could marry a crown prince only, P. Michalowski, “Of Bears and Men,” pp. 285–320 in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft, Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature. 37 On the use of dam for SI.A-tum and Geme-Sin, see already Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period Part I,” JCS 28 (1976): 169–70; more recently, Boese and Sallaberger, AoF 23 (1996): 35.

62 

 Chapter 3 Royal Wives of the Ur III Court and their Titulary

From the middle of Shulgi’s reign through the rest of the Ur III Dynasty, Steinkeller has convincingly argued that there were two basic ranks for Ur III royal wives. 38 At any given time, there was one queen, but multiple junior wives.39 When Shulgi, around his twentieth decade of reign, deified himself, there were consequences for his wives. After this self-deification, there were two basic ranks for Ur III royal wives, NIN, or queen, and lukur {lugal/RN}, a junior wife. 40 He furthermore showed that while there were many women designated as lukur, or junior wife, the number of women who held the title NIN was limited to a very small handful. The term NIN was almost always reserved for the queen of the Third Dynasty of Ur. It did not apply to foreign royal houses. One exception, early in Shulgi’s reign, appears when his daughter, sent to Anshan (the Elamite kingdom of Marhaši) was referred to as NIN mar-ha-ši in the year formula commemorating the marriage.41 Scholars have generally accepted the model of a single queen for the Third Dynasty of Ur, though it should be noted that some scholars, such as Michalowski, believe they may have been multiple queens, or NINs, at a time. “For the most part scholars have assumed that only one woman was the real ‘queen’ and the remaining royal ladies were ‘concubines; or ‘junior wives.’ It should be stressed that at the present time this is only an assumption and that there is some evidence which could possibly be utilized to argue against such an interpreta-

38 P. Steinkeller, “More on Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77–92. The junior wives were entitled to use the title queen but just make things difficult the converse did not hold. The queen could be referred to as the royal wife of her husband, at least in the case of Kubatum, though n.b. she seems to have been outranked by her mother-in-law Abi-simti. 39 P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77–92. This is the consensus opinion, as stated e.g. in OBO 160/3 p. 183 by Sallaberger: “Er kommt nur einer Frau zu, die man demnach als regierende Königen ansehen möchte.” 40 P. Steinkeller, ASJ 3 (1981): 179. Michalowski had also noted that dam was the title used before Shulgi’s deification; JCS 28 (1976): 170. 41 P. Steinkeller, “Marhaši,” ZA 72 (1982): 259–60 footnote 91. Shulgi year 18 tells us that the royal daughter was “raised” to the queenship of Marhashi: Liwir-mittašu dumu-munus lugal nam-NIN mar-ha-ši ba-íl. “It is significant that, of all the references to the Ur III diplomatic marriages, including Sumerian princesses and foreign rulers, this date and the variant of Shulgi’s thirtieth year-formula are the only examples of Sumerian princesses being afforded the title of queen, which, naturally, underscores the political importance of Marhaši.” It is also the case that the royal line in that region placed considerable importance on the mother, which may also be a factor in the unusual terminology.



Royal Wives and their Titulary: The Chief Wife 

 63

tion.” 42 He continued, “It is equally possible, however, to posit that more than one of Šulgi’s spouses was designated by the title nin.”43 This theory has not won wide acceptance. In the reigns of subsequent kings of the Third Dynasty, particularly Shu-Sin and Ibbi-Sin, it may seem that irregularities cropped up with the office of NIN. In the reign of Shu-Sin, two different women appear with this title at the same time, and in the reign of Ibbi-Sin, it has been suggested that his chief wife may be the same as his sister. Serious study of the Ur III royal family has been a desideratum for many years and still remains to be undertaken systematically, but at present it does seem justified to explain these apparent irregularities briefly. Shu-Sin preferred to have his mother (Abi-simti) fulfill the duties of first lady (NIN), classifying his chief wife Kubatum as a lukur, but on rare occasions, Kubatum, mother of his eventual heir, Ibbi-Sin, is also given the title NIN. The reasons for this may be lost in time, but one can speculate that Abi-simti, the queen mother, herself of royal blood, either from the Diyala region or in fact also from Mari,44 was a much more powerful person than Kubatum. Kubatum, who was of childbearing age in the reign of Shu-Sin and in fact bore at least one, if not several children to the king, in the first years of her husband’s reign, prior to her death in Shu-Sin 6,45 may well have been considered incapable of performing the role of queen either because of her age or perhaps her pregnancies. Or the role of queen mother may simply have been higher than any wife could hold. The next king, Ibbi-Sin, had only one woman designated as NIN, queen/ first lady, during his reign. The problem here is not a multiplicity of women with the title but apparent brother-sister marriage, an incestuous union otherwise unparalleled in Babylonian history. But, as I have argued elsewhere, Ibbi-Sin most likely acceded to the throne when a mere boy; far too young to marry, ordinarily his mother might have been his regent and ‘queen,’ as she was already dead, it seems his big sister held the title NIN.46

42 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period, Part III,” ASJ 4 (1982): 129–142 –quote p. 136 —see also Part I, the wife of Shulgi—JCS 28 (1976) 169–172 and Part II, JCS 31 (1979): 171–176. 43 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women III,” ASJ 4 (1982): 136. 44 For the suggestion of a Diyala origin, see R. Whiting, “Tiš-atal of Nineveh and Babati, Uncle of Šu-Sin,” JCS 28 (1976): 173–182. A possible Mari lineage for Abi-simti was proposed by P. Michalowski, “Iddin-Dagan and His Family” ZA 95 (2005): 66. 45 On Kubatum, see F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen pp. 153–164, with previous bibliography. 46 The matter of Ibbi-Sin’s wife and his age at accession are discussed in my own “The Remembrance of Kings Past: The Persona of King Ibbi-Sin,” pp. 421–432 in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS.

64 

 Chapter 3 Royal Wives of the Ur III Court and their Titulary

We have thus established that in Ur III times, there was probably a single chief wife (NIN) and multiple lesser wives, but we cannot stop there. There are three major problems surrounding the term NIN—its reading, its translation and understanding the role of the NIN in relation to the other royal women.

NIN The cuneiform sign (a ligature of the elements SAL, for a woman, and TÚG, for cloth) is generally read NIN. Lexical materials have been interpreted to suggest that the sign not only can be read ereš, but must be read ereš when it means “queen.”47 Civil, however, disagrees, pointing out that the Emesal Vocabulary II in fact suggests nin is the correct reading.48 The reading of this term still remains uncertain, with some evidence supporting a reading ereš and some supporting a reading nin, hence I have left the NIN in capital letters. NIN, a frequent element in the names of deities, can be understood as “lord, master” for males and “lady, mistress” for females. Thus, the Sumerian pantheon included Nin-Girsu, the Lord of Girus, Nin-tu, Mistress of Birth and countless others. When NIN is used to refer to humans, it seems always to refer to women, as in NIN (perhaps ereš-)dingir, a high priestess. The term NIN by itself is generally translated “queen.” In English, “queen” denotes two separate but linked statuses—being the wife of the king and serving as his official consort and hostess. Probably the early Mesopotamian king had only one chief wife at a time and that this chief wife outranked the concubines. Though the chief wife generally held the title NIN, “first lady, queen,” there could be reasons why another woman of the royal family (e.g. a mother or a sister) could fulfill that role, as we have seen above.

47 This is discussed by Marchesi, OrNS 73 (2004): 186 ff. For example, in Lu I 42ff, Syll. B I 339 (MSL 4.207): e-re-eš NIN [šarratum], that is, the sign written NIN is to be read ereš when it corresponds to the (restored) Akkadian šarratum, “queen.” The lexical evidence, I think, makes it clear that NIN can be read ereš, but it is unclear to me that it must be read thus, and the sign is never, to the best of my knowledge, followed by the š-auslaut but always the /ng/ sound represented by the sign we transliterate gá. Possibly the same sign was used to write two different words, one nin, one ereš. Due to the uncertainty in the reading, I have kept the traditional reading NIN. 48 M. Civil, on Emesal Voc. II lines 76–77, in A. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schoyen Collection, CUSAS 17 p. 258 note 58.



Terminology for the Lesser Wives 

 65

Royal Wives as Mothers Sallaberger’s analysis of the queen’s role stresses her fertility: “Die wichtigste Aufgabe der Königen innhalb der Familie, damit jedoch staatstragend, was sicherlich das Gebären von Kindern.”49 Although the modern feminist reader might initially recoil from the seeming reduction of women to vessels of patriarchal succession, we must remind ourselves that we are dealing with an ancient society in which the failure of a wife to bear children was a serious problem, no doubt doubly serious for a royal couple. Kings had more than one woman, of course, in the Ur III period and the degree of importance placed on the queen’s fertility was likely to have been dependent on whether her children were automatically favoured in the succession, or whether the rank of the mother was immaterial. It seems likely in the Third Dynasty of Ur that the crown princes were the sons of the chief wives, not concubines. Was NIN a public office? Certainly the king was a public persona, the mediator between the divine realm and the black-headed people, but his wife perhaps was not. We should also be aware that our preconceptions of ranking and hierarchy may not be applicable to the ancient world. Whereas we would assume that the royal wives, particularly of course the queen or chief wife, would outrank all princesses, evidence from Old Babylonian Mari seems to suggest the opposite.50 Certainly the queen outranked any other wife or wives, as will be seen in the next chapters, though she herself could be outranked by the queen mother.

Terminology for the Lesser Wives There appears, then, to have usually been one queen, or first lady, and a larger number of lesser wives, given the title lukur or variants thereof. In the context of royal wives, lukur is to be translated “concubine, consort,” though the origin of the title was in the realm of religion. In the past, lukur had always referred to a kind of priestess imagined to be a god’s wife.51 Though the word used in Sumerian

49 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.185. 50 B. Lafont, “Les filles du roi de Mari,” pp. 113–121 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33 and N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm Florilegium Marianum IV. 51 This problem, with previous scholarship, is discussed in my “Priestesses, Concubines, and the Daughters of Men: Disentangling the Meaning of the word lukur in Ur III Times,” pp. 177–184 in P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist 2008. Especially important are P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77–92, and W.

66 

 Chapter 3 Royal Wives of the Ur III Court and their Titulary

for what we would denote in English as a concubine on the one hand, and a celibate priestess on the other, was the same (lukur), these were two entirely separate groups of women.52 How did this come to be? We have noted that the term lukur has been linked to Shulgi’s act of self-deification: before Shulgi called himself a god, it seems the term lukur was used only for actual priestesses. We may also recall that the usual pattern for families at this time was monogamy, and that there is no evidence that any of the kings of the immediately preceding period—Gudea, Utu-hegal, Ur-Namma—had more than one wife. It seems plausible, then, to suppose that, even though a normal man would only be allowed one wife, Shulgi could claim to be allowed multiple partners due to his divinity. Just as certain gods had multiple “brides” called lukurs, so too would the divine Shulgi now also have lukurs. Even within the category of the lukurs partnered with the king, however, there seems to have been considerable fluidity in rank, which was in part reflected in variations in the title. There was a plain “junior wife” (lukur), a “beloved junior wife” (lukur ki-ág) and finally a “junior wife of the road” (lukur-kaskal-la), which is usually been interpreted as a woman who traveled.53 The image of the king and his traveling companion is very picturesque but perhaps less than accurate.54 Kaskal has another major meaning, “road,” which could include travel for a military campaign. Should we reassess the term lukur-kaskal-la to view it not as the somewhat romantic idea of a traveling concubine who may minister to the king on his journeying but as the less glowing but perhaps more realistic

Sallaberger and F. Huber, “Priester,” RlA 11: 633. See also M. Such-Gutiérrez, “Neue Erkentnisse zu den königlichen Gemahlinnen,” in G. Wilhem (ed.), Organization, Representation and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East pp. 328–334. 52 Earlier scholarship was sometimes (understandably) confused on this point, for instance, Grégoire… “elles ne semblent pas avoir été de simples concubines ou compagnes de route; leurs fonctions dénotaient un caractère sacerdotal…” Jacobsen had suggested in 1953 that Ibbi-Sin’s lukur Kubatum was bound by a rule that forbade her to have children (“The Reign of Ibbi-Suen,” JCS 7 [1953]:46). This view was still current about twenty years later when Sollberger repeated it, though adding that examples of children associated with lukur-type women could be proferred, JCS 30 (1978): 100. Modern scholarship distinguishes between the priestesses, who were not in fact meant to have babies, and the king’s wives, who were. 53 For example, by Grégoire, “Il y avait donc plusiers lukur-kaskal(a) qui étaient attachées à la personne du souverain et qui accompagnaient ce dernier pendant ses déplacements.” RA 73 (1979): 191. 54 Stol’s translation of dam-kaskal as “a girlfriend for his business trip” is both anachronistic and implies that these women had a temporary liaison with the man, which is I think misleading, Women in the Ancient Near East p. 194. He does however view the lukur-kaskal as women who travelled with the king on the next page (p. 195).



Terminology for the Lesser Wives 

 67

model of a woman taken as booty from a conquered area? Contemporary sources record hundreds of women and children taken as booty from assaults on enemy territories in the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin in particular. To name just one example, in Amar-Sin’s fourth year, 172 women and children, booty from Shariphum, were dedicated as slaves in the temple of Šara in Umma.55 If we assume— as I think we should—that the provincial shrine in Umma was unlikely to be the sole recipient of the booty, or even likely to receive a lion’s share of the booty, the number of women and children entered into Babylonia could easily number in the thousands. Similar lines of prisoners are known to have entered Mari in Old Babylonian times. A frequently quoted anecdote is that Zimri-Lim wrote his wife Shibtu to inspect the line of incoming female prisoners of war and to pick some thirty of the best-looking prisoner-women to be “musicians” in his palace.56 One of course does not know what function Zimri-Lim envisioned for this women; he could have been looking for musicians (though note that the letter goes into some detail about their physical perfection and how to maintain that and says nothing whatsoever about any musical skills) or women to hand out as rewards to courtiers. He may also have been looking to restock his harem. There are numerous historical parallels for slave women taken as concubines, especially among the Ottomans.57 Such women retained their slave status but any children born of the union were considered free and legitimate. Such parallels certainly do not prove that lukurkaskal-la in Ur III times was a female prisoner of war, but should perhaps incline us to consider the possibility carefully. The title lukur-kaskal-la appears to be peculiar to the Ur III court, but if we look at Old Babylonian lexical sources for the similar term dam-kaskal-la, we see that the dam-kaskal-la, “spouse of the road,” “road-wife,” refers to a second-ranking wife. Thus, possibly lukur-kaskal-la should be understood not as a traveling companion but a lower-order lukur. 58

55 YOS 4.67, discussed by P. Steinkeller, Grand Strategy forthcoming. 56 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 44. 57 R. Lewis, Rethinking Orientalism: Women, Travel and the Ottoman Harem pp. 130–131. 58 The lexical text Proto-Lu 710a = MSL 12.59— has the following entries, munus šu-gi4, lukur kaskal, dam bàndada, nam-lukur, kar-kid, “old woman, kaskal-lukur, junior wife, lukur-ship, prostitute.” Also Ur5-ra I. 93 = MSL 5.15- dam guruš, dam lú, dam bàndada = Še’itu, dam kaskal = ditto, dam tab-ba = tappȗ. That is, the wife of an able-bodied man, wife of a man, junior wife, kaskal-wife (ditto), secondary wife.” B. Landsberger, M. Civil, E. Reiner, A Reconstruction of Sumerian and Akkadian Lexical Lists MSL 12, pp. 125–6. CAD Še-‘u, Š II 363, “wife of secondary rank.”

68 

 Chapter 3 Royal Wives of the Ur III Court and their Titulary

But what about the fertility of the concubines? From the point of view of the chief wife (NIN), presumably the fertility of the concubines could be threatening to her interests and that of her children, as, with no crown prince designated prior to a given king’s death, insofar as we know,59 presumably the king could at any time pick his current favorite’s son to succeed him. From the point of view of the king, having very numerous children was no doubt desirable. A multiplicity of males insured against possible succession problems (high infant and child mortality also has to be considered here), and in the Ur III period, there seems to have been a preference for royal blood in appointing generals, en priests and various other offices. As Michalowski pointed out, a multiplicity of daughters also seems to have been desirable, not just as priestesses but as pawns in the complicated network of marriage alliances.60 Considering the last decades of Shulgi’s reign, that is, the time frame covered by Shulgi-simti’s archive, however, different pressures may have been operative. Even if Shulgi came to the throne while fairly youthful, he no doubt was showing signs of age forty years on. Many of his children were adults and we believe the eventual heir, Amar-Sin, was born out of the marriage to Taram-Uram of Mari, arranged before Shulgi even came to the throne.61 In other words, the initial pressure on the queen and concubines to produce heirs and a plethora of princes and princesses had presumably let up. Probably Shulgi-simti and Shulgi had children together; naming them is however exceedingly difficult. The terminology for the princes and princesses of the Ur III period was simply a rather vague, catch-all term, dumu lugal, “royal offspring.” Occasionally gender might be specified, usually in the case of a princess, dumu-munus lugal, royal daughter. This terminology, as many others have noted, designates a general status (“prince/ss”), not a specific parent. For

59 As noted (among others) by W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 182. 60 P. Michalowski, CSMS 16 (1988): 20. 61 J. Boese and W. Sallaberger, “Apil-kin von Mari und die Kőnige der III.Dynastie von Ur,” AoF 23 (1996): 35 and W. Sallaberger, “Šulgi,” RlA 13 (2011–2012): 271. Note however the very involved and (in my view) not at all convincing argument by Michalowski that Amar-Sin was not the son of Shulgi by Taram-Uram but instead perhaps “a child of one of Šulgi’s brothers who married the princess from Mari,” P. Michalowski, “Of Bears and Men,” in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature FS Machinist p. 316. Michalowski himself notes “This story may seem unlikely;” and admits many other interpretations could be given to his “traces” of evidence (p. 316). His main starting point for these speculations appears to be that Amar-Sin does not appear under that name prior to his accession in extant documents. Why we cannot use the normal explanation that Amar-Sin was a crown name for one of Shulgi’s known sons is not clear to me. To diverge so far from accepted frameworks, much firmer evidence would be needed.



The Šeš Lukur 

 69

example, it seems that children of the deceased king were still categorized by the title dumu lugal in the reign of subsequent rulers, ME-Ištaran being one example.62 It is important for us to recall that the important criterion for holding this term in the third millennium B.C. was the royalty of the father; the lugal in question did not have to be the reigning king. Mothers are almost never mentioned. Although I assume that it might have mattered a great deal to the status of the various princes and princesses at court whether their mother was the chief wife or a minor concubine, the texts generally do not record who the mothers were of the various royal offspring. One may perhaps guess—and it is only a guess—that some of the royal daughters that Shulgi-simti acted with most often in her surviving documentation may possibly have been her daughters. And the existence of a princess who, after Shulgi-simti’s death, is given her name (Shulgi-simti II, as it were) may indicate a granddaughter.63

The Šeš Lukur Taken literally, the term means “lukur’s brother.” As it appears with some regularity in messenger texts from Girsu (and not elsewhere, for instance, in court circles), there has been speculation that the term is not to be taken literally. It is not impossible to imagine that the “brother of the lukur” in fact refers to a concubine’s brother and that families of a woman so close to the king might have attempted to capitalize on this proximity to gain positions of their own. Arguing against the face-value translation of this term is, as Notizia remarked, the total lack of attestations of the term where one would expect it (at court, near the lukurs) and its use only in Girsu messenger texts, where (along with another term ù-kul), it seems to refer to a type of professional messenger.64 Another explanation is that the lukurs referenced here were local Girsu priestesses, having no relation to the king’s women.65 Close prosopographical study is needed to determine which explanation is more likely.

62 M. Such-Gutiérrez, “Die Prinzessin Meištarān,” Aula Orientalis 19 (2001): 91. 63 This, for instance, was the opinion of W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 164 and note 775. Ozaki hypothesized that this could in fact represent death offerings to Shulgi-simti and that we should not imagine a second person holding this name, as is discussed in more detail in chapter five, Ozaki, “Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom,” pp. 217–222 in P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur Sigrist FS. 64 P. Notizia, BiOr LXVII (2010): 110–1. 65 P. Notizia, “it is likely that these lukurs were the concubines to a god of the province…”BiOr LXVII (2010): 111.

70 

 Chapter 3 Royal Wives of the Ur III Court and their Titulary

Queens were of noble, often royal birth, pawns in a network of dynastic alliances. The origins of the concubines are obscure, but they were not necessarily of noble or even respectable origins.

Lukurs After Shulgi After the death of the great king, some men appeared to copy his practice of having a secondary wife called lukur, the chief vizier, Arad-Nanna being one of them. But this appears to occur from AS8-SS7, well after Shulgi’s death.66 In the reign of Shulgi, however, lukur referred either to a priestess or to one of his junior wives. In conclusion, although the matter is vexed and new evidence may cause revisions to our current understanding, it seems to me that there was generally one chief wife, “first lady,” if you will, who generally bore the title NIN. Lesser in rank to the first lady was a set of junior wives, known originally as dam-banda but later on, following Shulgi’s self-deification, as lukur (a title with a priestess lineage). There were apparently different varieties of lukurs, and there is no reason to assume that all of them were of high birth or status. There does seem to have been a great difference between the woman holding the rank of NIN and those holding various ranks of lukur.

66 See my own “Priestesses, Concubines and the Daughters of Men: Disentangling the Meaning of the Term Lukur in Ur III Times” pp. 177–183 in P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur Sigrist FS and M. Such-Gutiérrez, “Neue Erkentnisse zu den königlichen Gemahlinnen,” in G. Wilhem (ed.), Organization, Representation and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East p. 334. It is possible that at least one of Shulgi’s dancing- women (Anayya or Anati) was given to Naram-ili’s son and for this reason he calls her his lukur-wife, as already discussed by A. Kleinerman, “Doctor Šu-kabta’s Family Practice,” CUSAS 6 (2011): 178 and note 12.

Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia? In the next two chapters, we will examine the various ranks of royal wives and hypothesize that, in the last years of Shulgi’s reign, Nin-kalla was queen, while Shulgi-simti was probably a lukur, or concubine. I believe that we cannot begin, however, to understand their activities until we confront the metaphorical elephant in the room, the usually carefully-avoided question of whether Shulgi had a harem. If we look at the basic pattern by which Mesopotamian monarchs from Early Dynastic to Neo-Assyrian times organized their households, it seems that most (though not all) had a very stable and common pattern: that is, a harem. Stol’s chapters on the royal women are in fact entitled “The Court and Harem before 1500 BC” and “The Court and Harem after 1500 BC.”1 This chapter will lay out what seems to me to be this basic framework, especially relying on data from Ebla, Mari and the Neo-Assyrian period. We will then consider whether the Ur III evidence matches the pattern we have established and then finally whether there was a native term in Sumerian or Akkadian for “harem.” That harems existed in Later Mesopotamia—for instance in Middle Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian palaces seems hardly open to doubt. The existence of a harem at Old Babyonian Mari is also beyond doubt.2 It would be a logical fallacy, however, to think that because there appear to have been harems at the time of Yasmah-Addu and Zimri-Lim that there were necessarily harems throughout Mesopotamia and in all locations and periods. The existence of a harem in Old Babylonian Mari need not imply that the contemporary Rim-Sin of Larsa, for instance, had one, nor that they necessarily existed earlier. Let us look briefly at the later periods, when the harem’s existence is beyond doubt in order to narrow down some defining factors. Because the term harem worries some scholars, who fear it evokes Orientalist fantasy, it is critical to be clear and precise about our definition.

1 M. Stol, Women in the Ancient Near East pp. 459 ff. 2 The most important work on this subject is N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm, Florilegium Marianum IV. See also J.-M. Durand and J. Margueron, “La question du Harem Royal dans le palais de Mari,” Journal des Savants 4 (1980): 253–280. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-004

72 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

The harem? If we define a harem3 as women’s quarters, the part of the household or palace reserved for the residence of women, then it seems quite evident that, at least in some places and at some periods of Mesopotamian history, there was a harem. Cooper, for example, suggests that harems were real in Neo-Assyrian times, hardly an Orientalist projection: “Finally, I must take issue with the notion that we have misunderstood the Assyrian royal harem because of our Orientalist prejudices. Rather, the Assyrian harem, with its corps of eunuchs, was probably the first in a long line of such establishments.”4 Similarly, Parpola wrote: “Although it has been claimed that the term ‘harem’ should be avoided in this connection as semantically loaded and hence anachronistic and misleading with reference to Assyria, the term will be kept here, as it is easy to demonstrate that the Neo-Assyrian royal harem in every essential respect resembled later oriental (Sassanian, Abbasid and Ottoman) royal harems.”5 One may then perhaps best wonder not whether harems existed in Mesopotamia, but rather the date at which they appeared and their geographical range. Were they really new to the Neo-Assyrian period? Strong arguments in favor of seeing a harem at Old Babylonian Mari have been put forth, particularly by the French scholars Ziegler, Durand and Charpin.6 “Oui, des harems, au sens de lieux où l’on faisant vivre des femmes, existaient bel et bien dans le palais mésopotamiens.”7 At Old Babylonian Mari, there does certainly seem to have been an area of the palace reserved for women.

3 The word of course derives from an Arabic term harim, meaning sacrosanct, inviolable, forbidden. J. G. Westenholz, “Towards a New Conceptualization of the Female Role in Mesopotamian Society,” JAOS 110 (1990): 513. 4 J. Cooper, review of M. van de Mieroop’s Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History, BASOR 2002 p. 80. 5 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday p. 613. 6 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimri-Lim, FM IV, and Durand and Margueron, “La question du Harem Royal dans le palais de Mari,” Journal des Savants 4 (1980): 253–280. Not all scholars seem to agree with this interpretation: e.g. J. G. Westenholz, “Towards a New Conceptualization of the Female Role in Mesopotamian Society,” JAOS 110 (1990): 513: “The question should be raised as to whether the term harem is an appropriate description in Mesopotamian society.” 7 D. Charpin, “Chroniques Bibliographiques 6,” RA 100 (2006): 100.



The harem? 

 73

“La population féminine disposait, à l’intérieur du palais, d’un espace qui lui était réservé, gardé de l’intérieur par des femmes et de l’extérieur par des hommes. Il paraît dès lors possible, à partir de telles caractéristiques, d’employer à ce sujet le terme de harem.”8

In Guichard’s description, “The harem, which occupied its northwest part, was inhabited by a great number of women, from the queen mother and principal royal wife, to slaves and captives, including concubines, who were designated musicians, scribes, cooks, water drawers, and floor sweepers.”9 Archaeologically, the women’s quarters at the Mari palace have been identified as centering on room 31, including staff quarters and storerooms, with the ‘harem’ archives found in Room 72.10 It has been claimed that Zimri-Lim had 232 women in his harem, though this included a number of women that he was not presumably sleeping with, such as servants, scribes and singers.11 There is also the evidence of the gatekeepers. “Mari had many gates,” as Sasson noted, and some areas of the palace itself were gated.12 The harem had two gatekeepers on either side of the door—a male one at the outside and a female one on the inside. At night, these doors appear to have remained shut.13 Additionally, “the palace’s bolt was set” at siesta time.14 On the basis of this and other evidence, I think we are justified in saying that there was indeed a harem in Old Babylonian Mari and that, in fact, we can begin to discern a common pattern for the orgnaization for the harem in many epochs of Mesopotamian history. I will lay out what I believe this common pattern was, then go through the evidence.

8 D. Charpin, Hammu-rabi de Babylone p. 133. See also Charpin’s OBO 160/4 p. 252 and N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimri-Lim, FM IV. 9 M. Guichard, “Mari,” in E. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East p. 420. 10 M. Guichard, “Mari,” in E. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East p. 419–420 and Margueron (in the same volume), p. 415. 11 J.-M. Durand, “L’organisation de l’espace dans le palais de Mari,” pp.85 ff. in E. Lévy (ed.), Le système palatial. Also in Ottoman times, the term harem included a large number of women who were not the king’s partners, R. Lewis, Rethinking Orientalism: Women, Travel and the Ottoman Harem p. 100. 12 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 304. 13 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 32. Charpin, noting that some scholars still avoid referring to the arrangement here as a harem, despite the evidence for the male and female gatekeepers, asks “Que faut-il de plus?” Charpin, RA 100 (2006): 110. 14 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives pp. 106, 304.

74 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

The Harem Pattern in Mesopotamia: An Overview Looking at the stream of Mesopotamian tradition, from the mid-third millennium though to the late Neo-Assyrian period (that is, more or less the whole gamut of Mesopotamian history), some common factors seem to emerge. Hierarchy and awareness of rank appear to have been important principles in organizing the later Mesopotamian harems. The highest-ranking woman at court generally appears to have been the queen mother, then either the king’s chief wife or one of his female blood relatives, such as sisters or daughters. Only after these came any of the secondary wives.15 When the king’s mother was living, she had preeminence and outranked all of the king’s wives. The queen mother did not usually reside in the palace of her son, and sometimes even lived in another town. This appears to be a regular pattern that we see over and over again across the centuries, but day-to-day reality may have more fluid and allowed more variation (and consequent insecurity) in the women’s hierarchy. Normally a king had one chief wife or queen, in addition to concubines. It has been suggested, though never conclusively proven, that a king’s personal life could get messy and a second woman could, at least for a time, also be given the title queen. The queen, generally the offspring of the ruling family from a neighboring principality, received visitors in the throne room (including diplomats), could travel on her own and often controlled great wealth and many servants. The queen often had her own residence, sometimes even outside the king’s palace itself, which may have been viewed as desirable. The queen was in charge of the women’s quarters, or harem, though she did not herself necessarily live there. Sometimes the queen could be put in charge of the administration of other aspects of the palace too. Being chief wife had a great deal to do with family: a chief wife’s father was usually a neighboring ruler and a chief wife’s son was often in line for succession. The status of chief wife did not always guarantee the king’s affection; his favorites might well be concubines. The concubines lived in the harem, generally in a private quarter of the palace, where they stayed. Also part of the harem were many other people, including performers, servants and other support staff. A common size for harems was 200–300 people per palace, though we assume that many of the support staff were

15 At Mari, daughters outranked wives, as Lafont showed in “Les Filles du Roi de Mari,” pp. 113– 121 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33 (see also N. Ziegler Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 41). The Neo-Assyrian evidence suggests a similar conclusion, that the king’s female relatives outranked the concubines (MÍ.ERIM.É-GAL), Melville JAOS 124 (2004): 38.



The Harem Pattern in Mesopotamia: An Overview 

 75

not residents. Naturally, each palace was unique, but we can discern a common pattern of about five to ten secondary wives (“concubines”), some of whom were also daughters of nearby princes traded in dynastic marriage, some captured in war. There were also commonly dozens of performers, generally musicians and dancers. Performers could be foreign, including women captured in war (even possibly women who had been concubines of other rulers or daughters of former kings) and “gifts” (that is, women who were either legally slaves or very close to it). It seems that the king might have intimate relations with some of these performing women and they might even rise to the status of favorites. There were also of course many servants, possibly including scribes and guards. The women’s quarters at Mari, the various Assyrian palaces and the harem of Ebla all contained many women who were not in an amorous relation to the king. Some were the king’s female relatives : daughters, sisters and the like. Many others were women who worked in the palace, including maids, cooks, textile cleaners, hairdressers, and other female staffers. Which of these women lived in the palace itself and which would have come in to work is presently unclear.16 In the harem, there seems to have been a preference for female staff, so we sometimes see female scribes or female doctors in the harem but not more widely in society. The degree to which the harem women were secluded (or guarded) and the degree to which their freedom of movement was limited appears to have varied, perhaps reaching a low point during Middle Assyrian times.17 Harems appear to have generally been under the control of the queen mother or queen. But elements of the administration of the harem could be delegated to an older concubine and/or her male assistants or agents. Let us now carefully consider the evidence upon which I have based this model, primarily based on sources from Ebla, Mari and Neo-Assyrian times. I would stress that this is not meant to be a comprehensive period-by-period history of the institution of the harem, but rather illustrative examples from three well-documented eras ranging from about 2400- 650 B.C. in order to demonstrate the overall pattern.

16 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 197. 17 As illustrated by the Harem Edicts and perhaps also the Middle Assyrian Laws, see now S. Parpola, “Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 615. Because the Middle Assyrian situation may have been anomalous, I am not considering it here.

76 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

Evidence on the Role of the Queen Mother Starting already with the archives of Ebla in the Pre-Sargonic period, we see that, while the queen mother lived, she was the most powerful among the women of the court. The published Ebla archive is considerably larger than that of Early Dynastic Lagash, in fact almost ten times bigger, weighing in at about 15,000 tablets apparently dating from about 2400–2300 B.C.18 The best-known queen mother (AMA GAL EN) in most of the Ebla archives was a woman named Dusigu.19 Her preeminence among the royal women is shown by her pride of place, appearing first in administrative texts, before any other woman, as Biga has shown.20 However, this status may have been new to her—there is no evidence that she held the position of queen or chief wife in her husband’s time.21 In fact, another woman is known to have been chief wife, but died before producing a male heir.22 Once Dusigu’s son came to power, “numerous documents show how she dominated the court up to her death, taking precedence in rank even over the wife of Išar-damu, that is to say, the queen.”23 “Dusigu…is always to be found alongside her son on all important political and cultic occasions.”24 It seems, then, at Ebla, the queen mother Dusigu took pride of place, eclipsing the king’s chief wife (Dabur-Damu).25 In 2009, Matthiae argued that the

18 F. Pinnock, “Ebla,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World p.538. 19 It has been suggested that the mother of the previous king (Irkab-Damu) was already dead, M. Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL EN d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’ dans le Proche-Oriente depuis la Plus Haute Antiquité,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.) Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme: Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie p.261. 20 “Dusigu est mentionée en premier lieu, avant la reine.” M.-G. Biga, “Femmes de la Famille Royale d’Ebla,”in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33 p. 41. 21 For a woman to be queen mother without having been queen may seem odd to us but can be documented in many instances in the history of Mesopotamia (see Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL EN d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’…,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.) Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme: Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie p. 261) and even Egypt. 22 Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL EN d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’…,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.) Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme: Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie pp. 265–6; A. Archi, “Rank at the Court of Ebla,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black p. 8. 23 A. Archi, “Rank at the Court of Ebla,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black p. 8. 24 M.-G. Biga, “Wet-Nurses at Ebla: A Proposopographical Study,” Vicino Oriente 12 (2000): 62. 25 M. Biga, “Wet-Nurses at Ebla,” Vicino Oriente 12 (2000): 63; H. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel p. 326, Tonietti, “ Ho stabilito..” Storia delle Donne 2(2006): 129. “Così, all’interno della familiglia reale, troviamo ad occupare il ruolo femminile dominant una vedova, la regina madre,



Evidence on the Role of the Queen Mother 

 77

female figures seem on the standard of Mari from Palace G are most plausibly to be reconstructed as the deceased queen mother, Dusigu, receiving homage from the ruler’s wife.26 Not a great deal is known of Dusigu’s economic interests, though we do know that she possessed her own mule-drawn chariot, which was an exceedingly rare honor for a woman at that time.27 She appears to have had her own residence, called the bayt maliktum, “queen’s house,” though whether this was within the walls of Palace G at Ebla or a free-standing building is not known.28 It certainly had its own cooking facilities and staff.29 Moving now to Mari and evidence for the queen mother, we have several family lines to consider. The excavations at Mari yielded immense treasures in material culture and epigraphic materials. At least 17,000 letters from the reigns of two Old Babylonian rulers of Mari have been found and about 9,000 of these are published, principally by French scholars. These rulers were Yasmah-Addu, the hapless son of the remarkable conqueror Shamshi-Addu, and Zimri-Lim, a formerly exiled scion of an ousted ruling family from Mari who was able to reclaim his birthright, only to lose it to Hammurabi. In calendar years, 1780–1760 B.C. are the years largely covered by this archive.30 From the time of Yasmah-Addu, there is very little to suggest a strong role for royal wives in religion or administration. Yasmah-Addu, of course, was an underling, taking instructions from his father and his brother, who often criticized him. He also does not seem to have had a stable, principal wife for much of his rule. An often-quoted letter from Yasmah-Addu’s father criticizes the man for his lack of a family life: “You remain a child, there is no beard on your chin, and, even now, in the ripeness of age, you have not built up a ‘house.”31 After about five years as ruler of Mari, Yasmah-Addu married a princess from Qatna who was already

molto spesso la persona più potente del regno, dopo il re, suo figlio.” “È solo alla morte della regina madres che la regina può slitamente acquisire il ruolo di prima donna del regno.” 26 P. Matthiae “The Standard of the maliktum of Ebla,” ZA 99 (2009): 270–311. 27 Tonietti “De l’AMA-GAL En d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’…,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.) Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme p. 269. 28 Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL En d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’…,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.) Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme p. 267. 29 Tonietti “Ho stabilito mia moglie come padre e madre della mia Casa. Invecchiamentio e Diritte delle Donne nell’Antica Mesopotamica,” Storia delle Donne 2 (2006): 120. 30 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 2 and p. 4. 31 G. Roux, Ancient Iraq p. 192.

78 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

conveniently named Beltum, “Mistress/ queen.”32 Queens often did not live in the palace itself.33 While little is known of Yasmah-Addu’s wife Beltum, we do know that she was not resident in the palace itself, but in the “petit palais orientale.”34 There is an example of a queen mother of great influence with her own residence from the family of Zimri-Lim and the case of Addu-duri. Addu-duri appears to have been Zimri-Lim’s mother (possibly stepmother); in any case, she was married to Zimri-Lim’s father, Hadni-Addu.35 She accompanied Zimri-Lim to Mari at his accession and at first lived in his palace,36 but then moved on to her own residence, known as bît Addu-duri, “house of Addu-duri,” attested for instance in Mari texts allocating oil for lamps.37 Addu-duri appears to have been in charge of certain economic affairs in the Mari palace; only after her death in Zimri-Lim’s fifth regnal year were these taken over by his favorite wife, Shibtu.38 According to the offering lists, whose order appears to mimic the court hierarchy, Addu-duri ranked first among the women.39 She supervised many servants on her own, including a female doctor.40 A woman of great wealth and property, she owned land, including a field producing sesame, a weaving establishment and cattle.41 Yet another example of this pattern for the queen mother can be found in late Neo-Assyrian times. According to Melville, the ama lugal, or queen mother, was the highest-ranking woman in Assyria.42 Queen mothers generally lived in their own residences rather than in their son’s palaces. Perhaps the best known queen mother of the late Neo-Assyrian period is Naqia. Naqia (also sometimes known as Zakutu) and Sennacherib were the parents of Esarhaddon. Naqia’s importance,

32 D. Charpin, OBO 160/4 pp. 157–164 and J. Sasson, “On the ‘Išhi-Addu, Seal from Qatna,” in S. Dönmez (ed.), Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz pp. 245–246. 33 H. Marsmann, Women in Ugarit and Israel p. 325. 34 D. Charpin OBO 160/4 p. 164. 35 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p.50 and note 313. Sasson raised the possibility that Addu-duri was Zimri-Lim’s aunt, “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” in D. Charpin and M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum II p.303. 36 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV pp. 50–51. 37 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 50. 38 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 51. 39 Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL En d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’…,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.) Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme p. 267. 40 M.-V. Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL En d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’…,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.) Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme p. 269 and Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 51. 41 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 25 and note 135, also pp. 50–51, including note 319. 42 S. Melville “Neo-Assyrian Royal Women,” JAOS 124 (2004): 52.



Evidence on the Role of the Queen and her Residence 

 79

wealth and prestige were immense. Like Dusigu, however, Naqi’a’s eminence as queen mother should not blind us to the fact that she probably was a junior wife (not queen) in Sennacherib’s reign, as Radner has pointed out.43

Evidence on the Role of the Queen and her Residence Moving now to the evidence from Old Babylonian Mari in Zimri-Lim’s time, we shall of course consider whether Shibtu, the most famous royal wife there, fits the pattern we have outlined for a typical queen of a polygamous marriage with an associated harem. But Shibtu was certainly not the only royal wife at Mari, and a few prefatory words are in order. Zimri-Lim, upon taking over Yasmah-Addu’s kingdom, also took over Yasmah-Addu’s harem.44 However, he allowed two of the women from Yasmah-Addu’s harem to become priestesses,45 and, possibly in order to keep the powerful king of Qatna happy, he may have sent Beltum back to her father. This is at least Sasson’s view.46 Zimri-Lim also altered the hierarchy of the old harem somewhat, demoting some of the female performers from the rank of chief musicians to junior musicians.47 Zimri-Lim was, at the time of his takeover, married to a woman named Dam-hurasi and she seems to have been the mother of his heir, Yagid-Lim.48 He had another wife also at this time, Yataraya.49 His marriage with Shibtu, daughter of the powerful king of Aleppo, appears to have been negotiated once he became king of Mari.50 Some of the marriage negotiations were preserved in the

43 K. Radner, “The Seal of Tašmetum-šarrat,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 694. 44 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p.37. 45 N. Ziegler, “A Questionable Daughter-in-law,” JCS 51 (1999): 56. 46 J. Sasson, “On the ‘Išhi-Addu’ Seal,” in S. Donmez (ed.), Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz pp. 245–6. Durand’s suggestion (OBO 160/4 p. 164 and note 766) that Beltum was another way of referring to Dam-hurasi is not followed by Sasson. And one must wonder about the parentage of Zimri-Lim’s heir. If Dam-hurasi was his mother, as Ziegler posits, then either Zimri-Lim’s marriage to Dam-hurasi was well-established before he took Mari, or Zimri-Lim in a gesture of unbelievable generosity accepted his rival’s son as his own heir. 47 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p.37 and chart 2.3. 48 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 53. 49 J. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters,” Birot Vol. 1994 p. 303; and N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV pp. 56–7. Yataraya may have been the mother of Kiru. 50 Some previous scholarship has viewed Shibtu as Zimri-Lim’s queen/ primary wife, to whom he was married before claiming Mari’s throne; one can also see the suggestion in some secondary

80 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

Mari archives. Shibtu herself appears to have arrived towards the end of Zimri-Lim’s first regnal year51 (Zimri-Lim ruled only about fifteen years before being annihilated by Hammurabi. If we assume that Shibtu was between 15–20 at her marriage, then she would have been widowed before she was thirty; moreover, she could have been about the same age as Zimri-Lim’s children from his earlier marriage.) Shibtu’s position was equivocal. As the daughter of an important king, her position and prestige had to be high, but Zimri-Lim already had a chief wife: there seems to have been no question that, at the time of the marriage to Shibtu, Dam-hurasi would continue as chief wife. Therefore, her father appears to have been at pains to negotiate a marriage in which his daughter Shibtu would be accorded the privileges associated with the rank of queen, though her official place in the hierarchy was second, slipped in between the existing wives, Dam-hurasi and Yataraya.52 De facto, Shibtu acted as though she were queen. Dam-hurasi was relegated to a secondary palace at Terqa and, as Ziegler suggests, “il ne semble pas que Dâm-hurâşi ait occupé une place vraiment importante dans le royaume de Mari.”53 Zimri-Lim may not have been very close to her. However, Dam-hurasi was not demoted and in fact, the size of her allocations was increased when Shibtu arrived, perhaps as a compensatory gesture.54 She retained the title beltum and maintained a larger staff than Shibtu.55 Dam-hurasi owned land, for instance in a location called Bit Akkaka, and received diplomatic gifts, such as a palanquin sent from Qatna.56 In short, Zimri-Lim’s marital situation appears to have been complicated: one wife was officially queen, while another was not but acted as though she were. The complication is made worse by the fact that some previous scholarship held that Zimri-Lim was married to Shibtu before he took over Mari, that Shibtu was his queen and that the alliance with Aleppo was a contributing factor in his coup.57

sources that Zimri-Lim’s taking Mari was aided by his powerful father-in-law, which Charpin has shown to be inaccurate, “Chroniques Bibliographiques 6. Comment faire connaître la civilization Mésopotamienne?,” RA 100 (2006): 126. 51 Specifically, in month vi of ZL1’, N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p.54. 52 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 56. See also J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives pp. 107 ff. 53 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 53. It has even been suggested that at one point she was made a priestess of Dagan in Terqa. 54 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p.52. 55 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 53–55. 56 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 25 note 135 and 52. 57 To give just one example, A. Kuhrt, “Zimri-Lim, who had been biding his time in exile at the court of his father-in-law in Aleppo, was able to regain the throne of Mari, strongly supported by his in-laws.” The Ancient Near East Vol. I p. 98.



The Queen’s Residence 

 81

The Queen’s Residence Shibtu’s residence was already a topic of negotiation from the prenuptial stage: her father wanted to ensure that Shibtu had her own residence and was allowed to stay there five to six days per month “to care for her residence,” though she “should reside with her husband.”58 Thus, Shibtu did not live completely in the main Mari palace: she had “her own apartments even though her administrative duties brought her back to the palace during the daytime.”59 She too is thought to have lived in the building the excavators called the petit palais oriental and it was there that Shibtu entertained.60 Shibtu had some responsibilities to run the “harem,” or quarters of the concubines and other palace women.61 Batto summarized his conclusions: … “one may suggest that it was something of a standard practice under Zimri-Lim that the chief wife in each of his palaces exercised direction over the female palace personnel and to a lesser extent over the palace itself.”62 Shibtu may have had more authority and more freedom of movement than the other women.63 Living outside the harem was a mark of great status and a privilege that her father negotiated for her prior to agreeing to the match.64 “In fact, for women, real prestige was associated with freedom of movement.”65 The Neo-Assyrian queens were known as ša ekalli, “she of the palace,” which became sēgallu, “queen.”66 The queen “had her own household with luxurious residences”67 in both the Neo-Assyrian period and earlier, between the 14th-11th c.

58 According to ARM 26.13, in J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 109. 59 J. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” in D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, Florilegium Marianum II p. 304 note 14. 60 N. Ziegler, FM IV p. 56. 61 B. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari p.13. He added, “It is likely that the king maintained a harem in each of these residences, at the head of which was probably one of his secondary wives.” Batto, Studies on Women at Mari p. 21. 62 B. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari p. 23. 63 It has also been suggested that the queens and queen mothers at Ebla had more freedom of movement than the lower-ranking ladies. J. Westenholz doubted that this could be true for either Ebla or Mari as “Such dichotomy of female roles is never found in the Islamic World.” JAOS (1990): 514. While I applaud her desire to use comparative data from the region, her logic is unclear to me. 64 N. Ziegler, FM IV p. 42. 65 J. Sasson, “The Posting,” in D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, Florilegium Marianum II p. 304. 66 The expected term šarratum was used only of goddesses or, rarely, women who were independent rulers, such as the queens of Arabia. 67 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday p. 619.

82 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

B.C.68 Typically women of great wealth and property, and in charge of numerous servants, Parpola attributes to the Neo-Assyrian queens “large landed possessions all over the empire”69 and notes they employed, in addition to the regular run-of-the mill servants, such high-status specialists as their own personal charioteers and goldsmiths.70 Neo-Assyrian queens do not appear to have been restricted in their movements and seem to have been able to travel on their own, without the king.71 This stands in contrast to the concubines of the era, who were far more restricted. The Neo-Assyrian Queen did not live in the harem, but controlled its administration.72

Evidence on the Number of Concubines and Total Size of the Harem I have suggested as a general model that an average ruler’s harem might contain between 5–12 junior wives/concubines, plus numerous other women, including a few dozen performers, who could be on intimate relations with the king; additionally, there were a number of staffers, for a total of about 200–300 persons per harem per palace. Let us run through the evidence that supports these assertions. At Ebla, at least in the reign of Išar-Damu texts record between 27–33 “great ladies” of the harem, including the queen, the concubines, and various dancers and dwarves.73 To the best of my knowledge, the Ebla evidence does not allow us to subdivide these thirty or so women to determine how many were concubines,

68 P. Garelli, “Hofstaat,” RlA 4 (1972–5): 447: “La reine eut toujours ses quartiers personnels.” 69 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 619. 70 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 619. 71 Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday p.619. 72 Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday p. 613, also P. Garelli “Hofstaat,” RlA 4 (1975): 447. 73 H. Waetzoldt estimated between 23–45 women in this category on the basis of texts available to him in 1987; “Frauen (dam) in Ebla,” in L. Cagni (ed.), Ebla 1975–1985 pp. 368–70. The figure of 27 was noted by Archi, “Rank at the Court of Ebla,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black p. 6. “In text TM 75.G.1225 king Išar-Damu’s harem is composed by 33 great ladies, 13 wet-nurses and elderly women and 15 women of inferior grade.” Biga, “Wet-Nurses at Ebla: A Prosopographical Study,” VO 12 (2000):81.



Evidence on the Number of Concubines and Total Size of the Harem 

 83

how many performers, and so on. These thirty or so women were at the apex of a larger group of women was called collectively the DAM EN, literally, the “ruler’s spouses.” Biga has shown that only some of this category of women, attested in ration texts from Ebla, were in fact the king’s partners; some of them were more generally part of the harem, that is, the women’s quarters.74 The total number of women in the harem was, at least according to one grain ration account, 330.75 Turning now to Mari in the age of Zimri-Lim, we find one main wife (Dam-hurasi), one favored wife (Shibtu) who seems to have officially been subordinate to Dam-hurasi, at least at the beginning, then 7 or 8 more junior wives (DAM) and 15 women referred to as GÉME, making in all (if we add the figures) 24 women.76 Some of the seven or so junior wives are known by name (e.g. Yataraya, Belessunu, Dagan-niri etc) and can be traced elsewhere in the archive.77 Their order of appearance on ration lists, and the relative size of their rations, always appear in the same strict hierarchical order.78 As for the 15 GÉME, at least some of these also were musicians,79 and hence they shall be discussed in the section on female performers. The total size of the Mari harem was of course far greater than these 24 women. At least at one point the harem at Mari contained 232 people.80 The Mari harem was not static: in Sasson’s words, “The harem expanded when Zimri-Lim won battles or when vassals sent daughters and sisters (with their retinue) to … Mari…But it also shrunk whenever women were assigned to other administrators or were given as gifts to kin and allies of the king.”81 Zimri-Lim had palaces not just in Mari but also at Terqa, Saggaratum, DurYahdun-Lim and Qattunan.82 Whether he had full-size harems in each palace

74 M.-G. Biga, “Femmes de la Famille Royale d’Ebla,” in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33 p. 42. Tonietti has recently concluded “At Ebla the term dam en was used to designate not only the ‘king’s wives’ but more in general the women of the royal family.” “The Expedition,” ZA 100 (2010): 78 note 100. 75 H. Waetzoldt, “Frauen (dam) in Ebla,” in L. Cagni (ed.), Ebla 1975–1985 p. 373. 76 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm Florilegium Marianum IV p. 43. Coincidentally, Haroun al-Rashid also had twenty-four concubines, H. Kennedy, When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World p. 165. 77 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 52. 78 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 44. 79 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 43. 80 J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33 p. 85 and M. van de Mieroop Cuneiform Texts p. 150. 81 J. M. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” in D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum II Birot Vol. p. 303. See also J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives pp. 40–41. 82 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 195.

84 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

remains unclear. Zimri-Lim also owned property outside Mari and may have had women also in such homes.83 But at that time even much smaller kingdoms could have harems of considerable size. We know, for instance, that when Zimri-Lim’s sister married a man named Adal-šenni in a fairly minor place called Burundum that she was in charge of 200 women, including female performers and weavers, who are said to execute her orders.84 In Shamshi-Adad’s time, at least at Chagar Bazar (ancient Ašnakkum), harems could be established not just for the ruler but also for dignitaries: we know of one Sin-iqišam who had “two main wives, five secondary wives, as well as thirty-three songstresses, a group that may well have included concubines.”85 Neo-Assyrian harems appear very similar to the one of Mari, though slightly larger (about 250–300 women in all): and the multiplicity of Neo-Assyrian palaces resulted in a multiplicity of harems.86 Esarhaddon inventoried the harem in his Nineveh palace, with a total of 249 women.87 But, as Parpola showed, quite a number of these women were servants or professionals, not concubines or ladies of rank.88 The residents of these quarters were sekrēti, literally, sequestered or shut-in women: the term was written with one of a variety of Sumerograms, such as MÍ.ERIM.É.GAL (“taboo woman of the palace”), or MÍ.ŠÀ.É.GAL (“woman in the interior of the palace”).89 Their residence could be referred to as the bēt isāte, “the house of women.”90 Freedom of movement was not encouraged. Postgate notes that these women are almost never attested outside the physical building of the palace.91 Archaeologically, one can see in the excavations of the Nimrud harem area that this part of the palace was set apart and the whole of it had only two very

83 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 67 and note 114. 84 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p. 42. 85 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 41 and note 56. 86 Parpola identified 13 harems, some in smaller towns and with fewer women. S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 617. 87 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 618. 88 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 618. 89 S. Melville, “Neo-Assyrian Royal Women,” JAOS 124 (2004): 41. Also S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies …Fales p. 614. The translations of the Sumerograms are my own. 90 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales p. 614. 91 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 197.



A Wife in Every Palace? 

 85

narrow entrances.92 The Review Palace at Nimrud had even tighter control, with evidence for a guard chamber and heavily bolted and barred doors still extant.93 Not all of the inhabitants were sexual partners for the king, as Neo-Assyrian harems apparently included some of the king’s female relatives (sisters, daughters) as well as staff members and administrators.94 In the previously-mentioned harem inventory from the reign of Esarhaddon, the figures are detailed enough to allow Parpola to calculate that in the Nimrud harem, maids made up 21 % of the total, musicians and dancers 25 %, and professionals like smiths or scribes, 15 %.95 Furthermore, Parpola has recently gathered texts that break down the number of servants and weavers associated with the harems in three Neo-Assyrian palaces: at Kilizi, there were 144 women, 39 servants and 20 weavers; at Adian, there were 111 women, 77 servants and 25 weavers, while at Arbela there were 50 women, 38 servants and 20 weavers.96 Textile production appears to have been a major occupation in the Nimrud palace.97

A Wife in Every Palace? Zimri-Lim was often absent from Mari on campaign or various trips to inspect his countryside. He had multiple palaces (five are known); each had a wife, who in the king’s absence, ran the palace. His main wife Shibtu ran the main palace in Mari in Zimri-Lim’s absence. A secondary palace at Terqa was administered by another wife, Dam-hurasi.98 Shibtu does not seem to have travelled with Zimri-Lim, nor is there evidence known to me for Dam-hurasi leaving Terqa. Shibtu

92 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales p. 614. 93 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales p. 614. 94 S. Melville, “Neo-Assyrian Royal Women,” JAOS 124 (2004): 38. 95 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales p. 618. 96 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to F. M. Fales p. 618. 97 Parpola, noting the 1 ton of flax sent to the Central Palace at Nimrud, wrote “It is tempting to speculate that the harem women actually passed a considerable part of their time spinning yarn.” “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies …Fales p. 618. 98 N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimri-Lim pp. 12–14, notes the existence of palaces not just at Mari, but also at Terqa, Saggaratum, Dur-Yahdun-Lim and Qattunan, each with resident women; see also B. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari. pp. 21–22.

86 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

stayed home at Mari when Zimri-Lim travelled, though she is attested going as far as Sagaratum to meet her husband on one occasion.99 Even when Zimri-Lim went to Ugarit and met Shibtu’s father there, Shibtu stayed home. Zimri-Lim was accompanied on that trip by his third-ranking woman, Yataraya.100 This appears to have been the norm rather than atypical: the king and his chief wife do not seem to have travelled together according to the Mari correspondence. Splitting up the wives in different palaces makes a lot of sense, not only for minimizing the inevitable tensions of polygamy, but also for the king to ensure that his various palaces were well-administered in his absence. The Neo-Assyrian evidence examined by Melville also seems to suggest that while the king’s consort would have run the main palace, secondary wives seem to have been stationed at smaller palaces, some even in the same city as the main palace.101 In the reign of Sennacherib, for instance, Melville has identified women’s quarters in three palaces.102

Evidence on the Origins of the Concubines and Other Harem Women Ebla evidence suggests that some of the harem women originated in neighboring lands. While dynastic marriage is possible, Biga cautions that some of these women may have been gifts “pour favoriser les rapports de bon voisinage.”103 Postgate has argued that Neo-Assyrian royal concubines were described broadly as “slave-women of the palace.”104 Many of the women in the Neo-Assyrian harems appear to have been captured in war. A standard practice of warfare at that time was to take over the harem of a defeated ruler in toto. Thus, the Neo-Assyrian ‘house of women’ housed “entire harems of conquered foreign kings, which not only included the wives, daughters and concubines of the defeated

99 J.-M. Durand and J. Margueron, “La question du Harem Royal dans le palais de Mari,” Journal des Savants 4 (1980): 258. 100 N. Ziegler, FM IV pp. 56–7. 101 S. Melville, “Neo-Assyrian Royal Women,” JAOS 124 (2004): 48. 102 S. Melville, “Neo-Assyrian Royal Women,” JAOS 124 (2004): 38. 103 M.-G. Biga, “Femmes de la Famille Royale d’Ebla,” in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33 pp. 44–5. 104 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 225.



Evidence on the Performing Women 

 87

kings but also their female servants and entertainers.”105 For these women, the harem could have looked more like a prisoner-of-war camp. Esarhaddon’s harem inventory from Nimrud again proves very useful. The origins of a number of the women were identified: Assyrian, Egyptian, Kushite, Hittite, Kassite, Aramaean or more specifically from cities such as Tyre, Arpad, Ashdod.106 These were concubines, but along with them came performers from the same locations.107

Evidence on the Performing Women Ebla has not produced a great deal of information on the performing women in the harem. Archi has shown that the roster of the staff at the Ebla palace included 26–30 musicians, but it is not clear that these were all women or concentrated in the women’s quarters.108 The category of performing women was a porous one: we have examples of singers at Mari who were clearly doing more for the king than merely singing, as they were also later attested in official lists as concubines (for instance, one Beltani, who was a junior musician in Zimri-Lim 1’ and a junior wife four years later),109 leading both Ziegler and Sasson to conclude that “Le terme de nârtum était parfois employé par euphémisme pour designer des concubines, voire des favorites, du souverain.”110 Performing women seem often to have come from foreign lands, and this occurred in several ways. First, noble or princely ladies in a rival’s harem could be captured. The Mari correspondence refers to women from the household of the defeated ruler Yahdun-Lim who were to be trained as musicians in Yasmah-Ad-

105 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies …Fales p. 614. Garelli’s description of the same phenomenon was more colorful: “Toutes les femmes et les filles de souverains étrangers, designees par ce terme, semblent avoir beaucoup interéssé leurs augustes ravisseurs, qui mentionnent leur arrivée à la cour avec une évidente satisfaction.” P. Garelli, “Hofstaat,” RlA 4 (1972–5): 447. 106 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales p. 619. 107 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales p. 619. 108 A. Archi, “Palast, Ebla,” RlA 10 (2004): 205. 109 N. Ziegler, FM IV p. 58. 110 N. Ziegler, FM IV p. 69. Sasson refers to “concubines (often euphemistically labelled ‘singers’),” in “The Posting of Letters,” in D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum II p. 304 and note 13.

88 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

du’s palace, then sent on to entertain the courts at Ekallatum or Shubat-Enlil. One daughter of Yahdun-Lim’s, however, ended up respectably married to a Mari diviner.111 The women in question were, it seems, the old king’s daughters, that is, Zimri-Lim’s sisters, though the term used could be taken to refer more generally to female servants.112 We might be tempted to assume that turning a king’s daughter into a harem entertainer was demeaning, a statement of power or even humiliation.113 In turn, when Zimri-Lim became king, he seems to have taken Shamshi-Addu’s wife, Akatiya, into his own harem, along with a few dozen others.114 A second method of obtaining foreign singing women was by inspecting women prisoners-of-war and selecting suitable ones from amongst the mass of women intended to be slaves in textile manufacturing establishments. The key attribute sought was not the ability to sing or dance but their physical attractiveness, as Zimri-Lim instructs his wife Shibtu when asking her to pick thirty or so prisoners of war to serve as musicians for him, he stresses they are to be perfect and flawless from their toenails to the hair of their head, and they are to be fed carefully so their appearance may not be displeasing.115 Presumably at some point it was made clear to Zimri-Lim that having his wife pick potential rivals to herself was unlikely to produce the results he desired, so in a second letter, Zimri-Lim wrote that he had changed his mind and preferred to choose his own musicians,

111 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 41 and note 57. 112 N. Ziegler, “A Questionable Daughter-in-law,” JCS 51 (1999): 56 and note 12. Ziegler believes the women to be most likely the defeated king’s daughters, which was also the interpretation of J. Laessøe, People of Ancient Assyria in 1963 p. 46. Most recently, J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives pp. 40–41. 113 It is always dangerous, of course, to use our own assumptions for a time and place so removed for us. In the Ur III court, the king’s sister-in-law, Bizua, was at times associated with musical performances herself, especially as a lamentation singer (balag) and there is no reason to think she was anything other than a high-ranking, respectable matron; see D. I. Owen, “Random Notes,” JAOS 108 p. 114 and Hallo, ASJ 3 (1981): 70. 114 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives pp. 40–41 and notes 56 and 57. 115 According to ARM 10. 126. Some scholars have seen the episode in a desexualized fashion: for instance, Dalley described the incident thus: “Zimri-Lim wrote to Shibtu asking her to select girls from a new group of captives, girls who had no blemish or brands (which were marks of a previous dedication to a temple, or of slavery). It now seems certain that these girls were to be trained as singers, perhaps for a particular type of cult singing, hence the emphasis on physical perfection, and that Shibtu was not being asked to choose a harem for her own husband.” Mari and Karana p. 99. There is no evidence known to me that these performers were to be associated with religion in any way, and we know now that “singer” and “concubine” could be used synonymously. So while Dalley’s version of events might have been more pleasing to Shibtu, it does not seem accurate.



Evidence on the Administration of the Harems 

 89

whom he would then later deliver to Shibtu.116 Whether the legal status of these women was that of a slave is unclear: they were taken from a line of prisoners of war entering into slave status, but whether their diversion into the harem meant that they were no longer to be slaves or whether they were to be slaves in another location cannot now be known. A third method of importing foreign performing women attested in the Mari correspondence was gift exchange of slave women. Zimri-Lim’s father-in-law, Yarim-Lim of Aleppo, was apparently so much enamoured of one of his musicians that she accompanied him on state visits, so Zimri-Lim contemplated giving Yarim-Lim a new musician from Mari as a gift. This idea was apparently vetoed by Shibtu and/or her mother.117 Whether all or even the majority of these performing women were slaves is unclear. In the Abbasid harem, the dancing and singing girls were slaves, though specially trained. Kennedy commented, “At one end of the spectrum, some of them were great artists and at the other they were effectively prostitutes whose musical talents were a front for more basic charms.”118

Evidence on the Administration of the Harems There seems to have been considerable variation in how the harems were run in various periods. 119 Sometimes a king’s female relatives could be put in charge of certain aspects of the administration of the harem. For example, when Zimri-Lim of Mari took over Yasmah-Addu’s harem, which contained Yasmah-Addu’s older kinswoman Ama-duga (possibly even his mother), Zimri-Lim made her the supervisor of cooks.120 In Neo-Assyrian times, while the queen was the head of the household, the actual running of the harem was entrusted to a high female official whose rank

116 ARM 10. 125. These letters are discussed in Durand and Margeuron, Journal des Savants 4 (1980): 255 note 4. 117 Ziegler, FM IV p. 69. See also J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives pp. 177–8. 118 H. Kennedy, When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World p. 173. 119 This was true much later as well. Kennedy has argued that Abbasid harems changed in the 10th c. A.D., introducing more restrictions on women’s movements. H. Kennedy, When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World p. 160. 120 Specifically, of the abarakkatum-cooks; judging by the elaborate nature of the Mari kitchen equipment, it would not be unreasonable to assume that supervising the cooks was an important position. On Ama-duga, see N. Ziegler, Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm FM IV p.37.

90 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

was (surprisingly) equivalent to a provincial governor: the šakintu.121 It was not uncommon for the šakintu to be an older concubine with children of marriageable age.122 The offices of the šakintu at Nimrud were located at the entrance to the women’s quarters, thus awarding her considerable control over movements of persons and goods in and out of this area.123 But it is unclear whether the šakintu could freely come and go herself or whether her movements also were restricted.124 A similar office existed in the Ottoman harem, in which the wishes of the queen mother (the Sultan Valide) were carried out either by her chief eunuch or her “Lady Controller.”125

Evidence on the Staff of the Harem The Mari harem had its own entry way, with a female porter on the inner side and a male guard on the outside.126 This was not unique to Mari. At the town Ašlakka, when a daughter of Zimri-Lim arrived there and found she was not the primary but rather a secondary wife, she wrote back home in some discontent that all she could do was sit on her hands in the women’s quarters, which were guarded.127 It was not uncommon at Mari for brides to bring along with them a small cohort of servants from home. The bride’s old nursemaid, or nanny, might well accompany her former charge to her new home.128 Sometimes termed ummum, “mother,” it has been speculated that such women were at times the actual birth mothers rather than nursemaids.129 Although there is no evidence that girls regularly received formal educations in the Old Babylonian period, nine female scribes are attested from the Mari

121 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 224 and S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies …Fales p.616. 122 One presumes then that the children were fathered by the king. 123 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales pp.616–7. 124 Parpola believes šakintu-women were still sequestered: “For all her wealth and influence, the manageress appears to have been as limited in her freedom as the rest of the harem women… Revealingly, the people appearing as witnesses in the archives of the manageress are almost exclusively ones serving in the harem… the manageress had only female and eunuch servants…” — “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies …Fales p. 617. 125 N. Penzer, The Harem p. 177. 126 N. Ziegler, FM IV pp.42–44. 127 N. Ziegler, FM IV pp. 43–4 (also discussed by M. Guichard, RA 103 (2009): 19–50. 128 N. Ziegler, FM IV p. 42 and note 246. 129 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives pp. 319–320, and note 74.



But Was There a Harem in the Third Dynasty of Ur? 

 91

harem, most of them bearing rather fanciful Sumerian names.130 The status of these literate women does not appear to have been particularly high, and Lion points to an example in which a princess from Mari brought with her a female scribe from home, along with eight other servant-women, as part of her dowry, leading her to conclude “The custom of employing female scribes in the palace of Syria and Upper Mesopotamia is thus well-attested. Their abilities did not necessarily give them a prestigious position: they had servile status and the female population of the palace had recourse to them probably in order to limit their contact with male personnel.”131 Female scribes are also known from the Neo-Assyrian period at Kalah and Nineveh.132 In Middle Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian palaces, eunuchs served as harem guards, but, as Postgate correctly observed, it seems very questionable to see eunuchs in such a role prior to 1500 B.C.133

But Was There a Harem in the Third Dynasty of Ur? Having now outlined the evidence for a basic pattern for harems in Mesopotamia, from the time of Early Dynastic Ebla down through Neo-Assyrian times, it seems clear that throughout Mesopotamian history, there was a pattern of a warlord whose palace contained a substantial harem, and this basic pattern (with variations) lasted for centuries. This need not mean, of course, that all city-states or all eras necessarily had a harem. For instance, in Early Dynastic Lagash, there is no evidence that the rulers had more than one wife and no harems appear to be in evidence there.134 In the temple-state conceptualization of the cosmos, the city-state should parallel the divine realm, so the ruler’s wife had a strong role of her own to play in administering the households of the female element of the patron couple’s estates, as we

130 B. Lion, “Literacy and Gender,” in K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture p.99. 131 B. Lion, “Literacy and Gender,” in K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture p.99. 132 W. W. Hallo, Origins pp.262–3. Possibly one document in the Mari archives (ARM 10.141) was written by a female scribe, J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 324. 133 J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 197. See also S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies …Fales p. 616. 134 Stol correctly notes that for Early Dynastic Lagash “Here at this time we find nothing suggesting polygamy or a harem.” Women in the Ancient Near East p. 463.

92 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

see at Girsu.135 So what are we to make of the Ur III evidence? Do we seem to see a single wife or the harem pattern outlined in the earlier pages of this chapter? Put another way, were the households of Shulgi and his successors more like En-metena or Uru-KA-gina or more like Zimri-Lim? To my mind, the Ur III evidence seems to fit the Mari pattern much more closely, implying the existence of harems already in Ur III times. Shulgi was a man with almost innumerable partners, as the next two chapters will show in detail. We do see evidence (typical for the harem pattern) for a basic structure of one queen and about 5–10 concubines for the Ur III rulers Shulgi, Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin. Shulgi’s long life meant that multiple women held the title of chief wife (dam and then later NIN) during his lifetime; to the best of our knowledge, these women were Taram-Uram, from the royal house of Mari, Geme-Sin and Nin-kalla, though quite possibly there were a few others. We know of at least five women who served as his lukurs, or junior wives/ concubines: these were Shulgi-simti, Ea-niša, and Šuqurtum, and probably Geme-Ninlilla and ME-Ea.136 The status of some, such as Geme-Ninlilla, is equivocal: while she seems to have been a lukur, we cannot be sure. Shulgi’s palace also contained a number of dancing women and musicians who may have performed for the king more privately, again fitting the pattern of a harem. We also can begin to see that certain women are centered in specific palaces. Only one chief wife is known from the reign of Amar-Sin: that is Abi-sim137 ti, whose origins have been identified as at Mari or Eshnunna.138 Frayne identified four lukurs for Amar-Sin – Puzur4-ú-ša, Ú-da-ad-zé-na-at, Za-ga-AN-BI and X-na-tum.139 There also was a woman named Ama-éme, identified as a lukur, but

135 Chapter twelve lays out this argument in much more detail. 136 F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 201 and T. 17 lists the same women, with the exception that she places Shulgi-simti as a queen and Nin-kalla as a junior wife. 137 The most recent discussion of Abi-simti is F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur pp. 105–150, see also my own forthcoming “Abi-Simti and the Role of the Queen Mother in Ur III Times;” for an excellent earlier treatment, see P. Steinkeller, “More of the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 79–80. Unsubstantiated assertions that Abi-simti and Shulgi-simti were the same woman (despite the latter being dead and buried) can be found in Y. Wu and J. Wang, “The Identifications of Šulgi-simti, Wife of Šulgi, with Abi-simti, Mother of Amar-Sin,” JAC 27 (2012): 1–27. 138 Arguing for a possible Mari origin, see my own “Beyond Chronology” in W. Hallo and I. Winter (eds.), Seals and Seal Impressions p. 67 and P. Michalowski, “The Ideological Foundations of the Ur III State,” in W. Sommerfeld (ed.), 2000 v. Chr. p. 232; Sallaberger opted for an Ešnunna connection, OBO 160/3 p. 184. 139 Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 267. F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 201, T. 17, does not add to Frayne’s list.



But Was There a Harem in the Third Dynasty of Ur? 

 93

which king she was associated with is unclear.140 These women are very poorly attested in extant sources, and sometimes we know only half their names from single, broken attestations, or are unsure how to understand their names, as the list above shows.141 It would be unsurprising if there were more. Given that polygamy was usual for a king yet very rare for anyone else, we may perhaps assume that Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin were entitled to concubines only after each man became king and a deified king at that. Thus, there would have been a large age difference between Abi-simti, who probably married Amar-Sin decades before his accession, and Amar-Sin’s concubines, and thus also a large difference between Amar-Sin’s children by Abi-simti (who were probably grown at his accession) and the new children born from the concubines, who must have been small children at his death after eight years of reign. Shu-Sin’s mother, Abi-simti, was queen mother and so held took precedence over all Shu-Sin’s wives.142 His chief wife can be identified as Kubatum, almost certainly the mother of his heir, Ibbi-Sin.143 Kubatum generally took the title lukur, but was occasionally (and perhaps especially after the birth of Ibbi-Sin) granted the title NIN. Frayne knew of only two more wives of Shu-Sin: A.AB.BA-ba-áš-ti (generally read Tiamat-bašti)144 and Šà-bi-x-x.145 Weiershäuser lists four junior wives for Shu-Sin: Ti’amat-bašti, Takūn-mātum, Šalim-niaš and Geme-Nanna.146 Additional secondary wives of Shu-Sin can be identified as Mama-imti,147 Hatitum,148 and Nuratum.149 These women do not seem to occur outside of the palace

140 She appears on BE 3/1.20. 141 See Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 267. 142 On the queen mother, see T. Sharlach, forthcoming. 143 On Kubatum see F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur with earlier scholarship, especially P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 80. See also my own “The Remembrance of Kings Past,” pp. 421–432 in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinst FS. 144 See Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 336, (though note the original reading of the name, e.g., in Lenzen Iraq 22 (1960) read Aba-bašti); Steinkeller, NABU 2007 #15. 145 Frayne RIME 3/2 pp. 336–7. 146 F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 201, T. 17. Sigrist had believed Geme-Nanna was one of the royal princesses, probably a daughter of Amar-Sin (RA 80 [1986]: 185), but as she also appears on the new year ration text, Nisaba 15.436 (SS7), her status as a lukur now seems evident. 147 Mama-imti appears for instance with the title lukur in Nisaba 15.436 (SS7), a tablet which records the allocation of wool rations at the new year (siki-ba zag-mu). 148 She also appears on Nisaba 15.436 (SS7). 149 She appears in Nisaba 15.436 (SS7).

94 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

context and thus they may not have had freedom of movement, though this remains to be proven. In Ur III contexts, we do see a fundamental difference between the possessions and staffs of the queens as over against the concubines. Queens owned land and had wealth in cattle as well as sheep. They controlled some of the palace staff, such as cooks and musicians, which suggests that they ran at least certain sections of the palace. Queens had high birth, generally being scions of neighboring royal families. They had freedom of movement. Concubines did not own land and rarely had cattle. Mainly they received an allowance of 30 sheep per month and operated textile workshops. Sometimes they received the odd pair of shoes or jewelry item, but there is little evidence they possessed much of anything on their own (in fact, one could argue that they themselves were more possessions of the king than anything else). The concubines had staff, but these were body servants rather than palace administrators. There is no evidence they had freedom of movement, though it is always dangerous to draw conclusions on the absence of evidence. We cannot be sure whether Shulgi was capturing women in war and making them concubines or court performers, but it would not be at all surprising. Chapters five and six will lay out the evidence for these distinctions between the queen and concubines in detail. At least in my opinion, the Ur III pattern for the organization of the royal women is so close to the known harems of Mari (and Ebla and the Neo-Assyrian eras) that it seems very likely that a harem organization existed already at the Ur III court from the reign of Shulgi on. If so, what was this organization called? As we shall see, terminology for the women’s quarters has varied considerably though time.

Terminology The Arabic root for harem, as is well known, is related to the Hebrew HRM and refers to things set apart, or taboo, especially to be held apart from common usage or view but reserved for God or the king. A harim woman is, in Arabic, a “cut-off woman, taboo woman” and the harem itself refers to a “sacred, inviolable place.”150 Other related terms could be used: “The term harīm means the protected or inviolable part of the house where only males closely related to the owner are allowed the visit. In fact, the term is seldom used in the sources of the [Abbasid] period. More commonly the caliph would refer to his huram, a plural

150 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies … Fales p. 614.

Terminology 

 95

word of the same root, meaning his women and, more generally, those under his protection. The huram was a group of people rather than a particular building or physical location.”151 Although the institution of the harem appears to have remained fairly stable over the course of Mesopotamian history, the term for it varied. At Mari, the harem appears to have been referred to as tubqum, literally, “interior.”152 We have seen that the Neo-Assyrian usage appears to have been “house of women” or just the women of the palace. Note that a very similar term is used in documents from the reign of Shulgi to describe woman, PN é-gal-kam, “(she) is of the palace.”153 If a harem existed for the royal wives of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the obvious question is what it was called. An é-munus (perhaps é-mí), “house of women,” is an obvious candidate. Stol identified the é-mí as “private rooms” for women and young children, noting, “There are indications that even in the earliest time, a separate ‘women’s house’ would have existed.”154 The é-mí does appear as a location for certain deliveries in Ur III administrative texts but it is not a term used in the Shulgi-simti archive. We may note parenthetically that other Old Babylonian documentation concerning the palace, for instance, at Uruk, does refer to the é-munus-e-ne, house(hold) of the women, which could possibly refer also to women’s quarters or in fact a harem there as well.155 There is also a literary term, ama5, a ligature of the signs é (or its Emesal equivalent, gá) and the sign for woman, SAL. The Akkadian equivalent of this Sumerian word was maštaku, usually translated “chamber”. Defined by PSD as ‘the private quarters where the women live,’ ‘the private quarters in general’ and ‘the secluded parts of a house or temple,’156 the term appears in highly literary contexts such as the Lamentation over Ur or Inanna and Bilulu, and does not appear to be a common term used in administrative documents. There are a number of references to the ama5 being ‘desecrated’ or ‘defiled’ by enemies in the

151 H. Kennedy, When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World p. 160. 152 J.-M. Durand and J. Margueron, “La Question du Harem Royal,” Journal des Savants 4 (1980): 255. CAD T V. 18 (2006): 447–448 however defines the term only as “1. (outer) corner 2. (a part of the liver).” 153 As in RA 17.212.4, dating to S37.11.00. 154 M. Stol, Women in the Ancient Near East p. 461. 155 S. Sanati-Müller, BaM 23 (1992): 136 and note 4; discussed by D. Charpin, OBO 160/4 252 note 1292. 156 This quote is drawn from the draft of the last PSD volume of the letter A by A. Sjoberg and H. Behrens provided to me by Ake; I am grateful to S. Tinney for permission to quote from it. The lexical evidence comes from OB Aa 224:1.

96 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

PSD entry. In any case, this term shows us that there was a conceptualization of a secluded women’s area that could be defiled. However, in my opinion, the most likely term in Sumerian to refer to the royal harem is é-uz-ga. This term is not uncommon in Ur III texts, though its meaning is elusive. Jones and Snyder, in an early discussion of the term, showed that it was used for a location in the vicinity of Puzrish-Dagan to which small quantities of animals (e.g. a lamb or two) were sent between S44 and SS9.157 Probably because the Sumerian UZmušen is a goose, they proposed that the euzga “may well have been a poultry yard in which geese or similar birds were kept.”158 This suggestion has not met with acceptance. Some scholars are content to leave the term untranslated.159 Sigrist suggested that uz-ga is a syllabic spelling for a term for taboo or cultic impurity.160 Sallaberger translated the term é-uz-ga “Taboo House” and identified it as a private part of the palace, which he compared to a “Forbidden City.”161 One must wonder whether the forbidden areas were specifically those in which the women dwelt. Thus, é-uz-ga, literally “taboo house,” is in original meaning very close to the Arabic harem. An in-depth discussion of the é-uz-ga would require its own monograph, and therefore is outside the purview of the present work. One may, in a preliminary sense, note the following. First, previous treatments of the term in articles have established that the é-uz-ga was not a single place, but that there were multiple euzgas, one in Tummal and one around Nippur or Puzrish-Dagan.162 They also appear in documents from Ur, Umma and Uruk.163 The most frequently mentioned é-uz-ga in the Ur III documentation, however, appears to be located in Puzrish-Dagan/Tummal.164 We have already seen that Tummal, sacred to the goddess Ninlil, was very near the luxuri-

157 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty p.227. 158 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty p.231. 159 For example, M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend p. 123 footnote 484. 160 M. Sigrist, Drehem pp. 158–162. 161 W. Sallaberger, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2003–5): 203 and “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan,” JEOL 38 (2003–4): 158–0. 162 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.131; M. Sigrist, Drehem pp.158- 162; P. Steinkeller, MC 4 (1992): 60 and “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium,” ZA 91 (2001): 68. 163 M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend p. 123. 164 P. Steinkeller, “The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur III Period” in P. Steinkeller and M. Hudson (eds.), Labor in the Ancient World p. 160 and notes 89 and 90.

Terminology 

 97

ous palace built by Shulgi at the very end of his third decade of rule. Sometimes provincial texts refer to the second é-uz-ga.165 Recorded allocations to the é-uz-ga were neither rare nor small. More than 550 texts recording allocations to the é-uz-ga are listed in the CDLI databases. Since Puzrish-Dagan texts tend to mention livestock, we are unsurprised to see many allocations of livestock to this place, often very tender meat like lambs or more rare game such as gazelle.166 Sometimes we also see bears or bear-cubs delivered there, and we assume these were more for entertainment than dinner.167 The date range of these texts is from about Shulgi’s 34th year onwards, especially frequent after Shulgi 43.168 Provincial archives also record numerous allocations to the é-uz-ga, as Steinkeller has discussed.169 Lagash and Umma texts record deliveries of pots,170 reed items,171 workers,172 leather173 and so on. The é-uz-ga was thus clearly the recipient of a great deal of support.

165 For example, two Lagash texts refer to the second é-uz-ga, one tablet from AS8 (FS Owen 169) and one from AS9 (Published by Student-Hickman Labor 309, CDLI P333949). 166 W. Sallaberger, “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan. Zur Bedeutung dieses Königlichen Archives,” JEOL 38 (2003–2004): 58. 167 MVN 11.182 (AS4 month 10) is just one of many examples, discussed by P. Michalowski, “Of Bears and Men,” pp. 285–320 in D. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Politics as Literature, Literature as Politics. This could of course be an incorrect assumption, as bear meat is edible and may have been considered a delicacy (as Sallaberger describes it on JEOL 38 [2003–2004]: 58) rather than a circus act. 168 Aleppo 131 (S35 month 7) is an Umma tablet recording payments into the bala account (šag4 bala-a), including reeds for the roof of the é-uz-ga: it is the first tablet that seems without question to refer to the é-uz-ga in a royal context. There are a handful of slightly earlier tablets from Umma that refer to an é-uz-ga (e.g. Aleppo 130, S34, Nik. 2.435, S35), but there are no reasons stated in the texts to suggest that these tablets refer to anything non-local (though it is not impossible that these tablets do all refer to facilities in Nippur/ Puzrish-Dagan). 169 P. Steinkeller, “The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur III Period” in P. Steinkeller and M. Hudson (eds.), Labor in the Ancient World p. 161 and notes 92–97. 170 For example, MVN 14.359 (AS9). 171 For example, MVN 16.945 (AS8) and BPOA 6.1058 (SS1). Englund suggested that the reeds might have been used to smoke meat there (CDLJ 2002 p. 4 section 4), but he does not explain why all the other labour or commodities sent to this location were needed. Thus, while he may be correct that meat was smoked at this location, it was hardly just a meat preservation unit. 172 For example, MVN 14.317 (SS2). 173 For example, BPOA 7.2040 (S47).

98 

 Chapter 4 Was There a Harem in Early Mesopotamia?

These facts led Wu to conclude that the é-uz-ga was a “royal dining hall.”174 Similarly, Sallaberger proposed that the é-uz-ga was part of the royal palace, a part whose access was highly restricted, thus giving it the “taboo house” name. (He compared this to the ‘Forbidden City’ terminology used in China).175 Steinkeller, on the other hand, felt that the location of the é-uz-ga in the Tummal/ Puzrish-Dagan area, together with the “taboo house” translation, suggested that the term é-uz-ga was an alternate name for the goddess Ninlil’s shrine. Concluding that, though he found this explanation “fairly likely,” he added “there is no conclusive evidence that the é-uz-ga was specifically connected with Ninlil’s cult.”176 It seems to me unlikely that the term é-uz-ga did refer to Ninlil’s cult because a number of tablets record allocations to Ninlil and then separately to the é-uzga.177 Even if the sources of the goods expended were different, thereby leading the scribe to want to keep the entries separate, there would be no logical reason to label two deliveries to the same place by two different names within two lines of each other on the same tablet. I therefore find Wu’s idea that the é-uz-ga was connected to the living quarters of the royal family to be more convincing. His analysis of the evidence suggested that royal cooks managed the é-uz-ga.178 Similarly, Tsouparopoulu’s analysis of the tablets also identified two royal cooks who received livestock for the é-uz-ga.179 One may also note the royal servant who received eight additional animals for the é-uz-ga.180 But the é-uz-ga cannot have been just another name for the royal kitchen itself, because there would be no reason to distinguish it from the ordinary royal kitchen, which we run across often in these texts. The é-uz-ga appears to have been closely connected to the royal family. Allred showed that two of the cooks associated with the é-uz-ga also were the requisitioners for livestock used for funerary offerings to deceased kings, including

174 Y. Wu and X. Li, “The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities and the é-uz-ga,” in M. Molina and S. Garfinkle (eds.), From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D. p. 445. 175 Sallaberger, JEOL 38 (2003–4): 58. 176 P. Steinkeller, “The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur III Period”, in P. Steinkeller and M. Hudson (eds.), Labor in the Ancient World p. 162. 177 For example, a tablet published by C. Johnson, CDLJ 2006/2 number 2 (S43) and Hermitage 3.135 (S44.05.24). 178 Wu, Y. and Li, X., “The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities and the é-uz-ga,” in M. Molina and S. Garfinkle (eds.), From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D p. 445. 179 C. Tsouparoupoulu, “Killing and Skinning Animals in the Ur III Period”, AoF 40 (2013): 158. These cooks were Urum-kidu and Aakalla. 180 According to BPOA 6.236 (SS4).

Terminology 

 99

Ur-Namma, Shulgi, and Amar-Sin. 181 More tellingly, in at least one example, the é-uz-ga is associated with the queen. In this tablet (USC 6521), the date of which is unfortunately now lost,182 but which seems to date to the reign of Shu-Sin, the queen mother Abi-simti and the king’s chief wife, Kubatum, appear, along with expenditures of livestock to the [é]-uz-ga. Thus, the é-uz-ga was a location in or very near the royal palace, lavishly supplied with meat and other goods and run by palace functionaries, which at least at times was associated with the queen or royal wives. This does not prove that the é-uz-ga was a harem, nor does it prove that a harem wherein women’s freedom of movement was limited even existed at this date, but enough evidence does exist (at least in my mind) to suggest that é-uz-ga (which after all does have exactly the same base meaning as the Arabic harem) might be the Ur III term for harem. While a systematic investigation into the term é-uz-ga is needed before we can say whether it was a women’s residence or harem, it does seem to be the case cross-culturally that the term used varied, whereas the basic harem pattern of a single wife with freedom of motion and seven or more lesser wives without that freedom persisted from Early Mesopotamia all the way to Ottoman times. A good deal of further research is needed on this topic before we can conclusively state that Shulgi broke from the one wife pattern of his father and adopted the harem pattern, but what we can see of the wives of Shulgi, Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin, in my opinion, fits the harem pattern very well.

181 L. Allred, Cooks and Kitchens (a Ph. D. thesis for Johns Hopkins 2006) p. 77. The tablet published as Ontario 1.144 (SS1.09.20) is an example. 182 USC 6521 is CDLI P235336 dating to month 4 day 26. The most probable year is Shu-Sin 1.

Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti It is undoubtedly true that we cannot expect to produce detailed biographical histories of Shulgi’s wives on the basis of the scattered texts here and there that are currently available for study. Although our archival reservoir for this period is very deep, few tablets survive that deal with the royal family prior to the middle of Shulgi’s third decade of reign. Nevertheless, by connecting the dots, patterns begin to emerge. Enough data survives about four of Shulgi’s wives—Shulgi-simti herself, Geme-Ninlilla, Ea-niša and Nin-kalla – that we can begin to see real differences among them. Arguably, the most important woman in Shulgi’s court in his third and fourth decade of rule was Nin-kalla, whom the texts identify as NIN, “queen,” who had close ties to the Nippur area. Shulgi-simti also was an important figure, probably one of the king’s favorites, and quite possibly most influential prior to Shulgi year 40 or so. Shulgi-simti was apparently a lukur (concubine), more specifically a lukur-kaskal-la, and her geographical ties are closest to Ur, though she may have moved around from palace to palace. Much previous scholarship has identified Shulgi-simti herself as queen and Nin-kalla as a concubine, but because I do not believe the documentary evidence supports this assertion, I will lay the evidence out in some detail in the following pages. In any case, regardless of their titles, Nin-kalla held a privileged position at court, holding land and cattle in addition to the usual sheep and goats; furthermore, she and she alone appears to have been in charge of the palace staff such as the royal chef and the musicians. She alone received official government payments and taxes. After Shulgi’s death, Nin-kalla retained some or all or her wealth, but lived retired from the pomp and bustle of the court, probably in the Nippur province. Shulgi-simti probably held a lesser rank and may have lived more in Ur than in Nippur. Though Shulgi-simti did not have much wealth on her own (mainly allowances of sheep and some textile interests) and did not supervise the palace staff, she appears to have been one of Shulgi’s favourites. She ran a religious foundation of sorts, at least nominally, providing for the cults of lesser-known north Babylonian goddesses and many other religious events in the three royal cities, Ur, Uruk and the Nippur area.1 At least on some occasions, perhaps rites of passage for her children, she could take a prominent role. But she does not appear to have outlived her husband and her position at court may always have been precarious—at any moment, Shulgi could bestow his favor on

1 Chapters ten and eleven will go through the evidence thoroughly. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-005

102 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

any number of other women. Without family nearby, she may have attempted to use her foundation in a symbiotic relationship with courtiers: if they supported her, she could help further their petitions with the king, while at the same time their links to her aided her standing at court.2 In the next chapter, we shall carefully consider the evidence for two other important wives late in the reign of Shulgi—Ea-niša and Geme-Ninlilla. Altogether, then, we seem to see an intricate arrangement of royal wives, each with her own place in the hierarchy (though this seems to have been subject to evolution) and each with her own enterprises and staffs. This was not a simple replication of faceless concubines, but a complex constellation of individual situations and interests.

Nin-kalla It is my opinion that Nin-kalla held the position of NIN, queen, for at least some years late in the reign of Shulgi. Almost all previous scholarship has in fact held that Nin-kalla was only a lukur, and Shulgi-simti was queen.3 But does the evidence really support that position? Let us consider the facts, both the evidence for her title and her unique position as landholder and supervisor of palace staff.

The Name Nin-kalla Nin-kalla was usually spelled with the sign nin9 (“sister”), and means “precious sister” in Sumerian. Limet rendered the name, “La souer est estimée.”4 Whether the woman who was to marry Shulgi bore this name from her girlhood is open to question: it is quite possible if she were of Babylonian extraction as the name was not at all uncommon at the time. This is in and of itself interesting, in contrast with other of Shulgi’s wives, such as Shulgi-simti and Taram-Uram, who obviously took on new names upon their unions.

2 Chapter nine examines her links with the courtiers. 3 For example, W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 18, F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 35 and throughout. 4 H. Limet, L’Anthroponymie p. 184. Molina’s collations have shown that though the name is sometimes transliterated as nin (not nin9), this is almost always an oversight of the editors (M. Molina, Pers. Comm.).



Dates Attested 

 103

The commonality of the name confuses the historian’s task. It is not difficult to distinguish between Shulgi’s wife and a provincial slave: Nin-kalla was also a name for the lowest of the low, including slave women in Girsu.5 But our task becomes more complicated when we attempt to distinguish among different elite women who also bore this name, especially the daughter of a provincial governor of Girsu, Lu-kirizal, who also had a daughter named Nin-kalla. 6 At Umma, there was also a priestess (lukur) of the god Shara who bore the same name: she is usually easy to distinguish as she appears in lists of other priestesses.7 There were no doubt a number of other Nin-kallas scattered throughout the Land.

Dates Attested On the basis of the current evidence, we cannot expect to produce accurate dates for Nin-kalla’s tenure as Shulgi’s wife: we can only note the earliest published evidence for her appears to be from S30.8 It may be that she was at the court far earlier than this and we simply don’t know about it, but it is also important to keep in mind that Shulgi’s wives were an ever-changing kaleidoscope and that it is very likely that new women entered the scene and other women faded out. Nin-kalla in fact outlived Shulgi—this was not the case for some of Shulgi’s other wives.9

5 To name just a few examples, a legal text about a contested slave woman dating to S42 or AS 2, published by Molina in P. Michalowski (ed.), FS Sigrist p. 135 number 7 (BM 106540) names the slave in question as Nin9-kal-la géme ur-dnin-sún. A slave employed as a weaver (géme uš-bar) with a different patronymic occurs in CT 7, plate 32, BM 18395, from S46. 6 This provincial Nin-kalla occurs for example as dumu énsi in RA 19, 193, 8, dating to S44 month 6 and sometimes as dumu Lu-kirizal, e.g. on CT 7.27, BM 18376, a text in which Nin-kalla NIN also appears. RIME 3/2 p.191 lists Lu-kirizal as governor of Lagash off and on between Shulgi’s 28th and 40th years. Probably Nin-kalla the governor’s daughter is the one meant in a text like Nisaba 7.17 (S46), a Girsu account about the governor’s barley. 7 As in for example MVN 18.296, AAICAB 1/1 plates 69–70, 1924–668 and AAICAB 1/1 pl. 45, 1911–480. 8 According to DIA 19.024.11. Previously we had thought her earliest attestations were S36/37: TLB 3.20 places her at S36 month 9. RA 17, 1920 212.4, a treasure archive text, places her at S37 month 11. 9 MVN 15.118, IS 1, may contain an offering to the dead Nin-kalla. Chapter seven includes a discussion of the deaths of Shulgi and his wives.

104 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

Nin-kalla as Queen There are several lines of evidence that converge in suggesting the Nin-kalla was queen. The first is an investigation of her titles. The second is a comparison of her social position and wealth in relation to the other royal women. As for titles, there is not a single published tablet that gives Nin-kalla the title lukur, “concubine.”10 There are at least four tablets that give her the title NIN, “queen.”11 Evidence for her being queen comes from two sources, first, texts that specifically give her the title queen, such as gúrum-ak útul nin9-kal-la NIN,12 inspection of the utul-herders of Nin-kalla, NIN, and second from her massive wealth and position. As we shall see below, Nin-kalla was in charge of the staff of the Nippur palace. She alone could receive official financial payments to the crown (such as a kind of tax called mašdaria). She alone held land in Shulgi’s lifetime, and she alone possessed large herds of livestock scattered throughout the land, rather than receiving an allowance monthly.

Nin-kalla’s Place of Residence Nin-kalla’s chief residence appears to have been in the Nippur province. Weiershäuser showed that the woman with the title NIN was to be found at Nippur much of the year, according to dated conveyance remarks in offering texts. 13 Shulgi-simti resided most of the time in the Ur palace, but may have moved about. Nin-kalla could also travel to Ur and Uruk, especially for festivals, as we shall see in later chapters.

10 There are two unpublished tablets from Umma that refer to a woman of this name (a court record BM 106097 and Aleppo 57), but it is very likely that we are here seeing a lukur of the local god Shara, that is, a totally different person. 11 These are S42: CT 7, 27: S48: ASJ 11. 129. 59; AS4: MVN 22.108; no date preserved: ASJ 9.126.57. 12 ASJ 11 129.59, S. 48. 13 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 50. Because she sees the NIN and Shulgi-simti as the same person, she believed that the evidence suggested that Shulgi-simti lived there for part of the year and concluded that these texts show “daß Šulgi-simtī sich etwa alle drei bis sechs Monate in Nippur aufgehalten hat,” whereas I would argue that the evidence she analyzes shows that the NIN (probably Nin-kalla) resided during those months in Nippur.



Nin-kalla is Involved in Official Government Payments 

 105

Seals and Dedicatory Objects We lack iconographic or visual evidence for Nin-kalla. Although the impressions of cylinder-seals of other wives of Shulgi’s survive, to the best of my knowledge, no seals of or dedicated to Nin-kalla have been published.

Nin-kalla is Involved in Official Government Payments The Ur III state was supported by various sources of income; payments from inside the heartland of the state itself included the provincial taxes (the bala)14 as well as other payments made by officials as part of their tenure. One of these job-taxes was called the mašdaria: very high administrators like sangas and šabras paid it, as did some provincial governors. Often paid in silver, it could also take other forms.15 This was not a gift or a greeting-present but an official tax. The only one of the royal wives in the reign of Shulgi to receive such a payment was Nin-kalla, as Sallaberger pointed out some years ago.16 In 1986, van de Mieroop showed that texts dating to the years Shulgi 38–42 concerning gold offerings described as mašdaria lugal17 and for the kašdea lugal (that is, for royal taxes and banquets) went not just to the king, but to one of the royal women, Nin-kalla. 18 Furthermore, there is only one wife of Shulgi who ever received a provincial tax payment: this was Nin-kalla, who received more than 200 gur of grain according to the evidence of TIM 6.3.19

14 See my own Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. 15 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp. 162–165. 16 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.168.The evidence was published by Snell, Ledgers pl. 34, 19. The year formula (year Shashru was destroyed) can refer to AS6, or perhaps more likely here, S42. 17 Recent discussions of the mašdaria include X. Ouyang BPOA 11 (2009) 123ff and P. Paoletti Der König und sein Kreis p. 213. 18 M. van de Mieroop, “Gold Offerings of Šulgi,” Or. 55 (1986): 147–8. See also P. Michalowski, “Royal Women III,” ASJ 4 (1982): 135. 19 This account of the bala of Girsu is dated to AS1 but may record payments made prior to Shulgi’s death.

106 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

Nin-kalla’s Domestic Staff Show her Control of the Palace (in Nippur) Nin-kalla had a large staff and her employees – unlike those of the other royal wives—show that she had authority over the running of the palace in the late reign of Shulgi. Instead of a handful of secretaries, messengers and men who cared for her herds, Nin-kalla supervised the palace cook, female musicians and a potter. Thus, it seems clear to me that Nin-kalla had a very different rank and role at court than Shulgi-simti, as the records concerning other types of wealth and power (cattle, land etc) will also suggest. Nin-kalla did of course have messengers and secretaries (kas4, sukkal) and men who took care of her herds, as well. For instance, a man named Gìri-ni-ì-sa6 sukkal is described as lú nin9-kal-la, “Nin-kalla’s man.”20 Another individual named NIN-ha-ma-ti, given the title rá-gaba, “mounted messenger” also appears to have served Nin-kalla. 21 But Nin-kalla also appears to have been in charge of many of the domestic servants of the palace in the Nippur province. It was Nin-kalla, for instance, who inspected the beer supplies according to MVN 12.136.22 The evidence of the tablet published as CTMMA 1.11 and the seal impression found upon its envelope are, in my view, very telling. The tablet, which dates to S44 month 5, refers to a cook, Lugal-si-sá, as muhaldim nin9-kal-la, “Nin-kalla’s cook.” The envelope refers to the same man as muhaldim lú nin9-kal-la, “cook, Nin-kalla’s man.” But Lugal-sisa’s seal gives his title as muhaldim lugal, “the king’s cook, the royal chef.” Nin-kalla thus was in charge of the king’s cook, that is, running the palace kitchen was her responsibility. Running the palace and its kitchens appears to be the type of responsibility a queen or queen mother typically had. Nin-kalla also appears to have been the woman in charge of the female performers at the court (just as, centuries later, Shibtu was in charge of the women and performers in Zimri-Lim’s harem at Mari). Two tablets from Puzrish-Dagan show this. The first is a somewhat fragmentary tablet published as AUCT 1.356, the date of which is not preserved. Alkali of various sorts were allocated to nar-munus

20 He appears for instance in CUSAS 16.234 (Lau OTR 152), a messenger text from Girsu with no year preserved, but dated to the 8th month and 30th day. 21 According to OIP 115.14 (S48.10.-) Nin-ha-ma-ti rá-gaba received 71 udu, mu-DU lugal from Naram-ili; kišib Nin-kal-la. 22 Dated to S46, intercalary month 11 (dirig).



Nin-kalla’s Family and Land 

 107

nin9-kal-la-me, women who are the female singers of Nin-kalla.23 Lacking other evidence, we could not be sure that this was Shulgi’s wife Nin-kalla. However, a second tablet securely places Nin-kalla and her female singers in the midst of the royal family: namely in a silver ring text from the Treasure archive dating to Shulgi 45 (TrDr 85),24 two silver rings each were allocated to two court women, Nin-kalla’s female singer and a nanny associated with the royal daughter, ŠatSin.25 In this document, the singer is identified as Da-ti-ki-za, and the nurse/ nanny was named Da-ri-iš-ma-tum (unfortunately, neither one is well-attested in other published documents). The tablet records the two of them coming back from the Idlurugu, or river ordeal.26 Whether they were accused of something and took the river ordeal to prove their innocence, or whether the river ordeal was merely a part of rites associated with Inanna’s festival we cannot now know. For the present inquiry, the salient point is simply that Nin-kalla supervised female musicians, a role attested for none of Shulgi’s other wives.

Nin-kalla’s Family and Land In contrast to Shulgi-simti, for whom no siblings are attested, Nin-kalla’s brothers do appear, especially late in the reign of Shulgi. The best-attested of these is a man called Ur-Sin, but four or five other men are also labeled her brothers in

23 AUCT 1.356. 24 2 har kug-babbar 10 gín-ta da-ti-ki-za nar-munus nin9-kal-la da-rí-iš-ma-tum UM+ME-da šaat-dEN.ZU dumu-munus lugal-ka ud díd-lú-ru-gú-ta ì-im-e-re-éš-ša in-PI-e-éš, TrDr 85. 25 Considerable confusion seems to exist on the question of how to understand ummeda PN. “PN’s nurse/nanny” is the clear translation, but the question arises as to whether the PN in question is the child being taken care of (and if so, whether the presence of the caretaker implies that the child is still nursing, that is, very very young) or the mother who employs the nurse/ nanny. In English, both usages are possible. Thus, the princess Šat-Sin could be an infant or toddler, or she could be considerably older and still living in the same household as her nurse (in OB times, for instance, brides often travelled with their nurses to their new homes), or Šat-Sin could be the mother who employed the nanny for her unnamed child or children. Michalowski noted already in 1982 (“Royal Women… III,” ASJ 4 [1982]: 136–7) these problems. Civil pointed out that the persons mentioned as having a nanny are almost always female (CUSAS 17 p.283), which suggests to me that the person mentioned is the mother (employer), not the child, who would presumably be as likely to be male as female. Perhaps in Sumerian, as in English, the nanny of PN could refer to either the mother or the child, depending on context. 26 On the suggestion that the Idlurugu might represent a specific place rather than an ordeal per se, see P. Michalowski, “Ur III Topographical Names,” OrAn 16 (1977): 288. See also M. Civil, “The Law Collection of Ur-Namma,” in A. R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts of the Schoyen Collection CUSAS 17 pp. 258–9.

108 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

a British Museum tablet (CT 3, 35, BM 21335), where some are classed as NIM, Elamites. Ur-Sin, described as šeš Nin-kalla, appears in a Puzrish-Dagan tablet dated to Shulgi’s 47th year. He supplied a single lamb that the Drehem official Našag received.27 In a similar transaction, Ur-Sin šeš Nin-kalla supplied another lamb about four years earlier.28 Here the trail goes cold. It is unclear on the basis of this evidence whether Ur-Sin was resident in Babylonia and regularly contributed lambs as other officials did, or whether he came to Babylonia intermittently and contributed on those occasions. The British Museum tablet, unfortunately undated, derives from Girsu and concerns land located between two canals. It is quite a long text, with five columns on the obverse and three on the reverse; only the first column concerns us, as here we find árad-mu šeš nin9-kal-la, še-er-HAR NIM, la-a-núm, EGIR-da NIM, ur-dsin and den-líl-lá-mu summarized as šeš nin9-kal-la-me (col. I lines 12–23). The first question of course is whether the Nin-kalla of this text is the same as Shulgi’s wife Nin-kalla. Absolute certainty is not possible. Still, I think we can be fairly confident that we are dealing with a high-ranking Nin-kalla due to the size of the land parcels Nin-kalla’s brothers were assigned: 18 nindan, 16 nindan, 14 nindan, 8 nindan, and two at 5–1/2 nindan; in comparison, other recipients had been assigned smaller land holdings (e.g. 5–1/2 nindan for a diviner in column II lines 3–4). Furthermore, other tablets from Puzrish-Dagan place Ur-Sin the brother of Nin-kalla in the Nippur province, so we know that we are not dealing with a local Nin-kalla who lived only in the Girsu area. It therefore seems very likely to me that Nin-kalla here was in fact Shulgi’s wife. The second question then follows: should brothers be taken literally? It is possible that šeš here is meant as an assistant or emissary, not a blood relationship. The third line of questioning raised by this tablet is the heterogeneous nature of the brothers’ names: Arad-mu, Enlilla-mu and Ur-Sin29 are classically Sumerian; La-a-num indeterminate but seeming Semitic, while Šerhan and Egir-da (if those are indeed the correct readings) seem foreign, as the classifier NIM, Elamite, further proves. If we are in fact seeing Nin-kalla’s siblings, and two

27 Tavolette 122. 28 TCS 328, S43 month 10. 29 There was of course an Ur-Sin who was a prominent figure late in the reign of Shulgi, one of Shulgi’s own sons, but it was not an uncommon name and it does not seem likely that the prince is called Nin-kalla’s brother. A discussion of Ur-Sin can be found in Y.Wu and J. Wang, JAC 27 (2012): 6–11 and P. Michalowski, “Of Bears and Men,” pp. 285–320 in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.),Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS.



Nin-kalla’s Life After Shulgi 

 109

of them are classed as Elamite, one must wonder whether all the brothers were Elamites but some took on Sumerian names while in Babylonia. The logical corollary to Nin-kalla’s Elamite brothers is an Elamite origin for Nin-kalla herself. While it would be premature to place too much weight on this one text, as we cannot be certain what the term “brothers” really means in this context, it would not be illogical to speculate that Nin-kalla might have part of the strategic alliance that we know Shulgi sealed with the kingdom of Marhashi around Shulgi 34.30 Later we will see Nin-kalla receiving grain from a location in Elam. Conversely, there is some evidence that Nin-kalla was a citizen of Nippur. Excavated in Ur near Shulgi’s burial chamber was a bowl inscribed “(For) Shulgi, the god of the Land, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, Nin-kalla, citizen of Nippur, his beloved…31 There is some suggestion that she stayed in Babylonia after his death, becoming a priestess for Ninurta. A seal impression on a tablet dated to from Amar-Sin’s last year identifies a Nin-kalla as géme (literally “slave-woman,” perhaps more accurately here “handmaiden”) of the god Ninurta.32 We cannot be sure this is the same woman, but there seem to be Old Babylonian parallels for widows retiring to the cloister.

Nin-kalla’s Life After Shulgi Nin-kalla survived her husband’s death and appears to have continued to reside in Nippur, where she is attested in wool-working enterprises until about Shu-Sin

30 P. Steinkeller, “New Light on Šimaški and its Rulers,” ZA 97 (2007): 226. It seems that Shulgi sent daughters there in S18 and S30: judging by the standards of etiquette displayed in the Amarna Correspondence, it would be expected that Marhashi and Anshan would send women in return to Shulgi’s court. While one obviously cannot say that this happened or that Nin-kalla was that woman, she is the only one who has relatives with Elamite names or gentilics. 31 The Sumerian here is dumu nibruki— see RIME 3/2 p. 181 number 83. She may also have been called dumu Nibru according to an Old Babylonian composite (Sammeltafel) from Nippur, but the name Nin-kalla is not clear. 32 TMH NF 1–2.188 (AS8.12.25). The text concerns wool.

110 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

1.33 She may have taken on a religious role at this time in Nippur. After Shulgi’s death, she seems to have run a weaving establishment in Nippur.34 She certainly seems to have retired (or retreated) from court life in the reign of Amar-Sin, not appearing much at all in records of court gatherings.—for instance in Umma texts like BPOA 2.2505, where her potter received grain, it is very difficult to know if this was Nin-kalla, Shulgi’s widow, or just someone else with the same name.35 However, after her death, death offerings to her continued apparently into the reign of Ibbi-Sin!36 This is in contrast to offerings to the lukurs, which tended to be very short-lived.

Nin-kalla as a Recipient of Metals and Luxury Goods Not all texts mentioning Nin-kalla show her in a preeminent position. Nin-kalla is to be found in the Shoe Archive, where, much like any of the other royal wives, she received the occasional pair of shoes. For example, PDT 1.434 records the allocation of a pair of greenish colored shoes to Nin-kalla, the same to Shulgi-simti, as well as shoes to other individuals, including the provincial governor of Nippur.37 She also seems to have received jewelry in other texts.38 However, when we look at the evidence for her economic holdings, we see at once a large difference between her and the other royal wives.

Nin-kalla’s Access to Wealth: Economic Interests Even if Nin-kalla were not attested with the title NIN, “queen,” and never as lukur, the surviving tablets concerning her staff and her possessions indicate a woman

33 She appears in the Nippur wool tablets NATN 494 (AS8.10.7), and TMH NF 1–2.204 and 239 (SS1) for example. Already in 1938, Fish commented that Nin-kalla, Lugal-magurri and “Ummidasi” often could be found working together in certain Nippur wool texts, T. Fish, “The Sumerian City Nippur,” Iraq 5 (1938): 165. 34 A. Hattori, Texts and Impressions: A Holistic Approach to Ur III Cuneiform Tablets from the University of Pennsylvania Expeditions to Nippur (University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation 2002), p.216. 35 BPOA 5.2505 dates to AS4 month 9. 36 According to MVN 15.118. 37 PDT 1.434: Shulgi 41 month 8. 38 RA 17, 212 4: Shulgi 37.11.



Nin-kalla’s Fields and Grain 

 111

whose status was far higher than the lukurs. Like the other attested wives of Shulgi, Nin-kalla had sheep (and men to herd them) and wool interests. Unlike them, she held fields in her own right, controlled large amounts of grain and had her own cattle.

Nin-kalla’s Fields and Grain It is worth stressing the point that Nin-kalla is the only one of Shulgi’s wives who held land in the time of Shulgi. We have already seen that Ur-Sin, probably the same person as the man identified as Ur-Sin šeš Nin-kalla discussed earlier, was the overseer (nu-bànda) of fields held by her (a-šag4 nin9-kal-la),39 according to a Nippur tablet. Possibly she continued to hold land after Shulgi’s death. We know she also held land in the Girsu province. Lacking records about her land holdings from other provincial archives, it may be that she held land only there, or that she had estates here and there throughout Babylonia. Several tablets from Girsu tell us about fields and grain associated with Ninkalla herself and/or her “brothers,” one of which was discussed earlier. Another such tablet is CT 7.27, BM 18376 (dating to Shulgi’s 42nd year). This is an account of quite a lot of barley in a town called Urua (written Ú.URUxGUki): níg-ŠID-ak še Uruaki nin9-kal-la NIN, “account of the grain/barley of GN, Nin-kalla, the queen.” Interestingly, Urua is an Elamite place name. The structure of Sumerian account texts is generally consistent: the scribe will begin by listing the capital, or goods on hand, and their sources, will total them, then will introduce the expenditures with the phrase šag4-bi-ta, “from within which” and will reconcile the capital and expenditures at the end of the text. According to this account, the total amount of grain was 2392 gur: it was given over into the control of a man named Bù-gu-ú from various men with Sumerian names (such as Ur-dlamma dumu Ur-gar or Abba-gina dumu lú-nimgir). From that total, the amounts expended were in total 1847 (plus fractions) gur, with a deficit (lá-NI) of 544 (plus fractions) gur.40 The expenditures were itemized: 521 gur were kišib didli, “multiple seals/ tablets” (the Sumerian equivalent of “miscellaneous”). A mounted messenger (rá-gaba) with the Elamite-sounding name Huba-gada received 600 gur in two different transactions. Another 600 gur went to a man named Lu-Bau (son of Nabašag) and

39 According to the text Banca d’Italia 2/2.20 (no date). 40 That is, roughly 2392 gur if one adds the expended amount and the deficit together, which matches well with the scribe’s total of the capital under the control of a man named Bù-gu-ú in line 14 (2392 plus fractions gur).

112 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

a smaller amount went via Lugal-nir-gál, another mounted messenger (rá-gaba). Lacking similar accounts from different years, there is a limited amount that we can say about this tablet, but the following facts are clear. The obvious fact is that the tenants in this town of Urua (which seems to be in Elam) paid over their grain to the queen, Nin-kalla, presumably because she was the ultimate owner of those fields. If my suggestion that her orgins were in Elam is correct, this field may have been part of her marriage settlement. The amount of grain she controlled was quite large (and presuming that this was not her only set of land-holdings, she may well have controlled quite a bit more than this). There are a number of texts that refer to large grain allocations that a Ninkalla received according to other Girsu texts.41 It is not at all clear to me that the Nin-kalla in these texts is Shulgi’s wife (it seems logical to think it might be the local governor’s daughter), so no discussion of these texts appears here.

Nin-kalla’s Cattle In most respects, Nin-kalla stands apart from the other wives of Shulgi. We shall see that these women, concubines with the title lukur, received a regular allowance (sá-dug4) of 30 sheep per month (one a day). If they received cattle at all, it was one or two paid out by one of the palace functionaries. Nin-kalla, on the other hand, had her own cattle herds and cattle herders that represented substantial wealth. Palace functionaries gave her cattle too, but here again there was a difference: it was labelled mu-DU lugal rather than sá-dug4, that is, more of a gift than an allocation.42 After Shulgi’s death, she retained her wealth on the hoof.

Nin-kalla’s Sheep and Goats We shall see over and over again that most of Shulgi’s wives received an allowance (sá-dug4) of thirty sheep per month. Nin-kalla was different. According to one text (OIP 115.14), Nin-kalla was given 70 sheep and 10 large-breed goats from

41 To name just one, PPAC 5.249 (no date preserved) records more than 15 gur of grain. 42 For example, in the following tablet: 3 gud, 2 áb mu-DU lugal ki-na-ra-am-ì-lí-ta nin-kal-la ì-dab5 ki-na-sa6-ta ba-zi: this is BPOA 6.110 (date: S48 month 7).



Nin-kalla’s Animal Husbandry Agents 

 113

Naram-ili via her “rider” (rá-gaba), Nin-hamati.43 Not only are the amounts much larger, but this is said to be a mu-DU lugal, royal delivery, not a sá-dug4, “allowance.”

Nin-kalla’s Animal Husbandry Agents Information about Nin-kalla’s herders comes from two different Ur III archives, from Puzrish-Dagan and from Girsu. According to the Girsu texts, a number of shepherds with the title na-gada worked for her. Assisting them were junior shepherds, literally, the sons of the na-gadas (dumu na-gada) and gáb-ras. One text lists a total of ten shepherds: 3 na-gadas, 2 dumu na-gadas and 5 gáb-ras.44 The bottom of the tablet tells us this was a gúrum-ak ùnu nin9-kal-la NIN, “inspection of the herders of Nin-kalla, queen.” A very similar text from Girsu dated a bit earlier (Shulgi year 37) is the account of the inspection of Nin-kalla’s cows, gúrum-ak áb nin9-kal-la. The two foremen here were Ur-šeilla and a na-gada named DINGIR-SUKKAL.45 The senior herdsmen were Ur-še-íl-la, Lú-URUxKÁRki and Áš-é-ba. Their sons (the dumu na-gada) were Lú-kal-la, son of Ur-šeilla, and Ur-zikum-ma, son of Ašeba. The gáb-ras appear to be Ur-ku-gu-la, Á-na-na, Lú-dingir-ra, Lugal-nu-bànda and Ur-dlamma dumu Lú-GIŠ.BAR-è. The details of the names and titles are unimportant here, but the basic facts that Nin-kalla had very numerous herdsmen in Girsu places her in strong contrast to a number of other of Shulgi’s wives, who appear to have been given the odd head of cattle as needed without having their own cattle herds. Nin-kalla’s senior herdsmen, Ur-šeilla, Lu-URUxKÁR and Ašeba occur in several other texts. They seem to have worked for her for a long time, from Shulgi 48 to Shu-Sin 2,46 at least, that is, a period of a dozen years. She appears to have added another herder from AS8 on: his name, unfortunately broken, as X-ab-ba.47 Since all these tablets seem to derive from Lagash, the logical conclusion is that Nin-kalla’s herdsmen and herds were located in that province too.

43 This was very close to the end of Shulgi’s life, S48 month 10. Another text from S46 published as BPOA 2.1889 attests to 416 sheep of hers under the control of a na-gada named Ur-lamma, who will be discussed below. On the position of the na-gada vis-à-vis the other shepherds, see S. Garfinkle, Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia, CUSAS 22, pp. 70–72. 44 This text was published as ASJ 11, 129, 59, dating to Shulgi 48. The text also lists a deficit of four men. 45 This is Amherst 28. 46 According to ITT 2.961, from AS3 to SS2; ASJ 11, 129,59—S48. 47 ITT 2.961.

114 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

Although the evidence is fragmentary, one could conclude that Nin-kalla’s Girsu herdsmen appear to have been under lax supervision. The ASJ 11 text records a deficit of 4 out of 10 workers. ITT 2.961 records another deficit— how many calves each of Nin-kalla’s herders needed to repay from a 9 year period between AS3 and SS2 (amar su-su). In total 125 calves were owed.48 While it is not unusual for herders, especially those operating under a quota system, to owe animals to their employer, the fact that the accounts had not been settled in so long suggests a certain laxity or laissez faire attitude on Nin-kalla’s part. Yet more deficits run up by Nin-kalla’s Girsu herders are recorded on MVN 22.108 (AS4), summarized as áb -ba nin9-kal-la nin9. SAT 2.309, a tablet that dates very likely to S42 records the allocation of 38 sheep to Nin-kalla’s kurušda, or animal fattener, and a further 2 cows and 9 ewes to the queen’s “man” (lú).49 The records from the Puzrish-Dagan area do refer to two or three employees of hers, a kurušda, or animal fattener named Ur-zikum-ma, another kurušda, also given the title rá-gaba, “rider, envoy,”50 and also NIN-ha-ma-ti (presumably a man given the occupation, though names beginning NIN could often be feminine). Nin-ha-ma-ti occurs in an interesting text kìlib discussed in the section on the concubine Geme-Ninilla, BCT 1.39. Dated to Shulgi 48 month 12, that is, very shortly after Shulgi’s death, the text may be an inventory of livestock that had been in the control of royal wives done by the main Puzrish-Dagan administration upon the new king’s accession. In column ii, a man named Al-la-mu transferred 160 (60+20+60+20) oxen, gud Geme-Ninlilla, that is, the cattle of Geme-Ninlilla. The immediately preceding entry is unfortunately broken in a critical place: gud udu [xxxx]. The quantities are very large: 31 gud, 1 (geš’u) +537 , from Ninha-ma-ti kurušda. Since we know that Nin-hamati worked for Nin-kalla, it seems logical to restore gud udu {Ninkalla}, but this must remain a supposition. Regardless, the text reiterates the point that Nin-kalla possessed great wealth in cattle.

Nin-kalla Overall Though we can hope that further publication of tablets will give us more information on Nin-kalla and hopefully clear up some ambiguous points, I believe enough evidence survives to make a convincing argument that Nin-kalla held the rank of

48 Twenty of these from Ur-šeilla between AS 3–6; 76 from Lu-URUxKÁR between AS3 and SS2; 21 from Ašeba between AS3-SS2 and 8 from X-abba between AS8-SS2. 49 A date of Amar-Sin 6 is not impossible. 50 As in OIP 115.14 (S48 month 10).

Shulgi-simti 

 115

NIN, queen, at least between about S36 to Shulgi’s death, and that she—alone of all the other women Shulgi was partnered with—was in charge of the palace staff, held land and had substantial cattle herds of her own. Her “brothers”  – some of them men with Elamite names—shared in the bounty of her wealth, holding land plots in Girsu and perhaps elsewhere. After Shulgi’s death, she retained her herds (though apparently under somewhat lax supervision) and may have lived in the Nippur province in a retired way, away from the court itself, perhaps mainly supervising textile workshops. At that time, she may have taken on a role as a priestess for Ninurta, though it is possible that another woman is meant in these documents. Her story is quite different from Shulgi-simti’s.

Shulgi-simti In this second half of the chapter, our aims are twofold: to discover whether Shulgi-simti was concubine or queen, and to piece together as much as can be known about her life and economic dealings. The evidence collected here suggests that Shulgi-simti was a concubine, though she does appear to have enjoyed the king’s favor. Never blessed with much wealth, without family nearby, without her own house or her own domestic staff, never at the top of the hierarchy among the royal wives, Shulgi-simti nevertheless exerted power at court. Apparently in a symbiotic relationship with courtiers seeking favors and preferments from the king, they appear to have supported her foundation through donations of livestock to gain her goodwill and thereby access to Shulgi’s ear. This influence may have been at its height prior to Shulgi year 40. This section will attempt to show her rank and her (relative) lack of wealth and position amongst the collective of Shulgi’s partners. Turning now to Shulgi-simti herself, we shall first consider the name and then what can be reconstructed about her life and her economic interests. We know nothing whatsoever about her birth or origins, or even her name. Shulgi-simti is obviously a name given to her once she became involved with Shulgi.51

51 It was very normal for a woman who changed status, e.g. became a priestess, to change her name, as we see in the example of ME-Enlilla, who became En-nir-zi-an-na when she became an en-priestess at Ur (P. Weadock, “The Giparu at Ur,” Iraq 37 [1975]: 107). It also appears to be the case that women becoming queens could change their names (e.g. Taram-Uram). There is less evidence for concubines changing their names, but it is quite inconceivable that a name like Shulgi-simti would have been given at birth.

116 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

The Name: Shulgi-simti or Shulgi-simtum ? The first publication of the Shulgi-simti tablets appeared in 1915, at which time the royal name Shulgi was read “Dungi.”52 This is a fairly unusual name, and it is not at all clear whether there were other women at the time who bore the same name. After Shulgi-simti’s death, there are a very few references to receipts of a few animals to or for a Shulgi-simti in the reigns of Amar-Sin, Shu-Sin and IbbiSin.53 Some have suggested that another woman, perhaps even a granddaughter, was named Shulgi-simti; Ozaki most recently has hypothesized that these texts deal with a statue of the deceased wife of Shulgi which occasionally still received offerings.54 The name itself is clearly Akkadian, but exactly how it should be normalized and translated is not totally clear. It was generally written mu-DU dšul-gi-zi-im-ti, “delivery (of/to/for) Shulgi-simti, but sometimes we see the form dšul-gi-zi-imtum. Was the basic name Shulgi-simtum (nominative), which could appear in the genitive when referring to deliveries made for her? Or should we understand the name to be Shulgi-simti, with Shulgi-simtum, which occurs a few times, as a mistaken renominalized form? Or perhaps even a peculiarity associated with the scribe during the tenure of one of the employees of the Shulgi-simti foundation, one Aplilatum, who seems to have enjoyed writing lovely –tum signs? If one accepts that the proper form is dŠulgi-simtῑ, then it seems that the name refers to some aspect of Shulgi’s. “Shulgi is my [noun],”55 but the problem is what the noun means. Sigrist translates the name as “Shulgi est ma gloire;”56 Boese and Sallaberger “Šulgi ist meine Zierde.”57 “Gloire,” “Zierde,” or in Italian “gioello,

52 V. Scheil, “La dame Dungi-simti,” RT 37 (1915): 128–132. 53 According to the tablets AUCT 3.489, Boson Tavolette 186 and UET 3.1211. Discussed by Gomi 1976 p. 9 and (under the name Ozaki) T. Ozaki, “Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom and their KA du8-ha Ceremony,” in P. Michalowski (ed.), On The Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist p. 220. 54 T. Ozaki, “Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom and their KA du8-ha Ceremony,” in P. Michalowski (ed.), On The Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist p. 220. 55 One may compare the name of one of Shulgi’s dancers, Shulgi-nuri, “Shulgi is my light,” discussed at the end of the next chapter. 56 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.222 and Ontario p. 21. 57 Boese and Sallaberger, “Apil-kīn von Mari und die Könige der III.Dynastie von Ur,” AoF 23 (1996): 24–39. Thus also F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 32. Though note that elsewhere Sallaberger prefers the form Shulgi-simtum, no translation rendered.



Dates Attested 

 117

decorazione,”58 in English something like “glory, ornament, decoration,” give the general sense of pride in a fine possession. 59 Stol rendered the name, “Shulgi is my jewel.”60 However, the definition for simtum given in von Soden’s Akkadian dictionary is “Zugehöriges” with the note that PN-sí-im-ti “gehört zu mir.”61 This the name could mean something like “Suitable for/ Belonging to Shulgi,” but grammatically this is not accurate. Grammatically, it is clear that one must translate “Shulgi (is) my [X],” not “Shulgi’s [x].” “Shulgi’s ornament/ plaything” would have been a perfectly acceptable name for a woman according to Babylonian standards (though not of course today), but “My ornament/ plaything (is) Shulgi” seems unlikely. One may guess that the name means something like “My glory/ prize is Shulgi.” We may compare other names of similar date, Abi-simti would then be something like “my glory is my father.” The same element also appears in the name of an Elamite sukkal, Huba-simti, where Huba appears to be a writing for an Elamite deity, Humban.62 Generally Babylonian names referred to some quality inherent in or desired for the name holder: as Andersson put it, names “expressed, to the best of our knowledge, thanksgiving or well-wishes for the name-bearer.”63 Names like Shulgi-simti reflected, on the contrary, on Shulgi. As we shall see, this dependence, even in name, appears typical of their asymmetrical relationship.

Dates Attested Absolutely nothing is known of Shulgi-simti prior to Shulgi year 28. Her first known appearance is in an Ur text about the weight of metals, but the archive documenting her foundation does not seem to begin until Shulgi year 32.64 Of course, in the future, new tablets could bring these dates back. During a period

58 TCND Commentary to text 56, p. 58. On the name Simat-ili, the authors comment, “Per la lettura di questo nome propio, preferiamo far derivare il primo element da simtu(m), ‘gioiello, decorazione,’ frequente nell’onomastica d’Ur III come 2o elemento degli antroponmi.” 59 J. Stamm, Namengebung p. 81. Note also the woman at court, Agua-simti. 60 M. Stol, Women in the Ancient Near East p. 480. 61 W. von Soden, AhW p. 1045. 62 M. van de Mieroop, Crafts in the Early Isin Period: A Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-ilišu p. 109 fn 24. 63 J. Andersson, Kingship in the Early Mesopotmian Onomasticon p. 3. 64 P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 98–79; W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.18; Y. Kuga, “A Šulgi-simtum Tablet in the Atarashi Collection,” ASJ 17 (1995): 309 note 1.

118 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

of about 16 years, up until her death, she was Shulgi’s wife. We do not know the exact date of her death. She may have passed away in Shulgi 48 (the same year as the king’s own death).65 Funerary rites for her, and another royal spouse, are attested in the third month of the next year (AS1), so she was unquestionably dead by then.66

Origins Obviously, whatever its exact meaning, the name was taken upon her union with the king. Her birth name, date of birth, family, or even place of origin are all unknown. Did Shulgi-simti in fact come from Babylonia proper? It has been speculated that her origins lay in the Diyala region. For example, Frayne commented, “Šulgi-simti is generally thought to have been a queen of ‘foreign’ origin.”67 Sallaberger wrote “Šulgi-simtum, Frau Šulgis und letze regierende Königen, stammt wohl aus Ešnunna oder Umgebung; darauf weist die Herkunft ihrer persönlichen Göttinnen Belat-šuhnir und Belat-Teraban.”68 Her origins, from the Diyala or not, will be discussed in more detail in later chapters. Perhaps the most accurate is to admit that we simply do not know. We have, however, made some progress in our understanding of royal wives considerably in the last few decades. Until the 1970’s, it was commonly thought that Shulgi-simti and Abi-simti (Amar-Sin’s wife) might in fact be the same woman!69

65 “Sie muβ bald nach ihrem Gemahl Šulgi, dessen Tod vor den 2 xi Š48 datiert, gestorben sein.” W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.18. 66 According to ZVO 25. 134; Sallaberger Kultische Kalender p.18. 67 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 170. 68 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 160, with previous scholarship. 69 Sollberger suggested in 1955 that Shulgi-simti and Abi-simti were the same woman, a position he held until at least 1977, writing that the name Shulgi-simti does not seem to occur after Shulgi’s death because of “the Queen having apparently changed her name on becoming the Queen Mother.” “A Note.. SRT 23,” JCS 30 (1978): 99–100. His mind was changed by Michalowski’s 1977 article “Death of Shulgi,” Or 46 (1977): 222 and note 15 with previous scholarship. The proposal that Abi-simti and Shulgi-simti were two names for the same woman has unfortunately been revived (though without reference to previous scholarship) by Wu and Wang in JAC 27 (2012): 1–27. Though the evidence for Shulgi-simti’s death offerings are known (and multiple women’s bodies have been found in Shulgi’s burial, as we shall see in chapter seven), Wu and Wang strangely dismiss this evidence as “symbolic.”



Shulgi-simti, NIN or lukur?—Previous Scholarship 

 119

Shulgi-simti’s death The precise date of Shulgi-simti’s death is at present unknown. We do know that death offerings for her were allocated immediately after Shulgi’s death, according to ZVO 25. 134 (dating to AS1.03.28).70 We shall look at this more in depth in chapter seven. Her foundation’s assets appear to have been returned to the main Puzrish-Dagan establishment the next month (AS1.04.02, according to PDT 2.1215).71 There are later references to Shulgi-simti in the very late portion of the Ur III corpus, from Shu-Sin 9 to Ibbi-Sin 5. These clearly do not represent the living concubine, but scholars have disagreed as to whether they record a namesake, that is, a second woman whose name honored Shulgi’s wife, or a statue of Shulgi-simti which received offerings.72

Was Shulgi-simti Queen? Although many respected scholars have concluded that Shulgi-simti was queen, let us pause to consider the hard facts.

Shulgi-simti, NIN or lukur?—Previous Scholarship Previous studies have not agreed about her rank. Michalowski began with caution, in his early writings describing Shulgi-simti as a lukur and “consort” of the king in “a relationship which remains to be defined.”73 More recently, he has described Shulgi-simti as Shulgi’s queen and Nin-kalla and Ea-niša “his other consorts.”74 Sallaberger believed that she was NIN, queen, on the basis of the frequent mention of the NIN in her expenditure texts, especially as a conveyor, in Sumerian, gìri NIN. A tablet published as MVN 8.97 (dated to Shulgi 32) instead of

70 Gomi discussed Shulgi-simti’s death and offerings in “Shulgi-simti and her Libation Place,” Orient 12 (1976): 1–14. 71 As already noted by Sallaberger OBO 160/3 p. 162. See also Kultische Kalender pp. 18 ff and note 61. 72 T. Ozaki, “Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom and their KA du8-ha Ceremony,” in P. Michalowski (ed.), On The Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist p. 220 and note 13. Some of the texts in question are AUCT 3.489, Boson Tavolette 186 and UET 3.1211. 73 P. Michalowski, “Death of Šulgi,” Or. NS 46 (1977): 222. 74 P. Michalowski “Drinking Gods,” in M. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies p. 31.

120 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

the usual gìri NIN had gìri NIN Shulgi-simti, which Sallaberger understood as ‘via the queen Shulgi-simti.’75 We will look more closely at this tablet soon. Furthermore, a tablet known as Phillips 13 features Shulgi-simti in an important role.76 Though she is not given the title NIN here, at the festivity described, a beer-drinking party, Shulgi-simti appears as the most important among the royal women present. The majority of publications follow this view, seeing Shulgi-simti as a queen.77 Weiershäuser followed this position and is unequivocal in stating that Shulgi-simti was the queen.78 But Sigrist, and the Japanese scholar Gomi before him, have understood the evidence differently, and see Shulgi-simti as a lukur. Sigrist pointed out that since Ur III royal titles never precede the name of the individual, a more accurate translation of the phrase gìri NIN Shulgi-simti would be “via the queen and Shulgi-simti.” He adds that seals give her title as lukur 14 years apart.79 It would be rather odd to assume she was lukur, promoted to NIN, then demoted back again to lukur. It is all too apparent, then, that there is no consensus on this matter. A few scholars, such as Steinkeller, have attempted to harmonize the evidence, by stating that Shulgi-simti was both NIN and lukur at the same time, with each title being appropriate in its own circumstance, according to his view (thus, he feels one could be called ‘the king’s wife’ or the ‘queen,’ but not ‘the king’s queen’).80 Steinkeller has been followed by Frayne and others.81 This explanation, while very clever, does not in my mind explain why some women were only ever attested with the title lukur and never NIN.

75 W. Sallaberger Kultische Kalender p.18, note 59. He refers to her as Frau Šulgis and suspects she took over as queen from Geme-Suena between Shulgi years 28/30 and 32. Weiershäuser follows this position and thinks the text has anomalous terminology because Shulgi-simti had just become queen following Geme-Sin’s death, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 35. 76 See P. Paoletti, Der Kőnig und sein Kreis pp. 316–324 and 479 ff. 77 To name just a few, Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender and OBO, D. Frayne, RIME 3/2, van de Mieroop Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History. Kuga asserts she held two titles, both NIN and lukur, ASJ 17 (1995): 309. 78 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur . 79 T. Gomi, “Shulgi-simti and her Libation Place.” Orient 12 (1976): 1–14. Sigrist, Drehem p.222. One seal, published as RT 37. 130.3 dates to S32: The seal translates as, “Shulgi, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, Shulgi-simti is his lukur-kaskal-la—Mašgula, secretary, your servant.” See also p. 123. The other seal, dating to S46, is PDT 530. 80 P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 78–79. 81 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 170 “While Šulgi-simti apparently served as queen down to the end of Šulgi’s reign, she appears with only the title lukur .. in seal inscriptions of her servants.”



The evidence for Shulgi-simti’s rank 

 121

The evidence for Shulgi-simti’s rank Although many reputable scholars have taken the view that Shulgi-simti did hold the title NIN, queen, for a period of close to two decades, and that during this time she was the highest-ranking among the royal women, the dissenting opinion of Sigrist and Gomi,82 who hold that she never had any rank higher than concubine cannot be lightly dismissed. To work towards a solution to this problem, a closer look at the evidence is necessary. What evidence suggests that Shulgi-simti held the title queen? There is only one tablet that may possibly give her such a title. This was published as MVN 8.97.83 This lack of other attestations, despite the 500 or so tablets in her archive is troubling. Let us look carefully at the text, here quoted in full. “3 fattened sheep for the kitchen; Ur-Dumuzida (was) requisitioner. 1 fattened sheep, for in the Palace, Abiliya was requisitioner. 3 fattened sheep for the kitchen, for Uruk, when the king left Nippur, Ur-Dumuzi (was) requisitioner gìri nin dŠulgi-simti in Ur from the office of Ahima Month, Festival of Ninazu Year Simurrum was destroyed for the third time {Edge}— was expended.”

There are several points of note. First, the scribe lacked talent or experience, or perhaps both. The é sign in lines 2 and 6 looks completely different from what was supposed to be exactly the same sign in line 4. And in line 8, he has forgotten the difference between the god Enlil (den-líl) and his city Nippur (EN.LÍLki) and so has here written the name for the god instead of the name of the city. Furthermore, the name of Shulgi-simti herself was written in a strange way. The scribe’s errors are numerous and elementary and ought perhaps to lead us not to take any unusual

82 M. Sigrist, Ontario 1995 p. 21 “Šulgi-simti … bears the Sumerian title lukur on two seal impressions.” 83 Kuga asserts that this sole tablet “is the only textual source found from Šulgi’s reign mentioning nin by name.” ASJ 17 (1995): 309 and note 1. I would rephrase this slightly—it is the only tablet known to me that links Shulgi-simti (possibly) to the title NIN. Other tablets from Shulgi’s reign clearly identify Nin-kalla as NIN.

122 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

feature in this text to be a clincher. As for the line in bold, it has been translated as “via the queen Shulgi-simti” but as Sigrist points out, Ur III titles always follow the name, so one would expect Shulgi-simti NIN and not NIN Shulgi-simti. Therefore, the translation “via the queen and Shulgi-simti” is much better. It is even possible that the malformed writing of the name should be amended to ki! Shulgi-simti that is, “via the queen, office of Shulgi-simti.” We may note, in passing, the contrast between such a sloppily written tablet and the almost calligraphic and carefully made tablets written for the queen Abi-simti.84 A second point about this text MVN 8.97 concerns its archival placement. Is the text from Shulgi-simti’s foundation? Probably not. The formula for expenditure here (ba-zi) is not used in the Shulgi-simti archive. The responsible official Ahima, though he does appear in handful of texts from her archive, appears to have been working in an entirely different organization. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this individual was employed by Shulgi-simti. Given then, the scribe in this text had difficulties, to put it mildly, and the tablet seems to belong to some organization separate from Shulgi-simti’s foundation, how should we understand the critical line? My own conclusion is that it is that it probably cannot bear too much weight (unless we also want to assert that the correct spelling for Nippur was dEnlil) and should not be used as evidence for Shulgi-simti having held the title queen. It is possible, however, that Shulgi-simti was very briefly NIN in between the (presumed) death of Geme-Sin and the advent of Ninkalla. The other tablet that often is cited to prove the argument that Shulgi-simti was queen is Phillips 13. While this tablet is very interesting in many respects, from the point of view of the present question, was Shulgi-simti queen/ first lady or not, the tablet is important but ambiguous. This tablet, originally in the collection of an Oklahoma seminary, later sold and now in Germany,85 is a unique document. A large tablet, with three columns per side, it is not part of the Shulgi-simti archive, probably belonging to the Treasure archive, though we cannot be certain. The text lists the expenditure of very generous amounts of precious metals, textiles, slaves and furniture –including two beds— from Shulgi and then from Shulgi-simti; much smaller expenditures from other members of the royal

84 B. Foster, “The Donation of Abī-Simtī,” SEL 2 (1985): 38. “The first striking feature of this document is its appearance. The tablet is exceptionally large… and beautifully made… Its archaizing, monumental quality immediately calls to mind classical Sargonic script…” 85 Although this tablet was known and discussed already in 1981 by Michalowski (HANES 6 pp. 30–31), it was made available only on the internet by M. Cooper (history. smsu.edu/ mcooper/ Phillips13/phillips13.html) and by the CDLI project (CDLI number P126687). It was finally published in P. Paoletti, Der Kőnig und sein Kreis pp. 316–324 and 479 ff.



Shulgi-simti, a concubine? 

 123

family also occur. Especially prominent are oil flasks and toggle-pins. The occasion is said to be a kaš-dé-a or beer-pouring, banquet, in the house of a man, šar-ru-[x-x-x]; the date is broken. The tablet, which will be discussed in far more detail later in the chapter, certainly shows us a prominent role of Shulgi-simti but does not give her the title NIN, queen. If I am correct, then Shulgi-simti’s prominent role here is because the tablet probably records a rite of passage for a child of hers. Thus, Phillips 13 cannot, in my view, be used as a justification for calling Shulgi-simti queen. I would suggest not only that Shulgi-simti was not queen and that another woman, named Nin9-kal-la, held the title NIN during the last years of Shulgi’s reign, but also that Shulgi-simti was lesser in rank than one of the other concubines, a woman named Geme-Ninlilla, as a list of death offerings clearly shows.86 We shall examine this text very soon.

Shulgi-simti, a concubine? What is the evidence for Shulgi-simti as a lukur? The data here is much stronger, as a series of seals used by Shulgi-simti’s employees name her with the title lukur. One of these was published as RT 37. 130.887 – the seal inscription reads: d šul-gi nita kalag-ga lugal uri5ki-ma lugal an-ub-da límmu-ba d šul-gi-sí-im-tum lukur! kaskal-la-ka-ni–ir maš-gu-la sukkal ÁRAD-zu

The seal translates as “Shulgi, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, Shulgi-simti is his lukur-kaskal-la—Mašgula, secretary, your servant.” This seal was impressed on a delivery tablet. The second employee to refer to Shulgi-simti as a lukur is Ur-lugal-eden-ka. His seal, impressed on a tablet published as PDT 1. 530, a tablet recording deficits

86 This text is ZVO 25.134.2 (AS 1.3.28). Here Shulgi’s funerary rites received 10 animals, Geme-Ninlilla two animals and Shulgi-simti only one, an animal that was not even fattened. 87 This text dates to S46 month 6.

124 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

which is dated to Shulgi’s 46th regnal year, reads Šulgi-simti lukur-ki-ág-lugal Ur-dlugal-eden-ka dub-sar dumu kud-da-x [árad-zu]  – “Šulgi-simti, the king’s beloved lukur – Ur-lugal-edenka, scribe, son of Kudda-[x] [(is) your servant.]” We should note here that a third employee of Shulgi-simti, animal fattener Beli-tab, also left us a seal impression, but the legend here is much more laconic, reading only “Beli-tab kurušda dŠulgi – imtumma,” “Beli-tab, animal fattener of Šulgi-simti.”88 A sloppy seal indeed for misspelling his mistress’ name! In any case, these seals show clearly that Shulgi-simti held the title lukur at least in the years Shulgi 32 down to Shulgi 46. In short, the evidence for her as lukur is strong, while the evidence for her holding the title queen consists of a single ambiguous and very badly written tablet whose archival affiliation is unclear. Another way to try to sort out Shulgi-simti’s status is to look not at titles but at access to wealth and power. In this respect, clearly Shulgi-simti was not in the first rank. At Shulgi-simti’s death, she was definitely outranked by another wife named Geme-Ninlilla as the following death offering list shows.89 ZVO 25.134.2 (AS 1.3.28) “1 fattened sheep, 1 fattened lamb 2 fattened fat-tail sheep 5 fat-tail sheep 1 suckling goat, (for) the kitchen for the kianag of Šulgi 1 fattened sheep, 1 fat-tail sheep, the kianag of Geme-Ninlilla 1 fat-tail sheep, the kianag of Shulgi-simti”…

Shulgi received ten animals, Geme-Ninlilla two animals and Shulgi-simti only one, an animal that was not even fattened. There is no way to read this data except to show Shulgi-simti’s inferior rank. A study by Michalowski suggested that Geme-Ninlilla was a lukur.90 Nin-kalla did not appear in the offering list for the simple reason that she was not dead. In short, the evidence to me suggests that Shulgi-simti was not queen and certainly was not the highest-ranking among Shulgi’s wives. The reason that the

88 The tablet and envelope were published as MVN 18.144 (S43 month 12). 89 This tablet was discussed by P. Michalowski in “The Death of Šulgi,” Or 46 (1977): 221–224. 90 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women on the Ur III Period II: Part II, Geme-Ninlilla,” JCS 31 (1979): 171–6.



Shulgi-simti’s Staff 

 125

focus of this work and much previous scholarship is on Shulgi-simti, not these other women, is because of the archive associated with Shulgi-simti.

Shulgi-simti’s Family Absolutely nothing is known at the present time about Shulgi-simti’s parents or siblings. This absence is, I think, worth noting, because it highlights the contrast between her and some of the other royal wives, who, as we shall see, received visits from their mothers, brothers and so on.91 Shulgi-simti appears to have been quite alone at court. This strengthens the suspicion that Shulgi-simti’s origins were not royal and that she was not a pawn in the dynastic marriage game, but perhaps captured in war or promoted from the ranks of the dancing girls, though of course we cannot do more than speculate on this matter. Probably Shulgi and Shulgi-simti had children together. How many and which ones we do not know. Stol estimated that the average Old Babylonian family had five to seven children who survived infancy92 but we have no idea which of the numerous dumu lugal, royal offspring, were hers. Probably many of the king’s children died before Shulgi himself did. Even in the Ottoman palace, the death rate for royal offspring was staggering. Murad III, for example, ruled for about 20 years and died in 1595. He is known to have had 103 children by various women in his harem; 56 of these died before their father. Of the remaining 27 daughters and 20 sons in 1595, 19 sons were murdered by the new heir,93 thus making a less than 30 % survival rate. One hopes that this was an anomalously low rate, but we should not automatically assume that all, most or even any of Shulgi-simti’s children survived.

Shulgi-simti’s Staff References to Shulgi-simti’s staff are not as detailed as we might like, but still reveal a picture of a woman who had a substantial staff of men working on her interests. In contrast to Ea-niša (another lukur) or Nin-kalla, the NIN, Shulgi-sim-

91 On Ea-niša’s brother and son, see F. Weiershäuser,Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 206–211. Kubatum’s mother, Zi-ni-a, visited Uruk even two years after the death of her daughter (visit attested in SS8, kianag of Kubatum in SS6) according to Akkad. 78.13. 92 M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible p.180. 93 N. Penzer, The Harem: Inside the Grand Seraglio of the Turkish Sultans p. 197.

126 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

ti’s assistants can generally be classified as either secretaries and messengers (sukkal or kas4), or men who took care of herds and wool held in her name. There is no evidence known to me that she supervised the palace staff (cooks, potters and so on) in the same way Nin-kalla did, or that she had her own transportation team of boatmen in the same way Ea-niša did. Her sukkal, or secretary, was Maš-gu-la, at least around Shulgi year 32. We know this because of an impression of the man’s seal was impressed on a fragmentary receipt tablet: dšul-gi/ nita2 kalag-ga/ lugal uri5ki-ma/ lugal-an-ub-da-limmu-ba, dšul-gi-sí-im-tum/ lukur! kaskal-la-ka-ni/ maš-gu-la/ sukkal-árad-zu,94 “Shulgi, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the Four Quarters: Shulgi-simtum (is) his lukur-kaskal-la, Maš-gula, secretary (is) your servant.” She employed a lú, “man” (representative? agent?), but his name is incompletely preserved, Bak-[x]. This man, known from AUCT 1.695, an undated tablet, in which 3 gur of barley is transferred from one man (Imtidam) to another (Ahuwaqar), though the transaction is described as kišib ba-ak-xx/ lú dšul-gi-sí-im-ti, seal/ sealed tablet of Bak-[x], “man” of Shulgi-simti. Unfortunately, the tablet bears no year date (just the information that it was in month four). The name does not show up otherwise in the databases of tablets of CDLI or BDTNS, so we cannot say much more of him. Shulgi-simti also employed messengers, who had the titles rá-gaba or kas4. One was named Lú-úrub2 and another [xx-i]š-ma-ni.95 A third messenger is better known: this is Itib-šinat.96 He appears elsewhere as one of her riders (rá-gaba) and occurs also in texts from the Shoe Archive (such as Nisaba 8.386) together with Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti.97 She may also have employed a Sin-abušu.98 In addition to the messengers, Shulgi-simti also employed supervisors for her textile workshop in Ur (discussed below): they were a father and son team, Kudašum and his son, Iddin-Erra.99

94 RT 37.130 Number 3. 8 (date S32). Discussed in RIME 3/2 pp.172–3. 95 These are so identified on Phillips 13. 96 Itib-šinat is discussed by F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.115 and Paoletti Der König und sein Kreis p. 73. 97 There is a cup-bearer with the same name, Itib-šinat, who occurs in the reign of Ibbi-Sin (e.g. MVN 5.132), but due to the chronological gap and the dissimilarity in profession, I doubt that these are the same man. 98 According to Nisaba 8. 386, Paoletti Der König und sein Kreis p. 73. 99 Discussed by Y. Kuga, “A Šulgi-simtum Tablet in the Atarashi Collection,” ASJ 17 (1995): 314– 6. “Both the father and the son worked in the same office of the textile industry in Ur which was under the control of Šulgi-simti.” (p. 316). Kuga notes that there is a Kudašum whose seal, ded-



Shulgi-simti’s Wool Working 

 127

In addition to the various messengers, there were other men who took care of livestock-related enterprises on Shulgi-simti’s behalf – herders, men in charge of wool and the like. These can be divided into two categories: men who took care of her animals, and men who took care of her foundation’s animals. Every attempt appears to have been made to keep her livestock and her personal herders separate from her foundation’s livestock and her foundation’s herders. In this chapter, we shall consider men who took care of her animals; the foundation and its officials are scrutinized in chapter 8.

Access to Wealth and Power: Shulgi-simti’s Economic Interests Unlike Nin-kalla, who is attested with fields, cattle and appears to have supervised the palace’s domestic staff and received certain payments (such as the mašdaria) together with the king, Shulgi-simti’s range of economic activities appears to have been much more circumscribed and her access to wealth more limited. There is no evidence known to me that Shulgi-simti held land or cattle. However, it is not fair to say that she had no herds: in common with almost every known royal wife of the time, she appears to have received an allowance (sá-dug4) of 30 sheep per month from the crown, and herders to take care of them. What the ultimate usages for these sheep were is unclear. Possibly they were intended to feed the household, or perhaps some were raised for wool.

Shulgi-simti’s Wool Working Parpola observed that the Neo-Assyrian harem produced textiles and yarn, literally by the ton.100 The tradition of palace women either themselves working with wool or supervising textile workshops was a very old one in Mesopotamia, certainly well attested in the second millennium B.C., at Mari and in the archive of Iltani of Karana, to name but two examples. 101 Iltani, for example, possessed

icated to Shulgi, lists his title as rá-gaba (mounted messenger), and wonders whether he is the same Kudašum as the father of Iddin-Erra. 100 S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” pp. 613–626 in G. Lafranchi (et al., eds.), Leggo Fales FS. 101 On Iltani in general, see S. Dalley, Mari and Karana pp. 101–105. A summary of Iltani’s wool work appears in M. Stol, “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” OBO 160/4 pp. 963–969.

128 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

1085 sheep at one point and specialized in producing wool (yarn), which was then transported to Babylon for the work of the weavers.102 Iltani’s wool workshop employed at least 15 women and 10 men as weavers, in addition to another 20 or so employees with various functions (including millers and brewers).103 In addition to what seems like almost industrial production, Old Babylonian royal women also made garments for the king. A letter from Shibtu to her husband exhorts Zimri-Lim to “enter Mari in peace and joy of heart. Now, may my lord put on himself the tunic and coat that I made.”104 The Old Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian examples, thus, seem to show us a long-standing tradition of royal women producing yarns and threads for weaving. It is therefore no surprise that all of Shulgi’s wives apparently undertook some sort of textile work. Extant Ur III evidence seems to indicate that the royal wives were not just producing thread, but in fact supervising the weaving of these threads into cloths and garments. This was hardly a royal prerogative; other elite women of the Ur III state had substantial wool-working establishments as well. For instance, at Girsu, we know that the ruler’s wife had a weaving establishment from Shulgi 33 to 43; it employed somewhere between 125 to 172 women over the years.105 It is difficult to compare the relative sizes of the wool workshops when comparing numbers of weaving women over against wool production. It is not impossible that the Girsu wool workshop was in fact larger. Shulgi-simti’s wool workshop was located in Ur and appears to have been run for her by Kudašum and his son Iddin-Erra, discussed above. How much direction Shulgi-simti herself gave the wool-work cannot now be determined. The bulk of the work in this workshop was done by enslaved women, as was usual for that time. Shulgi-simti’s wool workshop in Ur produced niglam and ušbar type textiles, as we see in the following tablet.106 Orient 16, 107 174 (Shulgi 43 month 1 day 12). “7 talents, 23 mana, 8 shekels of wool (and) cloth, 5th quality, Existing in the house(hold).

102 M. Stol, “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” OBO 160/4 p. 969. 103 S. Dalley, Mari and Karana p. 103. 104 S. Dalley, translation of ARM X 17, Mari and Karana p. 98. 105 C. Wilcke, “Care of the Elderly,” 1998 p. 31. The figure of 125 women is attested for S33; 130 women in S38, 161 women in S42 and the maximum of 172 women in S43. 106 The existence of this wool workshop has already been noted, of course, for example in W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.18–19.



Shulgi-simti’s Wool Working 

 129

Extra: 47 mana, 9 and a third shekels, 12 grains of low-quality wool, (work-days of) slave-women for one month. Extra, income. Kudašum, foreman of the weavers. 1 niglam cloth, 4th quality, 1 ušbar cloth, After the accounting, Existing at Mura’s (office). Deficit: 1 gur, 5 ban, 3 “liters” of naga (alkali), 5 talents, 3 ma-na of gypsum 29 laborers (guruš) for a day Deficit (with regard to) those who are fullers Via Kudašum. Account of the foreman of the weavers and the fullers, Household/ establishment of Shulgi-simti in Ur. It is twelve months (accounted for).” (Year: Shulgi 43)

A few other tablets also may involve this workshop in Ur between the years Shulgi 41–46.107 Placing even an approximate value on this wool or its woven form is obviously impossible now. However, just to have a rough idea, we know that each sheep would have produced somewhere between 1 to 1.6 kg. of wool per sheep.108 And the price of the wool, standardized in OB times, was 10 shekels of silver per talent of wool, or, put another way, 1 shekel of silver per 6 mina of wool.109 The evidence, though fragmentary, does indicate a wool-working and wool-dying establishment in Ur of some size and longevity. What the purpose of this workshop was—creating textiles for the use of her household and dependents or in fact a workshop creating items to be sold – cannot now be determined. As the result of our labors, then, what conclusions about hierarchy can be drawn? My own conclusions are that Shulgi-simti never held the title queen. At her death she was outranked by Geme-Ninlilla, probably also a lukur or junior wife and probably both women were inferior in rank to the queen, Nin-kalla. The activities of Nin-kalla, with her easy access to huge wealth and numerous employees, would suggest her higher status even without considering her higher title. Having thus set up a model for the hierarchy of these two women, it is time

107 These are OIP 115.64 and OIP 115.66 (dated to Shulgi 41); Babylonaica 8, HG 4 (dated to Shulgi 44), ASJ 17, 317 (dated to Shulgi 46). 108 M. Stol, “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” OBO 160/4 p. 959. The larger figure is that attested in 1960’s Iraq. 109 M. Stol, “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” OBO 160/4 p. 971.

130 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

to consider what can be known about Shulgi-simti’s life, which is actually very little.

Where Did Shulgi-simti live? The Shulgi-simti archive does appear to have been based at Puzrish-Dagan, but it need not follow that Shulgi-simti herself was necessarily resident there. In fact, her usual place of residence appears to have been in Ur. Orient 16.107.174, a tablet just discussed, is a twelve-month account of wool associated with é-dšul-gi-síim-ti šag4 urim5ki-ma, the household of Shulgi-simti in Ur. This is not absolutely firm evidence, as one could certainly set up a weaving establishment in a place separate from one’s main residence, but, when added together with the fact that most of the sacrifices made from her foundation center around Ur, it does seem plausible that Shulgi-simti may have been mainly stationed there. Shulgi-simti did sometimes travel to the other capitals, but she is never, to the best of my knowledge, attested outside the palace walls, so it is unclear to me whether she enjoyed freedom of movement.

Phillips 13 Phillips 13 is a large and beautiful tablet from the Treasure archive, 110 which is important evidence for understanding Shulgi-simti’s role at court. In it, Shulgi-simti seems to be the most important among the royal wives, and in order to explain what this means, we must attempt to put the tablet into its proper context. This is difficult, as the tablet is currently unique and we can only guess at the circumstances in which it was drawn up. The tablet is a list of expenditures of precious goods from the official royal treasury to members of the royal family, chiefly, the Shulgi himself and Shulgi-simti; a number of other royal wives and body servants also occur in subsidiary roles. The last few lines of the tablet are not well preserved and so the date is uncertain. We can see that the occasion is described as a kaš-dé-a (beer-pouring,

110 The tablet used to belong to a Northern Oklahoma seminary (Phillips) was dissolved in the 80’s and their collection sold. The remaining staff at the seminary have no records of the origin of the tablet, unfortunately. The tablet is currently in a German collection. After existing in a strange limbo for many years, being available online but not properly published, the tablet now appears in P. Paoletti, Der Kőnig und sein Kreis pp. 316–324.



Phillips 13 

 131

or more to the point, a banquet)111 in the house of a man, but the man’s name is broken too. Shulgi-simti took a very prominent role in the festivities or ceremonies connected to this tablet, but it remains somewhat enigmatic what those festivities were. The king had banquets, of course, so there is nothing particularly unusual about that, but the sheer volume and nature of the goods laid out at the banquet should tip us off to the fact that this was not a regular dinner-party but more likely a rite of passage. (Generally people do not supply beds when they go to people’s houses for a party). Weiershäuser suggested it was a marriage.112 This is a plausible hypothesis, but I think we should also consider another explanation, less idyllic but perhaps more likely, a funeral. If a wedding, it is likely that the bride was a daughter of Shulgi and Shulgi-simti who married into the household of the broken name listed at the end of the tablet; if a funeral, it could be a son or daughter of the pair. In either case, the strong role of Shulgi-simti here likely results not from her being queen or being the first among the royal wives in rank, but simply because the rite of passage concerned her child. If the interpretation of the funerary rite is correct, Shulgi-simti attained the limelight only with a crushing personal loss. Here a summation may suffice. As the end of the tablet tells us, the occasion was a festivity in Ur, a kaš-dé-a, or beer-drinking celebration, at the house of a man: unfortunately, the name of the man and the year formula are broken. For this event, treasure, mainly in the form of metals and furniture, are expended. The text can be divided into three major sections. First, a fortune in the form of various commodities expended is categorized as “lugal-mu” –“my king.” These items included rings of silver and gold and red gold, bowls and vessels of gold and silver (the silver objects alone are said to weigh 40 ma-na), assorted furniture, including a chair, a stool, a table, a bed, 2 cup-boards and a basin (abzu). Also expended to the king were 1205 various textiles and 2 oil flasks. Michalowski’s interpretation was that these items were given to the king.113 If it was a wedding or

111 The kaš-dé-a (Akk. qerītu) was a banquet, that is, a secular event, but the term could also be used for divine parties, that is, religious events, as Michalowski observed, “Drinking Gods,” in M. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies p. 30. 112 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 171–2. 113 P. Michalowski sees these goods as valuables given to members of the royal family and their entourage when the king drank beer in the estate of Sharrum-bani, ASJ 4 (1982): 135. A Sharrum-bani appears in the Royal Correspondence as someone who is sent to work on the Amorite wall but, overstepping his authority, is replaced by Shu-Sin with Babati. However, the restoration of the name Sharrum-bani is not so sure, see F. Huber-Vuillet, “Šarrum-bāni,” RlA 12 (2009): 79–80 and P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis.

132 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

a funeral, we can see these as the gifts the sovereign father gave on the wedding or at the funeral. The next to receive treasure was Shulgi-simti, to whom was allocated rings and other jewelry fashioned from red gold, a gold bowl, silver vessels totaling 10 ma-na of silver: she also received furniture, in the form of a chair with fancy feet, a table, a bed, a cup-board, a basin, 69 various textiles and an oil flask. After her, a group of royal women (whom we know to be other wives of Shulgi, though they are not so identified here), Nin-kalla, ME-Ea and Ea-niša, received smaller quantities of jewelry, 26 textiles each and an oil flask. Five other named individuals received smaller amounts of metal and also textiles and usually oil jars. In another section of the tablet, we find further allocations to Shulgi-simti, here spelled zi-im-tum, is similar to what preceded but far lesser in value—more gold, more silver objects (weighing only around 20 ma-na, a chair with fine feet, a table, another bed, another cupboard, 69 various textiles, another abzu-tank and again the šakan ti-di, oil flasks. Then follows another allocation associated with Shulgi-simti, described as [sag-r]ig7 {Shulgi-si]-im-tum-me, a gift of Shulgi-simti. I interpret this to mean that the items described were her own property, given as a gift (in contrast to the other items listed earlier, which came from the royal treasury). Here we find small amounts of jewelry, including earrings, textiles and women. It seems that the women were slaves and were thus “expended.”114 The next lines are broken, but we can see silver and a few textiles were handed over to a series of princes and princesses, first the en-priests and priestesses of Nanna and Inanna, and so on; after this the named royal offspring appear: Tulid-Šamši (whom we know from other sources was an NIN-dingir priestess of Nanna/ Sin in Urum),115 Šituli, Šu-Sin116 etc. Next appear Shulgi-simti’s messengers (kas4): Lu-urub, Sin-Abušu, Itib-šinat and some broken names. The text is not well-preserved after that. All this is said to be a kaš-dé-a, or “banquet,” at the house of a man whose name is broken: ša-ru-[x-x]. Most previous discussions of the text have taken for granted that the original restoration Sharrum-[bani] is correct.117 Sharrum-bani was a prominent governor of the province of Apiak in the second half of the reign

114 Paoletti discusses persons described with the term sag-rig7 in Der König und sein Kreis p.323. 115 According to MVN 8. 115 and OIP 121.276. P. Steinkeller, “On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage,” in K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East 1999 p. 126 note 83. 116 Whether this is Amar-Sin’s son Shu-Sin, who would eventually be king, or some other man of this name cannot be determined at present. 117 It is restored Sharrum-bani in CDLI; see P. Michalowski, “Drinking Gods” in M. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies p. 31 footnote 17.



Phillips 13 

 133

of Amar-Sin118 and a man of that same name appears as a character in the Royal Correspondence, though there he is given the title gal-zu-unken-na, “special commissioner,” and depicted as someone whose work on the Amorite Wall displeased Shu-Sin.119 But this Sharrum-bani (or perhaps these Sharrum-banis, as it is not so clear that the actual governor of Apiak was the character in the letters) was active well after Shulgi’s death. Another possibility is to restore some other name beginning with Sharrum—[x], like Sharrum-[ili]; Paoletti reads šar-ru-ì-[lí-ka].120 As transliterated and on the photographs online, no NI is visible, but perhaps Paoletti has profited from close examination of the actual tablet. Sharrum-ili was a high courtier, in fact a governor of Uruk between S45 and Amar-Sin 2. He and his wife appears frequently in other tablets of the archive of Shulgi-simti, so Paoletti thought this was a plausible candidate for the banquet of Shulgi, Shulgi-simti and the other court women. Without examination of the tablet, I am unable to say whether the name is in fact Sharrum-[ili]; many other possibilities could be presented. The date of the text is currently unclear. The online transliterations and photos show only mu-ús-sa before a large break: this could be any of a large number of years in Shulgi’s reign. Weiershäuser dates the tablet firmly to S47 xii,121 but on what basis is very unclear to this author. Paoletti, on the other hand, dated the text 21 years earlier, to S26, because she believed the text mentioned two different persons122 who held the title of en of Enki, an overlap which she thought could only occur in that one year. It is, however, possible to read the lines in question as a name and an explanation, that is a name, who is the en-priestess. If one does this, then, noting that that particular name for the en priestess was used as the year formula for S28, it seems to me that the text must date after S27/28, but that we do not presently have enough information to date it securely. Many uncertainties thus remain, but we may perhaps make more progress when considering what occasion is reflected here. What sort of event was this banquet? The Sumerian term kaš-dé-a could refer to an ordinary banquet, as we know from other texts that such banquets could

118 A. Goetze, JCS 17 (1963): 21 and Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 272. 119 P. Michalowski, “Königsbriefe,”RlA 1983: 54. This is also discussed by Michalowski in his The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur pp. 145–146 and note 52, where he is far more certain that the name is to be read Sharrum-bani than the text warrants. 120 P. Paoletti Der König und sein Kreis p. 320. 121 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 171. 122 Assuming that male deities had female ens, one should correct her “en-Priester” to the feminine form. The individual is in question occurs in R II lines 25–26, En-nam-šita-dšul-gi-ra-ke4gub-ba, P. Paoletti Der König und sein Kreis p. 321.

134 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

occur at other people’s houses (not just in the palace).123 But if we look closely at the nature of the commodities expended, we see that these are not the usual party favors of meat, silver rings, textiles or footwear, but rather the furnishings of a very rich household. While it is conceivable that the king would have come in great state and pomp to the beer-drinking festivity with his own seat, bed, slaves, oil and garments, the quantity and value of the treasure make this, in my view, unlikely. Would Shulgi really have needed to drag across town a bed, more than a thousand textiles, plus a king’s ransom worth of gold and silver? On the basis of comparative evidence, one can make the argument that this banquet was part of a wedding feast, and that all the rich goods transferred here— the precious metals, slaves, and most tellingly, the oil and the bed, probably represent the part of the ceremony, in which gifts were given to the bride by her family in a ceremony involving unction.124 This certainly was the interpretation Weiershäuser came to.125 The kaš-dé-a was part of the wedding festivities (though not all kaš-dé-a’s were weddings); in Old Babylonian times at least, a milestone in the wedding negotiations, the payment of the brideprice, was marked by a drinking-party.126 If we look at other texts from Early Mesopotomia documenting stages in the marriage process, comparison can be made to a Mari text noting the dowry items given to the princess Shimatum.127 Earlier archives, e.g. from Ebla and Sargonic Eshnunna, detail similar transactions. In the Ebla texts, the princess Tište-Damu, whose marriage was being celebrated, and a series of court women received cloth, silver ‘pendentifs,’ and gold,128 just as Ninkalla and the other royal wives received jewelry and textiles in Phillips 13. Other Ebla texts about a non-royal family record the allocation of “oil for the unction of the bride.”129 Stol has suggested that the oil was used to anoint the bride at the bethrothal, and notes that this custom is

123 “Algunos textos de la III Dinastía de Ur recuerden como los monarcos, a veces con su familia y otros miembros de la corte, visitaban la casa de altos dignitaries, quienes les colmaban de regalos y les ofrecían un buen banquete.” M. Molina, “Cerveza,” La Cerveza el la Antigüedad p. 27. 124 Stol notes evidence from Ebla, Syria and Assyria that “the head of the girl was anointed with oil indicating that she had entered a new status,” “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995): 128. 125 F. Weiershäuser, Die Kőniglichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 172. 126 M. Stol, “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995): 128 and Women in the Ancient Near East pp. 74–75.. 127 J. Sasson, Section 1.8.a, From the Mari Archives pp. 111–112. 128 M.-G. Biga, “Femmes de la Famille Royale d’Ebla,” in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le Proche-Oriente Antique CRRAI 33 pp 45–6. 129 A. Archi, “Rank at the Court of Ebla,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black p. 1 and 7.



Phillips 13 

 135

especially clear in documentation from the north and western parts of Mesopotamia.130 The Sargonic Eshnunna text includes more household items, textiles and wool, silver, livestock, food and seemingly bedding on the happy occasion.131 But the oil was vegetable oil, not butter, and the quantities were much less of everything. For a wedding, this would be an unusual event in that it would seem to merge two parts of the marriage that were quite separate (and often many months or even years from each other): the banquet on the conclusion of the bethrothal (at which time the bride was anointed and the groom would pay the brideprice) and the consummation of the marriage and payment of the dowry. While Philips 13 could look like a bethrothal banquet, the quantity and nature of the household goods looks like a dowry.132 And it is also unclear why so many vials of oil in the hands of all the different royal women. If only a little oil is put once on the bride at her betrothal, why so much? Paoletti also disagreed with the marriage hypothesis: “Eine wichtige diplomatische Hochzeit ist pace Weiershäuser aufgrund der Empfäangerliste ausgescholssen.”133 She tentatively connected the text to the boat of heaven (má-an-na) festival, though she herself noted that the Boat of Heaven festival took place in Uruk and this text clearly documents an event in Ur. So far, we have seen that there are problems with the idea that Phillips 13 recorded a simple banquet, problems with the idea that is was a wedding, and problems with the idea that is was part of an Uruk festival. What then could it likely represent? The event that combined elements of oil unction in the hands of many women, beds, very rich goods and a banquet is a funeral, and it is my opinion that that is indeed the likeliest explanation for what we see here. The term “banquet” may initially throw us off, as we may think it refers to a joyful event, but in Babylonian settings, the term kaš-dé-a was also used to describe funerary repasts.134 Not only is this attested in the Mari correspondence,135 but a very interesting text recording

130 M. Stol, Women in the Ancient Near East pp. 76–79. 131 B. Foster, “Clothing in Sargonic Mesopotamia: Visual and Written Evidence,” in B. Lion and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennium B.C. p. 133. The text was published as MAD 1.129. 132 R. Westbrook, A History of ANE Law pp.45–6 and 60–62. 133 Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis p. 322 footnote 520. 134 CAD Q qerītu p. 241 (Ludlul IV). Cohen, in commenting on the placement of the food vessels in the royal cemetery, suggested that the corpse was made to seem as if a guest at the banquet, Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship p. 90. 135 D. Charpin, Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia p. 125.

136 

 Chapter 5 Lives of the Wives: Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti

lamentations over the death of Išbi-Erra and his ascent into heaven occurred at the kaš-dé-a of Šu-ilišu.136 Banquets at people’s houses, then, could be funerary. The goods expended in Phillips 13 would be unusual for a dowry or brideprice because of their very richness. The furniture, chiefly the bed, but also the chairs and so on, were needed for a woman setting up her own household at marriage, but in Mesopotamian contexts, were needed for funerary ritual as well. Steinkeller, analyzing Early Dynastic Lagash material, has shown that the same sorts of household items  – the bed featuring prominently among them—were also essential in death and burial rites. For instance, he reinterpreted an Early Dynastic text DP 75, which had previously been seen as household goods given at a marriage, suggested that in fact it “is a record of funerary offerings.”137 Vogel has documented the use of beds and chairs as grave goods in Adab and Ur III contexts.138 On the basis of the furniture itself, one could probably not determine whether this was a marriage or a funeral. But Phillips 13 also includes a huge outlay of textiles and metal vessels and jewelry objects. Charpin has shown that, at Mari, graves were supplied with vast amounts of metal goods of various types.139 All the vases of silver, gold and copper, the silver rings, toggle pins and large pots listed in Phillips 13 have good parallels to funerals described in various Mari documents.140 The very richness of what we could see as the grave goods accords well with what we know was supplied in graves in the late third millennium at Ur.141 Finally, the oil pots for individual people is explicable for a funeral, less so for a wedding. Funerary rituals in Mesopotamia at the time used a quantity of oil on the corpse, a custom attested from the Early Dynastic period right the way down to the reign of Nabonidus.142 Toggle pins were also frequently used in burials as grave goods.143

136 Charpin, Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia p. 120. 137 P. Steinkeller, “Threshing Implements in Ancient Mesopotamia: Cuneiform Sources,” Iraq 52 (1990): 21 and note 29. 138 H. Vogel, “Death and Burial,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World p.425. 139 D. Charpin, Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia pp. 112–114. 140 Charpin, Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia p 114; also known archaeologically, p. 113. 141 W. Sallaberger, “Eine reiche Bestattung,” JCS 47 (1995): 115–121. 142 A. Cohen, Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship p. 72. See also Vogel, “Death and Burial,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World p. 427. For the later attestations, such as for the body of Shamshi-Addu and Nabonidus’ mother, D. Charpin, Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia p. 112, and p. 132. 143 At Mari, archaeological work on a grave of one Zinuba yielded many toggle pins, see D. Charpin, Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia p. 113.

Conclusions 

 137

Finally, the servants who are donated may also have been considered grave goods. While this is a jarring thought, excavations at Ur did clearly show the presence of numerous “secondary” burials, so we know it was a practice at that time to inter persons of lesser rank as grave goods to the primary burial, as we shall see in more detail in chapter seven. I think the tablet can plausibly be identified as a funeral for a child of both Shulgi and Shulgi-simti, which can therefore tell us much more about the roles of both parents in funerary rituals than about Shulgi-simti’s exact place in the hierarchy of the wives.

Conclusions This chapter has concluded that Shulgi-simti was not a chief wife or the highest-ranking of the royal wives. The position of queen, or first lady, was probably occupied by Nin-kalla, who may possibly have come from the east (Elam), though she also had strong ties to Nippur. Shulgi-simti was, according to the evidence collected here, probably one of the numerous lukurs, albeit one with favor from the king. While texts like Phillips 13 do show her in a position of influence at the court, there are many other texts, most notably the death offering record discussed earlier, that suggest she was of lesser rank. If my analysis is correct, then Shulgi-simti’s archive provides an excellent chance to see what opportunities there were for women whose birth and rank placed them at the fringes of the royal court.

Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More As already amply demonstrated, Shulgi was not a monogamous man. In the last decades of his reign, in addition to Nin-kalla and Shulgi-simti, quite possibly to be identified as his queen and a favorite concubine respectively, Shulgi had at least two other junior wives, Ea-niša and Geme-Ninlilla. (Quite possibly a few more should be added to the total, as we shall see at the end of the chapter). Geme-Ninlilla and Ea-niša appear to be fairly obscure characters in the historical narrative of the Third Dynasty of Ur: many Ur III specialists in fact have never heard of them. This obscurity is due to the patchwork of surviving sources (which privilege Shulgi-simti) rather than to any real lack of importance on their part. Both Geme-Ninlilla and Ea-niša appear to have been higher in rank and richer than Shulgi-simti. This chapter, then, seeks to reconstruct what can be known about Shulgi’s other wives. Although Geme-Ninlilla, Ea-niša and Shulgi-simti appear at face value to have been comparable in rank and in the sorts of activities they were involved in at the court, closer examination may reveal some differences among them. Geme-Ninlilla was almost certainly yet another of Shulgi’s lukurs, though data about her title has not survived. Of all the wives, she appears most comparable to Shulgi-simti. Both received allowances while alive, received shoes and such on set occasions, and dealt with smallish textile manufacturing workshops. Both Shulgi-simti and Geme-Ninlilla had religious foundations run in their name, though the extant evidence for Shulgi-simti’s is far greater; both women died at almost the same time and were joint recipients of ki-a-nag offerings. Geme-Ninlilla appears to have been a bit wealthier than Shulgi-simti, and also perhaps higher in court hierarchy. Ea-niša, at least during the reign of Shulgi, does not appear to have been much different in position than Geme-Ninlilla or Shulgi-simti. Ea-niša appears to have participated in the same kind of small-scale livestock receipts, especially of sheep and goats, and the same range of textile production as Shulgi-simti did. But her prominence appears to have risen in Shulgi’s last years, and as a widow, she enjoyed her own estate, complete with boatman and orchard, and controlled a large staff. Returning to the court at intervals in the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin, Ea-niša would live about another fifteen years as Shulgi’s widow. (In contrast, Nin-kalla, much more important during Shulgi’s lifetime, lived a very retired life in Nippur afterwards). Altogether, then, we seem to see an intricate arrangement of royal wives, each with her own place in the hierarchy (though this seems to have been subject DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-006

140 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

to evolution) and each with her own enterprises and staffs. This was not a simple replication of faceless concubines, but a complex constellation of individual situations and interests.

Firgure 3: Clay Figurine of an unclothed woman from Ur, now in the British Museum, image AN312814001.

Ea-niša Ea-niša was a lukur who (like Nin-kalla) outlived their husband. Ea-niša’s staff was huge, especially well attested after she became a widow, but these seem to be men who worked for her alone. We should not discount the possibility that Ea-niša may have been of moderate wealth and influence while she was just another of Shulgi’s many lukurs but gained prominence and wealth in subsequent reigns. Comparisons with Ottoman and Egyptian courts suggests that a woman’s position was often linked to her children’s, especially her sons’ prominence at court: a woman could have been quite unimportant in the reign of her



The Name Ea-niša 

 141

spouse and later raised when her son attained power or favor. While naturally we cannot prove that anything like this was true for Ea-niša, it may not be accidental that the bulk of information about Ea-niša’s wealth and high standing come from the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin. Ea-niša is not a well-known figure in Ur III studies, and the data about her have been pieced together from tiny scraps of information from a number of different sources. For this reason, I will first run through the basics of her biography, insofar as it can be known, before trying to make an analysis of her position at court. Ea-niša never held the rank of NIN, queen: from the seals of her servants, we know that her title/ rank was lukur.1 Described by Weiershäuser as “eine weitere hochrangige Nebenfrau Šulgis,”2 one might be tempted to dismiss Ea-niša as yet another reduplication of Shulgi’s seemingly endless store of women with little to distinguish the one from the other. But though Ea-niša shared some similarities with her co-wives Geme-Ninlilla and Shulgi-simti (such as a similar range of livestock transactions and wool-working enterprises), her livestock holdings and interests appear to have been more extensive than those of Geme-Ninlilla. Furthermore, at least as a widow, she had her own estate and freedom of movement. Attested most frequently at Ur3 and Umma according to extant tablets, Ea-niša frequently worked together with Shulgi-simti during her life.

The Name Ea-niša This may be a name the woman bore from birth or possibly one given to her on her union with Shulgi: we cannot know. The etymology and translation of the name remain unknown.4

1 Ea-niša is discussed by F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur on p. 204 and pp. 206–211. See also D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 167 with previous scholarship. 2 Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 206. 3 For example, Ea-niša appears in Ur in MVN 15.287 (SS2 month 10): cattle and sheep sá-dug4 é-a-ni-ša-šè ki na-wi-ir-DINGIR-ta ri-mi-DINGIR ì-dab5 šag4 uri5ki-ma. 4 Hilgert has suggested (pers. comm.) that the name is of non-Akkadian origin.

142 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

Dates Attested Documentation in the early part of Shulgi’s reign is very sparse, so, though Ea-niša first appears in a tablet from the Shulgi-simti archive dated to S30,5 it is very possible that she had been living in the court for some time prior to that. Ea-niša lived for about thirty years after her first appearance, disappearing sometime between SS6 (her last known attestation)6 and SS8, by which time her servants were already reassigned to other royal women. She retained her allowance (sá-dug4) throughout the reign of Amar-Sin. Ea-niša, then, appears to be the longest-living wife of Shulgi, and perhaps the one who retained (or attained) the highest status as a widow.

Residence(s) Ea-niša spent at least some time in Uruk. During Shulgi’s reign, she appears to have been in Uruk in S44 month 3.7 Later, she is attested also in Ur receiving animals there at least once in the reign of Shu-Sin.8 If I am correct in believing that Shulgi-simti’s chief residence was in Ur also, then these two co-wives regularly shared the Ur palace. This may explain why Shulgi-simti’s foundation appears to have aided Ea-niša on a number of occasions, for instance, with banquets in Shulgi 39. As a widow, Ea-niša’s economic interests are represented in tablets from Umma and Girsu/Lagash, suggesting that she had an estate or at least livestock interests in both provinces. Whether her interests were limited to this region, we

5 Previously the first known reference to Ea-niša was OIP 115.47 (S38.08.-) This document, from the Shulgi-simti archive, is an expenditure from Shulgi-simti’s bureau chief, Abilya, of a single goat níg-kú é-a-ni-ša-šè, for Ea-niša’s consumption. Using those documents, Weiershäuser dated her first appearance to S38, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p.206. More recently a tablet from the Detroit Museum (DIA 19.024.11, CDLI number P461504) appearing in the CDLI database extends her back to S30 month 9. 6 She is attested in SS6 month 9 according to AUCT 3.412, a document recording the transfer of bronze (zabar) from a man named Allu to her orchard-keeper Lu-Narua (nu-giškiri6 é-a-ni-ša); the metal is described as á mu-1-a-bi, the wages for one year. The transaction does not reflect any deed of Ea-niša’s herself, but presumably if she were dead already, Lu-Narua would not have been identified as her employee still. 7 According to AAICAB 1/1/139, 1971–346 (S44 month 3). 8 AUCT 1.162 (SS1) shows Ea-niša receiving 2 gud sá-dug4 in Ur.



Her Title 

 143

do not know, but quite possibly she had still more property scattered throughout the Land.

Ea-niša’s Seal Ea-niša’s seal impression survives, as do those of a few of her servants. The impression of Ea-niša’s seal was preserved by being rolled on a clay envelope or bulla, published as RA 73 (1979): 190. 9 The bulla is inscribed with one short phrase, kišib é-a-ni-ša: seal of Ea-niša. The seal itself is a royal gift seal, from Shulgi to his lukur, Eaniša, reading: dšul-gi nita kalag-ga lugal uri5ki-ma lugal-an-ub-da límmu-ba-ke4 é-a-ni-š[a] lukur-kaskal-la-k[a]-ni-ir in-na-ba, “Shulgi, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the four quarters—to Ea-niša, his kaskal-concubine,10 he gave {this seal}.” Sealed bullae were used for secure storage, for instance, of jars, doors and the like: an examination of the clay itself, that is, the back of the bulla, has the potential to tell us what Ea-niša was sealing. The seal shows a presentation or introduction scene. The iconography of the seal has been studied by Suter, who compared it to the seals of two other women from the reign of Shu-Sin: Simat-Ištaran (Shu-Sin’s own sister) and Anaya (married to a notable named Nawir-ilum). All these women’s seals show a woman standing before an enthroned king who holds a cup, followed by a lamma-spirit whose arms are upraised, as Suter points out.11 Ea-niša’s seal, unlike the other two, features an axe. Suter speculated, “ the axe on the seal of Ea-niša, who is explicitly identified as a travelling companion if this is what l u k u r k a s k a l - l a implies, may be a battle axe and allude to a military campaign too.”12

Her Title Ea-niša’s title was, unquestionably, lukur. Her own seal specifies that she was Shulgi’s lukur kaskal-la. On the seal of her servant Lu-Namma, she is termed a

9 RIME 3/2 176, number 75, published originally by Grégoire as RA 73 (1979): 190–1. The seal was discussed by R. Mayr and D. I. Owen, “The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period,” FS Pettinato pp.149, 157 and 167. 10 As discussed earlier this could be translated as “traveling concubine, concubine taken on campaign, junior concubine.” 11 C. Suter, “Who Are the Women in Mesopotamian Art from CA. 2334–1763 BCE?,” Kaskal 5 (2008): 14–15. 12 C. Suter, Kaskal 5 (2008): 15.

144 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

lukur-ki-ág lugal, the king’s beloved lukur.13 And on another seal of an employee of hers, Na-silim, she likewise appears as lukur-ki-ág lugal.14 Thus, her rank as attested by titles may well be equivalent to that of Shulgi-simti.

Ea-niša in the Reign of Shulgi: An Overview Fewer than twenty-five tablets survive today that can shed light on Ea-niša’s life between S30 and S48, but even these scant sources can be pieced together to suggest that Ea-niša was primarily situated in Ur and Uruk (not in the Nippur province). Though originally to be found amongst the obscurest of the junior concubines and apparently without supplies of livestock of her own for the first twelve years or so, her star was on the rise from about S43 onwards. She had a high enough position from about S44 to S47 that offerings were made by her or by her majordomo (šabra) to major deities in the state pantheon— Ninlil, Nannaya, and Utu, and she dedicated a large and no doubt expensive votive bead to Inanna. Her brother appears in a prominent position from S46–48 according to Puzrish-Dagan delivery texts; possibly the same man also represented the crown abroad according to messenger texts. Furthermore, Ea-niša had the honor of receiving booty from the conquest of Shimashki in S47. Let us look carefully at the evidence.

Ea-niša in Early Obscurity Even though we have only about eight tablets that have been published that mention Ea-niša in the twelve-year period between S30 and S42, there is nothing to contradict the view (and in fact much to confirm it) that Ea-niša was a very obscure concubine during these years. For instance, in a Shoe Archive text dated to S4115, Ea-niša’s position in the court hierarchy appears to have been quite low. In this text, a royal prince named Shu-Enlil received 5 pairs of boots and 5 pairs of shoes; the king’s sister, Ama-barag, received 5 pairs of boots. Perhaps as an indication of their low rank, a group of five women received only one pair of boots each. These women (aside from Ea-niša) are known from other texts as some-

13 AUCT 3.322 (an undated bulla): the inscription reads: é-a-ni-ša lukur ki-ág-lugal lú-dnamma dub-sar dumu ur-dištaran árad-zu. 14 Na-silim’s seal occurs for instance on ZVO 25, 136.3, also published as RIME 3/2 p. 175. 15 This text was published as Nisaba 8.386, dating to S41 months 7–9.



Ea-niša in Early Obscurity 

 145

where on the spectrum that stretched from dancing girl to very junior concubine: Agua-simti, Anati, Ea-niša, ME-Ea and Libur-simti. As a general rule, allocation texts concerning the court will list contemporaneous transactions in order of rank, with the most important person appearing first, the least important person appearing last. Using this principle, then Ea-niša’s rank was at this time below the very obscure Agua-simti and Anati. Lest we misjudge her status on the basis of a single tablet, let us consider another document, this one her earliest known attestation from Shulgi’s 30th regnal year.16 Here, a man named Shu-kubum received deliveries of oxen and sheep: each group of animals is associated with a woman’s name, for instance, “1 grass-fed ox, 2 regular-quality fattened sheep, 2 regular sheep, 1 goat: ME-Ea.” One presumes these were deliveries from these women, though it is not impossible that the animals were given to them. Shu-kubum is a known figure in early Drehem documents—he worked for Geme-Sin, one of Shulgi’s earlier wives. Shu-kubum received 6 heads of cattle and 55 various sheep and goats, generally in a pattern of one ox and either 9 or 5 sheep. As one would expect, the entries appear to be in strict order of rank. First, Nin-kalla, whom I have argued was queen, who also had a large animal total, 1 ox and 10 various sheep, then the queen mother, SI.A-tum, in what surely was one of her last appearances, then ME-Ea, and finally Ea-niša, Halhalla and Tezen-Mama. Halhalla is a very obscure figure, most probably a woman, but whether a concubine or a daughter or some other figure is not known. Tezen-Mama is generally thought to be a princess. The important point for us here is that Ea-niša appears to be well down in the hierarchy of women, in between Me-Ea and Halhalla. The middle-ranking concubines like Shulgi-simti and Geme-Ninlilla received an allowance of thirty sheep a month at this time, and one might assume that Ea-niša would also have received that, but we have no evidence of such allocations. Perhaps the evidence is missing, or perhaps her rank was so low that she was not entitled to the allowance. She did receive a pair of shoes in S4117 and a little bit of flour and other comestibles in S40,18 but the evidence does not show us a wealthy or influential woman. Only one servant of hers is known from this time: Lu-Ninšubur.19

16 DIA 19.024.11. 17 According to Nisaba 8.386. 18 According to Nisaba 8.71; one may compare her receipt of a single goat in S38 (OIP 115.47). 19 SAT 2.234 (S39).

146 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

Ea-niša’s Status Improves In the last five years or so of Shulgi’s reign, Ea-niša’s status appears to have risen dramatically. Now Ea-niša had livestock of her own and herders to mind it.20 Now Ea-niša had substantial textile interests, not just where she lived, but also in the Girsu province.21 At least two men worked for her in this textile sector (Ur-Iškur and En-dingirmu). Now Ea-niša’s economic interests were enough that she needed a person to deal with her fruit in addition to her own personal majordomo, the šabra Lu-dugga.22 Now Ea-niša was in a prominent enough position that she dedicated votive objects, such as an agate bead to Inanna of É-an-na, NIN-a-ni, that is, for her mistress/ queen, Inanna of Ishtar, for the life of Shulgi, her husband.23 She even commissioned a statue, which we know of from a list preserved on an Old Babylonian Sammeltafel.24

Her Family Although we know very little of Ea-niša’s family, two scraps of evidence survive: we know the names of her son and her brother. Her brother was named Iddin-Ea (spelled i-dì-é-a)25: this individual appears as the supplier of 1 ox, 8 sheep, 1 goat and 1 lamb in a Drehem tablet published as OIP 115.199.26 The other provisioners on this tablet, unfortunately simply labeled mu-DU (delivery), were lú NIN-gá, “My queen’s man,” and the zabar-dab5, the highest cultic official in the royal

20 According to AAICAB 1 /4, Bod. S 587 (S46) and Nisaba 8.46 (S43). 21 According to CT 7 pl. 19, BM 012946 (S42) and ASJ 4.141.5 (S45). 22 PDT 1.99 (S47); her fruit was in the hands of Inzuzu, according to AUCT 3.321 (S45). 23 This bead was published in RIME 3/2 p. 175 as number 72. See also P. Steinkeller, “Notes on Two Sumerian Votive Inscriptions,” RA 73 (1979): 190. 24 RIME 3/2 pp 179–180; also discussed by B. Lion, “Literacy and Gender,” in K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture p. 94 and C. Suter, “Ur III Kings in Images: A Reappraisal,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black pp. 328–9. Suter wonders whether we should read the inscription to imply that the statue was of Ea-niša herself. 25 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur . p. 209 and note 918 reads the name Idī-Ea, though she notes that Iddin-Ea is also a possible reading. 26 Dated to Shulgi 46.03.19: also provisioning are lú NIN-ga, “Milady’s agent,” literally, the man of my queen, and the cup-bearer, or zabar-dab5 official, both unnamed. The tablet lists these as mu-DU, delivery, but does not specify whose foundation they were to benefit, nor the name of who received them.



Her Family 

 147

sector. In messenger tablets, we find references to an Iddin-Ea šeš lukur, which may be the same man. Iddin-Ea is a common enough name, and tracing this individual through the archives is almost impossible. If Ea-niša were the daughter of a local notable, then it is entirely understandable that her brother would appear in Puzrish-Dagan records. If she were a woman taken as war booty or a woman whose origins were perhaps not very respectable (a dancing girl, for instance), the appearance of her brother would be more unexpected. Ea-niša’s son appears as a witness in a legal document now in the Yale Babylonian Collection.27 The reading of the name remains uncertain. In the text, Turam-ili transferred silver to a man named Nur-ili in front of four witnesses: Puzur-Mama, son of Ubarum, Mumu, son of Shu-Sin (presumably the king), NE.NE, son of Ea-niša (thus, presumably a son of Shulgi’s) and Elak-nuid son of Elak-šu. While it would be wrong to say that this NE.NE attained prominence, he does appear to have continued his association with other junior members of the royal family (such as Shu-Sin’s son) long after the death of Shulgi. Ea-niša also later appears in texts with princesses. It is not impossible that some of these were her offspring. Ea-niša not only lived unto the reigns of AmarSin and Shu-Sin, she also continued to participate, at least occasionally, in the life of the court. Though she may perhaps have retired to an estate in the Umma province, she sometimes appeared at festival-times together with other royal or priestly women. For example, OIP 121.276, a tablet dating to the ezem-mah festival in Amar-Sin’s fifth year, records various expenditures from the then-head of Puzrish-Dagan, Abba-šagga. One group of expenditures was for three high-ranking ladies: oxen and sheep for a princess, for the NIN-dingir priestess of the god Sin and for Ea-niša. The princess is here identified not by her own name or rank, simply as the spouse of her husband, but her attestations elsewhere show us that she was a princess.28 Judging by the quantities allocated, the princess was the highest-ranking, receiving 2 oxen and 20 sheep. It was not unusual for princesses to outrank royal wives: for instance at Mari this is well attested.29 The other women, Ea-niša and Tulid-šamši, received equal amounts, 1 ox and 10 sheep.30

27 JCS 54 p. 33 number 3 (NBC 6714), dated to Shu-Sin 1 month 7, published by S. Garfinkle, Private Enterprise p.79. The text’s provenance is uncertain; T. al-Wilayah has been suggested. 28 On this dam lú-dnanna, see RIME 3/2 p.268. 29 B. Lafont, “Les filles du roi de Mari,” pp. 113–121 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique. 30 More precisely, the princess received 2 gud, 10 udu and 10 máš; Ea-niša, 1 gud, 10 udu; Tulid-šamši, 1 gud, 5 udu, 5 máš. Since a goat was worth the same as a sheep in the Puzrish-Dagan accounting system, 5 sheep and 5 goats “count as” or were worth the same as 10 sheep.

148 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

Whether these women were related by blood or not, the key point here seems to be that Ea-niša continued to be included amongst royal women as late as the middle of Amar-Sin’s reign. Unlike Nin-kalla, who appears to have led a very retired life after the death of Shulgi, Ea-niša does appear to have had continued ties to the court in subsequent reigns. Nothing else is known of her family.

Ea-niša’s Staff Ea-niša had a surprisingly large staff over the years. Regrettably, some of these men seem to appear only in one tablet, or bear such common names that prosopographical analysis is more or less useless. Ea-niša employed more than a dozen men during the course of her life. These are, in alphabetical order, Enun-IL(?), Inzuzu, Lu-dugga, Lu-melam, Lu-Namma, Lu-Narua, Lugal-šeš, Mansum, Na-silim, Šeškalla, Šu-iškur, Šulgi-bani, Šulgi-kalamma-mete-bi and possibly Ur-Iškur.

Evidence for Ea-niša acting with some independence and freedom of movement It seems that Ea-niša employed the same types of messengers and herders that Shulgi-simti did, but in addition she supervised a boatman, a major domo, an orchard-keeper and a scribe, some late in the reign of Shulgi, some after his death. Such employees suggest that Ea-niša ran (perhaps even owned) an estate and used the scribe, major domo and orchard keeper there; the boat may have been needed to bring her back and forth from such an estate to the capital(s). The Umma province may well have been the locale for her estate, as tablets concerning her occur in this provincial archive.

Ea-niša’s Staff —men who appear to be associated with her estate Among Ea-niša’s numerous employees were scribes, such as Lu-Namma, a man with scribal training. An impression of his seal has been found on an uninscribed bulla: é-a-ni-ša lukur ki-ág lugal lú-dnamma dub-sar dumu ur-dištaran árad-



Ea-niša’s Staff —men who appear to be associated with her estate 

 149

zu.31 The date of the text (AUCT 3.222), what the bulla might have sealed, what Lu-Namma’s duties might have been are questions that remain to be answered. A second scribe in her employ was Lu-Ninšubur.32 One can only speculate why Ea-niša needed scribes or graduates of the scribal academy. Were they writing letters or accounts for her? Were they administering property or enterprises on her behalf? What is clear is that Ea-niša was functioning in something more than a purely domestic environment. Ea-niša’s estate appears to have encompassed a fruit garden, at least close to the time of her death. We know this because she employed an orchard-keeper named Lu-Narua (written lú-dna-rú-a nu-giškiri6).33 Another poorly attested servant of Ea-niša’s was In-zu-zu, whose seal identifies him as her árad (servant/slave): é-a-ni-ša lukur! ki-ág lugal in-zu-zu árad-[zu]. While Inzuzu could have been unfree, the term árad on a seal was used to denote a status of dependence, for the type of patron-client relations that could exist between the highest elites in the land. Quite possibly Ea-niša did own slaves of her own, but this seal cannot be used as evidence of it. He appears in only one text known to me, AUCT 3.321.34 This small sealed tablet records the receipt of dates by Inzuzu from Imtidam. The quantity of dates is now lost due to a break at the start of the tablet. We have seen that, after Shulgi’s death, Ea-niša employed another horticulturalist (Lu-Narua), so it seems reasonable to conclude that orchard keepers regularly produced goods for her. Enun-il (if we are to read the name thus) was Ea-niša’s boatman. He is attested on one tablet, MVN 15.357, which dates to Shulgi year 46.35 Although unfortunately almost nothing further can be said about this individual, the fact that Ea-niša employed a boatman implies that she owned or had usufruct over her own boat; quite probably she would have used it herself to travel or transport goods needed for her household. It was not unheard of for elite women of the Ur

31 RIME 3/2 number 79. Weiershäuser’s book (Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur) mentions Lu-Namma and Lu-Ninšubur also on p. 208 and notes 909 and 910. 32 RIME 3/2 number 77 according to YBC 11864. 33 Lu-Narua appears in AUCT 3.412 (SS6), as of course also noted by Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 208 and footnote 912. 34 AUCT 3.321 dates to S46 xii R, though Weiershäuser dates it to S45, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 208 and note 913. The provenience of this sealed tablet is unclear. The seal was published as RIME 3/2 number 78. 35 In RIME 3/2 number 76, the name is read as En-nun-kù, which is also how Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur read it, p. 208 and footnote 911.

150 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

III period to have their own boats: in the reign of Shu-Sin, the wife of the Secretary of State (sukkal-mah) apparently also had her own boat or boats.36

Ea-niša’s Entertainments Our evidence for events such as banquets and such must necessarily be very limited. We do know that Ea-niša had at least one banquet, a kaš-dé-a, on S39 month four day 21, as the food allocations for this have been preserved.37

After Shulgi Ea-niša appears to have survived her spouse and many of her co-wives, appearing in a handful of documents dating to the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin. She is attested as late as Shu-Sin year six in a tablet from Umma concerning the activities of one of her numerous employees, Lu-Narua, the horticulturalist documented earlier. AUCT 3.412 records the loan of bronze (zabar), from a man named Allu to this gardener, with three witnesses: the tablet is sealed by the recipient, whose seal reads: lú-dna-ru-a nu-giškiri6 é-a-ni-ša.38 This tablet then seems to show us the continued survival of Ea-niša. Another possible fragment of evidence suggesting her continued involvement in the court comes from a small group of texts recording regular deliveries. One such is AUCT 1.162, a tablet dating to Shu-Sin’s first regnal year. Here the expenditure of two oxen is recorded, sá-dug4 é-a-ni-ša (a regular delivery for Ea-niša): the transaction is said to take place in Ur. A handful of similar texts date from Shu-Sin’s first and second years, recording the expenditure of regular deliveries for her, as the chart below shows.

36 T. Balke, UF 25 (1993): 3. 37 According to AoF 35 (2008) number 4 p. 243 (S39 iv 21). Interestingly, this text is from the Shulgi-simti archive and the eight birds expended came from Shulgi-simti’s bureau chief, Abiliya, so there seems to have been a certain amount of cooperation among the co-wives’ staff. 38 The seal legend was included in RIME 3/2 as number 80 on p. 179. The loan was for 1 and 2/3 ma-na of zabar, á mu-1-a-bi, kug gín 1-ta-àm lá-e-dè, sag zabar-a-bi šu-a- gi4-gi4-dam: “One and 2/3rds ma-na of bronze, the wages of a year, to be weighed out (as) silver, 1 shekel at a time, the capital/ principal of this bronze to be repaid.”



Text

Ea-niša’s Staff: The šabras Lu-dugga and Shulgi-bani 

Date

Commodity

From

AUCT 1.162 SS1 iv R

2 gud

Lugal-iti-da Ri-mi-DINGIR sá-dug4 é-a-ni-ša; in Ur

AUCT 1.79

SS1 x R

4 gud

Intaea

Ri-mi-DINGIR sá-dug4 é-a-ni-ša -šè

BIN 3.555

SS2 ii R

3 gud; 60 udu

Ahu-wer

AM-ì-lí

MVN 15.287 SS2 x R

3 gud; 120 udu NawirDINGIR

RA 73. 191 Not preserved [x] še gur [Umma archive]

[x]

To

 151

Remarks

sá-dug4 é-a-ni-ša -šè

Ri-mi-DINGIR sá-dug4 é-a-ni-ša -šè; in Ur [x]

sá-dug4 é-a-ni-ša

The last tablet in the chart, seemingly from Umma, differs from the others in that it concerns grain and does not come from Puzrish-Dagan, but is included here as it does also record a sá-dug4 for Ea-niša. Interestingly, within the series, the expenditures all seem to have been made by different individuals associated with the Puzrish-Dagan administration, but to have been received by one man, Rim(i)-ili (whose name was spelled different ways). One might assume that Rim-ili worked for Ea-niša, but we cannot confirm that. These regular deliveries were substantial. While Geme-Ninlilla’s attested sá-dug4s, as discussed above, were usually 30 sheep from the same man, Ea-niša’s were considerably larger. Of course, these are attested long after Shulgi’s death. The large size of Ea-niša’s regular deliveries attests to her importance in the reign of Shu-Sin, but that does not necessarily imply she held such a high position or would have received similar regular deliveries while Shulgi was still alive. She continued to employ a šabra, or major-domo, in the reign of Shu-Sin, according to texts like CT 32, BM 103403, dated to Shu-Sin’s third year. She may have died (or perhaps fallen from favor) shortly after this. Her last attestation is SS6. By SS8, one of her employees was working for another royal wife (A.AB. BA-bašti, more often read Tiamat-bašti), which seems to be a clear indication of Ea-niša’s removal from court circles by this date.

Ea-niša’s Staff: The šabras Lu-dugga and Shulgi-bani It has been known for some time that Ea-niša’s interests were most often handled by her two šabras, one named Lu-dugga, the other named Shulgi-bani.39 Ea-niša

39 P. Steinkeller, RA 73 (1979): 190.

152 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

employed a man named Lú-dugga as her šabra, or major domo/ steward. In the surviving documentation known to me, he only appeared in Drehem texts twice in this capacity, both times when he delivered a lamb for sacrifice. In Shulgi 46, according to SACT 1.131, he provided a lamb for the sun-god;40 according to PDT 1.99, dated to the next year, he provided an animal for Ninlil.41 Were such expenditures contributions on his own behalf or on behalf of his employer, Ea-niša? As Lu-dugga was a common name, it is almost impossible to say whether other Ur III attestations of men with this name represent the same individual.42 In later years, Ea-niša’s šabra was a man by the name of Shulgi-bani. For example, in a text dated to Shu-Sin’s third regnal year, Shulgi-bani, the šabra of Ea-niša, received 90 sheep from a Drehem official named Ur-mes.43 Her receipt of a large number of sheep, much larger than most of the other entries of the tablet, is worth noticing. A closer look at Shulgi-bani himself may be revealing, as he seems to have been involved not only with Ea-niša but also other royal women. One must exercise some caution, however, as there were at least three (and probably more) men named Shulgi-bani in the extant Ur III archives. Prosopographical analysis suggest that, in addition to the Shulgi-bani we are concerned with here, that is, Ea-niša’s employee, were at least two different men, Shulgi-bani a sagi, or “cupbearer,”44 and Shulgi-bani, a military man, son of a general named Kurub-Šamaš.45 It is not always easy to figure out which Shulgi-bani is referred to in a given text, as in the following six tablets summarized in the chart below.

40 SACT 1.131 dates to Shulgi 46 month 12 day 13. 41 PDT 1.99 dates to Shulgi 47 month 3 day 4, an expenditure from Našag. 42 In texts from the reign of Shu-Sin, there is a Lu-dugga identified as šabra lugal, e,g, MVN 15.115 and ASJ 19.220, known from the seal of his servant, a barber named Giri-dšara-idab. Possibly this is the same person as Ea-niša’s servant, who then would have continued to work for the royal sector but on behalf of the king himself. Caution should be exercised, however, as Lu-dugga was a very common name. 43 The tablet is CT 32, 36, BM 103403 (SS3). Ur-mes, son of a kurušda (fattener) named Lana, has been described by Sigrist as particularly prominent in Puzrish-Dagan tablets between SS1–4, and seemingly a controller of a large number of shepherds, some of them in other locations, such as Gaeš and Maškan. Sigrist, Drehem pp.308–9. 44 Shulgi-bani the sagi, “cupbearer,” appears in tablets from Puzrish-Dagan but also Umma in the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin, as in the following examples, in AS1— OIP 121.34; in AS8 — UTAMI 4.2904; in SS4— NYPL 221 and in SS9— PDT 1.586. 45 He appears for example on ITT 2.763 (S44) and MVN 5.284 (undated).



Ea-niša’s Staff: The šabras Lu-dugga and Shulgi-bani 

Text

Date

TLB 3.19

Commodity

 153

From

To

Remarks

S48 vii R 15 4 udu

Našag

Shulgi-ba-ni

Arad-mu maškim

DoCu 255

S48 xi R 20 1 sila4

mu-DU Shulgi-bani

d

AUCT 2.368

S48 xii R 28 1 sila4

mu-DU Shulgi-bani šabra

CST 227

AS1 iv R

1 sila4

Princeton 1.15 AS2 viii R

Ninlil

ki Našag

d

lugal-ì-ra

ki Našag

Shulgi-bani šabra

Ahuni

mu-DU dšul-gi-ra

119 udu

Shulgi-bani

Ur-kug-nunna

šu-gíd udu in-nu-ri; šu-gíd ki šabra-ne-ta

Princeton 1.56 SS8 iv R

30 udu

Shulgi-ili

Shulgi-bani

é-kurušda A.AB. BA-ba-aš-ti-šè

UTAMI 5.3495 Date not preserved

60 bundles of Shulgi-bani reed, sá-dug4

A.AB.BA-ba-áš-ti gìri Ib-ni-dSin

If indeed all these texts represent the activities of the same person, that is, Ea-niša’s šabra, we see a variety of activities over a span of about 18 years. Earlier on, he often provided a lamb for sacrifice to various gods, including the goddess Ninlil, the plague god Lugal-erra and the spirit of the recently deceased Shulgi himself. Again, assuming that this is Ea-niša’s šabra, is he providing these animals himself or as part of his obligations to her, that is, on her behalf? We may recall that another one of Ea-niša’s šabras, Lu-dugga, was often involved in very similar offering texts. In the two latest texts, Shulgi-bani appears to have worked for one of ShuSin’s lukurs, A.AB.BA-bašti (often read Tiamat-bašti), in her animal fattening operations.46 Presumably Ea-niša was dead by this time. This shows a more general pattern, that men would often work for one royal wife, then move into the service of another as time passed. Although our documents, largely from Puzriš-Dagan, largely concern livestock, we need not assume that Ea-niša’s šabras dealt mainly or exclusively in that commodity. Probably they served as general managers for her household(s). Ea-niša did, however, employ herders.

46 This pattern was independently recognized by F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 226.

154 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

Ea-niša’s Staff: The Animal Herder Na-silim Na-silim (sometimes transliterated Na-DI or Na-sá) seems to have been an important member of Ea-niša’s staff. Na-silim is not a very common name, but of course one must be careful to distinguish Ea-niša’s employee from others of the same name. The Na-silim who worked for Ea-niša was probably not the same as the man attested in the Umma archives,47 or the messenger,48 or the father of Bazi of Girsu,49 or the Amorite,50 or the prince.51 One should also keep separate the priest (gudu4) Na-silim attested in two Girsu texts from the British Museum.52 When the text does not specify a patronymic or a profession, it can be almost impossible to tell which Na-silim is which.53 The Na-silim who worked for Ea-niša was the son of a man whose name is to be read either Ur-ešbarra, or Ur-abba-dingirra.54 The father’s name is known from a seal impression, which reads: é-a-ni-ša/ lukur ki-ág lugal // na-silim/ dumu ur-ab-ba-dingir-ra/ árad-zu: Ea-niša, beloved royal lukur, Na-silim, son of Ur-abba-dingirra (is) your servant.55 On another seal, the father of Na-silim was Ur-ešbarra, not Ur-abba-ra-dingirra. Steinkeller, in analyzing this discrepancy, had no clear solution: “I am unable to explain the discrepancies between the writings of the name.”56 This Na-silim apparently held the title na-gada, herder. There was also a Na-silim who held the title šabra, who may possibly be the same man. The herder Na-silim also appears in a few economic tablets, such as CT 7. 19 (BM 012946), a tablet from Girsu recording the wool and textiles under Na-silim

47 Attested for instance in AnOr 12, 104,6; and on the seal of his son, Ur-é-nun-na dub-sar dumu Na-silim, impressed for instance on BPOA 2.2031. Ur-é-nun-na dumu Na-silim also occurs on texts such as MVN 15.255. 48 Na-silim lú kas4 a-dam-DUNki-ta gen-na appears in Sigrist BM Messenger 67 (no date), for example. 49 Ba-zi dumu Na-silim occurs frequently in Girsu texts, for example, CT 9 plate 24, BM 19068 (no date). 50 Na-silim MAR.TU appears in a grain allocation text from Girsu dated to AS4 month 1 (Lagash calendar). 51 Na-silim dumu lugal is attested, for instance, on MVN 8.201 (date broken) and Trouvaille 81 (S45a month 5). He is identified as a son of Shulgi’s by Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 168. 52 MVN 22.3 (AS1) and SAT 1.198 (also AS1). 53 For example, on CST 187, OIP 115.225, MVN 15.195 or ASJ 19.228, 74. 54 Weiershauser reads the name na-DI and simply notes the two different patronymics; Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 208. Cf. Steinkeller, RA 73 (1979): 190. 55 Impressed on ZVO 25, 136.3 and discussed in RIME 3/2 p. 176. 56 P. Steinkeller, RA 73 (1979): 190.



Ea-niša’s Other Herders 

 155

na-gada (among other na-gadas), described as siki udu é-a-ni-ša,57 or receiving a few textiles.58 While the documents discussed thus far deal mainly with animals and their by-products, Na-silim did receive other commodities, for instance oil or barley. Because both the tablet about oil and the letter-order concerning the grain rations were sealed with the seal dedicated to Ea-niša, we need have no doubt which of the many Na-silims is meant here. The receipt of a small quantity of oil for the city of Ur is dated to S36 and was published already in 1915 by Hussey.59 The seal impressed on the tablet reads: “Ea-niša, beloved royal lukur: Na-silim, son of Ur-ešbarra (is) your servant.”

The letter-order concerning grain rations is undated.60 “Speak to Allu: 1 gur of barley, the barley rations of NI.ZA.TUM {probably a person} should be given to him. Don’t …” Seal: Ea-niša, beloved royal lukur, Na-silim XX61 son of Ur-ešbarra [is] your servant.”

Ea-niša’s Other Herders Na-silim, however, was not Ea-niša’s only animal husbandry expert. According to another Girsu tablet,62 she employed at least four na-gada-type herders, including Na-silim. ITT 2.747 35 kuš udu ug7 lú-me-lám na-gada 5 kuš udu ug7 lugal-šeš! na-gada 5 kuš udu ug7 ma-an-sum na-gada 5 kuš udu ug7

57 This tablet dates to Shulgi year 42, or AS6. 58 On ZVO 25, 136 3, discussed above. The two cloths from Arad-mu to Na-silim are describes as túg gún-na sipad, “cloth of the shepherd’s tax/ obligation.” 59 Buffalo SNS 11–2, 135, 06. Theoretically the date formula could also refer to AS 9, but this is very unlikely. 60 Published by Sollberger as TCS 1.27. See also RIME 3/2 p. 175 number 73. 61 This seal seems to have an extra line in the first column: lú- [x]. 62 ITT 2.747, republished as TCTI 1.747, date mu en nanna kar-zi-da ba-hun: CDLI date AS9.

156 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

R. na-silim na-gada 1 kuš udu ug7 šu-diškur 50 kuš udu ug7 é-a-ni-ša ugula ur-diškur šùš mu en dnanna kar-zi-da ba-hun “35 pelts (of) deceased sheep, (from) Lu-melam, herder, 5 pelts (of) deceased sheep, (from) Lugal-šeš, herder, 5 pelts (of) deceased sheep, (from) Mansum, herder, 5 pelts (of) deceased sheep, (from) Na-silim, herder, 1 pelt (of a) deceased sheep, (from) Shu-Iškur: 50 pelts (from) Ea-niša’s deceased sheep. Foreman: Ur-iškur “equerry” Year: AS9.63

The other herders, named Lú-me-lám, Lugal-šeš and Mansum, are discussed below. Altogether 50 skins are described as from Ea-niša’s dead sheep: Lu-melam reinforces the pattern already observed—that the employees who worked for Shulgi’s women would work for one, then be reassigned to another royal wife after their death. The implication here is that while the royal women may appear to be these men’s bosses, in actuality the employees worked for an over-arching crown establishment. In the case of Lu-melam, his work experience was first for Ea-niša, as her na-gada-herder64 and later on in the same position (na-gada) for Amar-Sin’s wife and Shu-Sin’s mother, Abi-simti.65 Šeškalla also worked for Ea-niša: he appears, for instance, in a text from Shulgi 45 (Nisaba 8.46), wherein he received one cow.66 This Puzrish-Dagan text records the account of one Ur-Bau: dated to Shulgi 45, it covers income from the two previous years as well. Ur-Bau was a very common name in Ur III archives (especially at Umma, but also elsewhere), making prosopographical analysis complicated. It may be worth noting that in later Puzrish-Dagan texts, a man named Ur-Bau appears together with Abi-simti (Amar-Sin’s queen) or with the é-uz-ga, “taboo house”, at which women frequently resided. If this Ur-Bau was the same as the one in the account, then perhaps the text about the single cow

63 The total of 50 pelts is clear on the tablet, though if one adds up all the figures, it should of course be 51. Either there was a computational error, or the one pelt from Šu-iškur was somehow not really part of Ea-niša’s total. 64 MVN 9. 39 (AS2), a Girsu text. 65 TLB 3.89 (SS1). 66 1 áb kišib šeš-kal-la lú é-a-ni-ša: Nisaba 8.46 (S45 month 6).

Geme-Ninlilla 

 157

represents a small allocation from a man whose interests included a larger subset of royal women.

Ea-niša and Wool Three tablets, one from late in the reign of Shulgi and two from the reign of AmarSin, attest to Ea-niša’s wool-working interests. The first text records the transfer of one talent of wool from En-dingir-mu to Ea-niša herself, with Adalal as maškim, or requisitioner.67 The second tablet, dating almost ten years later, 68 records the transfer of slightly more wool: not one talent of plain wool, but one talent, 53 man-na of yellow wool (siki GI). The text of the tablet tells us that the wool came from Lu-dugga and entered the palace, via Arad-mu the equerry.69 The seal, however, links the transaction to Ea-niša, as it was her gift seal from Shulgi that sealed the tablet. The third tablet is very similar to the second, dating also to AS6 and bearing the gift seal from Ea-niša given to Na-silim. Here however the wool was woven into 2 cloths (túg uš-bar), further qualified as a tax from the shepherd(s), túg gú-na sipad.70 Further evidence for her wool enterprises has already been discussed when considering the herdsman Na-silim and his counterparts in Girsu.71 Ea-niša thus appears to have been involved in the same sorts of herding and weaving enterprises as the other concubines. Whether she too ran a religious foundation is unclear. She does appear to show a distinct rise in status, from a very obscure concubine to Shulgi’s most prominent widow.

Geme-Ninlilla Geme-Ninlilla is the last of the major wives of Shulgi late in his reign whom we shall scrutinize. Though certainly less well-attested than Shulgi-simti, she was

67 This text was published in ASJ 4 p.141 number five, dating to S45 month 7. 68 This text, published by Mayr and Owen in “The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period,” FS Pettinato p.149, 01,160,169 01 dates to AS6 month 7. 69 1 gú 53 ma-na siki GI ki lú-dùg-ga-ta é-gal-la ba-an-ku4 gìri árad-mu šùš. Another possible translation would be so see the wool not as “yellow” but as “local, native.” For the present purposes, it does not perhaps matter very much. 70 This tablet was published as ZVO 25.136.3, dating to AS6. The textiles were from Arad-mu and received by Na-silim. 71 Such as on CT 7, 19, BM 12946 dating to S42 or AS6.

158 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

clearly a woman of wealth and influence at the court of Shulgi and may even have outranked Shulgi-simti. Because extant records about her are rare, little had been written about Geme-Ninlilla since Michalowski’s 1979 article, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period Part II: Geme-Ninlila”72 until Weierhäuser’s book, where she is described as one of the most prominent women at the court.73 In addition to the two dozen or so references to Geme-Ninlilla that have been identified from various administrative texts, mainly from Puzrish-Dagan, we are also lucky enough to have an impression of her seal, that is, iconographic evidence. Very likely Geme-Ninlilla was a lukur who had been married to Shulgi for some time and probably had at least one grown child with him. Attested at both Ur and Nippur, ranging in date from about Shulgi’s 37th year to his death, she appears to have controlled more wealth than Shulgi-simti did, though both women appear to have shared the same fate, death at about the time of Shulgi’s, being mourned together. Unlike Shulgi-simti, Geme-Ninlilla is attested as the recipient of booty from abroad. Suter speculated on the basis of iconographic evidence that Geme-Ninlilla herself, despite her ultra-Sumerian name, may have originated abroad. Just as with all the other junior wives, Geme-Ninlilla had a substantial staff of men. These men were apparently ultimately employed by the palace itself, and then assigned to one or another or the royal wives. We see this with two of her employees—Ur-igalim and Nuhi-ilum, both of whom can be traced later on working for other royal women. Thus, her entourage was—at least in part—made up of men loyal not to her personally but to the palace proper. Geme-Ninlilla, like Shulgi-simti, had her own foundation for religious purposes. Documentary evidence for her foundation is now exceedingly rare, but enough survives to show us that she collected livestock from courtiers, just as Shulgi-simti did (but with different bureau chiefs). Geme-Ninlilla was also involved in festivals, such as the má-an-na, or Boat of Heaven, festival in Uruk.74

72 Published in JCS 31 (1979): 171–176. References to her in previous scholarship were collected by Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 167; the latest collection of data about her appears in Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur. 73 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 202. 74 Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 202.



Her Family 

 159

The Name Geme-Ninlilla A very common pattern for Sumerian names, géme (“female slave, handmaiden”) plus a divine name, this one of course makes reference to the great goddess of Tummal. One of the very few Sumerian names held by anyone in the royal family at this time, it is not impossible that this was her birth name, though, like Shulgi-simti and others, she may well have been renamed.

Dates Attested On the basis of the evidence currently available, she appears no earlier than S37,75 though it is quite possible that we shall in future find earlier references to her: her last appearance (alive) was identified by Michalowski as BIN 5.20 (S48).76

Her Family Geme-Ninlilla’s origins and family are currently unknown. When Shulgi arranged a marriage for one of his daughters (named Geme-Nanna) with the family of Pù-ú-du (who was “a person of exceedingly high rank” associated with large maritime trade interests to Magan, including metal and stones),77 Geme-Ninlilla appears. Geme-Ninlilla received oil on this occasion according to PDT 2.1068.78 Weiershäuser plausibly links this oil to marriage festivities but notes that there is no direct evidence to indicate the exact relationship between the princess and Geme-Ninlilla.79 I think it is not unreasonable to speculate that Geme-Ninlilla may well have been Geme-Nanna’s mother. If so, then Geme-Ninlilla must have been married to Shulgi by about Shulgi year 30 for the child to be of marriageable age. It would not be surprising if Shulgi and Geme-Ninlilla were the parents of

75 According to RA 17.212 (S37 month 11), see also Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 202. 76 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period, Part II: Geme-Ninlilla,” JCS 31 (1979): 174. 77 P. Steinkeller, “Trade Routes and Commercial Networks in the Persian Gulf during the Third Millennium B.C., “ in C. Faizee (ed.), Collection of Papers presented at the Third International Biennial Conference of the Persian Gulf p. 418. 78 PDT 2.1068 dates to S46 month 9: “2 gur of vegetable oil, (for) Geme-Nanna, daughter-in-law (é-gi4-a) of Pù-ú-du, expended from Geme-Ninlilla, from Šeškalla.” 79 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 204.

160 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

more than one child, but determining which of Shulgi’s large brood is now wellnigh impossible.

Her Rank: Lukur? Geme-Ninlilla’s title is strangely hard to pin down. Was she a lukur? No evidence survives to suggest she ever held the title NIN. The converse is also true—no evidence survives to give her the title lukur either. Most have agreed with Michalowski, “Geme-Ninlila is not directly known to have functioned as a lukur, the evidence, however, would suggest that she did hold that status at the court of Ur.”80 Weiershäuser identified her as one of the lesser wives (Nebenfrauen), though she observed that the exact title remains unknown.81

The Seal of Geme-Ninlilla Geme-Ninlilla’s seal, known from impressions left on an administrative tablet now in the Hermitage Museum, is, according to Suter, “an extraordinary scene.”82 It shows a woman, presumably Geme-Ninlilla herself, holding a cup before an image of the standing king. The depiction of the ruler is unusual for a seal: he may be dressed in leopard skin, he holds a scepter or perhaps a double-lion-headed mace,83 and he has one foot upon a mountain. Behind the king, a stag stands near a tree.84 The meaning of this unusual iconography remains unclear, but it certainly differs from the expected presentation scene with the lamma (guardian spirit)

80 P. Michalowski, “Death of Šulgi,” Or. 46 (1977): 222. Similarly, in 1979, he wrote “In the light of the evidence gathered in this paper, we may reasonably state that Geme-Ninlila was also a lukur…” JCS 31 (1979): 176. 81 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 202. 82 C. Suter, “Ur III Kings in Images: A Reappraisal,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black p. 341. 83 Another roughly contemporary ruler’s seal showing a ruler holding a battle axe, this one described as a “fenestrated” axe, belonged to Eshnunna’s governor Shu-iliya, and has been discussed by L. Peyronel, “Elam and Eshnunna,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam p. 52. 84 The seal has been discussed by Mayr and Owen, “The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period,” FS Pettinato pp.160, 167 and 169 and C. Suter, “Ur III Kings in Images: A Reappraisal,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black p. 341.



Where Did Geme-Ninlilla Live? 

 161

introducing the seal owner. While we do not have seals for all the Ur III royal wives, we do have the impression of Ea-niša’s seal, which has the expected introduction scene, featuring the king (seated with a cup), the seal-holder and a lamma-spirit. The iconography of Geme-Ninlilla’s seal was not characteristic for all Shulgi’s wives. Suter believes the iconography alludes to war in mountainous regions: “Šulgi is represented as a god-like warrior who subjugates the foreign lands.”85 “A stag rearing up a tree behind the king denotes a mountainous landscape and may allude to the foreign lands (k u r- k u r) the king subjugated.”86 She goes on the note that the type of vessel Geme-Ninlilla holds (a little pot with two handles) is “usually balanced on the fingertips of Ur III kings receiving subordinates in audience” and thus may indicate “that the king offered the vessel to his subordinate as a symbol of sovereignty and patronage.”87

Where Did Geme-Ninlilla Live? Geme-Ninlilla was one of the palace inhabitants, according to one text.88 But which palace? It does not seem that Geme-Ninlilla had only one residence—she appears in texts that place her in Ur and texts that seem to suggest a stay in Uruk.89 However, Geme-Ninlilla seems to have had her own. Provisions to Geme-Ninlilla or the kitchens associated with her are attested in two tablets from the main Puzrish-Dagan archive, RA 49.88.12 (dated to S43.1.17), in which 1 lamb, a delivery (mu-DU) from PI-ru-ru-ti, is for the é-muhaldim géme-dnin-líl-lá-ka-šè, for the kitchen of Geme-Ninlilla.90 A similar text dated from the last year of Shulgi’s long reign allocated another lamb for Geme-Ninlilla, quite possibly for the

85 C. Suter, “Ur III Kings in Images: A Reappraisal,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black pp. 341–2. 86 C. Suter, “Who Are the Women in Mesopotamian Art from CA. 2334–1763 BCE?” Kaskal 5 (2008): 15. 87 Suter, Kaskal 5 (2008): 15; also Suter, “Ur III Kings in Images: A Reappraisal,” in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black pp. 339–40. 88 She at least occurs in a list of women characterized as é-gal-kam—Scheil, RA 17 (1920): 212 dated to Shulgi year 37. 89 She appears for instance in BIN 3.610 (S45.06.00) and OIP 115.6 (S47.07.00) in Ur. JCS 31.174F (S43 month 6) places her employees in Uruk, preparing leather for the má-an-na festival. 90 The other entries on this tablet are for religious purposes: sacrifices to Enlil and Ninlil, the delivery of the en of Inanna, and for Enlil and Ninlil again, the delivery of Kitušlu, a captain (nu-bànda): this need not imply, however, that the entry for Geme-Ninlilla also was for a cultic purpose. Most likely, it was simply another expenditure on the same day.

162 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

kitchen as well, though this is not specified. In this case, the source is specified as mu-DU é-a-ì-lí, a delivery from Ea-ili.91 Evidently, with just a few tablets, it is almost impossible to say much about such transactions. We can state that this woman PI-ru-ru-ti appears elsewhere with the title lukur of Ninurta, and thus was a high-ranking priestess.92 Ea-ili is a more common name: a man with this name is attested as a soldier and later general,93 and this may (or may not) be the same man as in the TRU text.

Geme-Ninlilla’s Economic Resources Like the other royal wives during Shulgi’s reign, Geme-Ninlilla occasionally received the odd pair of shoes or metal item from the Treasure Archive94 and was involved in wool working and herding enterprises. Michalowski observed on the basis of the texts known to him in 1979 (more of course are available today) that the tablets “indicate that she had considerable economic power.”95 Geme-Ninlilla had significant livestock interests, and this sphere of activity is far more amply attested in extant documentation than the wool-working. Though the evidence is fragmentary, it seems that Geme-Ninlilla did not have cattle herds of her own and was therefore dependent on the male administrators to supply her. She did appear to have her own, possibly quite large, herds of sheep and goats, which of course also produced wool and secondary materials, which appear to have been considered hers.

91 TRU 298, dated to S48.9.23, an expenditure from Našag. Just as in the previous tablet, the other expenditures on the tablet were largely cultic, e.g. the delivery of Šešdada, the sanga, whose lambs went to Enlil and Ninlil, the delivery of the en of Inanna, whose lamb and goat went to Nanna and Inanna, and the delivery of the zabar-dab5 (a high-level royal cultic official), whose lamb went to Utu. Again, the juxtaposition of cultic and probably non-cultic expenditures on the same tablet may be more related to the date of the transaction than anything else. 92 Ontario 1.27, dating to S47.9.3. Another lukur of Ninurta, Geme-Enlilla, was a princess, and while we know nothing more about PI-ru-ru-ti, we should perhaps expect she was of very high rank. On the lukurs of Ninurta and other lukur priestesses in Ur III times, see T. Sharlach, “Priestesses, Concubines, and the Daughters of Men: Disentangling the Meaning of the Word l u k u r in Ur III Times,” in P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist p.179. 93 MVN 11.186: dated to Shulgi 45, àga-ús lú-DUN-a and a šagina in the reign of Amar-Sin, according to BPOA 1.1162 (an Umma text?) 94 Shoes and metal items listed in Scheil, RA 17 (1920: 212: S37 month 11; discussed by Michalowski, JCS 31 (1979): 172 and P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis. 95 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period Part II: Geme-Ninlila,”JCS 31 (1979): 172.



Geme-Ninlilla is Given Cattle Rarely by Palace Officials 

 163

Thus, it appears that her livestock resources consisted of a) cattle given to her on rare occasions, b) a regular allowance of sheep (probably 360 sheep per year), supplemented with c) occasional extra sheep from booty or other sources. These were her animals, and herders worked for her. However, it is very likely that Geme-Ninlilla’s own livestock were kept fiscally separate from any animals used to provision her religious activities, her “foundation,” as it were, just as in the case of Shulgi-simti’s herds. Let us examine the evidence for each sort of livestock resource.

Geme-Ninlilla is Given Cattle Rarely by Palace Officials At least four published tablets from Puzrish-Dagan attest to a regular set of transfers from Naram-ili to Ur-igalim on Geme-Ninlilla’s behalf. This evidence clusters in the last two years of Shulgi’s reign, that is, Shulgi years 47 and 48.96 His attested transfers to Geme-Ninlilla can be divided into two categories: small quantities of cattle at the Akiti festival, and much larger transactions in sheep. The small chart below tabulates the transfers of cattle and sheep. SACT 1.8, S44 month 4

2 cattle

From Šulgi-aamu Nuhi-ilum

/

On account of Geme-Ninlilla

Herm. 3. 143, S47 akiti

4 cattle

From Naram-ili

To Geme-Ninlil

mu-DU lugal

Seal of Geme-Ninlilla

BIN 3.516, S48 5 cattle akiti

From Naram-ili

To Geme-Ninlilla, mu-DU lugal via Ur-igalim kurušda

ki Našag ba-zi

Perusal of the chart shows that the numbers of cattle are small. Cattle, being about ten times more valuable than sheep, were correspondingly rarer. When we see a few hundred sheep being transferred, the obvious guess is that a herd or several herds were being transferred into Geme-Ninlilla’s name; the animals themselves may not have physically moved, but have now become legally her property. One could anachronistically view this as a transfer of capital. Women with their own resources, could, of course, make their own decisions about their goods and how to use them.

96 ZVO 25 134 1, S47.2 (discussed above as the booty of Šimaški); Hermitage 3.143, S47; OIP 115.10, S47 and BIN 3.516, S48.6.

164 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

When, however, we see a few animals being transferred, for instance at a festival, it is quite possible that we see here a royal woman such as Geme-Ninlilla having her immediate needs supplied without having stocks of her own.

Geme-Ninlilla Receives An Allowance, One Sheep a Day Geme-Ninlilla, like many other royal wives, received regular deliveries, generally of thirty sheep per month from the crown.97 Only three texts are known to me that record such sá-dug4, or regular deliveries, to Geme-Ninlilla, ranging in date from Shulgi’s 45th-48th years, but these show a very consistent pattern of 30 sheep transferred from an official Ahuni for Geme-Ninlilla. Generally a man named Nuhi-ilum appears as maškim, perhaps the requisitioning official.98 TRU 278

S45, month 1

30 sheep From Ahuni

sá-dug4 Geme-Ninlilla

Nu!-hi-ilum maškim

(recipient unspecified)

CST 115

S46, month 6

30 sheep From Ahuni

sá-dug4 Geme-Ninlilla

Nuhi-ilum sukkal maškim

(recipient unspecified)

BPOA 7. 2675 S47, month 2

30 sheep From Ludingirra

sá-dug4 Geme-Ninlilla iti-1-kam

Nuhi-ilum sukkal maškim

(recipient unspecified

JCS 31, 172 C S48, month 3

30 sheep From Ahuni

sá-dug4 Geme-Ninlilla

Nuhi-ilum sukkal maškim

(recipient unspecified)

As the texts date to various months, Michalowski thought it likely that that she received thirty sheep every month, roughly, one per day.99 Sigrist’s analysis of such regular deliveries was that they may well have been used to provision the person’s household.100 However, it is possible that she kept the sheep—or at least some of them—as herds of her own. Such sheep kept back may have been the source of the wool used by various royal women in their wool workshops.

97 Naturally, this was also noted by Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p.202. 98 The variant spelling Nu-hi-lum on JCS 31.174 F indicates that nu-hi-DINGIR is to be read “ilum.” 99 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period, Part II: Geme-Ninlilla,” JCS 31 (1979): 173. 100 “Je suppose que ces livraisons régulières servaient à couvrir les besoins alimentaires de ces personnes ou leur maisonnée.” M. Sigrist, Drehem p.201.



Irregular Deliveries of Sheep to Geme-Ninlilla 

 165

Irregular Deliveries of Sheep to Geme-Ninlilla One interesting text from S47 attests to her receiving two ewes as part of the booty brought back from the conquest of Shimashki:101 or perhaps more accurately, her employee, Ur-igalim received these on her behalf. Why one cannot say. The value of the livestock received (2 ewes) was so small that the transfer must have been meaningful in a symbolic rather than fiduciary sense. To the best of my knowledge, such allocations of booty to royal women were very rare, though a similar allocation is also attested for Ea-niša, as Weiershäuser noted.102 Of course, this may not have been the only occasion when Geme-Ninlilla received foreign animals. Another tablet published as BCT 1.34, dating about six years earlier (S41.07), may also record the allocation of foreign livestock to Geme-Ninlilla. The tablet and envelope record the transfer of one ewe, a royal delivery (mu-DU lugal) from Naram-ili to one Kuli, a fattener (kurušda) on Geme-Ninlilla’s behalf. The seal impressed upon the envelope reads Ku-li sipad [udu] kur-ra dumu [xxx]: Kuli, shepherd of foreign/ mountain sheep, son of [PN] and denotes his receipt of the animal. Why it was worth drawing up a sealed tablet/ envelope combination for a single ewe is unclear to me. However paltry the quantities transferred, we may note the profession of the recipient—Kuli, shepherd of foreign sheep—may possibly suggest that Geme-Ninlilla had a herd of sheep that originated largely from abroad, either as booty or perhaps as part of the gún ma-da.103 Unfortunately, Kuli the shepherd of foreign sheep does not seem to be attested in other published Puzrish-Dagan documents.104 The largest transaction is recorded in OIP 115.10 (S47) in which Naram-ili transferred 300 sheep to Ur-igalim the fattener on account of Geme-Ninlilla. This last transaction seems to be a transfer from crown herds to those directly con-

101 The tablet, published as ZVO 25 134 1 dates to Shulgi 47a, 2 u8 Šimaški šag4 nam-ra-ak Šimaški ki-na-ra-am-ì-lí-ta mu-géme-dnin-líl-lá-šè. On booty from Šimaški, see S. Garfinkle, “The Economy of Warfare in Southern Iraq,” in H. Neumann, R. Dittman et al. (eds.), Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien CRRAI 52, p. 357. 102 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p.204, p. 209. 103 P. Steinkeller, SAOC 46 (1991): 27. 104 Stepien, on the basis of Umma documentation, had argued that a shepherd was described as sipad udu kur-ra when the majority (not all) of his herd came from abroad and that, from year to year, a shepherd’s flocks might vary between local and foreign animals, with a corresponding alteration in titles. M. Stepien, “The Organisation of Animal Pasturing,” in O. Tunca (ed.), Tablettes et images aux Pays de Sumer et d’Akkad FS Limet pp.176–7.

166 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

trolled by Geme-Ninlilla.105 The 4 or 5 cattle at the Akiti may represent a similar transfer, or may represent animals to be used for the cultic picnics and celebrations associated with that month. Another Oriental Institute text, OIP 115.6 (S46), is unfortunately quite broken, so we do not know how many animals were transferred. Only one entry for 11 goats survives, again a mu-DU lugal, or royal delivery, from Naram-ili to Geme-Ninlilla. This transaction was transferred via (gìri) Nuhi-ilum. In sum, a regular pattern of provisioning Geme-Ninlilla by Naram-ili appears. According to a tablet dating to Shulgi year 40,106 a total of 261 sheep and 39 lambs were described as udu géme-dnin-líl-lá, sheep of Geme-Ninlilla. Although the quantities attested here are moderate, it is interesting that Geme-Ninlilla had so many different sources of livestock income in these last years of Shulgi – some from Naram-ili, some from the main Puzrish-Dagan officials through deliveries from notables, some as sá-dug4 or standing deliveries, and so on. While the number of documents that mention her is admittedly quite small at present, enough survives to show us a small-scale and fairly diversified set of acquisitions of livestock from a patchwork of sources.

Her Wool Geme-Ninlilla’s wool work is, to the best of my knowledge, attested by a sole tablet, published as AUCT 1. 65 (Shulgi year 38).107 Although the text is about half broken, preventing us from getting a full idea of the totals involved, we can see that the text is a delivery (mu-DU) of moderately large quantities of low-quality wool, more than 2 talents of 4th grade and more than 30 ma-na of third-grade wool. Also being transferred here were much smaller quantities of finest quality wool (2 ma-na plus fractions of the royal grade and 3 ma-na plus fractions for the next-best quality), the various grades all categorized as síki túg géme-dnin-líl-lá, “wool (and) textiles {or, wool (for) textiles} of Geme-Ninlilla.”108 Given the low quality of most of the wool, one doubts that this was for her own use; perhaps it

105 Stepien estimated that an average herd at Umma was about 200 sheep (JCS 64 [2012]: 24–5), so perhaps we may imagine that Geme-Ninlilla had at least two herds. 106 This is BIN 3.484 discussed by Sigrist, Drehem p.37 and note 116. 107 AUCT 1.65 is discussed by Michalowski, JCS 31 (1979): 172. 108 Stepien has estimated that the average amount of wool from a sheep was 1.8 ma-na. “The Organisation of Animals Pasturing in the Light of Balanced Accounts, Inventories of Sheep and Goat Herdsmen from Umma,” in O. Tunca (ed.), Tablettes et images aux Pays de Sumer et d’Akkad FS Limet, p.167.



Geme-Ninlilla and the Palace Staff 

 167

would have been used by her underlings or for household furnishings. Here the šabra was Ur-dig-alim, who held the title kurušda, animal fattener. So it seems that Ur-igalim may have operated more generally as her chief of staff, supervising her various activities, rather than being limited to only livestock or only wool workshops, as we shall soon see.

Geme-Ninlilla and the Palace Staff Although Geme-Ninlilla may well have had body servants who worked for her exclusively, most of her economic enterprises were in the hands of men whose employment was for the palace. Her chief of staff appears to have been a man named Ur-ig-alim, a kurušda, animal fattener; this same man later worked for the queen Abi-simti, another example of an employee switching from one royal wife to the next.109 Her chief staff members appear to have been Ur-igalim and Nuhi-ilum. Ur-igalim is sometimes described as kurušda, “animal fattener,” sometimes as šabra. Nuhi-ilum was sometimes sukkal, “secretary, messenger,” often as a transferring agent (gìri, maškim). Based on the extant evidence, a stark contrast can be drawn between Geme-Ninlilla’s modest staff and the huge staffs led by Ea-niša and Ninkalla. After her death, some of her employees appear to have worked for other royal women. For instance, Nuhi-ilum, sukkal, who appears in Geme-Ninlilla’s sá-dug4 texts, appears to have worked for Abi-simti in the reign of Amar-Sin, appearing in very similar regular deliveries.110 He is in fact described as Abi-simti’s sukkal, personal assistant/ secretary, in one text.111 This pattern holds more generally, as we shall see throughout this section: when one of the royal wives died, her staff was reassigned to other royal women. This may imply that it was not the royal women themselves picking trusted associates to represent their interests and enterprises, but probably palace employees who were assigned to one or another royal wife.

109 The same pattern was independently remarked upon by Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p.205. See my own “On the Tablet Trail,” in A. Stone (ed.), Postgate Festschrift, forthcoming. 110 For example, in OIP 121.11, a sá-dug4 of 30 sheep for Abi-simti, or Nesbit 15, another 30sheep regular delivery. This man may well have been different from the Nu-hi-DINGIR rá-gaba attested in other Ur III tablets, such as Princeton 2.357, for example. 111 For example, in Nesbit, SRD 15. This was already noted by Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period, Part II: Geme-Ninlilla,” JCS 31 (1979): 173.

168 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

That is, the entourage of the royal women was ultimately loyal to the crown, not to any individual woman.

A Geme-Ninlilla Foundation? And Religious Activities Sigrist noted that the Shulgi-simti foundation was not the only institution of its type, suggesting that a very similar or parallel organization existed under the auspices of Geme-Ninlilla, a least around Shulgi’s forty-first regnal year.112 Michalowski had already commented on this in 1979.113 So far very poorly attested, Geme-Ninlilla’s foundation had different suppliers and different head officials, but the tablets are so similar to those of the Shulgi-simti archive that the two archives have been lumped together as Shulgi-simti foundation tablets. While this is understandable, we will be giving Geme-Ninlilla short shrift if we fail to credit her with her own foundation. We shall see later (in chapter ten) that Shulgi-simti often worshipped deities at a festival in Ur called the elūnum: according to YOS 4.240, Geme-Ninlilla did too.114 Geme-Ninlilla was associated with prayer rites (sízkur) according to two more texts from S43 and S46.115 Additional fragments of information hint at a range of interesting involvements in festivals (in particular, the má-an-na). The má-an-na festival, “the boat of heaven,” has been studied by Sallaberger, who established that is was at some level a women’s festival.116 Further work by Steinkeller has suggested a link to Ishtar as Venus, that is, in her astral/ planetary aspect.117 The festival will be discussed in more detail later, but here it may suffice to note that Geme-Ninlilla’s employee Nuhi-ilum transferred leather to a person whose job title, su-si-ig, indicates a flayer, which may have to do with leather for use in the festival or on the boat itself.118 After Shulgi’s death, and Geme-Ninlilla’s, it seems that at least some of the herds she had controlled were reabsorbed into the main Puzrish-Dagan establish-

112 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.225 and Ontario p.22. 113 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period, Part II: Geme-Ninlilla,” JCS 31 (1979): 172. 114 This text dates to S42.02.17. 115 JCS 31.175 b (S43.03) and PDT 2.113 (S46). These texts were discussed by F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 205. 116 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.259. 117 P. Steinkeller, “How Did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?,” p.472 in D. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS. 118 The tablet is JCS 31.174 F, dated to S43.month 6.

Šuqurtum 

 169

ment. The best evidence for this can be found on BCT 1.39, a long, though regrettably not perfectly preserved, tablet dating to S48 month 12. We already looked at this audit in the context of Nin-kalla. At the start of column ii, we find 160 cattle from a man named Al-la-mu: these are labeled gud gemé-dnin-líl-lá, the cattle of Geme-Ninlilla. Though the tablet does not directly say so, it is quite feasible that the dead woman’s remaining cattle were being taken back into the accounting sphere of Našag, that is, under direct crown control: whether the actual animals moved or just changed official ownership is of course uncertain. In sum, Geme-Ninlilla appears very similar to Shulgi-simti, though perhaps a little more well-to-do. Probably, though not certainly, a lukur in rank, she had the same sorts of herding and weaving interests. Both women died at about the same time. Geme-Ninlilla may well have had a foundation similar to Shulgi-simti’s, and the similarities in the positions of the two women are extensive. While it may seem as if the hierarchy of wives was established—first Nin-kalla, then Geme-Ninlilla, then either Shulgi-simti or Ea-niša, there were still other women in the palaces to consider, and of course hierarchies and favours at court were likely fluid and changeable.

Yet More Women Frayne identified two more concubines of Shulgi: ME-Ea and Šuqurtum.119

Šuqurtum On the basis of present evidence, Šuqurtum is very poorly attested: she is known principally from her inscription on a largish (30 cm. tall) calcite vase found in the excavations at Ur.120 The inscription is dedicated to Shulgi, whose name is written with no divine determinative.121 On the vase, which bears no date, Shulgi

119 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 167. 120 The inscription was published in Frayne, RIME 3/2 text 85 p. 182: a photo of the vase and its inscription can be found in B. Lion, “Literacy and Gender,” in K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture p. 93, figure 5.1. 121 F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 229 suggested the vase was very early as Shulgi’s name was written without a divine determinative. But as it seems that the title lukur was used only after Shulgi’s deification, it seems illogical to date the vase pre-deification. It is possible that there was no room on the object for the dingir sign, or possible that our theory of lukur as only post-deification is incorrect.

170 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

was qualified as a mighty man, king of Ur, king of the lands of Sumer and Akkad, while Šuqurtum was his beloved lukur: šu-qur-[tum] lukur ki-ág-gá-ni. The end of the inscription is translated by Frayne, “As for the one who erases this inscription (and) writes his own name there, may Ninsun, my goddess, and Lugal-banda, my lugal, curse him.”122 Sumerian being a gender-neutral language, a translation “she” and “her” might be more probable. One cannot help but think of the burials of the Neo-Assyrian queens, with their curse formulae not to let other women reinscribe their objects. The reference to her personal goddess Ninsun is quite interesting, as well as her king/ master, Lugal-banda. Ninsun is of course the personal goddess of the family into which Šuqurtum married, and Lugal-banda is strongly associated with the Uruk heroic tradition. Šuqurtum is not a well-known figure at Shulgi’s court (Weiershäuser’s book for instance deals with her in a mere 15 lines).123 While we might be tempted to dismiss Šuqurtum as an early concubine who probably died well before Shulgi-simti became a favorite, funerary offerings to her persisted for some years after, probably at least until the late reign of Shu-Sin. A recently published tablet from Uru-sagrig (Nisaba 15.1014) records expenditures of flour, beer and other foodstuffs, among the expenditures some for the ki-a-nag for Šuqurtum and for the ki-a-nag of Abi-simti. No date is preserved on this tablet, but as we know that Abi-simti died toward the end of her son’s reign, the tablet cannot be earlier than that. A few references in tablets from Umma to a Šu-qur-tum described as a narmunus, female singer who received a garment in SS1 and pig fat in SS2 may well refer to quite another person,124 but it is not impossible (though not very probable either) that Šuqurtum joined the ranks of the female musicians and lived on for another thirty nine years.

ME-Ea Me-Ea (perhaps, though not certainly, to be read Simat-Ea) appears to be yet another of Shulgi’s junior wives. “ME-Ea is the least known of these women,”125 according to Michalowski. Some have speculated that she might also be one of

122 Frayne, RIME 3/2 text 85 p. 182. 123 F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur pp. 228–229. 124 Rochester 105 (SS1.05U.-) lists ten women who each received a garment, the last of these was Šuqurtum; MVN 16.966 (SS2/1/- to SS2.12.-) records the pig fat. 125 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period — Part III,” ASJ 4 (1982): 135.

ME-Ea 

 171

Shulgi’s daughters, not a wife at all.126 What can be said about her is not extensive, but still interesting. In extant published documentation, she appears only briefly. She may occur as early as S29, but as only the ME is preserved, it is hard to state definitively that this was Me-Ea.127 Her first sure attestation was in S34, in a Shoe Archive text.128 Her latest attestation appears to be in S43 month nine.129 What happened to Me-Ea after that is anyone’s guess. During the decade or so that we can see Me-Ea at court, she belonged in the palace, as a tablet from S36 shows:130 a total of ½ gín of kug-sig17 belonging to the palace was received by Me-Ea: kug-sig17…ki-lá-bi ½ gín é-gal-kam me-é-a šu ba-ti. Furthermore, Me-Ea occurs sandwiched in various lists of Shulgi’s wives. Phillips 13 is one example: the first column on the reverse lines 1–5 lists 26 túg hi-a-ta 1 šakan ti-di ì-nun dùg-ga nin-kal-la me-é-a é-a-ni-ša, “26 various textiles each, 1 oilflask for Ninkalla, Me-Ea and Ea-niša.” This certainly gives the impression that Me-Ea, like Nin-kalla and Ea-niša, was a wife of Shulgi’s. Another example can be found on a Kelsey Museum tablet.131 Here, sheep were expended for Geme-Ninlilla, Nin-kalla, Me-Ea, Shulgi-simti, Ea-niša, Taddin-Eštar and Shelebum. We know that Geme-Ninlilla, Nin-kalla, Shulgi-simti and Ea-niša were wives of Shulgi’s. So it is tempting to place Me-Ea, and possibly also Taddin-Eštar and Shelebum in that category. Weiershäuser was uncertain whether Me-Ea was a wife of Shulgi or a princess.132 While she is correct that caution is called for, her appearance multiple times in the list of concubines makes it very likely in my view that Me-Ea was yet another concubine about whom we know less because she disappeared from the documentation ( perhaps died?) before the mass of documentation began. A man named Rigmuš appears to have worked for Me-Ea, twice receiving shoes on her behalf in S34 and S41.133

126 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 167 number 8; M. Such-Gutiérrez, “Die Prinzessin Meištaran,” Aula Or. 19 (2001): 90 note 17. 127 OIP 115. 16 dates to S29 month 11. 128 TSU 27, dating to S34 month 11. 129 According to Kelsey Museum No. 89203, published as ASJ 4.133.3, dating to S43.09.00. 130 This tablet was published as Boson Tavolette 353 (S36.04.-). The transaction is said to take place in Esagdana Nibru. 131 Specifically, Kelsey Museum No. 89203, published as ASJ 4.133.3, dating to S43.09.00. 132 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur pp.229–230. 133 According to the evidence of Limet TSU 27 (S34 month 11) and Nisaba 8.386 (S41 month 8).

172 

 Chapter 6 The Lives of Shulgi’s Wives: Ea-niša, Geme-Ninlilla and More

Even More? While it boggles the imagination to think that Shulgi could have had any more wives at this date, the list discussed just above from the Kelsey Museum may lead us to wonder about another woman, Taddin-Eštar. As for Taddin-Eštar, Weiershäuser was equivocal: she could have been a lukur of Shulgi, but she could also have been a princess, as Sigrist argued134: the evidence is insufficient to judge.135 A tablet from the collections at Yale published by Paoletti has shown that there was clearly a Taddin-Eštar who was a princess.136 Molina has suggested there were two different women with the same name, one was a daughter of Amar-Sin, but he thinks there was an earlier woman and she is likely in fact to have been yet another of Shulgi’s women, a position also held by Such-Gutiérrez.137

Female Performers We saw in chapter four in the discussion of the harem at Mari, for instance, that the category of singing and dancing women included women on intimate terms with the king. Therefore, we must subject Shulgi’s musician corps to some scrutiny. These included Anati, Agua-simti, Libur-simti, Shulgi-nuri, Ši-šarrat and Taddin-kiza. Shulgi-nuri, whose name means “Shulgi is my light,” has the kind of name one would expect from a concubine. We know that this woman worked, at least at times, with the singer Balala and performed for an ambitious military man, Nir-idagal, who was himself a frequent donor to the Shulgi-simti foundation, as discussed in Chapter 9.138 Far too little information about these women survives to tell us whether any of them were in fact more to Shulgi than pleasant voices, but it would not be at all surprising. Altogether, this chapter has attempted to make some sense of the jigsaw pieces of evidence about the lives of two of Shulgi’s other wives, Ea-niša and

134 M. Sigrist, RA 80 (1986): 185. 135 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p.230. 136 Paoletti tells us that 170 [somethings] were the property of Kinat-nunu, nurse/nanny of Taddin-Eštar, the king’s daughter, that is, níg-gur11 ki-na-at-nu-[nu?] ummeda tá-dì-dINANNA dumu-munus lugal, YBC 1710, AS9. Paoletti, Der König und Sein Kreis p.212. 137 M. Molina “Taddin-Eštar, RlA 13 (2012): 396–397, and M. Such-Gutiérrez, “Die Prinzessin Meištaran,” Aula Or. 19 (2001): 95. See also P. Steinkeller ASJ 4 (1982): 135. 138 AUCT 1.942, Amar-Sin 2 month 2.



Female Performers 

 173

Geme-Ninlilla. At least according to my interpretation of the evidence, Ea-niša’s story is of a fairly dramatic change, from early obscurity to great prominence in the last years of Shulgi’s life and even after his death. Geme-Ninlilla, who also had a religious foundation, is less well-attested in our surviving documentation, but she seems to have held fairly steady as a mid-level secondary wife. (To be fair, no surviving document tells us her title, so we cannot be sure that she was officially a lukur.) Ea-niša would survive and thrive after Shulgi’s death; Geme-Ninlilla, like Shulgi-simti, died almost contemporaneously with Shulgi. In the next chapter, we shall see what the combination of textual and archaeological evidence can show us about their deaths.

Chapter 7 The Death of Shulgi and his Wives Mesopotamian history, unlike Egyptian history, tends to focus its attention on the living; very little is known or written about death in administrative or economic cuneiform sources.1 Comparatively few burials of Ur III date have been excavated and we therefore tend not to think of the subjects of our study after the end of their lives. It would be entirely possible to write a solid book about Shulgi-simti without more than a sentence or two about her death. But the more I researched and wrote about Shulgi-simti and the other royal wives, the more it seemed to me that nothing epitomized her life more than the leaving of it. Though the prevailing opinion of her as a powerful scion of the ruling family of Eshnunna and then queen, second in the land to Shulgi himself, might suggest that she would be likely to retain rank and influence after her spouse’s demise, that does not appear to be so. My own view of Shulgi-simti’s position at court was that it was always precarious, whatever her origins (which may well have been more peasant than princess); at any moment, she could have been supplanted by yet another woman. In life, she may well have been viewed as disposable, replaceable. She certainly appears to have been viewed as disposable when Shulgi died, as she died almost contemporaneously and may well have been one of the two female bodies buried with Shulgi in his mausoleum. (The other body can very plausibly be identified as Geme-Ninlilla, who died at almost exactly the same time.) No fanfare or great mourning occurred for these women. Funerary offerings for Shulgi were, as one might expect for the grand monarch, fulsome and regular, but only one tablet tells us of grave offerings for the two women. And even then, Shulgi-simti took the bottom rank to the other dead woman, Geme-Ninlilla, receiving lesser death offerings than the former received.2 They appear to have been animate grave goods for Shulgi. Largely forgotten almost as soon as she died, Shulgi-simti’s burial and mourning do not to me tell the tale of a powerful and influential woman. Her end seems humble, even possibly pathetic. She was Shulgi’s plaything, even in death. But before we can adequately understand Shulgi-simti’s disposal, if that is what the archaeological record shows us, we must look to what may have been its root cause, the death of Shulgi himself. To understand Shulgi’s burial, we must

1 An exception would seem to be the omen tradition, which did use unusual royal deaths as prototypes, discussed for instance in J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles p. 85. 2 This is the tablet ZVO 25.134.2 (AS1.03.28) discussed in chapter five. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-007

176 

 Chapter 7 The Death of Shulgi and his Wives

backtrack even further to look at how kings prior to Shulgi were buried and what the role of the wife or wives was in those rites. We will then move to previous scholarship on the topic and an analysis of the archaeological evidence.

The Deaths of Utu-hegal and Ur-Namma We do not have a very clear picture of how kings immediately preceding Shulgi were buried. Only scraps of information survive about the deaths of Shulgi’s predecessors, Utu-hegal and Ur-Namma, but in both instances, it may be that circumstances were irregular and there were not always bodies recovered to bury. Very late traditions (preserved for instance in the Weidner Chronicle of first millennium date) tell us that Utu-hegal’s body was swept away by a river.3 Whether there is any kernel of historical reality in this tradition is impossible to say at present, and we have no evidence about his burial. The situation is only slightly better for Ur-Namma. As we saw in chapter one, Ur-Namma appears to have died suddenly, which at the time might have been interpreted as a mark of divine disfavor.4 But it is not very clear what the cause of death was; was he killed in battle, as many have asserted?5 Or was there some kind of illness, which would account for the references in his wife’s elegy to him of lying sick and being unable to walk?6 The same elegy describes Ur-Namma as follows:

3 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles pp.84 and 267–9 (“Utu-hegal, the fisherman, raised the hand of evil against his city, and the river carr[ied away] his corpse.” p. 267); see also W. W. Hallo, “The Death of Kings,” in M. Cogan and I. Eph’al (eds.) Ah, Assyria Tadmor FS pp. 156–7, where he notes a similar Middle Assyrian omen: “The omen of Utu-hegal the fisherman, who, when he was damming the river, the [top] of the dam overturned on him and he died.” 4 P. Michalowski, “Violent royal death meant only one thing—sin and divine abandonment.” — “The Mortal Kings of Ur,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond p. 35. 5 For example, Sigrist: “Ur-Nammu mourut au combat et son corps ne fut pas retrouvé.” Drehem p. 6; or similarly Michalowski, … “less than eighteen years into his reign, Ur-Namma was mortally wounded while leading his troops in battle.” “The Mortal Kings of Ur,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond p. 35; and “his demise, which may have resulted from a battle wound, initiated unusually strong symbolic and emotional reactions…” Oxford History of Historical Writing p. 18. 6 According to ETCSL’s translation, “The wise shepherd …… does not give orders any more. …… in battle and combat. The king, the advocate of Sumer, the ornament of the assembly, Ur-Namma, the advocate of Sumer, the ornament of the assembly, the leader of Sumer, …… lies sick. His



The Deaths of Utu-hegal and Ur-Namma  

 177

“Ur-Namma, he who was beloved by the troops, could not raise his neck any more. The wise one …… lay down; silence descended. As he, who was the vigour of the Land, had fallen, the Land became demolished like a mountain; like a cypress forest it was stripped, its appearance changed. As if he were a boxwood tree, they put axes against him in his joyous dwelling place. As if he were a sappy cedar tree, he was uprooted in the palace where he used to sleep.” 7

And further, “How iniquitously Ur-Namma was abandoned, like a broken jar!”8 We might be tempted to assume that the poetic phrase about abandoning Ur-Namma like a broken jar meant that his body (presumably like Utu-hegal’s) could not be recovered for burial. But as the elegy Ur-Namma A continues to tell us that Ur-Namma was brought to Ur and in detail about the burial of the body along with a team of equids and rich grave goods, the latter intended ultimately as gifts for the various netherworld deities, 9 it seems clear that there was a body for burial. We would assume that the location of the burial was Ur. But Ur-Namma’s tomb was not placed with the other mausolea of the Third Dynasty that Woolley excavated at Ur. And, strangely, as Steinkeller showed, his ki-a-nag, or funerary offerings, were performed in Tummal.10 Should this be taken to imply that Ur-Namma’s body was ultimately interred in Tummal? Or that multiple locations existed for his funerary obsequies? A major focus for the composition was the journey of Ur-Namma’s soul to the Netherworld, his reception there and his eventual role as a judge in the Netherworld for his “brother” Gilgamesh,11 so the more earthly details of burial and funerary rites do not receive detailed treatment. In short, the state of our knowledge about Ur-Namma’s burial is only marginally better than that of Utu-hegal.

hands which used to grasp cannot grasp any more, he lies sick. His feet …… cannot step any more, he lies sick.” 7 “Death of Ur-Namma” (aka Ur-Namma A), ETCSL composition t.2.4.1.1. See also E. Flückiger-Hawker, Ur-Namma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition OBO 166, pp. 93–182. 8 “Death of Ur-Namma,” ETCSL composition t.2.4.1.1. The same line was translated by Flückiger-Hawker “After they had thus abandoned Urnamma in the Place of Treachery [!] as if he were a broken jar.” E. Flückiger-Hawker, Ur-Namma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition OBO 166 p. 111. 9 “Death of Ur-Namma” ETCSL; discussed by many, including P. R. S. Moorey, “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984): 16, E. Flückiger-Hawker, Ur-Namma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition OBO 166, pp. 113–4 and previous scholarship. 10 According to MVN 10. 230 iii 6–8; P. Steinkeller, ZA 91 (2001): 68. According to UET 3.76, Ur-Namma’s burial place was the “new palace,” é-gal gibil, but we don’t know where that was, P. Michalowski, “Death of Šulgi,” Or 46 (1977): 221. 11 P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond pp. 35–6.

178 

 Chapter 7 The Death of Shulgi and his Wives

Shulgi’s Death More information survives about Shulgi’s death and about the death of at least some of his wives from both archaeological and textual sources. Shulgi himself was dead by Shulgi 48 month 11 day 2, as we know from a tablet giving 21 slave women a week off to mark the observation of funerary rites.12 The manner of death is unknown. Given Shulgi’s 48 year long reign, we might imagine that he died of age-related natural causes.13 At some point during his life, Shulgi was cured of a poisonous bite from a scorpion or snake, as the (presumably successful) incantation for this was preserved.14 There is no evidence that this was his manner of death. Very late traditions preserve a muddle of different ends for Shulgi, most of them unpleasant: for example, the Chronicle of Early Kings (Neo-Babylonian or later) suggests that, in retribution for Shulgi mishandling cleansing ceremonies, his mind was affected and his body eaten.15 Quite possibly Shulgi died from something mundane like a stroke or heart attack or pneumonia. With his death came a train of problems the living had to deal with. The most immediate issue was the dead body and how to bury it as befitted the first of the divine kings of this era. It seems that a normal pattern for the average person was to mourn for two days and bury the body at the end of the second or on the third day after the death.16 For Shulgi, the place of burial—what we refer to as the mausoleum, a brick built underground tomb in the city of Ur – was a construction project that probably took some time but had already been finished. It should have been a simple matter of unsealing the doors and conducting the proper ceremonies. But according to Woolley’s excavation report, the deep foundations had flooded: “when the king died and the doors were opened, the workmen found the bitumen floor awash with infiltered water.”17 While repairs were conducted, the court itself must have been in turmoil. Shulgi appears to have kept a very tight rein on power, not really delegating

12 P. Michalowski, “Death of Šulgi,” OrNS 46 (1977): 223. See more recently P. Steinkeller, “How did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?” Machinist FS pp. 459–478. The tablet in question was published as BCT 1.132 and probably derives from the provincial archive of Umma. 13 Naturally, we have no idea exactly how old Shulgi was at his death as we do not know his age at accession. 14 M. Geller and J. van Dijk, Ur III Incantations pp. 15–16. Had Shulgi died of the bite, one presumes the incantation would have been deemed ineffective and not kept. 15 W. W. Hallo, “Death of Kings,” in M. Cogan and I. Eph’al (eds.)Ah, Assyria Tadmor FS p. 158, also J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles p. 85, p. 269. 16 H. Vogel, “Death and Burial,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World pp. 423–4. 17 L. Woolley, Ur Excavations VI. The Buildings of the Third Dynasty p. 6.



Textual Evidence: The Survival of Royal Wives as Widows 

 179

authority to courtiers. Now who was in charge? Who was chief mourner? Was the succession clear? Whether the succession was smooth or rocky, new faces were making the decisions. Other faces, veterans of the court scene, were disappearing. Not just Shulgi-simti and Geme-Ninlilla disappear from the cuneiform record at that time, but also a number of the princes and princesses attested in the reign of Shulgi.18 Nin-kalla herself would soon retire to obscurity in Nippur. Change appears to have been fast. But from what we know of third millennium B.C. burial customs, it was not usually a man’s son(s) and heir(s) who took pride of place in the funerary rites: that role would fall to the widow, together with the gala, which we usually translate ‘lamentation priest.’ If I am correct that Nin-kalla was Shulgi’s NIN, or queen, then we might expect her to have played a prominent role in the mourning rites. Whether Ea-niša and some of the other women also mourned at the grave is unclear. Shulgi-simti and Geme-Ninlilla also, it seems, had an important role to play in these burial rites. It seems their role may have been darker, because they may well have attended as corpses.

Textual Evidence: The Survival of Royal Wives as Widows Having introduced the possibility that a king of Ur’s wives might be included in his burial, we should immediately qualify this assertion: the death of a king did not imply the death (by whatever means) of all his wives. There is ample evidence that the queens (NIN) and some concubines certainly could and regularly did outlive the kings of the Ur III period. This was true for Ur-Namma’s wife, SI.Atum. SI.A-tum certainly survived her husband’s sudden death and appears prominently in the elegy about his death that we call Ur-Namma A.19 It has even been suggested that she commissioned the piece.20 Other cases in which the king’s

18 The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed, who, like Shulgi, fathered about 100 children, had 27 daughters and 20 sons living at the time of his death (plus seven more who were in the womb). The new heir murdered 19 of the brothers and all the pregnant concubines upon accession, N. Penzer The Harem p. 197. Whether similar forces were at work in Shulgi’s death, we cannot know. 19 SI.A-tum/ Watartum was definitely not buried with her husband Ur-Namma, as Moorey points out in “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984): 17. 20 C. Wilcke, “Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit,” in P. Garelli (ed.), Le Palais et la Royauté CRRAI 17 p. 86; W. W.Hallo, Origins p. 266.

180 

 Chapter 7 The Death of Shulgi and his Wives

wife clearly outlived the king were Shulgi’s wife Nin-kalla and his wife Ea-niša, and Amar-Sin’s wife, Abi-simti.21 Other royal wives of the Ur III period died natural deaths prior to the death of their spouses. Probably this is what happened to Taram-Uram and Geme-Sin; it seems clear also for Kubatum, Shu-Sin’s wife. The burial places for these royal women who outlived their husbands are not known. Moorey guessed that the queens’ burials would be found “in or adjacent to their main residential palace, yet to be found.”22 The burials of the Neo-Assyrian queens, we may note, were also separated from those of their husbands. While the kings appear to have been buried at Assur, the queens living in the palace in Kalhu/ Nimrud were buried under the courtyard floor.23 If we take the Neo-Assyrian royal women as typical, their concerns seems to center around their possessions, with curses formulated lest others reopen the grave and try to reuse their jewelry or sarcophagi.24 There is a solid body of evidence that many queens and royal wives either survived and thrived after the death of their husbands, or else died of natural causes prior to the end of their husband’s reign.

Textual Evidence: The Contiguous Deaths of Shulgi and Two of His Wives But, at least for the reign of Shulgi, there is also evidence that two of Shulgi’s women seem to have died very close to the time that Shulgi himself died. It seems likely that Shulgi, when his soul allegedly ascended to the heavens,25 brought a few of his lesser-ranking wives with him. The tidiness and order of the Ur III state does not bring to mind images of human sacrifice, the Mesopotamian equivalent of the Hindu custom of satee, throwing the widow onto her husband’s funeral pyre. The somewhat lurid suggestion that Shulgi’s junior wives or consorts may have been sacrificed at his death cannot, 26 however, be dismissed out of hand.

21 The latest known attestation of Abi-simti appears to be SS9.10.29 and her kianag (funerary offerings) first attested in SS9.12.17, W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 184. 22 P. R. S. Moorey, “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984): 18. 23 B. Lion, “Le Mort, Les Mortes” in X. Faivre et al. (eds.), Et il eut un spirit dans l’Homme Bottero Vol. p. 283; J. N. Postgate, “Palast,” RlA 10 (2004): 197; S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in G. Lafranchi (ed.), Leggo… Fales FS pp. 620–621. 24 B. Lion, “Le Mort, Les Mortes” in X. Faivre et al. (eds.), Et il eut un spirit dans l’Homme p. 283. 25 This ascent has been discussed by P. Steinkeller, “How did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?” Machinist FS pp. 459–478 26 P. Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi,” OrNS 46 (1977): 223–224.



Textual Evidence: The Contiguous Deaths of Shulgi and Two of His Wives 

 181

As Michalowski pointed out, it is an indisputable fact that Shulgi and two of his wives died within a short time, and the archaeological evidence from Shulgi’s burial place reveals multiple bodies interred at the same time.27 Sallaberger asked, “Sollte man in dieser Zeugnissen Hinweise auf ein gewaltsames Ende Šulgis sehen dürfen, be idem auch die Frauen den Tod fanden?”28 Previous scholarship has taken a variety of positions on this subject. In Michalowski’s important 1977 article on this topic, he shows that the latest attestation of Shulgi was S48, month 11 day 2; of Geme-Ninlilla and Shulgi-simti, S48.9.2329 and S48.10.28.30 He thus concluded …” it is not unreasonable to assume that all three persons died at the same time.”31 By 1982, Michalowski seemed more convinced: Geme-Ninlilla, he wrote “was probably buried together with Šulgi and Šulgi-simti in the royal mausoleum at Ur.”32 Why? While Michalowski noted that it is quite possible that the reason for the cluster of deaths might be natural (e.g. a contagious illness) or the result of foul play, he raised the possibility that the “sacrifice of consorts was an operative custom during the Ur III period. Alternatively, it may have been a rare tradition evoked when a ruler died under particular circumstances.”33 Klein’s article on “Shulgi of Ur” raises various possibilities. “Since the death of Š. seems to coincide with the death of his two principal wives, Geme-Ninlila and Shulgi-simti, some historians suspect that the aged Shulgi was assassinated together with his wives.” He continues, “A less likely possibility is that he died peacefully, and two of his wives were buried along with him as part of an exceptional cultic practice.”34 Hallo refers to Neo-Sumerian queens (specifically Shulgi’s) following their husbands into the grave,35 though it is not clear to me by what process. Sallaberger remarks on the odd fact (“merkwüridgen Umstand”) that Shulgi-simti and Geme-Ninlilla appear to have died very close to the time of their husband’s death,36 and has only questions as to the cause(s): “Handelt es sich um

27 L. Woolley, Ur Excavations 6 p. 8. 28 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 162. See also P. Michalowski, “Death of Šulgi,” Or. 46 (1977): 224. 29 According to the evidence of TRU 298, P. Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi,” OrNS 46 (1977): 222. 30 P. Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi,” OrNS 46 (1977): 223. 31 P. Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi,” OrNS 46 (1977): 223. 32 P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period, Part III,” ASJ 4 (1982): 135. 33 P. Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi,” OrNS 46 (1977): 224. 34 J. Klein, “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire,” in J. Sasson (ed.), CANE I p. 856. 35 W. W. Hallo, Origins p. 266. 36 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.162 and 184.

182 

 Chapter 7 The Death of Shulgi and his Wives

ein gewaltsames Ende? Freitod?”37 He continued, “Die Frage nach dem Tod der Frauen stellt sich also nach wie vor ein wenig beunruhigend dar.”38 The long-running excavations at Ur, mostly under the direction of Sir Leonard Woolley under the joint auspices of the British Museum and the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, uncovered the burial places of three Ur III rulers in the vicinity of the very old Royal Cemetery of Ur, and looking at this data may help us understand who was placed in the tomb with Shulgi.

Archaeological Evidence: Multiple Burials at Ur Archaeological evidence confirms that Shulgi was not buried alone. Woolley’s excavations at Ur uncovered the vaulted burial-places of Shulgi and Amar-Sin, though the burial chambers of both kings were disturbed, possibly desecrated and looted by the Elamites. These were below-ground structures, but it has been hypothesized that there were also visible and perhaps highly decorated structures on top: “During the Ur III period… buildings with altars and libation facilities were constructed above the underground crypts of the deified kings Shulgi (2094–2047) and Amar-Sîn (2046–2038). It can be assumed that the buildings, which we should imagine decorated with paint as well as with precious metals and precious stones, were used for the worship of the deified rulers…”39 We generally describe these as mausolea, being used for the bodies of Shulgi and AmarSin.40 “Just outside the eastern corner of the temple enclosure, on the northeast edge of Ur’s old ‘Royal Cemetery,’ stood the baked brick mausolea of the Ur III kings, with their house-like structures and cultic installations above ground and crypts below.”41 A cemetery of sorts was still in use nearby.42

37 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.184. 38 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.184. 39 H. Vogel, “Death and Burial,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World p. 425. 40 This is our current understanding; Woolley entertained the possibility that the bricks stamped by Shulgi were used for his father’s burial. Moorey, “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984): 3. 41 R. Zettler, “Archaeology and the Problem of Textual Evidence for the Third Dynasty of Ur,” BCSMS 38 (2003): 54. 42 P. R. S. Moorey, “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984): 7.



Archaeological Evidence: Multiple Burials at Ur 

 183

Figure 4: Excavation Photos from Ur, Photo 1728, courtesy of the Penn Museum archives.

By the standards of his day a careful excavator who extensively published his work, some of Woolley’s field practices may make the blood of the modern scholar run cold. For instance, he threw away most of the bones he excavated.43 And there were quite a lot of extra bones in this mausoleum. Woolley’s published excavation report showed at least four skulls in chamber one.44 He thought, however, there may have been as many as seven bodies. 45 Three bodies were found together, one an adult man, one small and one a woman. Woolley thought the small figure was a child, but it seems possible that it was another (short) woman.46 The obvious question is whether these were persons placed there after the tomb was robbed

43 According to the University Museum. 44 These skulls were drawn as figure 7 (a line drawing) on p. 17; note also the multiple bodies in the southeast tomb chamber on p. 19, Ur Excavations Volume 6. 45 Woolley, Ur Excavations Vol. 6 p. 7. 46 Woolley, Ur Excavations Vol. 6 p. 7. This was in chamber two.

184 

 Chapter 7 The Death of Shulgi and his Wives

and whether any of them had anything to do with Shulgi’s household at all. Also, were all the bones buried at the same time? If so, this implies a single act of inhumation, rather than putting the bodies in a family vault as they died one by one. The area had been extensively disturbed in antiquity (presumably when Ur fell in Ibbi-Sin’s reign), but the soil at the entryway at the tomb had not been disturbed, thus there is no possibility that these dead bodies in the mausolea could be the result of opening and shutting the tomb up again when various people in the course of time died. The multiple persons interred with Shulgi, as Woolley remarked in a series of letters sent back to London as a preliminary field reports, were buried together at one time.47 It seems to be extremely likely that the three bodies found in chamber two then were Shulgi, Geme-Ninlilla and Shulgi-simti.

Figure 5: Excavation Photos from Ur, Photo 1688, also from the Penn Museum Archives.

47 Copies of these letters were examined by the author in the University of Pennsylvania’s Museum archives, album IX; the letters in question were dated Dec. 1, 1930, Dec. 31, 1930 and Feb. 1, 1931, used with the kind permission of the museum. His basis for believing that the bodies were not from later years was the undisturbed nature of the soil at the approach, discussed also in the publication UE 6 p. 7.



Archaeological Evidence: Multiple Burials at Ur 

 185

It is, I think, very interesting point to look at Woolley’s records of the kianag pipes for Shulgi, that is, the pipes built into the grave to allow the libations (the kianag) to flow from above into the grave itself. There were not one but three lines of pipes. These three libation pipes are clearly visible in the photo published by Woolley in his excavation report (excavation 1688, figure 5).48 The logical conclusion is that there were three burials: Shulgi, the primary burial, and two others. Since we know Geme-Ninlilla and Shulgi-simti died at this time (or close to it), it is not unreasonable to assume that they were the other two persons receiving kianag offerings. Who the other bodies (represented by the skulls) were and why they were placed there remains a matter for archaeologists to attempt to clarify. Although it may well have been a rather gruesome local custom rather than a pan-Babylonian cultural practice, multiple burials, or more accurately, human sacrifices, are well-attested at Ur from Early Dynastic times. Schwartz refers to this custom as “retainer sacrifice.”49 Moorey has shown that this custom did not die out in the Sargonic period or the time immediately preceding Shulgi. For example, in one of the seemingly latest burials, PG 1847, which Moorey believed could be as late as the reign of Shulgi, four individuals in coffins appear to have been the main burial, another 18 were buried in the same grave.50 Moorey concluded, “Thus, from sometime after the fall of the Dynasty of Akkad into the reign of Shulgi there was a category of persons at Ur entitled at death to burial in a shaft grave with others, who may only be described as ‘sacrificial’ victims.”51 Amar-Sin’s mausolea also contained multiple bodies, which the excavator described vaguely as “a number of women’s bodies.”52 Amar-Sin’s vaulted tomb in the NW Annex contained the remains of at least five people, four of them women; the fifth’s sex is uncertain. These bones were calcined, that is, burnt.53 We should also keep in mind that the Kalhu excavations of the Neo-Assyrian royal women also showed evidence for multiple extra people in the antechamber of the

48 Woolley, Ur Excavations Vol. 6 plate 6 B, reproduced here as figure 5. 49 We may note that recent excavations at Umm el-Marra (probably ancient Tuba) uncovered evidence for burials with equids and extra bodies of women who could be considered grave goods or sacrifices to accompany the main burial. G. Schwartz, “Archaeology and Sacrifice,” in A. Porter and G. Schwartz (eds.), Sacred Killing p. 13. 50 Three persons were in the upper part of the shaft; 15 (including three juveniles) were at the bottom of the shaft, wrapped in mats but without grave goods. P. R. S. Moorey, “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984): 12–13. 51 P. R. S. Moorey, “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984): 13. 52 L. Woolley, Ur Excavations Volume 6 pp.22–23. 53 L. Woolley UE II pp. 407–8.

186 

 Chapter 7 The Death of Shulgi and his Wives

grave of Mulissu-mukannishat-Ninua, namely three males and ten other young women or children.54 While it seems clear that queens or chief wives (especially those with powerful living family members) survived their royal husband’s demise, it also seems clear that Shulgi’s tomb was constructed to hold himself as the main burial and a number of other persons as grave goods. This practice seems to have been a centuries-old Ur tradition attested of course in the Early Dynastic royal cemetery, but also right up through the Ur III period proper, and perhaps even later. Now, having looked at the lives of Shulgi’s wives (and the deaths of some of them), let us turn to the activities for which one wife, Shulgi-simti, is now best known, that is, her archive and her religious foundation.

54 B. Lion, “Le Mort, Les Mortes” in X. Faivre et al. (eds.), Et il eut un spirit dans l’Homme p. 283.

Part II: The Shulgi-simti Archive and the Shulgi-simti Foundation

Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive Historical Sources At long last, we can now turn our attention to the archive described in this book as the Shulgi-simti archive. Found by looters in the first decade of the twentieth century, the tablets were sold on the art market. Two large chunks of the archive ended up in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the Montserrat Abbey in Spain. The others were scattered. As Puzrish-Dagan or Drehem appears to have been the findspot for the tablets, a few words about it are in order. We have already seen in chapter two that Puzrish-Dagan is an ancient name for the modern Drehem, which of course at this time was part of the Nippur province.1 Unfortunately, when dealing with an archive about 4000 years old, imperfectly preserved, discovered illicitly, sold piecemeal and published in dribs and drabs, it is not easy to present even such basic facts as the date of the archive or the number of tablets preserved. Previous work on the archive has not always come to the same conclusions about even such basic factual questions, not due to carelessness or different sets of data, but largely due to slightly different conceptions of what the Shulgi-simti archive and the Shulgi-simti foundation represent. Tablets from the archive of Shulgi-simti began to be discovered in approximately 1909, and the tablets were scattered in numerous museums and private collections. The archive is believed to have been unearthed at the site of Puzrish-Dagan on the basis of the date at which the tablets appeared as well as clues in the texts such as month names and place names.2 As Sigrist commented, “No writer has questioned Drehem as the place of origin of the archive.”3

1 W. Sallaberger, “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 125. 2 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp. 20–21. For example, the name of the first month in this archive is maš-kug-kú, as in the Shoe Archive of Esagdana (early Drehem). 3 M. Sigrist, Ontario 1995 p. 21. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-008

190 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

Was the Shulgi-simti Foundation Unique? If one follows the view that Shulgi-simti’s archive records religious activities and a foundation that are unique to her, a larger or more catholic definition of which tablets belong to her archive will be preferable. If one takes the view that Shulgi’s queen and various wives all had religious duties and foundations of some sort, then the possibility arises that some tablets that appear to belong to the Shulgi-simti archive might actually record activities of the other wives. Closer scrutiny would then be needed to sift out the extraneous tablets. But is there any reason to believe that the other royal wives had foundations? At first glance, it seems that there is no evidence for anything comparable to Shulgi-simti’s foundation. We do not have an archive, much less than archive of a few hundred tablets, for the queens (like the powerful Abi-simti) of later reigns.4 The archive of Shulgi-simti seems to stop at her death— there is no evidence that Amar-Sin’s queen, Abi-simti, took over that foundation or ran one of her own. Is this absence evidence of real change or simply an illustration of the old adage of the archaeologists, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”? Because Shulgi-simti’s archive and religious activities appear to begin and end with her, some scholars have seen the whole enterprise as very much her own creation and personal choice. This is particularly the case when considering the choice of deities worshiped by the foundation, with its heavy emphasis on the pair of goddesses, Belet-šuhnir and terraban, as we see in the following quote from Sallaberger. “Bei den Ausgaben für kultische Anlässe werden am häufigsten die beiden Göttinnen Belat-Šuhnir und Belat-Deraban genannt. Auβer bei monatlichen Opfern und eigenen Festen werden sie zusätlich im Rahmen der Feiern anderer Götter mit Lieferungen bedacht. Diese besondere Fürsorge die Šulgisimtum diesen beiden, offenkundig ihren persönlichen Göttinnen, angedeihen läβt (z. B. Š 29–30 keine andereen Götter in Šulgisimtum-Texten erwähnt!), steht in krassem Gegensatz zu den wenigen, verstreuten Belegen in den sonstigen Drehem-Texten. Die dem babylonischen Pantheon fremden Göttinnen Belat-Šuhnir und Belat-Deraban müssen daher von Šulgisimtum nach Ur gebracht worden sein.”5

It would not be surprising if Shulgi-simti had run her foundation to her own specifications; in fact the converse would be more surprising. Yet I think there are clues in the archive that Geme-Sin, Shulgi’s spouse who predeceased Shul-

4 However, there is quite a lot of evidence for economic and religious activities led by the next queen Abi-simti and other royal women, particularly in regard to Inanna of the town of Zabalam and moon-cycle festivals. 5 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.19.



Was the Shulgi-simti Foundation Unique? 

 191

gi-simti, may well also have had a foundation, as did another wife of Shulgi’s, Geme-Ninlilla.6 Furthermore, as we shall see in chapter 11, religious activities by the queen herself can also be separated out. The evidence for organizations run by these other spouses is admittedly sparse. If we are looking for another archive of a few hundred tablets, we will not find it. Still, it seems quite likely Shulgi-simti’s foundation was far from unique; Sigrist agreed, “It must also be noted that this institution was not the only one of its type, although it is the best attested…”7 This would of course suggest that running a foundation was one of the regular activities of Shulgi’s spouses. If one compares the two tablets below (TCND 36 and AUCT 1.413), it is clear that one belongs to Shulgi-simti’s archive and that the other— very similar, reflects a “Geme-Ninlilla foundation” of which we know very little. A Shulgi-simti Text “3 young? ducks (from) SUHUSH-kin, the 22nd day having passed from the month delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Abiliya received” “2 young ducks, 10 turtledoves (from) Bamu, 4 squabs, the wife of Izuarik, delivery (to) Geme-Ninlilla, Aa-udsuše received.”8

Because I tend towards the latter opinion, that Shulgi-simti foundation was not unique, I would like to propose a fairly strict set of criteria to determine whether a tablet belongs to the Shulgi-simti archive. That is, the tablet must mention Shulgi-simti by name or record income or expenditures by one of her bureau chiefs outlined below.

6 The official who first ran Shulgi-simti’s foundation,Shu-kubum, used to work for Geme-Sin, identified as “Shulgi’s wife” (dam), as his seal attested. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.18, note 59. Years S26 and 28. See also Sigrist, Drehem p.225 and footnote 21. 7 M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 22. 8 This text was published as AUCT 1.413, dating to Shulgi 41 month two.

192 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

The Shulgi-simti Archive: An Overview Although there are strong reasons to believe that the Shulgi-simti archive was found at Drehem (ancient Puzrish-Dagan), it would be inaccurate to state that the Shulgi-simti foundation operated only in that vicinity. In fact, as noted by many previous studies, a great many of Shulgi-simti’s expenditures, as well as some receipts, took place in Ur, the seat of the dynasty.9 Uruk also was a major location for activities sponsored by the foundation,10 as was Tummal. On occasion, one also finds transactions recorded from “on the road,” in Sumerian šag4 kaskal-la.11 Chapter ten will examine these various places in more depth. The foundation’s attested activities center on gathering livestock such as lambs or goats of various kinds from courtiers of both sexes and from other ad hoc sources and using these animals mainly for religious observances. Shulgi-simti did not control a vast and wealthy estate with lands and enterprises; when she needed livestock, even a few dozen sheep or an ox, she had to gather them from the women and men at the court, or from other members of the royal family (as we shall see in chapter nine). A sample text from Shulgi-simti’s archive now in the Yale Babylonian Collection shows this: RBC 2562 (S47/3/-) 1 sila4 niga d nin-líl-tum/-im-ti 2 udu ú 1 máš R šu-gu-bu-um mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-ti ur-dlugal-eden-/ka ì-dab5 iti u5-bí-kú mu-ús-sa ki-mašk[i] /ba-hul “1 fattened lamb (from the princess) NIN.LIL-tum-imti,12 2 grass-fed sheep, 1 goat (from) Shu-kubum, delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Ur-lugal-eden-ka received.”

Shulgi-simti’s foundation never dealt with very large amounts, and often only a few animals change hands in tablets associated with her archive. Other archives

9 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.20–21, M. Sigrist, Drehem pp.237–242. 10 M. Sigrist, Drehem pp.242–246, Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.21. 11 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.20–21. 12 This woman is discussed more in chapter nine, note 18.



Shulgi-simti’s Foundation in comparison 

 193

of Ur III date regularly accounted for hundreds and even thousands of animals, so by the standards of the time, the scale of Shulgi-simti’s operation was very small. Shulgi-simti’s organization was run by a male employee, or, more accurately, a steady stream of male employees.13 What did Shulgi-simti do with the livestock she and her employees had gathered? Some went to the palace, the texts tell us, and some for the queen’s consumption (níg-kú NIN-gá),14 but the majority of the animals collected, and the nicest ones, were destined to be sacrificed for the gods and goddesses. Interestingly, the religious observances in Shulgi-simti’s archive focus heavily on goddesses. A large number of these goddesses represent various different aspects of the goddess of sex and war, Ishtar. The following text, MVN 18.61,15 may serve as an example. The goddesses in bold represent different forms of Ishtar (which will be discussed in some detail in chapter 11). “1 fattened sheep, 1 grass-fed sheep, 1 lamb – temple of the goddess Ninsun. 1 fattened sheep, 1 grass-fed sheep, 1 lamb—temple of the god Iškur. 1 fattened sheep—Nanayya of the palace, 1 goat, girranum ceremony of Annunitum, 1 goat, girranum of the temple of Ulmašitum… 1 goat, when she went to her temple, beer-pouring ceremony of Annunitum in the palace,… expenditure of Beli-tab, the animal fattener, in Ur.”

Shulgi-simti’s Foundation in comparison In comparison to the activities of the main Puzrish-Dagan archive, Shulgi-simti’s organization was smaller, poorer and perhaps less rule-bound or bureaucratic, if one may use such terms. We may recall the large herds controlled by the head Puzrish-Dagan, up to 70,000 sheep and goats in a single year;16 in comparison, the largest attested figure for Shulgi-simti’s foundation is 8 oxen, 59 sheep and a few hundred birds. It is of course difficult to get accurate estimates of annual income for Shulgi-simti in the absence of annual summary accounts. But even

13 The bureau chiefs of the foundation are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. 14 This was especially true for the smaller animals such as the geese and ducks. 15 MVN 18.61 dates to S37 month 5. 16 In Amar-Sin 5, we know that the central Puzrish-Dagan administration accounted for 5700 cows, 750 equids, 900 wild animals such as gazelle and 70,000 sheep and goats: W. Sallaberger, “Puzriš-Dagan,” RlA 11 (2006): 125.

194 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

if in any given year Shulgi-simti’s foundation regularly controlled double the highest figure attested, that is about 10 oxen and 120 sheep, we are still dealing with a very different order of magnitude, about a 500 to 1 ratio.

The Source of the Foundation’s Assets For those approaching the archive with the preconception that this is a “women’s archive” that will show us “women’s religion,” it would seem likely that we would find here livestock owned by Shulgi-simti and perhaps other court women used for their own purposes (an ox of their own, as it were). The reality is far messier. Shulgi-simti did have her own herds. We saw in chapters 5 and 6 that all (or at least most) of the wives of Shulgi received an allowance (sá-dug4) of 30 sheep per month. Thus, she would have had 360 sheep per year, with some growth of the herd due to births and some diminution from usage and deaths. However, those 30 sheep per month appear to have been kept entirely separate from the foundation’s livestock. When Shulgi-simti received her 30 sheep allowance, it went from the main Puzrish-Dagan establishment to her herdsmen, who were quite separate from her foundation’s staff. The concept of fiscal separation of accounts is anachronistic, but it does seem to be the case that the Shulgi-simti foundation was not spending the monthly sá-dug4 allowance and had to look to its own sources for funding.

Commodities It may help to start with a brief overview of the types and quantities of commodities expended in the archive. The surviving tablet from Shulgi-simti’s establishment deal almost exclusively with livestock; accounts of cereals, fruit, incense, cloth or labor accounts are essentially absent. In this respect, the Shulgi-simti archive is similar to the main Puzrish-Dagan archive. Both left us tablets recording livestock, and though we must assume that the institution needed to deal with other commodities, these were recorded on tablets we have not yet found. In records from Shulgi-simti foundation, we find income and expenditure of cattle, though these are quite rare, and sheep, and goats. On some tablets, we also find the income or expenditure of animals largely absent from the main Puzrish-Dagan or other Ur III archives, namely pigs and edible birds such as ducks, squabs and turtle-doves. The cattle and sheep seem to have been used mainly for religious purposes, whereas the majority of the birds and pigs were consumed by women of the royal family. However, at least some of the fowl might have been

Scale 

 195

used for sacrifice and pig meat could have been consumed in ritual settings (such as funerary meals), as we shall see later, so this distinction between cultic and secular may be less strict than we imagine.

Scale As we have seen, the Shulgi-simti foundation appears to have been quite poor, especially in comparison to the nearby royal establishment at Puzrish-Dagan, which regularly accounted for 50,000- 70,000 animals per year. Even a provincial governor sheared 1380 sheep in one year.17 To attempt to calculate how many animals Shulgi-simti’s foundation accounted for per year on average is difficult because we have only one annual summary account. Whether in general the foundation did not bother with annual accounts or whether these tablets have not yet been found or published remains to be seen. According to this one annual account, published as MVN 13.649, dating to year, Shulgi 45 month 6 to Shulgi 46 month 8, the income of the foundation was 8 oxen, 59 sheep 0 pigs, 41 squabs, 278 turtledoves and 55 ducks. Some disparities between income and expenditure led to deficits, but here, we are concerned with the income. All this was under the control of Apilatum kurušda, that is, Apilatum the animal fattener.18 But before we consider MVN 13.649 to be normative, that is, giving us and accurate estimate of the foundations income in any given year, we must confront the problem that during most of these 14 months, the foundation apparently had not one but two heads. The old head, Apilatum, overlapped with his successor Ur-lugal-eden-ka for approximately one year, as Sigrist noted already.19 Sigrist cautioned, “It is not impossible that the same [overlap] might be true of others, although the evidence is not sufficient to prove this.” In other words, it is possible that during these 14 months, there were two sets of income and expenditure accounts, one set for the outgoing head as recorded in MVN 13.649 and another set for the new man. In this case, the total income of the foundation would have been higher, perhaps even double or more what we find in MVN

17 This was the governor or Umma in SS5, according to MVN 5.278, discussed by M. Stepien, “The Economic Status of Governors in Ur III Times,” JCS 64 (2012): 24–5. 18 níg-ŠID-ak á-bí-la-tum kurušda. MVN 13.649, S45.06. to 46.08. This text was discussed by F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p. 38. 19 Sigrist notes that Ur-lugal-eden-ka occurs as early as 45.05.12, according to PDT 645. Sigrist already remarked upon the overlap in Ontario p.23.

196 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

13.649. On the other hand, it’s very possible that the account of the whole foundation was put in the senior man’s name, and at this text does represent the whole income of the foundation. Confirmation for the idea that Shulgi-simti’s foundation accounted for a very small number of animals per year seems to come from PDT 2.1215. This text, dated to Amar-Sin year 1, months after her death, shows the remnants of Shulgi-simti’s livestock being transferred by the head of the Shulgi-simti foundation to the main Puzrish-Dagan organization. The total number of sheep transferred here is 71, and only 28 of these were fattened. This does not of course represent an annual total income, but it does indicate that we should be thinking in hundreds, certainly not thousands of animals. Since it would be naive to think that all the Shulgi-simti income records are published or that all of them survived to the present, figures we can obtain will obviously be too small. We can obtain however a minimum total. The largest total of all of these years happens to be Shulgi year 36 with seven cattle and at least 103 sheep. If we compare the 14 months covered by the one account, the account gives us 8 oxen, and 59 sheep,20 whereas if we do the addition of preserved delivery records, we arrive at 2 oxen and 28 sheep. This suggests that we are missing at least three-fourths of the cattle and about half of the sheep. While the evidence currently available does not allow us an accurate estimate of the organization’s annual income, we still can see that the organization was fairly poor, maybe dealing with less than a dozen heads of cattle and less than 150 sheep per year. We should keep in mind the possibility that the foundation’s income might have fluctuated considerably from one year to the next. At least according to the tablets currently available, it seems that income levels were higher prior to Shulgi 39. Possibly differential preservation of tablets is the explanation, but another possibility is that Shulgi’s new palace in Puzrish-Dagan and associated administration, commemorated in his 39th year of reign, diverted income previously sent to the Shulgi-simti foundation.

Birds While much attention has been paid to the quadrupeds (largely used for sacrifice), the pigs and the fowl have received less attention. In part this is due to rarity. Most Ur III archives we have do not feature birds as a commodity. That is not to say

20 MVN 13.649 (the 14 month account ending in S46 month 8) of Apilatum gives us 8 cattle, 59 sheep, 41 kaskal birds, 55 ducks and 278 turtledoves.

Birds 

 197

that they are totally absent otherwise in Early Mesopotamian archives—the Early Dynastic Lagash texts do sometimes mention fattened ducks.21 A few references now can be found in Urusagrig texts.22 Late Neo-Babylonian tablets from Sippar concerning birds are now the subject of an interesting study by Tarasewicz.23 Birds had a low monetary value: Fish estimated that 1 duck was worth only 15 še, “barleycorns” of silver,24 but they were certainly enjoyed as a delicacy when fattened and cooked and many made their way to the royal table. The Shulgi-simti foundation dealt mainly with three or four types of birds: uz, uz-tur, tu-gur4 and kaskal.25 We have a basic idea of what these terms referred to, that is, the overall type of birds in question, but an exact species identification is problematic. We know that uz was a goose, and uz-tur a duck, kaskal a pigeon and tu-gur4 a type of pigeon or turtledove, but these are somewhat vague categories. Iraq currently has eight different species of pigeons and doves (including the common wood pigeon, the rock pigeon, the oriental turtle dove et cetera), 5 species of pheasants/quails and 28 species of ducks/geese/swans. By uz-tur should we understand the marbled teal, a migratory duck now very common in Iraq? While it is clear that the birds were intended to be eaten, the details are not very clear. Were the birds hunted as they migrated through the region and consumed as a seasonal delicacy?26 The Neo-Babylonian evidence in fact led Tarasewicz to suggest that the birds were caught, then kept by temple staff and bred, to be used at the right times for temple offerings.27 The birds there generally ranged between 50–100 female ducks and 10–20 drakes.28 Eggs were an important benefit to the bird breeding, though there is no evidence they were used cultically. One might be tempted to say that Shulgi-simti’s birds were for table use only and not used cultically either, but that does not appear to be strictly accurate. It is true that the offering lists from this archive list sheep, goats and rarely cattle

21 Y. Wu, “Sheep, Goats, Pigs, Calves and Ducks in the House of the Lady in Girsu,” JAC 21 (2006): 6. 22 For example, L. Feliu, “An Ur III Tablet,” Aula Or. 24 (2006): 149: in one tablet he published, 15 tu-gur4 were transferred between a šabra and the animal fattener Ba-a-ga in SS9. 23 R. Tarasewicz, “Bird Breeding,” Kaskal 6 (2009): 151–65. 24 T. Fish, Iraq 5 (1938): 164. 25 On Sumerian bird terminology, see N. Veldhuis, Religion, Literature, and Scholarship. The Sumerian Composition Nanše and the Birds. CM 22 p.257. 26 R. Tarasewicz shows that in Iraq geese, for instance, regularly leave around late September for their wintering grounds, and return to the region in late February, Kaskal 6 (2009): 165–6. 27 R. Tarasewicz, “Bird Breeding,” Kaskal 6 (2009): 151–165. Frequent shortages could cause the temple staff to have to supplement their birds with newly caught or bought birds. 28 R. Tarasewicz, “Bird Breeding,” Kaskal 6 (2009): 165 and note 26.

198 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

as the sacrificial livestock (not birds). The birds are said to go for the queen’s consumption (and given that the queen was apparently in charge of the kitchens and the cook, this may mean that they went more generally for the royal women’s dining), or they are said to have died and entered into the palace (presumably then to feed the staff).29 However, Weiershäuser noticed evidence that birds could be used as sacrifice.30 For example, a text published as OIP 115.124 lists birds and even wild pigs used for rituals that occurred at different phases of the day, the á-gú-zi-ga and á-ud-te-na, and OIP 115.101 refers to ducks for sízkur, that is, prayer rites.31 And if we look at a literary text, “The Debate between Fish and Bird,” which is said to have been judged by Shulgi himself, we find the usual verbal sparring between the two contestants. The fish seems to be taunting the bird that it is hardly wild, describing how it could be caught and saying, “They bring you into the fattening shed. They let you moo like cattle, bleat like sheep. They pour out cool water in jugs for you. They drag you away for the daily sacrifice.” When Shulgi judges between the two animals, he favours Bird: “It shall utter its cries in the temple of the great gods. The Anuna gods rejoice at its voice. It is suitable for banquets in the great dining hall of the gods.”32 While we cannot date this text precisely, it does show a habit of using birds in temple banquets in this era. Therefore, we should remain open to the possibility that some of the birds collected by the foundation were used for temple or religious banquets. Estimating bird income is even more difficult than estimating the cattle or sheep due to a combination of fewer sources and apparently greater variability. The number of text recording birds is smaller than that of the number of cattle or sheep delivery texts. Furthermore, numbers of birds seem to have fluctuated wildly. As we saw, the 14 month account included 41 squabs, 278 turtle-doves and 55 ducks as total income. But if we looked at a single delivery text from Shulgi 44, MVN 18.8, we find a single entry for 120 squabs from orchard keeper. Modern Egyptian recipes suggest one pigeon or two doves per person as a portion size, so even a relatively large number like 278 turtle-doves would only probably have fed about 140 people.

29 For example, OIP 115.123 (S47.07.22) lists 10 tugur birds and 2 tu birds expended as níg-kú NIN-gá, whereas the 5 other tugur birds that died are said to enter into the palace (ba-ug7 é-gal-la ba-an-ku4). Texts of this sort are very numerous. 30 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p. 89. 31 OIP 115.124 dates to S47.07.27. 32 ETCSL composition T.5.3.5.

Pigs 

 199

Pigs Pigs, conspicuous by their absence in the main Puzrish-Dagan livestock administration, do appear, albeit in small numbers, in Shulgi-simti’s archive. By the first millennium B.C., eating pigs appears to have been taboo due to their uncleanness, but certainly they were a delicacy earlier and “of some importance in early Mesopotamian economy,” as Foster and Salgues note.33 Early Dynastic sources from Lagash attest to pig herds and pig sheds there; also to the consumption of what appears to be wild boar.34 Pigs, then, were still eaten in the late third millennium BC. But were they ever used for sacrifice? On the one hand, the answer seems negative. No offering lists record the allocation of pigs for sacrifice in the temples in the same way as cattle, sheep or goats. But there is the evidence of the month name šeš-da-kú, “piglet eating,” (month two at Puzrish-Dagan); “the cultic consumption of the ‘holy piglet”35 was apparently a central element in a festival of the moon-god Nanna. Moreover, funerary rituals at Garshana document the use of pork over a series of days for the kianag of the deceased man Shu-kabta36 and there are references to suckling pigs used for Amar-Sin’s death offerings.37 One of the previously unpublished Yale texts that appears in the appendix (YBC 16473) refers to a roast pig as a sízkur for Allatum, the underworld goddess. Excavations at the Royal Cemetery did in fact find traces of pork in the graves.38 In the earliest documents from the Shulgi-simti archive, we do not find records of pigs; they occur from S38–9 onwards.39 Does this reflect an actual change in the commodities dealt with by the foundation or only an accident or preservation? We may note that this is precisely the same time frame that we can see the donor pool drop, as chapter nine will show, which may suggest the change was a real one.

33 B. Foster and E. Salgues, “‘Everything except the Squeal,’ Pigs in Early Mesopotamia,” in B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), De la domestication au tabou p. 283.See also D. Owen, “Pigs and Pig By-Products,” pp. 75–87 in B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), De la domestication au tabou. 34 Y. Wu, “Sheep, Goats, Pigs, Calves and Ducks in the House of the Lady in Girsu,” JAC 21 (2006): 9–10. The term used here, šáh-giš, is taken to mean a wild boar, following M. Weszeli, “Schwein,” RlA 12 (2009): 319. It should be noted, however, that others have translated this term differently, as a pig who ate reed for fodder or even as a sacrificial pig. 35 P. Steinkeller, “The Sumerian Pig Term ŠÁH.ZÉ.DA,” NABU 2007 number 18, especially p. 19 note 17. Some prefer the reading zahdaxda-kú. 36 P. Mander, “Two Tablets from Garšana,” CUSAS 6 (2011): 224–6 (text 2). 37 NATN 914. M. Weszeli, “Schwein,” RlA 12 (2009): 335. 38 H. Vogel, “Death and Burial,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World p. 427. 39 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 23.

200 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

Altogether, it seems that the scale of the foundation run under Shulgi-simti’s aegis was fairly small and varied considerably from year to year. Granted that the Shulgi-simti foundation was a smallish institution with a limited budget, especially in comparison to behemoths like the Puzrish-Dagan administration, it is still surprising to find such minuscule amounts. For instance, in OIP115.46, two turtledoves were slaughtered and expended from the bureau chief and delivered to the palace. Given that the palace of Shulgi and its archives regrettably have not been unearthed yet, we can only guess how many people must have been living at the palace or how large the palace kitchen might have been. The Old Babylonian palace of Mari, which has been extensively excavated and its archives have been at least partially preserved and published, may offer the best comparison. This enormous palace with its more than 250 rooms and courts must have housed a plethora of inhabitants, not just the royal family but also including of course domestic help. In any case, the difference between the Mari palace and the Ur III royal residence (or residences) must be a difference of degree, not of kind, and it is ludicrous to presume that the palace chefs of the Third Dynasty cared about two turtledoves. Even if one assumes that these were particular choice specimens and delicacies, and one must note that there is nothing in the texts to suggest this, we are still looking at the raw materials for fraction of a meal for a handful of people at most. If a royal woman sat down to lunch by herself or with a companion, I very highly doubt that she would have been served two roast birds in lonely splendor on a platter. These expenditures from the Shulgi-simti foundation must represent a very partial list of ingredients for limited number of people. All in all, it seems as if the livestock sent to the palace was so minuscule in amount and such a small proportion of what presumably would have been actually served, that one wonders why they bothered. That they did bother— not only to transfer the animals, but also to record the transfers on individual tablets that were archived (sometimes even in triplicate) — is amply attested by the number of tablets surviving.

Temporal Range The range of dates of the archive, as known, is something between 15 and 18 years. Shulgi-simti died, as we have seen, more-or-less contemporaneously with her husband, and this is of course the end of her archive, strictly speaking.40

40 Most recently, F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p. 31, see also M. Sigrist, Drehem p.223.



Bureau Chiefs 

 201

The start date of the foundation and the archive is more problematic. Sallaberger, taking the wider definition of the archive, notes activities in the years Shulgi 28 and 29,41 while Sigrist opts for a later date, that is Shulgi year 3242 and the possibility that some tablets with earlier dates may reflect the activity of other wives. “The association of the name of Shulgi-simti with this pious foundation cannot be explained with certainty. Did she take over or lend her patronage to a pre-existing institution, or did she indeed create the institution herself when she became lukur of Shulgi in order to provide offerings to her own deities Belat-tirraban and Belat-suhnir? A very elaborate system of offerings is already in place according to the earliest documents of the institution (Š 32), which is an indication that the institution is older than Š 32. Moreover, the texts provide no indication that Shulgi-simti was directly involved in the administration of the institution, and thus it could have functioned before her patronage. It must also be noted that this institution was not the only one of its type, although it is the best attested. There are also the endowed institutions of Geme-Ninlilla in Š 41 ii and of Shulgi himself…”43

I find Sigrist’s argument convincing and would start the archive at Shulgi Year 32 on the basis of extant evidence.

Bureau Chiefs A series of individuals ran Shulgi-simti’s foundation on her behalf. Although van de Mieroop has correctly observed that our knowledge of women’s names is not always very accurate, he perhaps goes too far in supposing Shulgi-simti’s foundation could be run by a woman.44 To the best of my knowledge, women in ancient Sumer did not hold official administrative posts or jobs such as herder.

41 W. Sallaberger Kultische Kalender p.18 42 M. Sigrist, Ontario p.21. 43 M. Sigrist, Ontario p.22. However, he observes that if the official Shu-kubum did work for the Shulgi-simti foundation, it would seem to be operational by Shulgi 25. Sigrist, Drehem p.225. 44 M. van de Mieroop, Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History p.158—“A succession of officials were in charge of the foundation… and while only one of them has a certainly female name, it is possible that several more of them were women…”; cf. Z. Bahrani, Women of Babylon p. 108. It is important to be clear that names like Beli-tab, Shu-kubum and Ur-lugal-eden-ka are unquestionably masculine. The only two names that could be ambiguous were Abilya and Apilatum (none of the names, pace van de Mieroop, are “certainly” female). However, it would be unprecedented in Mesopotamia to have a high-ranking female shepherd or household administrator, so I think it is a reasonable rather than a chauvinistic assumption that all these bureau chiefs were male.

202 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

Previous studies have established which officials worked for Shulgi-simti and what their approximate times in office were.45 Shulgi-simti’s foundation generally had a single bureau chief at any given time. According to Sigrist, “There are eight officials who, at various periods, were in charge of receiving deliveries for the foundation.”46 Shu-kubum

S29 month 6 – S32 month1

Beli-tab

S33 month 5 – S37 month 647

Abiliya

S37 month 9 – S41 month 1048

Apilatum

S41 month 11 – S45 month 649

Ur-lugal-eden-ka

S45 month 7 – S47 month 450

Shulgi-ili

S47 month 4 – S47 month 1151

Ahima

S30 month 6 – S36 month 5 (expenditures only)52

Kalam-henagi

S45 month 2 – S48 month 2 (expenditures only)53

But not all the men listed here performed the same functions. Already in 1961, Jones and Snyder posited that Ahima’s texts represented a possible “subseries.”54

45 I am here using the dates supplied by Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 21. These are largely the same as those used by Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p. 38. Note that the dates used by Sigrist vary slightly. The continuing publication of the relevant texts can be expected to further alter these dates. 46 These dates are also to be found in M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 22 and F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p.38. 47 For this date range see F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p. 38. 48 These dates may be very slightly extended by new evidence, BPOA 7.2694 puts Abiliya as late as S41 month 12. 49 Apilatum’s dates, as supplied by Sigrist, were S41 xi to S46 viii (Ontario p. 22). 50 The dates for Ur-lugaledenka, according to Sigrist Ontario p. 22, were S45 v 12 to S47 iv 15. We do have Ur-lugal-eden-ka’s seal impression on PDT 1.530 (S48 month 8); his father’s name is Kudda-[x]. if one restored Kudashum, this could be a link to the Kudashum who ran Shulgi-simti’s textile workshop (e.g. in Orient 16.107.174) but the restoration is far from certain. 51 Sigrist Ontario p. 22 gives the dates S46 ix 20 to S47 ix 5. A longer date (to AS 1 month 4) appears in Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p. 38. 52 Sigrist’s dates here a quite different from Sallaberger’s. Sigrist gives the dates as S32 ix- S33 (Ontario p. 22). 53 Sigrist Ontario p. 22 dates Kalam-henagi’s tenure to S45 v 12-S48 11. 54 T. Jones and J. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty p. 205.



Bureau Chiefs 

 203

My own list of head officials and their tenures is somewhat different from previous scholarship, and no doubt further studies will still further modify this list. The reason for my differences lies in methodological issues. Previous treatments have considered the archive more holistically as, in all its aspects, representing the work of Shulgi-simti, the queen. But as explored in chapter  5, Shulgi-simti was almost certainly not the queen; the archive details the activities of several different royal women who did similar things. For this reason, I am adopting a narrower definition of the head of Shulgi-simti’s organization as an official who received deliveries in the name of Shulgi-simti (mu-DU Shulgi-simti). Defined thus one then has as the heads of the organization:55 Beli-tab Abiliya Apilatum Ur-lugal-eden-ka Shulgi-ili

One point is immediately apparent, that there was a high turnover in this office. The longest serving head appears to have been Beli-tab, who ran the foundation for four years and one month. This is closely followed by Apilatum, who served for three years and seven months.56 Others served less than two years, with one individual (Shulgi-ili) serving only six months, but this probably is due to the death of his employer. The reasons for the turnover could range from Shulgi-simti being a difficult boss to the possibility that the position was not the pinnacle of a career but rather a stepping stone to a better position. While it seems that there was usually one bureau chief at a time, there could be some periods of overlap, as others have already noted.57 Who were these people and what qualifications did they have for becoming heads of Shulgi-simti’s establishment? One may note that at least some of the heads of the organization worked in the Ur bureau of the establishment as conveying officials (gìri) prior to being promoted—e.g. SET 42, 37.05.00, in which Abilya acted as the conveyor when Beli-tab was still bureau chief.

55 The dates provided for the tenures of these individuals are based on published evidence and will alter as new tablets come to light; they can only be considered approximations. 56 This has been well established by previous scholarship, including M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 23, W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp. 18 ff. 57 For example, M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 23.

204 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

Other Foundations’ Officials The other three officials Shu-kubum, Ahima and Kalam-henagi then fall into another category, because they did not ever accept deliveries in Shulgi-simti’s name. The first, Shu-kubum, is identified by his seal as the employee of the former queen Geme-Sin;58 while it is possible that after her (assumed) death, he worked for Shulgi-simti, there is no evidence to support this idea.59 Sigrist, for instance, explained that he included Shu-kubum in the list of Shulgi-simti’s employees even though his seal is dedicated to Geme-Sin and he never accepted a mu-DU, or delivery, in Shulgi-simti’s name because “the persons involved are known from the archive of Shulgi-simti.”60 If one has a strict preconception that there was one foundation run by Shulgi-simti alone, then outliers like Shu-kubum must be roped in somehow. With the model that multiple royal wives operated similar foundations contemporaneously (as I think even the slight evidence for Geme-Ninlilla’s foundation suggests), then it is most plausible that Shu-kubum worked for one of these other foundations. Similarly, Kalam-henagi and Ahima never appear accepting deliveries for Shulgi-simti (mu-DU Shulgi-simti). They did oversee expenditures in texts that look very similar to expenditures of Shulgi-simti’s employees. But their appearances overlap with Shulgi-simti’s heads of the foundation, so either they worked as subsidiary branch officers, or as is perhaps more probable, they were themselves heads of other organizations parallel to Shulgi-simti’s. One could argue, for instance, that Kalam-henagi worked in Nippur for the queen as he appears closely associated with her there in texts such as BPOA 6.76 (S45.01.22), PDT 1.582 (S45.11.17) and CDLJ 2007 3.09 (dated to S45 month 11).61 He also appears at least twice in Uruk for the Boat-of-Heaven festival.62 Kalam-henagi is not tied to Ur or

58 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 18 and M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 23 note 1. This seal is discussed by P. Michalowski, who notes that Shulgi’s name here was not written with the divine determinative, suggesting an early date; “Royal Wives of the Ur III Period,” JCS 28 (1976): 170. 59 Weiershäuser posited that Shu-kubum first worked for Geme-Sin, to whom his seal is dedicated, then worked for Shulgi-simti, which can be (in her view) determined as the offerings were to Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie pp. 36–37. It is not clear to me that Shulgi-simti had an exclusive link with these two deities and I do not think their presence alone in a text is enough to establish a link to Shulgi-simti. The nature of the connection between Shulgi-simti and these two goddesses is explored in chapter 11. 60 M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 23 footnote 1. (Cf. W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 18). 61 One could also add the texts in which no location is specified, but which were to the Nippur pair Enlil and Ninlil, such as PDT 1.370 (S45 month 2) and PDT 1.645 (month 5 of the same year). 62 According to Rochester 13 (S45.11.15) and Nesbit 12 (S47.11.25). Kalam-henagi was briefly discussed by X.Ouyang and W. Brookman, CDLJ 2012 p. 30 (text 4.30).



Terminology: Income Texts 

 205

to Shulgi-simti in any way. His heyday appears to have been a two-year window of time from about Shulgi’s 45th-47th regnal years. Serving somewhat earlier but in a very similar capacity, Ahima appears between years 28 to 34 of Shulgi’s reign and appears together with the queen on a number of occasions,63 and at one point with the queen’s mother.64 Geme-Ninlilla seems to have employed in her foundation the following men: Aa-ud-sù-šè Dada Ahuni? Šeškalla

date Š41? Š 43-ish Š 45 or so Š 46

Having winnowed out those tablets that seem extraneous, let us return to Shulgi-simti’s foundation proper.

Income and Expenditure As previous studies have established, texts in the Shulgi-simti archive can be divided into two basic categories: income and expenditure65 (there are of course a handful of anomalous texts).

Terminology: Income Texts Close to one-half of the texts in Shulgi-simti’s archive record income, being records of animals delivered to Shulgi-simti’s employees, are described as mu-DU Shulgi-simti, “delivery (for) Shulgi-simti.” Previous work by Sallaberger and Sigrist has established that the normal format for delivery texts in the Shulgi-simti archive is “[number of animals from] PN, mu-DU Shulgi-simti, [the chief official] ì-dab5.”66 In the texts recording income, the livestock is described as mu-DU Shulgi-simti, “delivery (to) Shulgi-simti.” Most of the texts deal with sheep or various

63 Such as MVN 2.336 (S33.09.00) when the queen left Nippur, MVN 18.53 (S33.09.00). Note also MVN 8.97, the text with the via NIN Shulgi-simti remark. 64 According to SA 1 (S33), about 100 sheep and goats are received by ama NIN-gá from Ahima. 65 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.22 ff. 66 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.22–23; M. Sigrist, Drehem pp.21–27 and pp.222–246; also Sigrist, Ontario pp. 21–23.

206 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

types of birds, such as ducks, turtledoves, pigeons and so on. More rarely oxen or pigs appear. These animals are most often given by courtiers, one or two at a time, to an official who worked for Shulgi-simti. Texts recording income, which Sallaberger refers to as mu-DU texts,67 generally follow a regular pattern or formula. The bureau chief received a certain number of animals from a person or various people a “delivery (to, or for) Shulgi-simti, as the following examples illustrate. “Six ducks (from) Bagum, fowler, the 28th day having passed from the month, delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Shulgi-ili received (the above).” PDT 1.139, Shulgi’s 47th year, month ten, day 28. “One baby duck—Ennia, the female musician. Ten squabs, on one occasion, 15 doves on the second occasion…” (text breaks) OIP 115.37. Shulgi year 39, month 3. “1 duck, 2 pigeons (from) Nir-idagal, the 11th day having passed from the month, delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Ur-lugal-eden-ka received.” TRU 78 Month i, year Shulgi 47.

The archive also contains many tablets that deal with larger, more valuable animals, as the next examples illustrate. “One ox, nine grass fed sheep, one goat from Hubaya, general. One goat from Alla’s wife. One goat from Ur-nigin-gar’s wife. Delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Beli-tab received (the above.)” CST 42. Shulgi year 33, month 5. “2 fattened oxen, 20 grass-fed sheep (from) Ru-ba-tum spouse of Nu-ì-da, the 25th day having passed from the month, mu-DU (delivery for) Shulgi-simti, Apiliya received.” OIP 115. 42 Month xi, year Shulgi 39.

There were also some tablets on which we find records of mixed commodities, that is, both fowl and quadrupeds, as in the text below.

67 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.23; see also T. Gomi, “Über MU.TÙ. LUGAL: ‘Eingebrachtes für den König’ in den Neusumerischen Viehverwaltungsurkunden aus Drehem,” Orient 11 (1975): 1–14.

Expenditures 

 207

“4 grass-fed sheep, 1 goat, (from) Sharrum-ili, provincial governor 1 lamb, (from) Enlil-isha 2 fattened sheep, 1 fattened lamb (from) I-ku-LUM, 2 kaskal-birds (from) the spouse of Ha-la-a the 22nd day having passed from the month. delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Apilatum received.” PDT 1. 475 Month v, year Shulgi 45.

From such sources, we see that small numbers of birds, cattle, and other livestock were given to the foundation either by professionals, e.g. Bagum, the bird raiser, or by individuals. Some of the individuals, like the general Hubaya, were male and high-ranking officials who worked for the king. Others were female, like the female musician and the wives of the named men. Most of the provisioners were members of the royal family or male or female courtiers. Occasionally professional herders or fowlers provided animals too. Far more detail on these provisioners will be supplied in the next chapter. If the tablets were dated, they generally use a somewhat unusual phraseology, instead of the more normal iti MN ud-n-kam, “month name; day n [literally, it is day n];” tablets in the Shulgi-simti archive usually use the phrase iti-ta ud-n ba-ra-zal, “the nth day having passed from the month.” Though this sounds rather poetic in English, it apparently was a bureaucratically acceptable variant found also occasionally in the Treasure Archive, for example. 68

Expenditures As we have seen, the archive can roughly be divided into two parts —the first are texts recording income, and the second, texts recording expenditure, which we shall now consider in detail. Records of expenditure are far more complicated, and perhaps more interesting, than the records of income. The basic characteristic of such texts is that a list of commodities, almost invariably livestock, is expended by Shulgi-simti’s bureau chief, in Sumerian, zi-ga (ki) PN-ta.69 Shulgi-simti’s name is never mentioned, with one exception. “Since Šulgi-simti’s name is absent from any documents dealing with disbursements, disbursements belonging to the accounts of the institution Šulgi-simti can be discerned only

68 Noted of course already by Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.22 69 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.23–4.

208 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

when an official known to us from the delivery documents is mentioned.”70 It is somewhat odd to the modern mind that the animals paid in as the delivery to Shulgi-simti (mu-DU Shulgi-simti) were expended without mentioning her, but perhaps the essential element for the scribes and accountants to keep track of was how much had been booked out of each person’s account rather than the overarching agency. As has long been recognized,71 the records of expenditure in the Shulgi-simti archive can be further subdivided into two categories: expenditures for cultic purposes, perhaps the more numerous and the more thoroughly studied subcategory, and expenditures for royal or secular purposes.72 Considering the latter category first, we find livestock expended for the palace, or more specifically, the king and queen, or for named individuals. Sallaberger observed, “Hier werden (wie nie für kultische Zwecke) neben Groβ- und Kleinvieh auch Schweine und Vögel verteilt.”73 Many of the texts recording these royal or secular expenditures use the formula níg-kú NIN-gá, “for my queen’s consumption,” or é-gal-la ba-an-ku4, “brought into the palace.” The following examples may illustrate this category. OIP 115. 46 Obv. 1. 2 tu-gur8mušen ba-úš 2. é-gal-la ba-an-ku4 3. zi-ga Rev. 1. á-bí-lí-a 2. iti ezem-dnin-a-zu 3. mu ús-sa bàd ma-da ba-dù “2 turtle-doves, slaughtered, entered into the palace, expenditure of Abilya. Month: Festival of Ninazu.”

Rochester 11 may serve as another example. “(x) pigeons, slaughtered, the 26th day having passed from the month; 1 turtle-dove, slaughtered, the 28th day having passed from the month, entered into the palace. 1 pigeon, 1 turtle-dove, provision of Ushashe, the 30th day having passed from the month, expenditure of Abiliya. Month: Festival of Shulgi, Year after Puzrish-Dagan was founded.”

70 M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 25. 71 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.19 ff. 72 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.25 ff. 73 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.25.



Expenditures for Cultic Purposes 

 209

As Sigrist pointed out, tablets recording this type of expenditure do not appear to predate the bureau chief Abiliya (whose tenure began in late Shulgi 37);74 whether this represents an additional responsibility of the foundation or is simply an accident of preservation cannot be determined now.

Expenditures for Cultic Purposes Most scholarly attention has been placed on those expenditures in the Shulgi-simti archive consisting of animals, predominantly sheep, used for sacrifices to goddesses and gods. The following text, TRU 282, may serve as an example. “1 grass fed sheep – (the god) An, 2 grass fed sheep – “that of the place of disappearance,” 2 grass fed oxen, two fattened sheep, two sheep that followed oxen, 2 goats – for the festival of Nabrium, Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban. 1 fattened sheep, one lamb – Allatum, 1 grass fed sheep, one goat – Išhara and Belet-Nagar, 1 lamb – Annunitum, 1 goat – Nanayya, the 6th day having passed from the month, expenditure of (the official) Ur-lugal-eden-ka in Ur. Month “great festival” (month 9) – year Kimash was destroyed (Shulgi year 46).”

What do we learn from the tablet like this? Ur-lugal-eden-ka, who at this date seems to be running the foundation, expended a number of animals in the city of Ur for sacrifice to various deities, totaling two oxen and 15 sheep (if one adds up the totals). Out of these 15 sheep, only one went to a male deity. This was the first entry on the tablet, recording an expenditure to the sky god. Aside from two grass fed sheep for the disappearance place, the remainder of the sheep and the two oxen went to goddesses including Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban, Allatum, Išhara and Belet-Nagar. Expenditures for many of these goddesses are quite common in the archive of Shulgi-simti. Sigrist correctly notes that the activities sponsored by the foundation in Ur were not the same as those at Uruk. He stresses the lunar and funerary cults at Uruk in contrast to Ur, where the goddesses Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban

74 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.236. See also F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie p. 94.

210 

 Chapter 8 The Shulgi-simti Archive

received particular attention.75 A closer look at the sorts of ritual events supported by the foundation will be found in chapters 10 and 11, but first we must look more closely at the income texts, in particular at those men and women who donated livestock to Shulgi-simti’s foundation.

75 M. Sigrist, Drehem p. 246.

Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence Although Shulgi-simti, like the other royal wives, had her own herds and probably received an allowance or regular delivery every month from the crown, she does not appear to have spent her own livestock on her foundation activities. Instead, her sacrifices were supported by a cobbled-together, irregular patchwork of donors, both male and female. More specifically, among the elites who provided livestock, some persons appear only once in surviving records; others occur more regularly, though no one more than a dozen or so times in the surviving records. It seems then that the burden of provisioning did not fall heavily on few individuals but instead was broadly distributed. Those who paid animals into the foundation’s accounts appear to have done so intermittently of their own volition: the payments do not appear to have been regular or obligatory.1 Quite often one person or family would make a number of donations over a period of a year or two and then disappear entirely from the archive. Many of these donors are quite obscure and it is difficult to say much about them. But if we group the donors into broad categories— male and female, members of the royal family, military men, governors and the like, foreigners and servitors – patterns begin to emerge. Although we do see professional herders supplying animals, generally we find courtiers, members of the royal family, foreigners and holders of high office (generals and governors, for instance) as suppliers. Not every member of the royal family or every general contributed. Some did, often assiduously for a time and then not again. In some cases, we can link the time frame of the donations to favors granted by the king, so it seems quite possible that one way to promote a courtier’s petition was to supply livestock to Shulgi-simti’s foundation. Brosius, when writing of much later royal women in the court of the Achaemenids, stresses the women’s role as channels to the king: “Owing to their familial closeness to the king, the royal women were able to act as mediators between the king and members of the nobility.”2 Thus, it is possible that what we see with donations to the royal wives such as Shulgi-simti is an attempt to curry favor from the king or preferment for oneself or for one’s family. Members of the outer court

1 As Weiershäuser commented, referring to Shulgi-simti as the queen, “Wie das System der mu-DU-Lieferung an die Königin organisiert war, welche Persönlichkeit bestimmte, wer wann welche Tiere zu geben hatte, ist derzeit nicht zu sagen.” Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.45. 2 M. Brosius, “New out of old? Court and Court Ceremonies in Achaemenid Persia,” in A. J. S. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Societies in Ancient Monarchies p.31. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-009

212 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

(the elites) may then have utilized gift exchange with the women in the inner court (such as Shulgi-simti) to try to influence the king. Other donations may have been intended to foster more general relations of good-will, or even to mark certain special events. Shulgi-simti’s archive was limited to a short span of time and the tablets themselves are quite short. Instead of the multi-columned accounts with hundreds of lines per tablet that one finds from contemporary Lagash, for instance, a ‘typical’ Shulgi-simti archive tablet might have less than 15 lines. So when considering provisioners, that is, those men and women who provided income for the foundation in the form of livestock, it is not too onerous a task to compile a list of donors. Naturally, this list is based on tablets that have survived and been published; new tablets will add new names. The list is then necessarily partial. Even so, the list of provisioners is longer than one might expect — more than 150 separate persons between the years Shulgi 32 and Shulgi 47.3 Many of the individuals who appear here are known from the main Puzrish-Dagan archive, but many seem to appear only here. It is impractical to go through each name exhaustively; here we will outline generally the sorts of people who appear in the archive—princes and princesses, male and female courtiers, cultic personnel, royal employees, bird-catchers and so on. I have chosen this approach—of breaking the contributors down by gender and then by position—as I feel this affords us the most insight into the motivation for the donations. If we search amongst the more than one hundred and fifty men and women for a common link, some tie of blood, rank, social obligation or the like, we search in vain. The donors were a very heterogeneous group.

Previous Approaches Previous studies have shown that the persons who contributed were numerous and aside from animal raising professionals, they came largely from court circles. They included many women, as noted by Sigrist (and many others): “Y apportaient leur contributions tous les nobles du pays ainsi que les dames de ces messieurs.”4

3 F. Weiershäuser estimated about 200 individuals, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.42. 4 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.246



Previous Approaches 

 213

Weiershäuser showed that, though the number of donors was high, only about 20 % of the individuals known to her appeared more than twice and only about 10 % of the whole could be called regular contributors.5 I have found it helpful to follow the work of Spawforth6 and distinguish between the men of the outer court – elites whose contact with the king and the palace may have been intermittent7 and men of the inner court, those to be found in the vicinity of the king himself, which included of course the royal family (as well as low born functionaries).8 Later we shall also consider different groups of women. To be clear, I should note that I am not attempting in this chapter to have an exhaustive list of every donor or every tablet in which that donor appears— such lists have already been compiled.9 My aim is to use case studies to illustrate trends. In order to keep the narrative unburdened, I have grouped the lists of donations and tablet numbers at the end of the chapter, so the interested reader can find the data easily. Income texts show us a series of individuals, both male and female, supplying small numbers of sheep and goats to Shulgi-simti’s chief of operations. Fowl of various types were also accepted, and, more rarely, swine. Professional animal husbandry agents are attested in her archive10 (whether these were her employees or more properly the crown’s will be discussed later) and the occasional donation from the king,11 but by and large her foundation was dependent on contributions from individual courtiers. Although the texts themselves mix male and female courtiers, because what was important to the scribe was the total income, not who provided it, I believe we can gain the clearest appreciation of their different motivations if we consider the donors in broad groups, beginning with what appear to be the lowest-ranking category, the livestock professionals.

5 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.42. 6 A. Spawforth, The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies. 7 A. Spawforth, The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies p.4. 8 A. Spawforth, The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies p. 4. 9 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 279–289. Her discussion of the donors can be found on pp. 41–46. 10 Animal husbandry officials: e.g. fowlers (mušen-dù), the herder Bar-bar-NI-a, also shepherds, (sipad) in DCS 53 and é-kurušda, the fattening shed, BIN 3.335. 11 From the king: e.g. OrSP 18 pl 2.06, 2 gud niga ki lugal-ta, in Tummal (S44.07.20). The king also provided birds, as in SET 7 (S42.02.21). See also F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 283.

214 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

Male Provisioners In most cases, enough evidence survives to tell us what role a given man played. There are some men, however, whose jobs we do not currently know, such as one of the frequent donors, Watrat-haṭṭum.12 There are also some names that were so common that we cannot really tell who is meant in a given text (Sharrum-ili is an example; the name was bourne by a military man, a sukkal, a governor and so on).13 It may be more helpful, then, to move on to persons whose work is known.

Livestock Professionals The lowest ranking provisioners were workers, such as herders, fowlers or gardeners. They might plausibly have worked to supply Shulgi-simti herself or the aggregate of royal women or the palace more generally. They may have been employed elsewhere; we really do not know much about them. They appear to have been more frequent in the second half of the archive, that is, from Shulgi 40–47 or so. Whether this is a real change or simply the appearance of one based on differential source preservation cannot be known at this time. As the donor pool of courtiers appears to have contracted just before this, around Shulgi’s 39th year, as we shall see later in the chapter, quite possibly this is a real difference and more professional animal raisers were used to supplement the income of the foundation. We may begin with the persons known in Sumerian as mušen-dù, “bird-catchers, fowlers.” Men with this profession14 occur with some regularity in the Girsu tablets, both Early Dynastic and Ur III in date. Some were without their own means

12 Watrat-haṭṭum was often spelled with the much simpler UGULA sign to represent haţţum; there is however a syllabic spelling in Nik.2.457 (ha-ṭum), as M. Molina kindly pointed out. Sometimes his name appeared simply at Watrat. In modern transliterations, the ugula sign is sometimes read (incorrectly) as a title (“foreman”), rather than as an element of the name. To the best of my knowledge, no information survives about what his job title was. 13 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 287. 14 In the Shulgi-simti archive, most bird catchers bear distinctly male names (e.g. Ur-šagga or Adanah) and there are no examples known to me of definitely female bird-catchers. One reference (AUCT 3.188) mentions dam si-PI-it mušen-dù, “the spouse/ wife of SiPIt, bird-catcher,” but it is unclear whether SiPIt was the bird-catcher or his (?) spouse. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some bird-catchers were women.



Livestock Professionals 

 215

of subsistence and received rations from the state15 The duties of this profession apparently included the sedentary job of taking care of domesticated birds (such as ducks or geese), but they also went out into the marshlands and caught wild birds and gathered feathers.16 They appear to have operated on the margins of settled society. The great disparity in ranks between these animal husbandry professionals and the other provisioners, who seem essentially to be members of the court, is noticeable. In Shulgi-simti foundation tablets, such as the one below, we find no distinction made between the court lady NIN.LIL-tum-imti and the fowler, Bagum. RA 73.26.117 1. 2 amar sag uz-tur 2. 3 tu-gur4 mušen 3. dNIN. LÍL-tum-im-ti 4. iti-ta ud-20 ba-ra-zal 5. 40 tu-gur4 mušen 6. ba-gu-um mušen-dù 7. iti-ta ud-23 ba-ra-zal 8. 1 gud niga R 9. ME?-eš18-dar 10. iti-ta ud-27 ba-ra-zal 11. 1 sila4 i-mi-it-ti 12. mu-DU dšul-gi-sí-im-tum 13. á-bí-la-tum ì-dab5 14. iti maš-kug-kú 15. mu ús-sa si-mu-ru-umki lu-lu-buki a-rá-9-kam-aš ba-hul

15 For example, AAICAB 1/1 pl. 50, 1912–1145, an Umma tablet dated to S30 records new year’s rations (še-ba zag-mu) for a mušen-dù, birdcatcher, named Kudda. 16 R. Tarasewicz’s interesting studies of Neo-Babylonian Sippar have shown there was a strong seasonal element to the stock of birds; “Bird Breeding in Neo-Babylonian Sippar,” Kaskal 6 (2009): 151–214. Weiershäuser is right to note an increase in bird catching in months 6–10 (Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.46) but I would suggest that this uptick in activity was linked to the seasonal migration patterns of the birds themselves. 17 This tablet was originally published by J.-M. Durand in 1979 and has since been discussed by Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 pp.254–5. It dates to S45.01.20- 45.01.27.

216 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

“2 heads of fledgling ducks, 3 turtle-doves (from) NIN.LIL-tum-imti18 the 20th day having passed from the month, 40 turtle-doves (from) Bagum, the bird-catcher, the 23rd day having passed from the month, 1 fattened ox (from) ME?-eštar, the 27th day having passed from the month, 1 lamb (from) Imitti Delivery (to) Shulgi-simtum Apilatum received.”

There were also gardeners, such as the orchard-keeper (nu-kiri6) and Allamu sandana. We also find shepherds, including one named Tabba-ili (sipad) and higher-ranking herders (with the title of na-gada, such as Larabum and Ur-mes).19 One presumes that these men provided livestock needed by Shulgi-simti for her foundation as part of their employment, but it is not impossible that the types of religious functions or thanksgivings that her foundation supported were open to a wide swathe of persons.

Men of the Inner Court: Men of the Royal Family At the apex of the royal family was of course Shulgi himself. Being a much-married man, his offspring were numerous. Estimates range between 67 to close to one hundred persons known as dumu lugal in Ur III times,20 the vast majority of them in the reign of Shulgi. One presumes that the princes varied considerably in age: if we are right in thinking that Amar-Sin was the son of Taram-Uram, he could have been middle-aged already by the end of Shulgi’s reign, even as the ever-renewed pool of concubines produced new babies. Some of the princes

18 A reading NINLIL-tum-imti (an Akkadian name) is probable, following the commentary to TCND text 35, wherein the authors argue that the name is Akkadian and that –tum is the Semitic feminine ending, “il nome divino dnin-líl con l’infisso –t- del femminile semitico…Il secondo elemento… potrebe essere il termine accadico imtu(m), il cui valore, imtu(m), ‘saliva, veleno’…”. The divine name could be read Illiltum (P. Steinkeller, personal communication) or Mulliltum. However, as a name, “Ninlil’s spit” seems unlikely. In the past, this name has sometimes been misread as a Sumerian one, Ninlil-hemti, but Molina’s collations have disproved this suggestion (see footnote 63 in this chapter). Probably she too was a princess, see Sigrist, Drehem p.232. 19 For an exhaustive list of donors, see F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 41–46; Tabba-ili sipad can be found in Boson, Tavolette 335 (S47.01.00). The na-gadas occur for instance in MVN 18.42 and MVN 18.3 (years S38 and 39 respectively). 20 D. Edzard, “Prinz,” RlA 11 (2006–8): 182



Men of the Inner Court: Men of the Royal Family 

 217

were consecrated as priests (for example, the en of Inanna being a figure often mentioned in the texts from Shulgi-simti’s archive, though we know him by his title, not by name). We presume the priestly sons lived in their shrines. Some princes were generals and served abroad or at least outside the capitals. Presumably others lived on estates scattered throughout the Land, but we know very little about this. It is more or less impossible to tell which of the royal children were born of which mothers.21 Donors to the Shulgi-simti foundation who were members of the royal family include the king himself (very rarely) and approximately five of his sons, and possibly one grandson.22 Among the princes who occur as provisioners were Šu-Eštar dumu lugal, Ur-nigin-gar dumu lugal and Etel-pu-dagan (known to be a prince but not so identified in the texts of this archive). It is not, however, always easy to determine who was and who was not a member of the royal family. Another person whom we may presume to be a royal prince is the unnamed en (high priest) of the goddess Inanna, who occurs for instance on BIN 3.409.23 In fact, during the Ur III period, royal sons seem not to have served as provincial governors. In contrast, princes as provincial governors are attested for earlier periods.24 However, this represents a small fraction of the number of sons and daughters of the king Shulgi. Even keeping in mind that not all sons and daughters lived in Babylonia, it still appears to be true that there were far more royal children than those who appear in the Shulgi-simti archive as provisioners. This is a small subset, not an A to Z of the princes and princesses residing in the land. While it seems perfectly natural for a prince to give his mother or step-mother gifts now and then to support projects run under her aegis (in the case of the sheep and goats offered for sacrifice) or as a supplement to the palace larder (in the case of the ducks or pigs ‘entering into the palace,’ for instance), it is far from self-evident why such gifts would have been recorded by Shulgi-simti’s foundation and the records filed away in the central archives at Drehem. The gifts were in and of themselves very small. Supplements to the dining table were no doubt

21 As noted by Edzard, “Es wird nicht unterschieden, ob ein Königskind die Hauptfrau oder eine der sonstigen Frauen der Herrschers zur Mutter hatte.” “Prinz,” RlA 11 (2006–8): 182. 22 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.230 and F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 43. Details on the tablets and dates can be found at the end of the chapter and in Weiershäuser’s donor list, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 279–289. 23 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.230. 24 At the time of Naram-Sin, for example, the Sargonic prince Nabi-Ulmaš was governor of Tutub, while (his brother?) Lipit-ili was governor of Marad. W. Sallaberger, “Provinz,” RlA 11 (2007): 34–38.

218 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

a matter for the cook in the palace; there appears to be no reason for Shulgi-simti’s bureau chiefs to be informed or take the time to write up the transaction and archive it, especially since there seems to have been some effort to keep her “personal” livestock fiscally separate from that of the foundation. The scribes must have had a reason for carefully recording each donor, either for their own purposes or for the donor’s benefit. In some cases, we know that even these very small transactions were recorded not just once but on three separate copies! YOS 4.79 (S39.09) has written on its edge, gaba-ri-3-kam, “there are three copies.” It is a simple delivery of livestock from 5 donors, including Shulgi’s aunt Ama-barag, Nir-idagal (an ambitious general), a governor and two more. One might assume that each donor would want a copy for their files, but there are too few copies made for that, especially given that the tablet we have must be the file copy from Puzrish-Dagan. We can only speculate on where the other two copies went and whether all donor lists were written out in triplicate (which seems unlikely). What we can say is that there was a pressing reason at the time to record these donations.

Men of the Outer Court: Military Men, Governors and Clergy as Donors The outer court, if we choose to use Spawforth’s terminology, consisted of men not in the royal family who would normally have not resided at the court itself. They were certainly of high rank, corresponding to what in medieval Europe might be referred to as “nobles.” Amongst these men from prominent families included provincial governors, that is, holders of the title énsi. Extant records from the Shulgi-simti archive show us the presence of the governors of provinces such as Umma, Kazallu and Nippur.25 Also to be found here were administrators of major households, the šabras. On the basis of published evidence, it seems that donations from governors and šabras taper off after S38; this may have to do with administrative changes set in place when the new palace of Shulgi in Puzrish-Dagan was built or more general reforms to the bala (provincial taxation system). It could also be that they switched their donations to another one of Shulgi’s wives.

25 Sometimes these governors are listed as “governor of GN” rather than by name, e.g. the énsi of Kazallu in OIP 115.17 (S31.04.00).



Men of the Outer Court: Military Men, Governors and Clergy as Donors 

 219

Last but certainly not least were šaginas (generals) or other military men, 26 though we should remember that they were often what in Roman times would be called “new men;” their high rank and prestige came from their records in the field and their favour with the king; generally they did not come from prominent families and could even be foreigners. These male provisioners tended to donate livestock in very small quantities (e.g. one lamb) and rarely (at least according to extant documentation). One wonders whether the same core of men tended to donate a sheep here and there to a variety of royal projects throughout the year. For example, hypothetically a general might give ten lambs every year to Shulgi-simti’s foundation, ten to the foundations of the other royal wives, twenty to the queen and twenty-five to the king’s sacrifices in the Nippur province. Out of all of these donations, that is, a hypothesized sixty-five sheep per annum, we might have archival documentation of one or two. In other words, it is possible that accidents of preservation and discovery have created a misleading appearance of very small and almost random donations by courtiers to the Shulgi-simti foundation. However, it is also possible that the small and random pattern is an accurate reflection of the ad-hoc nature of the Shulgi-simti foundation and its lack of regular sources of income. Since many of the donors apparently did not reside in the capitals but only visited at intervals, their intermittent appearances in the donor lists seem more understandable. Let us look first at a single example of a military man, as we can see (I think) in his case a pattern that we shall see repeated throughout this chapter: a man using donations to the Shulgi-simti foundation to try to gain favor at court and thus promotion. This is Nir-idagal (spelled nir-ì-da-gál). Nir-idagal is well-attested as a supplier of livestock, both Shulgi-simti’s foundation and other establishments in the main Drehem archive.27 Nir-idagal was a military man who, at least eventually, in the reign of the next king Amar-Sin held one of the highest military ranks, that of šagina, general.28 But in the late reign of Shulgi, he appears to still have held the lesser title

26 M. Sigrist, Drehem p.230. 27 Other times he occurs in the main Puzrish-Dagan archive: e.g. MVN 13.849 (AS 5), sometimes associated with Abi-simti or the euzga: e.g. SAT 2.800 (AS4); Orient 16. 49. 36 (AS9). MVN 15.38 (AS1.11.27) shows him offering a lamb to Ninlil. Nir-idagal has been discussed by F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur (p. 43); her claim that he was a prince is not in fact supported by any evidence known to me. Further discussion of Nir-idagal can be found in P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis p. 87, pp. 294–6, p. 298, p. 395. 28 Nir-idagal occurs with the title šagina for instance in MVN 6.300 (an undated Girsu tablet) and AUCT 1.942 (AS2.02.00), a text recording the allocation of silver rings when the king drank

220 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

nu-bànda, “captain.” A very frequent donor to Shulgi-simti’s foundation , he may well have been trying to parlay such donations to gain the preferments and prestige he would soon attain. His provisions to her foundation consisted of livestock, usually a few sheep, occasionally an ox or a few birds29, between Shulgi 32 and the end of the archive in Shulgi 47.30 To a high-ranking military man, a sheep here and a few birds there were probably of negligible value. But these contributions, or gifts, and the acceptance of them by members of the royal family seem to have been a means of currying favor at the court. Acceptance to the inner circle of the court may have entitled him to a whole host of royal favors, such as nicer assignments, or luxury goods from other crown establishments, 31 or even the ultimate acceptance, marriage to one of the numerous royal daughters. And in fact we see Nir-idagal very shortly after Shulgi’s death attaining a number of rewards. Particularly in the reign of Amar-Sin, Nir-idagal belonged to the inner circle of power at the court—for example, a bride-price was given to Nir-idagal by the king32 and the king drank beer at Nir-idagal’s house,33 both marks of high favor. He was on campaign by the end of Amar-Sin 1.34 By Amar-Sin’s second year, he was in charge of 420 men. He also appears to have received a land plot in the Lagash province according to the text MVN 6.300 (unfortunately undated). By Amar-Sin 7, he had risen high enough to be listed in a list of the most notable men of the Land—gov-

beer in the house of Nir-idagal the šagina. There are also attestations of Nir-idagal with the title nu-bànda, “captain,” a lower military rank, for example on the unfortunately undated Aleppo tablet ANM 3524 (CDLI number P341904). One may presume that he started as captain and was promoted, certainly by Amar-Sin’s second year, to the rank of general. 29 According to TRU 78, 1 uz-tur and 2 kaskal birds in Shulgi 47. He did give a major gift of 1 ox 10 sheep and 10 goats in S36 month 6 according to the Yale tablet RBC 2520. 30 His earliest deliveries to the Shulgi-simti foundation known to me date to Shulgi 32 (as in YOS 4.79, S32.09.00; note also an unpublished Lithuanian tablet I-A-120.1034, BDTNS number 191929 from the same year); Shulgi 47—e.g. BIN 3. 21 (S47. 09. 15)—1 ox, 10 sheep. 31 Sallaberger stresses that Puzrish-Dagan was not totally dissimilar from the Treasure archive – it too rewarded courtiers and other individuals with luxury goods (in the form of cattle and other livestock)—“Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan—Zur Bedeutung dieses Königlichen Archivs,” JEOL 38 (2003–4): 48. There are very few returns of livestock attested in the Shulgi-simti archive, so it is unlikely that her foundation was able to reward the courtiers (in any case, her funds appear very limited). 32 According to Kelsey 89262 –see P. Michalowski, “Love or death? Observations on the role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life,” JCS 58 (2006): 49–61. The text in question can be found in transliteration on CDLI under the record number P235015. It dates to AS 5.02.00. 33 AUCT 1. 942, AS 2. 02. a silver ring text. Nir-idagal may be married into the royal family, or he may not. 34 BJRL 64.111.68, AS1.12.00.



Men of the Outer Court: Military Men, Governors and Clergy as Donors 

 221

ernors, mayors, and the like.35 Nir-idagal would remain close to the royal family into the reign of Shu-Sin, disappearing from the archival record around Shu-Sin 6.36 Where he came from or where he was stationed during his career is unclear— occasionally he is associated with the border town of Der.37 He also was, at least early in the reign of Amar-Sin, in charge of troops from ÚRxA.NAki.38 Archival records, especially lists of livestock, rarely furnish biographical details about a person’s likes and dislikes. We do occasionally get hints, in this case of an affinity for music. Nir-idagal apparently employed female musicians39 and occurs twice with the noted musician Balala.40 In Nir-idagal, then, we see a nu-bànda faithfully provisioning causes like Shulgi-simti’s foundation over about fifteen years (at least); such activities appear to have paid off for him, as he finally was promoted to the rank of general, gained control of more than 400 men and was on banqueting terms with the king Amar-Sin. He even managed to survive the Amar-Sin –Shu-Sin transition (which claimed the careers of many other officials) seemingly unscathed. While the level of his personal piety is impossible to determine, one may wonder whether the sacrificial lambs in his hands were given over less from fervor and more from ambition.

35 JCS 17.21 (YBC 13087). 36 The last clear attestation of Nir-idagal known to me is Princeton 2.21 (SS6.02.24), in which he supplied a young gazelle as mu-DU lugal. Reference to a Nir-idagal in Umma in IS1 (e.g. Aleppo 226, which appears as CDLI record P100558) appear to be a local Umma man, son of Lugal-nesag-e. Whether the presumably now aged Nir-idagal retired in SS6 or died remains unclear. 37 On campaign BJRL 64. 111. 68 AS 1 12 (note also people from Der there). In the reign of ShuSin, CDLI P128642, animals za-li-a nu-bànda lú derki ugula nir-ì-da-gál/ gún ma-da. The Nir-idagal who appears in Umma tablets (like MVN 21. 48, dating to AS 2, and many others) and at Lagash, as a landholder, according MVN 6. 300 (no date), may or may not represent the same individual. 38 420 érin ÚRxA-naki ugula nir-ì-da-gál énsi … ì-dab5: TCL 5.6041, discussed by P. Steinkeller, “Corvée Labor in Ur III Times,” in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD pp. 45 ff. 39 UTAMI 5. 3495, an Umma tablet concerning the distribution of timber and reeds dating from the reign of Shu-Sin; here reeds were expended (for) nar-munus nir-ì-da-gál ki ba-la-l[a]- gìri3 d šu-ds[in]-ha-ma-ti. (We may note that the previous entry was a distribution of reeds for A.AB.BA/ Tiamat-bašti, the lukur). 40 On Balala, see P. Michalowski, “Love or death? Observations on the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life,” JCS 58 (2006):49–61. The texts are AUCT 1.942 (AS 2.02.00), the silver ring distribution discussed previously when the king drank beer in the house of Nir-idagal šagina, also receiving silver rings are Shulgi-nuri, a nar-munus and Ba-la-la dumu a-ga-núm.

222 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

Governors and other Civil Servants Shulgi-simti’s foundation was not supplied solely by generals and military men. Provisioners from the outer court also included, as we saw at the beginning of the section, provincial governors and administrators of temple households, who usually appear to have been men from prominent local families. Having already reached very high rank in these positions, perhaps the highest rank they could aspire to, they do not seem to have been using Shulgi-simti’s foundation to try to gain promotions. Their donations appear far more regular, with each individual giving the same quantity and the same type of livestock each time they appear, though different men gave different amounts. Such steady donations may have been intended to cement good relations. A few examples may clarify the matter. Ea-bani was provincial governor of a place called Eresh.41 In four texts belonging to the Shulgi-simti archive, dating between S31 and S33, he gave a single goat (three times a male goat, once a female one).42 Did he donate a goat every month for the time he was in office as governor? If so, how did he set this up, as presumably he was resident in Eresh and Shulgi-simti’s foundation was in Ur and Nippur? Or did he travel to the capitals and donate a goat when he was in town? Not enough of the archive survives to allow us to answer such questions, but what is interesting, and we can see, is that each of the énsis or šabras appears to have set a donation level for themselves and consistently donated the same amount of the same type of animal. For Ea-bani, it was one goat. But for another governor, É-u6-e, it was one lamb (sila4).43 And for another donor of this type, this one probably a šabra, or temple-administrator in Ur, the amounts could be much larger. Igi-an-na-ke4-zu, who seems to have been a šabra of Nanna in Ur,44 regularly paid the whopping sum of 1

41 BCT 1.134 (S33 month 11) identifies Ea-bani as the governor of Eresh. 42 S31 month 6: BIN 3.260: Ea-bani énsi gave 1 máš to Shu-kubum (an agent of an early organization like Shulgi-simti’s). S32 no month specified: unpublished text CDLI P431428, Ea-bani gave 1 máš mu-DU Shulgi-simti, a delivery (to/for) Shulgi-simti. S32 month 9: YOS 4.79, Ea-bani énsi gave 1 máš mu-DU Shulgi-simti, a delivery (to/for) Shulgi-simti. S33 month 4. MVN 3.136, Ea-bani énsi gave 1 míáš-gàr mu-DU Shulgi-simti, a delivery (to/for) Shulgi-simti. 43 For example, Nisaba 8.169, S40 month 11 day 1: E-ue énsi donated 1 sila4 to Abilya as mu-DU Shulgi-simti, a delivery (to/for) Shulgi-simti. 44 Igi-an-na-ke4-zu was a more common name than one might imagine, and it is not always easy to distinguish homonymous men. Different men with the same name can be found in Ur III archives at Girsu and Garšana, for instance. There was even a provincial governor of the province of Push with this name (Nies, UDT 154.) One of these men had a seal dedicated to Shulgi: dšul-gi nita kalag-ga lugal urim5ki-ma lugal ki-en-gi ki-uri igi-an-na-ke4-zu dub-sar árad-zu (impressed for



Governors and other Civil Servants 

 223

ox and 10 sheep/goats, almost always subdivided 3 fattened sheep, 6 grass-fed sheep and 1 goat, as the chart below shows. BPOA 6.187

1 3 6 1

gud niga udu niga udu ú máš

Igi-anna-kezu

MVN 18.147 S34.5.-6

1 3 6 1

gud niga udu niga udu ú máš

Igi-anna-kezu

MVN 18. 2

1 3 6 1

gud niga udu gude-ús-sa udu ú máš

S40.2.19 X x

udu niga máš

SACT 1.57

S31.6.-

S36.9.-

To?

For?

Igi-anna-kezu

Beli-tab

mu-DU Shulgi-simti

Igi-anna-kezu

Abilya

Nanna, the chief god of the seat of the dynasty, Ur, was a very important god at this time, and perhaps this explains why Igi-anna-kezu chose to be so generous with his donations to Shulgi-simti’s foundation. Both Igi-anna-kezu and Shulgi-simti were headquartered in Ur, perhaps in close proximity on the temenos. But perhaps there was an especially close relationship between Igi-anna-kezu’s household and Shulgi-simti: Igi-anna-kezu’s employee, Amur-Utu,45 was involved in some of Shulgi-simti’s larger wool transactions, as we see in PDT 1.518 (S48 month 9). Just under 23 ma-na of wool were received by Amur-utu (hence he sealed the tablet). The king apparently did not like it or choose this wool, so now it belonged to Shulgi-simti: (siki gú-lu-ub lugal igi nu-sag-gá dšul-gi-sí-im-tumma-kam a-mur-dutu šu ba-an-ti). The seal identifies Amur-utu as the mounted messenger of Igi-anna-kezu, the šabra of Nanna: igi-an-na-ke4-zu šabra a-mur-

instance on PDT 1.498, a tablet and envelope dated to S33/2/-.). It is most unhelpful that the only title on this seal was dub-sar, scribe, or graduate of the scribal academy. However, the man who appears in the Shulgi-simti archive appears to have been from Ur and the same as the man who provided grain in MVN 6.287 (S43 month 8) (grain) ki igi-an-na-ke4-zu šabra dnanna-ta, that is, the šabra, or temple administrator of Nanna. 45 The name could of course be Amur-Šamaš.

224 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

utu rá-gaba árad-zu.46 Multiple interpretations of this transaction are possible, but one possibility is that the temple household of Nanna was to present wool to the king, but he rejected it. It was however deemed to be good enough for Shulgi-simti. The wool was given over on her behalf to the messenger, Amur-utu, to be delivered. Whether they enjoyed the wool is doubtful: both Shulgi and Shulgi-simti would be dead in a few months. In any case, there appears to have been some close connections between Igi-annakezu and Shulgi-simti’s establishments.

d

Foreign Donors I do not believe that it has been noted that some foreigners appear as donors in the archive of Shulgi-simti. Foreign emissaries and the diplomatic corps appear very thick on the ground in the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin. Less obvious in the late reign of Shulgi, diplomats generally appear at that time only by their names (not, as later, with the additional “man of such-and-such- a place”). “Foreigner” can of course mean several different things in the Ur III context – a person from abroad who normally lived abroad but who came to Ur or Nippur to visit and/or negotiate with Shulgi, or a person of foreign origin now resident in Babylonia. Here we shall focus on the former. It is of course very difficult to tell just from the name whether an individual was a foreign leader or emissary. For instance, should we understand the Lu-Magan who is known to have donated a handful of times as a man by this name, or as literally lú Magan, that is, an emissary or leader of Magan, which we now call Oman? We know the leader of Magan sent Shulgi diplomatic gifts, so it is not impossible that the leader or his ambassador courted favour by making donations to Shulgi-simti’s foundation. But it is also possible this represents just a personal name. There are two cases that are a little clearer—Apil-kin and Tappan-darah and his family. Apil-kin was the ruler of Mari and the father of Taram-Uram, Shulgi’s first queen. Though Taram-Uram was probably long dead, Apil-kin’s grandchildren were not, and he appears to have come down to Babylonia, perhaps to negotiate with Shulgi and see them. At that time, he donated livestock to Shulgi-simti according to OIP 115.92.47 A new tablet from Yale published in the appendix (YBC

46 One wonders whether the A-mur-dutu who appears in the Lagash messenger text HLC 2.132 pl. 99 (no date) as a šeš lukur was the same man. 47 Dated to S47.03.21.



Foreign Donors 

 225

16588) may reflect an earlier donation by Apil-kin on that same trip,48 two fattened sheep and one lamb. Thus, it seems that foreign leaders (especially those whose families were intermarried with Shulgi’s) could sometimes participate in the life of the foundation when in Babylonia. An interesting case of a somewhat different nature can be found with Tappan-Darah and his family, members of the princely house of a place called Simurrum.49 A small polity located in the northeast of Babylonia, Simurrum controlled a strategic trade route and hence was targeted by Shulgi around his 27th regnal year. In the course of the conflict, Shulgi did what many later Babylonian and Assyrian rulers did: he took the prince and his family to live in his palace as glorified hostages, while placing a puppet to rule Simurrum. Tappan-Darah, his wife, his son and daughter all appear at the court of Ur at least from S33 to 38, as many others have remarked.50 As was the custom, they were not treated as prisoners but were guests at the court (albeit guests who could not depart), and Tappan-Darah at least donated generously to Shulgi-simti’s foundation. Not the usual one or two sheep, he gave 6 sheep in one transaction and an ox and 10 sheep in another, all in S34.51 Tappan-Darah’s wife donated 2 heads of cattle and 10 sheep and goats in S38.52 One might suppose hostages were indigent, but clearly this family had means and used some of it for Shulgi-simti’s foundation. Tappan-Darah’s daughter (whose name we do not know) is a very interesting figure, because she received the same kind of allowance (sá-dug4) that concubines received.53 She also appeared in a text from Ahima’s archive making offerings to Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban according to MVN 18.53; the queen appears in the same text.54 While it would be premature to speculate, we should keep in mind that it was part of the expected pattern that the victorious king would take the daughters of such hostage rulers as concubines: new evidence may someday

48 This tablet is dated to S48.08.20. 49 Or Šimurrum, according to Steinkeller, Grand Strategy, forthcoming, also R. Biggs, “Šulgi in Simurrum,” pp. 169–172 and D. Frayne, “On the Location of Simurrum,” pp, 243–270, both in G. Young and M. Chavalas (eds.), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons Astour FS, As Darah appears to be the name of a god, I have capitalized it, though it often appears lowercase in other publications: M. Molina, “Tappan-darah,” RlA 13 (2012): 452. 50 For instance, Owen, “The Royal Gift Seal,” in S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico Cagni Vol. pp.822–823; M. Molina, “Court Officials at Umma in Ur III Times,” ZA 103 (2013): 125–148. 51 According to OIP 115.21 and TLB 3.15. 52 According to MVN 18.40. 53 In SACT 1.88, date not preserved. 54 Dated to S33/09/-.

226 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

show us that Ea-niša, for instance, or one of the other lukurs was Tappan-Darah’s daughter. At the moment, all we can say is that the hostage family may possibly have been linked to Shulgi through concubinage, but in any case, they were generous donors while at the Ur III court.

Female Donors The fact that women appear as contributors at all is unusual for an Ur III archive. To understand this phenomenon better, some facts and figures are crucial. The first problem is determining which names belonged to women. In many cases, it’s obvious, but a largish number of names are unclear. When the tablet specifies that the donor was the wife or sister of a person, clearly we are dealing with a woman. Some names seem to be women without any doubt; others seem ambiguous.55 On the basis of just the names that are definitely women and the people identified as female relatives, Weiershäuser estimated that about 25 % of the 200 donors were female.56 The actual percentage could be a little bit higher. When looking at the male donors, it was helpful to separate men from the inner court and men from the outer court, that is, according to their professions. Mesopotamian women, of course, did not usually have professions, but were considered as part of their family households. I have therefore broken the women into three large groupings: women associated with men of the outer court (for example, the wife or sister of a general), women associated with men of the inner court (for example, the wife of a prince) and women themselves of the inner court (such as a royal wife, princess or employee of the royal household).

Female Staff and Servants Whereas the male staff and servants seem to have been a sizable category, consisting of shepherds, bird-catchers and gardeners, to name a few, the female staff and servants are a much smaller set. There was a singer named Ennia in S3957 and a nurse/nanny associated with the prince Etel-pu-Dagan’s daughter in the same

55 One may note that today “Jordan” or “Taylor,” to name just two popular examples, could be either male or female, so Sumerian and Akkadian are not abnormal in this respect. 56 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 42. 57 Ennia the nar-munus occurs in OIP 115.37 (S39.03.00).



Women of the Inner Court 

 227

year.58 It is not possible to trace these persons in other records (we do not even know the nanny’s name), but it is possible to see here too that this provisioning system was not limited only to the highest of the high.

Women of the Inner Court It is perhaps worth noting who does not appear here—the queen (NIN) and the other royal wives (lukurs) do not appear as donors to the Shulgi-simti foundation, as a rule. Women who were part of the royal family, that is, women of the inner court, included some older women, such as Shulgi’s sister, Ama-barag, who was a major donor to the Shulgi-simti foundation, and the mother of the queen, A.AM.MA ama NIN.59 Almost nothing can be said of the latter, but of the former, Shulgi’s sister, we can observe that she often supplied livestock in months nine and ten, and that the bulk of references to her donations cluster from the earlier half of the archive (nothing at all survives to attest to donations between the years S40 through S46, for instance). Perhaps she lived nearby between about S32 and 39 and would come to court around months 9 to 10 and participate in the court ladies’ religious activities at that time; perhaps later advanced age limited her travels. These are of course only speculations. This was not a foundation with only grey-haired donors. Also we find the younger generation, princesses and daughters-in-law of the king among them. Unfortunately, very little is known about them. We find several donors who probably were princesses: Tezen-Mama, who seems to have been a princess, was a fairly frequent contributor, especially between Shulgi’s 33rd to 39th years.

58 The nurse (ummeda) of the daughter of Etel-pu-Dagan, TCND 32 (S39.00.00). Again, it is unclear whether the nurse is taking care of the infant or toddler daughter of the prince (Shulgi’s granddaughter), or whether Shulgi’s granddaughter is old enough to have children of her own for whom she employs a caregiver. Since Shulgi had a daughter old enough to be married in his 18th regnal year, it is quite possible that he could have a granddaughter of child-bearing age by year 39. On Shulgi’s son Etel-pu-Dagan, see P. Notizia, “Prince Etel-pu-Dagan, son of Šulgi,” pp. 207–220 in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st . B.C. to the 21st c. A.D. 59 According to Or.SP 47–49.15 (Note that the suggested reading a-am-ku is a mistake). Which NIN she was the mother of is very unclear. Was it Ninkalla’s mother? This is plausible, but it could also have been the mother of a deceased consort, such as Taram-Uram or Geme-Sin. There are later parallels of a mother coming to Ur well after her daughter’s death (perhaps to mourn her daughter but perhaps also to see her grandchildren) when Kubatum’s mother came to Shu-Sin’s court a full three years after Kubatum’s death.

228 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

Šibat-ekur, probably another princess,60 is another shadowy figure. But Me (or perhaps better, Simat-)-Eshtar is better attested — she was a princess, probably one of Shulgi’s daughters.61 Her gifts to the foundation concentrate in years 44 to 47 of Shulgi’s reign. Also probably to be included in this category was a frequent donor; the reading of her name is not a matter of full agreement; we should perhaps read the name as Illiltum-imdi62 or Mulliltum-imdi.63 This woman often provided birds.64 She may well have been a daughter of Shulgi, but there is no clear evidence as to her status.65 Her offerings cluster around two times of year, around month 1 to 2, and later in the year, months 6, 7 and 8. While it is possible she lived at home, it is also possible to see here a pattern that she visited home twice a year at regular times. Almost nothing can be said about the biographies of these women. Were they at court because they were too young to be married or perhaps spinsters? Or were they just in the vicinity because they were married to local men? There were also donations from daughters-in-law, that is, the brides of Shulgi’s sons. These daughters-in-law of the king occasionally appear in lists of princesses (dumu-munus lugal), though from what little we know of them, these women were not strictly speaking of royal blood themselves. The relation of these women to Shulgi-simti appears complicated to modern eyes: Shulgi-simti may have been their mother-in-law if the sons were sons of Shulgi-simti. But if the sons were the children of other women, then Shulgi-simti would have been a stepmother-in-law or concubine of one’s father-in-law. Possibly also to be included here in the royal daughter-in-law category is the wife of Lugal-magurre,66 and the wife of Lu-Nanna.67 To the best of my knowledge, the husbands (Lugal-magurre

60 Spelled ši-ma-at in Orient 16 41; a mistake? She occurs a few times as a donor in the Shulgi-simti archive but is largely obscure. 61 Listed as a princess in RIME 3/2 p.168 on the basis of Fish CST 470; also listed in M. Sigrist’s list of the royals, Drehem p.361. She also occurs in two Yale tablets in the appendix, RBC 2507 and RBC 2575. 62 This reading was suggested to me by P. Steinkeller (pers. comm.). 63 Though in transliterations the name sometimes appears as dnin-líl-hé-im-ti, according Molina’s kind collations of the relevant tablets “the attestations of Ninlil- hé-im-ti are all wrong.” (M. Molina, pers. comm.). I am most grateful for these collations. 64 e.g. CST 51, S40.08.30—2 ducks, or BIN 3.363, S40.06.05; 9 kaskal birds and 2 tugur birds. 65 Not listed in the lists of the royal princes and princesses in Sigrist, Drehem p.232 or in RIME 3/2167 ff. 66 The spouse (dam) of Lugal-magurre is identified by Sigrist as one of the royal daughters in AS4. M. Sigrist, “Kubatum,” RA 80 (1986): 185. 67 M. Sigrist, “Kubatum,” RA 80 (1986): 185: she appears to be the same person as the daughter of Ur-nigin-gar.



Women associated with men of the outer court 

 229

and Lu-Nanna) never appear as donors in the extant tablets of the Shulgi-simti archive, so we see here the daughters-in-law participating in the life of the foundation without their husbands. An exception to this pattern was Ur-nigin-gar and his wife. We know Ur-nigin-gar was a prince who himself donated (at least at times) to Shulgi-simti’s foundation. His wife was a much more frequent donor of sheep and birds, and his daughter even appears on at least one occasion. Regrettably, the texts do not provide the names of these women. As already mentioned in the context of royal sons, the reason for needing an archival trail for so miniscule and so domestic a transfer (a bird to one’s mother or stepmother) may give us pause. We must consider why dinner in the family circle at the palace at Ur would have been transmitted to a scribe in Puzrish-Dagan and filed away on a tablet. This type of official record keeping seems to imply that the transaction recorded was in some sense also official or at least worth archiving.

Women associated with men of the outer court Many women — perhaps the majority— named in the donor lists of the Shulgi-simti archive appear not under their own names but as the relation of a male—wife/ sister/ daughter of a man. Often these men can be traced through other tablets of Ur III date, or sometimes the Shulgi-simti tablets themselves tell us the profession of the male in question, so that we can see not infrequently such high-ranking professions as general (šagina), provincial governor (énsi), secretary of state (sukkal-mah), and also various lesser posts, such as household administrator (šabra). When analyzing the actions of women in antiquity, women who were perhaps primarily considered as members of a household rather than as individuals, it is always difficult to determine agency. Did the women act on behalf of their fathers and husbands, doing the family’s will and expending the family’s resources? Or did they act on their own volition, expending their own goods? Obviously, this is important in determining whether we see in the Shulgi-simti archive a separate women’s sphere for religious activities. Such tablets do not, of course, help us answer such questions overtly. It seems very likely that the women were, in a great many cases, furthering the interests of the family unit by contributing livestock to the foundation. That is, when a general’s wife donated animals to the foundation, the ultimate aim may have been preferment for the general. The sisters and wives and daughters, then, worked toward a common family goal. It is not impossible that in some cases, the women acted for their own interests. Of course, one may wonder, if the livestock might have belonged to the male head of household, and the ultimate aim was preferment or goodwill for the

230 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

male’s career, why the women appear at all. One might speculate that the males might have been elsewhere (one could easily see how a general or governor might well spend most of his time away from the capitals), or that it was much easier for the womenfolk to attend social events with the palace women (harem or not, one doubts that Shulgi would have been very comfortable with his generals or other male officials whispering in the ear of his concubines in his absence). Therefore, the women of the family may have had greater ease of access. It may be instructive to consider the case of a fairly frequent contributor, a woman named Rubatum, who was married to one Nuida. Very rarely (as in the following Chicago text), she is identified with both names. More usually, she appears as either Rubatum or as dam nu-ì-da.68 OIP 115.42 2 gud niga 20 udu ú ru-ba-tum dam nu-ì-da iti-ta ud-25 ba-ra-zal mu-DU dšul-gi-sí-im-tum-ma á-bí-lí-a ì-dab5 (S39. 11. 25) “2 fattened oxen, 20 grass-fed sheep (from) Rubatum, spouse of Nuida, the 25th day having passed from the month, a delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Abiliya received.”

Here Rubatum, the wife of Nuida transferred valuable livestock—2 fattened oxen and 20 sheep—to Shulgi-simti’s foundation. In other tablets, she contributed lesser amounts, often in the form of birds. Her husband, Nuida, was a high-ranking military man, like Nir-idagal.69 Did Rubatum contribute, as it were, an ox of her own? Were the animals here provided actually her own “personal property,” or was she expending items owned by her husband? If the latter, was she expending animals for her own purposes (perhaps as a fulfillment of her own religious feelings) or for family reasons (for instance, paying an obligation owed by her husband, who might have been away on campaign, or trying to curry favor in order to arrange a marriage between

68 She appear as Rubatum, dam Nuida, OIP 115.42 and 45, S39 and S40 respectively. But she also occurs as just dam nu-ì-da for instance in OrSP 18.6 (S44.07.17). F. Weiershäuser’s “Babatum, dam Nuida,” is presumably a mistake for Rubatum, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.279. 69 He appears for instance in the list of military men and city officials published as JCS 17.21. Also in Ontario 1.72 (AS6) as the ugula of Surush-kin nu-bànda, a delivery of animals to Abba-šagga.



Odd Transactions: Inspections and Paybacks 

 231

her son and a princess). The answers to these questions are not clear. Still, I think it is important to keep these questions in mind lest we be drawn to false conclusions. Women of rank did contribute to the Shulgi-simti foundation, but it would be dangerous to conclude that they always did so with their own property of their own behalf. As stated in chapter three, women in third millennium Mesopotamia were not considered primarily as individuals, but as members of a patriarchal household. Contributions listed as from dam nu-ì-da, therefore, may have represented Nuida’s account.

Odd Transactions: Inspections and Paybacks As we have seen, the vast majority of the income texts in Shulgi-simti’s archive follow the same pattern—small donations by a number of individuals. What little we know of Geme-Ninlilla’s foundation looks very similar. In a small group of tablets, however, certain donors appear in an unusual role: they received livestock from the heads of Shulgi-simti’s organization. A few of the tablets are labelled IGI.KÁR, a Sumerian term that seems to mean “supply, provision.” The translation of the term has been subject to some recent study.70 OIP 115.60 (S40.6.13) tells us Shulgi-simti’s bureau chief Abilya expended 6 birds as supplies to Nin-kalla.71 Recipients also included a probable princess, for example, the Tezen-Mama, who was given provisions in Shulgi’s penultimate year.72 In other parts of the Drehem archives, for instance in the main Drehem archive, we can see a few examples of royal wives and perhaps daughters receiving supplies, IGI.KÁR: a tablet from S43 month 973 records expenditures of the official Ur-kugnunna, among them 7 sheep for the IGI.KÁR of Shulgi-simti, 7 IGI.

70 X. Ouyang and W. Brookman, “The Cuneiform Collection of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts,” CLDJ 2012 p. 5 “The term gurum2, written as IGI.GAR, refers to the inspection of people. It is easily confused with another expression, igi…kár, which means “to examine (animals and objects),” and, derivatively, “supplies, provisions.” (Following Steinkeller ASJ 4 (1982): 149–151.) Widell’s suggestion that the term referred to gifts given at childbirth has not met with universal acceptance: to Zettler and Sallaberger, “this {translation}, however, is not correct” (ZA 101 [2011]: 5 note 13), especially since the items were generally given to men. Weiershäuser renders the term “Proviant,” Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 100 and chart p. 101. 71 1 uz-tur, 5 tu-gur4mušen, IGI.KÁR nin-kal-la, 1 tu-gur4mušen ba-úš, é-gal-la ba-an-ku4, iti-ta ud-13 ba-ra-zal, zi-ga, á-bí-lí-a (date): OIP 115.60. 72 OIP 115.117 (S47), discussed in Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 101. 73 ASJ 4.133.3.

232 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

KÁR for the of Ea-niša and 14 for the IGI.KÁR of Taddin-Eštar. The texts, of course, do not explain the reasons for the provisioning, so one may wonder whether extra birds were on hand that needed to be used or whether the women shared resources as needed. There are also a handful of tablets from the Shulgi-simti archive that seem to record paybacks: instead of a courtier paying livestock into the foundation, the foundation paid livestock back to the donor. The persons receiving the paybacks are a mixed lot. Two were personal servants, one of the king, another the rider of Shulgi-simti, as we shall soon see in more detail. Women also received paybacks in at least three cases, Rubatum (wife of the military man Nuida) being one of them. A personal servant of the king, an oil-presser named Buza, received payments. Two similar texts, from Shulgi’s 34th regnal year, one in month four and one in month five, record Beli-tab’s expenditure of a goat74 and some other commodity 75to a man named Buza (spelled mostly bù-ú-za; sometimed bu-ú-za-a). Buza’s family appear as donors elsewhere in the archive.76 Another tablet77 identifies this Buza as an oil-presser: the seal, dedicated to Shulgi, identified him as bu-úza-a78 ì-rá-rá árad-zu. Modern Western notions of professional hierarchy might lead us to think that oil-pressing was a lowly (and messy) job, but his árad-zu seal indicates closeness to the king either through the nature of the job or (more likely) his proximity to the royal residence(s). Another example of a royal servant receiving an animal from the Shulgi-simti funds comes from a tablet, published as MVN 13.415,79 dating to the sixth month of Shulgi’s 34th regnal year. Extremely laconic, it consists of four short lines of text and a date formula. 2 udu ú i-ti-ib-ši-na-at zi-ga ki be-lí-DÙG-ta

74 1 máš bù-ù-za zi-ga be-lí-DÙG, PDT 2.1148, Shulgi 34 month 5. 75 OIP 115. 27, S34.04.00. Unfortunately, the condition of this tablet is poor. 76 The offspring of Buza was a donor in OIP 115.70 (S42.02.00). 77 MVN 13. 372. 78 The text of this same tablet has the more usual spelling with bù, though adding an extra a, thus bù-ù-za-a. 79 MVN 13. 415.



Cui bono? 

 233

“Two grass-fed sheep (for) Itib-šinat, expended from Beli-tab.” Itib-šinat was Shulgi-simti’s mounted messenger, sometimes translated “rider” (rá-gaba).80 The term may seem to us to denote a fairly lowly groom of sorts, but Michalowski has argued that, at least later in the Ur III period, the term could be used for “important players in the ceremonial life of the crown.”81 In any case, in these two examples, we seem to see small rewards being distributed to palace employees. This was not always the case. Two other paybacks went to Nuida’s wife, Rubatum, according to PTS 2.130 and another tablet, which tells us that Shulgi-simti’s bureau chief Abilya expended a fattened duck for Rubatum in Nippur.82 The reasons for these paybacks can only now be the subject of speculation. Were more animals collected than could be used and therefore some were returned, either to the donors themselves or to individuals particularly in favour or particularly in need at that time?

Cui bono? The income texts of the Shulgi-simti archive show us a foundation provisioned by a whole spectrum of sources—some employees, some members of the royal family, some military men or courtiers. Were these payments compulsory or not? The tablets do not tell us directly, but we can begin to piece together the clues and make models. If these payments were obligatory, some sort of a tax like the poll tax or gún ma-da or bala payments well attested in other Ur III archives, then one would expect to see some regularity in the commodities and amounts, some regularity perhaps also in the time of year the payment was rendered and some uniformity in the type of person who was liable. That does not seem to be the case here (except in one or two rare cases, like Igi-annakezu of Ur): charting all the published texts available, no regular patterns emerge.83 Thus, a better model might be of a more informal and less obligatory transfer – not a tax, perhaps, but an ad-hoc contribution, or even a gift. A person who

80 Discussed by P. Paoletti, Der König und Sein Kreis p. 73. This figure appears in Phillips 13, discussed in chapter 5. 81 Namely, Ribagada and Abi-Abih, discussed by P. Michalowski, “Love or Death? Observations of the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life,” JCS 58 (2006): 53. 82 This text was published by H. Neumann with other texts from Hannover in AoF 35 (2008): 243 number 4. 83 W. Sallaberger, “Ein System der Abgaben läßt sich vorerst nich nicht erkennen.” OBO 160/3 p.258.

234 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

provided sacrificial animals may have been granted some sort of merit (social or spiritual). At a more practical level, these gifts were perhaps tools, a means to try to gain preferment or foster good-will. Of course, given that we are dealing here with a very wide swathe of people, it is unlikely that the same rewards would have been operative for all of them. While a general (or his wife) may well have wanted access to Shulgi, should we assume that one of Shulgi’s own daughters would have needed to give her mother or stepmother livestock to guarantee her access to her father? But in a court teeming with dozens of royal children born of various mothers, establishing and maintaining one’s place in the hierarchy must have been a constantly-evolving endeavor. Women played an important role as donors, perhaps because it was easier for them to socialize with the palace women, but we must keep in mind that it is quite likely that the livestock they brought and the reasons for the donation may have ultimately derived from their husbands/ fathers/ brothers. Males still make up the preponderance of the donors to the foundation, however. Although previous studies have focused little attention on the donors to the foundation, dismissing them as “verschieden Angehörigen des Königshauses,”84 dividing the donors into categories has, I think, helped us grasp some of the disparate stations and motives for these small donations. But perhaps the most important motivation may have been a symbiotic relationship between Shulgi-simti herself, whose rank in the court hierarchy may always have been fragile, and those courtiers who wished to use her access to the king to further their petitions. Notwithstanding the fact that the Shulgi-simti archive is in a very fragmentary state of preservation, it does seem that the circle of persons donating livestock changed through time. In the earlier half of the archive, from about S32 to S38, Shulgi-simti had a large donor base consisting of family members such as her husband’s sister, the redoubtable Ama-barag, a princess Tezen-Mama and the ambitious general Nir-idagal, but also numerous governors, šabras, foreigners and unidentified persons (and their families). Later on, from S38–47, the governors and šabras become increasingly rare and the professional animal husbandry men occur with greater frequency. Perhaps Shulgi-simti’s star was fading at court as Ea-niša’s rose. Perhaps administrative changes meant that obligations of governors were more formally subsumed by the bala payments rather than ad-hoc donations. Our sample is too small to tell what the cause of the change was. Certainly not abandoned by her donors, though less diversely funded, Shulgi-simti’s foundation would continue until about the time of her husband’s death.

84 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.46.



Cui bono? 

 235

We shall see in the next chapter what many of these animals were used for, namely, a variety of sacrifices in Ur and the Nippur province to a variety of goddesses, gods and for various cultic events.

CASE STUDIES: GROUPS OF DONORS Male Donors Staff and Servants A-da-na-ah85 A Bird catcher, mušen-dù: Provided 46 birds in S38.06 according to AnOr 1.1. Bagum A Bird catcher, mušen-dù: Donated 8 birds in S42.08.05 according to MVN 13.275. Donated 80 birds in S44.06.10 according to MVN 18.8. Donated 6 birds in S47.10.28 according to PDT 1.139.

Men of the Royal Family (Inner Court) En of Inanna Provided 1 sheep in S37.02 according to BIN 3.402. Provided 1 sheep in S47.02.02 according to OIP 115.90. Provided a lamb in S47.09.13 according to Gomi, Orient 16.44.16. Other princes, not ordained: Etel-pu-Dagan Provided two lambs in S37.01.00 according to JCS 40 p. 244 number 8. Shu-Eštar dumu lugal Provided 5 birds in S44.03.20 according to RA 19. 192.7. Provided x sheep in S47.04 according to TCS 145. Provided 1 sheep in S47.07 according to Princeton 1.36. Ur-nigin-gar dumu lugal Provided 4 sheep in S32 according to BIN 5.1186

85 Adanah was not an uncommon name, and so while it is tempting to link this Adanah to the servant of the princess Mametum (known from his seal, CDLI record P456489), they are likely two different men. 86 A discussion of Ur-nigin-gar and his family can be found in Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 43 ff, noting the possibility that more than one man of this

236 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

Zak-ili dumu lugal Provided 2 sheep in S40.01 according to AUCT 1.89. Provided 1 sheep in S46.11 according to MVN 13.675. Provided 20 birds in S47.01.26 according to Yale text RBC 2492. Provided 1 sheep in S47.06 according to OIP 115.109. Provided 1 sheep in S47.11 according to OIP 115.113.

Generals Nuida (possibly to be read Nunida), a captain? (nu-bànda)87 Provided 7 sheep in S44.07.17 according to OrSP 18.6. Sellush-Dagan, a general88 Provided 2 sheep in S33.01 according to BIN 3.335. Provided 4 sheep in S44.06.25 according to MVN 15.324. Provided 50 sheep in S46.08.00 according to PDT 2.1013! Provided 13 birds in S47.01.20 according to ŠA 9. 41 Provided x+5 birds in [text with no date preserved] according to Yale text NBC 5705.

Governors and šabras Ea-bani énsi Known to be governor of Ereš according to BCT 1.134 (S33). Donated 1 goat in S31.06 according to BIN 3.360 (no title given on tablet). Donated 1 goat in S32.09 according to YOS 4.79. Donated 1 goat in S32 according to CDLI P 431428 (unpublished). Donated 1 female goat in S33.04 according to MVN 3.136. Donated 10 sheep in S36 month 7 according to Yale text RBC 2542. É-u6-e énsi Unfortunately, no published text tells us what province he governed. Donated 1 sheep in S40.02.00 according to OIP 115.43. Donated 1 sheep in S40.11.01 according to Nisaba 8.169. Donated 6 birds in S42.06.20 according to Yale text RBC 2601. Izuarik énsi Governor of Kazallu (according to MVN 18.92, S34.06.00)

name is reflected in the documentation. 87 He is given the title nu-bànda on Ont. 1.72 (AS6). A discussion of Nuida or Nunida can be found in Ouyang and Brookman, “The Cuneiform Collection of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem,” CLDJ (2012): 23. 88 A discussion of this figure can be found in D. Owen’s “Royal Gift Seal,” Cagni FS p. 825. He appears in contexts that suggest he was a general working for Shulgi but (after the defeat of Tappan-Darah) appears to have served as the énsi of Simurrum, see W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 158 note 120 and M. Molina, “Tappan-darah,” RlA 13 (2012): 452.



Cui bono? 

Donated 1 sheep in S37.02.00 according to BIN 3.409. Donated 1 sheep in S39.08 according to CST 49. His wife donated 4 birds in S41.02 to the Geme-Ninlilla foundation. Governors just by title: Énsi Umma Paid 10 sheep (as bala) in S35.06.00 according to MVN 13.873. Énsi Kazallu Donated 1 sheep in S31.04.04 according to OIP 115.17. Donated 1 sheep in S36.05.00 according to Orient 16.3. Énsi of Adab His wife and children (dam dumu) donated 1 sheep in S34.05.00 according to TLB 3.15.

FEMALE DONORS Women of the Royal Family Ama-barag Donated 4 sheep to Šu-kubum in S31.04: possibly to another foundation. Donated 4 sheep in S32.09 according to YOS 4.79. Donated 3 sheep in S36 according to Hirose 14. Donated 5 sheep in S39.06.00 according to the Yale text RBC 2531. Donated 1 goat in S47.09.02 according to MVN 18.15. NIN.LIL-tum-im-ti Donated 2 birds in S40.05.24 according to OIP 115.44. Donated 11 birds in S40.06.05 according to BIN 3.363. Donated 2? birds in S40.08.30 according to CST 51. Donated 4 birds in S43.02.09 according to OIP 115.72. Donated 2 lambs in S47.10 according to OIP 115.114. Shibat-ekur Donated 1 bird in S44.10.13 according to TRU 77. Donated 3 sheep in S44.11.21 according to Orient 16.6. Donated 1 sheep in S46.09.06 according to DCEPHE 302. Donated 5 sheep in S47.04.03 according to PDT 1.157. Tezen-Mama Donated 2 sheep in S33.01.00 according to BIN 3.335. Donated 1 sheep in S35.09.00 according to RT 37.129. 1 Donated 1 sheep in S35.12.00 according to TPTS 55. Donated 2 sheep in S37.02.00 according to TCND 28. Donated 1 sheep in S38.07.00 according to TCNY 235. Donated 1 sheep in S39.02.00 according to TCND 51. Donated 3 sheep in S39.03.00 according to MVN 3.162. Donated 58 birds in S39.04.06 according to AUCT 1.952. Donated 1 sheep in S42.02.00 according to Hirose 19. Donated 2 sheep in S43.11.30 according to RO 11.96.1. Donated 1 sheep in S47.04.00 according to TCND 24.

 237

238 

 Chapter 9 An Ox of One’s Own: Provisioners and Influence

Royal In-laws Etel-pu-Dagan’s wife: Donated 1 duck in S40.05.14 according to the Yale text YBC 16659. Ur-nigin-gar’s wife Provided 1 sheep in S33.05.00 according to CST 42 Provided 1 sheep in S34.02.00 according to OIP 115.21 Provided 7 sheep in S36.09.00 according to MVN 18.2 Provided 9 birds in S44.03.28 according to RA 19.192.7. Ur-nigin-gar’s daughter Provided 15 birds in S38.04.00 according to TCS 358.

Relatives of General, Governors and šabras Sellush-Dagan (a general)’s wife: Provided one bird in S47.09.00according to Yale text RBC 2418. His sister: Provided 3 birds in S41 according to YOS 18.5. Provided 2 birds in S43.09.20 according to OIP 115.74. Provided 7 birds in S44.01.22 according to MVN 3.200. Provided 11? birds in [an unknown year] according to TRU 76.

Female Servants Ennia the nar-munus (female singer) Provided 1 bird in S39.03 according to OIP 115.37. Ummeda for the daughter of Etel-pu-Dagan (nurse/ nanny to or for Etel-pu-Dagan’s daughter): Provided a pig in S39.01.00 according to TCND 32.

Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events to which the Shulgi-simti Foundation Contributed One of the central aims of the Shulgi-simti foundation was religious in nature: to provide animals gathered together from various sources and use the larger animals, chiefly sheep and goats, to sacrifice to a number of deities. Such sacrificial expenditures have been (to date) the most widely-studied part of the archive, as they reveal an unexpected mélange of goddesses, mostly poorly attested in other third millennium archives. Most other sets of offering lists from the Third Dynasty of Ur have a logic that is easy to grasp. Offering lists from the main Puzrish-Dagan archive, for instance, generally represent royal provisioning of the official state pantheon and observances of the cultic calendar, while provincial offering lists generally represent the provincial version of the same thing (for the local pantheon as supplied by the provincial governor). A major factor in our interpretive difficulty is the outlier status of the archive associated with Shulgi-simti and many of its deities and rites. The goddesses and activities attested here are often so different from those found in other Ur III archives that one struggles to put them into context. Additionally, the tablets preserved reflect a kaleidoscope of constantly shifting observance rather than a regular roster. Thus, upon examining the sacrifices supported by the foundation run under the auspices of Shulgi-simti, we are left with a problem. What does it all mean? Since the sacrifices listed in the Shulgi-simti archive do not display an obvious pattern, a closer look is needed. Are we missing huge portions of the archive? Or were the observances, like the provisioning, made up of a small core of constants, with a much larger number of ad-hoc or occasional events? While I would tend toward the latter view, that the Shulgi-simti foundation was an institution welladapted for one-time or as-needed withdrawals, the partial preservation of the archive and lack of close parallels preclude more definitive statements. What did Shulgi-simti’s bureau chiefs offer for sacrifice, where, when, to whom and for whose benefit? This chapter, and the one that follows, certainly do not claim to be able to answer these questions definitively, but perhaps we can begin to see patterns of sacrifice and offering centered around certain rites at the city of Ur (and elsewhere) for a complex constellation of deities, mainly female and mainly lower in rank than the official state pantheon. Before we can get to an understanding of the sacrifices here, it may be helpful to begin with what is not present. The gods receiving offerings are not, by and large, the main deities of the traditional Sumero-Akkadian pantheon. True, some DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-010

240 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

figures from that pantheon do occur as recipients of Shulgi-simti’s foundation, but a major departure from the main pantheon is the preponderance of goddesses, the inclusion of many rarely attested goddesses and the high percentage of “miscellaneous” expenditures, such as gates, the river ordeal and so on. Extant records are highly fragmentary, so we should not discount the possibility that the foundation’s support seems patchier than it was simply on the basis of lost evidence. But it is also possible, and perhaps more likely, that the foundation had a varied agenda. Attempting to impose a rigid order on it may result in misapprehensions about the nature of the operations. Although it may seem that this portion of the archive offers us an exciting glimpse into the all-too-rarely attested experience of women in religion, ultimately one may be left with more questions than answers. First, it is important to realize from the outset that we are seeing here a combination of a regular core of offerings, offset by what now appears to be a chaotic jumble of other sacrifices and activities. A wide array of deities and events occur under the auspices of this foundation, some attested only once or twice. The adage attributed to Einstein, that everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler, may be useful here. The religious activities of the Shulgi-simti foundation could easily be oversimplified into “women’s religion” or “personal piety” but the reality appears to have been quite complex, and our explanations must account for the complexity as well. This chapter will first go over some terminological matters: what do we really mean when we speak of “offerings” and “sacrifices”? We will then consider the contributions of previous scholarship to the matter of sacrifice. As others have well established, many sacrifices were offered under the aegis of this institution in Ur, and some in Uruk, often associated with ceremonies tied to the observance of various phases of the moon. Certain ceremonies whose nature is now obscure to us (such as the girrānum or elūnum) also played a prominent role.

Towards a Definition of Terms: Offering and Sacrifice When our economic texts list one lamb for Anunnitum and another for Ulmašitum, for example, how are we really to understand what is happening here? The animals were offerings or sacrifices, but to imagine Shulgi-simti’s presence while a priest poured out the animals’ blood onto an altar is probably quite wrong. The terms “offering” and “sacrifice” are often used without properly defining them or using them unreflectingly, and thus multiple sources of confusion can pass into our terminology. In fact, a 1993 essay by W. G. Lambert entitled “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in ancient Mesopotamia” opens with the statement,

Offering 

 241

“Our title deliberately avoids the term ‘sacrifice.’ Like ‘fertility’ it is so loaded and ambiguous a term that it is best not to use it. In modern usage ‘sacrifice’ is too dependent on Biblical institutions and concepts to be a suitable vehicle to express ancient Mesopotamian practices.”1 An attempt to be explicit about what we mean by the terms “offering” and “sacrifice” may aid us here.

Offering So what then was sacrifice and how does it differ from an offering? Turning to anthropological literature, for instance, Raymond Firth’s seminal article, “Offering and Sacrifice: Problems of Organization,” a number of distinctions may aid our inquiry. To Firth, an offering differs from a gift in that gift-exchange occurs between equals and gift-giving may imply the hope of a reciprocal present; an offering, on the other hand, is made by one of lesser status and may have more general or intangible benefits, or even no benefits at all.2 Key to the concept of sacrifice is scarcity. “Sacrifice is a species of offering or oblation, but implies a relation between what is offered and the availability of resources. Offering indicates an allocation or transfer of resources, but implies nothing about the degree or quality of allocation in relation to the total resources at the command of the giver. ‘Sacrifice’ implies that the degree or quality is significant – that the resources are limited, that there are alternative uses for them, and that there is some abstention from an alternative use in making the offering. The sacrifice is giving something up at a cost.”3

In the religious sphere, according to Firth, “sacrifice is a voluntary act whereby, through the slaughter of an animal, an offering of food or other substance is made to a spiritual being.”4 Sacrifices are often made by groups rather than individuals. This collectivity helps distribute the economic burden of provisioning and

1 W. G. Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55. p. 191. 2 R. Firth, “Offering and Sacrifice: Problems of Organization,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 93 (1963): 12–3. 3 R. Firth, “Offering and Sacrifice: Problems of Organization,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 93 (1963): 13. 4 Firth, “Offering and Sacrifice,” p.13.

242 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

serves as a symbol of or reaffirmation of social bonds.5 Sacrificial materials are thought to be transformed in some way. “The element, if not of destruction, at least of transformation or transmutation of what is sacrificed is basic to the concept.”6 Some sacrificial materials are completely destroyed, e.g. burned utterly. But another fairly common treatment for the sacrificial materials is reservation, by which the material “can be offered to god or spirit and then withdrawn for the consumption of the worshippers.”7 “In other words, the practice of reservation of the sacrificial material for the human participants almost invariably demands some theory of essences, representations or symbols.”8 Looking more specifically at the Mesopotamian context, as Mayer and Sallaberger have done, we find that an offering can be defined as something tangible, presented to a deity for a purpose, for example, to care for or feed a deity, as a thank-offering, or a means for opening a line of communication. Generally offerings take place in a sanctified space and must be done “correctly” to be considered efficacious. Offerings generally indicate importance: a more important deity receives larger offerings than a lesser one.9 An offering could be something concrete and fixed, such as a statue, or something that becomes totally consumed, such as incense, or, as is very frequent in the cuneiform record, could take the form of food. Foods included liquids (water, beer, wine, milk et cetera): the offering of a liquid by pouring it out to a deity is a libation. Libations were cultically very important but, being hardly attested in our texts, will be passed over here quickly. Other food-offerings included starches (grains, breads etc), vegetables, fruits, dairy products, sweets and occasionally aromatics or condiments.10 When animals were slaughtered and destined for the gods’ table, we refer to this as a sacrifice: that is, a sacrifice is an offering in living form. When considering the ancient Near East, sacrifice is often understood as an animal killed in a ritual way whose flesh or blood was considered by be consumed by the divine. The logistics of animal sacrifice in late third millennium Babylonia remain rather unclear. Should we fill in the blanks by using for instance Hittite comparanda for animal sacrifice, described thus by Beckman:

5 Firth, “Offering and Sacrifice” p.19. 6 Firth, “Offering and Sacrifice” p.13. 7 Firth, “Offering and Sacrifice” p.21. 8 Firth, “Offering and Sacrifice” p.21. 9 Mayer and Sallaberger, “Opfer,” RlA 10 (2003): 93–5. 10 Mayer and Sallaberger, “Opfer,” RlA 10 (2003): 95, also discussed elsewhere by Sallaberger, for instance, “Königtum und Kult in der Hauptstadt Ur,” in W. Seipel et al. (eds.), Von Babylon bis Jerusalem p. 257.

Offering 

 243

“after the initial ritual cleansing, the victim, perhaps decorated with ribbons or objects of precious metal, was driven into the temple or sacrificial location and dedicated to the recipient. A ‘sample’ of the animal – probably a lock of hair—was conveyed to the deity, after which the beast was led out once more. The victim was then killed and butchered or dismembered, usually at a location somewhat away from the immediate offering site. The animal’s death might be accompanied by a joyous shout from the participants… Then there followed the consumption of the slaughtered beast by the god(s) and worshippers…Nothing was wasted.”11

Or should we set the Hittite data aside as belonging to a separate religious sphere and envision a more prosaic scene, for example, that lambs and other animals were taken off to a sacred slaughtering place, dispatched correctly (with or without an audience) and then handed over to the butchers and cooks to become a fine repast for the gods? If the essence of the food offering is its consumption, not the act of dispatching it, what separates the meat (“sacrifice”) from the starches or vegetables of drinks (“offerings” and “libations”)? Seemingly all were prepared together and presented as a gourmet meal for the deity. To Lambert, the essence of the “sacrifice” was to feed the gods, primarily with two large meals set on trays.12 Abusch has neatly summarized this point: “When we think of sacrifice we tend to think of slaughtering animals or consuming an offering by means of fire. But we must imagine sacrifice a bit differently when we approach the topic in Mesopotamia. For our Mesopotamian religious sources emphasize neither the slaughter of animals not the process of consumption. Rather, they usually focus on presentation.”13 At the very practical level, gods, like people, had to be fed at regular intervals: in the Babylonian conception of deity and immortality, divine status did not imply immunity from hunger. The principle reason for humanity’s creation in many Mesopotamian myths was, in fact, this very need to supply food to the gods. At regular intervals during the day, the gods received and “ate” their meals. As a

11 G. Beckman, “How Religion was Done,” in D. Snell (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Near East, pp. 349–50. 12 W. G. Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55, pp. 192–194. 13 T. Abusch, “Sacrifice in Mesopotamia,” in A. Baumgarten (ed.), Sacrifice in Religious Experience p.39. A Very similar point is made by Sallaberger, “the central act of the sacrifice in Mesopotamia was the presentation of the offerings, and not, for example, their transformation (such as slaughter, burning) or consumption.” W. Sallaberger, “Home-made Bread, Municipal Mutton, Royal Wine. Establishing Social Relations during the Preparation and Consumption of Food in Religious Festivals at Late Bronze Age Emar,” eTopoi: Journal for Ancient Studies 2 (2012): 160.

244 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

general rule, we should view the lists of foods offered in economic texts as ingredients, constituents of a cooked meal. Naturally, there were special moments in the cultic calendar when one item had the pride of place, for instance, the malt-drinking ceremonies, the first-fruit offering, or the piglet festival: these must be viewed as exceptional. Since gods did not eat in a physical sense, another important aspect of the food offering is what we might consider its secondary use, that is, what was done with the food once the gods were considered to have ‘finished.’ Deities consume food in a spiritual manner, so the “leftovers,” naturally copious in quantity and luxurious in quality, were available for the bellies of mortals.14 Presenting the gods with particularly luxurious meals (or banquets) may also have brought the feeding into what scholarship refers to as a gift exchange, or a do ut des status, wherein the persons responsible for the presented items may reasonably expect reciprocation of some sort.15 It is possible that a key element in the foundation run in Shulgi-simti’s name was providing for, and then partaking in the leftovers from these sacrifices.16 Quite possibly, partaking of the food was more important than actual presence at the site of the sacrifice. Whether it would have been Shulgi-simti herself or a wider group of persons, perhaps even including the women and men who provisioned the foundation, who received this food is unclear. If so, provisioning would have had a social benefit and attendance at the meals could well have been part of the life of Shulgi’s court and its associated power-politics. In the present context, then, I am using the term offering to refer to any gift, tangible or intangible, dedicated to the gods, and sacrifice to denote specifically a live creature, an animal, whose life is given for the gods. It should be noted, however, that this distinction between offering and sacrifice is our terminological

14 See also K. McClymond, Beyond Sacred Violence: A Comparative Study of Sacrifice; J. Scurlock, “The Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals in Ancient Israel and Ancient Mesopotamia,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44/1 (2006): 13–50. 15 The do ut des model draws from the 1871 publication of Edward Tylor, see G. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” Anchor Bible Dictionary 5 p. 871. These ideas are also reviewed by McClymond, Beyond Sacred Violence p.6. 16 In later Mesopotamia, the leftovers were either a royal prerogative, or would be distributed to the temple’s prebendaries, for instance in the Neo-Babylonian period as discussed by Kozuh and others, M. Kozuh, “Lamb, Mutton, and Goat in the Babylonian Temple Economy,” JESHO 53 (2010): 538. See also W. Sallaberger’s discussion of the leftovers in Emar, suggesting that those who supplied or prepared the food were often the ones who were entitled to consume the leftovers, “Home-made Bread, Municipal Mutton, Royal Wine. Establishing Social Relations during the Preparation and Consumption of Food in Religious Festivals at Late Bronze Age Emar,” eTopoi: Journal for Ancient Studies 2 (2012): 168–9.



An Overview of Sacrifice in the Shulgi-simti Archive 

 245

distinction and not necessarily a key conceptual category in the third millennium B.C. Because the data is fragmentary and the number of different permutations of different deities, different festivals, and different locations is quite complex, charts, tables and statistics are helpful in organizing the mass of data into an intelligible form. But charts and tables are only helpful if they help reveal a pattern hidden in a mass of data. As we saw already when looking at the sources for Shulgi-simti’s livestock, rigid patterns do not appear to be characteristic of this foundation. Flexibility and variations on a theme appear to be more the nature of the archive. One should also be sensitive to evolution. The end of the third decade of Shulgi’s rule and the start of the fourth appear to have been a time of change, especially around what would now become the great bureaucracy of Puzrish-Dagan, and we have seen already that Shulgi-simti’s foundation was not immune to these changes. Furthermore, if I am correct in seeing the women of the royal court, particularly the junior wives, as part of a complex and on-going negotiation for power and influence, we should also expect variation in the women’s activities as each one’s favor and influence waxed and waned.

An Overview of Sacrifice in the Shulgi-simti Archive Tablets from the Shulgi-simti archive are full of information about deities receiving sacrifice, so much so that it can be difficult to glimpse the forest through the trees. Luckily, previous studies by Sallaberger, Sigrist, Weiershäuser and others have established a firm foundation for further studies. Before moving on to examine their conclusions, however, it will no doubt be helpful to review what the evidence itself looks like. SAT 2.557 “2 grass-fed sheep – Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban. 1 goat—Iškur. In Ur, via Beli-bani. 1 goat, gate of the cloister (gipar), in Uruk, via Mašum. Expenditure of Shulgi-ili. Month- festival of Ninazu, Year after Kimaš was destroyed. (S47. 05)”

246 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

This tablet records Shulgi-ili’s sacrifices in Ur and Uruk, to a variety of gods (Iškur), goddesses (Belat-šuhnir and -terraban) and sacred places (the gipar in Uruk, presumably the residence of the en-priest of Inanna). Most of the expenditure texts in Shulgi-simti’s archive do not specify the exact type of cultic event they were to be used for. A minority, however, specify that the livestock are to be used at a sá-dug4 (“regular offering”), as in the following example from Shulgi’s 40th year. OIP 115.57 “2 nanny-goats, 2 male goats, 1 ewe, 2 male sheep, 1 lamb, [the month maš-kug]-kú; 2 nanny-goat, 1 big-breed goat, 1 male goat, [1?] ewe, 1 male sheep, 1 kid, 1 lamb, month: šeš-da-kú, a sá-dug4 (regular offering) (for) Belat-šuhnir, Belat-terraban, Annunitum and Ulmašitum.” Shulgi Year 40.17

Texts such as the one reproduced above have been fairly extensively discussed by previous scholars.

Previous Scholarship The first to analyze the archive in any meaningful way was N. Schneider, whose study of the divine pair Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban was published in 1933.18 He stressed the Semitic divine names and cultic vocabulary attested in what we would now call the archive of Shulgi-simti and saw the archive as evidence for a gradual trend towards the Semitization of Mesopotamian culture.19 Certainly, Schneider was right that many Semitic deities and festival names occur here, though, as the recently published Garshana archive shows, this is not untoward.20

17 Texts very similar to OIP 115.57, that is, sá-dug4 offerings to Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban, Annunitum and Ulmašitum, can be found, for instance, in BIN 3.485 (also S40), MVN 3.185 (S40), Aegyptus 19.235.3 (S40), OIP 115. 67 (S41), MVN 18.91 (S41), OIP 115.68 (S41), SACT 1.180 (S42) and OIP 115. 131 (S43). 18 N. Schneider, “Das Götterpaar dBe-la-at-múš-nir ù dBe-la-at-dír-ra-ba-an,” AnOr 6 (1933): 13–23. 19 N. Schneider, “Das Götterpaar dBe-la-at-múš-nir ù dBe-la-at-dír-ra-ba-an,” AnOr 6 (1933): 23. 20 W. Sallaberger, “Sumerian Language Use at Garšana,” CUSAS 6 (2011): 335–372, with previous bibliography.



Previous Scholarship 

 247

Another early figure to grapple with central problems in the archive was Thorkild Jacobsen. Jacobsen speculated that Shulgi-simti might have come from abroad (perhaps from Eshnunna) and brought deities from her homeland with her to the Ur III court.21 Jacobsen’s idea has won wide acceptance, for instance, by Whiting, Sallaberger and Weiershäuser.22 Sigrist, in a brief introduction to the Shulgi-simti archive, presents the idea not as a plausible theory but as a fact: he refers to a tablet recording offering for Inanna “and for two deities often mentioned in this archive, Belat-šuhnir and Belat-tiraban. These two goddesses were native to the Diyala region, which hints at Shulgi-simti herself originally being from this area.”23 Others are even more specific: for example, Archi and Pomponio explain Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban thus : “questa coppia di divinità introdotte nel pantheon di Ur III dalla regione di Kirkuk, probabilmente da circa il 29mo anno di Šulgi.”24 But, as we shall see in chapter 11, perhaps we should exercise caution before making such assumptions. The next major discussion of the importance of the archive was by Jones and Snyder in their discussion of the “Early Drehem Series.” As their focus was on archival interconnections between the “Early Drehem Series” and the main Puzrish-Dagan archive, little space was devoted to matters of religion. Broader investigations of the Shulgi-simti foundation and its religious milieu appeared in the 1990’s, chiefly in monographs by Marcel Sigrist and Walther Sallaberger. The latest treatment of the subject was by Frauke Weiershäuser.25 Sigrist, after discussing Shulgi-simti herself, the chief officials of her foundation, and the people who supplied her with animals, analyzed the expenditure texts. First, he looked at the expenditures described as níg-kú NIN-gá, “pour la nourriture de ‘ma dame,’”26 and then the cultic expenditures, beginning geographically with Ur. Sigrist stressed the importance of two deities, Belet-šuhnir and Belet–terraban, referring to the “prééminence des deux divinitiés…” in the archive.27 Speculating about their area of origin, Sigrist noted that Belat-terra-

21 Th. Jacobsen, S. Lloyd and H. Frankfort, The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers at Tell Asmar OIP 43, p.143. 22 R. Whiting, JCS 28 (1976): 178; C. B. F. Walker, JCS 35 (1983): 92, and W. Sallaberger Kultische Kalender p.19, and F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur. 23 M. Sigrist, Ontario p. 26. 24 A. Archi and F. Pomponio, Testi Cuneiformi Neo-Sumerici da Drehem, commentary to Text 187, p. 104. 25 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur. 26 M. Sigrist Drehem pp.222–236. 27 M. Sigrist Drehem p.237. He spells the names of the deities Belat-tirraban and Belat-suhnir: I have changed the spelling for consistency in the text.

248 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

ban appeared earlier in an Akkadian inscription from Susa of Puzur-Inšušinak and that both Shuhnir and Terraban have been interpreted as being place names in the Kirkuk-Simurrum region.28 Since Shulgi conquered that region, as commemorated in his regnal year name for Shulgi year 32, Sigrist follows previous suggestions that the veneration of these deities may have followed that conquest, and that their veneration appears to cease with the end of the foundation of Shulgi-simti.29 Sigrist saw differences in the foundation’s activities in Ur and in Uruk: “Le but de la foundation de Šulgi-simti semble avoir été de pourvoir à un culte lunaire et funéraire à Uruk. A Ur par contre se déroulaient des cultes provenant d’un fonds akkadien et sémitique pour des divinités venant de la Diyala.”30 In two meticulously researched and detailed books, Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (1993) and OBO 160/3, Sallaberger gathered together and summarized a large mass of scattered data. Analyzing the expenditures for religious purposes and comparing them to the ‘weltliche’ (secular) expenditures in the archive, Sallaberger showed that a larger quantity of animals and the nicest grades of animals were used for cultic purposes. Pork and fowl were expended for the use of mortals (níg-kú NIN-gá etc), while oxen and the choicest sheep went to the gods.31 But to which gods and goddesses? Sallaberger identified seven key deities attested in the Shulgi-simti archive: first, the divine pair Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban, then Annunitum and Ulmašitum, all of whom were to be found in Ur, as was Nanna.32 In Nippur, Ninlil and Enlil received offerings, though, as he points out, in the Shulgi-simti archive we see the inverse of what occurs in the main Puzrish-Dagan archive: in the Shulgi-simti archive, Ninlil occurs first and received more.33 Most offerings in the Shulgi-simti foundation occurred at festivals, monthly or annual. Another festival supported by this organization was the twice-annual má-an-na festival of Inanna-Ishtar in Uruk, seemingly associated with women or even more specifically royal women.34 Also prominent were festivals with Semitic names, the abum, erubbatum, elūnum and nabrium festivals, in addition to various lunar festivals.35

28 Ibid.,p. 237. 29 Ibid., p.237. 30 M. Sigrist, Drehem p. 246. 31 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.258. 32 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 259. 33 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 pp.259–60. 34 W. Sallaberger renders this the Himmelschiffest, Kultische Kalender 19 (with Table 71) and OBO 160/3 p. 259. 35 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.259.



Previous Scholarship 

 249

Sallaberger noted that in Nippur, a different set of deities were supported by the foundation, especially Ninlil, but also Allatum, Alla-gula and Nin-gagia.36 Offering to the various phases of the moon were also to be found amongst the foundation’s expenditures in Nippur.37 Concluding, as we have seen in chapter five, that Shulgi-simti was the queen (NIN) and that she probably originated in the Diyala region, Sallaberger hypothesized that she brought the two goddesses Belet-šuhnir and -terraban with her, perhaps along with the festivals with Semitic names, noting that they seem to disappear upon her death.38 He wonders whether some rites might not have taken place in the palace chapel in Ur. Furthermore, he seems a tight connection between Shulgi-simti, the “queen,” herself and her offerings: “Die Opfer sind an die Person der Königin gebunden, und wieder läßt sich hier keine strikte Trennung in ‘persönliche’ oder ‘amtliche/öffentlich wirksame’ Opfer erzielen…”39 He noted that, while Shulgi-simti’s observances display a core of commonly venerated deities and observances (to name just one instance of each, the quartet of Belet-šuhnir, Belet-terraban, Annunitum and Ulmašitum and lunar observances), there also appear to have been many spontaneous and unique offerings, the rationale for which we cannot always fathom.40 While, as we shall see, the present study does not agree with Sallaberger’s conclusions in every detail, he has undoubtedly made key contributions to the archive, imposing clarity, order and sense to a somewhat chaotic mass of data. Frauke Weiershäuser’s dissertation for the University of Göttingen, turned into a book published in 2008, is the most recent treatment of Shulgi-simti (and all the other royal wives of the whole of the Ur III period).41 This is a very valuable collection of data, clearly and exhaustively laid out. Such studies have made major strides in allowing us to grasp the fundamentals of the archive. Certainly this book would not have been possible without their contributions. Still, I think it is fair to say that there still is much that is not understood about what Shulgi-simti’s foundation was really meant to accomplish and how we are to understand its wider context. This is not due to any shortcomings on their part: the material is complex and difficult to contextualize.

36 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.18 and OBO 160/3 pp. 259–60. These will be further discussed in the next chapter. 37 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 260. 38 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p.259. 39 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 258. 40 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.42. 41 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur. She treats Shulgi-simti especially in pp.31–104.

250 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

Understanding and Ordering the Data The pages that follow represent one attempt to make sense of the seething mass of data by a) looking at the types of locations and events for which the foundation provided, b) dividing the deities into groups and c) separating out which offerings were associated with Shulgi-simti herself and which were in fact associated with one of the other royal wives, especially the queen, who, as argued earlier, was probably Nin-kalla. One thing is very clear: the extant tablets of the Shulgi-simti archive do not record the full provisioning of the cult of a certain temple or group of shrines throughout its cultic calendar. Certain festivals and observances do recur. Most of these festivals and observances are now very obscure and thus may seem unimportant or trivial; we must keep in mind, however, that festivals were one of the only ways that individuals had of interacting with the gods and that festivals were integral to the life of the city. In Sallaberger’s words, “Religious festivals were key events in the ancient Near East: their dates marked the calendar and the accounting of time; their deities, representing the main symbols of a community’s identity, stood in the focus of the ritual, and the participation of the population with its leaders involved a presentation of the socio-political organization at work. Furthermore, considering aesthetic aspects, for example the festival’s staging at the most prominent buildings and places of a city, the view of works of art and artisanry or the performance of poetry, music, and dance, the short period of a festival meant a condensed presentation of the essentials of a given culture.”42 As already noted by many previous scholars, the majority of the festivals celebrated by the Shulgi-simti foundation bear Semitic, not Sumerian names. Two events, one a festival and one a cultic event, do bear Sumerian names, and we shall look at these first.

Festivals and Religious Observances The má-an-na festival, which can be translated as the “boat of An” or the “boat of the heavens” (in German, Fest des Himmelsschiffes), has been studied by Sallaberger, who demonstrated that the festival took place twice per year in Uruk,

42 W. Sallaberger, “Home-made Bread, Municipal Mutton, Royal Wine,” eTopoi, Journal for Ancient Studies 2 (2012): 157.



Festivals and Religious Observances 

 251

usually late in months seven and eleven. 43 Pointing out that numerous different women, often royal wives and daughters such as SI.A-tum (Shulgi’s mother), Šelepputum (a princess), Geme-Ninlilla (a wife of Shulgi’s) and various other females, are named in texts dealing with the expenditure of materials for the má-an-na festival, Sallaberger commented that is seemed like a women’s festival, or at least a festival at which royal women were heavily involved. 44 As to the meaning of the festivities, Steinkeller speculated that the boat of heaven may have a netherworld referent, and could have been (in his view) linked to the means of transportation by which souls of the dead (such as the dead king) might travel from the underworld to the stars.45 Another rite the Shulgi-simti foundation often provided for was called the níg-ki-zàh, literally “things for the place of disappearance.” The literal translation does not help much in understanding what this rite actually represented, though various suggestions have been put forward, including the notion of a divine procession. Other festivals for which the Shulgi-simti foundation allocated livestock bore Semitic names, and included the abum, elūnum, errubatum, girrānum and nabrium festivals.46 In earlier times, festivals with these names are attested in northern Babylonia, but in the south, during the Ur III period, the evidence for them is strongest during the heyday of the Shulgi-simti archive and evidence for some of them seems to lessen considerably after that.47 One of these cultic events attested in the Ur III archives was the erubbatum, associated with the entrance/ entering of the divine presence.48 Another was the gerrānum or girrānum, which

43 Specifically, days 20–26 of months seven and eleven. W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.123–125 and pp.215 -216 and T. 71 and OBO 160/3 p. 259. The má-an-na is also discussed in Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in Altbabylonischer Zeit AOAT 257 p. 284, also now F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp.66 and 180. 44 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.217–218. M. Cohen has recently argued that the boat of heaven festival may possibly be linked to solstices and equinoxes, Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East pp. 217–221. 45 P. Steinkeller, “How did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?” in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS, pp. 459–478. 46 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 259. 47 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 259. 48 M. Hilgert, “Erubbatum im Tempel des Dagan,” JCS 46 (1994): 29–39. See also W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp.201–3 and OBO 160/3 p. 259. Also of interest here is B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Prozession(sstrasse),” RlA 11 (2007): 99: “During the Ur III period erubbatum was introduced as an Akkadian loanword into Sumerian for the ceremonial procession of various gods into their sanctuaries…”

252 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

appears to have been a sort of lamentation, perhaps particularly associated with Ištar and forms of Ištar.49 These rites often took place on the fifteenth and thirtieth days of the month.50 A bit more can be said about the nabrium and elūnum festivals. Nabrium: Nabrium, a well-known fall festival (for example in Old Babylonian Mari and Kish) gave its name to the 9th month of the “Akkadian’ calendar, appears rarely in Ur III texts.51 The etymology of the word is unclear. Ur III references to the nabrium concentrate in Ur between Shulgi 34 and 46, especially at the end of month 8 (days 20–25).52 For example, PDT 1.162 tells us of a nabrium in Ur for Annunitum and Ulmašitum in S45.08.25; another is attested in Ur for Annunitum according to Ontario 2.204 in S46.08.20, and less than a month later, another in Ur, this one for Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban according to TRU 282 (S46.09.05). Like the gerrānum, this nabrium festival appears to be associated with Ištar-like goddesses, such as Annunitum and Ulmašitum, as well as Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban.53 Elūnum: Elūnum festivals are perhaps the best known of all these festivals and rites with this name are also well-attested in later periods. Elūnum rites were associated with a large variety of gods and goddesses, and though there was an elūnum celebrated regularly in the second month of the year, elūnum rites could often occur at various times of the year.54 When held for a netherworld deity, elūnum rites could have a funerary focus, but those for other deities need not have been somber in nature.55 Sallaberger showed that, for Ur III times, the elūnum is mainly attested between Shulgi 40–41, with one possible earlier example in Shulgi 34. It can be associated with Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban or with Annunitum and

49 TCND’s commentary to text 184 “Il ge-ra-núm, (rito di) lamentazione’ è nei testi di Drehem collegato quasi esclusivamente a Inanna e alle divinità femmenile della sue cerchia.” He continued, “Questa cerimonia ci risulta attestata esclusivamente per il regno di Šulgi.” 50 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen pp.49, 69, 77–79. 51 M. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East pp. 285–287 and p. 260 note 2. Cohen now refers to this as the ‘Amorite’ calendar. 52 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.205 and T. 67, and F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen pp.49 and 69. 53 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.205 and OBO 160/3 p. 259; M. Sigrist, Drehem p.237. 54 M. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars p. 280. 55 See the data collected in M. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars pp. 277–282, though note that Cohen does see all the elūnum rites as netherworldly.



Festivals and Religious Observances 

 253

Ulmašitum, and seems to be localized in Ur.56 But, as D’Agostino showed, this rite was not limited to the time of Shulgi-simti alone: documents from the reign of Amar-Sin also attest to elūnum ceremonies.57 The new publication of tablets from Garshana has shown that elūnum rites for Nergal took place there.58 The elūnum festival was not limited to the Ur III period—it continued to be celebrated in Ur in Old Babylonian times.59 Richter showed that the elūnum continued to be celebrated in Uruk in the reign of Išbi-Erra,60 and it can even be found as far north as Tell Leilan.61 So while Shulgi-simti’s foundation certainly celebrated the elūnum, it does not appear to have been limited to her lifetime. Parenthetically, we may observe that Geme-Ninlilla also observed elūnum rites, as did Abi-simti later, once again suggesting that Shulgi-simti’s foundation did not stand in a vacuum.62 Sigrist associated the elūnum festival with the Semitic month name Ellul,63 but this is somewhat uncertain. Shulgi-simti’s elūnum observations do appear to be concentrated at a specific time of year, around months 2 and 3.64 In explaining the appearance of Semitic festival names in Ur around 2050 B.C., we must be aware of two camps on the topic of Sumerian-Akkadian language use. The first camp holds that, by the Ur III period, Akkadian had overtaken Sumerian as a spoken language; to some, Sumerian was already extinct and taught only in schools at this date.65 While I think there is strong evidence that Akkadian

56 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.114 and chart 65, also p. 202, as well as OBO 160/3 p. 259. 57 F. D’Agostino, “Ein neuer Text über Abī-simtī und das Elūnum-Fest in Puzriš-Dagān,” ZA 99 (1998): 1–5. One such text is PDT 2.1120 (AS4.02.02) 58 At least in the reigns of Shu-Sin and Ibbi-Sin according to published texts, such as CUSAS 3.19 (SS6.06.01) and CUSAS 3.1032 (IS 3.05.00). See M. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East p. 226. 59 J. Westenholz, “Women of Religion in Mesopotamia,” CSMJ 1 (2005): 39 and W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp. 202–203. An example of an elūnum to Inanna in Uruk dated to S47 has recently been put forward, M. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars p. 215. 60 T. Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens AOAT 257 p. 284. 61 F. D’Agostino, “Ein neuer Text über Abī-simtī und das Elūnum-Fest in Puzriš-Dagān,” ZA 99 (1998): 5, footnote 14. 62 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 202, according to YOS 4.240. Later on, Abi-simti also observed elunum rites (e.g. in MVN 20.31), as discussed by Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen p. 135. 63 M. Sigrist, Drehem p. 237, also discussed by W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 202. 64 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 202. 65 For example, G. Rubio, “Šulgi and the Death of Sumerian,” p. 174 in P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis (eds.), Approaches to Sumerian Literature FS Vanstiphout and “Šulgi el Políglota: Del Don de Lenguas y la Traducción en la Mesopotamia Antigua,” ISIMU II pp. 217–218, and C.

254 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

was thriving as a spoken language in Ur III times, I would question whether the reports of Sumerian’s demise were greatly exaggerated. There seem to have been pockets, particularly in the south east, where spoken Sumerian perdured.66 Equally clearly, even the “Sumerian heartland” shows strong evidence for Akkadian usage at this date. In my view, evidence for Akkadian as a spoken language does not equate to the death of Sumerian in that period. In any case, these scholars stress the existence of and importance of Akkadian as an (or even the) everyday language of the populace. Though none of these scholars have, to the best of my knowledge, written on the topic of the festival names, they probably would use the existence of the Semitic names as one more bit of evidence supporting the theory that Akkadian was the dominant language throughout the Ur III state. The second camp holds that traditional Sumerian religious practices and vocabulary should be expected in southern Babylonia at this time and the appearance of Semitic words is to be viewed as a break from Sumerian tradition that must be explained, perhaps even by the movements of persons or people. Schneider’s 1933 Orientalia article on Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban,67 written in a decade when ideas of Semitic influence on “other” cultures was in the air, stressed the Semitic nature of these deities and saw them as indicators of the greater trend toward the “Semiticization” of “Sumerian” culture.68 It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that in this school of thought, any Semitic festival or deity name found in Sumer at this date is automatically considered intrusive and many possible routes for importation have been suggested. The Semitic festival names in the Shulgi-simti archive have been deemed by some as imports simply on the basis of their language family. It is not uncommon to find scholars automatically falling back on the idea that these terms must have been imported, and then linking this with Shulgi-simti’s alleged origins in Eshnunna. Sometimes this is also linked to the alleged foreign origin of Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban. For instance, most recently, Weiershäuser wrote: “Dabei warden der Kult der von Šulgi-simtī mitgebrachen Göttinnen und die von ihr in Ur eingeführten akka-

Woods, “Bilingualism, Scribal Learning, and the Death of Sumerian,” in S. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, OIS 2, p. 95. A somewhat different view can be found in W. Sallaberger, “Sumerian Language Use at Garšana: On Orthography, Grammar, and Akkado-Sumerian Bilingualism,” pp. 335–372 in D. Owen (ed.), Garšana Studies. 66 For the view of Sumerian as a living language in Ur III times, see most recently J. Keetman, ZA 100 (2010): 15–31. 67 N. Schneider, “Das Götterpaar dBe-la-at-múš-nir ù dBe-la-at-dír-ra-ba-an,” AnOr 6 (1933): 13–23. 68 It is important to stress that there is nothing to suggest that Schneider was himself anti-Semitic, either in his writings or his biography.



Festivals and Religious Observances 

 255

dischen Feste wie das Elūnum-Fest oder das Nabrium-Fest getrennt von Kult der großen Götter des Landes, Nanna, Inanna, Enlil und Ninlil betrachtet…”69 And again, when referring to the often joint appearances of Annunitum and Ulmašitum with Belat-šuhnir and -terraban: “Gleichzeitig wird sie un vielen Textes aus dem Archiv von Šulgi-simtī zusammen mit Bēlat-Šuhnir und Bēlat-Deraban, den persönlichen Göttinnen der Königen, genannt. …In folgenden soll der Kult für Annunītum und der ihr verbunde Ulmašītum ebenso dargestellt warden wie die Feste mit akkadischen Names, die die Königin offenbar aus ihrer Heimat mit nach Ur gebracht hatte und in dened ihre persönlichen Göttinnen besondere Verehrung erfuhren.”70 But if we step back to examine the factual bases for such assertions, they appear to be absent. As previously stated, I am unaware of any evidence that Shulgi-simti came from Eshnunna or had a homeland outside Babylonia. I do not believe we can state categorically that Shulgi-simti was queen. I am unaware of any evidence that indicates that Belat-šuhnir and -terraban were Shulgi-simti’s personal goddesses; there are in fact strong reasons to suspect these two were worshipped already in Geme-Sin’s foundation. And I am uncomfortable in saying that any Semitic term in an Ur III text was imported. While I applaud the attempt of Weiershäuser and others to put the Shulgi-simti foundation into a historical context, a hypothesis unsupported by facts must clearly be labeled as speculation. In short, I do not believe that there is any reason to suggest that these observances with Semitic names such as the nabrium or elūnum were in any way non-local or abnormal; in my opinion, they may be evidence of the fruitful marriage of the Akkadian and Sumerian languages in the 21st century B.C. Trying to understand ancient festivities and annual celebrations on the basis of offering lists is difficult enough, even for well-attested events like the Akiti (New Year Celebrations) or the first-fruit offerings. Trying to reconstruct festivities and celebrations that are poorly attested and whose natures are poorly understood, such as the girranum or the má-an-na, is unlikely to yield many results. So let us move on to rites tied to phases of the moon and to offerings to places.

69 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen p. 49. 70 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen, p. 69.

256 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

Lunar Observances and Places Previous scholarship has already noted that lunar observances form a steady core of Shulgi-simti’s religious activities, especially associated with the ud-sakar, or new moon at the very start of the month, the é-ud-7, literally house of the seventh day, and the full moon, the é-ud-15 or around the fifteenth of the month. The thrice-monthly lunar festivals could be called èš-èš, literally “shrines.”71 Many lunar rites took place in the Nippur province and may be associated more with the NIN than with Shulgi-simti, as the next chapter suggests. Supplementing the two main categories receiving Shulgi-simti’s sacrifices, the Ishtar forms and the deities now obscure to us, were sacrifices made to architectural features or objects. That is, images of the divine king, the abzu (sweet waters), various gates and shrines and the river ordeal are all to be found here. The gates and shrines are the most frequent recipients.72 Offerings to architectural features such as gates and shrine buildings are attested in other contemporary archives, as Heimpel has shown for Girsu, for instance. 73 For the Ur III period and other phases of attested Mesopotamian history, rites of circumambulation— sometimes connected to offerings—were performed.74 With the exception of the Idlurugu, or river ordeal, which was deified, and the statue of the divine king, which may have been mouth-opened and thus in their minds ‘alive,’ these “miscellaneous” categories all fall into the category of inanimate things. To us, the distinction between a metal or wood “idol” (divine image) and a brick gate is not a yawning gap. But to the Babylonians of the third millennium, and especially those fluent in Sumerian, the animate- inanimate distinction was of major ideological and grammatical importance.75 Some of the offerings in Ur were for the dub-lá. Heimpel translated dub-lá as “gate tower,” 76 and clearly the offerings here are to an architectural feature. The

71 W. Sallaberger, Der kultische Kalender der Ur III.-Zeit pp.39 and 42, 46,56–58, 96. Sallaberger also discussed lunar festivals in “Königtum und Kult,” in W. Seipel (ed.), Von Babylon bis Jerusalem p.257. A recent discussion of the “shrines” occurs also in X. Ouyang and W. Brookman, “The Cuneiform Collection of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem,” CLDJ 2012 p. 22. 72 As Such-Gutiérrez observed, at Nippur there are many references to offerings for what he calls “Gegenstände,” (objects) including thrones, a plough, beds, emblems, buildings or parts thereof, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend p. 27. 73 W. Heimpel, JCS 48 (1996): 21–22; see also Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 299. 74 B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Prozession(sstrasse),” RlA 11 (2007): 101. 75 “Sumerian substantives lack gender, but are strictly divided into two classes: person and non-person.” D. O. Edzard, Sumerian Grammar p.29. 76 W. Heimpel, “The Gates of the Eninnu,” JCS 48 (1996): 24.



The Location of Offerings and Sacrifices 

 257

dub-lá-mah, or Great Gate Tower, referred to a specific part of a specific building: the portico (and perhaps adjacent courtyard) of Nanna’s temple in Ur, known to be colorfully decorated and which could serve as a site for legal proceedings.77 Other expenditures were allocated at the gate of the gipar. Offerings to the entryway to the cloister are attested in Ur III ceremonies of installation for en-priests and priestesses,78 so again these objects of veneration, while somewhat unusual, were not unheard-of or abnormal at the time.

The Location of Offerings and Sacrifices The Shulgi-simti foundation regularly expended sacrificial livestock in several places— Nippur, Ur, Uruk, and “the palace.” Less regularly, expenditures were also sometimes made in Tummal/ Esagdana and at unspecified or miscellaneous locations. Given that the foundation run by Shulgi-simti appears to have been small in scale, it may be somewhat surprising to find so many expenditures made in multiple locations. To move from the notation of this oddity to a hypothesis supported by firm data may not be possible, given the fragmentary preservation of this archive. So, while it would not be surprising if Shulgi-simti’s foundation had supported offerings in Puzriš-Dagan and its vicinity (which of course included the important sites of Nippur and the Ninlil-centered Tummal shrine), it is unexpected to find that so small and modestly-funded an organization operated over such distances as Ur is from Puzrish-Dagan. Two possible explanations spring to mind. On the one hand, perhaps Shulgi-simti’s foundation was assigned a regular subset of religious ceremonies and offerings, and every time these offerings were to occur, her foundation would have been in charge of them. We would not necessarily conclude that Shulgi-simti herself would have needed to be present; her officials could presumably have taken care of business as usual. On the other hand, one could imagine a different scenario, in which Shulgi-simti was far more directly and personally involved. Perhaps she was present in Ur when the sacrifices underwritten by her foundation took place. We have seen in chapters three, four and five that there is evidence linking Shulgi-simti to Ur, while Ninkalla may have been chiefly based in Nippur, though probably

77 P. Steinkeller, “A note on sa-bar,” ZA 75 (1985): 39 note 1. See more recently Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen p.170. 78 J. Westenholz, “Women of Religion,” CSMSJ 1 (2006): 35.

258 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

both travelled. Perhaps there was no set roster of sacrifices that her foundation had to make, but rather a plethora of possibilities from which she could choose, based on the appropriate circumstances of the day. The wishes of the donor(s) who provided the livestock may also have been taken into consideration. If this were true, one would have to assume that there were alternate sources of funding for the regular sacrifices. Of course, one could have a hybrid of these two scenarios, that Shulgi-simti may have had a few events that she regularly (always?) supported,79 whereas other sacrifices may have been the result of ad-hoc choices. It may be helpful to look geographically, that is, at which cities offerings are being made, and then thematically, to see if breaking the deities venerated into groups helps us to understand the rationale for the seemingly miscellaneous collection of sacrifices attested. As has long been realized in previous scholarship, the main focus of activity in the Shulgi-simti archive was Ur.

Ur Ur has the largest number of attested sacrifices, more than one hundred different instances are recorded in the tablets summarized in the charts. Ur may have been the epicenter of Shulgi-simti’s influence. Her expenditures there occurred over a span of about 15 years, from S3380 to S47.81 Despite the frequent attestations and the long stretch of time, the total number of animals that were expended in these sacrifices was quite small.

The Foundation’s Religious Activities in the Nippur Province The Shulgi-simti foundation did conduct some sacrifices and offerings in the Nippur province. Nippur was already crowded with official state gods, being home not only to Enlil, the head of the pantheon, and his wife Ninlil,82 but also Ninurta, the patron god of the city, Inanna and multitudinous other “lesser”

79 For example, as Sallaberger noted, Shulgi-simti’s foundation does regularly seem to make offerings for lunar phases, such as the new moon at the first of the month, the seventh day of the month, and the full moon at the Ides, see Kultische Kalender p.39 and p.42. 80 According to PDT 2.1017, S33a.05. 81 According to OIP 115.127, S47.09.00. 82 Ninlil’s home was of course, properly speaking, Tummal.



What Pantheon is this? 

 259

gods and goddesses. The veneration of the official state pantheon was of course the responsibility of the king himself (though the governor of Nippur did have some obligations towards the city’s patron god, Ninurta, as all provincial governors in Ur III times had for their city’s chief deity), and one would not expect a third-ranking concubine, if Shulgi-simti is rightly to be described so, to be much involved. The Queen—that is, Nin-kalla, did have official obligations with regard to Ninlil’s cult; these will be detailed in the next chapter.

Uruk The following text is an example of the types of sacrifices expended in Uruk by Abilya. OIP 115. 62 1 gud ú 3 udu niga má-an-na-šè 1 udu niga èš ge6-zal 1 udu ú dna-na-a šag4 unugki-ga gìri i-bí-iq-èr-ra iti-ta-25 ba-ra-zal “1 grass-fed ox, 3 fattened sheep, for the boat of heaven festival, 1 fattened sheep for the Gizal-shrine, 1 grass-fed sheep for the goddess Nanayya, In Uruk, via Ipiq-Erra, the 25th day having passed from the month.”

In Uruk, Nanayya and Inanna appear to be the goddesses receiving most of the livestock provisions. Additionally, in Uruk sacred places received a number of sacrifices from the Shulgi-simti foundation, the gate of the Gipar (cloister) or the gate of the shrine.

What Pantheon is this? To explain Shulgi-simti’s choices of deities, many have fallen back on the explanation of foreign influence. For instance, Weiershäuser’s monograph informs us that Shulgi-simti particularly cared for those goddesses she brought back with her from her “Homeland,” — “kümmerte sich Šulgi-simtī intensiv um den Kult

260 

 Chapter 10 Sacrifice: An Overview of the Cultic Events

verschiedner Göttinnen, die sie aus ihrer Heimat mitgebracht hatte.”83 Two additional possibilities present themselves  – first, that Shulgi-simti’s foundation focused on lower-ranking goddesses from provincial areas, second, that it concentrated heavily on various forms of Ishtar.

83 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen p. 47.

Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen and the Concubine(s) If the reader does not feel very satisfied that he or she has understood much about the religious activities carried out under the aegis of the Shulgi-simti foundation after reading the last chapter, he or she will have shared in the author’s sentiments. This chapter argues that we can begin to detect substantial differences between what the queen did in the venue of religion and what Shulgi-simti did. The queen appears to have been involved in the female side of official, state religion, in an echo of the old temple-household pattern by which a ruler’s wife mirrored the female side of the pantheon. Some of the queen’s activities were supported by the Shulgi-simti foundation. The queen could also worship other, lesser deities and could act together with the concubines. Shulgi-simti focused on a quartet of north Babylonian goddesses, supplemented with a large number of ad-hoc sacrifices. Unfortunately, we know little about the nature of at least some of these deities, particularly the two most frequently mentioned in her archive, Belat-šuhnir and Belet-terraban. Other goddesses favored by the foundation include a number of forms of Inanna-Ishtar. Previous scholarship, as we have seen started with the assumption that Shulgi-simti was queen, was a princess from a foreign house and for this reason worshipped foreign goddesses from her homeland, producing a nice tidy explanation for the predominance of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban in this archive. But as scholars we must be careful not to treat speculations as facts, not to engage in circular arguments and not to be so blinded by our theories that we fail to account for the data itself. I have argued in a previous chapter that Shulgi-simti was not NIN but held the title lukur or lukur-kaskal-la. The NIN was, in my view, Nin-kalla. This last postulation may be incorrect, still it remains to be proven that Shulgi-simti was ever queen and thus I think we must entertain the possibility that NIN and Shulgi-simti refer to two different women. Upon doing this, we can begin to see distinctions in what the NIN venerated (important goddesses like Ninlil) and what Shulgi-simti venerated (very frequently a quartet of goddesses, Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban, Annunitum and Ulmašitum). But like most other things in the Shulgi-simti archive, the edges are blurry rather than absolutely clear-cut: sometimes Shulgi-simti’s foundation appears to help with what the queen normally took care of. Sometimes, rarely, the queen herself assisted Shulgi-simti. Furthermore, I will argue that Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban are more problematic than most give them credit for. The pair probably (though not certainly) derive from the DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-011

262 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

Eshnunna region, but Eshnunna was a core province within the Ur III state and cannot be considered foreign. Since Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban occur generally in conjunction with Annunitum and Ulmašitum, North Babylonian Ishtar forms, it seems likely to me that all four were regional goddesses. I do not believe that their veneration in the Shulgi-simti archive necessarily has any bearing on Shulgi-simti’s birthplace, as examples from later in the history of Early Mesopotamia show us. Therefore, the model I propose for understanding the venerations in the Shulgi-simti archive is largely hierarchical. The queen was, in my model, responsible for worshipping Enlil and Ninlil, while some concubines were allowed to worship lesser, regional goddesses. There also appear to have been geographic divisions: Shulgi-simti more frequently worked in Ur, and the NIN more frequently in the Nippur province. Thus Shulgi-simti favored a quartet of what appear to be largely North Babylonian goddesses, at least two of them martial Ištar forms, and she also conducted various activities in Ur, which was an important residence for her. Geme-Ninlilla’s foundation is, alas, in far too fragmentary a state to tell us what her share of the pantheon may have been.

Major Gods: Enlil and Ninlil, the Purview of the Queen Though Nanna, the moon god, was the patron deity of Ur, where his wife (Ningal) also played an important role, the head of the pantheon was Enlil in Nippur. Ninlil, although obviously Enlil’s wife, was not a bland spouse in a secondary cella of his temple, but was a powerful goddess in her own right. She had her own temple and cult city (Tummal), in the Nippur province. A Shulgi hymn calls Ninlil NIN Tummal, the Queen of Tummal.1 Her festival in month eight was of major importance, celebrating ploughing and seeding.2 For a long time, scholars have recognized that there is evidence in the Shulgi-simti archive for the same sort of parallelism (as above, so below) between the ruler’s family and the gods that we see so clearly in Early Dynastic Lagash, for instance. Sallaberger showed that the activities of the queen in the Shulgi-simti archive are like a woman’s parallel world: the king worshipped Enlil first, then Ninlil; the queen worshipped Ninlil first, then Enlil.3 There is also a difference

1 M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur in 3. Jahrtausend p. 109 and p. 118. 2 M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur in 3. Jahrtausend p. 119. 3 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 pp. 259–260. F. Weiershäuser also remarked on this pattern, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 49–50.

Enlil 

 263

in quantity of animals offered: the king offered more to Enlil; the queen more to Ninlil.4 Since Shulgi-simti was identified as the queen, it did not make sense to see activities undertaken by Shulgi-simti as different from activities said to be carried out by or via the queen; thus the division in labour I am suggesting between the queen’s offerings to Enlil and Ninlil in Nippur and Shulgi-simti’s other sacrificial activities were not suggested previously. But I think the data is suggestive of the argument that the queen was responsible for Enlil and Ninlil. There are a few examples where the queen is not mentioned (such as MVN 18.68). Possibly it was obvious to the scribe that such sacrifices would be done by the queen, or perhaps this was an exceptional case (the Shulgi-simti archive is not characterized by rigidity, but rather fluidity).

Enlil Text

Date

What

From

in

Via

SAT 2.153

36.10.00

Enlil

2

udu

Beli-tab

/

NIN-gá

OIP 115.32

37.01.00

Enlil

3

udu

Beli-tab kurušda

Nibru

NIN -gá

SRD 5

40.11.18

Enlil

3

udu

Abiliya

/

NIN -gá

MVN 18.68

41.02.04

Enlil

2

udu

Abiliya

/

/

OR 18.6.21

42.03.14

Enlil

3

udu

Apilatum

Nibru

/

MVN 18.71

43.10.05

Enlil

2

udu

Apilatum

Nibru

/

PDT 1.370

45a.02.00 Enlil

1

udu

Kalam-henagi

/

Aa-Nanna -arkalla

PDT 1.645

45a.05.14 Enlil

1

udu

Kalam-henagi

/

/

1

udu

Ur-lugal-eden-ka

Nibru

/

Bab. 7.19.4 46.11.05

Enlil

If one looks at the evidence in the Shulgi-simti archive for the worship of Ninlil, then one can find a strong correlation between the appearance of the queen (NIN) or men who we know to have been part of a foundation similar but not identical to Shulgi-simti’s (quite possibly working for the queen’s foundation). For instance, the offerings to Ninlil via NIN-gá occur in OIP 115.32 (S37.01.00), CST 44 (S37.05.00) and SRD 5 (S40.11.18). Other offerings to Ninlil come not from Shulgi-simti’s

4 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 260. This is also discussed in Weiershäuser’s Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 49–50.

264 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

employees, but from Kalam-henangi, whom we have already met in chapter eight; he appears in texts with the queen, who was very likely his employer.5 Thus, if I am right in saying that Shulgi-simti was not the queen, and the queen was Ninkalla, then we can see that Nin-kalla was in charge of Ninlil, which makes perfect sense as she was, after all, the highest in rank and apparently centered in Nippur anyway. Sometimes Shulgi-simti’s foundation would help Nin-kalla by providing animals to her, but Shulgi-simti herself does not appear to have been involved in these religious observances to Ninlil. Having said that, there are a handful of exceptions, tablets in which offerings to Ninlil are expended by Shulgi-simti’s own bureau chiefs without any mention of the NIN.6 It is possible that the accountants knew perfectly well that any expenditure to Ninlil would go through the queen and therefore didn’t always write “via NIN-gá” on the tablet, or it is possible that on occasion one of the lukurs could fill in for Nin-kalla’s usual duties.

Further Venerations by the Queen To suggest that the queen’s only religious activities in Nippur were to honor Ninlil and her spouse Enlil would be misleading. Over and over again, the tablets show us a pattern of offerings by the queen in Nippur not just to Enlil and Ninlil, but also to Alla-gula, Allatum, Nin-gagia and sometimes the image or statue of the (divine) king himself.7 To us, Allatum and Alla-gula sound very similar, but we should keep in mind that they were very different: Alla-gula, a male deity, was a form of the god Damu and the vizier of Nin-gišzida, whereas Allatum was a Hurrian goddess, mother of Hebat, and had underworld associations.8 Though as a general rule the queen’s religious acts occurred in Nippur, the queen sometimes did go to Uruk9 and to Ur and make sacrifices there. At Ur, for

5 Kalam-henagi’s bureau expended offerings to Ninlil for example in PDT 1.370 (S45a.02.00), PDT 1.645 (S45a.05.14), Rochester 22 (S48.01.10). 6 These are MVN 18.71 (S34.10.05), MVN 18.68 (S41.02.04) and Bab.7.19.4 (S46.11.05). 7 Examples include (but are not limited to) SACT 2.153 (S36.10.00), OIP 115.32 (S37.01.00), CST 44 (S37.05.00) and SRD 5 (S40.11.18). This pattern of veneration was discussed by W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 19 and OBO 160/3 p. 259. 8 On Alla-gula, see W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender pp. 45–6 and note 192; on Allatum (also known as Allani), M. Popko, Religions of Asia Minor p. 99. These were both referred to in my own “Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court,” SCCNH 12 (2002): 91–114. 9 As in MVN 18.56 (S35.10.00).



Gods of the Main Pantheon 

 265

instance, she sacrificed to the river ordeal (Idlurugu).10 But sometimes (rarely), the queen made the kind of offerings in Ur that we might associate more with Shulgi-simti, that is, offerings to Annunitum or even Belat-šuhnir.11 It would be quite logical to assume that, while Nin-kalla usually stayed in Nippur, she occasionally came to Ur with her husband, and might participate in the religious rites practiced there. Thus, we can see a basic overall pattern: when the queen is mentioned as the conveyor, the offerings tend to be in the Nippur province and tend to reflect the female side of the main state religion. Weiershäuser noticed this pattern, but failed to see its importance as she followed the opinion that Shulgi-simti and the queen were the same person.12

Shulgi-simti’s Sacrifical Activities Shulgi-simti’s foundation is perhaps best known for worshipping goddesses, not just Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban (whom we shall investigate below), but also a number of forms of Inanna-Ishtar and other deities, both male and female. We may note a general preference for religious activities in Ur and Uruk, which comports well with the idea outlined in chapters five and six that different wives were mainly headquartered in different palaces.

Gods of the Main Pantheon Although the Shulgi-simti foundation seems to have shown a marked preference in provisioning the cults of goddesses over gods, some male deities, especially Nanna, Iškur and others do appear in offering lists. This paucity of first-ranking male gods is not surprising. Gods of this rank had their own entrenched religious establishments and rites: the contributions of an ad-hoc membership of a foundation run by a concubine were not needed and may, if offered, even have been considered unsuitable or presumptuous.

10 According to JCS 35.183.1 (S46.05.21). 11 MVN 13.715 (S45.08.19), and again JCS 35.183.1 (S46.05.21). 12 “… in Nippur waren diese persönlichen Göttinnen Šulgi-simtīs ohne Bedeutung, in dieser Stadt vollzog die Königin Riten im Rahmen des offiziellen Kult, während sie in der Haupt- und Residenzenstadt Ur neben dem offiziellen Kult auch jenen ihrer persölichen Gottheiten pflegen konnte.” F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 51.

266 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

The storm-god Iškur received offerings quite frequently in the Shulgi-simti archive. Aside from one early outlier, the evidence for the veneration of Iškur clusters between Shulgi’s years 41–47. We are very familiar with the storm god from later Babylonian panthea, but, as Richter reminds us, he appears to have been fairly new to the southern areas of the Ur II state: “Ein Kult des Wettergottes Iškur/Adad ist erst seit der Ur III-Zeit in der Stadt Ur nachzuweisen.”13 Most of the animals are described as sá-dug4, “regular deliveries,” some are tied to more precise religious events, such as sízkur, “prayer,” or the enigmatic nígki-zàh.14 The location most commonly specified was Ur. A man named Mashum occurs here regularly as a requisitioner (maškim). This was not an uncommon name, and it is not clear whether he is the same as the cupbearer (sagi) attested in nearly contemporaneous texts or the same as the servant of Ur-Sin the general of Uruk.15 Text

Date

Deity Cultic Event

No. Commod. From

Where

Via

Requisitioner

TCS 223

36.05.00 Iškur /

1

udu

Beli-tab

Ur

/

Mašum maškim

2

udu

Abiliya

/

CST 52

41.01.00 Iškur níg-kizah 1

udu

Abiliya

Ur

Abiliya Mašum maškim

Ont. 1.16

41.01.15 Iškur sízkur

1

udu

/

/

/

DoCu 313

41.09.03 Iškur sízkur

1

udu

Abiliya

/

/

MVN 18.72 45.07.15 Iškur níg-kizah 1

udu

Ur-lugal- Tummal / eden-ka

OIP 115.62 40.11.30 Iškur sízkur

+ palace

13 T. Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit p. 477 and p. 136. 14 The meaning of the term is not very clear, as noted by M. Sigrist, Drehem p.239 and W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.43. Sallaberger thought it might possibly be connected the new moon phase (that is, when the moon appears to have disappeared), generally held by the Babylonians to be unpropitious. Westenholz proposed a different scenario, in which a deity’s cult statue was actually removed from the cella: “Included in this ritual was the actual removal of the statue from the temple.” “The place of disappearance might be related to the motif of the goddess disappearing in the netherworld.” J. G. Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” in I. Finkel and M. Geller (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations p. 62 and note 42. The evidence on which she bases these assertions is not evident to me. 15 Mašum the servant of Ur-Sin, see Trouvaille 74, AS1.01.00; the sagi, attested for instance on AUCT 2.97 (no date preserved) or ASJ 14.102.4 (S46.09.06).

 267

Ninsun 

Table (continued) Text

Date

Deity Cultic Event

No. Commod. From

Via

Requisitioner

Ur-lugal- / eden-ka

/

/

MVN 13.75 45.08.19 Iškur /

1

MVN 18.73 45.09.13 Iškur / X

2+X udu

Ur-lugal- Ur eden-ka

/

JCS 35,183,146a.05.21 Iškur /

1

udu

Ur-lugal- Ur eden-ka

Šulgi-ili /

PTS 2.126

1

udu

Šulgi-ili

/

/

OIP 115.127 47.09.00 Iškur /

1

udu

Šulgi-ili

Ur

Mašum /

MVN 2.165 47.10.19 Iškur sá-dug4

1

udu

Šulgi-ili

Ur

/

MVN 18.87 47.11.07 Iškur X

X

udu

Šulgi-ili

/

NIN-gá /

47.06.16 Iškur sá-dug4

udu

Where

/

Shulgi-simti is, however, perhaps best known for her worship of goddesses.

Ninsun In contrast with the offerings to Ninlil and Enlil, in which the notation “gìri NIN-gá” (via the queen) almost always appears, tablets recording offerings to Ninsun almost never involved the queen, as the following chart shows. Ninsun was Ur-Namma’s personal goddess.16 In most families, a son would take on his father’s personal goddess, so should we then assume that Ninsun was also Shulgi’s personal goddess? Ninsun was of course associated with the Uruk tradition.17 Of the eight tablets listed below in the chart, half date to the 30th day of the month and one to the 28th day. A connection to the end of the month is thus evident. Shulgi-simti’s bureau chiefs, Abiliya and Apilatum, account for the known expenditures to Ninsun, which number fewer than ten at present. Often performed at the end of the month, the animals sacrificed to Ninsun were always called sízkur, never sá-dug4, regular offerings/ deliveries.

16 According to the evidence of Ur-Namma inscription number 23, Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 59. 17 T. Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit pp. 321 ff.

268 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

Text

Date

Deity

Cultic Event No. Commod. From

Where Via

RA 19,192.4 34.07.00

Ninsun

/

1

udu

/

/

Tab-x-šum

MVN 18.66

40.10.28

Ninsun

sízkur

1

udu

Abiliya

/

/

OIP 115.62

40.11.30

Ninsun

/

1

udu

Abiliya

/

TRU 274

41.01.30

Ninsun

sízkur

1

udu

Abiliya

/

/

OIP 115.80

42.08.30

Ninsun

/

1

udu

Apilatum /

/

CST 467

42.02.30

Ninsun

/

1

udu

/

/

/

OIP 115.79

42.07.09

Ninsun

/

1

udu

/

/

/

DoCu 299

47.09.20

Ninsun

/

1

udu

/

/

/

There were also many, many other offerings to various deities attested in the Shulgi-simti archive. If one had to strip away all the irregular offerings, however, what would be left as the essence of the foundation seems to be the veneration of four core goddesses, two of them martial Ishtar forms, two of them of unknown nature (namely, Annunitum, Ulmašitum, Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban). Let us begin with the deities whose nature we understand best.

Forms of Inanna-Ishtar The goddess Inanna-Ishtar continues to fascinate many modern scholars and much has been written about her long and rich history. Wilcke’s encyclopedia entry on Inanna-Ishtar needed thirteen subsections!18 Some recent work has suggested that modern scholarship overstresses her amatory aspect and minimizes her martial side.19 One could easily write a monograph on Ishtar in Ur III sources, but in the context of the Shulgi-simti archive, a much briefer introduction will have to suffice. Attestations of this goddess are almost as old as cuneiform writing itself. The Sumerian writing for Inanna (dMÙŠ) occurs in tablets from the Uruk period on.20 A very early god list from Fara lists her already in the third position, after An and

18 C. Wilcke, “Inanna/ Ištar,” RlA 5 (1976–80): 74–87. 19 I. Zsolnay, “Ištar, ‘Goddess of War, Pacifier of Kings,” pp. 389–402 in L. Kogan (ed.), Language in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 53. 20 P. Steinkeller, “Inanna’s Archaic Symbol,” pp. 87–97 in J. Braun et al. (eds.), Written on Clay and Stone Szarzynska FS.



Forms of Inanna-Ishtar 

 269

Enlil, before Enki or any other goddess.21 Well-known in Sumerian literature, for instance, the Dumuzi-Inanna cycles, the young Inanna was impetuous, loving and sometimes vengeful, often rushing headlong into situations without taking adult’s advice. The Akkadian equivalent, Ishtar, or perhaps more accurately for the third millennium, Eštar, is also attested very early. Syncretized with the Sumerian Inanna, it is unclear whether we have simply two different names, one Sumerian, one Semitic, for the same goddess, or whether there were actual differences between Inanna and Ishtar. Scholars have debated this point for some years. Adding to our trouble is the fact that “Inanna/ Ishtar” appears to have been something of an umbrella term. It has often been stated that Ishtar’s worship was promoted during the Sargonic dynasty,22 but this has not been a universally-accepted idea. We do know that Naram-Sin built four or five different temples to her in various locations.23 The majority of third millennium B.C. deities, gods and goddesses, had definable hometowns. The warrior Nin-girsu came, for example, from Girsu; the crafty god Enki came from Eridu and while he ended up being worshipped in other towns too after Eridu became less important, he nevertheless was always the god of Eridu. There are a few exceptional gods, such as Shamash, who had homes in both Larsa and Sippar. But the major exception to the pattern one god, one town is Inanna-Ishtar herself. At home in two of the epicenters of power in the Pre-Sargonic period, Uruk and Kish, she also had major shrines in Nippur, Akkade, Girsu, Zabalam, Isin, Assur etc etc.24 It is easy for us to equate all these as the same, forms of the same goddesses with different divine zipcodes (as it were). Beckman, however, in his analysis of different Ishtar forms in Hittite sources, cautions us that ancient minds did not necessarily see these local forms as the “same”—each local deity had, as he put it, built up a c.v. and had a distinct history and identity in his or her own town.25

21 C. Wilcke, “Inanna/ Ištar,” RlA 5 (1976–80): 75. 22 For instance, one may find such assertions in M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend p. 32, and A. Westenholz, OBO 160/3 p. 49 with previous scholarship. 23 These were Akkade, Nineveh, Zabalam and Adab, and perhaps Babylon, according to B. Foster, “Clothing in Sargonic Mesopotamia: Visual and Written Evidence,” in C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennium B.C., p. 114. 24 C. Wilcke, “Inanna/ Ištar,” RlA 5 (1976–80): 74–87. 25 G. Beckman, “Ištar of Nineveh Reconsidered,” JCS 50 (1998): 4 and note 47.

270 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

Beckman wrote of Ishtar in Hittite sources, “lists of divine witnesses from the Empire period usually place unmodified Ištar, sometimes followed by Ištar of the Battlefield, before the goddess of Nineveh, who in turn precedes all other local types. Geographic and other epithets and seldom interchangeable, and a deity does not often bear more than one epithet at a time. I believe we are dealing with hypostases of a single divine archetype…In some respects these Ištar-figures partake of a common essence, while in others they are distinct, as demonstrated by the individual offerings made on occasion to large numbers of such Ištars.”26 In later Babylonia, one very powerful goddess dominated. The deity in charge of war and sex, and also Venus, Ishtar was infinitely alluring but also impetuous, unpredictable, and dangerous.27 In an influential article published in 1991, Harris proposed that “Inanna-Ishtar was a paradox; that is, she embodied within herself polarities and contraries, and thereby she transcended them. She was, to put it somewhat differently, a deity who incorporated fundamental and irreducible paradoxes.”28 Both the quintessential woman and having male pursuits and traits, Ishtar was the mother or mate or the highest (the king), but the patron of the lowest (the sex workers).29 Ishtar also had an important role as the mediator between the divine council and humanity, as Pongratz-Leisten observed.30 Harris’s article treats Inanna-Ishtar as a single entity and does not attempt to trace the evolution of the goddess through space and time.31 One might therefore raise the question, whether the essentially contradictory nature of the goddess was the end result of syncretism of originally different goddesses, or inherent in and fundamental to the nature of the deity herself? Here we run into a problem of evidence, because although third millennium sources attest to Inanna-Ishtar as the patron goddess of such various places as Assur, Uruk and Zabalam (to name just a few), it is almost impossible to know from these sources what the salient characteristics of the local Ishtars were. Systematic inquiry into the nature of, and possible differences among, various goddesses of these locations remains a desideratum but certainly not a task that can fit into a paragraph or two in a book on quite another topic. My working hypothesis is that, by the reign of

26 G. Beckman, “Ištar of Nineveh Reconsidered,” JCS 50 (1998): 4. 27 R. Harris, “Inanna-Ishtar as a Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites,” History of Religions 30 (1991): 262–3. 28 R. Harris, “Inanna-Ishtar as a Paradox,” History of Religions 30 (1991): 263. 29 R. Harris, “Inanna-Ishtar as a Paradox,” History of Religions 30 (1991): 269–271. 30 B. Pongratz-Leisten, “When the Gods are Speaking,” in M. Köchert and M. Nissinnen (eds.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel p. 141. 31 “Inanna-Ishtar as a Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites,” History of Religions 30 (1991): 261, especially footnote 2.

Annunitum 

 271

Shulgi, Inanna-Ishtar was a complex goddess incorporating most (if not all) of the paradoxes Harris outlines, but that certain strands of Inanna-Ishtar’s character could be highlighted by worshipping her “beiforms.” Thus, when her identity as the Venus “star” was primary, she was known as Nin-sianna and might receive offerings separately under that name (perhaps in addition to regular offerings for Inanna-Ishtar herself). When her martial aspect was to receive the most attention, she might be venerated as Annunitum or Ulmašitum. This is not to suggest that Nin-sianna or Ulmašitum were not forms of Ishtar: they were at some level Inanna-Ishtar, but brought out and emphasized certain elements of her divine personality.

Variations on a Theme? In the archive of Shulgi-simti, offerings are made to Inanna and also to what in later times were forms of Ishtar or interchangeable with Ishtar, namely Annunitum, Ulmašitum, Nanayya and Išhara. As we shall see, disentangling their identities at this time is particularly challenging.

Annunitum “The war goddess of the kings of Akkade”32 was the form of Ishtar worshipped in Sargonic Aššur.33 The name Annunitum itself may derive from a Semitic root, ‘nn, “warlike,” according to Gödecken, though others have derived the name in other ways.34 Amar-Sin refers to Innana nin-mè, “lady/ mistress of battle,” presumably Annunitum, as his beloved wife. An inscription of Shu-Sin, the third king of the dynasty, calls this goddess his wife and details the shrine he built for

32 W. Sallaberger described her as “die kriegerische Göttin der Könige von Akkad,” OBO 160/3 p.259, Weiershäuser as “eine Ištargestalt mit dem Aspekt der kriegerischer Göttin,” Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 48. 33 H. Neumann, “Assur in altakkadischer Zeit,” in H. Waetzoldt et al. (eds.), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten p.133. 34 K. Gödecken, UF 5 (1973): 153–4. Such-Gutiérrez accepts her etymology for the same, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend p. 319. Annunitum is also briefly discussed by G. Selz, “Five Divine Ladies,” NIN 1 (2000): 34–35.

272 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

her.35 Similarly, Sargonic divine kings like Naram-Sin married Annunitum.36 Why they married the martial rather than the sexy Ishtar remains conceptually unclear today but no doubt was explicable at the time. Given that Naram-Sin, Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin, all kings claiming divinity, describe a marriage with Annunitum, it is relevant to wonder whether Shulgi also made such a claim. Supposing that he did conceive of a marriage with Annunitum (whatever that may have meant), then in a sense Annunitum and Shulgi-simti were co-wives of the same man. One could see how Annunitum then might have taken a special place at the forefront of the forms of Ishtar among the royal wives. However, the extant data in fact seems to show Annunitum’s shrines diminishing. We know that a shrine in the Eresh area to Annunitum was shut down and its temple treasures returned to the crown in the third decade or so of Shulgi’s reign (as were shrines to the goddesses Nin-egal and Nin-hursaga).37 Later on, her main cult center was in Sippar, and it is not unlikely that this was already her principal shrine. An important festival for Annunitum was a cultic banquet (kaš-dé-a) that happened seasonally in late summer, though not on the same day every year; there may have been an erubbatum, or “entering” of the divine statue associated with it.38 In the Shulgi-simti archive, very often Annunitum and Ulmašitum are lumped together, as described below: the central location for both cults appears to have been Ur according to the extant texts. That is to say, the goddesses apparently at home in northern Mesopotamia,39 Akkade and Assur, were worshipped in southern Babylonia as imports. (They may well have been worshipped extensively in northern Babylonia too, though our published sources do not allow us

35 Shu-Sin RIME 3/2.1.4.20, pp. 330–331. See also T. Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit p. 470 and note 2013. The inscription, written on a door socket from Ur now in the Iraq Museum, as well as on a piece now in the British Museum, reads “{To} Annunitum, his spouse, Shu-Sin, beloved of Enlil, the king whom Enlil called beloved in his heart, the mighty king, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, built her a shrine/ temple.” It is interesting to me that the inscription stresses Enlil and his thoughts and feelings far more than the honoree, Annunitum. 36 B. Kienast, “Naramsin mut dINANNA,” Orientalia 59 (1990): 198–199, 203; see also P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur,” OIS 4 (2008): p. 34. 37 P. Michalowski, “Round about Nidaba: On the Early Goddesses of Sumer,” in S. Parpola and R. Whiting (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East p. 417; also discussed by P. Paoletti, Der König und Sein Kreis p. 101. 38 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 70–71. 39 Gödecken stresses Annunitum’s identification with “nordmesopotamische Gottheiten.” UF 5 (1973) : 151–2.

Ulmašitum 

 273

any window onto that region in this period). I think this is an important point to keep in mind when we consider Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban. If we are going to argue that it was Shulgi-simti’s personal piety that brought Belat-šuhnir and -terraban into veneration at Ur, are we also arguing the same for Annunitum and Ulmašitum, who are often mentioned together in the same breath in the texts, as it were? If Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban’s probable Diyala origins are alleged to be indications of Shulgi-simti’s own homeplace, then why are Annunitum and Ulmašitum’s ignored? And why does the evidence for veneration of these goddesses both earlier and later than Shulgi-simti’s foundation not indicate a possible problem with this explanation?

Ulmašitum The difference in the divine nature or essence between Annunitum and Ulmašitum is not clear to me: both were martial forms of Ishtar. They did live in different locations. Ulmašitum was the patron goddess of the city of Akkade (the capital of the former dynasty, which, if we are to believe literary evidence, was destroyed prior to the beginning of the Ur III period). Ulmašitum takes her name from her shrine, é-ul-maš. Naram-Sin of Akkade used ulmaš as the divine name-element for at least three of his children: Ukin-ulmaš, Nabi-ulmaš and ME-ulmaš.40 The status of the é-ul-maš shrine in Ur III times remains unknown; but its city— Akkade—does not seem to have been a place of importance at this time (certainly it was not a provincial capital and hardly occurs in the administrative archives). Ulmašitum’s cult in Ur III times appears strongest in Ur, and she and Annunitum appear like twin sisters, generally to be found in one another’s company in the texts, though still distinct. Sallaberger had already noted some years ago that there is evidence to suggest that Annunitum and Ulmašitum were worshipped “in einer Palastkapelle.”41 Annunitum and Ulmašitum – the militaristic forms of Ishtar—were not the only forms of this goddess worshipped by the Shulgi-simti foundation.

40 D. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods RIME 2 p. 157. 41 W. Sallaberger, OBO 160/3 p. 259.

274 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

Nanayya Westenholz, who has written extensively on this goddess, could not identify a clear etymology (and thus a clear normalization/ spelling) of the name, concluding “the origin of Nanaya’s name is lost in antiquity.”42 She has argued that Nanayya is a love goddess best attested in Uruk, similar to or even the same as Ishtar of Uruk.43 Steinkeller emphasized her identity with Ishtar in the form of Venus, calling her a Doppelgänger. But he also noted a tradition in which Ishtar was Nanayya’s mother.44 Weiershäuser identified her salient aspect as her geneaology, as “the daughter of An.”45 Richter’s 2004 position was more equivocal: “Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis zwischen Inana/Ištar und Nanâ läßt sich nicht eindeutig beantworten.”46 Such variant traditions and lost etymologies are hardly unusual in the Sumero-Akkadian pantheon, but they are usually characteristic of deities whose veneration is centuries old. Therefore it is somewhat surprising that Westenholz showed that Nanayya does not seem to occur on Early Dynastic god lists and may in fact first appear in the Shulgi-simti archive in Shulgi’s 35th regnal year!47 At least later on in the Ur III period, celebrations involving Nanayya tended to be in Uruk. Westenholz argued she was part of the má-an-na festival.48 In the reign of Shu-Sin, Nanayya was honored in a circumambulatory procession.49 The veneration of Nanayya continued into the Old Babylonian period and well beyond, but it seems that, according to Old Babylonian evidence marshaled

42 J. Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” in I. Finkel and M. Geller, (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations p. 58. (She spelled the name with one y). Such-Gutiérrez simply remarks that the etymology of the name is unclear at present, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur p. 344. 43 J. Westenholz, “Great Goddesses in Mesopotamia: The Female Aspect of Divinity,” BCSMS 37 (2002): 20–21. 44 P. Steinkeller, “How Did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?” in A. Winitzer and D. Vanderhooft (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS pp.459–478. 45 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p.48, see also pp. 57 and 64. 46 Th. Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit AOAT 257, p. 128. 47 J. Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” in I. Finkel and M. Geller, (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations p. 60. 48 J. Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” in I. Finkel and M. Geller, (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations p. 62. See also F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 57 and p. 64. 49 In Shu-Sin 1 month 10, according to PDT 2.1146 and AnOr 7.58, see J. Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” in I. Finkel and M. Geller, (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations p. 62.



Ishtar-Forms in the Shulgi-simti Archive 

 275

by Streck and Wasserman, in this context Ishtar and Nanayya were not necessarily one and the same.50 For example, a Larsa tablet published by Veldhuis refers to a temple of both Ištar and Nanayya, with specific rites being performed and specific equipment dedicated to Nanayya.51

Išhara52 Išhara is an interesting goddess with a long and complex history. She could be represented as a scorpion.53 In the early pantheon of Syria, she was the spouse of Dagan, who was the head of the gods, and hence she was a very important deity (and perhaps queen of that pantheon). But she also occurred in the early Semitic pantheon of Babylonia. Known at times as the “Lady of Love,” and sharing certain erotic elements with Ishtar, her worship in Babylonia does not appear to predate the Ur III period.54 At least later on in Mesopotamian history, there was a strong connection between Išhara and the Neo-Assyrian queens, who used her scorpion as their symbol.55

Ishtar-Forms in the Shulgi-simti Archive While it seems that the queen concentrated on Nippur and on the very important state deities Ninlil, Enlil and others, Shulgi-simti’s foundation worshipped a wide variety of Ishtar forms. In Shulgi-simti’s case, two goddesses, Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban were very popular. We cannot at present describe their nature, but in tandem with

50 Streck and Wasserman, ZA 102 (2012): 183. They conclude “Nanāya shared many traits with Ištar, with whom she was possibly identified in later periods.” 51 N. Veldhuis, RA 102 (2008): 59. The tablet is HMA 9–01845. 52 The principal monograph on this deity remains D. Prechel’s 1996 publication, Die Göttin Išhara, especially relevant here, pp. 26–32. See also my own “Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court,” SCCNH 12 (2002): 91–114. 53 D. Prechel, Die Göttin Išhara p. 186 and A. Zernecke, “Warum sitzt der Skorpion unter dem Bett?” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 124 (2008): 112–115. 54 D. Prechel, Die Göttin Išhara p. 185 and M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur p. 250. 55 “That the scorpion is the emblem of the Assyrian queen is now widely accepted.” K. Radner, “Seal of Tašmetum-šarrat,” in G. Lafranchi et al. (eds.), Leggo: Fales FS p. 691.

276 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

them, at least four other forms of Ishtar received frequent sacrifices (Annunitum, Ulmašitum, Nannayya, Išhara). Shulgi-simti does not seem to have been alone in having a strong tie to various Ishtar forms. Further examples of royal women’s attachment to forms of Ishtar can be found with Ea-niša, another of Shulgi’s wives, who dedicated an agate bead on Shulgi’s behalf to Inanna.56 A lukur of Amar-Sin’s (whose name is unfortunately poorly preserved, X-na-tum) is known to have visited Išhara’s temple in Amar-Sin’s fifth year.57 A focus on Ishtar is also evident in the reigns of the next two kings, with Abi-simti, as Weiershäuser also observed.58 Abi-simti made very numerous pilgrimages to the shrine of Ishtar in the town named Zabalam.59 She also is attested a number of times making sacrifices to Ishtar and other Ishtar-variants like Annunitum and Išhara.60 So while each of the Ur III royal wives for whom we have evidence worshipped slightly different forms of Ishtar, all of them venerated Ishtar, quite possibly more than any other deity. (We shall see later on that Shibtu of Mari also had a fondness for Ishtar—in her case, for Ishtar of Tuba). Were the other two goddesses most often venerated in the Shulgi-simti foundation also Ishtar forms?

Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terrraban61 What then did Shulgi-simti herself do? One major concern for Shulgi-simti’s foundation was sacrifices to two goddesses about whom we know very little, Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban.

56 P. Steinkeller, RA 73 (1979): 190: this was originally published by Pohl in Or. NS 16 (1947): 464–465. 57 According to the Drehem text MVN 5.113, AS5.07.05. 58 F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 60. 59 On Ishtar of Zabalam, see P. Steinkeller, “More on the Name of Nergal,” ZA 80 (1990): 55 and footnote 6. 60 Offerings e.g. to Annunitum and Išhara, e.g. SAT 2.693 (AS2); to Išhara and Inanna, also Dagan, e.g. MVN 5.125 (SS4); trips to Zabalam, often attested in the Umma archive, e.g. Gomi-Sato 436 (SS1), R. 7, gúrum NIN zabalamki-šè gen-na. 61 A detailed discussion of the two goddesses can be found in the author’s own “Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court,” SCCNH 12 (2002): 91–114. See also F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur pp. 76–81.



Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terrraban 

 277

RBC 425 (S36e/6/-) 1 gud niga é dnin-líl-lá gìri NIN-gá 2 máš-gal d be-la-at-šuh-nir R ù dbe-la-a[t]-/dar-ra-ba-an ur-ddumu-zi maškim zi-ga šag4 tum-ma-al iti á-ki-ti mu a-rá-2-kam-aš [dnanna kar-]zi/-da [é-a-na ba-ku4] “1 fattened ox, (for) the Ninlil temple, via the queen, 2 large-breed goats (for) Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban, Ur-Dumuzida (was) requisitioner. Expended in Tummal.”

It is often stated that Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban were Shulgi-simti’s “personal goddesses”62 and that they “prove” that Shulgi-simti came from the Diyala area. But complex matters need to be investigated thoroughly before these statements can be accepted as true. The two goddesses, Belet- (or Belat)-šuhnir and Belet/Belat-terraban are very important in the Shulgi-simti archive and a clear understanding of who they were, where they came from and what they represented is critical to understanding the foundation. The Names: The names Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban are spelled in a variety of ways, with some examples listed below. One thing is clear—the scribes did not have a common or standard way of writing these names. They appear as: be-la-at-dar-ra-ba-an (perhaps the most common, e.g. CST 467, MVN 18.67) be-la-at-èr-ra-ba-an (e.g. OrSP 18 pl. 01 01) d be-la-at-tár-ra-ba-an (e.g. JCS 24, 160 57, MVN 15.306) d be-la-at-te-ra-ba-an (e.g. OIP 43.160) d be-la-at-dar-é-ba-an (e.g. OIP 115.20) d d

be-la-at-suh-nir (probably the most common, e.g. OIP 115.80, CT 32 50 BM 103409) be-la-at-suh-ne-er (e.g. OIP 115.50) d be-la-at-suh6-nir (e.g. AUCT 2.366, MVN 13.715) d d

62 For example, F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 69, W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 19, Cavigneaux and Krebernik, “NIN-Šuhnir,” RlA 9 (2001): 501.

278 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

While this variation makes the task of deciding which form to prefer more challenging (I have chosen Belat-terraban and Belat-šuhnir), it was not unusual for scribes at this time to write Akkadian proper names in a number of different ways, as Hilgert showed.63 The first element of the names is the easiest part: belet is simply a form of the Akkadian beltu (cf. bēlu, “lord, master”), meaning “mistress, lady of.” The names are in the Shulgi-simti archive often spelled not be-le-et but be-la-at, which is a dialect form. It is rather common for goddesses with Akkadian names to begin with Belet-, “Lady of,” for instance Belet-ili, “Mistress of the Gods,” or Beletbiri64; we may also compare Belet-Nagar, “Lady of Nagar.” The second part of the names are more problematic. Terraban (spelled a variety of ways) appears to be a place name, though despite strenuous efforts by Frayne and others, pin-pointing its location is difficult due to too many possibilities.65 There is a place called Terraban mentioned in early tablets from Nuzi, which may be likely but is still far from certain.66 Suhnir, also spelled Šuknir ought also to be a place name but there does not appear to be a well-known place Shuhnir attested. Are these places towns located far away that did not register in our geographical knowledge of third millennium Babylonia? It is possible that we should read be-la-at- dSUH.NIR with suh-nir as a the Sumerian suh, diadem,67 crown, and nir as “princely, noble,” – thus, The Lady of the Noble Diadem.” But the name pattern (Lady of-GN) makes a geographical name more likely.

63 M. Hilgert “Exkurs: Zu orthographischen Varianten akkadischer Eigennamen” Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit pp.54–65. 64 Both Belet-ili and Belet-biri occur in the god list An=Anum, see R. Litke, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God Lists p.245. 65 D. Frayne, “The Zagros Campaigns of Šulgi and Amar-Suena,” SCCNH 10 (1999): 156–9. Frayne’s suggestion to link Terraban with the place name Tiriqan (located on the Taban river) is, in my opinion, unconvincing. Frayne, RIME 3/2 p. 170. 66 A. Cavigneaux, “NIN-Šuhnir,” RlA 9 (2001): 501. 67 P. Steinkeller, “Inanna’s Archaic Symbol,” in J. Braun (ed.), Written on Clay and Stone pp.93–4 and footnote 41.



Are These “Foreign” Gods? 

 279

Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terrraban68 Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban are mentioned frequently in this archive and cannot accurately be described as rare or obscure, yet almost nothing is known of what the pair represented. Regrettably, the nature and cosmic duties of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban are now quite obscure. Were they two more forms of the multiplicity of Ishtars, like Ulmašitum and Annunitum, with whom they frequently occur in the tablets from Shulgi-simti’s archive? Were they “nature” or “healing” or “fertility” deities? We may only hope for new evidence to come to light that will help us someday answer these questions. However, our lack of knowledge about Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban is hardly remarkable. Steinkeller was quite right to assert that “Among the thousands of deities that formed the lower echelon of the Mesopotamian pantheon most are known to us only by their names and from scattered accidental references.”69 It is also unclear whether previous assessments that they were of foreign origin are accurate.

Are These “Foreign” Gods? Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban do not appear to have been part of the early Sumero-Akkadian pantheon that we know of from Early Dynastic god lists, for instance, (though the same could be said about Nanayya). There is one attestation known to me of either of these goddesses prior to Shulgi-simti and this is on an inscription of Puzur-Inšušinak.70 Puzur-Inšušinak is a fairly obscure historical figure today, though we may recall that we met him in chapter one; he was a member of the Dynasty of Awan and ruler of Susa at approximately the same time as Gudea, and together with or at least at roughly the same time as the Gutians, Puzur-Inšušinak conquered and held parts of northern Babylonia. One of Puzur-Inšušinak’s inscriptions is dedicated to Belat-Terraban.71 It is difficult to know what importance to place on this data. While it could be of no

68 A detailed discussion of the two goddesses can be found in my own “Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court, “ SCCNH 12 (2002): 91–114. 69 P. Steinkeller, “The Mesopotamian God Kakka,” JNES 41 (1982): 289. 70 P. Steinkeller, “Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa,” in K. DeGraef (ed.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives p. 296. 71 P. Steinkeller, “Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa,” in K. DeGraef (ed.), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives p.296. Steinkeller argued that the presence of this goddess indicated that Puzur-Inšušinak held the Diyala region.

280 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

moment whatsoever, it is also possible that these two deities were somehow associated with Puzur-Inšušinak, and that by bringing their worship down to Ur, the Third Dynasty was demonstrating its control over a previously very unstable area. Jacobsen was the first to suggest a possible connection between the appearance of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and the conquest of the Diyala region, based on the chronological argument that they appeared shortly after the recorded conquest of Simurrum and Karhar, which he believed to be in the Diyala region.72 Though his suggestion was only a sentence or two in a book published in 1940 dealing primarily with other archaeological matters, it has been commonly repeated. More recent geographical studies, however, have placed Simurrum well to the north of Ešnunna, in the Jebel Hamrin;73 Steinkeller situates both S/ Šimurrum and Karahar along the Great Khorasan Road.74 Sallaberger argued that this divine pair may have been at home in the Diyala region.75 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban appear for instance in Old Babylonian texts recording a great offering.76 Earlier evidence for these two in the Diyala region can be found on a seal inscription of a ruler of Eshnunna, one Šu-iliya, who appears to be contemporary with Išbi-Erra; the inscription invokes Tišpak and the pair Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban.77 Reichel speculated that Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban may have had a shrine within the palace chapel at Eshnunna, but commented that they seem to have disappeared or been eradicated later on in Eshnunna’s history, from the time of a ruler named Nur-ahum on.78 Some say that another possible link between the Diyala and Belet-šuhnir and -terrban comes from the seal inscription of Babati, a courtier and the brother of the queen Abi-simti (mother of the next king, Shu-Sin). Abi-simti’s brother, Babati, impressed his seal on a tablet dated to Shu-Sin year 3; the inscription reads:

72 H. Frankfort, Th. Jacobsen, S. Lloyd, The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers at Tell Asmar OIP 43 (published 1940), p. 144. Note that the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument is not generally a strong one. 73 P. Michalowski, “Sumer Dreams of Subartu” in K. van Lerberghe (ed.), Languages and Cultures in Contact CRRAI 42, p. 313. 74 P. Steinkeller, Grand Strategy, forthcoming. 75 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p. 18. 76 According to the tablet TA 1931–325, see M. Cohen, Cultic Calendars pp.251–3. 77 Šu-iliya’s inscription can be found in RIME 3/2 p. 435. “Tišpak, mighty king, king of the land Warum, king of the four quarters, Shu-iliya (is) his…, the one who loves Belet-terraban and -šuhnir, Adad and [(DN)].” 78 C. Reichel, Political Change and Cultural Continuity in the Palace of the Rulers at Eshnunna (Tell Asmar), Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago pp. 55–56.



Are These “Foreign” Gods? 

 281

Šu-dSuen lugal-kal-ga lugal Uri5ki-ma lugal an-ub-da límmu-ba-ke4 Ba-ba-ti pisan-dub-ba šà-tam lugal šagina Maš-kán-šar-ru-umki-ma énsi A-ba-alki […] kù […] ma-da …] […] dBe-la-at-šuh-nir ù dBe-la-at-te-ra-ba-an šeš A-bí-sí-im-ti ama-ki-ág-na árad-da-ni-ir —“Shu-Sin, strong man, king of Ur, king of the four quarters—Babati, chief archivist, royal accountant, general of Mashkan-sharrum, provincial governor of Abal (aka Awal), sanga of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban, brother of Abi-simti, his {i.e. Shu-Sin’s} beloved mother, he presented (this seal) to his servant.”79 d

The idea for the link was that Abi-simti was said to come from Eshnunna, therefore her brother’s seal could be used as evidence about the Diyala, as we shall see in greater detail very soon. These pieces of evidence certainly seem to suggest that Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban were worshipped in Eshnunna during the later parts of the Third Dynasty of Ur and immediately thereafter. Sallaberger concluded on the basis of this evidence “Nachdem uns vorliegenden Zeugnisses liegt nun der Schluss nahe, Šulgisimtum selbst habe ‘ihre’ Göttinnen Belat-šuhnir und Belat-Deraban aus Ešnuna mitgenommen.”80 But perhaps a bit more caution is called for. As discussed in chapter two, there is no hard evidence that Shulgi-simti came from abroad at all and given that she appears not to have been NIN, first lady, there is no reason to assume that her marriage was in any way dynastic. And does Babati’s seal really prove that Belet-šuhnir and -terraban were linked with Eshnunna? Babati was the brother of Abi-simti, queen mother in the reign of Shu-Sin, and therefore would have come from the same princely house as she did. Unfortunately, we do not know precisely what princely house that was.81 So Babati’s Eshnunna connection appears slim. He was stationed there (in Reichel’s words, Babati “at least temporarily resided at Ešnunna”82), but there is no more reason to connect these deities with Eshnunna than with any of his other posts, such as the governor of Abal/Awal or the general of Maškan-šarrum. Babati’s seal, after all, was made at the court of Ur and lists the titles his nephew, the king Shu-Sin, heaped upon him: chief archivist, royal accountant, general and provincial governor are, after all, part of his Ur-identity and may have nothing to do with his place of origin or his posts in Eshnunna

79 R. Whiting, “Tiš-atal of Nineveh and Babati, Uncle of Šu-Sin,” JCS 28 (1976): 179; see also RIME 3/2 pp. 340–341. 80 W. Sallaberger, Kultische Kalender p.19. 81 Wu and Wang take it as a matter of fact that both Shulgi-simti and Abi-simti came from Eshnunna (JAC 27 [2012]: 2–3). They do not, however, provide any evidence that could support either assertion. 82 C. Reichel, “The King is Dead, Long Live the King,” in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond OIS 4, p. 138.

282 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

and elsewhere. So why should we assume that the position of temple administrator of Belet-šuhnir and -terraban has any more to do with Eshnunna than any of the others? And is there any evidence for Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban in the reigns of Shulgi and earlier at Eshnunna? So while it seems to me premature to state that Belat-šuhnir and -terraban definitely have an origin in Eshnunna, it does seem clear that, by the late Ur III period at least, veneration of this pair was established at Eshnunna and continued into Old Babylonian times. Does this then prove a foreign focal point of worship? The answer to this question depends on whether one considers the Diyala really “foreign” to the Ur III state. According to native definitions, the answer is no. After all, Eshnunna was counted as one of the heartland provinces, paying the bala tax, for much of the Ur III period. A north Babylonian or Diyala connection seems likely.

Are these two goddesses associated with Shulgi-simti alone? Previous scholars have been quite right to stress that there is a correlation between Shulgi-simti and the worship for these two goddesses, Belet-šuhnir and -terraban, but it is not correct to state that their worship was limited to her archive alone. The evidence for this assertion is two-fold: first, from the reign of Shulgi, that these goddesses were worshipped earlier in the reign of Shulgi and in different royal wives’ foundations, second, from the reigns of successive kings, AmarSin, Shu-Sin and Ibbi-Sin, that Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban were also worshipped later. I am not contesting that the evidence for Shulgi-simti’s attention to these goddesses far outweighs the other attestations—she may well have had a particular devotion to these goddesses—but it is certainly inaccurate to state that Belat-šuhnir and Belet-terraban were worshipped by her alone. In the reign of Shulgi, some of the other foundations that ran parallel to Shulgi-simti’s, particularly the activities of the bureau chief Shu-kubum (who worked for Amat/-Geme-Sin while she was still living), show veneration of these goddesses. This is attested in many tablets, including PTS 2.133 (S29 month 7), PDT 2.1314 (S29), OIP 115.19 (S30 month 7), OIP 115.20 (S30 month 10) and so on, where Belat-šuhnir and –terraban were worshipped prior to the start date of Shulgi-simti’s foundation in S32. However, even if one were to discount these references by positing that Šu-kubum did work for Shulgi-simti (despite the lack of evidence for that), it seems



Shulgi-simti’s Personal Goddesses? 

 283

clear that, as Walker put it, there was a “continued royal interest in their cult.”83 In the reigns of Amar-Sin, Shu-Sin and even early Ibbi-Sin, scattered references to the veneration of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban can be found. All the attestations known to be appear to date to a certain season, around the tenth month.84 A few references to the worship of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban survive from the reigns of subsequent kings, the latest attestation being in Ibbi-Sin 2. The eminent courtier Babati held priesthoods of these two goddesses as part of his many high titles, as we have already seen, which seems to indicate that holding this priesthood was in and of itself a signal honor. In practice, however, the cult seems to have been scaled back after Shulgi’s reign.

Shulgi-simti’s Personal Goddesses? Regardless of their exact homeland or their exclusivity to Shulgi-simti (still in my view unproven), it is very clear that Shulgi-simti’s foundation had, as one of its aims, the support of the cult of these two goddesses.85 This has led a number of scholars to describe Belat-šuhnir and Belet-terraban as Shulgi-simti’s personal goddesses.86 Some comparisons may be in order: A.AB.BA-bašti, aka Tiamat-bašti, a lukur in the time of Shu-Sin, also seems to have had a favorite goddess, namely the healing deity, Šauška: they are often to be found in one another’s company, insofar as the slim textual evidence permits us to see. The reader will be unsurprised to hear that this co-incidence has led scholars to decide that A.AB.BA-bašti came from Nineveh, a cult center of Šauška.87 I need not remind the reader that

83 C. B. F. Walker, “Another Babati Inscription,” JCS 35 (1983): 95. 84 MVN 3.344 (AS 3.09. 16), AUCT 3.390 (AS 3. 10.00), AUCT 2.366 (AS8. 11. 06), Gomi-Sato 271 (SS1.10.20) and SET 57 (IS 2.10.09). 85 I do not believe that Shulgi-simti’s foundation existed solely or even necessarily primarily for this purpose. Sallaberger points out that for the years S29–30, Belat-šuhnir and Belet-terraban are the only deities whose veneration is attested in the archive, Kultische Kalender p.19. But we should note that the dataset is exceedingly small and that this is officially before Shulgi-simti’s foundation itself started. 86 For example, to Sallaberger Belat-šuhnir and -terraban are “offenkundig ihren persönlichen Göttinnen,” (Kultische Kalender p.19). A similar view can be found in F. Weiershäuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur p. 69. 87 Wilcke was the first to point out the association between A.AB.BA-bašti and Šauška in DV 5 (1988): 22–23. Recent restatements of the hypothesis can be found for instance in 2008 in Weiershäuser, “Dies liegt den Schluß nahe, daß Ti’amat-bāštī im Zuge einer dynastischen Eheschließung aus Ninive nach Ur gekommen war und ihre Göttinnen mitgebracht hatte.”

284 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

such suppositions are unsupported by any evidence at all, as Steinkeller pointed out.88 All in all, it may not be so clear whether these two goddesses were of foreign origin or not, or what cosmic powers they may have been thought to control. It would not be surprising if they were yet more local forms of Ishtar, but nothing is known at this time. Many facets of these two goddesses remain to be discovered. In the interim, we should certainly strive to avoid overly positive statements such as Westenholz’s assertion, “We do know that she brought her personal goddesses Bēlat-šuhner and Bēlat-terraban from her home in Ešnunna in the Diyala region, an Akkadian core area.”89

How institutional was their worship? One could imagine a situation in which a goddess’ shrine could be little more than an image in a private niche of the palace apartments; on the other hand, one could also imagine a more institutional foundation, with a temple and official priests. Which was this? Many tablets dating from Shulgi’s 28th-46th years specify that the expenditures went to the temple of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban. Text

Date

Where

What

From

to

Via

PTS 2.134

28.01.00

é Belat-šuhnir

4

udu

Ahima

Barbaria

/

OIP 115.18

29.06.00

é Belat-šuhnir u 2 Belat-terraban

udu

Šu-kubum /

/

maškim

DoCu 306

29.11.00

é Belat-šuhnir

2

udu

Šu-kubum /

Šu-kubum /

MVN 15.57

30.06.00

é Belat-šuhnir u 4 Belat-terraban

udu

Ahima

Šu-kubum /

/

/

Weiers­häuser, Die Königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur p. 226. On the reading a-ab-ba, “father,” see Limet, L’Anthroponomie pp. 192–194. 88 P. Steinkeller “the relevant evidence remains completely circumstantial at this point.” NABU 2007 #15 note 9. 89 J. Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” in I. Finkel and M. Geller, (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations p. 60. Many similar statements in secondary scholarship are at least phrased in such a way that the reader can see some uncertainty; for example, Bahrani tells us that the worship of Belat-šuhnir and -terraban “seems to have been brought by Shulgi-simti from her home region” (Bahrani, Women of Babylon p. 108), though even here we are indulging in circular argumentation.



 285

Do These Goddess Indicate Shulgi-simti came from Eshnunna? 

Table (continued) Text

Date

Where

to

Via

MVN 18.53

33a.09.00

é Belat-šuhnir u 2 Belat-terraban

udu

Ahima

/

Apilatum

/

TRU 272

34.09.00

é Belat-šuhnir

1

udu

Beli-tab

/

/

Abiliya maškim

MVN 18.56

35.10.00

é Belat-šuhnir u 2 Belat-terraban

udu

/

Ur

/

Mašum maškim

TCS 223

36.05.00

é Belat-šuhnir u 2 Belat-terraban

udu

Beli-tab

Ur

NIN-gá

/

OIP 115.33

37.02.00

é Belat-šuhnir u 2 Belat-terraban

udu

/

Ur

Beli-bani

/

SET 42

37.05.00

é Belat-šuhnir

2

udu

Beli-tab

Ur

Abiliya

/

SET 42

37.05.00

é Belat-šuhnir

6

udu

Beli-tab

Ur

NIN-gá

/

TRU 273

40.10.14

é Belat-šuhnir u 2 Belat-terraban

udu

Abiliya

/

/

/

SET 47

41.00.30

é Belat-šuhnir u 4 Belat-terraban

udu

Abiliya

Ur

Ipiq-Erra

/

NYPL 48

46a.06.00

é Belat-šuhnir

2

udu

/

/

X

/

é Belat-šuhnir u 2 Belat-terraban

udu

X

/

X

XX

OIP 115.134 X X X

What

From

Furthermore, there appears to have been a priest (išib) for Belet-šuhnir, as the previously unpublished Yale text YBC 16588 shows. In this tablet dated to S46/08/20, very generous donations are made by this figure, whose name we unfortunately do not know: 3 gud niga, 25 udu ú, 5 máš-gal išib dbe-la-at/-šuh-nir.

Do These Goddess Indicate Shulgi-simti came from Eshnunna? Despite the fact that many very intelligent previous scholars have asserted that Shulgi-simti’s foundation’s worship of Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban (who seem to have a Diyala homeland) suggests that she herself might have come from Eshnunna, I would argue against this view. First, she did not worship these deities alone, but a constellation of north Babylonian goddesses from the Akkade and Sippar area as well. Second, the Eshnunna goddesses may have been highly

286 

 Chapter 11 Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban and Religious Activities of the Queen

favored by her, but they are not unique to her, appearing both earlier and later amongst the other royal women. Finally, I would add that historical parallels show us very clearly that when royal women chose a particular variety of Ishtar as their favorite, it was not on the basis of their homeland. Abi-simti’s origins are not totally certain, probably she was from Mari or Ešnunna, but the evidence preserved indicates a preference for Ištar of Zabalam. Zabalam, located in the Umma province, was definitely not her birthplace. Similarly, Zimri-Lim’s wife Shibtu is known to be from the ruling family of Yamhad (Aleppo), but her favorite divinity to worship at Mari was Eštar of Tuba’s emblem.90 And did women, when they were moved to a new kingdom as part of a dynastic marriage, bring with them their own deities? When Zimri-Lim’s daughter was sent as a bride to the son of the king of Shuda, a letter tells us that the gods of Mari were “installed” in the palace.91 But she was the daughter of an overlord married to a much lower-ranking vassal, and, as Sasson has remarked, “the daughters were potential spies for their fathers and might have been treated as such by their husbands.”92 There is no evidence known to me that dynastic marriages among equals involved the transport of gods. In short, the king was the nexus between the great gods and the people, able to mediate between these two groups through his special status as king, safeguarding the Land and the people through securing a good fate from the gods. His consort, or chief wife, seems to have had a smaller responsibility to take care of the female side of this equation, especially with regard to the chief goddess of the Nippur area, Ninlil. More generally, royal wives of this date tended to have attachments to various forms of Ishtar, and this can be seen both for the queen, and for women of lesser rank, like Shulgi-simti (and probably Geme-Ninlilla and any others who had similar religious foundations). Whether these Ishtar forms were chosen on the basis of personal piety or for other reasons we cannot know. Whether these observances were public or occurred within the seclusion of the palace we cannot know. What we do know is that the records of these observances were worthy of being recorded and filed, which suggests at least some degree of officialdom clung to them. Did such activities of the royal wives of Shulgi stand out as a high point for women’s involvement in religion or are we merely seeing the tip of an iceberg? In the next chapter, we shall argue that the extent of a royal woman’s religious involvement may be most closely tied to local socio-economic structures.

90 N. Ziegler, FM IV p. 40. 91 N. Ziegler, FM IV p. 41. She notes that the exact meaning of the “installation” is unclear. 92 J. Sasson, From the Mari Archives p. 110.

Part III: A Wider Lens

Chapter 12 A Wider Context: Temple Households and Changes in the Roles Played by Royal Wives in Early Mesopotamia It is now perhaps time to take a wider historical context and attempt to compare the religious activities of Shulgi’s wives with other eras in Early Mesopotamia. Here again we face a problem in the uneven nature of our evidence, with some rulers and places producing thousands of documents, and some leaving none. Gudea’s wife, or the Sargonic queens, or the wives of the kings of Pre-Sargonic Kish are almost utterly unknown, to name just a few. From the Early Dynastic period, we have more evidence, particularly from the Lagash area. Comparing the ruler’s wife from Early Dynastic Lagash and Shulgi-simti results in a stark contrast; on the one hand a very powerful sole wife controlling a large temple household on her own, and on the other, scattered donations of a few goats and turtledoves for obscure goddesses and women’s meals. Does this contrast indicate that the status of women in religion declined? I will argue here that the key element appears to have been the presence of the temple household1 and the idea of the parallelism between the gods and the ruler (as above, so below). When these elements were present, ruler’s wives had strong roles; when these elements were absent, they did not. Previous scholarship has not considered the temple-household variable here. Instead, the guiding principle has been to link perceived changes to a general decline in the status of women. When reading historical overviews, it is not uncommon to find a general evolutionary scheme presented, according to which women in early Mesopotamia (Sumer), had an idyllic and powerful role, with a gradual reduction of their power and influence through time. Z. Bahrani declared: “A decline is charted from the Sumerian period (construed as more democratic and liberal) to the Semitic patriarchies that followed and led to a greater

1 The terms “temple-state” and “temple household” are sometimes used to refer to a model wherein the ruler and his family, via the temples of various gods, had a stranglehold on all arable land and all modes of production. This is not the model used here. I am referring to a state that had as a chief economic unit the temple households (run by the ruler and his family), situated in a network that also included private and mercantile interests. The basic contrast I wish to draw is with those states that had as their major unit the palace (also situated in a network of private, mercantile and temple interests). Bibliography on the temple state can be found in S. Garfinkle, Entrepreneurs and Enterprise pp. 17 ff. DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-012

290 

 Chapter 12 Context: Temple Households and Changes in the Roles Played

suppression of women, perhaps even culminating in the harems of Islam.”2 One can even find article titles such as “State Formation in Sumer and the Subjugation of Women.”3 There is also a variant including the religious realm, here stressing how the multiplicity of important goddesses in early Mesopotamia devolved into the domination of gods (plus a single major goddess, Ishtar) in the later Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. As an example of such an approach is the volume by Asher-Greve and Westenholz, Goddesses in Context, where we find the model embedded in the chapter divisions: II.B (covering the Late Uruk through Ur III periods), “The First Stage: Profusion,” II. C (covering the Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian periods), “The Second Stage: Recession,” and finally II. D, “The Third Stage: Homogeneity and Simplification.”4 Such evolutionary schemes tend to flatten all complexity, regional variation or ebbs and flows into five words: the status of women declined. As this decline is mainly evident after the third millennium, this evolutionary scheme is not very useful for us when comparing and contrasting the attested religious roles of the royal wives from about 2400–1800 B.C., that is, from the late Early Dynastic through the Old Babylonian periods. A critical factor in determining the roles played by the king’s spouse(s) appears to be the existence of temple households. In those places and periods in which temple households were a strong organizing force, such as for instance Early Dynastic Lagash, the ruler’s family was mapped over the divine family. The king was parallel to the chief god of the city and handled his temple estates, the queen paralleled the chief goddess5 and handled her temple estates, and their offspring paralleled the divine couple’s children, and handled their temple estates. Thus, at Lagash, ruler’s wives had important roles in managing economic and religious interests associated with certain temple households, particularly those associated with the chief goddess. While the ruler’s wife was certainly not equal to her husband where temple households were a prime factor in the city-state’s organization, in a sense the ruler could not fully exercise control without his wife or his family; temple households required a ruler’s household, not just a single man. Exam-

2 Z. Bahrani, Women of Babylon p. 104. 3 R. Rohrlich published this in Feminist Studies 6 (1980): 76–102. 4 J. Asher-Greve and J. G. Westenholz, Goddesses in Context OBO 259. 5 Although the temple households were long obsolete by the first millennium B.C., some remnants of the idea of the parallelism between the divine family and the ruler’s family persisted into Neo-Assyrian times, when the king was said to represent Aššur and his queen was “the image of the Queen of Heaven, Mullissu,” according to S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in Leggo! Fales FS p. 619. (The Neo-Assyrian queen also could represent Išhara.)



Context: Temple Households and Changes in the Roles Played  

 291

ples of such organization appear to be Early Dynastic Lagash, but also Lagash in Gudea’s time and even persisting with the énsis (now provincial governors) of the Ur III period, and Nippur in the Isin-Larsa period. It is of course to be hoped that further excavation and tablet publication will yield further examples. In those places and periods in which the palace and private economies appear to have been the main economic forces and thus temple households played a negligible role, the position of the ruler’s wife appears to have been much lower, without significant economic interests to manage, without a long-standing official role to play in overseeing or provisioning a temple. However, ad-hoc or supporting roles in the context of her husband’s ritual duties are not infrequent. Here there do not seem to be strong correlations between royal wives and goddesses. The person of the ruler – not his family or his own household—appears to have been dominant. Mari in the Old Babylonian period seem to illustrate this hypothesis. If we had records from Early Dynastic Kish or the Sargonic kings, we would probably also see a dominant role for the king and a minor and subservient role for his women. The status of the wives of Shulgi seems to be a hybrid between these two models: this is unsurprising, given that Shulgi’s state appears to have been a palace-driven economy placed atop the remnants of the old temple-household structures. Shulgi’s wives, thus, do appear to be attempting to parallel the divine family: just as the king was like Enlil, head of the pantheon, and took care of his cult, so the queen was like Ninlil and paid special attention to her cult. But the religious activities of Shulgi’s (many) other wives were not as simple as that, as we have already seen. Shulgi-simti often venerated a quartet of regional goddesses, Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban, Annunitum and Ulmašitum, and was involved in many other different sacrifices. Whether the wide array of activities reflected her acting on behalf of someone else (such as another royal wife, her husband, a donor or even conceivably in relation to an event at court or an omen), we cannot say. But clearly Shulgi-simti was not controlling a temple household of any goddess. It is not even clear whether her foundation reflects her own choices or whether others made decisions for her while she remained inside the palace walls. In any case, clearly Shulgi-simti’s ties were to the palace and the court, not to any temple household. It seems therefore suitable to consider the religious activities of Shulgi’s wives as a hybrid.

292 

 Temple Households and Royal Wives as Active Agents

Temple Households and Royal Wives as Active Agents Early Dynastic Lagash The Shulgi-simti archive, when discussed in the secondary literature, is often mentioned in the same breath as the Early Dynastic archive from Lagash, the é-mí, an institution administered by the ruler’s wife.6 Especially to those who assume that Shulgi-simti held the rank of queen, there is an obvious comparison between the Shulgi-simti archive and the é-mí. Both represent economic, administrative and religious activities run under the aegis of the ruler’s wife. We seem to see here a strong public role for the ruler’s wife and the involvement of the wives in religious events. Still, several important points of difference should be noted from the beginning. First, rulers of Lagash do not seem to have had more than one wife.7 Thus, not only is there a discontinuity that we are comparing a queen with a secondary wife, we are also comparing a single wife to a plethora of them. Second, the women running the é-mí controlled far more than Shulgi-simti. The wealth of the é-mí underscores the relative poverty of the Shulgi-simti foundation. Third, the ideological foundation seems to have been quite different. Shulgi may have had himself deified, unlike the rulers of Early Dynastic Lagash, but the idea so prevalent there, of parallelism between the divine family and the ruler’s family, does not seem to have been as compelling later on. Keeping these points in mind, some background on the é-mí archive is in order before more specific comparisons can be made.

The É.MÍ Archive Dating to a period of less than fifteen years, the archive covers the reigns of three rulers of the important city-state of Lagash at the very end of the Early Dynastic

6 As we have already seen, this Sumerian term (possibly to be read é-munus) literally means “house of the woman.” 7 M. Stol, Women in the Ancient Near East p. 463.



The É.MÍ Archive 

 293

period.8 It includes approximately 1600 tablets, many of them quite lengthy.9 The only major archive of its date, it derives from an institution called in Sumerian é-mí, “the household of the woman.” Even with so many tablets surviving from this archive, we still have only a fraction of what was originally drawn up. Bauer estimates that surviving é-mí documents represent at most one fourth of the tablets originally inscribed.10 We should expect that the household of Ningirsu would have had an even larger archive, now totally lost to us. Our textual record is clearly skewed. It seems that at Lagash there was a conscious effort to replicate the structure of the religious order on earth by aligning the divine households with the household of the ruling family.11 The patron god of the city-state was Ningirsu. His wife, Bau, seems to have been a healing goddess and mother of two gods, Šulšagana and Igalim. Each of these gods had a temple for religious services, of course, but also economic interests associated with each temple—fields, orchards, weaving establishments, herds, fisheries and so on. The city ruler (énsi) was in charge of the temple household of the city’s patron god (Ningirsu). His consort ran the temple household of Bau. His sons, if old enough, ran the households of Šulšagana and Igalim; if they were minors, their mother would administer these house-

8 According to J. Bauer, the majority of the archive dates to the six-year reign of Lugal-anda and the 7 year reign of Uru-KA-gina, with texts from the reign of En-entarzi being quite rare. J. Bauer, “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der Mesopotamischen Geschichte,” in J. Bauer, R. Englund and M. Krebernik (eds.), Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastiche Zeit OBO 160/1 p. 532. 9 Other contemporary archives, for instance from Mari, Ur or Lagash are currently known only from very small corpora, such as 50 tablets from Ur or 42 from Mari. J. Bauer, OBO 160/1 p. 433. 10 J. Bauer, “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der Mesopotamischen Geschichte,” in J. Bauer, R. Englund and M. Krebernik (eds.), Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastiche Zeit. This is on the basis of surviving annual accounts over a thirteen year period. We have a major archive from Lagash but lack comparable sources from other southern city-states, already creating a bias, but to add to it, we have only a single archive from Lagash. To reconstruct the economy and society of E.D. III Lagash from the é-mí archive is in a sense inevitable, but it is clear that the é-mí was not the foremost institution of the city state. Lacking documentation from the temple household of the main god Ningirsu or the city ruler, we can only guess how the é-mí fit into a larger framework. 11 A. Westenholz posited that such a household-centered conceptualization was characteristic of “Sumerian” culture (A. Westenholz, “The World View of Sargonic Officials. Differences in Mentality between Sumerians and Akkadians,” in M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire pp.162–3). While I doubt that the extant evidence allows us to make such sweeping generalizations, it is the case that at Lagash households were a key organizing principle for gods and humans alike.

294 

 Temple Households and Royal Wives as Active Agents

holds on the children’s behalf.12 It has been argued that the énsi’s daughters also had their own households as part of this family arrangement.13

The Size and Scale of the é-mí In practice, this formula for cosmic and local parallelism seems to have led to problems. There was a tendency for the ruling family to appropriate rather than manage resources.14 The usurping ruler of Lagash, UruKAgina, promulgated a reform text (“Reforms of UruKAgina”) to contrast previous abuses with the improvements he had made. The text is not always easy to interpret. UruKAgina seems to accuse the previous rulers of appropriating lands and income belonging to the Bau temple for themselves. 15 However, some scholars have suggested that it was UruKAgina himself who used the Bau temple resources to bankroll his own men.16 The é-mí was a temple household led by the queen, a powerful economic institution with vast tracts of land, manufacturing enterprises and a huge number of employees and dependents. But the é-mí was also a religious institution representing the temple of the goddess Bau, hence some have thought the ‘woman’ referred to was Bau herself. There is an obvious difference in scale between the é-mí and the foundation run under Shulgi-simti’s auspices. At one time, the é-mí employed about 750 people.17 This included both men and women, engaged in agricultural works, animal husbandry, craft production, cooking and so on. The é-mí, though a very large temple household, was not the largest such institution in the city-state. That honor was reserved for the temple household of Bau’s husband, the patron god of the city. This mega-household was run by the ruler of Lagash. Prelimi-

12 J. Bauer, OBO 160/ 1 pp.532–3. 13 G. Selz, “Immer nur Söhne?” in D. Shehata et al. (eds.) FS Groneberg p.188 footnote 4. See also H. Steible, “Legitimation von Herrschaft im Mesopotamien des 3.  Jahrtaudends v. Chr.,” pp. 67–91 in G. Dux (ed.), Moral und Recht. 14 “Groβe wirtschaftliche Macht konzentrierte sich in der Stadtfürstenfamilie.” J. Bauer, “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der Mesopotamischen Geschicte,” in J. Bauer, R. Englund and M. Krebernik (eds.), Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastiche Zeit OBO 160/ 1, pp. 532–3. 15 J. Bauer, OBO 160/1 p.533. 16 B. Foster, “Shuruppak and the Sumerian City State,” pp. 71–88 in L. Kogan et al (eds.), Babel and Bibel 2. 17 K. Maekawa, Labor in the Ancient Near East p. 51: its maximum extent was under Uru-KAgina.



The Ideology of Rule 

 295

nary estimates suggest that the households of Bau and her husband, the city god, Nin-girsu, may have controlled 45 % of the total arable land in the province.18 Although we have only one fourth (or less) of the archive preserved, according to Bauer’s estimate, it is clear from the extant tablets that the scale of operations was vast.19 The Bau temple itself appears to have controlled approximately 700 bùr or land, or about 4500 hectares.20 The total barley harvest produced each year under the aegis of the ‘house of the woman’ was staggering: at least 4560 gur-sag (the equivalent of about 345 and ½ tonnes) are recorded for one year.21 This was in the year Lugal-anda 6 and was produced by a mere nine units of land! Barley was not of course the only crop: there would also have been emmer wheat, fruit, fish, wool, livestock et cetera. The total net income of the ‘house of the woman’ per year cannot now be estimated with any accuracy but must have been huge indeed. These vast resources under the aegis of the ruler’s wife in Early Dynastic Sumer stand in stark contrast to the small enterprises run under the name of Shulgi-simti or the other concubines of Shulgi. It is unclear whether Shulgi-simti or Ea-niša, for example, “owned” their herds, but it is very possible they did; in any case, there appears to have been an attempt to make courtiers responsible for the funding of the religious foundations. The women running the é-mí were supposed to be running an establishment whose resources they did not personally own.22 Thus, the é-mí was at some level a public institution.

The Ideology of Rule The Early Dynastic rulers of Lagash were not strictu senso divine kings, that is to say, they were not worshipped on earth during their lifetimes, nor were there priesthoods or temples associated with them. There were, to be sure, certain elements to their religious identity that set them apart from ordinary mortals. Early Dynastic royal inscriptions from Lagash are replete with adoption imagery.

18 G. Selz, Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerisches Stadtstaates von Lagaš p.40. 19 J. Bauer, OBO 160/ 1 p.532. 20 J. Bauer, OBO 160/1 p. 534. The precise figure calculated by Deimel was 708 bùr. 21 J. Bauer, OBO 160/1 p. 536. 22 Though of course, according to the usurper and reformer Uru-KA-gina, at times the royal family did act as if they owned public property.

296 

 Temple Households and Royal Wives as Active Agents

The Ruler’s Wife Monogamy appears to have been the marriage pattern in Early Dynastic Lagash. In this é-mí archive, over a period of several generations, we see three queens—Dimtur, Barag-namtarra and Shag-Shag, running economic activities, funerals and other religious rituals, especially those connected to Bau, who was a goddess of healing. These women were the titular heads of the é-mí while their husbands ruled. The queens who ran the é-mí did so with the assistance of a male employee, who performed the daily administrative tasks himself; the title of this employee can roughly be translated ‘overseer, captain.’ The tenure of the ruler’s wife apparently lasted until her death, rather than the death of her spouse. The vast majority of the documentation from Early Dynastic Lagash is economic and administrative in nature and does not give us details about religious matters like sacrifices and rituals. But some information can be gleaned.

Religious Activities Sponsored by the Ruler’s Wife Some activities were undertaken by the queens themselves, and these tended to be more purely religious activities. Occasionally other women appear, for example the ruler’s daughter.23 The extant evidence highlights the women’s involvement in funerary rituals and pilgrimages to the town of NINA to make offerings to the goddess Nanše. Were these queens anything other than figureheads? The texts of this archive sometimes differentiate between what the male employees, “overseers,” did, for example measuring fields or accounting for grain, by saying the action was done for the queen, and what the queen herself did, perhaps suggesting that at times the queen herself took an active part. When the queen herself acted, for instance, when the queen Shag-shag organized the large state funeral for the former queen, Barag-namtarra, the overseer does not appear: for example, “Shag-shag, [wife of] UruKagina, king of Lagash, distributed these {foods} to them {the mourners}.”24 This funeral was quite large, lasting several days and involving between 300- 318 different people, including 92 lamentation priests.25

23 G. Selz, UGASL p.32. 24 This text was published by Bauer as AWSL 66 = Fo. 137. 25 A. Cohen notes 92 gala in 1 text and total of 318 people; 72 gala in another, 300 people, Death Rituals, Ideology and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship p. 56.



Lagash at the Time of Gudea 

 297

In addition to state funerals, the queens seem to have had an important role to play in other funerary rituals, in particular a sort of royal ancestor cult. Over the course of the year, Lagash celebrated five major agricultural festivals, and at these festivals, all the deceased kings of Lagash were honored with offerings, obviously a measure that would, among other things, serve to reaffirm the legitimacy of the current ruling family. These offerings were generally made by the king, but could also be made by the queen, especially at the festival associated with the goddess Bau, whose temple household the queens ran.26 The ruler’s wife also regularly led pilgrimages to NINA, where, over a threeday period, offerings to Nanše were made for two major festivals, the ezem še-kúd nanše and the ezem munu4-kú-dnanše.27 The ruler’s wife and daughter are also attested travelling to a place called KI.UTU, where the ruler’s wife Shag-shag dedicated a silver statue,28 which one presumes was of a religious nature. In short, we seem to see a parallelism in households: the family of the ruler was mapped over the divine family of the patron god, his wife and children. Thus, a man himself could not run the entire state. His wife and children were needed to stand as at least titular heads of the temple households of the divine spouse and divine children. Though largely economic in nature, running a temple household also entailed a religious role for the wife of the ruler, especially for funerary rituals and pilgrimages. The Early Dynastic rulers’ wives were not proxies for their husbands and are never attested standing in for him, but had their own separate sphere of influence.

Another Example of Powerful Wives with Temple Households: Lagash at the Time of Gudea Following the collapse of the Sargonic state and the reversion, once again, to competing city-states, we have the problem of an era without a clear name. It has been called the early Ur III period or the Gutian Interregnum.29 Very few histor-

26 Texts DP 25 and Fo. 191 offerings to the ens (en-en-e) at the festival of Bau. He stresses also the fertility of the rulers’ spirits, Cohen, Death Rituals, Ideology and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship pp.109–112. 27 M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East pp.45 and 51. 28 P. Steinkeller, “Threshing Implements,” Iraq 52 (1990): p.22 note 30. 29 A detailed discussion of this has already occurred in chapter one; the most recent discussion of the problem is to be found in W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp, “The Gutean Period,” ARCANE 3 (2015): 113 ff.

298 

 Temple Households and Royal Wives as Active Agents

ical sources survive. Lagash provides one of our only windows onto this period of time. Lagash at this time was ruled by a group of men united by family ties: Ur-Bau,30 Ur-gar, Nam-mah-ni etc. One might expect the father-son pattern of inheritance, but in fact Ur-bau was the father-in-law, being father of three daughters whose husbands then ruled in succession.31 Succession through marriage to the ruler’s daughter may or may not have been anomalous in Southern Babylonia at this time. Other suggestions of accession to the throne through marriage have been suggested for Umma in late early Dynastic times, when Giša-kidu apparently came to power though marriage to the ruler’s daughter, Bara-irnun.32 Whether it was unusual or not, the net result of the succession through marriage was, unsurprisingly, a prominent position for royal wives in this period. Rulers’ wives of this period are known to have dedicated many statues on their own. Some of the statues were for goddesses. For instance, the wife of the ruler Ur-Ningirsu, a woman by the name of Nin-NIGIN-esi, dedicated a statue to the Lamma-spirit of Bau (dLamma dba-ú), her mistress (NIN-a-ni).33 Gudea’s wife, Nin-alla, dedicated a statue to Bau on behalf of both of them.34 Ruler’s wives could also dedicate less feminine ritual objects: for instance, Gudea’s wife dedicated a grey stone macehead for the god Ig-alim.35 Did Gudea’s wife, for instance, have an official role as the figurehead for Bau’s temple? It seems very likely. At least later on, in the Ur III period, the énsi’s wife did hold the title of NIN-dingir of Bau. It has been argued that the same idea of parallelism between the heavens and the ruler (wherein a ruler ruled not by himself but by positioning his wife and children in key roles) was still occurring in Ur III Lagash, when one of the governors continued in this old pattern.

30 The divine element that I am here reading Bau is often also rendered Baba. 31 J. Renger, “The Daughters of Urbaba: Some Thoughts on the Succession to the Throne during the 2.Dynasty of Lagash,” in B. Eichler (ed.), Kramer AV p. 369: Renger believes this occurred because Ur-bau had no sons. While he may well be correct, some caution in the light of the paucity of our information on this family may be in order. This matter has also been discussed by Kobayashi, Orient 30–31 (1995): 148. 32 G. Selz, “Immer nur Söhne und keine Töchter? Zu Einem Familienrelief des Ur-Nanše,” pp. 187–196 in D. Shehata, F. Weiershäuser und K. Zand (eds.), Von Göttern und Menschen: FS für Brigitte Groneberg p. 187 and note 3. It has also been claimed that Uru-KA-gina’s claim to power was through marriage, but this seems to be a less clear-cut case —Selz, “Immer nur Söhne?” p.187 and note 3. 33 D. Edzard, Gudea and his Dynasty RIME 3/1 p. 10. NIN-a-ni could of course also be translated ‘her queen.’ 34 D.Edzard, RIME 3/1 p. 174, literally, for both their lives. 35 D. Edzard, Gudea and his Dynasty RIME 3/1 pp. 178–9.



The Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods: Finding a Pattern 

 299

Molina has suggested that this old approach raised eyebrows at the royal court and may have been a deciding factor in deposing the governor after Shulgi’s death.36 Whether other city-states like Adab or Marad (to pick random examples) would also have had firm connections between the ruler’s wife and the wife of the patron god of the city cannot now be known.

Temple Households and the Ruler’s Wife at Isin-Larsa Nippur After the collapse of the Ur III state, fragmentation and quite possibly anarchy ensued. The subsequent Isin-Larsa period was, like the Early Dynastic period, a patchwork of competing polities, Isin and Larsa being two of the major players in the south. In the northern regions, there were also important city-states and dynasties, including at Ešnunna, Aššur, Mari and so on. Unfortunately, little is known about the royal women of even the more well-known kings or dynasties.

The Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods: Finding a Pattern Were the successors to the Ur III state true to the pattern of a parallel women’s world in which the wife of the ruler participated ex officio? One candidate for such continuity comes from an Isin-Larsa archive from Nippur. The entire archive, now numbering 483 tablets according to Robertson’s count, records transactions stemming from the household of the guennakkum official: a small subset of these concern the religious activities of one of the guennakkum’s wives, a woman by the name of Damiqtum.37 She made expenditures at several different locations, for the worship of ancestors (é-ad-da-na), Ninlil, Inanna and possibly the local Nippur god Ninurta.38 She also supplied death offerings, if we are to understand kaš-dé-a erṣetim in this way.39 The vagaries of preservation and discovery have meant that for each era, a different potpourri of types of sources are prevalent and, unfortunately, not enough relevant evidence survives on this topic from these centuries to allow us

36 M. Molina, “Ur,” RlA 14 (2015): 355–361. 37 J. Robertson, “The Internal Political and Economic Structure of Old Babylonian Nippur,” JCS 36 (1984): 146. Robertson calculated that 10 texts only refer to Damiqtum’s activities. (JCS 36 [1984]: 154). 38 J. Robertson, JCS 36 (1984): 154–5. 39 J. Robertson, JCS 36 (1984): 159.

300 

 The Warlord Ruler’s Wife as Proxy

to gauge the situation. The political and military histories of much of the IsinLarsa and Old Babylonian periods can often be known in some detail. Quite a lot, for instance, can be written about the reigns of Rim-Sin of Larsa, or Hammurabi of Babylon but information about their wives40 is almost nil. It would be tempting to conclude from the apparent absence of women’s public roles amongst these Amorite kings that new traditions and new cultural norms discouraged women’s ritual roles. It is, after all, precisely during the reigns of Rim-Sin and Hammurabi that the venerable tradition of powerful priestesses, the ens, finally died out.41 Another model of kingship, the warlord king, would become the dominant model. The warlord’s wife (or more usually, his harem) had little role to play in the ritual side of rule.

The Warlord Ruler’s Wife as Proxy The “pious” ruler whose temple households were partially staffed by his family is, it seems, a very old model for Mesopotamia, but it is also true that, from at least Early Dynastic times on, there was also a competing model for Mesopotamian kingship, the warlord, whose palace was the main institution. So if we compare two almost contemporaneous archives, Ebla and Early Dynastic Lagash, we see very different models of kingship, economic organization and roles for royal women.

The Religious Roles of the Queens of Ebla A thorough discussion of women and religion at Ebla would be out of place in the present work; suffice it to say that Ebla provides a nice contrast to the almost contemporary é.mí, a further illustration that the simplified evolutionary scheme (viz., the status of Mesopotamian women declined over time) does not

40 Rim-Sin had at least three wives: Simat-Eštar (who left an inscription concerning a temple for Nin-egal), Rim-Sin-šala-baštašu, known from a dedication of a diorite vase to Inanna (associated with an eye disease of her daughter), and Beltani, known from a cylinder seal. Aside from this, little more can be said about these women; for the inscriptions, Charpin, Hammu-rabi de Babylone p.131. Information about Hammurabi’s wives is extremely sparse. 41 T. Sharlach, “Social Change and the Transition from the Third Dynasty of Ur to the Old Babylonian Kingdoms,” pp. 61–72 in in H. Crawford (ed.), Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt.



The Royal Palace of Mari 

 301

adequately account for the complexities of Mesopotamian history. We may recall from chapter four that Ebla appears to be the earliest manifestation of a very longlived pattern in Mesopotamian palaces: an extremely powerful queen mother and a large harem, housing many women of various sorts. No evidence for temple households can be found in the Ebla documentation. The queen does not appear to have headed any organization to provision a temple or to have had economic interests of her own. Religious activities by the powerful queen mother are attested, largely in the form of sacrifices of animals. The queen mother also sometimes donated clothing or jewels for the divine images.42 Deities honored by the queen mother include Rašap, Išhara, Ninkar, Adamma, the Lady of Uraš and the Lady of ‘Asdabal.43 The major ritual role for the queen appears to have been her participation in a rite intended to legitimate her husband, the “Ritual of Kingship.”44

The Royal Palace of Mari We have already seen in chapter four how the Mari evidence about the harem can help us determine whether such an organization existed in Ur III Mesopotamia. At Mari, the economic foundation has been described as “une économie palatiale,” which was not unusual for that time.45 Here we will see that royal wives, principally Shibtu, who is best attested, did have some religious roles to play, but she did not control large temple estates and she often appears to have acted either on the king’s orders when he was away or on a very small scale in the palace chapels. Shibtu was clearly not Zimri-Lim’s only wife, or even by rank the first, but she does appear to have been the king’s favorite and acted as though she were queen at Mari. In part, this may have been because of her birth—as the daughter

42 M.-V. Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL EN d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’ dans le Proche-Oriente Depuis la Plus Haute Antiquité,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme (Bottéro FS) p. 269. 43 Tonietti, “De l’AMA-GAL EN d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane: L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’ dans le Proche-Oriente Depuis la Plus Haute Antiquité,” in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme (Bottéro FS) p. 269. 44 F. Pinnock, “Ebla,” in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World p. 543. 45 D. Charpin, Hammu-rabi de Babylon pp. 249–250.

302 

 The Warlord Ruler’s Wife as Proxy

of Yarim-Lim, the king of Aleppo, Shibtu was an important personage in her own right.46 The evidence about Shibtu, based on the studies by Batto and more recently Ziegler, shows an apparent contradiction. Shibtu was immensely powerful and influential, but also subservient. She generally acted as an agent, or proxy, for the king, rather than as an independent actor. With the exception of purely domestic arrangements, especially concerning the women’s quarters, which Shibtu does seem to have controlled, Shibtu’s activities in the religious sphere mainly seem to be fill-ins for her husband, at his direct orders.47 Batto wrote, “As has been stated above, the queen enjoyed a certain amount of independence and personal initiative in her own right. But more commonly she seems to have been used by the king as a kind of personal representative who carried out his wishes in extraordinary circumstances.”48 But as Ziegler added, Shibtu—like the other bureaucrats in the palace—was reluctant to take decisions in the king’s absence.49 Shibtu also had influence over the king and could (if she chose) relay information to him, thus acting as a conduit or intermediary in addition to her role as his proxy.50 Some of the messages relayed had to do with prophecies: Sasson has demonstrated that Shibtu, along with the venerable Addu-duri (possibly Zimri-Lim’s mother) and Inib-shina, a princess, often passed along prophetic messages to Zimri-Lim for his “confirmation” via divination.51 But Shibtu’s own sacrifices appear to have been very small in scale, often in private palace shrines and seem more personal than institutional. For example, we know that on one occasion Shibtu sacrificed a second-quality ox and a fattened sheep for the palace goddess, Belet-ekallim.52 One letter refers to sacrifices

46 Shibtu’s seal lists her affiliation to Yarim-Lim before her status as Zimri-Lim’s wife, perhaps an indication of the relative importance placed on these statuses. B. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari p.9. 47 Shibtu employed two men, Warad-ilishu and Mukannishum to aid her administration of the palace. B. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari p.13. 48 B. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari p.17. 49 N. Ziegler “Nous voyons donc que les reines jouissaient, certes, d’une relative autonomie, mais qu’elles agissaient comme les autres fonctionnaires du roi, refusant fréquemment de prendre des decisions en l’absence de leur maître.” FM IV p. 43. 50 H. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East p. 326. 51 J. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” in D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum II (Birot Vol.) pp. 299–303. 52 N. Ziegler FM IV p. 56 and p. 50 on Belet-ekallim as one of three gods venerated in the Mari palace in the reign of Zimri-Lim.



The Royal Palace of Mari 

 303

made by her to the goddess Hishamitum,53 and she appears to have, on several occasions, made offerings to the lance, the divine weapon, of Ishtar of Tuba.54 Some have suggested that Ishtar of Tuba was a particular favorite of hers. There does appear to have been more of a religious component to the role of the queen mother (Addu-duri), as Dalley showed.55 Overall, we seem to see a basic contrast. Royal wives in earlier Mesopotamia, particularly the Early Dynastic and Ur III periods, did seem to have established and semi-independent roles with households or foundations run under their aegis. Royal wives at Mari, of whom Shibtu is the best attested example, do not seem to have had their own foundations, instead carrying out their husband’s instructions according to his will.

53 This is ARM 10. 128, N. Ziegler FM IV p. 56. 54 N. Ziegler FM IV p. 56. Tuba may well be Umm el-Marra. 55 S. Dalley, Mari and Karana pp. 100–101.

Chapter 13 Conclusions Although the later Ur III period, the reigns of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin in particular, can be described as a time of great stability of administration and centralization, the early portion of the era seems to be characterized by a far higher degree of change and fluidity. The Land appears to have been fractured in the earliest part of the period, with foreigners ruling the north. These included both Gutians and Elamites. These were with difficulty and over time ejected by various rulers, including Gudea, Utu-hegal, Ur-Namma and then perhaps even Shulgi himself. While Ur-Namma appears to have brought a far greater degree of stability to the Land, enough to begin many building projects, canal works and other important infrastructure improvements, his sudden death and the unexpected accession of Shulgi may have shaken the fledgling state. Shulgi’s reign itself, though it lasted just short of fifty years and ended on a note of prosperity and strong central authority, was itself a time of many wars, changes, reforms and new ideas. Though the seat of the dynasty was at Ur, Shulgi appears to have built a massive new palace in the Nippur province, near Puzrish-Dagan, where he would also house his mighty administrative bureaus. Ur and Uruk remained centers of royal power, with palaces used by the royal family, but Nippur/Puzrish-Dagan may have been his chief residence from about the start of his fourth decade on. Shulgi appears to have been energetic in putting his vision for a new type of government into reality, which he seems to have done largely on his own, without many courtiers. A key figure in his court was however the “doorman” Naram-ili. One of Shulgi’s new ideas was the overhaul of the old model of kingship, with Shulgi now a sort of minor ‘god of his Land.’ Possibly his new divine status allowed him to alter the previous custom of monogamy for the king. Just as a god could have a group of cloistered women described as his brides (in Sumerian, lukur), so now too could the divine Shulgi have a plethora of women he too described as lukur of his own. The key difference was that these were not celibate and childless religious women but in essence concubines. Whether Shulgi’s women called lukur were, like their priestess-namesakes, limited in their movement to women’s quarters is still an unresolved question. Strong evidence from other eras of Mesopotamian history from Ebla down to the Neo-Assyrians shows us that limiting the freedom of royal concubines in a harem was a well-established custom. It is relevant to note that women like Shulgi-simti and some of the other lukurs are never attested outside the confines of the palace itself. Other women, like Nin-kalla or

DOI 10.1515/9781501505263-013

306 

 Chapter 13 Conclusions

Abi-simti later, women who held the title NIN, queen, clearly did have freedom of movement and perhaps also residences of their own. This book has argued that Shulgi-simti is best to be understood as a concubine principally stationed in the capital in Ur, and that her activities were quite different from those of Nin-kalla in Nippur. Many other women surrounded these two in Shulgi’s court. When piecing together the evidence for each of the wives of Shulgi, we can see a distinct difference between Nin-kalla, who alone bore the title NIN, queen, and who alone clearly held land, ran palace enterprises, and received official state payments like the mašdaria. Possibly a woman of Elamite origin, Nin-kalla appears to have been queen, at least for a time. She is strongly associated with Nippur. Shulgi-simti, on the other hand, was a lukur whose chief palace appears to have been Ur. Her homeland is unknown and she never had family visit her. Her appearance in the tablet Phillips 13, which some have argued showed her at the top of the hierarchy of the women, may in fact instead indicate that she was the mother of the deceased, if my interpretation of the tablet as a record of a funeral is correct. Never very rich, Shulgi-simti disappeared at the same time as her husband and Geme-Ninlilla. Both these secondary wives may well have ended up as grave goods in Shulgi’s mausoleum. Shulgi-simti was certainly not Shulgi’s only secondary wife. Geme-Ninlilla and Ea-niša also appear to have occupied this status. Ea-niša’s case is interesting in that she lived on well into the next reigns, and in fact appears to have been a far more important person as a widow than when Shulgi was alive. Some of these women had religious foundations: Shulgi-simti certainly did, and Geme-Ninlilla too. Nin-kalla is also well-attested performing religious rites. Her rites, or at least those said to be performed by the queen (NIN) centered around the highest of the gods in the Nippur area, Ninlil and Enlil, but also included lunar rites and a handful of Nippur deities such as Alla-gula. Shulgi-simti is best attested with a variety of rites at Ur, many of them with Akkadian festival names. She worshipped a quartet of North Babylonian goddesses, two martial Ishtar forms (Annunitum and Ulmašitum) and two goddesses whose nature is now unclear, Belet-šuhnir and Belet-terraban, along with a large variety of various deities. While these may have been personal choices, Shulgi-simti fits into a wider pattern of royal women having special ties to Ishtar forms. Her foundation was underwritten by donors, many of them courtiers, but her foundation appears to have declined after about Shulgi year 40. Did Shulgi-simti and the other co-wives of Shulgi have an ox of their own for sacrifice? On the one hand, the answer seems to be no. Most of these women did not control their own finances and while they seem to have had access to the odd goat or birds, they do not seem to have had much (if any) of what might be termed private property. And often when women appear, especially in the donor lists, it



Chapter 13 Conclusions 

 307

is in relation to a man, so-and-so’s wife or daughter or sister: their own names are not even recorded in most cases. But perhaps we are looking at this problem from too modern a lens. It is the case that, regardless of who in the family was the ultimate owner of the property, women could and did have regular venues for sacrifice and communal religious activity at the Ur III court. These were not cloistered priestesses, but women of various ages and various marital states. Men of course participated too. These could be very high-ranking courtiers, but more ordinary folk seem to have been able to participate as well. If these reconstructions are correct, Shulgi-simti was never the most important woman of her day. Unlike En-heduanna, she was no scion of royalty groomed for a role of celibate prayer. Shulgi-simti shows us that women with more ordinary lives and less exalted lineages were not excluded from the religious lives of their day.

Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own Abusch, T. “Sacrifice in Mesopotamia,” pp. 38–48 in A. Baumgarten (ed.), Sacrifice in Religious Experience Leiden: Brill, 2002. Al-Mutawalli, N. and Shalkham, A. “From the Archive of ‘DI.KU5-mišar’—Excavation of Drehem,” Sumer 59 (2014): 93–112. Allred, L. Cooks and Kitchens: Centralized Food Production in Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Ph. D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 2006. Anderson, G. “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” pp. 871–886 in D. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 5. NY: Doubleday, 1992. Andersson, J. Kingship in the Early Mesopotamian Onomasticon 2800–2200 BCE Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2012. Archi, A. “Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon: The case of Išhara,” pp. 21–33 in K. A. Yener and H. Hoffner Jr. (eds.), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History: Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Archi, A. “Palast. A. II. Ebla,” RlA 10 (2004): 204–205. Archi, A. “Rank at the Court of Ebla,” pp. 1–9 in H. Baker, E. Robson and G. Zolyomi (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black London: BISI 2010. Bahrani, Z. Women of Babylon London: Routledge, 2001. Balke, Th. “Eine neusumerische Urkunde über Materialen für den Schiffsbau,” UF 25 (1993): 1–8. Batto, B. Studies on Women at Mari. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Bauer, J. “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der Mesopotamischen Geschichte,” in J. Bauer, R. Englund and M. Krebernik (eds.), Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit OBO 160/1. Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1998. Beckman, G. “Ištar of Nineveh Reconsidered,” JCS 50 (1998): 1–10. Beckman, G. “How Religion Was Done,” pp. 343–353 in D. Snell (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Near East Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Biga, M. “Femmes de la Famille Royale d’Ebla,” pp. 41–47 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987. Biga, M. “Wet-Nurses at Ebla : A Prosopographical Study,” Vicino Oriente 12 (2000) : 59–88. Brisch, N. Religion and Power : Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. OIS 4. Chicago : Oriental Institute, 2008. Brosius, M. “New out of Old ? Court and Court Ceremonies in Achaemenid Persia,” pp. 17–57 in A. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies Cambridge : CUP, 2007. Charpin, D. Hammu-rabi de Babylone Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 2003. Charpin, D. “Chroniques Bibliographiques 6. Comment faire connaître la civilisation Mésopotamienne ?”, RA 100 (2006) : 107–130. Charpin, D. “Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite (2002–1595),” pp. 25–484 in D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard and M. Stol (eds.), Mesopotamien : Die altbabylonische Zeit. OBO 160/4. Fribourg : Academic Press, 2004. Civil, M. “The Law Collection of Ur-Namma,” pp. 221–286 in A. R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection CUSAS 17. Bethesda : CDL, 2011. Clark, G. Women in Late Antiquity : Pagan and Christian Lifestyles Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1993.

310 

 Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own

Cohen, M. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993. Cohen, M. Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East Bethesda: CDL, 2015. Cooper, J. Review of Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History by M. van de Mieroop BASOR 327 (2002): 78–80. Cooper, J. “Divine Kingship in Mesopotamia, A Fleeting Phenomenon,” pp. 261–265 in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008. Crawford, H. Ur: The City of the Moon God London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. D’Agostino, F. “Ein neuer Text über Abī-simtī und das Elūnum-Fest in Puzriš-Dagan,” ZA 99 (1998): 1–5. Dalley, S. Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Longman, 1984. Diakonoff, I. M. “Old Babylonian Ur,” JESHO 38 (1995): 91–94. Durand, J. M. and Margueron, J. “La question du Harem Royal dans le palais de Mari,” Journal des Savants 4 (1980): 253–280. Edzard, D. O. Gudea and his Dynasty RIME 3/1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Edzard, D. O. “Palast.A. III. Altbabylonisch,” RlA 10 (2004): 205–208. Edzard, D. and Röllig, W. “Prinz, Prinzessin,” RlA 11 (2006–8): 1–2. Englund, R. “The Ur III Collection of the CMAA,” CDLJ 2002: 1–16. Englund, R. “Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JESHO 31 (1988): 121–185. Faist, B. “Kingship and Institutional Development in the Middle Assyrian Period,” pp. 15–24 in G. Lanfranchi and R. Rollinger (eds.), Concepts of Kingship in Antiquity Padova: SARGON Editrice e Libreria, 2010. Feliu, L. “An Ur III Tablet from Urusagrig,” Aula Orientalis 24 (2006): 149. Feliu, L. “New Cuneiform Texts in Barcelona,” Aula Orientalis 31 (2013): 227–234. Firth, R. “Offering and Sacrifice: Problems of Organization,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 93 (1963): 12–24. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Ur-Namma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition OBO 166. Fribourg: University Press, 1999. Foster, B. “The Donation of Abī-Simtī,” SEL 2 (1985): 37–42. Foster, B. “Notes on Women in Sargonic Society,” pp. 53–61 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987. Foster, B. “Shuruppak and the Sumerian City State, “ pp.71–88 in L. Kogan, N. Kosolova et.al. (eds.), Babel and Bibel 2. Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Foster, B. and Salgues, E. “ ‘Everything except the Squeal’, Pigs in Early Mesopotamia,” pp. 283–291 in B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), De la domestication au tabou Paris: Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1, 2006. Foster, B. “Clothing in Sargonic Mesopotamia: Visual and Written Evidence,” pp. 110–145 in C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millenium B.C. Oxbow Books, 2010. Foxvog, D., Heimpel, W. and Kilmer, A. “Lamma/ Lamassu. A. Philologisch,” RlA 6 (1980–3): 446–453. Frankfort, H. “State Festivals in Egypt and Mesopotamia,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 15 (1952): 1–12. Frayne, D. Sargonic and Gutian Period RIME 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Frayne, D. Ur III Period RIME 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.



Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own 

 311

Frayne, D. “On the Location of Simurrum,” pp. 243–270 in G. Young, M. Chavalas and R. Averbeck (eds.), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons Astour FS. Bethesda: CDL, 1997. Frayne, D. “The Zagros Campaigns of Šulgi and Amar-Suena,” SCCNH 10 (1999): 141–201. Frayne, D. “The Zagros Campaigns of the Ur III Kings,” CSMS 3 (2008): 33–56. Garelli, P. “Hofstaat. B. Assyrisch,” RlA 4 (1972–5) : 446–452. Garfinkle, S. J. “Was the Ur III State Bureaucratic? Patrimonialism and Bureaucracy in the Ur III Period,” pp. 55–61 in S. Garfinkle and J. Cale Johnson (eds.), The Growth of An Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration BPOA 5. Madrid: CSIC, 2008. Garfinkle, S. J. Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia. CUSAS 22. Bethesda: CDL, 2012. Garfinkle, S. J. “The Economy of Warfare in Southern Iraq at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.,” pp. 353–362 in H. Neumann, R. Dittman et al. (eds.), Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien CRRAI 52. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014. Gibson, M. “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur,” pp. 33–54 in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial CRRAI 35. Philadelphia: OPSNKF, 1992. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Gödecken, K. “Bemerkungen zur Göttin Annunītum,” UF 5 (1973): 141–163. Goetze, A. “Šakkanakkus of the Ur III Empire,” JCS 17 (1963): 1–32. Gomi, T. “Űber MU.TÙ. LUGAL: ‘Eingebrachtes für den König’ in den Neusumerischen Viehverwaltungsurkunden aud Drehim,” Orient 11 (1975): 1–14. Gomi, T. “Shulgi-simti and her Libation Place (KI-A-NAG),” Orient 12 (1976): 1–14. Gomi—see also Ozaki. Grégoire, J.-P. “Le sceau d’Ea-niša,” RA 73 (1979): 190–191. Guichard, M. “Mari Texts,” pp. 419–421 in E. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East Vol. III. Oxford: OUP, 1997. Hackett, J. “Can a Sexist Model Liberate us? Ancient Near Eastern ‘Fertility’ Goddesses,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 5 (2001): 65–70. Hallo, W. W. “The Coronation of Ur-Nammu,” JCS 20 (1966): 133–141. Hallo, W. W. “Gutium,” RlA 3 (1971): 708–720. Hallo, W. W. “The Death of Kings: Traditional Historiography in Contextual Perspective,” pp. 148–165 in M. Cogan and I. Eph’al (eds.), Ah, Assyria (FS Tadmor) Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991. Hallo, W. W. Origins Leiden: Brill, 1996. Hallo, W. W. “A Sumerian Apocryphon? The Royal Correspondence of Ur Reconsidered,” pp.85–104 in P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis (eds.), Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip CM 35. Leiden: Styx-Brill, 2006. Heimpel, W. “The Gates of the Eninnu” JCS 48 (1996): 17–29. Heimpel, W. Letters to the King of Mari MC 12. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Heimpel, W. “Blind Workers in Ur III Texts,” Kaskal 6 (2009): 43–48. Hilgert, M. Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit. Münster: Rhema, 2002. Jacobsen, Th. “The Reign of Ibbī-Suen,” JCS 7 (1953): 36–47. Jacobsen, Th., Lloyd, S. and Frankfort, H. The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers at Tell Asmar OIP 43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940. Johnson, C. “Two Ur III Tablets from the Tulare County Library,” CDLB 2004: 1–8.

312 

 Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own

Jones, T. B. “Sumerian Administrative Documents: An Essay,” pp. 41–61 in S. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen AS 20. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1976. Jones, T. B. and Snyder, J. Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1961. Keetman, J. “Enmerkar und Sulge als sumerische Muttersprachler nach literarischen Quellen,” ZA 100 (2010): 15–31. Kennedy, H. When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World. Cambridge: Da Capo, 2004. Kienast, B. “Naramsin mut dINANNA,” Orientalia 59 (1990): 196–203. Klein, J. “Šulgi and Gilgameš: Two Brother-Peers (Šulgi O),” pp. 271–92 in B. Eichler (ed.), Kramer AV. AOAT 25. Neukirchen: Verlag Butzon & Bercher, 1976. Klein, J. “The Birth of a Crownprince in the Temple,” pp. 97–106 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987. Klein, J. “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire,” pp. 843–857 in J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. Klein, J. “Nippur” RlA 9 7/8 (2001): 532–9. Kleinerman, A. “Doctor Šu-kabta’s Family Practice,” pp. 177- 181 in D. I. Owen (ed.), Garšana Studies CUSAS 6. Bethesda: CDL, 2011. Kozuh, M. “Lamb, Mutton, and Goat in the Babylonian Temple Economy,” JESHO 53 (2010): 531–578. Kraus, F. R. “Provinzen des neusumerischen Reiches von Ur,” ZA 51 (1955): 4–75. Kuga, Y. “A Šulgi-simtum Tablet in the Atarashi Collection,” ASJ 17 (1995): 309–318. Kuhrt, A. The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 B. C. New York: Routledge, 1995. Kutscher, R. “A Note on the Early Careers of Zariqum and Šamši-illat,” RA 73 (1979): 81–82. Lafont, B. “Les filles du roi de Mari,” pp. 113–121 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations 1987. Lafont, B. “Quelques remarques sur Nippur à l’époque d’Ur III,” pp. 113–118 in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial CRRAI 35. Philadelphia: OPSNKF, 1992. Lafont, B. “À propos des repas collectifs et banquets (naptanum) à l’époque d’Ur III,” pp. 93–98 in P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur : Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist JCS Supplemental Series. Boston : ASOR, 2008. Lambert, W. G. “The Seed of Kingship,” pp. 427–440 in P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté CRRAI XIX. Paris : Geuthner, 1974. Lambert, W. G. “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” pp. 191–201 in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55. Leuven, Peeters, 1993. Landsberger, B. Materialen zum Sumerischen Lexikon Vol. 5 Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1957 and Vol. 12, 1964. Lenzen, H. “Die beiden Hauptheiligtümer von Uruk und Ur zur Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur,” Iraq 22 (1960): 127–138. Lewis, R. Rethinking Orientalism: Women, Travel and the Ottoman Harem New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004. Limet, H. “Au Début du Règne de Šulgi,” RA 65 (1971): 15–21. Limet, H. L’anthroponymie sumérienne dans les documents de la 3e dynastie d’Ur. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968. Limet, H. “Ur et sa region à l’Époque de la 3e Dynastie,” AoF 20 (1993): 115–122.



Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own 

 313

Lion, B. “Le Morte, Les Mortes,” pp. 277–290 in X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), Et il y eut un spirit dans l’Homme. Paris: De Boccard, 2009. Lion, B. “Literacy and Gender,” pp. 90–112 in K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Oxford: OUP, 2011. Liverani, M. “The King in the Palace,” Or. 78 (2009): 81–91. Maiocchi, M. “A Hurrian Administrative Tablet from Third Millennium Urkesh,” ZA 101 (2011): 191–203. Mander, P. “Two Tablets from Garšana in a Private Italian Collection,” pp. 221–226 in in D. I. Owen (ed.), Garšana Studies CUSAS 6. Bethesda: CDL, 2011. Marchesi, G. “Who was buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual Data,” Or. 73 (2004): 153–197. Margueron, J.-C. “Mari,” pp. 413–17 in E. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East Vol. III. Oxford: OUP, 1997. Marsman, H. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Mayer, W. and Sallaberger, W. “Opfer,” RlA 10 (2003): 93–102. Mayr, R. and Owen, D. “The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period,” pp. 145–174in H.Waetzoldt (ed.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift für Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient Bd. 9, Heidelberg. McCarthy, D. “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 166–176. McClymond, K. Beyond Sacred Violence: A Comparative Study of Sacrifice Baltimore, JHU Press, 2008. Melville, S. “Neo-Assyrian Royal Women and Male Identity: Status as a Social Tool,” JAOS 124 (2004): 37–57. Michalowski, P. “Royal Women of the Ur III Period—Part I: The Wife of Šulgi,” JCS 28 (1976): 169–172. Michalowski, P. “Death of Šulgi,” Or NS 46 (1977): 220–225. Michalowski, P. “Ur III Topographical Names,” OrAn 16 (1977): 287–296. Michalowski, P. “Royal Women of the Ur III Period—Part II: Geme-Ninlilla,” JCS 31 (1979): 171–176. Michalowski, P. “Royal Women of the Ur III Period—Part III,” ASJ 4 (1982): 129–142. Michalowski, P. “Königsbriefe,” RlA 6 (1980–3): 51–59. Michalowski, P. “History as Charter: Some Observations of the Sumerian King List,” JAOS 103 (1983): 237–248. Michalowski, P. “Divine Heroes and Historical Self-Representation: From Gilgamesh to Shulgi,” BCSMS 16 (1988): 19–23. Michalowski, P. “Sumer Dreams of Subartu: Politics and the Geographical Imagination,” pp. 305–315 in K. van Lerberghe (ed.), Languages and Cultures in Contact CRRAI 42. Leuven: Peeters. 1999. Michalowski, P. “ ‘Round about Nidaba: On the Early Goddesses of Sumer,” pp. 413–422 in S. Parpola and R. Whiting (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 47. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002. Michalowski, P. “The Ideological Foundations of the Ur III State,” pp. 219–235 in J.-W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr. Saarbruck: Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 2004.

314 

 Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own

Michalowski, P. “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” pp. 33–45 in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008. Michalowski, P. The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Michalowski, P. “News of a Mari Defeat from the Time of King Šulgi,” NABU 2013 Number 23 pp. 36–41. Michalowski, P. “Networks of Authority and Power in Ur III Times,” pp. 169–205 in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Michalowski, P. “Of Bears and Men: Thoughts on the End of Šulgi’s reign and on the Ensuing Succession,” pp. 285–320 in D. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Michalowski, P. “The Steward of Divine Gudea and his Family in Ur III Girsu,” pp. 173–193 in P. Michalowski and B. J. Collins (eds.), Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman. Atlanta: Lockwood, 2013. Miglus, P. “Palast B.” RlA 10 (2004): 233–259. Molina, M. Tablillas Administrativas Neosumerias del Museo de Montserrat. Roma: Bonsignori Editore, 1993. Molina, M. “La Cerveza en la Antigua Mesopotamia,” pp. 15–38 in M. Milano et al. (ed.), La Cerveza en la Antigüedad. Sevilla 2001. Molina, M. “The Corpus of Neo-Sumerian Tablets: An Overview,” pp. 19–53 in S. Garfinkle and C. Johnson (eds.), The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia. Madrid: Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo, 2008. Molina, M. “Tappan-darah,” RlA 13 (2012): 452. Molina, M. “Court Officials at Umma in Ur III Times,” ZA 103 (2013): 125–148. Molina, M. “Ur,” RlA 14 (2015): 355–361. Moorey, P. R. S. “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur,” Iraq 46 (1984): 1–18. Neumann, H. “Bemerkungen zu Ehe, Konkubinat und Bigamie in Neusumerischer Zeit,” pp. 131–7 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique CRRAI 33. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987. Neumann, H. “Assur in altakkadischer Zeit: Die Texte,” 133–138 in H. Waetzoldt et al. (eds.), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten CRRAI 39. Heidelberger Orientverlag 1997. Neumann, H. “Keilschrifttexte aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen I: Die Ur III-Texte im Kestner-Museum Hannover,” AoF 35 (2008): 238–245. Neumann, H. “Slavery in Private Households toward the End of the Third Millennium B.C.,” pp. 21–32 in L. Culbertson (ed.), Slaves and Households in the Near East Chicago: Oriental Institute Seminars 7, 2011. Notizia, P. Review of J. Dahl, The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma, BiOr LXVII (2010): 108–112. Notizia, P. “Hulibar, Duhduh(u)ni e la Frontiera Orientale,” Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 5 (2010): 269–291. Notizia, P. “Prince Etel-pu-Dagan, Son of Šulgi,” pp. 207–220 in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st C. B.C. to the 21st C. AD Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Ouyang, X. and Brookman, W. “The Cuneiform Collection of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts,” CLDJ 2012: 1–58. Owen, D. I. Review of S. Kang, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Drehem Archive, JNES 33 (1974): 174–177.



Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own 

 315

Owen, D. I. Review of Keiser’s Neo-Sumerian Account Texts from Drehem (BIN 3), JNES 33 (1974): 417–420. Owen, D. I. “Random Notes on a Recent Ur III Volume,” JAOS 108 (1988):111–122. Owen, D. I. “The Royal Gift Seal of Șilluš-Dagan, Governor of Simurrum,” pp. 815–846 in S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicate alla memoria di Luigi Cagni Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2000. Owen, D. I. “Pigs and Pig By-Products at Garšana in the Ur III Period,” pp. 75–87 in B. Lion and C. Michel (eds.), De la domestication au tabou: Le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient Ancien Paris: Maison Rene-Ginouvès, 2006. Ozaki, T. “Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom and their ‘ka du8-ha’ Ceremony,” pp. 217–222 in P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, a supplementary volume of the Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2008. Paoletti, P. Der König und sein Kreis. Das Staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur BPOA 10. Madrid, CSIS, 2012. Parpola, S. “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” pp. 613–626 in in G. Lanfranchi, D. Bonacossi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Penzer, N. M. The Harem: Inside the Grand Seraglio of the Turkish Sultans originally printed in 1936, reprinted New York: Dorset Press, 1993. Peyronel, L. “Elam and Eshnunna,” in K. de Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam Leiden: Brill, 2013. Pinnock, F. “Ebla,” pp. 538–555 in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World London: Routledge, 2013. Pongratz-Leisten, B. “Prozession(strasse),” RlA 11 (2007): 98–103. Pongratz-Leisten, B. “When the Gods are Speaking: Toward Defining the Interface between Polytheism and Monotheism,” pp. 132–168 in M. Köchert and M. Nissinen (eds.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2003. Postgate, J. N. “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad,” pp. 383–394 in J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East Hendrikson Publishers, 1995. Postgate, J. N. “Palast” RlA 10 (2004), 195–200 and 212–226. Potts, D. T. “ ‘The Plant for the Heart Grows in Magan…:’ Redefining Southeastern Arabia’s Role in Ancient Western Asia,” Australian Archaeology 48 (1999): 35–41. Prechel, D. Die Göttin Išhara Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. Radner, K. “The Seal of Tašmetum-šarrat, Sennacherib’s Queen, and Its Impressions,” pp. 687–698 in G. Lanfranchi, D. Bonacossi et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Reade, J. “The Utuhegal Stela from Ur,” BaM 27 (1996): 229–234. Renger, J. “Hofstaat, A. Bis ca. 1500 v. Chr,” RlA 4 (1972–5): 435–446. Renger, J. “The Daughters of Urbaba: Some Thoughts on the Succession to the Throne during the 2.Dynasty of Lagash,” pp. 367–9 in B. Eichler (ed.), Kramer AV. AOAT 25. Neukirchen: Verlag Butzon and Bercher 1976. Reichel, C. Political Changes and Cultural Continuity in the Palace of the Rulers at Eshnunna (Tell Asmar) from the Ur III Period to the Isin-Larsa Period. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2001. Reichel, C. “The King is Dead, Long Live the King: The Last Days of the Šu-Sîn Cult at Ešnunna and its Aftermath,” pp. 133–155 in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in

316 

 Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own

the Ancient World and Beyond Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008. Richter, T. Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 257 (2nd edition) Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 2004. Robertson, J. “The Internal Political and Economic Structure of Old Babylonian Nippur: The Guennakkum and his ‘House,” JCS 36 (1984): 145–190. Rubio, G. “Šulgi el Políglota: Del Don de Lenguas y la Traducción en la Mesopotamia Antigua,” Isimu: Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la Antigüedad 2 (1999): 215–222. Rubio, G. “Šulgi and the Death of Sumerian,” pp. 167–179 in P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis (eds.), Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Rubio, G. Review of N. Brisch, Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty JCS 60 (2008): 117–124. Sallaberger, W. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III.-Zeit 2 volumes. UAVA 7. Berlin : de Gruyter, 1993. Sallaberger, W. “Eine reiche Bestattung im neusumerischen Ur,” JCS 47 (1995) : 15–21. Sallaberger, W. “Ur III Zeit,” pp. 121–414 in W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit OBO 160/3. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999. Sallaberger, W. “Königtum und Kult in der Hauptstadt Ur,” pp. 255–260 in W. Seipel (ed.), Von Babylon bis Jerusalem Wien: Mannheim, 1999. Sallaberger, W. “Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagan. Zur Bedeutung dieses Königlichen Archivs,” JEOL 38 (2003–4): 145–162. Sallaberger, W. “Relativ Chronologie von der Späten Frühdynastischen bis zur Altbabylonischen Zeit,” pp. 15–43 in J. W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds.) 2000 v Chr. Saarbrucken, 2004. Sallaberger, W. “Palast. A. I. Mesopotamien im III. Jahrtausend, RlA 10 (2004): 200–204. Sallaberger, W. “Puzriš-Dagān,” RlA 11 (2006): 125–128. Sallaberger, W. “Sumerian Language Use at Garšana: On Orthography, Grammar, and AkkadoSumerian Bilingualism,” pp. 335–372 in D. I. Owen (ed.), Garšana Studies CUSAS 6. Bethesda: CDL, 2011. Sallaberger, W. “Home-made Bread, Municipal Mutton, Royal Wine. Establishing Social Relations during the Preparation and Consumption of Food in Religious Festivals at late Bronze Age Emar,” in S. Pollock (ed.), Between Feasts and Daily Meals: Toward an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces. eTopoi: Journal for Ancient Studies 2 (2012): 157–177. Sallaberger, W. “Ur-Namma,” RlA 14 (2015): 422–431. Sallaberger, W. and Boese, J. “Apil-kīn von Mari und die Könige der III.Dynastie von Ur,” AoF 23 (1996) : 24–39. Sallaberger, W. and Huber-Vulliet, F. “Priester,” RlA 11 (2006): 617–640. Sallaberger, W. and Schrakamp, I. “The Gutean Period: A Problem of Third Millennium Chronology,” pp. 113–113–135 in W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp (eds.), History and Philology, ARCANE III. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015. Sasson, J. M. “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” pp. 299–316 in D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum II (Birot Memorial) Paris: SEPOA, 1994. Sasson, J. M. “On the ‘Išhi-Addu’ Seal from Qatna with Comments on Qatna Personnel in the OB Period,” pp. 243–247 in S. Dönmez (ed.), Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz Istanbul: Ege, 2010. Sasson, J. M. From the Mari Archives. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Sauren, H. “Der Feldzug Utuhengals von Uruk gegen Tirigan und das Siedlungsgebiet der Gutäer,” RA 61 (1967): 75–79.



Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own 

 317

Scharaschenidze, D. M. “Die Sukkal-Mah des Alten Zweistromlandes in der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur,” Acta Antiqua 22 (1974): 103–112. Schneider, N. “Das Götterpaar dBe-la-at-múš-nir ù dBe-la-at-dír-ra-ba-an,” AnOr 6 (1933): 13–23. Scurlock, J. “The Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals in Ancient Israel and Ancient Mesopotamia,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44 (2006): 13–50. Selz, G. Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerisches Stadtstaates von Lagaš Philadelphia: OPSNKF, 1995. Selz, G. “Immer nur Söhne und keine Töchter? Zu Einem Familienrelief des Ur-Nanše,” pp. 187–196 in D. Shehata, F. Weiershäuser und K. Zand (eds.), Von Göttern und Menschen: FS für Brigitte Groneberg Leiden: Brill, 2010. Sigrist, M. “Notes Brèves: Kubatum,” RA 80 (1986): 185. Sigrist, M. Drehem Bethesda: CDL Press, 1992. Sigrist, M. Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum I Bethesda: CDL, 1995. Sigrist, M. “Les Noms d’Année,” pp. 219–238 in A. Kleinerman and J. Sasson (eds.), Why Should Someone who Knows Something Conceal It? FS Owen. Bethesda: CDL, 2010. Sharlach, T. “Beyond Chronology: The Šakkanakku’s of Mari and the Kings of Ur,” pp. 59–70 in W. W. Hallo and I. Winter (eds.) Seals and Seal Impressions, Proceedings of the XLV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 2001. Sharlach, T. “Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court,” in D. Owen and G. Wilhelm (eds.), Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 12 (2002): 91–114. Sharlach, T. “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 57 (2005): 17–29. Sharlach, T. “Social Change and the Transition from the Third Dynasty of Ur to the Old Babylonian Kingdoms, c. 2112–1595 BCE,” pp. 61–72 in H. Crawford (ed.), Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Proceedings of the British Academy 136, Oxford University Press 2007. Sharlach, T. “Shulgi-simti and the Representation of Women in Historical Sources,” pp. 363–368 in M. Feldman and J. Cheng (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene Winter, E. J. Brill 2007. Sharlach, T. “Priestesses, Concubines and the Daughters of Men: Disentangling the Meaning of the Term Lukur in Ur III Times,” pp.177–183in P. Michalowski (ed.),On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, a supplementary volume of the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, American Schools of Oriental Research 2008. Sharlach, T. “The Remembrance of Kings Past: The Persona of King Ibbi-Sin,” pp. 421–432 in D. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Sharlach, T. “Šulgi, Mighty Man, King of Ur,” pp. 211–220 in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 60. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Sollberger, E. “Sur la chronologie des rois d’Ur et quelques problèmes connexes,” AfO 17 (1954–6): 10–48. Sollberger, E. “A Note on the Lyrical Dialogue SRT 23,” JCS 30 (1978): 99–100. Sollberger, E. “Ladies of the Ur-III Empire,” RA 61 (1967): 69–70. Spawforth, A. The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Spence, K. “Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt: The Amarna Period and Later Eighteenth Dynasty,” pp. 267–328 in A. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

318 

 Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own

Steible, H. “Legitimation von Herrschaft im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.,” pp. 67–91 in G. Dux (ed.), Moral und Recht im Diskurs der Moderne: zur Legitimation gesellschaftlicher Ordnung Opladen: Leske and Budrich 2001. Steinkeller, P. “Seal Practice in the Ur III Period,” pp. 41–53 in R. Biggs (ed.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East Bib. Mes. 6, 1977 Steinkeller, P. “Notes on Two Sumerian Votive Inscriptions,” RA 73 (1979): 189–190. Steinkeller, P. “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981): 77–92. Steinkeller, P. “The Mesopotamian God Kakka,” JNES 41 (1982): 289–294. Steinkeller, P. “Two Sargonic Sale Documents concerning Women,” Or. 51 (1982): 355–368. Steinkeller, P. “The Question of Marhaši,” ZA 72 (1982): 237–265. Steinkeller, P. “A Note on sa-bar = sa-par4/pàr ‘casting net’” ZA 75 (1985): 39–46. Steinkeller, P. “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery,” pp. 19–41 in M. Gibson and R. Biggs (eds.), The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East SAOC. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1987. Steinkeller, P. “The Date of Gudea and his Dynasty,” JCS 40 (1988): 47–53. Steinkeller, P. “Threshing Implements in Ancient Mesopotamia: Cuneiform Sources,” Iraq 52 (1990): 19–23. Steinkeller, P. “More on the Name of Nergal and Related Matters,” ZA 80 (1990): 53–59. Steinkeller, P. “Inanna’s Archaic Symbol,” pp.87–97 in J. Braun et al., Written on Clay and Stone: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Krystyna Szarzynska Warsaw: Agade 1998. Steinkeller, P. “On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship,” pp. 103–137 in K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1999. Steinkeller, P. “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium,” ZA 91 (2001): 22–84. Steinkeller, P. “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List,” pp. 267–292 in W. Sallaberger, K. Volk et al. (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke Wiesbaden: Harasowitz, 2003. Steinkeller, P. “New Light on Šimaški and Its Rulers,” ZA 97 (2007): 215–232. Steinkeller, P. “Tiš-atal’s Visit to Nippur,” NABU (2007): 14–16. Steinkeller, P. “The Sumerian Pig Term ŠÁH.ZÉ.DA,” NABU 2007 pp. 17–19. Steinkeller, P. “On the Location of the Towns of Ur-Zababa and Dimat-Enlil and on the Course of the Arahtum,” pp. 369–382 in J. Fincke (ed.), Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm Dresden: ISLET Verlag, 2010. Steinkeller, P. “How Did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?” pp. 459–478 in D. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature Machinist FS. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Steinkeller, P. “On the Reading DI-dUtu,” JNES 74 (2015): 39–44. Steinkeller, P. “Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered,” pp. 293–317 in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives Leiden: Brill, 2013. Steinkeller, P. “Corvée Labor in Ur III Times,” pp. 347–424 in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD. Winona Lake: Eisnebrauns, 2013. Steinkeller, P. “Trade Routes and Commercial Networks in the Persian Gulf during the Third Millennium B.C.,” pp. 413–431 in Gh. Karimi-Doostan et al. (eds.), Collection of Papers



Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own 

 319

Presented to the Third International Biennial Conference of the Persian Gulf Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 2013. Steinkeller, P. “The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur III Period” pp. 137–236 in P. Steinkeller and M. Hudson (eds.), Labor in the Ancient World. ISET-Verlag, 2015. Stepien, M. “The Organisation of Animal Pasturing in the Light of Balanced Accounts, Inventories of Sheep and Goat Herdsmen from Umma,” pp. 161–177 in O. Tunca and D. Deheselle (eds.), Tablettes et images aux Pays de Sumer et d’Akkad (Limet FS). Liège: AHPA, 1996. Stepien, M. “The Economic Status of Governors in Ur III Times: An Example of the Governor of Umma,” JCS 64 (2012): 17–30. Streck, M. and Wasserman, N. “More Light on Nanāya,” ZA 102 (2012): 183–201. Stol, M. “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995): 123–144. Stol, M. “Personen um den König in altbabylonischer Zeit,” pp. 735–757 in O. Loretz and K. Metzler et al. (eds.), Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. Stol, M. “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” pp. 643–975 in D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard and M. Stol (eds.), Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit OBO 160/4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Stol. M. Women in the Ancient Near East. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Such-Gutiérrez, M. “Die Prinzessin Meištarān,” Aula Orientalis 19 (2001): 87–108. Such- Gutiérrez, M. Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend Materiali per il Vocabulario Sumerico 9/1. 2003. Such-Gutiérrez, M. “Neue Erkentnisse zu den königlichen Gemahlinnen der Ur III-Zeit,” pp. 327–345 in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. CRRAI 54. Winona Lake : Eisenbrauns, 2012. Suter, C. “Who Are the Women in Mesopotamian Art from CA. 2334–1763 BCE ?” Kaskal 5 (2008) : 1–26. Suter, C. “Ur III Kings in Images : A Reappraisal,” pp. 319–348 in H. Baker et al. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for J. Black London: BISI, 2010. Tarasewicz, R. “Bird Breeding in Neo-Babylonian Sippar,” Kaskal 6 (2009) : 151–214. Tonietti, M. V. “ ‘Ho stabilito mia moglie come Padre e Madre della Mia Casa’. Invecchiamento e Diritte delle Donne nell’Antica Mesopotamica,” Storia delle Donne 2 (2006) : 115–139. Tonietti, M. V. “De l’AMA-GAL EN d’Ebla à la Valide Sultan Ottomane : L’Importance de la ‘Mère du Roi’ dans le Proche-Oriente Depuis la Plus Haute Antiquité,” pp. 261–274 in X. Faivre, B. Lion, C. Michel (eds.), Et il y eut un esprit dans l’Homme : Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie. Paris : De Boccard, 2009. Tonietti, M. V. “The Expedition of Ebla against Ašdar(um) and the Queen of Harran,” ZA 100 (2010) : 56–85. Tsouparopoulu, C. “A Reconstruction of the Puzriš-Dagan Central Livestock Agency,” CDLJ 2013: 1–15. Tsouparopoulu, C. “Killing and Skinning Animals in the Ur III Period,” AoF 40 (2013): 150–182. Vale, M. The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Van de Mieroop, M. “Gold Offerings of Šulgi,” OrNS 55 (1986): 131–151.

320 

 Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own

Van de Mieroop, M. Crafts in the Early Isin Period: A Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-ilišu Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 24. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek 1987. Van de Mieroop, M. Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History London: Routledge, 1999. Van Dijk, J. and Geller, M. Ur III Incantations from the Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection, Jena TMHC 6. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2003. Van Driel, G. “Nippur and the Inanna Temple during the Ur III Period,” JESHO 38 (1995): 393–406. Van Driel, G. “Pfründe,” RlA 10 (2003–5): 518–524. Vanstiphout, H. L. J. “The Old Babylonian Literary Canon: Structure, Function and Intention,” pp. 1–28 in G. Dorleijn and H. Vanstiphout (eds.), Cultural Repertoires: Structure, Function and Dynamics Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Veldhuis, N. “Sumerian Literature,” pp. 29–43 in G. Dorleijn and H. Vanstiphout (eds.), Cultural Repertoires: Structure, Function and Dynamics Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Vogel, H. “Death and Burial,” pp. 419–434 in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World NY: Routledge, 2013. Waetzoldt, H. “Frauen (dam) in Ebla,” pp. 365–377 in L. Cagni (ed.), Ebla 1975–85 Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1987. Waetzoldt, H. Review of M. Gibson and R. Biggs, The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, JAOS 111 (1991): 637–641. Walker, C. B. F. “Another Babati Inscription,” JCS 35 (1983): 91–96. Weadock, P. “The Giparu at Ur,” Iraq 37 (1975): 101–128. Weiershäuser, F. Die Königlichen Frauen der III.Dynastie von Ur Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 2008. Weiershäuser, F. “Geštinanna und die Mutter des Šulgi,” pp. 347–355 in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 54. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Westbrook, R. “Polygamie,” RlA 10 (2005): 600–602. Westenholz, A. “The World View of Sargonic Officials. Differences in Mentality between Sumerians and Akkadians,” pp. 157–170 in M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire Padova: Sargon SRL, 1993. Westenholz, J. “Towards a New Conceptualization of the Female Role in Mesopotamian Society,” JAOS 110 (1990): 510–512. Westenholz, J. “Nanaya: Lady of Mystery,” 57–84 in I. Finkel and M. Geller (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations CM 7. Groningen: Styx, 1997. Westenholz, J. “Great Goddesses in Mesopotamia: The Female Aspect of Divinity,” BCSMS 37 (2002): 13–26. Westenholz, J. “Women of Religion in Mesopotamia: The High Priestess in the Temple,” CSMSJ 1 (2006): 31–44. Weszeli, M. “Schwein,” RlA 12 (2009): 319–329. Whiting, R. “Tiš-atal of Nineveh and Babati, Uncle of Šu-Sin,” JCS 28 (1976): 173–182. Widell, M. “The Sumerian Expression igi-kár Revisited,” Iraq LXX (2008): 131–145. Wilcke, C. “Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit,” pp. 177–232 in P. Garelli (ed.), Le Palais et la Royauté. CRRAI XIX. Paris: Geuthner, 1974. Wilcke, C. “Inanna / Ištar,” RlA 5 (1976–80): 74–87. Wilcke, C. “É-sag-da-na Nibruki: An Early Administrative Center of the Ur III Empire,” pp. 321–324 in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial CRRAI 35. Philadelphia: OPSNKF, 1992.



Bibliography, An Ox of One’s Own 

 321

Wilcke, C. “Care of the Elderly in Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.,” pp. 23–58 in M. Stol and S. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East Leiden: Brill, 1998. Wilcke, C. “Eine Weihinschrift Gudeas von Lagaš mit altbabylonischer Űbersetzung,” pp. 29–47 in A. R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schoyen Collection CUSAS 17. Bethesda: CDL, 2011. Winter, I. J. “Touched by the Gods: Visual Evidence for the Divine Status of Rulers in the Ancient Near East,” 75–101 in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008. Woods, C. “Bilingualism, Scribal Learning, and the Death of Sumerian,” pp. 91–120 in S. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. OIS 2. Chicago: Oriental Institute 2006. Woolley, A. L. Ur Excavations II. The Royal Cemetery. London: Trustees of the Two Museums, 1934. Woolley, A. L. Ur Excavations VI. The Buildings of the Third Dynasty. London: Trustees of the Two Museums, 1974. [Manuscript written 1935] Woolley, A. L. and Moorey, P. R. S. Ur ‘of the Chaldees.’ London: Herbert, 1982. Wu, Y. “Sheep, Goats, Pigs, Calves and Ducks in the House of the Lady in Girsu,” JAC 21 (2006): 1–28. Wu, Y. “Naram-ili, Šu-kabta and Nawir-ilum in the Archives of Garšana, Puzriš-Dagan and Umma,” JAC 23 (2008): 1–36. Wu, Y. and Li, X. “The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities and the é-uz-ga During the Reign of Šulgi,” pp. 445–458 in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds.), From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D.. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Wu, Y. and Wang, J. “The Identifications of Šulgi-simti, Wife of Šulgi, with Abi-simti, Mother of Amar-Sin and Šu-Sin, and of Ur-Sin, the Crown Prince, with Amar-Sin,” JAC 27 (2012): 1–27. Zernecke, A. “Warum sitz der Skorpion unter dem Bett?” Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalastinaVereins 124 (2008): 107–127. Zettler, R. “Excavations at Nippur, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University’s Museum,” pp. 325–336 in M. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial CRRAI 35. Philadelphia: OPSNKF, 1992. Zettler, R. “Archaeology and the Problem of Textual Evidence for the Third Dynasty of Ur,” BCSMS 38 (2003): 49–62. Zettler, R. and Sallaberger, W. “Inana’s Festival at Nippur under the Third Dynasty of Ur,” ZA 101 (2011): 1–71. Zettler, R. and Hafford, W. “Ur. B. Archäolgisch,” RlA 14 (2015): 367–385. Ziegler, N. Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm Florilegium Marianum IV. Paris : SEPOA, 1999. Ziegler, N. “A Questionable Daughter-in-Law, ” JCS 51 (1999) : 55–59. Zsolnay, I. “Ištar, ‘Goddess of War, Pacifier of Kings’ : An Analysis of Ištar’s Martial Role in the Maledictory Sections of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” pp. 389–402 in L. Kogan (ed.), Language in the Ancient Near East CRRAI 53. Eisenbrauns : Winona Lake, 2010.

Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection List of Tablets according to Date and Bureau Chief Šu-kubum S29/6/-

MLC 27

RBC 2520

Abiliya S38/8/- S38/12/- S39/05/27 S39/6/- S39/7/13 S39/8/12 S40/04/12 S40/07/09 S40/9/- S41/8/15–19

YBC 15575 NBC 5698 RBC 585 RBC 2531 NBC 11379 RBC 2493 NBC 10796 RBC 2547 RBC 2583 MLC 41

Apilatum S42/6/18–20 S42/11/24 S43/1/4? S43/5/- S43/11/8 S45/1/23 S45/2/- S45/12/-

NBC 11382 RBC 2491

Ur-lugal-eden-ka

Beli-tab S36e/6/-

S46/3/23 Und.

RBC 2601 NBC 9956 YBC 15637 RBC 2621 RBC 2577 RBC 2580 RBC 2575 RBC 2412

S45/8/30 S46?/7/15 S46/8/20 S46/10/25 S46/11/24 S46/11/30 S47a/1/26 S47a/2/- S47/3/-

MLC 40 RBC 2624 YBC 16588 RBC 66 YBC 16473 YBC 15662 RBC 2492 RBC 2496 RBC 2562

Šulgi-ili S47a/5/- S47a/7/- S47a/7/- S47/8/16 S47a/9/- S47a/9/-

YBC 1335 RBC 2504 RBC 2507 RBC 2579 RBC 2418 YBC 15625

No Bureau Chief Named S36e/6/- S36/07/- S40/12/- und. und.

RBC 425 RBC 2542 RBC 2582 YBC 13328 YBC 15657

List of Tablets according to Museum Number MLC 27 MLC 40 MLC 41 NBC 5698

S29/6/S45/8/30 S41/8/15–19 S38/12/-

NBC 9956 NBC 10796 NBC 11379 NBC 11382

S42/11/24 S40/04/12 S39/7/13 S46/3/23

324 

 Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection

RBC 66 RBC 425 RBC 585 RBC 2412 RBC 2418 RBC 2491 RBC 2492 RBC 2493 RBC 2496 RBC 2504 RBC 2507 RBC 2520 RBC 2531 RBC 2542 RBC 2547 RBC 2562 RBC 2575 RBC 2577 RBC 2579 RBC 2580 RBC 2582 RBC 2583 RBC 2601 RBC 2621 RBC 2624 YBC 13328 YBC 13335 YBC 15575 YBC 15625 YBC 15637 YBC 15657 YBC 15662 YBC 16588 YBC 16473

S46/10/25 S36e/6/S39/05/27 S45/12/S47a/9/undated S47a/1/26 S39/8/12 S47a/2/S47a/7/S47a/7/S36e/6/S39/6/S36/07/S40/07/09 S47/3/S45/2/S43/11/8 S47*/8/16 S45/1/23 S40/12/S40/9/S42/6/18–20 S43/5/S46?/7/15 und. S47a/5/S38/8/S47a/9/S43/1/4? und. S46/11/30 S46/8/20 S46/11/24

The Bureau of Šu-kubum MLC 27 (S29/6/-) 1 gud dinanna unugki-ga 2 udu niga sig5 dub-lá-mah dnanna 2 udu niga é dbe-la-at-/suh-ne-ir R

gìri NIN-gá zi-ga ki šu-gu-bu-um-ma iti á-ki-ti mu-ús-sa/ en eriduki-ga ba-hun-gá

The Tenure of Beli-tab RBC 2520 (S36e/6/-) 1 gud ú 10 udu ú 10 máš-gal nir-ì-da-gál [m]u-DU d šul-gi-zi-/im-tum be-lí-DÙG ì-dab5 iti á-ki-ti mu a-rá-2-kam-aš /dnanna kar-zi-/da é-a-na ba-ku4 RBC 2542 (S36/07/-) 3 udu 1 máš dam ka-lí-a 1 gud 8 udu ú 2 máš é-a-ba-ni énsi R mu-DU be-lí-DÙG ì-dab5 iti ezem-dšul-/gi mu a-rá-2-kam-aš/ dnanna kar-zi/-da é-a ba-an-ku4

The Tenure of Abiliya YBC 15575 (S38/08/-) 16 uz-tur d UTU.TILLAT mu-DU d šul-gi-zi-/im-ti R á-bí-[lí-a]



ì-dab5 iti šu-eš5-ša mu-ús-sa bàd ma-da ba-dù NBC 5698 (S38/12/-) 1 uz-tur é-gal-ta è-a á-bí-lí-a ì-dab5 iti še-kin-kud mu-ús-sa bàd ma-da ba-dù RBC 585 (S39/05/27) 1 uz-tur niga iti-ta ud-26 ba-ra-/zal ud dab5-ba níg-kú NIN-gá-šè 1 uz-tur niga ba-ug7 1 kaskalmušen ba-ug7 2 tu-gur4mušen ba-ug7 R é-gal-la ba-an-/ku4 {erasure?} iti-ta ud-27/ ba-ra-zal {erasure?} zi-ga á-bí-/lí-a iti ezem-dnin-a-zu lower edge mu é-PUZUR4-/iš-dda-gan RBC 2531 (S39/6/-) 4 gukkal 1 máš ama-barag mu-DU d šul-gi-zi-/im-ti R á-bí-lí-a ì-dab5 iti á-ki-ti mu é-PUZUR4/-dda-gan ba-dù

List of Tablets according to Museum Number 

NBC 11379 (S39/7/13) 2 udu niga (erasure) sízkur dbe-la-at/-šuh-nir ù dbe-la-at/-dar-ra-ba-an iti-ta ud-13 ba-/ra-zal R zi-ga á-bí-lí-a šag4 tum-ma-al-laki __ iti ezem-dšul-/gi mu é-PUZUR4/-dda-gan ba-dù RBC 2493 (S39/8/12) 1 udu niga gi-ra-núm/ dinanna šag4 giškiri6 iti-ta ud-12 ba-/ra-zal R zi-ga á-bí-lí-a __ iti šu-eš-ša mu é-PUZUR4-iš/-dda-gan ba-dù NBC 10796 (S40/04/12) 2 udu niga 1 udu ú sízkur é-ud-15 šag4 unugki-/ga 1 udu niga gi-ra-núm dinanna 2 udu {erasure} niga [si]g5 sízkur dbe-la-at-šuh-/nir R ù dbe-la-at/-dar-ra-ba-an iti-ta ud-12 ba-ra-/zal zi-ga á-bí-lí-a iti ki-síg-dnin-a-zu mu-ús-sa PUZUR4-/iš-dda-gan/ ba-dù

 325

326 

 Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection

RBC 2547 (S40/07/9) 1 uz-tur 5 tu-gur4mušen níg-[k]ú NIN-gá-šè 3 tu-gur4mušen/ ba-ug7 R é-gal-la ba-an-k[u4] iti-ta ud-10-lá-1 ba-ra-/zal zi-ga á-bí-/lí-a šag4 urim5ki-ma iti ezem-dšul-gi lower edge mu-ús-sa PUZUR4-/iš-dda-gan/ ba-dù

2 uz-bábbar wa-at-ra-at-UGULA a-rá-2-kam 4 uz-tur d EN.ZU-na-da i[ti]-ta ud-20-lá-1 ba-ra-zal mu-DU šag4 tum-ma-al lower edge á-bí-lí-a ì-dab5 iti šu-eš5-ša mu-ús-sa é-PUZ[UR4-XXXX]

The Tenure of Apilatum

RBC 2583 (S40/09/-)

RBC 2601 (S42/6/18–20)

2 udu ú 1 sila4 dumu-mí x e-te-il-pù/-dda-gan R mu-DU d šul-gi-/zi-im-ti á-bí-lí-a ì-dab5 iti ezem-mah mu-ús-sa é-PUZUR4/-iš-dda-gan/ ba-dù

6 tumušen é-u6-e iti-ta ud-20-lá-2 ba-[t]a?-/zal 2 kaskalmušen 25 tu-gur4mušen R. im-ti-dam iti-ta ud-20 ba-ta-/zal mu-DU dšul-gi-[z]i-/im-tum á-bí-la-tum ì-dab5 iti á-ki-ti lower edge mu ša-aš-ruki ba-/hul

MLC 41 (S41/5/15–19) 2 uz-tur ur-dšul-gi-ra 2 uz-tur é-a-nu-úh-ši i[ti]-ta ud-15 ba-ra-zal 4 uz-tur in-nu-ri [i]ti-ta ud-16 ba-ra-zal 2? uz-babbar2 [w]a-at-ra-at-UGULA R [x] uz-tur ur-dšul-gi-ra a-rá-2-kam i[ti]-ta ud-20-lá-2 ba-ra-zal 2 uz-tur

NBC 9956 (S42/11/24) 4 gud niga x-gi-x iti-ta ud-24 [ba-ra]-/zal [m]u-DU R d šul-gi-[z]i-/im-t[i] á-bí-[la-tum] ì-dab5 iti ezem-me-ki-[gá] mu ša-aš-ru-u[mki]/ ba-hul RBC 2621 (S43/5/-) 1 sila4 ku-ru-ub-èr-ra



1 sila4 ur-X-é [m]u-DU d[š]ul-/[g]i-zi-im-tum R á-bí-la-ti ì-dab5 iti ezem-dnin-a-zu mu en dnanna/ máš-e ì-pàd YBC 15637 (S43a/01/4?) 40 tu-gur4mušen ba-gu-um mušen-dù iti-ta ud-3 ba-ra-zal 2 kaskalmušen ME-eš4-dar R iti-ta [ud]-4? [ba]-/ra-zal mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-tum-ma á-bí-la-tum ì-dab5 [i]ti ma[š-dà]-kú lower edge mu-ús-sa ša-[aš]-ru/ ba-hul RBC 2577 (S43/11/8) 2 uz-tur dam dšára-kam iti-ta ud-8 ba-ra-zal mu-DU R d šul-gi-zi-/im-tum á-bí-la-/tum [ì-dab5 ] iti ezem me-ki-gál lower edge mu en dnanna/ máš-e ì-pàd RBC 2580 (S45/ 1/ 23) 1 tu-gur4mušen Á.giš-gar-ra ba-gu-um mušen-dù iti-ta ud-23 ba-/ra-zal R á-bí-la-tum /ì-dab5 iti maš-dà-kú

List of Tablets according to Museum Number 

 327

mu si-mu-ru-umki/ ù lu-lu-bu-um/ a-rá-10-lá1-kam-aš/ ba-hul RBC 2575 (S45/ 2/-) (A tiny tablet, appx. 2.5 cm long). 2 sila4 ME-eš4-dar mu-DU d šul-gi-zi-/im-tum R Space á-bí-la-tum/ ì-dab5 iti šeš-da-kú mu si-mu-ru-umki/ lul-lu-bu-umki/ lower edge a-rá-10-lá-1-kam ba-hul RBC 2412 (S45/12/-) 2 udu ú 1 sila4 a-mur-dutu 1míàš-gàr gal?-/a/a R mu-D[U] d šul-gi-z[í]-/im-tum á-bí-la-tum ì-dab5 iti še-KIN-kud mu si-mu-ru-umki/ lu-lu-buki a-rá/ -10-lá-1-kam-aš ba-hul NBC 11382 (S46/3/23) 10-lá-1 tu-gur4mušen lú-úrubki iti-ta ud-23 ba-ra-zal mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-tum R á-bí-la-tum/ ì-dab5 iti u5-bí-kú mu-ús-sa si-mu/-ru-umki lu-lu-bu/ki a-rá -10-lá-1-kam-aš/ ba-hul

328 

 Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection

RBC 66 (S46/10/25) 3 uz-tur ku-ru-ub-èr-ra 4 uz-tur KAL-dšul-gi iti-ta ud-25 ba-ra-/zal R mu-DU d šul-gi-/zi-im-tum ur-dlugal-eden-/ka ì-dab5 iti ezem-an-na mu ki-ma[ški hu-u]r5-ti ba-[hul] RBC 2491 (date not preserved) 1 šáh níta giš/ gi 1 šáh NE tur níta/ giš gi 1 uz-tur RI.RI-ga-àm/ é-gal-la ba-an-ku4 R iti-ta ud-4 ba-ta-/zal __ zi-ga á-bí-la-tum iti [ ] mu [ ]

The Tenure of Ur-lugal-eden-ka MLC 40 (S45/8/30) 1 udu gud-e-ú[s-sa] ezem LUM.LUM.MU 1 u8 ú gi-ra-núm dinanna 1 udu ú 3 uz-tur 3 tu-gur8mušen ba-ug6 é-ga-la ba-an-/ku4 R 1 máš dnin-sún 3 udu ú sízkur ud-sakar šag4 unugki giri3 ì?-DI-dEN.ZU iti-ta ud-30 ba-ra-zal zi-ga ur-dlugal-/eden-ka

iti šu-eš5-ša mu ur-bí-lumki/ ba-hul RBC 2624 (S46?/7/15) 2 mí[ÀŠ].GÀR i-ku-nu-u[m] 2 udu niga 1 sila4 dam su-ru-uš-k[i-i]n 2 uz-tur dam KA-tum? 2 šáh NE tur giš-gi? uru sá-dug4 kud-ta 5 uz-tur ba-gu-um mušen-dù iti-ta ud-15 [ba-ra]-zal mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-ti ur- dlugal-eden-ka ì-[dab5] lower edge iti ezem-dšul-[gi] mu [ki-maš]ki h[u-ur5-ti]ki [ba-hul] YBC 16588 (S46/08/20) 3 gud niga 25 udu ú 5 máš-gal išib dbe-la-at/-šuh-nir 2 udu niga 1 sila4 a-pil4-ki-in 2 udu niga 1 máš ur-dDAN šabra eš4-dar iti-ta ud-20 ba-ra-zal mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-[t]i edge ur- dlugal-eden-ka/ ì-dab5 iti šu-eš5-ša left edge mu ki-maški ù hu-ur5-ti/ki ba-hul YBC 16473 (S46/11/24) 1 šáh NE tur mí giš-gi níg-kú NIN-gá-šè 1 šáh NE tur níta uru



sízkur dal-la-tum 1 šáh NE tur/ mí giš-gi [x]+2 šáh NE t[ur]/ níta giš-g[i] 4 uz-tur ba-ug7 é-gal-la ba-an-ku4 iti-ta ud-24 ba-[r]a-zal zi-ga ur-dlugal-eden-/ka iti ezem-me-ki-gál lower edge mu-ki-maški ba-hul YBC 15662 (S46/11/30) [x] uz-[tur] níg-kú NIN-gá iti-ta ud-30 ba-ta-[zal] zi-ga R ur-dlugal-eden-ka iti ezem-me-ki-/gál mu ki-maški/ ba-hul RBC 2492 (S47a/1/26) 20 tu-gur4mušen za-ak-ì-lí iti-ta ud-26 ba-ra-zal mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-tum R ur-dlugal-/eden-ka ì-dab5 iti maš-dà-kú mu-ús-sa ki-maški/ ba-hul RBC 2496 (S47a/2/-) 1 gud niga 3 udu niga 1 sila4 šag4 èš iti-ta ud-1 ba-ra-zal zi-ga ur-dlugal-/eden-ka šag4 unugki iti šeš-da-kú lower edge mu-ús-sa ki-maški/ ba-hul

List of Tablets according to Museum Number 

 329

RBC 2562 (S47/3/-) 1 sila4 niga d nin-líl-tum/-im-ti 2 udu ú 1 máš R šu-gu-bu-um mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-ti ur-dlugal-eden-/ka ì-dab5 iti u5-bí-kú mu-ús-sa ki-mašk[i] /ba-hul

The Tenure of Šulgi-ili YBC 13335 (S47a/5/-) Obverse of tablet poorly preserved. 1[] 2[] 5[] XX XX R mu-DU d[šul]-gi-/zi-i[m-ti] d šul-gi-ì-lí / ì-dab5 iti [eze]m-dnin-a-[zu] mu-ús-sa ki-ma[ški]/ ba-hul RBC 2504 (S47a/7/-) (This tablet is tiny—only about 2 cm. long). 1 sila4 wa-at-ra-at-UGULA mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-ti R d šul-gi-ì-lí ì-dab5 iti ezem dšul-gi? mu-ús-sa ki-maški/ ba-hul

330 

 Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection

RBC 2507 (S47a/7/-) 1 sila4 i-mi-id-DINGIR 2 mí.ÁŠ.GÀR ME-eš4-dar R mu-DU dšul-/gi-zi-im-ti d šul-/gi-ì-lí / ì-dab5 iti ezem dšul-gi mu-ús-sa ki-maški/ ba-hul RBC 2579 (S47/8/16) 20 tu-gur4mušen níg-kú NIN-gá-šè 11 uz-tur 1 kaskalmušen 11 tu-gur4mušen R ba-ug6 é-gal-la/ ba-an-ku4 iti-ta ud-16 ba-ra-zal zi-ga dšul-gi/-ì-lí iti šu-eš5-ša mu-ús-sa ki-maški/ ba-hul RBC 2418 (S47a/9/-) 1 uz-tur dam zé-lu-uš-/dda-gan [x] uz-tur […] Break of some lines R […] mu-DU dšul-gi/-zi-im-ti d šul-gi/-ì-lí/ ì-dab5 iti ezem-mah mu-ús-sa ki-maški/ ba-hul YBC 15625 (S47a/9/-) 2 udu ú be-lí-ba-ni 1 máš DAN- dšul-gi R

mu-DU dšul-gi-/zi-im-ti d šul-gi-ì-lí / ì-dab5 iti ezem-mah mu-ús-sa ki-maški/ ba-hul

No Bureau Chief Named RBC 425 (S36e/6/-) 1 gud niga é dnin-líl-lá gìri NIN-gá 2 máš-gal d be-la-at-šuh-nir R ù dbe-la-a[t]-/dar-ra-ba-an ur-ddumu-zi maškim zi-ga šag4 tum-ma-al iti á-ki-ti mu a-rá-2-kam-aš [dnanna kar-]zi/-da [é-a-na ba-ku4] RBC 2582 (S40/12/-) 4 máš 1 ùz 1 sila4 SI sá-dug4 dbe-la-at-/šuh?-ne-ir d be-la-at-dar-/ra-ba-an R ù an-nu-ni-tum iti še-kin-kud mu-ús-sa é-PUZUR4-/iš-dda-gan ba-dù YBC 13328 (no date preserved) [x]+4 šáh tur giš 6 šáh tur ì giš sá-dug4 kud-ta? d šul-gi-zi/-im-ti xxx {remainder of tablet broken away}



List of Tablets according to Museum Number 

YBC 15657 (no date preserved)

TEXTS ABOUT OTHER ROYAL WOMEN

1 gud niga 1? udu niga? 1 sila4 xxx 4 [udu] niga Xxx R d be-la-at-šuh/-nir ù dbe-la-at-/[dar-ra-ba-an] xxx zi-ga [ x xx] mu [ xxx]

RBC 2552 (S48/6/-) 2 […] 3 […] mu-[DU] lugal ki na-ra-am-ì-/lí-ta R nin9-kal-la ì-dab5 ========== iti á-ki-ti mu ha-a[r-šiki]/ ba-[hul]

 331

Index Divine Names, Festivals, Cultic Locations Alla-gula 249, 264, 306 Allatum 199, 209, 249, 329 Annunitum 193, 209, 246, 248–249, 252, 255, 261–262, 265, 268, 271–273, 276, 279, 291, 306 Bau 293–298 Belat-šuhnir and Belat-terraban 190, 204, 209, 225, 246–247, 249, 252, 261–262, 265, 268, 275–286, 291, 306 Dagan 80, 251, 275, 276 Dub-lá 35, 256–257, 324 Elūnum 168, 240, 248, 251–253, 255 Enlil 5, 9–10, 18, 22, 38–39, 51, 121–122, 161–162, 204, 248, 255, 258, 262–264, 267, 269, 272, 275, 291, 306 Gipar 13, 35, 245–246, 257, 259 Girrānum 193, 240, 251, 255, 325, 328 Idlurugu 107, 240, 256, 264 Inanna – Ishtar 5, 11, 15, 22, 38, 51, 95, 107, 132, 144, 146, 161–162, 168, 172,

190–193, 217, 235, 246–248, 252, 255–256, 258–262, 265, 268–276, 279, 284, 286, 290, 299–300, 303, 306, 324–325, 328 Išhara 209, 271, 275–276, 290, 301 Ká èš 256 Lamma 20–21, 143, 160–161, 298 Má-an-na 33, 135, 158, 161, 168, 204, 248, 251, 255, 259, 274 Nabrium 209, 248, 251–252, 255 Nanayya 193, 209, 259, 271, 274–275, 279 Ninlil 18, 38–39, 96, 98, 144, 152–153, 161, 162, 204, 216, 219, 228, 248–249, 257–259, 261–264, 267, 275, 277, 286, 291, 299, 306 Ninsun 22–23, 32, 103, 170, 193, 267–268, 328 Ulmašitum 193, 240, 246, 248–249, 252–253, 255, 261–262, 268, 271–273, 276, 279, 291, 306

Personal Names A.AB.BA-bašti 93, 151, 153, 221, 283 A.AM.MA, mother of the queen 227 Abiliya, a bureau chief for Shulgi-simti 121, 150, 191, 202–203, 208–209, 230–231, 263, 266–268, 285, 324–326 Abi-simti 27, 62–63, 92–93, 99, 117–118, 122, 156, 167, 170, 180, 190, 219, 253, 276, 280–281, 286, 306 Ahima 121–122, 202, 204–205, 225, 284–285 Ama-barag 16–17, 144, 218, 227, 234, 237, 325 Amar-Sin 17, 27–29, 33, 35, 49–50, 58, 67–68, 92–93, 99, 118, 132–133, 139, 156, 172, 180, 182, 185–186, 190, 199, 216, 221, 271–272, 276, 282, 305 Apilatum, a bureau chief for Shulgi-simti 195–196, 201–203, 207,

215–216, 263, 267–268, 285, 323, 326–328 Apil-kin 68, 224–225, 328 Arad-mu, Arad-Nanna 49, 70, 153, 155, 157 Babati 49, 131, 280–281, 283 Bagum, a bird catcher 206–207, 215, 235, 327–328 Bak-[x], lú Shulgi-simti 126 Barag-namtarra 60, 296 Beli-tab 124, 201, 203, 223, 232, 233, 263, 266, 285, 324 Beltum 78, 79 Buza, an oil presser 232 Datin-Eštar, see Taddin-Eštar Dati-kiza, a singer 107, 173 Ea-bani, a provincial governor 222–223, 236 Eue, a provincial governor 222–223, 237, 326

334 

 Index

Ea-niša 28, 92, 101–102, 119, 125–126, 132, 139–157, 161, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 179, 180, 226, 232, 235, 276, 295, 306 Enun-il, boatman of Ea-niša 139, 149 EGIR.DA NIM, brother of Nin-kalla 108–109 Enlill-amu, brother of Nin-kalla 108–109 En-nirgalanna, en priest/priestess 15, 16, 18, 35, 37, 55, 68, 132, 133, 246, 257 En-nir-sianna, en priestess 115 En Inanna (unnamed), presumably a son of Shulgi’s 132, 246 Etelpu-Dagan, a royal son 217, 226–227, 235, 238 Geme-Nanna, a royal daughter 93, 159 Geme-Ninlilla 28, 92, 101–102, 114, 123–124, 129, 139, 141, 145, 151, 157–169, 171, 173, 175, 179, 181, 184–185, 190–191, 201, 204–205, 231, 237, 251, 253, 262, 286, 306 Geme-Sin/ Suena, spouse (dam) of Shulgi 27–28, 61, 92, 120, 122, 145, 180, 190, 204, 227, 255, 282 Girini-išag, šabra of Gula 106 Gudea 8–10, 14, 16, 66, 279, 289, 291, 297–299, 305 Iddin-Erra, son of Kudašum, Shulgi-simti’s foremen of weavers in Ur 126–128 Igi-anna-kezu, a šabra in Ur 222–234, 233 I.TI-Ea, brother of Ea-niša 146–147 Iṭib-šinat 126, 132, 233 Izuarik, a provincial governor 191, 236 Kalam-henagi 202, 204, 263–264 Kinat-Nunu, a nurse 172 Kubatum, lukur of Shu-Sin, likely Ibbi-Sin’s mother 62–63, 66, 93, 99, 125, 180, 227 Kudašum, foreman of weavers (ugula ušbar) in Ur for Shulgi-simti, father of Iddin-Erra 126–129, 202 Kuli, shepherd 165 Lanum, brother of Nin-kalla 108 Lu-dugga, šabra of Ea-niša 146, 148, 151–153, 157 Lu-melam, na-gada for Ea-niša 148, 155–156 Lu-Namma, dub-sar, dumu Ur-Ištaran, servant of Ea-niša 143, 148–149 Lu-Nanna, wife of 228–229 Lugal-magurre, wife of 110, 228–229

ME-Ea 92, 132, 145, 169–171 ME-Ištaran 52, 69, 143 Na-silim 144, 148, 154–157 Naram-ili, courtier (sukkal ì-du8) 42, 50–52, 70, 106, 113, 163, 165–166, 305, 331 Nin-kalla, NIN 28–29, 50, 52, 71, 92, 101–115, 199, 121, 124–127, 129, 132, 137, 139–140, 145, 148, 169, 171, 179–180, 231, 250, 259, 261, 264–265, 305–306 Nin-kalla, daughter of governor of Lagash 103, 107 NINLIL-tum-imti 215–216, 237 Nir-idagal, a military man 172, 206, 218–221, 230, 234 Nuhi-ilum, a herder for Geme-Ninlilla 158, 163–164, 166–168 Nuida, a captain 206, 230–236 Pudu, son-in-law of the king 159 Puzur-Inšušinak 8–10, 14, 248, 279–280 Rubatum, wife of Nuida 230, 232–233 Sellush-Dagan 236, 238 SI.A-tum 14–16, 61, 145, 179, 251 Shag-shag 296–297 Shibat-ekur 228, 237 Shibtu 28, 67, 78–81, 83, 85–86, 88–89, 106, 128, 276, 286, 301–303 Shu-Eštar, a royal son 217, 235 Shu-kabta 52, 199 Shu-kubum 145, 190, 192, 201–202, 204, 222, 282 Shulgi 3, 5–7, 10, 14–29, 30, 33–44, 48–50, 52, 58–62, 66, 68, 70–71, 92, 94–95, 97, 99, 101–137, 139–151, 153–154, 156–162, 166, 168–173, 175–176, 178–182, 184–186, 190, 194, 196, 198, 200–201, 204, 208, 214, 216–220, 224–228, 230, 232, 234, 236, 244–246, 248, 251–252, 262, 267, 271–272, 276, 282–283, 286, 289, 291–292, 295, 299, 305–307. Shulgi-bani, employee of Ea-niša 151–153 Shulgi-simti 3–5, 28, 38, 41, 45, 53, 57, 60, 68–69, 71, 92, 95, 101–2, 104, 106–107, 100, 115–137, 139, 141–142, 144–145, 148, 150, 157–159, 163, 168–173, 175, 179, 181, 184–187, 189–210, 211–225, 227–240, 244–251, 253–265, 267–268,



271–279, 281–286, 289–292, 294–295, 305–307. Šuqurtum 28, 92, 169–170 Taddin-eštar 171–172, 232 Tappan-Darah 224–226, 236 Taram-Uram, daughter in law of Ur-Namma, presumed first wife of Shulgi 26–28, 59, 61, 68, 92, 102, 115, 180, 216, 224, 227 Tezen-Mama 145, 227, 231, 234, 237 Tiamat-bašti, see A.AB.BA-bašti Tirigan 10, 12–13 Ur-Bau, herder for Ea-niša and Abi-simti 156 Ur-Igalim, herder for Geme-Ninlilla 158, 163, 165, 167

Subjects and Places 

 335

Ur-Ištaran, father of Lu-Namma 148 Ur-lugal-edenka, a bureau chief for the Shulgi-simti foundation m 123–124, 192, 195, 201–203, 206, 209, 263, 323, 328 Ur-Namma 7–18, 20, 22, 25, 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 56, 61, 66, 99, 176–177, 179, 267, 305 Ur-Nigingar, a royal son 206, 217, 228–229, 235–236, 238 Ur-Sin 107–108, 111, 266 Utu-hegal 8, 10–16, 22, 29, 66, 176–177, 305 Zak-ili, a royal son 236 Zimri-Lim 44, 67–73, 77–81, 83–89, 92, 106, 128, 286, 301–303

Subjects and Places Birds 96, 150, 193–194, 196–198, 200, 206–207, 212–216, 220, 228–232, 235–238, 306 Burial 26, 35, 109, 118, 136–137, 170, 175–186, 199–200 Canal Work 7, 13, 305 Court 30, 48, 52, 211, 213, 216–221, 226, 227, 229, 235 Courtiers 44–45, 48–52, 102, 158, 207, 211, 213–214, 220, 232, 234, 283, 305, 307 Drehem – see Puzrish-Dagan Early Drehem Series 41–42, 145, 189, 247 Early Dynastic Lagash 5, 13, 44, 58, 60, 76, 91, 136, 185–186, 196, 214, 262, 289–297, 300 Ebla 58, 60, 71, 75–78, 81–83, 86–87, 91, 94, 134, 300–301, 305 Elamites 9–10, 17, 62, 108–109, 111, 115, 117, 182, 305–306 Diyala 8, 63, 118, 247–249, 273, 277, 279–285 Gutians 8–13, 17, 22, 29, 279, 297, 305 Harem 29, 59, 67, 71–99, 106, 125, 127, 172, 230, 290, 300–301, 305 Hymns (Shulgi) 15, 18, 21–22, 24–25, 35, 37, 50 Law 7, 13–14, 18–19, 24, 35, 53–54, 56–59, 89, 257

Lunar Rites 209, 248–249, 256, 258, 306 Mari 16, 26–28, 36, 43–44, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67–68, 71–75, 77–81, 83–92, 94–95, 106, 127–128, 134–136, 147, 172, 200, 224, 252, 276, 286, 291, 293, 299, 301–303 Mausolea 35, 175, 177–178, 181–185, 306 Monogamy 16, 58, 60–61, 66, 91, 292, 296, 305 Nippur 9–10, 13, 19, 23, 26, 31–34, 37–40, 42–43, 45, 52, 96–97, 101, 104, 106, 108–111, 115, 121–122, 137, 139, 144, 158, 179, 189, 204–205, 218–219, 222, 224, 233, 235, 248–249, 256–259, 262–265, 269, 275, 286, 291, 299, 305–306 Nurse, see wetnurse Offerings 15, 27–28, 39, 69, 78, 98, 103–105, 110, 116, 118–119, 123–124, 136–137, 139, 144, 153, 170, 175, 177, 180, 185, 197, 199, 201, 204, 219, 225, 228, 239–250, 255–258, 263–265, 267–268, 270–271, 276, 280, 296–297, 299, 303. Palace 3, 20, 28–29, 31, 34–37, 39–48, 51–52, 55, 67, 71–75, 77–78, 80–88, 91–99, 101–102, 104, 106, 112, 115, 121, 125–127, 130, 134, 142, 157–158, 161, 163, 167, 169, 171, 177, 180, 193, 196–198, 200, 208, 213–214, 217–218,

336 

 Index

225, 229–230, 233–234, 249, 257, 265–266, 280, 284, 286, 289, 291, 300–303, 305–306. Prince, Princess 3, 28–29, 33, 52, 58–59, 61–62, 65, 68–69, 75, 77, 87, 91, 93, 107–108, 132, 134, 144–145, 147, 154, 159, 162, 171–172, 175, 179, 192, 212, 216–217, 219, 225–229, 231, 234–235, 251, 261, 302 Puzrish-Dagan 16, 19, 38–43, 45, 50, 96–98, 106, 108, 113–114, 119, 130, 144, 151–152, 156, 158, 161, 163, 165–166, 168, 189–196, 198–199, 208, 212, 217–220, 229, 239, 245, 247–248, 257, 305 Queen (see also NIN) 21, 28–29, 33, 53, 58–65, 68, 70–71, 73–82, 89, 92, 94, 99, 101–102, 104, 106, 110–115, 188–124, 129, 131, 137, 139, 141, 145–146, 156, 167, 170, 175, 179–181, 186, 190–191, 193, 197, 203–205, 208, 211, 219, 224–225, 227, 249–250, 255, 259, 261–265, 267, 275, 277, 280–281, 286, 289–303, 306 Queen mother 63, 65, 73–79, 81, 90, 93, 99, 106, 118, 145, 281, 301, 303 Reforms, Shulgi 7, 14, 17–20, 28–29, 38, 218, 305

Sacrifice 6, 27, 40, 53, 130, 152–153, 161, 180–181, 185, 193–194, 196, 198–199, 209, 211, 217, 219, 235, 239–260, 261–287, 291, 296, 301–302, 306–307 Tummal 38–41, 45, 96, 98, 159, 177, 192, 213, 257–258, 262, 266, 277, 325–326, 330 Ur 11, 13, 16, 18, 23, 31–37, 39, 42, 44–45, 101, 104, 109, 115, 121, 126, 128–131, 135–137, 141–142, 144, 150–151, 161, 168–169, 177, 181–183, 185, 192–193, 204, 209, 222–224, 227, 229, 235, 240, 245–246, 248–249, 252–254, 265–257, 262, 264–265, 273, 280, 305–306 Uruk 10–11, 13, 15, 16, 22–23, 31–34, 37, 39, 42, 52, 96, 101, 104, 121, 125, 133, 135, 142, 144, 158, 161, 170, 192, 204, 209, 240, 245–246, 248, 250, 253, 257, 259, 264–267 Women’s property 53–57, 78, 82, 132, 143, 149, 163, 172, 230–231, 306 Wetnurse 55, 76, 82, 90, 107, 172, 226–227, 238 Wool 85, 88, 93, 109–111, 126–130, 135, 141, 154, 157, 162–163, 165–168, 223–224 Zabalam 190, 269, 270, 276, 285–286

Sumerian Words Dam 14, 20, 27–28, 60–62, 66–67, 82–83, 92, 147, 190, 214, 228, 230–231, 237 É-mí 95, 292–296 É-uz-ga 96–99, 156 Ì-du8 48, 50–52 Kaš-dé-a 105, 123, 131–136, 142, 150, 198, 221, 272 Lukur 20, 58–59, 62–63, 65–67, 69–71, 92–93, 101–104, 110–112, 119–121, 123–126, 129, 137, 139–141, 143–144, 147–149, 153–155, 158, 160, 162, 169–170, 172–173, 201, 221, 224, 226–227, 261, 264, 276, 283, 305–306 Maš-da-ri-a 104–105, 127, 306

Níg-kú NIN-gá 142, 193, 198, 208, 247–248, 325, 328–330 NIN (see also queen) 28, 33, 60, 62–65, 68, 70, 92–93, 101–104, 106, 110–115, 119–123, 125, 141, 146, 160, 179, 193, 198, 205, 208, 227, 247–249, 256, 261–264, 267, 271, 276–277, 281, 285, 298, 306 Sá-dug4 112–113, 127, 141–142, 150–151, 153, 164, 166–167, 194, 225, 246, 266–267, 328, 330 Sukkal 48–51, 106, 117, 123, 126, 164, 167, 214 Sukkal-mah 49–51, 150, 229 šabra 105, 144, 146, 151–154, 167, 197, 218, 222–223, 229, 234, 236, 328