Dnisaba Za3-Mi2: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Francesco Pomponio 3963271124, 9783963271120

Citation preview

dubsar 19 d

Nisaba za3-mi2 Ancient Near Eastern Studies

in Honor of Francesco Pomponio

www.zaphon.de

d

Nisaba za3-mi2

Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Francesco Pomponio Edited by Palmiro Notizia, Annunziata Rositani and Lorenzo Verderame

dubsar 19 Zaphon

dubsar-19-FS-Pomponio-Cover.indd 1

05.03.2021 10:57:29

d

Nisaba za 3 -mi 2

Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Francesco Pomponio

Edited by Palmiro Notizia, Annunziata Rositani and Lorenzo Verderame

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

dubsar Altorientalistische Publikationen Publications on the Ancient Near East Band 19 Herausgegeben von Kristin Kleber und Kai A. Metzler

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

d

Nisaba za 3 -mi 2

Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Francesco Pomponio

Edited by Palmiro Notizia, Annunziata Rositani and Lorenzo Verderame

Zaphon Münster 2021

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Cover illustration: Nisaba hymn on a stone tablet found at Telloh (Thureau-Dangin, F., La déesse Nisaba, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale (1910) 107).

d

Nisaba za 3 -mi 2 . Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Francesco Pomponio Edited by Palmiro Notizia, Annunziata Rositani and Lorenzo Verderame dubsar 19

© 2021 Zaphon, Enkingweg 36, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. Printed in Germany. Printed on acid-free paper.

ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 ISSN 2627-7174

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Francesco Pomponio e la moglie Annamaria

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Table of Contents

Premessa ...............................................................................................................xi Publications of Francesco Pomponio ................................................................ xiii Pierluigi Ciocca Omaggio a Francesco Pomponio.................................................................... xxvii

Sergio Alivernini A New Text Belonging to the Collections of the British Museum ....................... 1 Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo Le dieu de Phrangissa (Chypre) ............................................................................ 5 Maria Giovanna Biga Francesco Pomponio and His Place in the History of Eblaite Studies ................ 15 Noemi Borrelli Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia: The Household of the ereš-diĝir of Bau ....................... 25 Odoardo Bulgarelli La Mesopotamia: commercio, strumenti economico-finanziari e mezzi di pagamento (fine IV – inizi II millennio a.C.) .................................... 57 Franco D’Agostino Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story? ...................................................... 73 Benjamin R. Foster When the Phoenicians Came to Cornwall ........................................................... 87 Angela Greco Neglected Source of Prosperity: Marsh Resources and the Role of the enku in Third Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia ........................... 95

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

viii

Table of Contents

Massimo Maiocchi Current Approaches towards Ancient Near Eastern Textual Sources: Some Remarks on Contemporary Methodologies for Philological Research .................................................................................. 117 Pietro Mander Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie .................................................................................. 129 Gianni Marchesi A New Manuscript of Ana ittišu II from Nimrud ............................................. 147 Manuel Molina Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times .................................................................................................. 155 Salvatore F. Monaco Meannedu, Ruler of Umma .............................................................................. 175 Palmiro Notizia Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia: Unpublished Ur III Documents in the Yale Babylonian Collection ................. 181 David I. Owen New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives .................................. 199 Sergio Ribichini Euripide et le sacrifice humain à Carthage : notes de lecture ........................... 237 Annunziata Rositani War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods: Two New Texts ............................................................................... 249 Cristina Simonetti The River Ordeal in the Third Millennium BC................................................. 277 Gabriella Spada “I Want to Break Free”: Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation ............................................................................................ 283 Marten Stol Esip tabal in Agriculture................................................................................... 301

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Table of Contents

ix

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi............................................................................ 319 Lorenzo Verderame Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur .............................................................................................................. 341 Paolo Xella Nergal in Phoenician Context ........................................................................... 357

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)



Premessa “I had no idea that such individuals did exist outside of stories” A. C. Doyle, A Study in Scarlet (1887)

Questo volume raccoglie una serie di contributi che allievi, colleghi e amici hanno voluto dedicare, in occasione dei suoi settanta anni (compiuti, ma non dimostrati), a Francesco, Franco per gli amici, nonché Vincenzo per l’anagrafe, Pomponio. Franco è stato testimone e attore dell’età dell’oro dell’assiriologia italiana, cinquant’anni (1970–2020 d.C.) di entusiasmanti scoperte, grande attività scientifica e turbolenta accademia. Allievo di Giorgio Raimondo Castellino a sua volta allievo del grande ed eclettico orientalista Giuseppe Furlani, la carriera accademica di Franco ha spiccato il volo in un momento fondante per l’orientalistica italiana, gli anni ’70, e attraversato un momento fecondo ma difficile (gli anni ’80), dalla sua formazione presso La Sapienza sino al suo fortuito ma fortunato approdo all’Università degli Studi di Messina, prima come associato e poi come ordinario di assiriologia, ruolo coperto negli ultimi venti anni. Le sue ricerche, come era tradizione di un tempo, non conoscono confini spaziali o temporali. La sua tesi di dottorato sul dio Nabû pubblicata nella serie Studi Semitici (1978) costituisce a tutt’oggi uno studio monografico esemplare su una divinità, affrontata nei suoi più differenti aspetti e alla luce di tutta la documentazione disponibile. Ben presto i suoi interessi si sono concentrati sul III millennio con importanti contributi su Fara, Ebla e la documentazione della Terza Dinastia di Ur. La creazione della serie Nisaba presso l’Università degli Studi di Messina nel 2002 giunta in meno di vent’anni a oltre trenta volumi è un’impresa eccezionale. Si tratta a tutt’oggi della principale collana di edizioni di testi neo-sumerici. I quasi settemila testi editi per la prima volta nelle pagine della serie dai diversi autori costituiscono un fondamentale contributo alla conoscenza di questo periodo e allo sviluppo degli studi a esso dedicati. Franco ha saputo dare al suo lavoro l’impronta della sua stessa forte personalità. Grande studioso, attento e puntiglioso, ai limiti del collerico anche con gli amici su questioni assiriologiche, appare, a chi lo conosce per la prima volta, una persona schiva, ma si rivela di grande socievolezza nei circoli più intimi. Per molti colleghi stranieri, invece, è una figura misteriosa, un nome senza un volto. Del resto, le sue partecipazioni a consessi internazionali sono state estremamente rare, vincolate ai mezzi terrestri disponibili per raggiungere © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)



xii

Premessa

la meta. Grande viaggiatore, pur avendo prestato il servizio militare come ufficiale dell’aeronautica, Franco non è mai salito su un aereo. Per oltre trent’anni si è diviso tra Roma, città natale e dove risiede, e Messina, luogo di lavoro – tipico esempio di dimorfismo seminomadico accademico – coprendo settimanalmente in treno la distanza di 700 km per un tempo di percorrimento di nove ore e mezza o più, scioperi e attraversamento dello stretto compresi. Dato il suo contributo alle ferrovie dello stato, un omaggio di Trenitalia in questa sede non avrebbe certo sfigurato. Docente preciso, metodico, attento e soprattutto sempre preparato e consapevole delle proprie competenze e delle cose da fare ha saputo guidare la sua squadra di lavoro con energia, spronando i suoi studenti a dare sempre il meglio di loro, spesso in tempi contingentati. L’impostazione austera che ha voluto dare al suo rapporto con l’assiriologia l’ha spiegata una volta, per caso: “se ami qualcosa pretendi che ti dia il massimo e che non ti deluda mai, più la ami più sei aspro con lei”. Nei suoi lunghi anni di lavoro al Pontificio Istituto Biblico, all’Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” e all’Università degli Studi di Messina, ha saputo farsi apprezzare da tutti, generando interesse nella materia da parte di colleghi e studenti. L’Orientalistica antica divenuta argomento di conversazioni leggere ha acquisito, grazie a lui, una dimensione interdisciplinare che ne ha ampliato i confini attirando la curiosità di uomini di cultura che, da economisti quali già erano, sono divenuti appassionati orientalisti essi stessi. Gli editori sono grati agli autori dei diversi contributi, considerando soprattutto le difficoltà di questo periodo di cui forse in futuro si sarà persa memoria. L’entusiasmo e il calore con cui tutti quelli che hanno partecipato hanno risposto al nostro invito è una testimonianza sincera e un tributo a quanto ha dato scientificamente, accademicamente e umanamente, Francesco Vincenzo Pomponio, per gli amici Franco. nam-ku-li niĝ 2 u 4 diš-a-kam nam-gi 4 -me-a-aš niĝ 2 da-ri 2 -kam “Friendship lasts for just one day, but collegiality is everlasting”

Palmiro Notizia Annunziata Rositani Lorenzo Verderame Bologna, Messina e Roma 19 novembre 2020

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)



Publications of Francesco Pomponio

1972 Considerazioni sulla cronaca neobabilonese BM 25127, in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 47, 23–25. 1973 Review of A. Finet, Le code de Hammurapi (Paris 1973), in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 48, 259–263. 1973 “Löwenstab” e “Doppellöwenkeule”. Studio su due simboli dell’ iconografia mesopotamica, in: Oriens Antiquus 12, 183–208. 1976 La “dinastia” di Manana, in: Oriens Antiquus 15, 277–294. 1976 Review of B. Eichler, Indenture at Nuzi. The Personal tidennūtu Contract and its Mesopotamian Analogues (YNER 5; New Haven / London 1973), in: Orientalia NS 45, 376–379. 1977 Review of S. Dalley / C.B.F. Walker / J.D. Hawkins, The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell al Rimah (Hertford 1976), in: Oriens Antiquus 16, 332– 336. 1978 Nabû. Il culto e la figura di un dio del pantheon babilonese e assiro (Studi Semitici 51), Roma. 1978 I contratti di affitto dei campi per la coltivazione dei cereali, pubblicati in YOS 13 (Supplemento al N.14 degli Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli), Napoli. 1978 Due testi presargonici di cessioni immobiliari, in: Oriens Antiquus 17, 245–256. 1980 AO 7754 e il sistema ponderale di Ebla, in: Oriens Antiquus 19, 171–186. 1980 La lettura del segno EREN+x, in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 40, 549–553. 1980 Review of G. Pettinato, Catalogo dei testi cuneiformi di Tell MardikhEbla, Materiali epigrafici di Ebla (MEE 1; Napoli 1979), and G. Pettinato, Ebla, un impero inciso nell’argilla (Milano 1979), in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 54 (1980), 227–237. 1982 Tre testi antico-babilonesi in ITT III, in: Mesopotamia 17, 35–41.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

xiv

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

1982 The Meaning of the Term lul-gu-aka, in: Die Welt des Orients 13, 95–96. 1982 Considerazioni sui rapporti tra Ebla e Mari, in: Vicino Oriente 5, 191– 203. 1982 Note su alcuni termini dei testi amministrativi di Ebla e Mari, in: Vicino Oriente 5, 205–215. 1983 The Meaning of the Term uštil in the Ebla Texts, in: Archiv Orientální 51, 372–375. 1983 Notes to the Lexical Texts from Abū Ṣalābākh and Ebla, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42, 285–290. 1983 I nomi divini nei testi di Ebla, in: Ugarit-Forschungen 15, 141–156. 1983 Meseq di Gen 15,2 e un termine amministrativo di Ebla, in: Bibbia e Oriente 25, 107–109. 1983 “Archives” and the Prosopography of Fara, in: Acta Sumerologica 5, 127–145. 1983 Notes to TM.75.G.2230 (= ARET 2, 51), in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 14, 5–12. 1983 Review of S.G. Beld / W.W. Hallo / P. Michalowski, The Tablets of Ebla. Concordance and Bibliography (Winona Lake 1984), in: Rivista degli studi orientali 57, 265. 1983 Review of B.R., Foster, Umma in the Sargonic Period (Hamden 1982), in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 43, 527–530. 1983–1984 Kù-sig17-4 e kù-sig17-2,5 ad Ebla, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 29–30, 62. 1984 The Fara Lists Proper Names, Journal of the American Oriental Society 104, 553–558. 1984 Urukagina 4 VII 11 and an Administrative Term from the Ebla Texts, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36, 96–100. 1984 Una raccolta di testi di assegnazioni di terreni da Fara, in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 44, 1–10. 1984 I lugal nell’amministrazione di Ebla, in: Aula Orientalis 2, 127–135. 1984 Notes on the Fara Texts, in: Orientalia NS 53, 1–18. 1984 Ricerche di lessico eblaita I, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 31, 25–31 (with P. Xella).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

xv

1984 Peculiarità della grafia dei termini semitici nei testi amministrativi eblaiti, in: Cagni, L. (ed.), Il bilinguismo a Ebla, Napoli, 109–317. 1985 Note ai Vocabolari di Ebla, in: Bibbia e Oriente 27, 179–186. 1985 Review of H. Steible, Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (FAOS 5; Stuttgart 1982); H. Behrens / H. Steible, Glossar zu den altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (FAOS 6; Stuttgart 1983), in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 45 (1985) 341–346. 1986 Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Texts from Ur edited in UET 2, Supplement (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 13), Roma (with A. Alberti). 1986 La terminologia amministrativa di Ebla. I: šu-mu-tagx, in: UgaritForschungen 17, 237–252. 1986 “Colui che spezza la tavoletta cattiva”, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 3, 13–16. 1986 On the Meaning and Reading of the Sign LAK 20, in: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 80, 187–188. 1986 Géme-kar-kìd: The Sumerian Word for “Prostitute”, in: Oikumene 5, 63– 66. 1986 Review of Mari. Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 3 (Paris 1984), in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 46, 295. 1987 La prosopografia dei testi presargonici di Fara (Studi Semitici NS 3), Roma. 1987 Bibliografia eblaita, in: Cagni, L. (ed.), Ebla 1975–1985, Napoli, 429– 456 (with M. Baldacci). 1987 La datazione interna dei testi economico-amministrativi di Ebla, in: Cagni L. (ed.), 1975–1985, Napoli, 249–262. 1987 Iš’ar-Damu, roi d’Ebla, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1987, 60–61, no. 106 (with M.G. Biga). 1988 Repetita iuvant, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1988, 52, no. 75. 1988 Review of M. Krebernik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte (Berlin 1988), in: Archiv für Orientforschung 35, 164–169. 1989 Tavolette economiche neo-sumeriche dell’Università Salesiana (= Vicino Oriente 8/1), Roma (with A. Archi).

Pontificia

1989 Gli ugula nell’amministrazione di Ebla, in: Hauptmann, H. / Waetzoldt, H. (eds.), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla, Heidelberg, 317–323. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

xvi

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

1989 Pa4-ba4, épouse d’Iblul-Il, roi de Mari, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1989, 89–90, no. 114 (with M.G. Biga). 1989 The Reichskalender of Ur III in the Umma Texts, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 79, 10–13. 1989 Una tavoletta neosumerica di ispezione di lavoratori, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 6, 9–14 (with M. Baldacci). 1989 A Neo-Sumerian Account about Reeds, in: Orientalia NS 58, 230–232. 1989 La rivale di Lagash, in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 63, 25–37. 1989 Un bovide rivisitato, in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 63, 299–303. 1989 Bibliografia eblaita II, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 6, 145–158 (with F. Baffi Guardata and M. Baldacci). 1989–1990 Review of A. Westenholz, Old Sumerian Texts in Philadelphia, Part 2 (Kopenhagen 1987), in: Die Welt des Orients 20–21, 269– 270. 1990 Testi cuneiformi neo-sumerici da Drehem, NN. 0001–0412 (Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino 2/7), Milano (with A. Archi). 1990 Formule di maledizione della Mesopotamia preclassica, Brescia. 1990 L’umorismo di Enki-Ea. Alcune considerazioni su una summa mitologica di recente edizione, in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 64, 235–246. 1990 Epidemie e revenants a Ebla?, in: Ugarit-Forschungen 21, 297–305. 1990 Exit Kiš dagli orizzonti di Ebla, in: Mesopotamia 25, 175–184. 1990 Le sventure di Amar-Suena, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 7, 3–14. 1990 Elements for a Chronological Division of the Administrative Documentation of Ebla, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42, 179–201 (with M.G. Biga). 1990 Review of R. Kutscher, The Brockmon Tablets at the University of Haifa: Royal Inscriptions (Jerusalem 1989), in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 7, 134–135. 1991 Antiche sementi, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 65, 161–163. 1991 Una raccolta di testi di orzo da Fara, in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 51, 337–345. 1991 I nomi personali nei testi amministrativi di Abū Ṣalābīḫ, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 8, 141–147.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

xvii

1992 Lukalla of Umma, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 82, 169–179. 1992 Deux tablettes néo-sumériennes en errance, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1992, 18–19, no. 23. 1992 Abba-kalla di Puzrish-Dagan, in: Vicino Oriente 8, 13–21. 1992 L’“Esapoli” di Šuruppak. Il primo stato sovracittadino in Mesopotamia, in: Vagnetti, L. / Rocchi, M. (eds.), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. Seminari, Roma, 85–91. 1992 Review of B. Lafont / F. Yıldız, Tablettes cunéiformes de Tello au Musée d’Istanbul. Datant de l’époque de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur. Tome I. ITT II/1, 617–1038 (PIHANS 65; Leiden 1989), in: Orientalia NS 61, 162. 1992 Review of C. Baurain / C. Bonnet / V. Krings (éds.), Phoinikeia Grammata. Lire et écrire en Méditerranée. Actes du Colloque de Liège, 15–18 nov. 1989 (Collection d'études classiques, 6; Studia Phoenicia; Namur 1991), in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 9, 139–141. 1992 Review of F. Yıldız / T. Gomi, Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen, Teil II: Nr. 726–1379 (FAOS 16; Stuttgart 1988), in: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 87, 524–526. 1992 Review of P. Steinkeller / J.N. Postgate, Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad (MC 4; Winona Lake 1992), in: Вibbia e Оriente 51, 598–600. 1993 I nomi di luogo dei testi di Ebla (Archivi Reali di Ebla, Studi 2), Roma (with A. Archi and P. Piacentini). 1993 Adamma paredra di Rasap, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 10, 3–7. 1993 Critères de rédaction comptable et chronologie relative des textes d’Ebla, in: Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 7, 107–128. 1993 Eblaite Bibliography III, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 10, 93–110 (with F. Baffi Guardata and M. Baldacci). 1993 Review of G.J. Selz, Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš, Teil 2 (FAOS 15, 1–2; Stuttgart 1993), in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 10, 111–112. 1993 Review of J. Marzahn, Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Girsu/Lagaš (VS 25; Berlin 1991), in: Orientalia NS 62, 298–299.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

xviii

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

1993 Review of H. Steible, Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (FAOS 9; Stuttgart 1991) Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 53, 110–112. 1993–1994 Ebrium e il matrimonio dell’en di Ebla, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 40–41, 39–45. 1994 Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Šuruppak (Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Maior 6), Napoli (with G. Visicato). 1994 A Correction Regarding the Internal Dating of the Ebla Texts, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1994, 47–48, no. 53. 1994 Re di Uruk, “re di Kiš”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 68, 1–14. 1995 Testi cuneiformi neo-sumerici da Umma, NN. 0413–0723 (Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino 2/8), Torino (with A. Archi and G. Bergamini). 1995 Review of G. Conti, Index of Eblaic Texts (Firenze 1992), in: Die Welt des Orients 26, 191–193. 1996 “Contadini-messaggeri”, gli ugula-engar e un problema di ortografia nei testi amministrativi di Ebla, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 74–76 1996, no. 84. 1996 Un ugula e un dub-sar infiltrati nel Thesaurus Inscriptionum Eblaicarum, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1996, 91–93, no. 105. 1996 Acribia ed errori nella Lista Reale Assira, in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 56, 159–165. 1996 Addenda et corrigenda to EDATŠ, in: Acta Sumerologica 18, 242–250 (with G. Visicato). 1996 Congiunzioni e datazione interna della documentazione amministrativa di Ebla, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1996, 10–11, no. 15. 1997 Les dieux d’Ebla. Études analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIéme millénaire (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 245), Münster (with P. Xella). 1997 Una Sammelurkunde da Fara, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1997, 94–96, no. 101. 1997 Cuori strappati e Quisling babilonesi, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 14, 69–89.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

xix

1997 Eblaite Bibliography IV, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 14, 109–124 (with F. Baffi Guardata and M. Baldacci). 1997 B. Kienast, B., unter Mitwirkung von W. Sommerfeld, Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königsinschriften (FAOS 8; Stuttgart 1994), in: Bibbia e Oriente 54, 141–143. 1997 Review of G. Pettinato, Testi amministrativi di Ebla. Archivio L. 2752 (MEE 5 = MVS 2; Roma 1996), in: Bibbia e Oriente 54, 397–399. 1997–1998 I rendiconti annuali di uscite di argento e le offerte alle divinità nella documentazione di Ebla, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 44– 45, 101–107. 1998 The Transfer of Decorative Objects and the Reading of the Sign DU in the Ebla Documentation, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57, 29–39. 1998 Presagi ingannevoli, in: Die Welt des Orients 29, 52–57. 1998 Tre tavolette di messaggeri da Umma, in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 58, 143–153 (with S. Graziani). 1998 The Exchange Ratio between Silver and Gold in the Administrative Texts of Ebla, in: Acta Sumerologica 20, 127–133. 1998 Rim-Anum di Uruk, in: Dietrich, M. / Kottsieper, I. (eds.), Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 250), Münster, 635–649 (with A. Rositani). 1998 Nabû. A. Philologisch, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 16–24. 1998 Gli antenati della scrittura nel Vicino Oriente, in: Arslan, E.A. (ed.), La “parola” delle immagini e delle forme di scrittura. Modi e tecniche della comunicazione nel mondo antico, Messina, 9–28. 1998 Cagni, Luigi Giovanni (1929–1998), in: Orientalia NS 67, 303–305. 1999 Testi cuneiformi di vario contenuto, NN. 0724–0793 (Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino 2/9), Torino (with A. Archi and M. Stol). 1999 Review of D.R., Frayne, Ur III Period (2112–2004) (RIME 3/2; Toronto / Buffalo / London 1997), in: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 94, 311– 318. 1999 Review of B.R.M. Groneberg, Lob der Ištar. Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin (CM 8; Groningen 1997), in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 16, 120–121. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

xx

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

1999–2000 All’alba della storia siriana, ovvero il trionfo di Saʾumu, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 46–47, 45–49. 2000 Bunene, un Dio che non fece carriera, in: Graziani, S. (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, II, Napoli, 887–904. 2000 Tavolette cuneiformi del III millennio di una collezione privata, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 17, 3–12 (with G. Visicato). 2000 Review of S.A.L. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals (AOAT 258; Münster 1998): Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 17, 115–117. 2001 The Fara Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Bethesda (with H.P. Martin, G. Visicato, and A. Westenholz). 2001 L’impero sumerico di Ur III e il progetto internazionale di informatizzazione della sua documentazione amministrativa, in: Analysis. Rivista di cultura e politica scientifica 3, 40–48 (with M.E. Milone). 2001 Due tavolette di messaggeri da Umma, in: Aula Orientalis 19, 47–52. 2001 A Minor Old Babylonian Archive about the Transfer of Personnel, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53, 35–67 (with P. Mander). 2002 Umma Messenger Texts in the British Museum, Part One (Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 1), Messina (with F. D’Agostino). 2002 Un rendiconto di bestiame di periodo paleo-accadico, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 19, 5–12 (with G. Visicato). 2002 Funzionari di Ebla e di Mari, in: de Martino, S. / Pecchioli Daddi, F. (eds.), Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati (Eothen 11), Firenze, 653–663. 2002 Review of R.K. Englund / H.J. Nissen / R.M. Boehmer, Archaische Verwaltungstexte aus Uruk (ATU 7; Berlin 2001), in: Orientalia NS 71, 476. 2003 Aspetti monetari e finanziari del periodo neo-sumerico e paleo-babilonese, in: Milano, L. / Parise, N. (eds.), Il regolamento degli scambi nell’antichità (III–I millennio a.C.), Roma / Bari, 59–108. 2003 La rilevanza dei testi legislativi mesopotamici quale celebrazione della sovranità divina e umana, in: Ricerche Storico Bibliche 15, 79–90.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

xxi

2003 Aspetti monetari e finanziari dell’area mesopotamica, in: Per una storia del denaro nel Vicino Oriente Antico. Atti dell’incontro di studio Roma 13 giugno 2001 (Studi e materiali 10), Roma, 35–57. 2003 La terminologia amministrativa di Ebla: šu-du8 e TUŠ.LÚxTIL, in: Marrassini, P. (ed.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues, Wiesbaden, 540–559. 2004 Neo-Sumerian Texts from Ur in the British Museum. Epigraphical and Archaeological Catalogue of an Unpublished Corpus of Texts and Fragments (Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 5), Messina (with F. D’Agostino and R. Laurito). 2004 Un bilancio neo-sumerico dell’attività di pescatori, in: Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 64, 41–47. 2004 Due tavolette neo-sumeriche di ricevute di orzo e di argento, in: Sefarad 64, 397–407. 2004 Dei, re, avvoltoi e cunei su una stele paleo-sumerica, in: Caccamo Caltabiano, M. et al. (eds.), La tradizione iconica come fonte storica. Il ruolo della numismatica negli studi di iconografia, Messina, 109–121. 2005 ša3-bi-ta Texts from Girsu kept in the British Museum (Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 7), Messina (with F. D’Agostino). 2005 Due bilanci di entrate e uscite di argento da Umma, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 95, 172–207 (with F. D’Agostino). 2006 Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle Collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Volume I, Roma (with G. Visicato and A. Westenholz). 2006 Le tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Volume II, Roma (with M. Stol and A. Westenholz). 2006 I messenger texts: la più numerosa categoria di testi neo-sumerici, in: Mora, C. / Piacentini, P. (eds.), L’ufficio e il documento. I luoghi, i modi, gli strumenti dell’amministrazione in Egitto e nel Vicino Oriente Antico (Quaderni di Acme 83), Milano, 175–190 (with P. Notizia). 2006 Un registro di assegnazione di bitume da Girsu, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2006, 27–28, no. 30. 2006 I Sumeri del periodo proto-dinastico, in: de Martino, S. (ed.), Il mondo Antico, I: La preistoria dell’uomo. l’Oriente mediterraneo. Volume I. Dalla preistoria alla storia, Roma, 533–587.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

xxii

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

2007 Neo-Sumerian Ĝirsu Texts of Barley and Cereal Products, kept in the British Museum (Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 17), Messina (with L. Verderame). 2007 Brevi cosmogonie e scongiuri nella letteratura babilonese, in: Ricerche Storico Bibliche 19, 65–74. 2007 Una tavoletta cuneiforme del XXI sec. a.C., in: AurAntica 1, 22–23. 2007 Alle origini dei bilanci: la contabilità statale dei Sumeri durante la Terza Dinastia di Ur, in: Rivista di Storia Economica 23, 7–32 (with F. D’Agostino). 2008 Testi amministrativi: assegnazioni mensili di tessuti. Periodo di Arrugum (Archivio L. 2769), Parte I (Archivi Reali di Ebla, Testi 15/I), Roma. 2008 Ancora un bilancio neo-sumerico di orzo, in: Michalowski, P. (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1), Boston, 145–151. 2008 The Umma “Messenger Texts”, in: Garfinkle, S.J. / Johnson, J.C. (eds.) The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies on Ur III Administration, Madrid, 125–127 (with F. D’Agostino). 2008 I di-til-la neo-sumerici, in: Liverani, M. / Mora C. (eds.), I diritti del mondo cuneiforme (Mesopotamia e regioni adiacenti, ca. 2500–500 a.C.), Pavia, 121–139. 2008 Sui messenger texts e sui testi-še-ur5-ra di Umma e di Girsu, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2008, 81–82, no. 60 (with P. Notizia). 2008 Covoni e orzo in una tavoletta neo-sumerica di Girsu, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 25, 27–35. 2008 Note sui tessili della documentazione di Ebla. Il periodo di Arrugum, in: Perna, M. / Pomponio, F. (eds.), The Management of Agricultural Land and the Production of Textiles in the Mycenaean and Near Eastern Economies (Studi egei e vicinorientali 4), Napoli, 101–109. 2009 Neo-Sumerian Ĝirsu Texts of Various Content Kept in the British Museum (Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 18), Messina (with A. Anastasi). 2009 L’impiego dell’argento nei testi mesopotamici dal periodo arcaico a quello paleo-accadico, in: Rivista di Storia Economica 25, 19–50 (with S. Monaco).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

xxiii

2009 La presenza e la funzione dei “testimoni” nella documentazione neosumerica, in: Bellotto, N. / Ponchia, S. (eds.), Witnessing in the Ancient Near East, Padova, 29–46. 2010 New Texts Regarding the Neo-Sumerian Textiles, in: Michel, C. / Nosch, M.-L. (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean form the Third to the First Millennia BC, Oxford / Oakville, 186–200. 2010 I “testi dei messaggeri” di Umma, in: Aiello, V. / De Salvo, L. (eds.), Salvatore Calderone (1915–2000). La personalità scientifica (Pelorias 17), Messina, 331–342. 2010 Antichi re e liquidi bollenti, in: Caltabiano, M. / Raccuia, C. / Santagati, E. (eds.), Tyrannis, Basileia, Imperium. Forme e prassi e simboli del potere politico nel mondo greco e romano (Pelorias 18), Messina, 45–60. 2010 Assiriologia e letteratura poliziesca: rapporti tra due nobili avventure intellettuali, in: Biga, M.G. / Liverani, M. (eds.), Ana turri gimilli. Studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J. da amici e colleghi (Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 5), Roma, 293–307. 2011 Due tavolette neo-sumeriche a Ivrea, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 28, 7–15. 2011 Massacre at Ebla, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2011, 50–51, no. 49. 2011 Quello che accadde (forse) dopo la morte di Šar-kali-šarri, in: Barjamovic, G. et al. (eds.), Akkade is King! A Collection of Papers by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 118), Leiden, 227–243. 2011 I mezzi di pagamento nei contratti di Fara e il loro rapporto con il funzionario-bala, in: Ascalone, E. / Peyronel, L. (eds.), Studi italiani di metrologia ed economia del Vicino Oriente antico dedicati a Nicola Parise in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno (Studia Asiana 7), Roma, 163–180 (with G. Visicato). 2012 A Remark on the bala Payment of Barley by the Province of Lagaš-Girsu, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2012, 37–38, no. 27. 2012 Un motivo per cui le tavolette amministrative neo-sumeriche sono così numerose, in: Lanfranchi, G.B. et al. (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Wiesbaden, 637–652.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

xxiv

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

2012 Some Considerations on Rīmuš, in: Notizia, P. / Pomponio, F. (eds.), Scritti in onore di Pietro Mander, Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 72, 99–111. 2013 Testi amministrativi. Assegnazioni mensili di tessuti. Periodo di Arrugum (Archivio L. 2769), Parte II (Archivi Reali di Ebla, Testi 15/II), Roma. 2013 The Ur III Administration: Workers, Messengers and Sons, in: Garfinkle, S.J. / Molina, M. (eds.), From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D. Proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid, 22–24 July, 2010, Winona Lake, 221–232. 2013 Some Scraps of Information and Discussion about the Economy of Third Millennium Babylonia, in: D’Agostino, F. (ed.), L’economia dell’antica Mesopotamia (III–I millennio a.C.). Per un dialogo interdisciplinare, Roma, 23–39. 2013 A fragment of a Neo-Sumerian barley record, in: Loretz, O. et al. (eds.), Ritual, Religion and Reason. Studies in Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 404), Münster, 175–179. 2013 Further Considerations on Kiški in the Ebla Texts, in: Biga, M.G. / Charpin, D. / Durand, J.-M. (eds.), Recueil d’études historiques, philologiques et épigraphiques en l’honneur de Paolo Matthiae, II (= Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 107), 71–83. 2014 A Third Annual Balanced Account of Silver from Neo-Sumerian Umma, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 31, 1–26 (with F. D’Agostino). 2014 L’alimentazione dei “messaggeri” in periodo neo-sumerico, in: Milano, L. (ed.), Paleonutrition and Food Practices in the Ancient Near East: Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach (History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs 14), Padova, 297–307. 2014 Alcune considerazioni sul cosiddetto periodo di Isin-Larsa, in: Gaspa, S. et al. (eds.), From Source to History. Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 412), Münster, 485–499. 2015 Middle Sargonic Tablets Chiefly from Adab in the Cornell University Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 20), Bethesda (with G. Visicato). 2015 L’economia neo-sumerica, in: Rivista di Storia Economica 31, 25–56 (with L. Verderame). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Publications of Francesco Pomponio

xxv

2015 The Rulers of Adab, in: Sallaberger, W. / Schrakamp, I. (eds.), Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the East Mediterranean: History & Philology (ARCANE 3), Turnhout, 191–195. 2015 Review of M. Molina, Sargonic Cuneiform Tablets in the Real Academia de la Historia: The Carl L. Lippmann Collection (Real Academia de la Historia. Catálogo del Gabinete de Antigüedades. I. Antigüedades. 1 Epigrafía. 6; Madrid 2014), in: Aula Orientalis 33, 381–384. 2016 Review of H. Steible / F. Yıldız, Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara II (Wiesbaden 2015), in: Aula Orientalis 34, 379–383. 2016 Alcune note a riguardo di Gudea e di Ur-Namma, in: Corò, P. et al. (eds.), Libiamo ne’ lieti calici. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Lucio Milano on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 436), Münster, 405–421. 2017 Due tavolette neo-sumeriche di una collezione privata messinese, in: Mellusi, G. / Moscheo, R. (eds.), KTHMA ES AIEI. Studi e ricordi in memoria di Giacomo Scibona (Biblioteca dell’Archivio storico messinese 46. Analecta 21), Messina 2017, 331–336. 2017 Elementi dell’economia dello stato neo-sumerico (circa XXI sec. a.C.), in: Bulgarelli, O. / Ciocca, P.L. (eds.), Produzione, commercio, finanza nel Vicino Oriente Antico (3500–1600 a.C.). Seminario ospitato dalla Banca d’Italia, Roma, 10 giugno 2016, Roma, 29–67. 2017 Review of V. Bartash, Sumerian Administrative and Legal Documents ca. 2900–2200 BC in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 35; Bethesda 2017), in: Aula Orientalis 35, 253–259. 2017–2019 25 nuove tavolette neo-sumeriche da Ĝirsu appartenenti al cosiddetto dossier dei «pastori», in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 34–36, 211–235 (with L. Verderame). 2017–2019 Registri di tessitrici da Umma neo-sumerica, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici Sul Vicino Oriente Antico 34–36, 259–267. 2018 The Umma Messenger Texts (Sud. Altri Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 1), Messina. 2019 A New Annual Account of Wool from the Neo-Sumerian Province of Umma, in: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 113, 45–58 (with P. Notizia). 2020 Mystery Literature and Assyriology, in: Verderame, L. / Garcia-Ventura, A. (eds.), Popular Culture and the Ancient Near East: (Re)constructing the Past, Atlanta, 217–236.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Omaggio a Francesco Pomponio Pierluigi Ciocca

Francesco Pomponio è uno dei primi assiriologi in cui, per il tramite dell’ottimo collega di Banca d’Italia Odoardo Bulgarelli, io mi sia imbattuto nelle mie extravaganti incursioni nel loro campo. Sapendo poco o nulla dell’economia dell’Antico Vicino Oriente, mi ero da tempo chiesto perché Keynes mentre lavorava al Treatise on Money – apparso nel 1930 – si interessasse di Babilonia, cosa cercasse in un modo di produzione prima facie tanto lontano dall’economia di mercato capitalistica. Cercava, in particolare, conferme della funzione di conto della moneta, per lui come per Marx e per Schumpeter il calcolare essendo ancor più importante, logicamente e storicamente prioritario, rispetto al pagare e al tesoreggiare. Ma gli parve di trovare di più: “Individualistic capitalism and the economic practices pertaining to that system were undoubtedly invented in Babylonia”.1 Questo è vero per molti tipi di contratto, come quelli di debito-credito o di condivisione e assicurazione dei rischi del produrre e del commerciare. In una pionieristica ricerca storico-statistica sul tasso d’interesse nei millenni si afferma: “Il credito ha preceduto di molto la coniazione della moneta; probabilmente ha preceduto anche le prime forme di moneta (…). Nel 1800 circa a.C. Hammurabi, re della prima dinastia dell’antica Babilonia, dedicò un buon numero dei provvedimenti del suo codice alla regolazione dei rapporti fra debitore e creditore”.2 Come avverrà per la Grecia e per Roma i tassi dell’interesse si situarono su valori minimi – al disotto del 10% – nei secoli in cui la civiltà “babilonese” 1

Johnson / Moggridge 1978, 253–254. Nel Treatise Keynes, preso dall’idea che “the engine which drives Enterprise is not Thrift, but Profit”, spinge il proprio entusiasmo sino ad affermare che “it would be fascinating (…) to conjecture whether the civilisations of Sumeria and Egypt drew their stimulus from the gold of Arabia and the copper of Africa, which, being monetary metals, left a trail of profit behind them …” (Keynes 1930, II 149–150). 2 Homer / Sylla 1995, 9–10; l’edizione originaria del libro di Homer, un agente di cambio curioso del passato, risale al 1963. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

xxviii

Pierluigi Ciocca

conobbe il suo massimo splendore.3 Forse Keynes avrebbe visto in questi dati una conferma ulteriore del convincimento che il prezzo del danaro non è meccanicamente legato ai flussi quantitativi del risparmiare e dell’investire … Nondimeno è essenziale il rispetto del confine metodologico che dev’esservi fra il registrare sul piano storico che non poche forme tecniche nei rapporti economici vennero, come dice Keynes, “inventate” nell’Antico Vicino Oriente e il considerarle espressione e indizio di un modo di produzione capitalistico risalente addirittura a 4000 anni fa… La confusione da evitare è quella fra scambio e capitalismo, i due lontanissimi estremi, primordiale l’uno e moderno l’altro, mediati dal mercato nel suo plurisecolare evolvere dalle modalità più semplici a quelle sofisticate attuali.4 Il baratto, l’uso di una moneta, la fiera di paese, il commercio anche tra luoghi lontani, il mercato privo dell’intermediario sono altro dalla Borsa, da un mondo in cui titoli, valute, merci si trattano in tempo continuo su scala planetaria. La razione di sussistenza data dai produttori alla manodopera di 5000 anni fa non equivale al salario quale prezzo della forza-lavoro ridotta a merce comprata e venduta nei mercati del lavoro del capitalismo post-rivoluzione industriale. Il guadagno ottenuto dal vendere quanto si possiede prelude soltanto al profitto ricercato dall’impresa capitalistica attraverso l’accumulazione, la combinazione di impianti e macchinari col lavoro salariato nella fabbrica, la produttività ricercata scientificamente nell’efficienza e soprattutto nell’innovazione e nel progresso tecnico. La moneta e la finanza del capitalismo sono funzionali alla produzione così configurata, oltre che allo scambio. In questo sulla scia di Marx, lo stesso Keynes sottolinea come “C-M-C’, il caso dello scambio di un bene (o di una prestazione) contro danaro al fine di acquisire un altro bene (o un’altra prestazione) può essere il punto di vista dell’individuo consumatore, ma non è l’atteggiamento del mondo degli affari, che è del tipo M-C-M’, il caso del cedere danaro in cambio di un bene (o di una prestazione) al fine di ottenere più danaro”.5 Schumpeter insegna che nel capitalismo il credito, il prestito bancario, la finanza non adempiono la mera funzione di sostenere il debitore qualsivoglia, bensì quella, cruciale per la dinamica del sistema, di selezionare gli imprenditori e le 3

Homer / Sylla 1995, 91 Grafico 1. Descritte e analizzate in modo insuperato, tali modalità, in Hicks 1969. Hicks valorizza “the Rise of the Market, the Rise of the Exchange Economy” come precedente, e più fondamentale, della stessa ascesa del capitalismo, e pur tuttavia distingue nettamente tra il mercato e quello che chiama “Industrialism”, ovvero “the Rise of Modern Industry” a cominciare dall’Inghilterra di tre secoli fa. 5 Johnson / Moggridge 1979, 77. Ulteriori considerazioni su questo punto sono in Ciocca 2004, Cap. 2. 4

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Omaggio a Francesco Pomponio

xxix

attività produttive maggiormente innovative, l’innovazione essendo la caratteristica precipua del modo di produzione capitalistico.6 Forme simili, al limite le medesime forme nel tempo, vanno storicizzate, spesso assumendo valenza diversa in contesti diversi. Non sempre gli economisti, ma nel caso specifico non tutti gli assiriologi di oggi, si conformano a questo canone, accogliendone l’implicito invito alla prudenza nel generalizzare. Una cautela è insita nel rigore storiografico, oserei dire filologico. Mi piace dichiarare che i miei personali bollori da economista incline a generalizzare sono stati raffreddati dall’incontro con distinti assiriologi italiani, fra cui Francesco Pomponio. Risale al 2000 l’incarico di consulenza che la Banca d’Italia, dove Bulgarelli ed io lavoravamo, gli affidò in occasione dell’acquisto, della traduzione e pubblicazione da parte di Via Nazionale di due collezioni di oltre 400 tavolette mesopotamiche risalenti alla prima metà del secondo millennio a.C. Seguirono, negli anni, numerose occasioni di confronto, per me di apprendimento, per studi, ricerche, convegni che hanno coinvolto, oltre alle università, l’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica, l’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, l’Associazione Bancaria Italiana, la Rivista di Storia Economica, da me diretta. Ho sempre apprezzato, del professor Pomponio, la priorità data alle fonti, la cura estrema dedicata alla loro decriptazione, e quindi interpretazione. Sono davvero lieto di apprendere che la Banca d’Italia continuerà a giovarsi della sua cultura nella creazione di un Museo della moneta e della finanza che opportunamente prenderà le mosse dall’origine mesopotamica della scrittura, nel 3200 circa a.C., e dalla vicenda economica, affascinante, dell’Antico Vicino Oriente.

Bibliografia Ciocca, P., Il tempo dell’economia, Torino 2004. Hicks, J., A Theory of Economic History, Oxford 1969. Homer, S. / Sylla, R., Storia dei tassi d’interesse, Milano / Bari 1995. Johnson, E. / Moggridge, D. (eds.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 28: Social, Political and Literary Writings, London 1978. — The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 29: The General Theory and After. A Supplement, London, 1979. Keynes, J.M., A Treatise on Money, I–II, London 1930. Schumpeter, J.A., The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Oxford 1961.

6

Schumpeter 1961. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

A New Text Belonging to the Collections of the British Museum Sergio Alivernini

The tablet published herewith was transliterated by the author during the year 2015 as part of a project which has been, for various reasons, interrupted. With this very short note, the author is paying homage to Francesco Vincenzo Pomponio, a scholar who has made (and he is carrying on making) several efforts to publish thousands of unpublished texts kept in museums and collections all over the world.1 The tablet presented here belongs to the collection of the British Museum (inventory number: BM 111142), and is dated to reign of Šū-Sîn, the fourth king of Ur III Dynasty (2112–2004 BC). The text is part of a large consignment purchased by the British museum from I.E. Géjou (an antiquities dealer of Armenian origin, resident in Paris) in 1914. It is the 1914-04-04 collection, a mix of Ur III, Old-Babylonian and Late-Babylonian tablets.2 The document is here presented, for the first time, with transliteration, translation and copy (Figure 1).

BM 111142 Measurements: 5.2×4.5×1.5 Provenience: Umma Date: ŠS 3/-/Unruled

1

Abbreviations used in the article are found on the website of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI: http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/abbreviations_for_assyriology). Add AS (Amar-Sîn), ŠS (Šū-Sîn), and Š (Šulgi) which, when followed by numbers, indicate the year, month and day of the reign (YY/mm/DD). Tablet measurements are in cm. The author wishes to thank the Trustees of the British Museum for their support during the period in the Study Room of the Department of Middle East. Thanks also go to Dr. Armando Bramanti for his comments, suggestions and for the handmade copy of the tablet. Of course, the author bears full responsibility for any errors and omissions. The copy of the tablet and its sealings have been drawn next to each other to make the reading easier. 2 The author wishes to thank Dr. Jonathan Taylor for this information. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Sergio Alivernini

2

Transliteration

Translation

Obverse 1. 360+50 la2 1 ĝuruš u4 1-še3 2. ˹ki-su7˺ IŠ.U2.U2-ka / gub-ba

Obverse 1. 409 workers for 1 day 2. assigned to the threshing floor of the IŠ.U2.U2 3. via Ur-ĝipar 4. 134 ½ workers for 1 day 5. assigned to the threshing floor of the Ušgida (field) 6. via Lu-heĝal

3. ˹ĝiri3˺ Ur-ĝi6-par4 4. 120+10+4+½ ĝuruš u4 1-še3 5. ki-˹su7˺ ˹Uš-gid2-da˺ / gub-ba 6. ˹ĝiri3˺ Lu2-he2-ĝal2 Reverse 1. ugula Gu2!-TAR 2. kišib3 nam-ša3-tam Lugal/-ku3-zu

Reverse 1. foreman: GuTAR 2. Seal of the administrative office of Lugal-kuzu

Seal 3. mu us2-sa ma2 dEn/-ki ba-ab-du8

(Seal) 3. The year after: “The boat of Enki was caulked”

Seal 1. Lugal-ku3-zu 2. dub-sar 3. dumu Ur-niĝarxĝar šuš3

Seal 1. Lugal-kuzu 2. scribe 3. son of Ur-niĝar, the chief cattle manager

Commentary The text records the assignment of workers to two threshing floors, located in two different areas of the Umma province. The first one is located in IŠ.U2.U2, a village,3 which probably lay, either directly on the Tigris or close to it.4 It was ca. two days by boat from the city of Umma,5 and it had agricultural fields,6 a granary7 and a palace.8 The second one was located in Ušgida, which was a 3

See, for example, BPOA 6 694 (AS 7/xi/-), which records, in the second line of the obverse, E2-duru5 IŠ.U2.U2. 4 See Steinkeller 2001, 38. 5 See, for example, UTI 5 3165 (ŠS 1/-/-), and UTI 5 3069 (ŠS 1/-/-). Both texts record a boat towed upstream from Umma (probably from the kar of Umma) to IŠ.U2.U2, in two days. 6 See, for example, MVN 1 82 (-/-/-). 7 See, for example, BPOA 6 1085 (Š 46/xi/-). 8 See, for example, MVN 10 102 (ŠŠ 2/xii/-). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

A New Text Belonging to the Collections of the British Museum

3

large field, placed over the border of Ĝirsu/Lagaš and Umma provinces, in the Gu’edena district, and was managed, as demonstrated by Steinkeller,9 by the administrations of both provinces. The workers were divided in two teams depending of the final destination: the first team, (assigned to the threshing floor of the IŠ.U2.U2) was brought via Ur-ĝipar, while the second team (assigned to the to the threshing floor of the Ušgida field) was brought via Lu-heĝal. Both teams were under the responsibility of GuTAR. This foreman is attested, according to Dahl,10 with the titles foreman (ugula) (in relation to the cultivators under their command), captain of (plow-)oxen (nu-banda3-gu4) (when relating to the plowoxen), and administrator (of domain units) (šabra [gu4]) (when relating to the yield).

Figure 1. BM 111142

The official who sealed the tablet is Lugal-kuzu, attested from Š 41 to ŠS 7 always in Umma. He operated at the level above the captains of (plow-)oxen, and he exclusively sealed documents relating to agricultural administration over a large area of the Umma province. He was the son of Ur-niĝar, the chief

9

See Steinkeller 2013, 300. See Dahl 2007, 65 n. 248.

10

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Sergio Alivernini

4

livestock manager of the Umma province.11 Molina12 has also observed that Lugal-kuzu used two different seals with the inscription Lugal-ku3-zu / dub-sar / dumu Ur-niĝarxĝar šuš3: the first one, called type A, is attested from Š 41/ii/- to AS 1/xiii/-; the second one, called type B (the text here published was rolled with this one) is attested from AS 2/-/- to ŠS 7.

Bibliography Dahl, J.L., The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 108), Leiden 2007. Molina, M., Two Ur III tablets in the Museo Nacional de las Culturas, Ciudad de Mexico, in: Aula Orientalis 30/1 (2012) 188–191. Steinkeller, P., New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 91 (2001) 22–84. — The Umma Field Ušgida and the Question of GARšana’s Location, in: Collins, B.J. / Michalowski, P. (eds.), Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman, Atlanta, GA 2013, 295–308.

11 12

See Dahl 2007, 123. For more information on this official, see Dahl 2007, 124–127. See Molina 2012, 189. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Le dieu de Phrangissa (Chypre) Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo

À Phrangissa, au sud-ouest de Nicosie et au sud-est de l’antique Tamassos (entre les villages actuels de Politiko et Pera),1 un sanctuaire dédié à Apollon a été mis au jour dès 1885.2 Parmi les inscriptions retrouvées deux dédicaces3 bilingues phéniciennes et grecques, en syllabaire chypriote, sont particulièrement bien connues. D’une part, en effet, elles établissent la correspondance entre Apollon et Reshep, qui est attestée également à Idalion,4 de l’autre elles identifient cette divinité au moyen de deux épithètes : ’LYYT et ’LHYTS en phénicien, Heleitas ou Helewitas et Alasiōtas en grec (formes reconstruites d’après l’écriture syllabique), deux hapax tant en phénicien qu’en grec. L’explication de ces épithètes, considérées comme différentes l’une de l’autre, a retenu l’attention de tous les éditeurs et commentateurs de ces textes et c’est, au contraire, sur leur correspondance possible, que je me concentre ici.5 Les deux inscriptions, gravées sur des bases de statues perdues,6 furent découvertes par M. Ohnefalsch Richter, et données par la suite au British Museum, où elles se trouvent actuellement dans le Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, inv. 125.321 et 125.322. Publiées dès 1886–1887 par W. Wright et Ph. Berger,7 elles ont été reprises plusieurs fois, soit dans des corpus épigraphiques, soit dans des études concernant l’histoire des cultes et les questions liées au phénomène du bilinguisme.8 Les deux textes sont datés du règne de Milkyaton, roi de Kition et d’Idalion (c. 392–362/1 av. J.-C.) et remontent l’un (RÉS 1212) à l’an 30 de ce roi (362 av. J.-C.), l’autre (RÉS 1

Sur la situation géographique de Phrangissa dans le territoire des entités politiques de Chypre à l’époque classique, cf. note 34. 2 Masson 1964 ; sur le sanctuaire de Phrangissa Masson 1964, 232–236. Cf. aussi Buchholz 1991. 3 Bibliographie précédant 1946 dans RÉS 1212 et 1213. Il s’agit de ICS2 215 et 216. 4 Sur la correspondance entre Reshep et Apollon à Chypre, cf. Lipínski 1995, 187–188, et Lipínski 2009, 231. Cf. également Münnich 2013 (non consulté). 5 J’avais énoncé la thèse retenue ici, sans la développer de manière adéquate, dans un recueil non scientifique en mémoire d’Anna Morpurgo, cf. Amadasi Guzzo 2015. 6 D’après ICS2, 224 note 5, il s’agissait de statuettes en bronze. 7 Wright 1886–1887 ; Berger 1886–1887 et 1887. 8 Cf. Consani 1988, 42–44. Dernièrement Bianco / Bonnet 2018, 45–46. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo

6

1213) probablement à l’an 17 (c. 375 av. J.-C.).9 Pour ce qui est spécifiquement de leur bilinguisme, ils ont été examinés en détail par O. Masson dans son recueil Inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques.10 Je reproduis ici les deux textes en suivant la numérotation et l’ordre de cet ouvrage, qui est celui des premières éditions (et non celui de leur succession chronologique). ICS2 215 = RÉS 121211 Base en marbre ; h. 46 cm., larg. 19 cm., ép. 27,6 cm. Inscription phénicienne de 6 lignes ; en dessous, texte grec syllabique12 de 6 lignes. 362 av. J.-C. SML ʼZ ʼŠ YTN WYṬN ʼ MNḤM BN BNḤDŠ BN MNḤM BN ʻRQ LʼDNY L[RŠ]P ʼLYYT BYRḤ ʼTNM BŠNT ŠLŠM 20+10 LMLK MLKYTN MLK KTY WʼDYL KŠMʻ QL YBRK

Cette statue est (celle) qu’a donnée et érigée Menaḥem fils de Benḥodesh fils de Menaḥem fils de (= originaire de) ‘Arqa,13 à son seigneur à Reshep ’lyyt , au mois de Etanim en l’année trente, 30, du roi Milkyaton roi de Kition et d’Idalion, parce qu’il a entendu sa voix ; qu’il le bénisse!

Le texte grec, transposé en écriture alphabétique est : Τὸν ἀ(ν)δριά(ν)ταν τόν(ν)υ ἔδωκεν κὰς ὀνέθηκεν Μνάσης ὁ Νωμηνίων τῶι θιῶι τῶι Ἀπείλωνι τῶι Ἑλείϝ ται14 ἰ(ν) τύχαι

Cette statue est celle (qu’)a donnée et a vouée Mnasēs fils de Noumēnios au dieu, à Apollon Heleitas, à la (bonne) fortune.

9

La lecture du chiffre 17 n’est pas tout à fait certaine. ICS2, 222–228. 11 Cf. aussi, en particulier, KAI 41; Yon 2004, n° 71; Egetmeyer 2010, 812–813 ; Bianco / Bonnet 2018, 46. 12 Chypro-grec, d’après la terminologie de M. Egetmeyer. 13 ‘RQ est le toponyme de l’ancienne ville d’‘Arqa (Irqata de l’âge du Bronze), dans le Liban, à la limite sud de la plaine du Akkar, au nord-ouest de Tripoli. La désignation de la famille d’après le toponyme, vraisemblablement d’origine, est connue surtout pour Tyr et Carthage, cf. en particulier Bordreuil / Ferjaoui 1988 et Amadasi Guzzo 2012. 14 D’après Egetmeyer 2010, 813, suivant une indication de J.-P. Olivier, l’épithète en écriture syllabique devrait se lire to-e-le-wi-ta-i, tandis qu’O. Masson lisait to-e-le-i-tai. 10

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Le dieu de Phrangissa (Chypre)

7

ICS2 216 = RÉS 121315 Base de marbre blanc. H. 32 cm., larg. à la base 19 cm., au milieu 15 cm., ép. 17,5 cm. Inscription phénicienne de 6 lignes ; en dessous texte grec syllabique de 4 lignes. 375 av. J.-C. BYMM 10+6 LYRḤ PʻLT BŠ[N-] T 10+7(?) LMLK MLKY[TN MLK K-] TY WʼDYL SML ʼZ ʼŠ YTN ʻBDSSM BN…LʼDNY LRŠP ʼLHYTS HNDR ʼŠ NDR KŠMʻ Hʼ QL YBRK

Au jour 16 du mois de Pa‘lot, l’année 17 (?) du roi Milkyaton, roi de Kition et d’Idalion, cette statue est ce qu’a donné ‘Abdsasm fils de … à son seigneur à Reshep ’lhyts. Le don qu’il a donné parce que lui (= le dieu) a écouté sa voix ; qu’il le bénisse.

Le texte grec transposé en écriture alphabétique est : Ἀνδριὰς ὅνυ, τὸν ἔδωκεν Αψασμος16 ὁ Σαμᾶϝος17 τῶι Ἀ[πόλ(λ)ω]νι τῶι Ἀλασιώται ἰ(ν) τύχαι

Cette statue est ce (qu’) a donné Apsasmos fils de Samâs à Apollon l’ Alasiōtas; à la (bonne) fortune!

Bien qu’elles soient très proches du point de vue chronologique et qu’elles soient gravées sur un support assez semblable, ces deux dédicaces montrent un certain nombre de différences, surtout en ce qui concerne la partie phénicienne, qui, d’après sa position, sa longueur, la formule de datation qui manque dans la partie grecque, semble la principale. Mais, au-delà des différences de structure (l’inscription ICS2 216 a, en particulier, une syntaxe spécifique) et en laissant de côté les remarques sur les correspondances onomastiques des donateurs, ce sont les épithètes du dieu Reshep / Apollon qui ont causé le plus de difficulté, épithètes qui, malgré quelques essais pour les faire correspondre, ont été considérés comme indépendantes.18 Cependant, dans un même sanctuaire, on s’attendrait à ce que le dieu invoqué ait la même nomenclature : c’est le cas par 15

Cf. aussi en particulier, Yon 2004, n° 70; Egetmeyer 2010, 813–814 ; Bianco / Bonnet 2018, 45–46. 16 D’après la reconstruction proposée par Bianco 2015, 55 (auparavant O. Masson proposait Αψασωμος). 17 Le patronyme a été reconstruit dans la partie phénicienne soit comme une formation d’après le terme ŠM « nom » (tel que ŠMY, ou ŠM’, soit comme une formation d’après le verbe ŠM‘ « écouter »; v. Benz 1972, 419 et 421. 18 Cf. en particulier, en plus des remarques d’O. Masson dans ICS2, Bianco 2015. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

8

Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo

exemple du Reshep / Apollon qui, à Idalion, dans les dédicaces en phénicien est appelé Reshep-MKL ou Reshep-HMKL, le deuxième élément étant toujours le même, bien que son explication diffère suivant les commentateurs.19 L’épithète Heleitas ou Helewitas20 a été expliquée tout d’abord (par Ph. Berger, cf. RÉS 1213, qui interprète de la même manière ’LHYTS21) comme un adjectif ethnique dérivant de la ville d’Hélos en Laconie. Cette thèse, qui est accueillie aussi dans KAI (vol. II, 58), a été acceptée par E. Lipínski, qui propose que le phénicien ’LYYT soit une faute du graveur à la place de *’LYTY.22 On a supposé aussi l’existence d’un toponyme Hélos, situé dans le territoire de Tamassos,23 qui n’est pourtant pas attesté. La correspondance entre l’adjectif qualifiant Apollon et le nom de la ville du Péloponnèse a été, au contraire, réfutée par O. Masson, qui met en rapport Heleitas (Helewitas) avec le mot ἕλος « marais, marécage » ; il s’agirait alors d’un dieu adoré ἰν ἕλει, « dans le marais », un endroit riche en eau, suivant une expression connue ailleurs à Chypre et attestée, en particulier, sur la tablette d’Idalion.24 La thèse de Masson a été généralement acceptée. La statue votive aurait été offerte à une figure d’Apollon « du marais, de la prairie humide », bien adaptée à la situation de Phrangissa, dont le sanctuaire surgissait auprès d’un cours d’eau, la petite rivière Argaki tis Asproyis.

19

On songe soit à un couple divin : Reshep-Mekal (une divinité, cette dernière, attestée à Chypre en particulier dans les comptes de Kition CIS I 86 B,4 et rapprochée éventuellement d’un dieu attesté sur une stèle de Beth-Shan, cf. Masson / Sznycer 1972, 61, et, sur la stèle, Levy 2018), soit à une identification avec Apollon d’Amyclées en Laconie, cf. Lipínski 2009, 233–235 (une identification qui n’est pas acceptée par Egetmeyer 2010, § 275, 458). 20 Si, avec Olivier et Egetmeyer, il faut lire la forme grecque de Chypre comme e-le-witai, on se demande pourquoi le phénicien n’a pas rendu ce mot sous l’orthographe ’LWYT. Egetmeyer 2010, § 314, remarque : « Dans la version phénicienne, le mot est rendu comme ’lyyt, donc sans /w/ ce qui éloigne la forme de la nouvelle lecture grecque. Il paraît pourtant possible de toujours considérer le mot comme grec et de le dériver de ἕλος < *selos avec le suffixe -ītā-: *seles-ītā -s > *helehï̄ tās > *(h)eleï̄ tās >*(h)elewītās ». Mais la transcription phénicienne s’éloigne dans tous les cas de la forme grecque envisagée. 21 « ’LHYTS doit être le même vocable écrit ’LYYT dans le texte précédent. La transcription donne là Ἑλείτας, ici Ἀλασιώτας. Cet ethnique est tiré de Hélos (Ἔλος), ville de Laconie ». 22 Lipínski 2009, 232. 23 Cf. ICS2, 226. 24 ICS2 217, l. 9 (terrain qui est ἰ(ν) τῶι ἕλει : cf. p. 226 sub 215) : cf. en particulier Masson 1990, 232 et note 8 ; détails dans Vernet 2014, 132–136, et Vernet 2015, 186– 187. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Le dieu de Phrangissa (Chypre)

9

Moins d’une quinzaine d’années avant la dédicace de Menaḥem / Mnasēs, ‘Abdsasm avait offert une statue à Reshep / Apollon qualifié de ’LHYTS / Alasiōtas, une épithète qui, tout en étant inconnue ailleurs, est apparue tout de suite moins énigmatique que l’autre. En effet, dès 1895, P. Jensen proposait de rapprocher cet adjectif du nom du pays d’Alashiya, attesté au Bronze récent à elAmarna (connu aussi à la suite de découvertes plus récentes à Ugarit et dans des sources hittites).25 Avec le temps et à la suite de nouvelles recherches, cette identification, comme on le sait, s’est affirmée, quoiqu’encore avec quelques réserves ; reste ouverte l’hypothèse qu’au Bronze récent ce toponyme puisse avoir été attribué, à un état / royaume de Chypre et non à l’île toute entière.26 L’identification entre Alashiya et l’île de Chypre dans son ensemble, du moins en phénicien et à la fin du IVe siècle av. J.-C., a été démontrée par la découverte à Idalion d’un ostrakon qui, dans une formule de datation, nomme la première année d’Antigonos et Démétrios « sur Alashiya » (phén. ‘L ’LŠY). Comme Antigone Monophtalmos prit le titre de roi de Chypre en 306 av. J.-C. (titre qui fut également décerné à son fils), il est clair que ’LŠY de l’ostrakon se réfère à l’île sous son nom local en phénicien, un toponyme qui s’était préservé depuis le Bronze Récent au moins.27 Ce toponyme désignait, au IIe millénaire, une entité tant territoriale que politique, tandis qu’à la fin du IVe siècle il semble avoir eu une signification spécifiquement géographique. Pendant tout le premier millénaire av. J.-C., jusqu’en 312, Chypre est partagée en plusieurs entités territoriales, les états dits « royaumes », nommées dans les inscriptions d’après le nom de leur ville principale : l’ensemble de l’île n’est jamais cité dans les textes épigraphiques locaux, tandis que les états extérieurs n’utilisent plus l’ancien nom d’Alashiya et nomment Chypre par d’autres appellations.28 Que cet ancien toponyme fût tombé en désuétude à Chypre même (ou du moins dans une partie de l’île), c’est justement l’inscription ICS2 216 qui le démontre. En effet, tandis que le texte grec désigne le dieu Apollon par un adjectif ethnique formé sur Alashiya, Alasiōtas, ce terme ne semble pas avoir été compris comme l’ethnique lié au nom phénicien de Chypre par le rédacteur du texte phénicien. En effet, il ne l’a pas transposé d’après la morphologie phénicienne, qui aurait été ’LŠYY ou ’LŠY,29 mais l’a rendu d’après le grec, en 25

Cf. Jensen 1895 ; ICS2, 228 ; Masson 1990, 233. Sur cette question cf. dernièrement Amadasi Guzzo / Zamora 2018, 78–79 (et bibliographie), avec critique des propositions d’identifier le toponyme ou l’ethnique sur la tablette 1 d’Arslan Tash (proposition de lire et d’interpréter ’LŠYY, « Alasiote », cf. Caquot / Du Mesnil du Buisson 1971, 401–440, et Röllig 1974, 29), et, suivant Krahmalkov 2000, 56, sur le bol de Qubur el-Walaydah et, encore, à Chypre dans l’inscription funéraire du Musée de Nicosie (Honeyman 1939 = Masson / Sznycer 1972, 13–29). 27 Cf. Amadasi Guzzo / Zamora 2018. 28 Amadasi Guzzo / Zamora 2018, 79–80. 29 L’ethnique formé sur KTY « Kition » est plutôt KTY que KTYY. 26

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

10

Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo

suivant le schéma des ethniques typiques du grec30 et en préservant la terminaison du cas nominatif. En outre, il l’a rendu d’après sa prononciation locale. Dans le dialecte grec de Chypre la sibilante entre deux voyelles fait place à une aspiration,31 bien rendue en phénicien par le -h- de ’LHYTS, tandis que dans l’écriture syllabique la sibilante originaire est préservée, tout en n’étant pas prononcée (c’est le même phénomène qui est attesté dans l’adaptation en grec chypriote du nom phénicien Menaḥem, MNḤM, qui est rendu par Mnasēs, comme l’a bien montré M. Bianco).32 Le phénicien reproduit donc le vocable d’après la prononciation parlée, tandis que le grec l’écrit d’après sa forme historiquement « correcte ». Cela montre bien – en tenant compte du fait que le donateur est généralement considéré comme un chypriote de langue phénicienne – que ce dernier ne reconnaissait pas dans l’épithète du dieu qu’il identifiait avec « son » Reshep le qualificatif signifiant « chypriote » dérivé d’Alashiya, un toponyme pourtant connu et employé en phénicien encore quelques décennies plus tard.33 Le texte grec syllabique, d’autre part, reproduit l’épithète d’Apollon d’après sa forme traditionnelle grécisée, mais il est probable que, comme dans le phénicien, sa signification originaire n’était plus saisie. En conclusion – comme on l’a d’ailleurs déjà bien remarqué34 – dans le sanctuaire périphérique de Phrangissa, situé dans une région interne, minière, riche en cuivre, l’une des ressources principales du royaume d’Alashiya, un ancien culte traditionnel du dieu de Chypre (Alashiya) vraisemblablement lié à la production du métal, a persisté depuis l’époque du Bronze. Mais, avec le temps, son épithète semble avoir perdu sa signification liée à un toponyme connu, si bien que bientôt celle-ci se trouvera modifiée. L’inscription ICS2 215 montre, à mon sens, quel a été le développement de l’épithète liée à l’ancien culte de l’Apollon chypriote. Le rédacteur du texte phénicien, qui reproduisait l’appellation du dieu sans en reconnaître la signification, a adapté à la phonétique et à l’orthographe phénicienne l’épithète du dieu, qui, peu de temps auparavant, avait été transposée, suivant la prononciation courante, en gardant la déclinaison grecque (cas du nominatif) : dans ’LYYT, au contraire, la déclinaison n’est plus présente, tandis que la morphologie adjectivale grecque est préservée ; mais, la laryngale phénicienne h (présente dans ’LHYTS) s’est développée en y, un développement phonétique typique du phénicien lorsque h est précédée ou suivie de la voyelle i.35 L’épithète est ainsi adaptée au phénicien 30

Sur cette formation cf. Masson 1990, 233. Cf. en particulier Morpurgo Davies 1988 et 2012. 32 Bianco 2015, 56–57. 33 On a donc d’un côté l’identification du dieu local avec le Reshep sémitique, de l’autre un calque de son épithète ; celle-ci, si elle avait été comprise, aurait dû être « traduite » (comme on l’a fait par ex. dans le cas du nom Benḥodesh / Noumēnios). 34 Masson 1992 ; Vernet 2014, 130–138 ; Vernet 2015, 185–187. 35 Friedrich / Röllig 1999, §§ 18, 2 et 3, 112, 147. 31

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Le dieu de Phrangissa (Chypre)

11

sur la base de sa phonétique propre,36 par une forme qui en même temps est probablement considérée comme équivalente à la nouvelle variante grecque Heleitas / Helewitas. Par Heleitas / Helewitas, d’autre part, le rédacteur grec aurait transformé l’ancien ethnique (prononcé sans doute en 375 av. J.-C. comme *Alahïōtas) en agissant par « assonance » : il aurait identifié un terme désuet et incompris avec une épithète divine semblable et familière, en le liant au substantif ἕλος bien connu et employé, sous différentes formes pour d’autres divinités vénérées à Chypre, comme l’a montré O. Masson.37 Ce serait donc toujours le même dieu de tradition chypriote qui aurait été vénéré dans les deux inscriptions du sanctuaire de Phrangissa, mais la signification de son épithète le désignant comme le dieu de Chypre – l’ancien royaume d’Alashiya – désormais oubliée, aurait entraîné sa modification : en phénicien une adaptation par rapport à la transposition précédente et, en grec, l’assimilation à un adjectif dérivé d’un mot bien connu et attribué à des dieux locaux.38 La cité-état de Tamassos à l’époque prise en compte ici n’est pas très bien connue ; son territoire ne passa sous la domination phénicienne de Kition qu’à partir du milieu du IVe siècle environ, lorsque le roi Pasikypros la vendit au roi de Kition Pumiyaton (362/361–312 av. J.-C.) ; dans l’inscription CIS I 10, de l’an 21 de son règne (341/340 av. J.-C.), celui-ci affiche justement le titre de roi de Kition, d’Idalion et de Tamassos.39 Mais à l’époque des deux dédicaces ICS2 215 et 216, son territoire n’était pas encore sous administration phénicienne ; pourtant, les deux bilingues sont datées d’après le règne de Milkyaton (qui est désigné comme roi de Kition et d’Idalion seulement). On a supposé, en partie sur la base de ces témoignages,40 que Phrangissa, à la limite entre Tamassos et Idalion, fît partie de ce dernier état, qui avait été conquis par Kition à une date incertaine vers ou peu avant le milieu du Ve siècle sous le roi ‘Ozibaal. Toutefois, même si le sanctuaire de Phrangissa dépendait, sous Milkyaton, de 36

Devant adapter Heleitas ou Helewitas le phénicien aurait probablement écrit HLYT ou HLWT/HLWYT (Masson, ICS2, 226, remarque que dans l’adaptation phénicienne l’aspiration manque). 37 Cf. ICS2, 226 (avec références bibliographiques concernant Héra et Artémis Heleia). 38 Cf. la note précédente et en particulier l’adjectif ἑλείτης attribué au roseau. 39 CIS I 10 = KAI 32 ; v. ICS2, 222–224 ; Masson 1992 ; sur Pumiyaton cf. Yon 1992 et Minunno 2018. 40 Satraki 2012, 329–330 (non consultée) ; Fourrier 2015, 39, note 38. Sur l’organisation complexe et liée aux communications et aux différentes situations économiques, cf. Iacovou 2007 et 2013 (avec la question de l’organisation politique du territoire et de la terminologie la plus adéquate pour désigner les unités étatiques : poleis, royaumes n’étant pas souvent des désignations correctes). Je tiens à remercier M. Iacouvou pour m’avoir signalé ses études et m’avoir fait part de son opinion concernant l’appartenance de Phrangissa au territoire d’Idalion ; ma reconnaissance va à C. Bonnet pour ses remarques toujours stimulantes. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

12

Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo

l’administration depuis longtemps phénicienne de Kition, le culte attribué au dieu sans doute « local » identifié avec Reshep / Apollon montre, par son appellation, d’une part la persistance d’une tradition ancienne qui remonte audelà des pouvoirs et des langues qui se sont affirmés depuis l’époque du Fer dans les divers territoires, de l’autre, la perte de la perception exacte de cette ancienne ascendance. Le dieu « ancestral » garda sa désignation d’Alasiote, un adjectif ethnique adapté de manière exacte à la morphologie de la langue grecque qui s’affirma localement, mais le temps et les changements survenus, en firent oublier la caractérisation ancienne. L’appellation toponymique du dieu apparaît au IVe siècle transposée ou adaptée à partir du grec – qui était la langue de l’administration jusqu’à la conquête par Kition – à la langue phénicienne (une langue qui pourtant désignait encore Chypre par le nom d’Alashiya), tandis qu’en grec elle fut peut-être modifiée en l’identifiant à une appellation phonétiquement voisine ayant une signification connue.

Abréviations ICS2 = O. Masson, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques, Paris 19832 (1re éd. 1961). KAI = Donner, H. / Röllig, W., Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, I–III, Wiesbaden, 1966–2002 [I5 2002; II2 1966; III2 1969]. RÉS = Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique, Paris 1900–1905 ss.

Bibliographie Amadasi Guzzo, M.G., Ancora sull’espressione “figlio di Tiro” in fenicio, dans : Rivista di studi fenici 40 (2012) 107–114. — Apollo Alasiota e il toponimo Alashiya, dans : De Mauro, T. / Passalacqua, M. (éds.), Per Anna. Testimonianze e memorie per ricordare Anna Morpurgo, Roma 2015, 11–22. Amadasi Guzzo, M.G. / Zamora, J.Á., The Phoenician Name of Cyprus: New Evidence from Early Hellenistic Times, dans : Journal of Semitic Studies 63 (2018) 77–97. Benz, F.L., Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (Studia Pohl 8), Roma 1972. Berger, Ph., Two Bilingual Inscriptions Discovered in Cyprus, dans : Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 9 (1886–1887) 100–104, 153–156. — La seconde inscription bilingue de Tamassos, dans : Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 31/2 (1887) 187– 201.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Le dieu de Phrangissa (Chypre)

13

Bianco, M., Considérations sur les anthroponymes phéniciens transcrits en grec dans les inscriptions bilingues gréco-phéniciennes, dans : Semitica et Classica 8 (2015) 53–62. Bianco, M. / Bonnet, C., S’adresser aux dieux en deux langues. Le cas des épiclèses dans les inscriptions bilingues phéniciennes et grecques, dans : Parcours anthropologiques 13 (2018 ; Les langages du religieux) 38–70. http://journals.openedition.org/pa/632 Bordreuil, P. / Ferjaoui, A., À propos des “fils de Tyr” et des “fils de Carthage”, dans : Lipiński, E. (éd.), Carthago (Studia Phoenicia 6 / Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 26), Leuven 1988, 137–142. Buchholz, H.-G., Tamassos – Phrangissa (1885), dans : Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 16 (1991) 3–16. Caquot, A. / du Mesnil du Buisson, R., La seconde tablette ou “petite amulette” d’Arslan Tash, dans : Syria 48 (1971) 391–406. Consani, C., Bilinguismo, diglossia e digrafia nella Grecia antica. I. Considerazioni sulle iscrizioni bilingui di Cipro, dans : Campanile, E. et al. (éds.), Bilinguismo e biculturalismo nel mondo antico. Atti del Colloquio interdisciplinare. Pisa 28-29 settembre 1987, Pisa 1988, 35–60. Egetmeyer, M., Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre, II: Répertoire des inscriptions en syllabaire chypro-grec, Berlin / New York 2010. Fourrier, S., Chypre, des royaumes à la province lagide : la documentation phénicienne, dans : Aliquot, J. / Bonnet, C. (éds.), La Phénicie hellénistique. Actes du colloque international de Toulouse 18–20 février 2013 (Topoi. Supplément 13), Lyon 2015, 31–53. Friedrich J. / Röllig, W., Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von M.G. Amadasi Guzzo unter Mitarbeit von W.R. Mayer (Analecta Orientalia 55), Roma 1999. Honeyman, A.M., The Phoenician Inscriptions of the Cyprus Museum, dans : Iraq 6 (1939) 104–108. Iacovou, M., Site Size Estimates and Diversity Factor in Late Cypriot Settlement Histories, dans : Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 348 (2007) 1–23. — Historically Elusive and Internally Fragile Island Polities: The Intricacies of Cyprus’s Political Geography in the Iron Age, dans : Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 370 (2013) 15–47. Jensen, P., Kleine Mitteilungen. III. Απολλων Αλασιωτας, dans : Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 10 (1895) 379–380. Krahmalkov, Ch.R., Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (Studia Phoenicia 15 / Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 90), Leuven 2000. Levy, E., A Fresh Look at the Mekal Stele, dans : Ägypten und Levante 28 (2018) 359–378.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

14

Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo

Lipínski, E., Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique (Studia Phoenicia 14 / Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 64), Leuven 1995. — Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity (Studia Phoenicia 19 / Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 181), Leuven / Paris / Walpole 2009. Masson, O., Kypriaka I. Recherches sur les antiquités de Tamassos, dans : Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 88 (1964) 199–238. — Un vieux problème : Alasia = Chypre ?, dans : Revue des Études Grecques 103 (1990) 231–235. — Tamassos, dans : Lipínski, E. (éd.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, Turnhout 1992, 435–436. Masson, O. / Sznycer, M., Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre (Hautes études orientales 3), Genève / Paris 1972. Minunno, G., Pumayyaton, dans : Ercolani, A. / Xella, P. (éds.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Phoenician Culture I. Historical Characters, Leuven / Paris / Bristol, CT 2018, 202. Morpurgo Davies, A., Problems in Cyprian Phonology and Writing, dans : Karageorghis, J. / Masson, O. (éds.), The History of the Greek Language in Cyprus, Nicosia 1988, 99–130. — Phonetic Laws, Language Diffusion, and Drift: The Loss of Sibilants in Greek Dialects of the First Millennium BC, dans : Probert, Ph. / Willi, A. (éds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European, Oxford 2012, 102–121. Münnich, M.M., The God Reshep in the Ancient Near East (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 11), Tübingen 2013. Röllig, W., Die Amulette von Arslan Tash, dans : Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik 2 (1974) 17–36. Satraki, A., Κύπριοι βασιλείς από τον Κόσμασο μέχρι το Νικοκρέοντα (Archaiognosia 9), Athènes 2012. Vernet, Y., L’Apollon de Chypre. Naissance, évolution et caractéristiques du culte apollinien à Chypre, des origines à la fin de l’époque hellénistique, Thèse Université d’Avignon 2014. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01336801 — Some Remarks on the Beginning of the Cult of Apollo in Cyprus, dans : Hadjikiriakos, I. / Trentin, M.G. (éds.), Cypriot Cultural Details. Proceedings of the 10th Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeological Conference, Oxford / Philadelphia 2015, 179–195. Wright, W., Two Bilingual Inscriptions, Phoenician and Cypriote, dans : Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 9 (1886–1887) 47–49. Yon, M., Pumayyaton, dans : Lipínski, E. (éd.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, Turnhout 1992, 364. — Kition dans les textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions (Publications de la Mission archéologique française de KitionBamboula V), Paris 2004.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Francesco Pomponio and His Place in the History of Eblaite Studies Maria Giovanna Biga

1 Francesco Pomponio and the reconstruction of the relative chronology of the Ebla texts In the afternoon of Thursday 10 October 1985 at the “Ebla 1975 to 1985” convention in Naples, F. Pomponio1 presented a report entitled “La datazione interna dei testi economico-amministrativi di Ebla” (The internal dating of the economic-administrative texts of Ebla).2 He demonstrated that the list of the five kings of Ebla reconstructed by G. Pettinato, which included Igrish-Khalab, Irkab-damu, Arrugum, Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir had to be completely reviewed since Arrugum, Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir had never been kings of Ebla, but probably lugal. This still ambiguous term designates an official of a grade lower than the king (en). His happy intuition represented an enormous advance in the study of the Ebla documents and remains a fundamental milestone in the history of Eblaite studies.3 1

Francesco Pomponio, Sergio Picchioni, and myself are the only scholars still alive who began to study the Ebla texts from the discovery of the first 41 tablets in 1974 and who continue to work in this field. Picchioni no longer participates but follows developments from the isolation of his villa in Lanuvio in his magnificent and rich library. I am pleased, however, to remember that the term “Eblaite” for the language of Ebla is due to Picchioni who, faced with a variety of terms proposed by Pettinato, including Cananaic, suggested, more simply, calling it “Eblaite” from the name of the city. In my opinion, it is a very happy term, which immediately makes clear that it is a new language from a region of western Syria, and, in any case, different from Akkadian, despite an undoubted affinity with it. Pomponio’s work has been fundamental for Eblaite studies and for this reason, it is really for me both a duty and a great pleasure to contribute to a volume to celebrate his 70th birthday. 2 His report was then published, see Pomponio 1987, 249–262. 3 In any case, from 1974 to 1985, Pettinato had already done an enormous amount of work studying Eblaite texts, with the publication of four volumes, including MEE III (1981) and MEE IV (1982), with all the monolingual and bilingual lexical texts. They are still the only publications on these documents. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

16

Maria Giovanna Biga

Pomponio studied the lists of names of the sons, daughters and women of Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir, and of those who were defined as en, i.e. “king”, of Ebla and noticed that these lists did not coincide except for very few and inevitable cases of homonymy. Then he concluded that Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir and, before them, also Arrugum could not have been kings of Ebla. Pomponio began the study of the prosopography of the texts, necessary for arrangement in their relative chronology. Without this, even that huge mass of exceptional documents could not be used to trace the history of Syria and the kingdom of Ebla. I joined Pomponio in his study and this was the beginning of long work on the prosopography of the Ebla texts, which allowed us, in 1987, to identify the name of the last king of Ebla, Ishar-damu.4 He appeared as the first in a list of names of persons that we had already transcribed and studied in 1974, the text TM.74.G.120.5 The second and third names mentioned were those of Irkabdamu and Igrish-khalab, who had undoubtedly been kings of Ebla and we began to wonder why that list began with the name Ishar-damu. Prosopographical research on the name, which had not been much attested up to that time but which was referred to as “son of the king” (dumu-nita en), led us to conclude that we were dealing with the successor of king Irkab-damu. Therefore, the scribe had started the list of names with the name of the reigning king. It was a period of intense study of the Eblaite tablets but of continuous discoveries comparable only to what followed their discovery in 1974 and 1975. Pettinato had taught us that we always had to look at the texts of Fara and Abu Salabikh for possible duplicates in the Ebla documents6 and also for duplicates among the Ebla documents. Pomponio had another intuition while searching for duplicates or similar events to classify texts in the same period. He noticed that the Eblaite scribes had registered the same delivery of goods for an important occasion in two accounts of different types, namely in those of metals and in those of textiles. Since Eblaite textiles are often delivered together with metal jewelry, generally women’s clothes pins, and bracelets or daggers for men, the scribes recorded their delivery in two different accounts. In the textile accounts, the emphasis was on the number of cloths that was calculated at the end, while in the metals register, there was mostly only the delivery of the metal with greater precision on the weight of the object and on whether it was in gold or silver. Thus, it 4

Biga / Pomponio 1987, 60–61. For this text see Archi / Biga / Milano 1988, 212–213. The edition of the 1974 tablets is in preparation by Biga and Krebernik. 6 I was therefore able to understand that the text of Ebla that Edzard was publishing in ARET V 6 was a duplicate of the text from Abu Salabikh that R. Biggs had published in OIP 99 as number 326, containing the hymn to the solar divinity. See Edzard 1984, no. 30; Biggs 1974, 326. 5

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Francesco Pomponio and His Place in the History of Eblaite Studies

17

became certain that the two accounts of different types were perfectly contemporary because they recorded the same delivery for the same event. Therefore, we began to make the first groupings of texts. The numbers of the texts and some personages were now very familiar to us. We then began to look for the texts referring to the life of some princesses, of some high-ranking officials such as Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir but also other minor figures, etc. I do not want to go over the various stages of the reconstruction of the chronology that are evident from the bibliography; I have already highlighted them in an article.7 We prepared two papers on the chronological division of Ebla documentation. The first article was then translated into French by prof. Durand and published by him in MARI 7. Although it was published later it was written before the one for Journal of Cuneiform Studies published in 1990.8 We spent a lot of time looking for duplicates among the textile texts and those of metals, which we had established, meanwhile, were annual reports. For a long time, I re-read the annual text of metal deliveries TM.75.G.1730 published later by F. D’Agostino as MEE VII 34,9 which we had in Pettinato’s transcription and that I transcribed again from the original in the Aleppo museum. It seemed to have common traits with another text similar to a ritual. Finally, speaking with Pomponio, I realized that parts of this administrative document were also mentioned in the text of the ritual TM.75.G.1939 that would later be published both by Pettinato (1992) and Fronzaroli, with many joins, in 1993.10 In the meantime, in 1993, I attended a conference organized by J.M. Durand on “Mari, Ebla and the Hurrians”, whose proceedings were published in 1996. There I presented the work done by Pomponio and myself, increasing the numbers of documents inserted in the relative chronology, thanks to the parallels between the two different types of documents. Pomponio did not participate at that conference. However, Archi presented a paper with a study of the personal names of people of different cities. After the conference, Pomponio and I continued to look for as many parallels as possible between monthly accounts of textiles and annual accounts of metals, to be able to consider them contemporary and then we inserted them in the relative chronology we were building. In fact, the parallels I highlighted in the article in the proceedings of the Paris conference combined with the study of the prosopography of some princesses

7

Biga 2003, 345–367. Prof. W. Mayer asked me to write this article for Orientalia after one of my lectures on the subject. I wrote it many years later. 8 Biga / Pomponio 1993; Biga / Pomponio 1990. 9 D’Agostino 1996. 10 Pettinato 1992; Fronzaroli 1993. For the comparison between the metal text with the text of ritual see Biga 1992. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

18

Maria Giovanna Biga

allowed me to put many texts of both textiles and metals into chronological order.11 After the 1993 Paris conference, Pomponio and I decided that it was time to convince also Archi to become involved in the task of reconstructing the relative chronology. In 1985, he had begun to work on the prosopography but had then abandoned it to devote himself to other studies. I clearly remember the day we went to visit Archi in his apartment and, as he later admitted, his amazement at the advances we had made in the reconstruction of the chronology. At first, when we quoted numbers of texts and personages who were by now very familiar to us, such as the mother of the king (ama-gal en) he had a moment of “disorientation”! Thus A. Archi became involved and decided to change the topic of his paper for the proceedings and to study the chronological problems. He produced three articles on the relative chronology for the conference proceedings.12 However, from this moment on, F. Pomponio published many other texts from the British Museum and from the Banca d’Italia, related mainly to the Third Dynasty of Ur.13 Archi and I continued to study the prosopography of the texts, putting more and more texts in the relative chronology. We produced various other articles on the subject and I tried to write the history of Ebla and of Syria of the period.14 I started a systematic study of all the monthly texts of textile deliveries in 1993 in the Idlib museum in Syria, where the tablets had been transported. I was able to arrange them in their relative chronology. It was also possible to do many joins from Rome, which I subsequently checked directly at the museum and which were confirmed there; generally, they were perfect joins. In this way, I started the systematic work of joins on the monthly textile account tablets. All these studies led us to the conclusion that the archives are mostly dated to three kings, Igrish-Khalab, Irkab-damu and Ishar-damu, for whom Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir, and before them Arrugum, had been viziers or prime ministers. A classification of the texts by year and sometimes by month was then achieved. This continuing work has taken almost thirty years and has permitted the writing of a preliminary history of Ebla and its relations with the other kingdoms. Several years later, Pomponio published the monthly accounts of textiles of the time of vizier Arrugum in two important volumes.15 He also published some articles on Ebla but I hope he will accept once more to be involved in the study of the Ebla texts.

11

Biga 1996. Archi 1996a, b, c. 13 For his bibliography see in this volume. 14 For the Eblaite bibliography see Scarpa 2017. 15 ARET XV 1 and 2. 12

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Francesco Pomponio and His Place in the History of Eblaite Studies

19

2 Some problematic issues 2.1 The length of Irkab-damu’s reign Pomponio’s great knowledge of the Ebla texts could be important for new results. Many chronological problems remain although some scholars have excessive confidence in the work done so far.16 These problems include the reign of king Irkab-damu. According to the scholars who consider the rituals published in ARET XI by Fronzaroli as rituals of marriage, king Irkab-damu married his queen when Arrugum was prime minister. Then, shortly after, his queen died. However, he already had several sons and daughters, perhaps not from the queen but from other women. It is strange that we do not have the document with the funerary gift to his queen (who may well have been Keshdut) nor that with the funerary gifts for king Irkab-damu himself, who died a few years after his queen17. Immediately after the death of the queen, he took Dusigu as first wife and had his last son Ishar-damu. In my opinion, we have too many events in too short a time. There is something not completely explained in this chronology. 2.2 How did an Eblaite scribe write a monthly account of deliveries of textiles? The scribes of Ebla did not leave us many of their names or many traces to be able to reconstruct their lives, their families, etc. They do not appear in the lists of palace personnel receiving food rations or in the lists of people of the court who receive gifts on festive occasions or rituals. In short, they have told us very little about themselves. We know many names of scribes of the Mesopotamian cities of Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh, who wrote texts older than those of Ebla and whose paleography, at least, the Eblaite scribes certainly studied and copied. However, little is known about the dozen or so Eblaite scribes, if we accept that those who signed some lexical tablets are Eblaite and not from Mari or Kish, which were important scribal centers with which the Eblaite scribes interacted a lot. Some different hands of scribes can be recognized, but not many. Many fundamental aspects of their activity in Ebla still have to be understood, in order to know how the bureaucracy, trade and exchange of goods operated. We do not know how an Eblaite scribe drafted a monthly textile distribution tablet. It is evident that, at a certain point in the reign of the penultimate sovereign of Ebla, Irkab-damu, the Eblaite scribes codified an almost square 16

Archi 2016 attributes extremely precise year dating such as 2381 / 2380–2369 when the dating of the third millennium and the pre-Sargonic period are extremely uncertain. 17 Perhaps these documents are in small fragments among the thousands of small fragments that were kept in the Idlib museum. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

20

Maria Giovanna Biga

tablet format, with dimensions of about 20 × 20 cm (but also larger), intended to contain the records of the monthly deliveries of various textiles. 2.3 No commerce of textiles but exchanges through gifts From a careful study of all the textile documents found in the main archive, it appears that trade in textiles or in other goods is very little documented. We are not dealing with trade in fabrics, but exchanges of goods using them. The Eblaites donate their main product, which is various types of cloth, and receive various goods in exchange from the courts with which they have political and diplomatic relations. Textiles are also given to officials in exchange for their services and to various members of the court on festive and ritual occasions. In some cases, it has been possible to reconstruct a sequence of months during a whole year and a sequence of years of textile accounts.18 If we consider the final totals of cloth released, we can easily verify that, in many months, a small number (50 or a little more) were released and in some years a total of no more than 450. It is logical to deduce that we are not dealing with trade in textiles, but with the exchange of goods through gifts of cloth between Ebla and other courts. We cannot imagine a caravan of donkeys loaded with pieces of Eblaite cloth that leave every month on a pre-established itinerary. Donkey preparations are never mentioned even though it is obvious that messengers and officials travelled from Ebla on various occasions to deliver the Eblaite cloth. As Mario Liverani reiterated in many books and articles, trade between courts is masked by exchanges of gifts.19 Most of the textiles are distributed in Ebla itself. Many kings, sons of kings and officials of other courts come to Ebla with news or various goods for the Eblaite court, or to take an oath of alliance. On these occasions, they are given Eblaite fabric recorded by the scribes on small tablets and then probably copied in the monthly account. When the textiles were delivered to other kingdoms, the name of the official who brought them is written. On the occasion of births, marriages, deaths and purifications after death in a court friendly to Ebla, the king of Ebla sends various goods, above all cloth, with some precious objects such as pendants for women’s clothes or belts and daggers for men. They are brought by a member of the court from Ebla. It is evident that they are not being traded but are ceremonial gifts. When they are given in other cities, the scribes recorded: “in the city of X they were received”. Various events take place in a month and they are occasions for the distribution of cloth. The items delivered at each event were perhaps registered 18

In an article in preparation, I study the monthly accounts of the first three years of Ibbi-zikir as vizier, calculating the sums of textiles delivered every year and in three years. 19 For the bibliography of Liverani see Bartoloni / Biga 2016. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Francesco Pomponio and His Place in the History of Eblaite Studies

21

on small clay tablets or on waxed wooden tablets. In a talk in Rome, Massimo Maiocchi hypothesized that in the main archive of Ebla, in the part where no tablets were found and where there was a very large layer of ash, there were some waxed and written wooden tablets. It is possible, just as it is equally possible that the individual deliveries were recorded on small tablets, copied to the monthly account and then thrown away. Many different types of merchants from Ebla and other kingdoms are often quoted who were very active. Cloth was surely traded and Ebla was an important center for it. In a forthcoming article,20 Piotr Steinkeller has written what he hypothesized already during the conference of Rome in 2004 and then again in 2014: Ebla was a very important trade center for timber, from the coast of the Mediterranean to Mesopotamia. But this commerce is not immediately evident and not registered in the Ebla administrative documents. 2.4 No itineraries in the monthly textile accounts Many deductions have been made also from the presence of sequences of toponyms in these texts, hypothesizing the proximity of kingdoms mentioned in sequence.21 The fact that the monthly tablets were the result of copying from smaller tablets leads to the consideration of the order in which the tablets were copied. The scribes did not follow a geographical order; they did not copy the deliveries or those for an event in other courts with a map in front of them, ordering by regions. For the same event, the scribes intersperse the items released with various other items for different purposes. As an example, we can quote the two monthly texts ARET I 15 and ARET IV 7, both concerning the birth of the eldest son of the royal couple Ishar-damu and Tabur-damu. Interspersed among the birth deliveries there are various others for different purposes. It seems that the scribe did not first gather and then copy all the deliveries for the birth together. He seems to have collected all the tablets of the month and then copied them without following a particular order. For this reason, it seems very misleading to consider the geographical proximity of toponyms mentioned together in the monthly texts of textile deliveries. The case of the kingdoms of Burman, Dub, Lumnan, Ra’ak, Emar, Garmu and Nirar is different. Their representatives are very often together in Ebla and all receive textiles together. They must be kingdoms very close to Ebla. The case of the two kingdoms of DUlu and Dugurasu is also different. They are very frequently mentioned one after the other and the same products arrive in Ebla from both of them. Ebla sends them almost the same products and therefore it seems that they are in contact or in regions close to each other. 20 21

See Steinkeller forthcoming. See for example Archi 2011. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Maria Giovanna Biga

22

For the others, it is very difficult if not impossible to deduce geographical proximity from the closeness of their mention in the monthly textile accounts. The fact that an event happened in the month, before or after another, is not respected. In some texts, the gifts for the purification of the foreign royal family which were sent by Ebla through an official are registered before those for the funeral ceremony. This certainly took place before, with gifts brought by another official. Also in these cases, it is evident that the scribe did not follow a chronological order to write the events of the month. The scribe made the standard tablet and then divided it into columns and boxes. Sometimes he miscalculated the space and at the end of the reverse side, he records the wool issued in minute writing and in smaller and smaller boxes, later even using the edges. Finally, if he has forgotten anything, he adds it when the tablet is already quite dry and, in fact, some data on the tablets is graffiti. Sometimes he has plenty of space and leaves empty columns because he has finished copying the tablets. In any case, he writes the partial and final sums of the textile deliveries in the last columns of the reverse.

3 Conclusions It is important for various types of studies to be able to reconstruct how the Eblaite scribes produced the monthly tablets of textiles delivered. Understanding this procedure can help avoid misunderstanding the geography of the time, exchanges, etc. These are only some of the many topics to study in the Ebla documents. I am sure that Francesco Pomponio can do great work in the understanding of the texts of Ebla, if he is willing to dedicate himself to them again. I certainly hope so!

Abbreviations ARET = Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi. MEE = Materiali Epigrafici di Ebla.

Bibliography Archi, A., Chronologie relative des archives d’Ebla, in: Durand, J.-M. (ed.), Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites (Amurru 1), Paris 1996a, 11–28. — Les comptes rendus annuels de métaux (CAM), in: Durand, J.-M. (ed.), Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites (Amurru 1), Paris 1996b, 73–99. — Les femmes du roi Irkab-damu, in: Durand, J.-M. (ed.), Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites (Amurru 1), Paris, 1996c, 101–124. — In Search of Armi, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 63 (2011) 5–34.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Francesco Pomponio and His Place in the History of Eblaite Studies

23

— Ebla and Mari – years 2381/2380–2369 BC, in: Patrier, J. et al. (eds.), Mille et une empreintes. Un Alsacien en Orient. Mélanges en l’honneur du 65e anniversaire de Dominique Beyer (Subartu 36), Turnhout 2016, 1–16. Archi, A. / Biga, M.G. / Milano, L., Studies in Eblaite Prosopography, in: Archi, A., Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving (Archivi reali di Ebla, Studi I), Roma 1988, 205–306. Bartoloni, G. / Biga, M.G. (eds.), Not Only History, Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani, Winona Lake, IN 2016. Biga, M.G., Osservazioni sui criteri di redazione dei testi di Ebla: TM.75.G.1730 e i testi del rituale per il re e la regina, in: Vicino Oriente 8/2 (1992) 3–11. — Prosopographie et datation relative des textes d’Ebla, in: Durand, J.-M. (ed.), Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites (Amurru 1), Paris 1996, 29–72. — The Reconstruction of a Relative Chronology for the Ebla Texts, in: Orientalia NS 72 (2003) 345–367. Biga, M.G. / Pomponio, F., Ishar-damu, roi d’Ebla, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1987) 60–61 no. 106. — Elements for a Chronological Division of the Administrative Documentation of Ebla, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42 (1990) 179–201. — Critères de rédaction comptable et chronologie relative des textes d’Ebla, in: Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 7 (1993) 107–128. Biggs, R.D., The Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (Oriental Institute Publications 99), Chicago, IL 1974. D’Agostino, F., Testi amministrativi di Ebla. Archivio L. 2769 (Materiali Epigrafici di Ebla 7), Napoli 1996. Edzard, D.O., Hymnen, Beschwörungen und Verwandtes (aus dem Archiv L. 2769) (Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi V), Roma 1984. Fronzaroli, P., Testi rituali della regalità (Archivio L. 2769) (Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi XI), Roma 1993. Pettinato, G., Testi lessicali monolingui della biblioteca L. 2769 (Materiali Epigrafici di Ebla 3), Napoli 1981. — Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769 (Materiali Epigrafici di Ebla 4), Napoli 1982. — Il rituale per la successione al trono ad Ebla (Studi Semitici NS 9), Roma 1992. Pomponio, F., La datazione interna dei testi economico-amministrativi di Ebla, in: Cagni, L. (ed.), Ebla 1975–1985. Dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici, Napoli 1987, 249–262. — Testi amministrativi: assegnazioni mensili di tessuti periodo di Arrugum (Archivio L. 2769) ( Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi XV/1), Roma 2008. — Massacre at Ebla, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2011: 50–51, no. 49.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

24

Maria Giovanna Biga

— Testi amministrativi: assegnazioni mensili di tessuti periodo di Arrugum (Archivio L. 2769), Parte II ( Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi XV/2), Roma 2013. Pomponio, F. / Biga, M.G., Pa4-ba4, épouse d’Iblul-il, roi de Mari, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1989) 89–90 no. 114. Scarpa, E., The City of Ebla. A Complete Bibliography of Its Archaeological and Textual Remains (Antichistica 12, Studi orientali 5), Venezia 2017. Steinkeller, P., International Trade in Greater Mesopotamia during Late PreSargonic Times: The Case of Ebla as Illustrated by Her Participation in Timber Trade, forthcoming (Proceedings of an International Conference in Göttingen).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia: The Household of the ereš-diĝir of Bau Noemi Borrelli

Introduction Every analysis that deals with the socio-economic history of 3rd millennium southern Mesopotamia inevitably stumbles upon the long-debated temple-state hypothesis (Deimel 1931 and Schrakamp 2013). This portrait of early Mesopotamian society was elaborated starting from the observation of the “women’s quarters” (e2-mi2) archive from Ĝirsu, the major assemblage of administrative accounts dated to the Pre-Sargonic period and until now the earliest coherent textual ensemble related to institutional management.1 Despite the great limits entailed in this misleading definition, and its inaccuracy when facing other social realities inside and outside Ĝirsu, the economic role of temple households in 3rd millennium southern Mesopotamia still holds true, inasmuch as they developed a commercial and economic role from their pristine capacity as social gathering centres (Hudson 1999, 117–119). These institutions were seldom merely places of cult and worshipping; instead they fulfilled the function of economic units, the very core of the earthly realm of the gods, actively led by their vicars. With the passing of time, these representatives held great authority, a social and economic power backed by a theological framework that situated the ruler at a liminal position between the human and the divine. A temple household acted as a centripetal focus in the local environment, around which resources and social groups converged (Steinkeller 1999a, 291). This capacity to integrate people and assets endured beyond the changes that affected political identities and its persistence is much more significant during the 1

This article partially draws from the paper “Changing pattern of authority: the é-mí / é Ba-ú in 3rd millennium southern Mesopotamia”, presented at the 65th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale held in Paris in 2019. I would like to thank Palmiro Notizia, David Owen, and Tohru Ozaki for having kindly shared with me data from Nisaba 33 prior its publication, and Ryan Winters for having revised the English of this contribution. This study is dedicated to Francesco Pomponio as a token of gratitude for the chance he gave to many Italian students to work on Ur III texts. I hope he will enjoy it. d

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

26

Noemi Borrelli

passage from city-states to territorial kingdoms. At the turning point of the rise of the Ur III state, institutional households were a long-established phenomenon in the province of Lagaš. Under the aegis of the new kings, these units retained their local authority and were absorbed in the state-run management, which acknowledged their social value as much as their resourcefulness in economic performance. In this historical evaluation, the transition between the e2-mi2 / e2 dba-u2 and the e2 ereš-diĝir dba-u2 in Ĝirsu represents a good example to observe the survival of these economic units, whether they were temple-based or personal estates.2 The main reasons for this choice are the diachronic persistence of this institution, the approachable size of textual data related to it in both PreSargonic and Ur III corpora, and the ramification of its economic activities which allow the observation of how it acted socially and economically in the surrounding environment. Current studies on the matter, especially those based on the Ur III record (which represents the core of this study), have primarily focused either on the religious function of the high priestesses or on their figurative representations. Insofar, less attention has been paid to the economic relevance of their households and, specifically for the high priestess of Bau, how the socio-economic status and activities she entertained, in fact, agreed with the cultic background.3 Hence, the overview provided in the following pages attempts to highlight the structural economic features of this institution, the size of its activities, and its social relevance in the provincial setting.

1 The Pre-Sargonic antecedent The Pre-Sargonic dataset bears witness to a 20-year-long period of activity of the e2-mi2, starting from the reign of Enentarzi (ca. 2339–2333 a.C.) to that of Urukagina (2324–2315 a.C).4 This latter, in the framework of his reforms that took place at the beginning of his rule, renamed the institution as “the household of the goddess Bau”, spouse of Ninĝirsu, the patron deity of Lagaš.5 Regardless of the name change and its political scope, both the economy of this institution remained unaltered as well as its peculiar managerial feature: the appointment of 2

On the reading of the name Bau see Marchesi 2002, contra Rubio 2010. See also Ceccarelli 2009, 31–32 n. 2. 3 On the role of the ereš-diĝir in the Mesopotamian tradition see Steinkeller 1999b, 128– 129; Sallaberger / Huber Vulliet 2003–2005, 633–634 and 636; Westenholz 2013b, 246– 274; Asher-Greve 2013b, 205–210; Asher-Greve 2013c, 359–377. For a specific focus on the artistic evidence (mostly glyptic) see Suter 2007, 317–361 and particularly 339. On the household of the ereš-diĝir of Bau in Ur III see Maekawa 1996 and Wu 2011. 4 On the chronology of Early Dynastic rulers see Sallaberger / Schrakamp 2015, 81–85 and Marchesi 2015, 139–140. 5 On the reforms of Urukagina see Schrakamp 2015. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

27

the ruler’s wife as formal head of the institution. The semantic behind the label e2-mi2, “women’s quarters” suggests a possible development of this institution from what had been the private property of the ruler’s wife, and its interdependence from a central nucleus, most likely the palace or the Ninĝirsu temple.6 The relevance of royal wives drew its origin from the idea that the royal spouses were the earthly delegates of the divine couple, the ultimate masters of the city. The principle of pairs was quite persistent in the theological foundation of Mesopotamian pantheon (George 2016), and according to CancikKirschbaum (2009, 47) the fortune of this motif lied in the idea that the couple and its procreative potential reminded of the potential of life itself, of permanence and eternity. This symbolism of power was exploited by the ruler in every possible way. As highlighted by Maekawa (1973–1974, 87), documents pertaining to the archive of the e2-mi2 show indeed the management of a secular household, personal and royal in nature, which later developed into a public estate and was renamed as a temple. Such a shift could easily occur in accordance with the cultic duties to which the ruler’s wife was appointed, underlining the foundation of her identity and power (Maekawa 1996, 171–172). The thorough studies led on this institution by Maekawa and more recently by Prentice (2010) show a centralized administration, whose main interest lied not exclusively in agrarian exploitation.7 The agricultural cycle was closely checked by the administration and the economic production was supported by heterogeneous classes of workers, who differed from each other for working occupations and, presumably, for social standing. The interaction between the managerial core of the household and the diverse productive branches ran along different types of socio-economic relationships, which according to Prentice’s analysis, moulded on Polanyi’s arguments, can be synthesized as: redistribution, exchange, and reciprocity. The administration surveyed its personnel in four different groups, supposedly according to the types of compensation to which they were entitled. As a matter of fact, people belonging to different groups were nevertheless involved in similar tasks or shared the same occupations, allowing one to think that the difference between them was more a matter of occupational hierarchy than of social inequality. Income and outcome flows from the household point to a variegated array of economic assets. Routine production involved field cultivation, horticulture, husbandry, brewing and milling. In addition to these, the e2-mi2 was also engaged in the textile industry. The diachronic analysis of this latter enables the appreciation of an increase in the female personnel 6

The domestic unit reserved to women and their children, identified as e2-mi2, probably existed in each patriarchal household, regardless the social rank of his holder (Bartash 2014). 7 See also Magid 1999. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

28

Noemi Borrelli

assigned to the weaving process during the reign of Urukagina, apparently to the detriment of gardening labour, which corresponded also to rise in wages and rations (Prentice 2010, 52–59). A quantitative approach to these activities shows that the size of this household was quite modest. Just as examples, the textile production was initially supervised by two overseers, who later became six, and when fully developed it employed ca. 250 people, included 21 women for processing yarn. The brewing activities were led by two brewers, assisted by a team of 10 women. Upon necessity, a malt crusher (munu4-gaz), a plant roaster (u2-bil) and few grinding women could be employed as extra personnel. A dozen women were appointed as swine herders, while almost 10 men were employed as fishermen and fowlers. The personnel of the household ranged from unskilled labourers like carriers, to proper artisans such as smiths, leather workers, and felt-makers, who as the rations lists suggest, could be either employed as regulars or as extra staff. The household also required specialised professions, like barbers, cooks, and singers. Some of these professional workers were occasionally lent out to the palace (ša3 dub e2-gal) as a sort of levy, since their compensation was charged to the personal assets of the e2-mi2 (Prentice 2010, 37–39). Transfer of personnel and resources between the e2-mi2 and the palace are, indeed, well attested. For the production of scented oil, a luxury item in which the e2-mi2 was apparently specialised, aromatics came via the palace, and the products were then given out for gifts or for trade (DP 512, RTC 26, Fö 38, Nik 310; Prentice 2010, 115– 116). Similarly, the palace provided amounts of copper to be sold abroad by the envoys of the e2-mi2 (RTC 25; Prentice 2010, 121–124). Favoured by its geographic position along the Gulf coastline, the household traded both inland and abroad the surplus of its textile and agrarian production in addition to importing metals. Commercial exchanges were not properly bound to profit as much as they aimed to secure lacking materials or luxury goods that attested the social standing of the institution. The household was equally associated with elite exchange. As records show, the ruler’s wife sent and received processed and raw goods from her peers, namely the lady of Dilmun (VAT 4845), the wife of the ruler of Adab (RTC 19, Nik 282), and her own mother (DP 511). Since gifts were of both economic and symbolic value, it is straightforward that during these exchanges the ruler’s wife was invested with a significant political role. At the same time, the household was also the focus of internal reciprocity: it provided offerings for major temples and festivals, but it also received mašdaria contributions.8 It is the tight relationship between the palace and even more with the socalled children’s household that characterised this institution, highlighting the 8

See for instance the Milk and Malt Festival (Prentice 2010, 181–185 and Sallaberger 2019a, 909–915). For the mašdaria contributions see Prentice 2010, 187–195. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

29

strong social and economic interdependence between the e2-mi2 and the ruling mechanism. Under Urukagina, land property was transferred to the goddess Bau, but it still remained the de facto appanage of the ruler’s wife. In this period, the expenditures of the household were accounted indiscriminately on behalf of the goddess Bau, her high priestess, the ruler’s wife or the supervisor of the household.9 After the Pre-Sargonic period, a hiatus in the data prevents the proper appreciation of the evolution of this household along the cornerstone passage to the first territorial states. However, a few mentions about the e2-mi2 come forth during the Lagaš II phase, witnessing its survival. As recently observed, an eclectic bureaucracy led the administrative apparatus of this period, supported by a network of offices which responded directly to the palace (Maiocchi / Molina 2018, 3). The small bits of evidence still support the involvement of the e2-mi2 institution in wool production (MVN 7 393, Gudea 11) and its relationship with the palace (Maiocchi / Molina 2018, nos. 2 and 29). The double denomination used for this institution in the Pre-Sargonic period also characterises the Lagaš II archive, where hypothetically it anticipated the dichotomy defined in the later Ur III period. In fact, the e2-mi2 label seems to be applied in Lagaš II documents to the institution which will be later called the household of the ereš-diĝir of Bau, ratifying the distinction between this unit and the temple household of Bau (e2 dba-u2). The importance of this institution in the ideological framework of the rule over Lagaš can be appreciated in the year formula commemorating construction works on its temple, defined as e2 dba-u2, presumably carried out on the 12th year of Gudea’s reign (Çıǧ, AOAT 25, 80 6).

2 The Ur III period At the rise of the Ur III dynasty, Ĝirsu/Lagaš became the greatest province of the state. The new rulers remodelled political and symbolic structures in a new language of power, and this move is mostly visible in the ritual, social and economic adjustments that the royal family brought to temples. The Ur III kings built and ran their realm as a patrimonial enterprise, which heavily relied on a redistributive system carried out through institutional households. Especially in the Ĝirsu/Lagaš province, temple households fulfilled the role of production units, and they were supervised by the provincial governor, originally the leading member of the local elite. The state won the ideological support of these elites incorporating them in the patrimonial system by means of marriage and privileges. Among the many temple households scattered all over the province, 9

According to Maekawa the reasons why the administration used multiple ways to refer to the same institutions were connected to the failure of Urukagina’s reforms (Maekawa 1973–1974, 137). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Noemi Borrelli

30

the temple of Bau was a minor one as far as the overall economic output is concerned. However, as data allow one to appreciate, its importance from a social point of view did not fade away.10 2.1 The temple of Bau From an archival perspective, the first variation worth noting is that a sort of split accounting occurs between the temple of Bau (e2 dba-u2) and the household of her high priestess (e2 ereš-diĝir dba-u2).11 Records concerning the temple of Bau deal primarily with the management of cultic offerings—the royal sizkur among the others—to which it contributed cattle and foodstuffs derived from its own agrarian production or from the household of the high priestess. In multientry documents, the temple of Bau is always listed in the second position after the temple of Ninĝirsu, in an accounting fashion that underscores the conceptual affinity, if not even the managerial proximity, between the two institutions. Individual entries for these complexes are as a rule divided among the representative shrines: the expression “the two temples of Ninĝirsu (e2 dnin-ĝir2su 2-a-bi) echoes “the three temples of Bau” (e2 dba-u2 3-a-bi).12 The three shrines that constituted the household of Bau were called the new temple (e2 gibil), the middle temple (e2 murub4), and the old/previous temple (e2 gu-la / libir), none of which ever recurs within the administrative records of the household of the ereš-diĝir.13 The three shrines of Bau were involved in the cultic life of the province, where they supported festivals embedded in the local tradition, such as the one dedicated to the weapon of Ninĝirsu (šar2-gaz dnin-ĝir2-su).14 Besides the temple of Bau, this festival was sponsored by the very same temple of Ninĝirsu and, 10

In the Ur III period, the cult of the goddess Bau thrived also beyond the provincial boundaries, since a shrine was installed for her in the holy city of Nippur (TCTI 1 896, undated). For the development of the cult of Bau in the light of “attendant wife” during the Ur III period see Westenholz 2013a, 66–67. 11 In the Ur III Ĝirsu/Lagaš records only six texts mention an economic unit called e2mi2: Amherst 16 (Š 16), CTPSM 1 10 (Š 31), PPAC 5 604 (Š 48.X), ITT 3 5280 (ŠS 1.I), OMRO 66, 48 14 (XI), MVN 6 421 (undated). On one occasion (ITT 3 5280), the wife of the state chancellor, who also acted as high priestess in that year, provides offerings for the e2-mi2. Unfortunately, the content of these documents does not confirm or disprove that e2-mi2 was an alternative label for the household of the high priestess. 12 E.g., Virolleaud, Rev Sem 11, 80 VI (ŠS 2.II), 78 6 (ŠS 2.V), PPAC 5 1169 (VII). 13 E.g., HLC 2 2 (AS 1), ITT 3 5280 (ŠS 1.I), HSS 4 54 (undated). On this division see Sallaberger 1993, 279, n. 1291. Notably, according to Maekawa’s study, no mention of the temple of Bau as an economic unit per se is available before Urukagina (Maekawa 1973–1974, 131). 14 MVN 2 172 (ŠS 6.IV): niĝ2 sizkur2-ra šar2-gaz dnin-ĝir2-su ba-du3-a. For this festival the household donated ghee and dates. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

31

noteworthy, the temples of the two sons of the divine couple, the households of Igalim and Šulšagana. Although poorly attested, this religious circumstance most likely offered a gathering occasion where the audience was reminded of the innate connection between the divine family at the head of the local pantheon and the source of earthly power. The divine family archetype was exploited from a political viewpoint to provide an ideological foundation to the economic interrelation among separate institutions, as also observed by Maekawa for the Pre-Sargonic period (Maekawa 1973–1974, 138–140). The ereš-diĝir, in her quality of representative of Bau and altogether a member of the provincial ruling elite, represented the perfect liaison between the realm of the divine and human rulership. This role was likely championed during the festival of Bau held on month VIII, when cattle from the royal establishment of Puzriš-Dagan and other foodstuffs were donated to the goddess as bridal gift (niĝ2-mi2-us2-sa / niĝ2-mussasa2) in what appears to be the celebration of her marriage to Ninĝirsu (Sallaberger 1993, 288–290). The elite status of the high priestess, at least that of Geme-Lamma, and the relevance of her native background was reflected in the elaborate offerings bestowed daily to the mortuary chapels (ki-a-naĝ) of her ancestors for almost 15 years and which were later granted to her when she died in the ninth month of Amar-Suen’s first year of reign (Maeda, ASJ 9, 325 1).15 Considering valid the supposed identification between the ereš-diĝir of Bau and the wife of the governor, the recurrence of the funerary offerings destined to her—identified on the tablet as dam ensi2—alongside those awarded to Gudea, the celebrated governor of Lagaš, is even more interesting for the appraisal of the sociological relevance of this office.16 These expenditures were both charged to the account of Zumzum, fattener of the household of the ereš-diĝir (Maeda, ASJ 9, 327 3, Š 37.VIII).17 The status enjoyed by Geme-Lamma’s relatives and the tributes paid 15 MVN 13 380 (Š 35.XII), Jagersma, BiOr 64, 299 (Š 35.XII), MVN 22 81 (Š 37.VI), STA 29 (Š 40.XI), CT 5, 44 BM 18358 (Š 45.XII), CT 10, 20 BM 14308 (Š 48.XII), Maeda, ASJ 9, 325 1 (AS 1.IX), MTBM 325 (AS 1.IX), Jagersma, BiOr 64, 294 (AS 1.IX), PPAC 5 1220 (AS 1.XI), Jagersma, BiOr 64, 298 (AS 2.VI), SAT 1 260 (II), Jagersma, BiOr 64, 300 (XII), TUT 128 (date broken), TUT 112 (date broken), MVN 20 119 (date broken). On these offerings see Sallaberger 1993, 96 and 282; and Jagersma 2007 with particular attention to the parallels he traced with the Pre-Sargonic evidence. 16 Huber Vuillet has recently challenged the familial relationship between the governor and the high priestess proposed by Maekawa (2019, 334–337), partly on the basis that, in the same text, goods expended for the high priestess are clearly differentiated from those allocated to the governor’s wife (MVN 13, 380 + AAICAB 1/2 Ashm. 1974-580 and HSS 4 1). Unfortunately, the presence of a double institutional qualification for the same person is not conclusive about the identification of the high priestess, since the same praxis is also attested in ITT 3, 5405 (IS 2), where both the title of governor of Ĝirsu and state-chancellor is used for Aradĝu. 17 The name on rev. 6 should be restored as ki zum-zum-ta on the base of the parallels in HLC 3 388 (Š 37.XII), MTBM 273 (Š 37.V).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

32

Noemi Borrelli

to them by the institutional economy can be observed also for her brothers and sister, who were supported and involved in her household (see below). When her brother Ursaga lost his wife, he received for her grave a third quality niĝlamgarment, while beer was allocated to the ereš-diĝir’s sister when her offspring died.18 There is also the possibility that her sister helped her in the cultic activities, at least financially (MVN 22 145, Š 36.XId). The donation of gifts, notably wool and grain, to members of the ruler’s extended family is also visible in the Pre-Sargonic documentation (Prentice 2010, 177). Both this tablet and a similar account (MVN 19 108, VII) prove that the erešdiĝir bore the economic burden—in the form of sheep and goats provided by the fattener Zumzum—also for the offerings owed to Suen, the god of the royal dynasty, and to the king’s statue.19 It is acknowledged that the royal family of Ur promptly recognized the significance of local traditions and symbols, and the potential that such communication channels offered to stir the perception of power within the realm. Disbursements issued on two consecutive months for the festivals of the “New Moon and Full Moon” (eš3-eš3 u4 sakar / eš3-eš3 u415)20 show that baskets of dates and figs were offered to the statues of king ŠuSuen hosted in the temples of Ninĝirsu and Bau.21 These effigies of the king, adorned with precious metals (TLB 3 163, ŠS 8) and fine garments (TCTI 2 4033, V), were paraded in each provincial capital, especially within the patron deity’s temple, as the cases of Ninĝirsu and Bau in Ĝirsu/Lagaš and Šara in Umma. The kings spent great effort promoting the cult of their persona, and hence their leadership, and did so through the establishment of a straightforward—even visual—relation between themselves and the god’s own leading role in the province. After the deposal of the governor Ur-Lamma and the following years of uncertainty (Molina 2015, 419), the governorship of the province of Ĝirsu/Lagaš was entrusted by the king to Aradĝu, the state chancellor. When Bau-ea, one of his spouses, succeeded to Geme-Lamma as high priestess of Bau, she was required like her predecessor to provide for the festivals of the “New Moon and Full Moon” and to take care of those offerings destined to other deities, most of

18

UNT 26 (Š47.XII): 1 tug2niĝ2-lam2 gu2-TAR tug2-3-kam us2 / ki-mah dam ur-sa6-ga šeš ereš-diĝir-ra / zi-ga / lu2-uš-ge-na azlag7-ta. TUT 112 I 5′–6′: 0.0.1 dug dida 0.0.3 / 0.0.1 kaš 0.0.3 / 0.1.4 kaš 0.0.2 / gurum2? ab2-la-la-a / nin9 ereš-diĝir-ra mu dumu-ni-ba-ug7še3. 19 E.g., MVN 22 3 (AS 1.XI), PPAC 5 1220 (AS 1.XI), BPOA 1 216 (AS 1.XII), MVN 6 382 (undated). 20 On this festival at Ĝirsu see Sallaberger 1993, 92–96. 21 Thureau-Dangin, RT 19, 186 (ŠS 5.IV) and ITT 2 3256 (ŠS 5.V), see Sallaberger 1993, 96. On the intensification of cultic activities under Šu-Suen’s reign see Brisch 2006. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

33

whom were connected with the local worship tradition.22 The appointment as high priestess of Bau likely provided her with an institutional space to endorse and make public the relation she shared with the royal family.23 Following a trend already observed in the Pre-Sargonic records, the temple of Bau was also a landmark in the social network of the notable women of the province.24 A small group of tablets lists the ingredients needed for the recipe of a special dessert intended for the temple of Bau; these expenditures involved the wife of Ur-Nanše son of Namu,25 Amakala daughter of an unnamed general, and the ereš-diĝir herself, for whom the amounts of foodstuffs are far greater than those recorded for the other two women.26 Two of these texts point out that the disbursements were connected to a precise occasion: the “setting-up of a šubastone” (šuba3 gu-la du3-a).27 As a custom, the expense for such materials as well as the animals and the foodstuffs offered to the gods were charged to the account of the ereš-diĝir or provided directly from her personnel. There are at least two individuals flanking the ereš-diĝir in a priestly capacity: Ur-Lamma priest (gudu4) of Bau and Inimku cupbearer (sagi) of Bau. As recently observed by Sallaberger, these officials were very close to their masters, for whom they were in charge of the ritual aspects of the banquet, 22

E.g., ITT 6 6880 (AS 8.IV), ITT 3 5280 (ŠS 1.I). It is not clear how many spouses Aradĝu took in the course of his career; at least four women are mentioned as his wives: the daughter of Amar-Suen Šat-Mami, Ninhedu, Aman-ili, and Bau-ea. Among them, Bau-ea was his spouse for what concerns his office of governor of Ĝirsu/Lagaš (Dahl 2007, 22–25). Within the context of the royal connection may fall the donation of an agate eyestone, made by Aman-ili, to the goddess Bau for the sake of the king Ibbi-Suen’s life: dba-u2 nin-a-ni-ir nam-ti di-bi2-dsuen-ka-še3 ia3-ma-an-i3-li2 dam arad2-dnanna ensi2 lagaški-ka-ke4 a mu-na-ru (Sollberger 1967, 69– 70). 24 There is ample evidence for women devoted to the cult of goddesses or choosing their temple for votive gifts (see Asher-Greve 2013a, 20). 25 Regardless of the very scanty evidence about his occupation, Ur-Nanše son of Namu enjoyed a high social status as reflected by his seal dedicated to the king Šu-Suen (AUCT 3 454, ŠS 3.X.1 and comments in Tsouparopoulou 2015, 340–341 no. 473). For a clue about the identity of Namu see Dynastie Chald., 33 8, where the seal legend identifies him as an official of Gudea: lu2-gid2-da dub-sar dumu na-mu ŠU.GABA.RI dgu3de2-a. 26 Fish, MCS 2, 69 BM 100418 (ŠS 9.XII), PPAC 5 543 (IS 3.IV), RTC 315 (I). The šuku saĝ si3-ga dessert was a luxury version of the niĝ2-i3-de2-a cake, enriched with fruits, cheese, lard, and honey (Brunke 2011, 210–211). It is attested exclusively at Ĝirsu and it was consumed also as offerings at the mortuary chapel (ki-a-naĝ). 27 For the translation of šuba3 as “shell” see Arkhipov 2018, 50 and Paoletti 2012, 143. In addition to the two texts quoted above, it is worth noting that this expression occurs only in Ĝirsu documents: for this purpose, the spouse of the governor/sukkal-mah provides ca. 166 grams of silver in HSS 4 1 (Š 45) and 40 reed mats for a ship in ITT 5 6997 (AS 9.X). 23

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

34

Noemi Borrelli

whether it was hosted for gods or human guests, from the preparation of foods and beverages to handwashing and meal serving.28 The very scanty evidence at disposal allows to confirm that priests enjoyed prebend plots like any other subject of the kingdom and that such prebends were passed on within the same family along with the profession to which they were attached. Ur-Lamma was in fact involved in litigation with his own brother, himself a gudu4, about the inheritance of the priestly duty and the related prebends (šuku u3 bala) formerly entrusted to their father Abbamu, who was the previous gudu4 of Bau.29 The high priestess was evidently involved in financing the cultic life of the temple of Bau but her household was perceived by the provincial administration as a separate financial branch from the temple itself. The evidence for this administrative taxonomy is offered by a few texts. The first hint derives from a balanced account of arua gifts (Gelb, RA 66, 27, Š 47.II): in the section related to the capital (saĝ-niĝ2-gur11-ra), a one-year-old cow is donated from Namhani the overseer of Nanna to the temple of Bau (obv. II 22–24); in the expenditure section a one-year-old cow, a one-year-old ox, one-year-old donkey, and four sheep are received by the household of the ereš-diĝir. It is clear that when the ex-voto gifts entered the fiscal chain, they passed into the redistributive mechanism and the fact that they were credited to the account of the high priestess suggests that these assets were managed by her staff. An undated survey of allotment plots (šuku du3-du3, Maekawa, ASJ 19, 138 122), almost unique on its own, confirms that the management of the high priestess’ herds and the shepherds at her dependence were separated from the remaining personnel (ĝiri3-se3-ga) of the three shrines of Bau. An account related to the Guabba weaving industry during the second year of Amar-Suen’s reign presents the same redistributive pattern (CT 5, 39 BM 17753): one basket of royal garments weighing 24 mina (= 12 kg) was allocated to the temple of Bau, while 4 baskets weighing 1 talent and 54 mina (= 57 kg) were received by Inim-Bauidab, the prefect of the household of the ereš-diĝir. Although it could be an isolated case, the quantitative difference between the assigned assets is quite relevant. Finally, a list of leather waterskins (kušummu3) provided to the personnel of the temple of Bau (PPAC 5 873, date broken) distinguishes between the items given to the temple as a whole (2 skins), from those assigned 28

On the definition of these two offices and the relationship they shared with the cult and the ruling family see Sallaberger 2019b. 29 ITT 3 6575 (undated), issued during the governorship of Aradĝu, the state chancellor. A gudu4-priest named Ur-Lamma worked also in service of Ninsun (CTNMC 54, AS 4.I; MVN 6 5, undated; MVN 22 18, date broken), Pabilsaĝ (Nisaba 7 37, Š 44), and NinMAR.KI (ITT 5 6995, IS 1). As Sallaberger observed, gudu4-priests could work parttime or full-time at the temple (Sallaberger 2019b, 91). See also TCTI 2 2704 (ŠS 1.VII) which records the assignment of 8 workers and the relative rations to an unnamed gudu4 of Bau to host a banquet (niĝ2-kaš-de2-a du8-da-še3). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

35

to its lumah-priest (2 skins), the temple administrator (8 skins) and the ereš-diĝir (9 skins).30 Assuming a separate management for the belongings of the household of the high priestess of Bau, the paucity of references strictly related to the agricultural management of the temple of Bau represents beyond any doubt an anomaly in the bookkeeping nature of the Ĝirsu/Lagaš archive, which has led scholars to see this estate as a sort of satellite unit of the household of Ninĝirsu, with an economic autonomy of no consequence (Maekawa 1973–1974, 140 and Studevent-Hickman 2006, 144–145). Available evidence shows that the agricultural domain of the household of Bau was managed by the šabra Urmes, who was responsible for the acquisition of cattle and for the management of agricultural personnel.31 A few other tablets document the presence of menials, such as female helpers to doorkeepers (a-gaam) and female workers receiving garment rations from the weaving mill (e2 ušbar).32 2.2 The household of the ereš-diĝir On the other hand, dozens of tablets record with an abundance of details the economic activity of the household of the high priestess of Bau, especially during the ministry of Geme-Lamma who acted as high priestess of Bau from Šulgi 31 to Amar-Suen 1. Following the quantitative approach used for the PreSargonic dataset, one can conclude that this household had a small size when compared to other major contemporary temple estates but a wider array of economic ramifications that appear much like the Pre-Sargonic enterprise. The documentation on the household of the ereš-diĝir displays activities that one would normally associate to the royal sector of the Ur III economy, that is, the capitalization of wealth through husbandry and weaving, rather than through the direct cultivation of land.

30

A similar tablet (PPAC 5 1004, date broken) records 4 leather skins for the ereš-diĝir, who appears among high-status officials like the en-priest of Nanše and the administrator of the household Šulgi. On the lumah-priest of Bau see Huber Vulliet 2019, 337. 31 On the acquisition of cattle see Gomi, BAOM 2, 35 90 (ŠS 6) and MVN 6 142 (undated), while on the management of personnel see Deimel, OrSP 5 51 13 Wengler 8 (undated). Also, a set of daily inspections carried out during the harvest seasons of the years Šu-Suen 7 and 8 records the workforce spent by the household of Bau for threshing the barley under the supervision of the saĝĝa of Bagara: MVN 22 33 (ŠS 7), PPAC 5 319 (ŠS 7.II.9), MVN 22 54 (ŠS 7.III.15), PPAC 5 1043 (ŠS 8.III.24). 32 See respectively MVN 6 147 (undated) and Nisaba 18 143 (undated) for female workers and Comptabilité 42 (Š 44.II) for the garment rations. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

36

Noemi Borrelli

During the almost twenty years of Geme-Lamma’s tenure, her household was supervised by the šabra Inim-Bau-idab.33 Financial records in his name show that the household was deeply involved in cattle and sheep farming and textile production, whose management ran along an organizational chart that represents the best example of an administrative bureau throughout the Ĝirsu/Lagaš archive. Several dedicatory seals give insight into the personnel of her household (see Appendix 1),34 which, according to the available sources, consisted of at least 175 people among administrative officials, fatteners, gardeners, cultivators, herders, shepherds and weavers (see Appendix 2). In his capacity as prefect, Inim-Bau-idab was in charge of every movement of assets and personnel, both incoming and outgoing, related to the ereš-diĝir’s household. Documents and seal impressions help trace his career over a twentysix-year period between Šulgi 31 and Šu-Suen 1, right in conjunction with the beginning of Geme-Lamma’s office. His duties included the acquisition of cattle and sheep, barley distributions to various workers (Amherst 24 and BPOA 1 167 dated to Š 34.6), supervision of textile production (UNT 30, Š 32.VIII; Nisaba 10 94-95, Š 34.VIII), and the provisioning of fodder to herdsmen, shepherds and carriers (SNAT 6, Š 34.VI; SNAT 4, Š 34.VII; SAT 1 32, Š 34.VII). As expected, upon Geme-Lamma’s death, the household financed her funerals. Inim-Bau-idab supervised the required expenditures, mainly consisting of ceremonial foodstuffs allocated during the laments and those used during the extispicy performed at her burial.35 His accounts also record the procurement of wool textiles for her hearse and bitumen to plaster both her mortuary chapel and her grave.36 Besides giving a unique insight into the funerary customs of this period, these accounts show that the production activities of the household did not suffer immediate setbacks and that it was preparing for a change of management. It is likely that these two accounts were commissioned as an audit of the household finance, since they cover multiple years without any precise administrative time span, giving the impression that they were filed outside of the ordinary fiscal routine. Despite Geme-Lamma’s demise in Amar-Suen 1, Inim-Bau-idab is still the household prefect in Amar-Suen 3, when once again he files assessments of the current situation of the ereš-diĝir’s herds (RTC 296

33

For his seal, where he is identified as a mounted courier, see CBT 3, BM 24897A (Š 35): geme2-dlamma ereš-diĝir dba-u2 inim-dba-u2-i3-dab5 ra2-gaba arad2-zu. 34 An interesting parallel is provided by two cylinder seals and one seal impression mentioning Enheduana’s personnel (Frayne 1993, E2.1.1.2003–E2.1.1.2005). 35 On the funerary rites see Jagersma 2007, 292–294. On the possible use of divination rites for the election of the next ereš-diĝir see Sallaberger 1995, 20 n. 39. 36 For the hearse textiles see the multi-entry account Maeda, ASJ 9, 325 1 (AS 1.IX) and the individual receipt TLB 3 54 (AS 1.IX); for the bitumen see the multi-entry accounts Maeda, ASJ 9, 325 1 and WMAH 3 (AS 1), and the individual receipt MTBM 325 (AS 1.IX), all recording the same transaction. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

37

and CT 7, 34 BM 18407). Thereafter, accounts mentioning his name decrease drastically in number and his role appears evidently reduced and confined to the supervision of the weaving establishment until Šu-Suen 1, when he disappears from the archival record. In his managerial office at the household of the ereš-diĝir, Inim-Bau-idab was assisted by a very substantial team of supervising officials, among whom were at least three scribes: Ur-Šulpae, Ur-Bau and Ur-Damu. One of his collaborators was Ĝiri-Bau-idab, who according to his seal was a direct dependent of Inim-Bau-idab.37 Documents suggest that he acted as a personal secretary of the šabra from Šulgi 38 to Šulgi 46 and his main duty was the management of movements of grain and grain by-products within the household premises, frequently on behalf of the šabra himself (Nisaba 17 72, Š 38). ĜiriBau-idab received grain from Inim-Bau-idab, which he later expended as allotments for workers (še-ba), generic consignments (sa2-du11), festival supplies (niĝ2-ezem-ma), daily (u4-da-il2) and monthly allocations (niĝ2-iti-da).38 He appears as the main provider of grain allotments for grass carriers (HLC 1 42, Š 38.XI), menials (Amherst 199, Š 38.XI), female weavers (HLC 2 4, Š 48.XII), leather workers (Nisaba 17 54, Š 43.V), garden assistants (MVN 13 325, Š 43.VIII), and brewers (CT 5, 44 BM 18358, Š 45.XII), but he also funnelled food supplies to cultic festivals (PPAC 5 613, Š 40.XII; PPAC 5 1133, Š 42; Nisaba 17 119, Š 46.VI) and probably banquets (CT 7, 17 BM 12940, Š 45.X; Nisaba 17 6, AS 3). Ĝiri-Bau-idab also enjoyed the authority to allocate unprocessed wool to fashion finished garments (UNT 23, Š 34.XI) or dates to be traded by merchants (CT 5, 38 BM 17752, Š 43.X). The liaison position that he fulfilled among the different household departments may imply that he was in charge of the ereš-diĝir’s depot (STA 29, Š 40.XI) and, therefore, supervised the inner circulation of assets according to the household’s needs. Outgoing movements of goods and people from the household to external facilities and recipients were instead monitored by Bau-da-nirĝal, a mounted courier (ra2-gaba) specifically appointed to this task in the years Šulgi 43–48.39 Since kinship ties were at the core of each patrimonial household, it is not surprising to find his daughter Ninkiburmu among the female helpers to the doorkeepers (a-ga-am) of the temple of Bau (George, Iraq 41, 125 2, Š 44.VII). 37

Nisaba 33 912 (Š 43): inim-dba-u2-i3-dab5 šabra ĝiri3-dba-u2-i3-dab5 dub-sar arad2-zu. See also the less preserved sealings on PPAC 5 1133 (Š 42) and MVN 11 40 (undated). 38 E.g., Gomi, ASJ 3, 155 113 (Š 43.IV), Gomi, ASJ 3, 155 114 (Š 43.V), Gomi, ASJ 3, 153 110 (Š 43.XI). 39 MVN 22 180 (Š 43), SAT 1 87 (Š 47.IX), PPAC 5 161 (Š 48.VIII), CT 10, 20 BM 14308 (Š 48.XII), MVN 19 108 (VII), MVN 20 119 (date broken). Noteworthy, besides these provincial records, Bau-da-nirĝal appears only in the Puzriš-Dagan archive where he receives exotic animals, such as bear cubs, from Abbasaga: CDLI P235089 (AS 7.X), MVN 3 348 (AS 8), AUCT 2 335 (AS 9.I). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Noemi Borrelli

38

Unskilled workers were monitored by Atašuta, identified as supervisor of the menials (ugula UN-il2), who were grouped in squads ranging from 24 to 41 men.40 2.2.1 Husbandry Husbandry was by far the thriving core of the household economy. At least a dozen men—between herdsmen (unu3), shepherds (sipa anše), chief shepherds (na-gada), and fatteners (kurušda)—took care of the herds on behalf of the erešdiĝir and the economic boost given to this sector is visible in the number of sheep and goats that doubled in just five years. An assessment of the fat-tailed sheep (udu gukkal) portrays the situation of the ereš-diĝir’s herds in the year Šulgi 43 (HLC 2 34): 262 ovine available (gub-ba), 25 expended (zi-ga) and 8 in arrears (la2-i3). Five years later, a second assessment on goats (RTC 296) is carried out and the number of heads is considerably increased: 643 goats available, 19 expended, and 158 in arrears.41 According to the latter document, the herds of the high priestess were accounted, and presumably grazed, together with the sheep of the palace and those of her offspring (nam-dumu ereš-diĝirra); the occurrence of these three economic estates side by side reminds one of the managerial organization of the Pre-Sargonic period. Several receipts witness the delivery of fodder to shepherds and fatteners from Inim-Bau-idab (SAT 1 32, Š 34.VII) and few other officials (SNAT 2, Š 31), who occasionally provided also barley rations for grass carriers tending sheep, donkeys and onagers (u2-il2 udu / anšekunga2). Among the personnel employed in the husbandry circuit, the chief shepherds Ba’aga and Idabidu are attested working for the household also after the death of Geme-Lamma and serving under the new šabra Imtidam until Ibbi-Suen 1 (TÉL 262). Zumzum (Šulgi 33–37) received monthly rations of barley for the fattening of sheep and cattle that he later delivered for festivals (MVN 19 108, VII) together with barley by-products (HLC 3 388, Š 37.XII). After ten years of silence, around Geme-Lamma’s death, a new fattener appears in the household replacing Zumzum: a certain Bau-ibgul.42 The absence of Zumzum from the husbandry

40

Gomi, BAOM 2, 24 7 (Š 33.X), BPOA 1 151 (Š 36.VIII), BPOA 1 199 (Š 38.XI), Nisaba 18 42 (Š 42.X). 41 Other documents partially assessing the high priestess’ herds are MVN 5 203 (ŠS 8) and MVN 6 546 (date broken). 42 Records mentioning Bau-ibgul as fattener or animal provider for the ereš-diĝir: TLB 3 8 (AS 1.V), MVN 22 3 (AS 1.XI), PPAC 5 1220 (AS 1.XI), BPOA 1 216 with the title kurušda (AS 1.XII), RTC 296 (AS 3). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

39

circuit after Šulgi 37 could be explained with his transfer to the textile chain, where he supervised teams of female weavers.43 The cook (muhaldim) Bau-IGI.DU was in charge of providing meat and grains for cultic festivals.44 But meat was not the only proceeds of husbandry, and herds and flocks were valuable also for their fat, fleece, and skins.45 Cheese and lard recalls the specialty of the household in the Pre-Sargonic period (Prentice 2010, 116–117) for whose production chief shepherds and herdsmen were employed: a year account (CT 7, 34 BM 18407, Š 46) shows that the dairy production of a single year could amount to 360 litres of butter oil and cheese from either cows or goats, and 123 kg of goat’s hair (i3-nun ga-ar3 siki ud5).46 Among these manufacturing cycles, wool production is the best-documented satellite activity of the household of the ereš-diĝir. 2.2.2 Wool production and weaving Textile manufacturing was supervised by Inim-Bau-idab, whose delegate at the workshop was Lu-Urub, identified as overseer and accountant of the fullers (dub-sar azlag7; BPOA 2 1891, undated).47 The duties of Lu-Urub were not limited to the supervision of fullers but included the management of allotments and loans on their behalf, and the receipt of raw materials (Gomi, BAOM 2, 24 10, Š 37.III). In a group of tablets issued toward the end of Šulgi 34, he appears as the supervisor of a team of nine fullers, who were forced to request a loan after their prebend fields were not irrigated by flooding (azlag7 a-ša3-ba a nude3-a-me) and presumably did not produced a satisfactory yield.48 The overseer of the female weavers was Ur-Igalim who was in charge of their workload, their wages, and also of any additional allotment issued to them when they were 43

SAT 1 273 (Š 36-37), SAT 1 278 (Š 38.I) using the seal of kurušda, STA 29 (Š 40.XI) with the title ugula geme2 kinkin2, Amherst 31 (Š 40.XII). 44 MVN 9 95 (Š 38.X), PPAC 5 1569 (Š 38, rest broken), Gomi, BAOM 2, 28 42 (Š 47.XII), PPAC 5 122 (Š 48.V), Nisaba 33 932 (Š 48.VIII), MVN 22 3 (AS 1.XI). 45 HLC 2 34 (Š 46) registers 25 carcasses and their skins (ad6 kuš) among the yearly proceeds of flocks. 46 Dairy productivity in Ur III Ĝirsu/Lagaš was fixed at a yearly rate of 10 litres of cheese and fat per cow, which was higher than the rate found in other Ur III provinces but only half the rate attested in Pre-Sargonic Ĝirsu (Englund 1995, 387). 47 There is evidence of at least three fullers who were provided with personal seals dedicated to the high priestess: Jubileum LB 280 (Š 34.XI), Gomi, ASJ 2, 26 77 (Š 37.XII), Pelagaud, Babyl 3, pl. 4 12 (ŠS 1). Others are probably mentioned in TCTI 2 3405 (ŠS 5.V). However, the sporadic nature of the sources prevents any valuable evaluation of their activity. 48 Nisaba 10 94-95 (Š 34.VIII), BPOA 1 163 (Š 34.IX), Gomi, ASJ 2, 23 67 (Š 34.X), Gomi, ASJ 2, 23 66 (Š 34.XII). In MVN 5 141 (Š 33.IX) the team is composed of 6 fullers, while Jubileum LB 280 (Š 34.XI) records 9 men. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

40

Noemi Borrelli

stationed in other facilities.49 Female weavers and their children received barley allotments at different rates: two of these disbursements survey at least 123 female workers and 61 children in Šulgi 33 (Nisaba 13 33) and 75 weavers and 57 children the next year (Gomi, ASJ 2, 22 62).50 On the eleventh month of Amar-Suen 5, 106 weavers were employed for the plucking (TUT 164-19). As for fullers, who oscillated between 6 and 9, these figures may represent just a partial account of the entire workforce employed at the textile centre, since fullers and weavers were occasionally assigned to other facilities. In fact, a work assignment dated to Amar-Suen 1 lists a squad of 95 female weavers and 9 fullers, under the supervision of Inim-Bau-idab, who were posted at the Lullubuna settlement (SAT 1 431). Towards the end of Šulgi’s reign, the workforce mobilized from the household of the ereš-diĝir (identified through the presence of Inim-Bau-idab), and its workload, are surveyed together with the staff managed by other supervisors.51 Available documents allow one to follow the whole circuit of the textile production performed by the household of the high priestess. Her weaving workshop was provided with raw material directly by the central administration that could allocate up to 510 kg of unprocessed wool, which was entrusted to the šabra Inim-Bau-idab and then transferred to the weavers for production.52 Unprocessed wool was provided to the household also by chief shepherds (CT 7, 34 BM 18407, Š 46): in Šulgi 47 three chief shepherds delivered 180.6 kg (= 6 gu2 1 ma-na 10 gin2 siki hi-a) of assorted wool, each of them proportionally to the flock he managed (PPAC 5 668, Š 47).53 Inim-Bau-idab provided the weaving workshop also with oily substances, like lard to process fibres (Gomi, BAOM 2, 24 10, Š 37.III), once again showing the high level of interdependency in terms of personnel and raw material among the different economic constituents of the household. Since the availability of lard could not satisfy the needs of the textile workshop, it was also acquired through merchants and delivered directly to fullers (Gomi, ASJ 2, 26 77, Š 37.XII). Once woven and weighed, garments and finished textiles were delivered again to Inim-Bau49

CT 10, 20 BM 14308 (Š 48.XII), Scheil, ZA 12, 261 5 (AS 1) weavers receiving one sheep carcass, Farber / Farber, ZA 91, 211 (AS 1) weavers receiving one sheep carcass, MVN 20 199 (III). 50 Although Nisaba 13 33 does not identify the female workers as weavers, the similarity of the text with Gomi, ASJ 2, 22 62 dated the following year and the presence of the ereš-diĝir’s scribe Ur-Damu as sealing party, points to this conclusion. 51 Nisaba 33 304 (Š 47), PPAC 5 696 (AS 1), UNT 17 (ŠS 8.00.2) OBTR 173 (ŠS 8.00.3). On the overseer Lugul-irida see Notizia 2020. 52 MTBM 216 (Š 36), RTC 301 (Š 46). 53 According to PPAC 5668 Lugalsaga delivered 68.5 kg of wool, Bau-IGI.DU 65 kg, and Ur-Bau 48 kg. In HLC 2 34 (Š 46), dated to the previous year, the flocks they managed had respectively 106, 97, and 69 sheep. The wool/sheep ratio corresponds for Lugalsaga’s flock to 0.65, for Bau-IGI.DU’s flock to 0.67, and for Ur-Bau’s flock to 0.69. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

41

idab’s office,54 who disposed of them accordingly. An assessment carried out at the end of Šu-Suen’s reign (UNT 37, ŠS 8.X) records the amount of 66 processed garments available in the textile depository (niĝ2-ĝal2-la ki-mu-ra) and in the weaving establishment (niĝ2-ĝal2-la e2-uš-bar) of the household, which were handed over to the central administration (e2 šu šum2-ma). Part of the production was shipped outside the province, as suggested by the delivery of 32 assorted garments to Bau-ibgal in Puzriš-Dagan.55 It is worthy of note that, since the early years of Šulgi’s reign, the wife of the governor appears to have been involved in the shipment of garments inside and outside provincial borders.56 2.2.3 Fields, orchards, and shipyard According to an assessment of cultivated fields dated to Ibbi-Suen 3 (Pettinato, AnOr 45, 332 59), the household of the ereš-diĝir could rely on 324 ha (ca. 50 bur3) managed by almost ten cultivators.57 When comparing these figures to the Pre-Sargonic record of Sasa’s household, whose areas would have been equal to ca. 330 ha, one finds a remarkable similarity in the amount of arable land managed by these two households.58 But what about the ranking of this estate in comparison with other contemporary households in the province? One of the major temple households of Ĝirsu/Lagaš was the temple of NinMAR.KI, which alone managed 100 units of domain land in the district of Guabba (Maekawa, ASJ 17, 229 118, Š 31) for a total amount of 2,000 ha including fallow areas. Minor temple estates, such as the households of Urub managed 15 units (TUT 5, Š 47), having a cultivated area of 685 ha (105.2.1 gan2). It is striking that even the smallest temple household managed indeed two times the land entrusted to the high priestess. However, if measured against 54

UNT 43 (Š 47.VII), UNT 46 (Š 47.IX), PPAC 5 1265 (AS 5). Nisaba 8 5 (Š 36.XI). See also AUCT 2 10 (Š 32) where he receives linen garments from the palace. Bau-ibgul is most likely the mounted courier (ra2-gaba) mentioned in MVN 12 294 (Š 48.IX) and PPAC 5 1580 (VI), whose seal was dedicated to Šulgi. He also appears receiving textiles in Puzriš-Dagan records: BIN 3 405 (Š 30.V), OIP 115 1 (Š 33.VII), TCL 2 5575 (date broken). 56 ITT 5 6827 (Š 9.IV), Genouillac, Babyl. 8 HG 1 (Š 9.V), ITT 5 6716 (Š 9.V). 57 Due to some broken lines, the area calculated on the base of the preserved figures amounts to 45.1.0 bur3; however, considering the textual pattern, the overall area could be tentatively restored as 50 bur3. See also Maekawa, ASJ 19, 139 123 (Š 45), a fragmentary assessment of the domain plots (gan2-gu4) and prebend plots entrusted to the cultivators (šuku engar) of the household of the high priestess, supervised by Inim-Bauidab. Noteworthy, the few lines preserved mention different field names and farmers than those mentioned in the assessment carried out on Ibbi-Suen 3. 58 For the area of arable land managed by Sasa (ca. 50 bur3) see Selz 1989, 190–191, text no. 31. According to Bauer’s study, the Bau temple managed 708 bur3 of land (= ca. 4,500 ha), including fields, gardens, reed and tree plots (Bauer 1998, 534). 55

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

42

Noemi Borrelli

personal households headed by cultic personnel, it appears very large: the best parallel is provided by the fields assigned to the en-priest of Nanše, who held barely 102 ha of land.59 When collective work was undertaken by the provincial administration, the high priestess was required to participate like every other member of the community and the amount of work she was assigned was assessed in accordance with the size of her fields, as witnessed by the tract of the Canal-going-to-Niĝin entrusted to her care (CT 3, 35 BM 21335, undated). In fact, only temple administrators received tracts larger than the 570 metres of land assigned to her, hence confirming the inclusion of the high priestess among the higher ranks of the society. The ereš-diĝir had at her disposal several plots of land, some of which were located in the rural area of du6-lugal-u3/5-a, a settlement inhabited by royal dwellers and the governor’s family. The yield produced by the fields located in the du6-lugal-u3/5-a area amounted to 3,060 litres of emmer, 12,384 litres of barley, and 1,190 litres of pulses (CT 10, 20 BM 14308, Š 48.XII).60 Silver expenditures borne by Inim-Bau-idab for hired workforce and plough-teams confirm the cultivation of this field by the personnel of the household (HSS 4 1, Š 45). Part of the land was instead destined for orchards and gardens. Available data show that horticulture was managed by six gardeners (nu-ĝiškiri6) and one administrator (santana), and it was involved in the cultivation of fig (ĝišpeš3) and apple trees (ĝišhašhur).61 The balanced account of the garden administrator UrŠulpae (MVN 22 180, Š 43) shows that the yearly yield amounted to 4,120 litres of apples (13.3.4 5 sila3), slightly less than the yield attested for the previous year, which amounted to 4,850 litres of apples (BPOA 2 1843). Out of the whole yield, a small portion of 1,140 litres was expended for cultic offerings related to agricultural labour, for the governor, for the high priestess, and for the king via the mounted courier Bau-da-nirĝal.62 Considering the absence of a section dedicated to the arrears (la2-i3), the remaining 2,980 litres of apples were presumably exchanged, as suggested by the amount of 75.22 grams of silver recorded as a delivery (mu-kux). The 908 grams of silver delivered by the

59

See the unpublished text CDLI P210016 recording 15.2.2 gan2 of land for the en of Nanše. 60 As a comparison, the governor was allotted ca. 101,500 litres of prebend barley (še šuku), while the high priestess received 135,000 litres (CBT 3, BM 29855, date broken). 61 SAT 1 173 (Š 41), BPOA 2 1843 (Š 42). One of the gardeners, Utu-melam, appears in HSS 4 2 (Š 42 / AS 6.I), which records wool and grain allotments for gardeners and vine growers working in the Guabba. 62 The zi-ga figures reported on the tablet are 3.4.0 9 1/2 sila3 of apples (1,140 litres), however calculations based on the individual entries prove that the correct total should be 3.3.5 9 1/2 sila3 (1,130 litres). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

43

gardeners to Inim-Bau-idab to settle a previous arrear (la2-i3 su-ga) hint to this practice of converting the available surplus in silver (HSS 4 1, Š 45).63 Gardens also provided wood for a shipyard (mar-sa), which sponsored the construction of boats.64 The balanced account issued by Inim-Bau-idab records in the capital section four gardens as suppliers of construction materials, among which were punting poles and planks (ĝišmi-ri2-za, ĝišeme-sig), 14 logs of pines (ĝišu3-suh5), and two large trees (ĝiš-gal) coming from the forest of the high priestess (tir ereš-diĝir-ra-ta).65 Bitumen and wood were also acquired through merchants and couriers. In four years, the shipyard used its capital to build or repair seven boats of various capacities and to caulk the grave of the high priestess. The trade agent in charge of the purchases and exchanges for the household of Geme-Lamma was Lu-Utu.66 When recorded in the provincial record, this merchant was involved in the exchange of aromatics and lard (šim and i3-šah2 in TUT 122, Š 40),67 or copper and arsenic (uruda, su3-GAN) that he provided together with Inim-Bau-idab to the smith Niĝiršakuš (Nisaba 7 8, Š 41). Eight years later, the same smith appears still working on commission for the household, fashioning copper vessels and ceremonial objects (BPOA 1 280, AS 1). Although Lu-Utu’s seal is not preserved, the provincial administration identified him as the merchant working for the ereš-diĝir (MVN 22 18, date broken) and he appears providing the household with lard for the textile workshop (Gomi, ASJ 2, 26 77, Š 37.XII) and servants for the governor’s son (HSS 4 1, Š 45).

63

For a further analysis of the garden of the high priestess see Greco 2015, 121–123 and 213–214. 64 For instance, boats were used to ship barley. PPAC 5 1085 (AS 5) records the workforce used to load the barley of the high priestess on the boat and ship it to the hamlet of Urgigir. 65 There is evidence suggesting that the gardens of the high priestess could provide wood also for other institutions. For instance, Sauren, AION 31, 174 5 (Š 48.IV.7) records wooden planks from pine trees for the shipyard of the mill-house, which were delivered to Addamu via Inim-Bau, presumably an abbreviation of the name of the šabra InimBau-idab. 66 Other merchants involved in trading activities with the household are Urgigir and his son Urĝar (WMAH 3, AS 1; MVN 11 40, undated) and IG.DUL3 (CT 5, 38 BM 17752, Š 43.X; CT 10, 20 BM 14308, Š 48.XII). 67 The occurrence of lard and aromatics reminds one of the manufactured products exported by the Pre-Sargonic e2-mi2 (Prentice 2010, 111), which were also the primary ingredients to produce scented oil. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Noemi Borrelli

44

2.2.4 Kinship connections The silver account (HSS 4 1), issued by Inim-Bau-idab just a few years before Geme-Lamma’s death, represents a unique summa of his work and, with it, of the economic interests of the household of the ereš-diĝir. This balanced account covers thirteen years of fiscal activity and shows how assets were accumulated and expended. The initial capital was generated by field rents, revenues, and arrears from shepherds and gardeners. Profit was reinvested in cattle and plough animals, entrusted to merchants, spent to hire workers and oxen, or to pay smiths. A remarkable amount of silver, equal to 2.5 kg (5 mana), was destined for the king. The household of the ereš-diĝir funnelled part of its assets to the governor and his family, either as direct provisions or as cultivation costs for the fields assigned to the children’s household (a-ša3 nam-dumu). As in the Pre-Sargonic period, the households of the governor, his heirs and that of the high priestess appear connected to each other through the redistribution of assets and transfers of personnel. During the reign of Ibbi-Suen, the prefect of the agricultural estate of the governor’s sons was a certain Agugu. This man was himself the son of Badari, a royal official who acted as administrator of the household of the governor. Badari’s seal clearly underlined his connection with the royal household and its legend bore a dedication to king Amar-Suen (ITT 3 5395, undated).68 As far as can be established for Geme-Lamma, she was a prominent member of the provincial elite and her social milieu was reflected in the iconography chosen for her seal, which identifies her as a court lady more than as a priestess (Suter 2007, 339). The personal relationship with the governor enhanced her prestige, and her family availed of her status, benefitting from provincial assets, as in the case of her sister,69 or participating in the management of her household, as in the case of her brothers. Luessa, for instance, acted as conveyor in the distribution of the revenues of her orchards, specifically delivering the personal shares assigned to the high priestess and to the governor (MVN 22 180, Š 43). In the same capacity one finds a second brother of the high priestess, Abbamu (PPAC 5 160, Š 47.IX), while a third brother, Ursaga, was involved in the agricultural administration of provincial temple households (Amherst 27, Š 37).

68

On Badari and his sons see Borrelli in preparation. As previously seen, the provincial archive witnesses that her sister was entitled to receive offerings upon the death of her children (TUT 112, date broken) and 300 litres of barley on an unspecified occasion (Gomi, BAOM 2, 28 45, Š 48.XI). 69

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

45

Figure 1 Impression of the seal of Geme-Lamma (drawing by L.A. Corrado, after Fischer 1997, 176 no. 24)

As previously discussed, both putative parents of the ereš-diĝir were bestowed with rich funerary offerings, but there is a chance that the care reserved to her family also took the form of employing part of the personnel that once belonged to the household of her own father. One of the employees of the ereš-diĝir’s estate is Ezimu son of KU.KU.NI, qualified as “man of the high priestess”, who worked in the agricultural branch of the estate.70 Ezimu provided bitumen (WMAH 3, AS 1) and wool (TLB 3 54 and Maeda, ASJ 9, 325 1, both dated to AS 1.IX) for the hearse of Geme-Lamma, but in these latter accounts he is identified as felter (tug2-du8). In fact, after Geme-Lamma’s death Ezimu appears in the Ĝirsu/Lagaš archive only in the capacity of overseer of the female workers employed at the Guabba weaving facility.71 Although homonymy cannot be ruled out, it can be suggested that after the demise of the high priestess Ezimu was reassigned to the Guabba textile industry, which was a state-run enterprise, following an action already observed for the prefect InimBau-idab and the fattener Zumzum. Regardless of his employment, what is most relevant is that according to the legend on his seal, Ezimu was the prefect of Šabanisig, supposedly the father of Geme-Lamma (HLC 1 42, Š 38.XI).

70

SAT 1 121 (Š 30.IV), BPOA 1 299 (Š 30.XId), Nisaba 17 85 (Š 37), CTPSM 1 14 (Š 34.VIII), Gomi, ASJ 2, 35 98 (Š 42), BPOA 7 3014 (AS 4.IX), Nisaba 10 79 (undated). For the epithet lu2-ereš-diĝir see CTPSM 1 18 (Š 42.XI). 71 Nisaba 18 8 (AS 7.IV), Nisaba 18 10 (AS 7.VI), MVN 22 248 (AS 9.VI), Amherst 109 (AS 9.VIII), TCTI 2 3545 (ŠS 4.I), UNT 19 (ŠS 4.XII), UNT 88 (ŠS 4.XII), SAT 1 376 (V), CUSAS 16 32 (VIII), PPAC 5 301 (undated). See also ITT 2 848, a balanced account of Lu-Bau son of Ezimu, himself involved in the textile facilities of the Niĝin and Guabba districts. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Noemi Borrelli

46

Unfortunately, upon the death of Geme-Lamma, mentions of the household of the ereš-diĝir became more elusive and part of the reason may lie in the relocation of her assets and personnel, implying a reconfiguration of the estate. Bau-ea, the successor of Geme-Lamma, held her office until the very end of the Ĝirsu/Lagaš archival lifespan and, at least from the first regnal year of Šu-Suen, she is also mentioned as the wife of the state chancellor. Differently from his predecessor, the administrator of her estate, Imtidam, used a seal whose legend claimed his obedience to the king’s authority and not to the high priestess, that is to say, not to the provincial leadership.72

3 Conclusions In a diachronic appraisal of the household of the ereš-diĝir of Bau and its female leaders, it appears that despite its modest size compared to major temples, this institution was nonetheless remarkable in relation to other personal estates and, most of all, played a key role in the socio-economic display of rulership. Since the Pre-Sargonic period, when its ideological foundations were laid, the historical continuity of this estate was guaranteed by the very same symbolism of the goddess Bau and all the related cultural implications. Despite the demise of the Lagaš city-state and its inclusion in the provincial system of the Ur III kingdom, the ramification of the economic constituents and the overall management of this household were left unaltered, while the perception of authority adjusted concurrently with political changes. From estate of the ruler’s wife, to satellite of the main deity’s temple, to a link with the governor and the king, this institution represented a building block for the vision of provincial power.73 Both Pre-Sargonic and Ur III rulers relied on such politics of imagery that tried to legitimize the leadership of specific socio-cultural structures through a divine authority that mirrored their power. The audience of this propaganda was presumably what Steinkeller calls the “Managerial Class” (2019, 120), a competing social group which possessed enough socio-economic weight to oppose the political rulership but also the cultural means to acknowledge such underlying messages. The household of the ereš-diĝir was by all means a political, symbolic, and economic endeavour, whose purpose was to reinforce the social perception of its representative. As the data allow to appreciate, the cultic expenditures of the high priestess of Bau show signs of liminality between the support of the royal ideology and the safeguard of locally rooted traditions. Geme-Lamma originated

72

ITT 2 800 (AS 7.VIII): im-ti-dam arad2 lugal. As an analogy, see the administrative remoulding of the temple of Ninĝirsu into the Pre-Sargonic secular palace, which allowed the royal family to divert the household’s assets for their use (Steinkeller 2019, 127–128). 73

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

47

from a prominent provincial family and she fulfilled this role during the governorship of Ur-Lamma, himself a leading delegate of the provincial establishment, unlike the royal family. The marriage of Aradĝu to Bau-ea appears much more significant in a political phase that sees the reconfiguration of the institutional households begun under Amar-Suen’s reign and aimed at a tighter control of the province.74 More so, it is relevant that this institution apparently disappeared with the very end of the Third Dynasty of Ur, when many social and cultural changes affected southern Mesopotamia (Sallaberger 2019b, 90). Notwithstanding the large body of documentation on the ereš-diĝir’s household, the available evidence still does not shed light on a ritual function of the high priestess but only her involvement in the financial support of her goddess’ cult. The sponsorship of religious activities resembles the situation that Sharlach observed for the “religious foundations” led by Šulgi-simti and Ninkalla (Sharlach 2017). Despite the connections that all these women had with powerful male leaders and contrary to the situation of the two royal concubines, the Ĝirsu/Lagaš archive incontrovertibly emphasizes the institutional role over the person, and her personal lineage can only be half-seen within the institution’s management, which remains the focus of the administration. As generally acknowledged for the Ur III record, the boundary between the communal and personal use of state belongings appears more blurred than ever, confirming once again how the difference between private and public bears scarce meaning for an economic evaluation if one shifts to the emic perspective found in the textual record. Still unexplainable is, however, the reason why there is so much evidence for this institution in the Ĝirsu/Lagaš documents above every other household to which priests and priestesses were entitled, such as the case of the high priest of Nanše. Besides the chance of findings, one should probably take into account the relevance of this estate for the provincial ruling elite. The connection with the household of the governor and his heirs persisted indeed also after the death of Geme-Lamma, thus suggesting that it was inherent to the very same rulership superstructure, sometimes regardless of the actual degree of kinship among the high priestess and the governor.75 This co-dependence was generated by the

74

In this perspective, one can recall the reconfiguration of the household of Namhani/Namahni into the household of the divine Amar-Suen (Maekawa 1986, 97–99) and that of the weaving facility of the Guabba into the weaving facility of Šu-Suen (Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 75–76). A reason behind the transfer of some of the erešdiĝir’s personnel to the weaving facility in the Guabba district maybe a hint of the royal attempt to improve this facility. 75 During the Pre-Sargonic rulership, the interrelation among the three institutions was a consolidated reality and was clearly addressed in the reforms of Urukagina (Frayne © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Noemi Borrelli

48

underlying theological framework of the union between Ninĝirsu and his spouse Bau, which was used to seek legitimation. When the king of Ur presumably needed to tighten the clamp on the province, he appointed persons at his immediate dependence to provincial key offices, exploiting the pre-existing network of authority that so uniquely characterised the Ĝirsu/Lagaš province by just adding another step to the ladder.

Appendix 1: Seals belonging to the personnel of the household of the ereš-diĝir of Bau Name

Seal

Geme-Lamma ereš-diĝir dba-u2

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / SAL.HUB2 ki-[aĝ2] / dba-u2

Inim-Bau-idab ra2-gaba (šabra)

Ĝiri-Bau-idab

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / inim-dbau2-i3-dab5 / ra2-gaba / arad2-zu

PPAC 5 296 (undated) QNAR 1 BM 24897 (Š 35)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / inim-dbau2-i3-dab5 ra2-gaba / arad2-zu

QNAR 1 BM 27458 (AS 3.III)

inim-dba-u2-i3-dab5 / šabra / ĝiri3-dba-u2-i3dab5 / dub-sar arad2-zu

Nisaba 33 912 (Š 43) Gomi, ASJ 3, 155 14 (Š 43.V) PPAC 5 1133 (Š 42) MVN 11 40 (undated)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / ur-dda-mu / dub-sar / dumu ur-sa6-ga / arad2-zu

QNAR 1 BM 28049 (Š 33) QNAR 1 BM 28056 (Š 33.XI) QNAR 1 BM 28062 (undated)

(I) geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir / dba-u2 (II) ur-dda-mu / dub-sar / dumu ur-sa6-ga / arad2-zu

Nisaba 13 33 (Š 33.VI) Fischer, BagM 28, 162 24 BM 21841 (Š 33.IX) Gomi, ASJ 2, 22 62 (Š 34.II) Fischer, BagM 28, 162 24 BM 18722 (Š 46.III)

Ur-Damu

Ur-Bau

Text(s)

(I) [geme2]-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 (II) ur-dba-u2 / dub-sar / dumu lu2-ge-na / arad2-zu

Gomi, ASJ 2, 24 71 (Š 35.X)

2008, 248–265). On this relationship in the Pre-Sargonic period see Maekawa 1973–74, 130–132. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia Name

Seal -dlamma

Text(s) dba-u

ur-dba-u

/ ereš-diĝir geme2 2/ dub-sar / dumu ur-AN.[...] / arad2-zu

Ur-Bau

Ur-Šulpae Ur-Šulpae ugula kinkin2

Zumzum kurušda

Ur-Saĝub sipa anše (kunga2)

Iabidu sipa

UNĝa unu3

2

/

QNAR 1 BM 25274 (AS 8)

(I) geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir-/ dba-u2 (II) ur-dšul-pa-e3 / dub-sar / dumu šu-na / arad2-zu

MVN 11 48 (Š 34.X)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / ur-dšulpa-e3 / ugula kinkin2 / dumu [...] / arad2-zu

QNAR 1 BM 24899 (Š 46.VII)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / zum-zum kurušda arad2-zu

ABAA (KAO 4) 79 P351 (Š 33.XI) MTBM 328 (Š 33.XII.5) TUT 307 (Š 35.VI) PPAC 5 657 (Š 35.VII) SAT 1 278 (Š 38.I)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / ur-saĝub5ki / sipa anše arad2-zu

SNAT 6 (Š 34.VI) QNAR 1 BM 24828 (Š 34.VII) SNAT 10 (Š 34.XII) SNAT 11 (Š 35.IV) Nisaba 17 89 (X)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / ur-saĝub5ki / sipa anše / arad2-zu

QNAR 1 BM 28072 (date unknown)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / i7-a-bidu10 sipa / arad2-zu

Fischer, BagM 28, 157 11 BM 19351A (date unknown)

geme2-d[lamma] / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / UN-ĝa6 / unu3 arad2-zu

SNAT 3 (Š 31)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-[u2] / UN-ĝa6 unu3 arad2-zu

SAT 1 4 (Š 40.VII)

ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / UN-ĝa6 / arad2-zu

QNAR 1 BM 24855 (Š 43)

Enzaum unu3

geme2-d[lamma] / ereš-diĝir d[ba-u2] / en-zaum unu3 [arad2-zu]

SNAT 2 (Š 31)

Ur-Ĝišbare azlag7

ur-dĝiš-bar!-e3 / azlag7 ereš-diĝir / dumu urdĝiš?-[...]

Jubileum LB 280 (Š 34.XI)

Lu-Ĝišbare (azlag7)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / lu2-dĝišbar-e3 / dumu ur-[...] / arad2-zu

Lu-Urub (ugula azlag7)

49

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / lu2urubx[ki] / arad2-[zu]

Gomi, ASJ 2, 26 77 (Š 37.XII) Nisaba 10 94-95 (Š 34.VIII) BPOA 1 114 (undated)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Noemi Borrelli

50 Name

Seal -dlamma

geme2 / arad2-[zu]

ereš-diĝir

Text(s) dba-u

2/

[ki]

lu2-urubx

MVN 11 46 (Š 37) Farber / Farber, ZA 91, 211 (AS 1)

Nammah-Bau

(I) geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir / dba-u2 (II) nam-mah-/dba-u2 / dub-sar / arad2-zu

Atašuta (ugula UN-ĝa6)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / a2-ta-šu-ta arad2-zu

BPOA 1 151 (Š 36.VIII) Nisaba 18 42 (Š 42.X)

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / saĝ-bi arad2-zu

Fischer, BagM 28, 157 10 BM 19351A (date unknown)

Saĝbi

Igi-Inannaše Ezimu

geme2-dlamma / ereš-diĝir dba-u2 / igidinanna-še / dub-sar / arad -zu 3 2

RIAA 198 (undated)

ša3-ba-na-sig / šabra / e2-[zi-mu] / arad2-zu

HLC 1 42 (Š 38.XII)

Appendix 2: Personnel working at the household of the ereš-diĝir of Bau Personnel

Number

Prefect

1 Inim-Bau-idab (Š 31–AS 3) Imtidam (AS 6–IS 3)

Prefect assistant

1

Scribes

3

(Mounted) courier

1

Overseer of the menials

1

Menials

24 > 41

Overseer of the millhouse

1

Herdsmen, shepherds, chief shepherds (interchangeable titles)

ca. 12

Fattener

1 Zumzum (Š 33–37) Bau-ibgul (AS 1–3)

Cook

1

Output

295 sheep 820 goats 180.6 kg of wool 123 kg of goat’s hair 360 L of butter oil and cheese

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia Personnel

Number

51

Output

Overseer / scribe of the fullers

1

Fullers

6>9

Overseer of the female weavers

1

Female weavers (partial data)

123 female + 75 children (Š 33) 61 female + 57 children (Š 34)

up to 510 kg of raw wool to process up to 66 finished garments

Cultivators (partial data)

10

324 ha harvest of the field du6-lugalu3-a: 3,060 L of emmer 12,384 L of barley 1,190 L of pulses

Garden administrator

1

Gardeners

6

Merchants

1

4,120 / 4,850 apples per year

Bibliography Arkhipov, I., Les perles de pierre et de métal dans les textes sumériens et akkadiens, in: Léon, S. (ed.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) VI. Les tombes ordinaires de l’âge du bronze ancien et moyen des chantiers D-F-H-I (1999-2001): Les objects (Publications de la Mission Archéologique de l’Université de Liège en Syrie), Leuven / Paris / Bristol, CT 2018, 43–70. Asher-Greve, J.M., I. Gender Theory and Issues, in: Asher-Greve, J.M. / Westenholz, J.G. (eds.), Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259), Fribourg / Göttingen 2013a, 15–28. — IV. Images, in: Asher-Greve, J.M. / Westenholz, J.G. (eds.), Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259), Fribourg / Göttingen 2013b, 149–286. — Women and Agency: A Survey from Late Uruk to the End of Ur III, in: Crawford, H. (ed.), The Sumerian World, London / New York 2013c, 359– 377. Bartash, V., E2-mi2 – “Women’s Quarters”: The Earliest Written Evidence, in: Buccellati, F. et al. (eds.), House and Household Economies in 3rd

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

52

Noemi Borrelli

millennium B.C.E. Syro-Mesopotamia (BAR International Series 2682), Oxford, 2014, 9–20. Bauer, J., Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte, in: Bauer, J. et al. (eds.), Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastiche Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1), Freiburg / Göttingen 1998, 431–588. Borrelli, N., The Central State and the Provincial Authorities in Late Third Millennium Babylonia: Badari and the Governors of Ĝirsu/Lagaš, in: Kaskal 17 (2020). Brisch, N., The Priestess and the King: the Divine Kingship of Šu-Sîn of Ur, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 126 (2006) 161–176. Brunke, H., Essen in Sumer. Metrologie, Herstellung und Terminologie nach Zeugnis der Ur III-zeitlichen Wirtschaftsurkunden (Geschichtswissenschaften 26), München 2011. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E., Zeit und Ewigkeit: ein Versuch zu altorientalischen Konzeptionen, in: Kratz, R. / Spieckermann, H. (eds.), Zeit und Ewigkeit als Raum göttlichen Handelns (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 390), Berlin / New York 2009, 29–52. Ceccarelli, M., Einige Bermerkungen zum Synkretismus Bau / Ninisina, in: Negri Scafi, P. / Viaggio, S. (eds.), Dallo Stirone al Tigri, dal Tevere all’Eufrate, Studi in onore di Claudio Saporetti, Roma 2009, 31–54. Dahl, J., The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma. A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 108), Leiden 2007. Deimel, A., Šumerische Tempelwirtschaft zur Zeit Urukaginas und seiner Vorgänger (Analecta Orientalia 2), Roma 1931. Englund, R., Regulating Dairy Productivity in the Ur III Period, in: Orientalia NS 64 (1995) 377–429. George, A., Die Kosmogonie des alten Mesopotamien, in: Gindhart, M. / Pommerening, T. (eds.), Anfang & Ende: Vormoderne Szenarien von Weltenstehung und Weltuntergang, Darmstadt 2016, 7–25. Greco, A., Garden Administration in the Ĝirsu Province during the NeoSumerian Period (Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 12), Madrid 2015. Frayne, D., Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 2, Toronto 1993. — Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 1), Toronto 2008. Huber Vuillet, F., Le personnel cultuel à l’époque néo-sumérienne (ca 21602003 av. J.-C.) (Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 14), Madrid 2019. Hudson, M., From Sacred Enclave to Temple to City, in: Hudson, M. / Levine, B. (eds.), Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East. A Colloquium Held at New York University, November 1996, and The

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

53

Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia, May 1997 (Peabody Museum Bulletin 7), Cambridge, MA 1999, 117–167. Jagersma, B., The Calendar of the Funerary Cult in Ancient Lagash, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 64 (2007) 289–307. Laursen, S. / Steinkeller, P., Babylonia, The Gulf Region, and the Indus: Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Contact in Third and Early Second Millennia B.C. (Mesopotamian Civilizations 21), Winona Lake, IN 2017. Maekawa, K., The Development of the É-MÍ in Lagash during Early Dynastic III, in: Mesopotamia 8–9 (1973–1974) 77–144. — The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (IV), in: Zinbun 21 (1986) 91–159. — The Governor’s Family and the ‘Temple Households’ in Ur III Girsu, in: Veenhof, K. (ed.), Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 40e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 5–8, 1993 (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 78), Leiden 1996, 171–179. Magid, G.R., Appendix: Temple Households and Land in Pre-Sargonic Girsu, in: Hudson, M. / Levine, B. (eds.), Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East. A Colloquium Held at New York University, November 1996, and The Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia, May 1997 (Peabody Museum Bulletin 7), Cambridge, MA 1999, 322–324. Maiocchi, M. / Molina, M., Pre-Ur III Administrative Cuneiform Tablets in the British Museum. 1. Texts from the Archives of Gudea’s Dynasty, in: Kaskal 15 (2018) 1–46. Marchesi, G., On the Divine Name dBA.Ú, in: Orientalia NS 71 (2002) 161– 172. — Toward a Chronology of Early Dynastic Rulers in Mesopotamia, in: Sallaberger, W. / Schrakamp, I. (eds.), Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. History and Philology (ARCANE 3), Turnhout 2015, 139–156. Molina, M., Ur-Lama, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 14 (2014–2016) 419. Notizia, P., Wealth and Status in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Household Inventory RTC 304 and the Career of Lugal-irida, Superintendent of Weavers, in: Mas, J. / Notizia, P. (eds.), Working at Home in the Ancient Near East (Archaeopress Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology 7), Oxford 2020, 83–105. Paoletti, P., Der König und sein Kreis. Das Staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dunastie von Ur (Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 10), Madrid 2012. Prentice, R., The Exchange of Goods and Services in Pre-Sargonic Lagash (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 368), Münster 2010.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

54

Noemi Borrelli

Rubio, G., Reading Sumerian Names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62 (2010) 29–44. Sallaberger, W., Der Kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7), Berlin / New York 1993. — Eine Reiche Bestattung im neusumerischen Ur, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47 (1995) 15–21. — Who Is Elite? Two Exemplary Cases from Early Bronze Age SyroMesopotamia, in: Chambon, G. et al. (eds.), De l’argile au numérique. Mélanges assyriologiques en l’honneur de Dominique Charpin (Publications de l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien du Collège de France 3), Leuven / Paris / Bristol, CT 2019a, 893–923. — The Cupbearer and the Cult-Priest in the Temple: External and Internal Cultic Practitioners in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia, in: Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 19 (2019b) 90–111. Sallaberger, W. / Huber Vulliet, F., Priester. A.I. Mesopotamien, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10 (2003–2005) 617– 640. Sallaberger, W. / Schrakamp, I., Philological Data for a Historical Chronology of Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium, in: Sallaberger, W. / Schrakamp, I. (eds.), Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. History and Philology (ARCANE 3), Turnhout 2015, 1–136. Scharlach, T.M., An Ox of One’s Own: Royal Wives and Religion at the Court of the Third Dynsaty of Ur (Studies in the Ancient Near Eastern Records 18), Berlin / New York 2017. Schrakamp, I., Die „Sumerische Tempelstadt“ heute. Die sozioökonomische Rolle eines Tempels in frühdynastischer Zeit, in: Kaniuth, K. et al. (eds.), Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 7), Wiesbaden 2013, 445–466. — Urukagina und die Geschichte von Lagaš am Ende der Präsargonischen Zeit, in: Dittmann, R. / Selz, G. (eds.), It’s a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s) (Alterumskunde des Vorderen Orients, 15), Münster 2015, 303–386. Selz, G., Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš, Teil 1. Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 15/1), Stuttgart 1989. Sollberger, E., Ladies of the Ur III Empire, Revue d’assyriologie et archéologie orientale 61 (1967) 69–70. Steinkeller, P., Land-Tenure Conditions in Third-Millennium Babylonia: The Problem of Regional Variation, in: Hudson, M. / Levine, B. (eds.),

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Symbolic and Economic Institutions in 3rd Millennium Southern Mesopotamia

55

Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East. A Colloquium Held at New York University, November 1996, and The Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia, May 1997 (Peabody Museum Bulletin 7), Cambridge, MA 1999a, 289–330. — On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriages: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship, in: Watanabe, K. (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo. March 22–24, 1996), Heidelberg 1999b, 103–137. — Babylonian Priesthood during the Third Millennium BCE: Between Sacred and Profane, in: Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 19 (2019) 112– 151. Studevent-Hickman, B., The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia, PhD Dissertation, Harvard University 2006. Suter, C., Between Human and Divine: High Priestess in Images from the Akkad and the Isin-Larsa Period, in: Cheng, J. / Feldman, M. (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 26), Leiden / Boston 2007, 318–368. Tsouparopoulou, C., The Ur III Seals Impressed on Documents from PuzrišDagān (Drehem) (Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 16), Heidelberg 2015. Westenholz, J.G., Plethora of Female Deities, in: Asher-Greve J.M. / Westenholz, J.G. (eds.), Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259), Fribourg / Göttingen 2013a, 29–136. — In the Service of the Gods: the Ministering Clergy, in: Crawford, H. (ed.), The Sumerian World, London / New York 2013b, 246–274. Wu, Y., 19 Years’ Finance of the Household of the Geme-Lamma, the High Priestess of Baba in Girsu of Ur III (Š 31 – AS 1=2065–2046 B.C), Journal of Ancient Civilizations 26 (2011) 1–39.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

La Mesopotamia: commercio, strumenti economico-finanziari e mezzi di pagamento (fine IV – inizi II millennio a.C.) Odoardo Bulgarelli

È con piacere che, non da assiriologo ma da studioso dell’economia dell’antica Mesopotamia, ho accolto l’invito di Lorenzo Verderame per un mio contributo al volume in onore di Francesco Pomponio al quale mi legano oltre venti anni di intensi, direi quasi quotidiani rapporti volti anche ad agevolare la diffusione della conoscenza di quell’antica economia tra gli Storici dell’Economia, gli Economisti, gli Storici del Diritto, i Giuristi, ecc., cioè verso quel mondo che, purtroppo sovente, non presta la dovuta attenzione a quella civiltà ove invece troviamo le origini di molti dei fenomeni economici del nostro tempo. Fu negli anni ’90 del secolo scorso che, preposto al Museo della Moneta della Banca d’Italia, ebbi la fortuna di conoscere il Prof. F. Pomponio con il quale iniziò una collaborazione più che ventennale in quanto proseguita anche dopo la mia uscita dall’Istituto nel 2003, collaborazione volta al fine di cui si è detto. Tra le varie iniziative portate in avanti in comune possiamo ricordare l’acquisto da parte della Banca, tra il 2000 e il 2002, di due collezioni di oltre 400 tavolette cuneiformi. Esse coprono un arco di tempo compreso tra il 2500 e il 1700 a.C. Tale acquisto fu seguito dalla pronta pubblicazione – con traslitterazione, traduzione e CD – di tali testi avvenuta in due volumi del 2006 editi da tale Istituto.1 Possiamo ricordare anche un convegno, tenuto in Banca d’Italia nel 2000, su “Sistemi monetari e finanziari dell’antichità”,2 nonché un incontro di studio organizzato nel 2001 dall’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica d’intesa con Banca d’Italia su “Per una storia del denaro nel Vicino Oriente Antico”. Organizzammo anche altri due seminari, il primo in Banca d’Italia nel 2016, “Produzione, commercio, finanza nel Vicino Oriente Antico (3500–1600 a.C.)”, il secondo in Banca d’Italia e Villa Volterra (Ariccia) nel 2017, “Confronto tra economie antiche. Per un dialogo interdisciplinare”. E da ultimo, l’incarico di consulenza per l’Antico Vicino Oriente ricevuto da F. Pomponio nell’ambito del costituendo Museo dell’economia e della finanza della Banca d’Italia. 1 2

Pomponio / Visicato / Westenholz 2006; Pomponio / Stol / Westenholz 2006. Milano / Parise 2003. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Odoardo Bulgarelli

58

In linea con queste iniziative, il mio contributo riguarderà tre aspetti di quella economia: il commercio a lunga distanza, gli strumenti economico-finanziari e i mezzi di pagamento usati nell’antica Mesopotamia, così come ci appaiono principalmente delle fonti scritte.

1 Il commercio a lunga distanza della Mesopotamia (fine IV – inizi II millennio a.C.) In Mesopotamia gli scambi e il commercio a lunga distanza si perdono nella notte dei tempi. Per il periodo più arcaico esso è documentato unicamente dalle fonti archeologiche. Ma sin dal primo momento della nascita della scrittura (avvenuta in Mesopotamia intorno al 3200 a.C.)3 si incominciamo ad avere le prime timide attestazioni scritte di una sua presenza. Tali attestazioni, unitamente ai rinvenimenti archeologici, hanno portato alcuni studiosi, come Guillermo Algaze,4 a ritenere che nella Bassa Mesopotamia, tra fine del IV e gli inizi del III millennio a.C. (il c.d. “periodo di Uruk”), i commerci a lunga distanza avessero raggiunto volumi di molto superiori a quelli del passato tanto da portare quel paese a costituire delle proprie colonie in alcuni punti di passaggio dislocati lungo le rotte commerciali terrestri che attraversavano la 3

Un lungo poema epico sumerico, Enmerkar e il signore di Aratta, racconta anche che l’invenzione della scrittura da parte del re di Uruk (Enmerkar) avvenne perché questo sovrano doveva inviare messaggi al signore di Aratta, messaggi che i suoi messaggeri non erano in grado di riferire a Aratta. Il brano viene così riferito da Pettinato 1994, 39– 41: “Il messaggero aveva la ‘lingua pesante’, non era capace di ripeterlo; poiché il messaggero aveva la ‘lingua pesante’ e non era capace di ripeterlo, il signore di Kullab [Uruk] impastò l’argilla e ci incise le parole come in una tavoletta; – prima nessuno aveva mai inciso parole nell’argilla – ora, quando il dio sole risplendette, ciò fu manifesto: il signore di Kullab incise parole come in una tavoletta, ed esse furono visibili”.

E più avanti prosegue dicendo: “Il signore di Aratta, dall’araldo, prese la tavoletta lavorata artisticamente; il signore di Aratta scrutò la tavoletta: – la parola detta ha forma di chiodo, la sua struttura trafigge –, il signore di Aratta scruta la tavoletta lavorata artisticamente”. Per il testo integrale in inglese: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1823.htm. 4 Tra i suoi scritti, Algaze 1989; 1993; 2005; 2008; 2013. Le sue tesi hanno l’indubbio merito di aver “gettato un sasso nello stagno” suscitando un ampio dibattito con assensi e dissensi. Tra i critici alle tesi di Algaze si veda a esempio Frangipane 2017 e l’ampia bibliografia da essa indicata.

La Mesopotamia

59

Siria, la Mesopotamia settentrionale, l’Anatolia e l’Elam. Il fine di tali colonie sarebbe stato quello di convogliare merci verso la Bassa Mesopotamia dove una nascente, nuova e più avanzata civiltà attraversava un periodo di inusitata crescita produttiva e demografica accompagnata da un forte aumento della domanda interna di beni che, non essendo presenti nel paese (come pietre, metalli, legname), dovevano essere necessariamente importati da fuori.5 La scomparsa di queste colonie, avvenuta agli inizi del III millennio a.C., avrà riflessi negativi su tali commerci. Intanto, già dagli inizi del III millennio, ma anche prima, un’altra rete di scambi commerciali veniva utilizzata dalla Mesopotamia per soddisfare la predetta richiesta di beni non reperibili al suo interno. Questa volta, però, la rete si snodava lungo vie non solo terrestri ma anche marittime. In particolare, essa interessava, oltre la Mesopotamia, anche il Golfo Persico e i paesi di Tilmun (Dilmun), Makkan (Magan), Marhaši e Meluhha collegandosi a una più ampia rete commerciale che andava dall’Asia Centrale al Mediterraneo. Era la “rotta del Golfo”.6 Recentemente, un’attenta analisi di questo commercio, durato più di mille anni e terminato intorno al 1800 a.C., è stata condotta da Laursen e Steinkeller nel loro volume Babylonia, the Gulf Region, and the Indus (Laursen / Steinkeller 2017). Essa ha il non usuale pregio di aver preso in esame il problema sia sulla base dei dati testuali che delle fonti archeologiche. L’iniziativa è andata indubbiamente ad arricchire quella vastissima bibliografia che già esisteva sull’argomento nel convincimento dei due autori che sussista “the persistence of some misconceptions” (Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, ix) sulla quale gli autori appaiono voler sollecitare una riflessione. Tali commerci con il Golfo riguardarono una pluralità di merci come oro, stagno, lapislazzuli, clorite, corniola, diorite, alabastro, oliva, gabbro, conchiglie, legname, oltre a importanti quantità di rame provenienti (essenzialmente) dalle miniere di Magan.7 Si ritiene che la Mesopotamia 5

Algaze 1993, 82–83 e tav. 3, ritiene che le merci importate in Mesopotamia in tale periodo fossero rame, argento, oro, piombo, legno, pietre, vino, calcare, bitume, prigionieri di guerra e altri beni. Per le esportazioni Algaze parla invece di tessili, grano, pelli, pesce, datteri e prodotti caseari (Algaze 1989, 573; 2008, 93–99). Sul periodo di Uruk, e in particolare sull’amministrazione della sua economia, si veda Liverani 1998, 45–76; per una critica su alcuni aspetti delle sue considerazioni sull’economia di quel periodo, Bulgarelli 2016. 6 Si vedano, in generale, Heimpel 1987; Laursen / Steinkeller 2017; Verderame 2020. 7 Pettinato 1972, 163–166, in una tabella redatta sulla base delle varie fonti letterarie e lessicali del III millennio a.C., elenca sia i paesi importatori (normalmente la Mesopotamia) che quelli esportatori (come Amano, Amurru, Ansan, Arali, Aratta, Barme, Basalla, Elam, Gubin, Hama, Harali, Kagalad, Kahursaga, Magda, Marhasi, Mari, Suburtu, Susa, Tidatum, Tukris, Umanum, Ursu e Zalamgar). Elenca anche le merci importate: argento, oro, elettro, gioielleria, piombo, rame, stagno, ascia, alabastro, © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

60

Odoardo Bulgarelli

pagasse queste importazioni con orzo, tessuti, lana, olii e, in particolare con l’inizio del II millennio a.C., con più frequenti e consistenti quantitativi di argento rispetto al passato. I rapporti commerciali della Mesopotamia con tali paesi furono, anche a seconda dei periodi, di tipo diretto (cioè con il paese che produceva le merci) o indiretto (se il paese con cui la Mesopotamia commerciava fungeva soltanto da intermediario delle merci provenienti da paesi terzi). Inoltre, un paese poteva svolgere ambo le funzioni in quanto poteva esportare sia merci proprie che merci importate da altri paesi. Poteva infine accadere che vi fosse una catena di intermediari prima che le merci giungessero nel luogo di destinazione finale (come la Mesopotamia). In definitiva, quindi, una complessa e vasta rete terrestre e marittima che, percorsa da una pluralità di merci, andava dall’Asia Centrale, alla Valle dell’Indo, all’Iran, al Golfo Persico, alla Mesopotamia, alla Siria e, sembra, financo all’Egitto.8 Sulle merci che transitavano su tali rotte non mancano però incertezze. Esse possono riguardare i percorsi seguiti, il paese di origine delle merci ovvero la natura dei rapporti tra i vari partners (se diretti o indiretti). Inoltre, un tema su cui si discute è quello della presenza (temporanea o permanente) di genti di un paese in un altro paese con il fine di allacciare rapporti commerciali tra quest’ultimo paese e la casa madre. In proposito, taluni giungono anche a ritenere che tale presenza potesse talvolta assumere la forma di fondazioni in loco di colonie o forme similari, come sembra essere stato, a esempio, per le colonie di Meluhha fondate in Oman e per i “villaggi” che la stessa Meluhha avrebbe fondato in Mesopotamia (provincia di Lagash/Girsu) nella seconda metà del III millennio a.C. Ovviamente, il movimento di merci e beni poteva dipendere da motivi diversi da quelli commerciali, come quello del pagamento di tributi, bottini di guerra e doni. Sotto questo aspetto, purtroppo, le fonti scritte non sono sempre esplicite il che può dar luogo, nei singoli casi, a possibili non univoche interpretazioni sulla natura di movimenti di queste merci.9 Ma quel che più rileva è comunque che, pur con le incertezze di cui si è detto, possiamo ormai dire che sono iniziate a diradarsi quelle fitte nebbie che nel passato sembravano avvolgere tali commerci. Lo scenario che incomincia calcedonio, corniola, diorite, lapislazzuli, pietra da costruzione, pietre preziose e semipreziose, topazio, martello, incudine, scalpello, argilla, sabbia, bitume, lino, lana, tessuti, lavoro, abete, cedro, cipresso, ebano, fico, ginepro, legno, noce, palma, platano, quercia, carro, battello, tavolo, trono, aglio, canna, dattero, orzo, sesamo, bestiame, bue, cane, cavallo, corvo, elefante, gallo, oca, pavone, pecora, pesce e suino. Per un’analisi dettagliata si veda anche Heimpel 1987. 8 Cf. Verderame 2020. 9 Per una critica delle fonti e della loro interpretazione si veda Verderame 2020. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

La Mesopotamia

61

sempre meglio a emergerne è quello di una sorta di vasta “ragnatela” di reti di scambi che copriva una vastissima area comprendente anche paesi molto lontani tra di loro. Al momento, a causa di una sostanziale mancanza di fonti scritte (se si esclude di fatto la Mesopotamia), i progressi nella conoscenza di questa complessiva rete di scambi appaiono in buona parte legati agli studi basati sui rinvenimenti archeologici, studi che, in particolare negli ultimi tempi, appaiono dare un contributo sempre maggiore alla conoscenza delle relazioni tra paesi.10 L’attraversamento del Golfo Persico richiedeva l’utilizzo di consistenti flotte di imbarcazioni di diversa stazza e nazionalità. Tali imbarcazioni approdavano nei vari porti dislocati nelle isole e sulla costa occidentale e orientale del Golfo Persico e del Mar Arabico.11 Nei più di mille anni di tali scambi, tra i porti coinvolti in questo commercio (dei veri e propri empori commerciali) vi furono, nei diversi periodi, Guabba, Ur, Tarut, Failaka, Barhain, Umm an-Nar, Tell Abraq, Bushire, Ra’s al Hadd e Ras al Jinz. Essi non furono sempre attivi contemporaneamente. La loro funzione fu, a seconda dei casi, quella di imbarco delle merci provenienti dalle zone dell’interno di un paese o di transito delle merci provenienti da altri paesi. Insomma, come si è detto, un complesso intreccio di rotte e transazioni commerciali che era gestito da mercanti di diversi paesi che viaggiavano con le loro merci – prima per conto essenzialmente delle istituzioni e poi anche per conto proprio – da un paese all’altro verosimilmente lungo percorsi sovente avventurosi. Come detto, le prime informazioni scritte su tali commerci riguardano Dilmun. Mentre tale paese inizia a essere menzionato sin dalla fine del IV millennio a.C. per gli altri paesi occorrerà attendere il periodo sargonico (2350–2200 a.C.). Ciò comporta che per il periodo precedente a quello sargonico occorrerà fare riferimento alle fonti archeologiche e, per analogia, alle successive fonti scritte.12 In particolare, per decenni si è discusso sulla localizzazione dei summenzionati paesi giungendo oggi a una certa condivisione sui loro 10

Per una rassegna delle fonti scritte si veda di recente Verderame 2020. Su tale commercio si veda anche Peyronel 2008. 11 Sulle imbarcazioni che, dal tempo di Ubaid in poi, furono usate nei commerci svoltisi lungo il Tigri e l’Eufrate, ma anche nel Golfo, e che durante il periodo di Ur III videro l’esistenza di ampi cantieri navali che impiegavano un numeroso personale, e, ancora, sull’affermazione del re Ibbi-Suen di poter fornire grano trasportandolo su 600 imbarcazioni, si veda Carter 2012. Sui cantieri navali, su una flotta di 223 imbarcazioni del tempo di Ur III, sulla diversa capacità di trasporto delle singole imbarcazioni, ecc., si veda Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 104–112. I due studiosi affermano inoltre che, al tempo di Ur III, nel Guabba esisteva un cantiere navale che impiegava dai 30 ai 60 lavoratori (Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 74). 12 Tra queste evidenze archeologiche possiamo ricordare il rinvenimento in un paese di merci e beni originarie di altro paese come ceramiche, cretule, sigilli, lapislazzuli, clorite, metalli, ecc. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

62

Odoardo Bulgarelli

approssimativi confini. Così si ritiene che Dilmun (la cui estensione appare variare nel tempo) potesse da ultimo comprendere le isole di Tarut, Bahrain, Failaka e la costa del Golfo Persico circostante a queste isole, che Magan sia da identificare con l’attuale penisola dell’Oman ed Emirati Arabi (e forse oltre), che Meluhha sia da allocare nella Valle dell’Indo e che Marhaši si possa identificare con la provincia iraniana di Kerman. Tenteremo ora di tracciare un sintetico excursus dell’evoluzione di tali commerci con il Golfo. Come detto, lo faremo essenzialmente attraverso le fonti scritte non potendo, purtroppo per questioni di spazio, soffermarci su quelle, pur rilevanti, archeologiche. 1. Per il periodo arcaico (fine IV millennio–2650 a.C.) le fonti scritte (liste lessicali e testi economici) ci forniscono le prime informazioni sulle importazioni in Mesopotamia di rame proveniente da Dilmun, paese questo che agiva da intermediario in quanto il rame veniva estratto nelle miniere di Magan.13 2. Per il periodo pre-sargonico (2650–2350 a.C) le fonti scritte incominciano a fornirci più consistenti informazioni. Abbiamo sette analoghe brevi iscrizioni del sovrano di Lagash, Ur-Nanshe (XXV secolo a.C.). Esse sono normalmente interpretate come riguardanti importazioni in Mesopotamia di legname proveniente da Dilmun (Tarut) e destinato alla costruzione di templi.14 Foster (1997, 53–62) cita inoltre sei testi scritti provenienti da Lagash risalenti al XXIV secolo a.C. Essi riguardano importazioni da Dilmun pagate con grano, tessuti e argento. In particolare, in uno di tali testi è indicata l’importazione da Dilmun di rame e stagno pagata con 5 kg. di argento oltre che con lana o tessuti. Lambert (1981, 179) ritiene che all’epoca i rapporti di Lagash con Dilmun fossero già intensi e che nel paese operasse una sorta di Ministero del Commercio Estero (amministrato da Ur-Emush, il “grand marchand”) preposto ai commerci con Dilmun. Laursen / Steinkeller (2017, 17–20) ritengono che, sulla base delle evidenze archeologiche, in tale periodo Magan avesse consolidato la sua posizione e le sue relazioni con Marhashi e Meluhha appoggiandosi sui porti di Umm an-Nar, di Ra’s al-Hadd e Ra’s al Jinz. Gli scambi avrebbero riguardato lapislazzuli, oro, vasi di steatite e clorite inviati a Magan da Marhashi o Meluhha (Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 23). Tutto ciò avrebbe fatto svolgere a Magan un ruolo (notevolmente) più importante rispetto al passato mentre il suo rame sarebbe affluito al porto di Umm an-Nar e da qui inviato (tramite Dilmun)

13

Su questa documentazione, Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 21 n. 58. In tale periodo (come in quello precedente) le fonti archeologiche supportano la presenza di commerci mesopotamici con il Golfo. 14 Per il testo di tali iscrizioni, Frayne 1998, 84, 88, 104, 107, 109–110, 112. Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 21 n. 59, parlano di “submit” e quindi di tributo e non di importazioni. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

La Mesopotamia

63

in Mesopotamia.15 Peraltro, le analisi condotte sul rame ritrovato in Mesopotamia confermano che in quel tempo (ma anche successivamente) la Mesopotamia importava, tramite Dilmun, ingenti quantità di rame.16 3. Nel periodo sargonico (ca. 2350–2200 a.C.) si forma in Mesopotamia quello che spesso è considerato il primo impero della storia. I suoi contatti con il Golfo subiranno una evoluzione rispetto al periodo precedente in quanto sarà attuato, secondo Laursen e Steinkeller (2017, 30ss., cf. anche Steinkeller 2013, 515), un controllo generalizzato e diretto sull’ampia rete di rotte commerciali terrestri e marittime che andava dall’Asia al Golfo Persico al Mediterraneo. Taluni giungono a pensare che potesse essere stato costituito anche il primo impero commerciale nella storia dell’uomo.17 Di particolare interesse è un breve passo (compreso in due ampie iscrizioni) in cui Sargon I (fondatore dell’impero) afferma di aver fatto “attraccare al porto di Akkad le navi provenienti da Meluhha, Magan e Dilmun”, frase che si ritiene attesti che il sovrano avrebbe allacciato rapporti commerciali tra la Mesopotamia e tali tre paesi.18 La principale novità sarebbe stata che, oltre all’intensificarsi degli scambi, ormai i rapporti commerciali con questi tre paesi erano divenuti diretti con conseguente ridimensionamento del ruolo di intermediazione di Dilmun. Tra le merci importate troviamo, ancora una volta, grandi quantità di rame che i mesopotamici seguitavano a pagare con orzo, tessuti e olio. Secondo Foster (2016, 180), che ha dedicato i suoi studi a questo periodo, in quel tempo operava in Mesopotamia un’associazione di mercanti (con un “capo mercanti”) che assomigliava alla nostra Camera di Commercio.19 4. Dopo la caduta dell’impero sargonico e il breve periodo dei Gutei (poco documentato), la Mesopotamia verrà governata per un secolo dalla III Dinastia di Ur (XXI secolo a.C.) a cui si deve la fondazione di uno stato fortemente accentrato. Tale stato darà di nuovo impulso, rispetto al periodo dei Gutei, ai commerci apportandovi ancora una volta significativi mutamenti come l’apparente sostanziale cessazione dei precedenti rapporti diretti con Marhaši, Meluhha e Dilmun. Ormai l’interlocutore commerciale privilegiato della 15

A Umm an-Nar è stato ritrovato un magazzino che serviva tra l’altro alla fusione e lavorazione del rame. 16 Sugli ingenti quantitativi di rame che circolavano all’interno della Mesopotamia e sulle analisi condotte su tale metallo per stabilirne la provenienza, Foster 1982, 32–37; Begemann et al. 2010. 17 Steinkeller 2013, 415, afferma: “… Sargon and his followers created a commercial empire, which extended from the Mediterranean coast to the borders of Kerman”. 18 Per il testo di tali due iscrizioni, Frayne 1993, 28 e 30. In esse si parla per la prima volta di Magan e Meluhha. 19 In generale sull’economia nel periodo sargonico, Foster 2015, 7–23, e 2016, 178–187; Liverani 1995, 241–244, 249–251 (ove a p. 251 dice che in quel tempo “… si configura un ‘sistema mondo’ abbastanza strettamente integrato …”). Sulla formazione degli imperi, Liverani 2014, 473–570, e 2017. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

64

Odoardo Bulgarelli

Mesopotamia per il commercio con il Golfo appare divenuto Magan tanto che il sovrano mesopotamico Ur-Namma si vanta, in una sua iscrizione, di aver ristabilito il commercio con Magan.20 Le fonti scritte ci dicono che il tempio mesopotamico di Nanna svolse in quel tempo un ruolo chiave nel commercio con il Golfo.21 Per suo conto agivano i mercanti Pu’udu, che allora, secondo Laursen / Steinkeller (2017, 57), era a capo di una sorta di Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero, e suo figlio, Lu-Enlila, che in seguito appare prendere il posto del padre. Questi provvedevano ad acquistare a Magan rame e altri beni, come perline preziose, avorio, ocra, cipolle. Per il trasporto si avvalevano di una flottiglia, probabilmente ormeggiata a Guabba, di 223 imbarcazioni di varia stazza con 8 capitani e 60 uomini per ogni imbarcazione. Le importazioni venivano pagate, ancora una volta, prevalentemente con orzo e tessuti. Per l’orzo Laursen / Steinkeller (2017, 59) dicono “The volumes of barley that the Ur III state traded to Makkan and various other localities in the Gulf region must have been enormous”. Per la produzione tessile, ritenuta a livello industriale, Laursen e Steinkeller (2017, 75–78) affermano che nella sola Guabba, Kinunir e Nimin (un polo industriale) erano impiegati, secondo le fonti scritte, 10.000 lavoratori specializzati (per lo più donne, ma anche bambini); affermano inoltre che da solo tale polo produceva “… huge quantities of textiles, whose numbers likely were in the tens of thousands per year” (Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 76); inoltre, i due studiosi stimano che “… in the course of the 40 years of the effective existence of the Ur III empire, Babylonia exported to the Gulf region substantially more than 100.000 individual textiles” e affermano che “… of the hundreds of thousands of garments that had likely been shipped from Gu’abba to the various Gulf destinations over the century or so making the existence of the Ur state, only a few were recorded in cuneiform tablets” (Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 59, 5), tenuto anche conto che, sebbene meno documentati, nel paese erano presenti altri centri di produzione tessile come quelli di Ur, Lagash, Girsu, Umma e Šuna-mugi4.22 Con la fine di Ur III si avrà un ulteriore cambiamento: Magan cesserà di essere l’interlocutore privilegiato della Mesopotamia mentre ritornerà in auge la funzione di intermediazione di una Dilmun che ormai da tempo aveva iniziato ad attraversare un periodo di forte cambiamento. Infatti, in concomitanza con il 20

Su tale affermazione del sovrano Ur-Nanna, Frayne 1997, 16, 41, 47. Per una panoramica generale sull’economia di Ur III, Pomponio 2017. 21 Cfr. UET 3 299, 511, 751, 1193, 1507, 1666, 1689; MVN 7 407. 22 La produzione tessile come quella della lana fu sempre fondamentale nell’economia della Mesopotamia. Nel senso di una produzione a livello industriale – oltre che del tessile (in cui appare esservi una abbastanza diffusa condivisione) – si sono espressi alcuni studiosi anche in altri settori come quello della produzione della lana in Mesopotamia e dell’estrazione del rame di Magan. Si parla anche di cantieri navali gestiti a livello industriale. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

La Mesopotamia

65

ridimensionamento della sua funzione di intermediazione commerciale, Dilmun aveva avviato (intorno 2250 a.C.) una profonda riorganizzazione politica e sociale che, due secoli dopo, scaturirà nella formazione di uno stato avanzato, prospero e socialmente stratificato, come ora vedremo. 5. Nel successivo periodo di Isin-Larsa (primi due secoli del II millennio a.C.) avvengono in Mesopotamia nuove importanti modifiche nella gestione del commercio a lunga distanza. Come abbiamo detto, Dilmun prende in posto di Magan mentre Marhashi sembra eclissarsi. Il commercio, che in precedenza era stato gestito essenzialmente dalle istituzioni, viene ora gestito unicamente da mercanti privati il cui fine era quello del perseguimento di un profitto (cosa che, come vedremo a breve, accadrà anche per i contemporanei commerci paleoassiri). Sono di questo periodo più di trenta documenti provenienti dalla città di Ur.23 Essi riguardano importazioni di merci varie da Dilmun come rame, oro, lapislazzuli, corniola, clorite, legname, perline e avorio. Tra questi testi, diversi riguardano il mercante privato Ea-naṣir. Sovente nelle lettere riguardanti tale mercante sono presenti lamentele sulla qualità della merce consegnata.24 Tra l’altro, Ea-naṣir importa in una sola volta da Dilmun ben 180 quintali di rame. Inoltre, tale mercante riceveva da altri privati finanziamenti in argento usati per svolgere commerci con il Golfo al fine di dividere gli utili con tali investitori. Oppenheim (1954, 8–9) elenca, per questo periodo, diverse partnerships volte al profitto. Il pagamento delle merci avviene ora in argento molto più frequentemente che nel passato. Come abbiamo già detto, il neonato stato dilmunita attraversava in quel tempo un periodo di sviluppo e prosperità. Diversi studiosi ci dicono che nel mito mesopotamico di Enki e Ninhursag Dilmun era divenuta un “Paradiso Terrestre” ove le merci affluivano da ben otto paesi diversi: Tukris, Meluhha, Marhashi, Magan, il Paese del Mare, Zalamgar, Elam ed Ur, facendo ricco il paese. Ci dicono anche che per la Mesopotamia il paese di Dilmun era anche la 23

Per alcuni di tali testi datati al periodo di Ur III e quello successivo di Isin-Larsa, Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 92–103. Per un più ampio numero di tali testi di questi due periodi, Leemans 1960. 24 Quello della lamentela sulla qualità delle merci scambiate è un tema ricorrente, specialmente nei periodi di più intensi commerci privati (si pensi al commercio paleoassiro di cui si dirà). In ogni caso, quelle genti furono sempre ben consce che, a esempio, i metalli (come rame, argento, oro e stagno) circolavano con un grado di purezza (e quindi di qualità e valore) diverso per cui sappiamo che non solo conoscevano le tecniche di fusione di tali metalli ma sapevano anche misurarne in qualche modo il grado di purezza. Su quest’ultimo aspetto (purezza) possiamo ricordare che nell’Ebabbar di Larsa (inizi II millennio a.C.) è stato ritrovato, in una giara sigillata, un tesoretto, probabilmente appartenuto a un orefice, comprendente, oltre a pesi, perline, ecc. anche numerosi residui di argento e una pietra di paragone che appare servisse per controllare la purezza del metallo. Ma anche per altri prodotti quelle genti erano in grado di stabilirne le diverse qualità (e quindi i diversi valori), come a esempio per la lana. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

66

Odoardo Bulgarelli

“porta d’oriente”, “porto franco”, “centro off-shore”, “centro di intermediazione commerciale”, “posto di mercato”. Secondo Laursen e Steinkeller (2017, 91): “The fall of the Ur III dynasty marked the end of state-run commercial ventures in the Gulf. From now on, such trading was done by private merchants who possessed ships with smaller capacities and more limited range of operation.” E più avanti proseguono sostenendo che dopo i periodi qui presi in esame: “Babylonia continued to trade with the Gulf, but many centuries would pass before the intensity of exchanges would return to the level they enjoyed at the end of the third millennium BC, the higt point of commercial and cultural contacts between the east and west within that geographical region.” Questo periodo di fioritura del commercio a lunga distanza della Mesopotamia nel Golfo si chiudeva però, abbastanza repentinamente, intorno al 1800 a.C. sostituito da altre vie commerciali come quella del rame che vedrà al suo centro l’isola di Cipro.

2 Gli strumenti economico-finanziari e i mezzi di pagamento nel commercio paleo-assiro (inizi II millennio a.C.) I circa 23.000 testi ritrovati a Kanish (Anatolia), solo parzialmente pubblicati, appartenevano agli archivi di un’ottantina di mercanti assiri la cui attività sarebbe iniziata verso la fine del III millennio a.C. anche se tale attività è documentata per i primi tre secoli del II millennio a.C. e, in particolare, per il periodo tra la seconda metà del XX e la seconda metà XIX secolo a.C.25 Tali commerci videro il coinvolgimento di almeno quattro paesi: Assiria, Anatolia, Babilonia e Iran. Il “centro motore” fu l’Assiria. Questa acquistava stagno dall’Iran e tessuti pregiati dalla Babilonia che, unitamente allo stagno proveniente dall’Iran (che a sua volta lo importava) e ai tessuti di minor pregio prodotti in Assiria, esportava a Kanish e da qui, appoggiandosi su una quarantina di colonie, vendeva in Anatolia. Nel contempo, gli assiri gestirono, all’interno dell’Anatolia, un commercio di lana e rame che, come quello di stagno e tessuti, era volto al perseguimento di un profitto. Si valuta che l’insieme di questi commerci potesse fruttare agli assiri un utile netto che normalmente poteva essere del 50%.26 Tale commercio si snodava quindi attraverso una vasta rete commerciale.27 Il principale mezzo di pagamento fu 25

Per una panoramica generale su tali archivi si vedano Michel 2001, Veenhof 2013b, Larsen 2015. 26 Sul tema della bramosia di denaro da parte dei mercanti assiri, Michel 2008. 27 Su tale rete commerciale, Veenhof 2010. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

La Mesopotamia

67

l’argento (meno l’oro).28 L’insieme dell’argento (e dell’oro), che così affluiva nelle casse anatoliche degli assiri, veniva poi inviato alla casa madre (l’Assiria) dove l’argento veniva usato per allestire nuove carovane e per investimenti; si ritiene anche che venisse usato per pagare lo stagno iraniano e i tessuti pregiati babilonesi.29 Ciò dava luogo a un vasto circuito economico (di merci) e monetario (argento-moneta). Larsen (2015, 189–191) stima in 32,3 tonnellate (stima che appare prudenziale rispetto ad altre) l’argento arrivato in Assiria dalla vendita in Anatolia di tessuti e stagno movimentato nei 30 anni di maggiore intensità degli scambi, tanto da far dire allo studioso “… that we are dealing with a commercial system of very considerable magnitude” (Larsen 2015, 190).30 Per sostenere questi commerci, gli Assiri si avvalsero di una vasta gamma di strumenti economici e finanziari. Sotto il profilo economico, costituirono società e ditte, allestirono carovane dirette a Kanish e da qui verso le altre colonie anatoliche, si avvalsero di mercanti e “capo mercanti”, di agenti commerciali, spedizionieri, trasportatori, capi carovana, dipendenti, ecc. Dal punto di vista finanziario, ricorsero frequentemente ai prestiti a interesse che, erogati da prestatori di fondi e banche,31 prevedevano normalmente tassi del 30% l’anno.32 Costituirono partnerships33 e posero in essere particolari tipi di contratto per

28

Sulla entità dei prezzi, sulla differenza tra prezzi di acquisto e vendita delle merci (anche tra le diverse città), sulla loro fluttuazione, sulla scarsità di merci dovuta anche a problemi interni al paese di provenienza delle merci (rivolte, guerre, ecc.), sulla saturazione o interruzione del mercato, sulla presenza di posti di mercato in diverse città, Dercksen 2014; ovviamente la presenza di tali aspetti contribuiscono a darci un quadro dinamico e articolato di quel commercio. 29 Di conseguenza anche le esportazioni di stagno dall’Iran e quelle di tessili pregiati dalla Babilonia verso l’Assiria furono ingenti e quindi ingenti dovettero essere le loro entrate in argento il cui utilizzo da parte di questi primi due paesi non ci è noto. 30 Purtroppo, i testi non ci forniscono di fatto sufficienti informazioni sulla forma con cui circolava l’argento per cui rimane aperta la discussione tra gli studiosi. In proposito si veda a esempio l’iniziativa di Peyronel 2010 nel tentativo di meglio delineare il ruolo monetario dell’argento e le modalità e forma della sua circolazione. 31 Sui mercanti-banchieri assiri, Michel 2001, 307, 324–327; Veenhof 1999, 65, 68, 75. 32 I prestiti, usualmente in argento, potevano essere anche erogati in rame e, in Anatolia, in stagno. In tema di tassi di interesse Dercksen (2014, 95–96), subito dopo aver evidenziato che “The most common rate of interest … was … a rate of 30% per year”, afferma che gli altri tassi di interesse annuali paleo-assiri sull’argento erano del 16 ⅔, 20, 25, 40, 50, 60, 90, 100, 120%, evidenziando poi che, in alcune tavolette di prestito, viene semplicemente detto (senza indicarne la misura) che il tasso di interesse da applicare è quello “secondo il decreto della colonia”, il che lascia intendere che vi dovesse essere una certa disciplina di tali tassi imposta dall’alto. 33 Sulle partnerships paleo-assire, Michel 2015, 57–78, 66–69; 2001, 303–357; Larsen 1977, 2010, e 2015, 217–227 (tra le partnerships da quest’ultimo citate figura anche una © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Odoardo Bulgarelli

68

agevolare i loro commerci. Si avvalsero dei contratti di compravendita a pronti e a termine. Fecero usualmente ricorso al credito e, per non pagare le tasse, ricorsero al contrabbando.34 Si avvalsero di pegni e garanzie per tutelarsi dai rischi di insolvenza.35 A tutela del proprio profitto non disdegnarono di aprire controversie con le controparti commerciali ricorrendo anche a giudici. Tali commerci furono anche facilitati dalla stipula di trattati tra l’Assiria e l’Anatolia.36 Quindi, un sistema commerciale di natura privata estremamente articolato in cui erano diffusi l’uso di una pluralità di strumenti economicofinanziari e … di una moneta: l’argento a peso!37

3 Conclusioni Per concludere, possiamo sintetizzare dicendo che, tra la fine del IV e gli inizi II millennio a.C., l’economia di tipo accentrato della Mesopotamia vide svilupparsi un commercio a lunga distanza il cui volume fu ben superiore a quello del passato. La sua gestione avvenne con modalità e per volumi alquanto diversi a seconda dei singoli periodi. Tale commercio fu sempre gestito da mercanti che, in un primo tempo, agirono essenzialmente per conto delle istituzioni ma che, successivamente, incominciarono anche a operare sempre più intensamente in proprio e/o per conto di terzi (diversi dalle istituzioni). Paesi che agirono come intermediari (si pensi a Dilmun, a Umm an-Nar e all’Assiria) ne trassero indubbi benefici economici. Per agevolare tali commerci quelle genti si avvalsero talvolta anche di colonie fondate in altri paesi (come fecero a esempio la Mesopotamia e l’Assiria). Talvolta, furono stipulati trattati a protezione di tali commerci. Agli inizi del II millennio a.C. l’attività dei mercanti (assiri, ma anche babilonesi) – da sempre “cerniera” di questi commerci38 – divenne, ancor più che nel passato, di tipo privato volto al profitto. In particolare, credito e rischio furono componenti di rilievo dell’attività dei mercanti assiri. Peraltro la Mesopotamia, sin dagli inizi del III millennio – e in un crescendo – aveva partnership commerciale posta in essere tra 15 investitori per un ammontare complessivo di ben 2 talenti e 18 mine di argento [quasi 70 chili]). 34 I mercanti assiri erano soggetti al pagamento di una pluralità di tasse e dazi sia ad Assur, sia ai paesi che attraversavano con le loro carovane, sia a Kanish. Per una schematica tabella delle tasse che i mercanti assiri dovevano pagare, Michel 2015, 66. 35 Frequenti sono i casi di azioni legali contro i debitori e non solo. Per evitare lunghe cause quei mercanti ricorrevano anche a forme di arbitrato. Sulle controversie tra le parti, Michel 2000, 113–139. 36 Sui trattati dei tre millenni a.C. riguardanti il Vicino Oriente Antico, Altman 2010, 17– 36. Sui trattati paleo-assiri a tutela dei mercanti, Larsen 2015, in particolare 146–188; Veenhof 2008, 184–185, e 2013a, 23–57). 37 Sull’uso da parte dei mesopotamici di una moneta e degli strumenti economicofinanziari, Bulgarelli 2005, 2012, e 2015. 38 Sulle origini in Mesopotamia del termine mercante si può vedere Hallo 1992. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

La Mesopotamia

69

incominciato a usare strumenti economico-finanziari e mezzi di pagamento (come l’argento-moneta) che toccarono un apice (mai più raggiunto) nel ripetuto periodo paleo-assiro quando si raggiunse un così elevato grado di conoscenza e dimestichezza nell’uso delle tecniche commerciali da far ritenere che – anche se volessimo prescindere dall’intensità del loro utilizzo (che fu invero elevato) – quegli strumenti e quella moneta … possano, devono, oggi essere considerati gli antesignani degli strumenti economico-finanziari e della moneta del nostro tempo!

Bibliografia Algaze, G., The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization, in: Current Anthropology, 30 (1989) 571–591. — The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Chicago / London 1993. — The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Chicago / London 20052. — Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape, Chicago / London 2008. — The End of Prehistory and the Uruk Period, in: Crawford, H. (ed.), The Sumerian World, London / New York 2013, 68–94. Altman, A., How Many Treaty Traditions Existed in the Ancient Near East?, in: Cohen, Y. / Gilan, A. / Miller, J.L. (eds.), Pax Hethica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honor of Itamar Singer, Wiesbaden 2010,17–36. Begemann, F. et al., Lead Isotope and Chemical Signature from Oman and its Occurrence in Mesopotamia and Sites on the Ancient Arabian Gulf Coast, in: Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 21 (2010) 135–169. Bulgarelli, O., Il regolamento degli scambi nel Vicino Oriente Antico, in: L’economia palaziale e la nascita della moneta: dalla Mesopotamia all’Egeo, Roma 2005, 73–85. — Esisteva la moneta … prima che nascesse la moneta?, in: Notiziario della Banca Popolare di Sondrio 119 (2012) 6–11. — La finanza … esisteva già nel III millennio a.C.?, in: Bancaria 12 (2015) 69– 85. — La Bassa Mesopotamia in epoca arcaica. Considerazioni sul modo di produzione. Seconda metà IV – primo quarto II millennio a.C., in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 89 (2016) 51–57. Carter, R.A., Watercraft, in: Potts, D.T. (ed.), Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madden, MA / Oxford 2012, 347–372.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

70

Odoardo Bulgarelli

Dercksen, J.G., The Old Assyrian Trade and its Participants, in: Backer, H.D. / Jursa, M. (eds.), Documentary Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and GrecoRoman Economic History, Oxford / Philadelphia, PA 2014, 59–112. Foster, B.R., Commercial Activity in Sargonic Mesopotamia, in: Iraq 39 (1977) 31–43. — Umma in the Sargonic Period, Hamden, CT 1982. — Akkadian Economics, in: Rivista di Storia Economica 33/1 (2015) 7–23. — The Age of Agade: Inventing Empire in Ancient Mesopotamia, Abingdon 2016. Frangipane, M., L’economia politica delle élites mesopotamiche nel momento di formazione dello Stato (IV e inizi III millennio a.C.), in: Bulgarelli, O. / Ciocca, P. (eds.), Produzione, commercio, finanza nel Vicino Oriente Antico (3500–1600 a.C.), Roma 2017, 9–27. Frayne, D., Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 2), Toronto 1993. — Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 3/2), Toronto 1997. — Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 1), Toronto 1998. Hallo, W.W., Trade and Traders in Ancient Near East: Some New Perspectives, in: Charpin, D. / Joannès, F. (eds.), La circulation des biens, des personnes e de idée dans la Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 1992, 351–356. Heimpel, W., Das Untere Meer, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 77 (1987) 22–91. Lambert, M., Ur-Emush « Grand-Marchand » de Lagash, in: Oriens Antiquus 20 (1981) 175–185. Larsen, M.T., Partnership in the Old Assyrian Trade, in: Iraq 39/1 (1977) 119– 145. — The Archive of the Šalim-Aššur Family, Volume I: The First Two Generations, Ankara 2010. — Ancient Kanesh, A Merchant Colony in Bronze Age Anatolia, Cambridge 2015. Laursen, S. / Steinkeller, P., Babylonia, the Gulf Region, and the Indus. Archeological and Textual Evidence for Contact in the Third and Early Second Millennia B.C., Winona Lake, IN 2017. Leemans, W.F., Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period, Leiden 1960. Liverani, M., Antico Oriente. Storia Società Economia, Roma / Bari 1995. — Uruk, la prima citta, Bari 1998. — The Ancient Near East. History, Society and Economy, Abingdon 2014. — Assiria. La preistoria dell’imperialismo, Roma / Bari 2017.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

La Mesopotamia

71

Michel, C., Les litiges commerciaux paléo-assyriens, in: Joannès, F. (ed.), Rendre la justice en Mésopotamie, Saint Denise 2000, 113–139. — Correspondance des marchandes de Kanish, Paris 2001. — Tu aimes trop l’argent et méprise ta vie. Le commerce lucratif des Assyriens en Anatolie centrale, in: La ricchezza nel Vicino Oriente Antico, Milano 2008, 37–62 — Production and Trade in the Old Assyrian Period, in: Rivista di Storia Economica 2015 (2015) 57–78. Milano, L. / Parise, N. (eds.), Il regolamento degli scambi nell’antichità (III–I millennio a.C.), Bari 2003. Oppenheim, A.L., The Seafaring Merchants of Ur, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954) 6–17. Pettinato, G., Il commercio con l’estero della Mesopotamia meridionale nel 3° millennio Av. Cr. alla luce delle fonti letterarie e lessicali sumeriche, in: Mesopotamia 7 (1972) 43–166. — I Sumeri, Milano 1994. Peyronel, L., Storia e archeologia del commercio nell’Oriente Antico, Roma 2008. — Ancient Near Eastern Economics: The Silver Question between Methodology and Archaeological Data, in: Matthiae, P. et al (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Volume 1, Wiesbaden 2010, 925–948. Pomponio, F., Elementi dell’economia dello stato neo-sumerico (circa XXI sec. a.C.), in: Bulgarelli, O. / Ciocca, P. (eds.), Produzione, commercio, finanza nel Vicino Oriente Antico (3500–1600 a.C.), Roma 2017, 29–67. Pomponio, F. / Stol, M. / Westenholz, A., Le tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia, Roma 2006. Pomponio, F. / Visicato, G. / Westenholz, A., Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia, Roma 2006. Steinkeller, P., Trade Routes and Commercial Networks in the Persian Gulf during the Third Millennium BC, in: Faizee, C. (ed), Collection of Papers Presented to the Third International Biennial Conference of the Persian Gulf, Teheran 2013, 413–431. Veenhof, K.R., Silver and Credit in Old Assyrian Trade, in: Dercksen, J.G. (ed.), Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, Istanbul 1999, 55–83. — The Death and Burial of Ishtar-Lamassi in Karum-Kanish, in: van der Spek, R.J. (ed.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Bethesda 2008, 97–120. — Ancient Assur: The City, its Traders, and its Commercial Network, in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 53 (2010) 39–82.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

72

Odoardo Bulgarelli

— New Mesopotamian Treaties from Early Second Millennium BC from karum Kanesh and Tell Leilan, in: Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law 19 (2013a) 23–57. — The Archives of Old Assyrian Traders: their Nature, Functions and Use, in: Faraguna, M. (ed.), Archives and archival Documents in Ancient Society, Trieste 2013b, 27–61. Verderame, L., The Sea in Sumerian Literature, in: Water History 12/1 (2020) 75–91.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story? Franco D’Agostino

This contribution is a little token of friendship for the Jubilee.1 Franco (Francesco Pomponio) is a good friend since many years and, as many of the readers probably know, he is not only one of the best assyriologists of his generation (and beyond), but also a professional expert of thrillers and detective stories.2 This is the reason why I decided to sort out of the Ur III documentation, one of his main field of expertise, one peculiar story they seem to tell, probably related to a criminal action referring to barley theft, in the hope that Franco will find it intriguing enough for his sophisticated literary taste.3

1 Barley theft in Ur III To barley theft hints in the Neo-Sumerian documentation a series of attestations that, though rarely in a direct way and with much details, tell about issues related with the disappearing of barley. The theft of (small or huge quantities of) barley must have been a common event in the times of the Third Dynasty of Ur, and the reason can be easy to understand: this good, beyond its being the fundamental nourriture of the population at every level, had a clear value as economic middle of payment/exchange and thesaurization (hoarding)4 and,

1

Texts abbreviations follow those of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/abbreviations_for_assyriology), to which add Nisaba 31 (Foster / Greco / Alivernini 2019). 2 See e.g. the Jubilee’s volume of 2008. The author of this contribution is a non professional writer of noir novels (Le finestre su via Baccina, 2000; La Rosella di Pennant, 2018), but by far not an expert of this kind of literature (especially if compared with Francesco Pomponio). 3 Beyond this, it must be remembered here, and by me never forgotten, that Franco helped me and my team at the very beginning of my adventure in Iraq, in the excavations of Abu Tbeirah, offering with great liberality 10,000 euros from his research in the University of Messina for my project: grazie ancora, Franco! 4 On barley as a middle of exchange and loan between households in Ur III see Notizia 2017–2019. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

74

Franco D’Agostino

contrarily to silver, it was much easier to be found in the everyday life.5 See, for instance, the following examples (as it will be evident from the texts cited, and as it is to be expected, this situation seems to be ubiquitous in many places of the Ur III state). 1. ĜARšana CUSAS 3 1063, ŠS 9/ix/obv. 1. 0.2.0 še 2. še zuh-a A-na-ah-i3-[li2] / ašgab 3. ša3 ka i7 nar-e-[ne] 4. ka-ga-na ba-gi-in 5. igi dIškur-illat [šabra]6 6. [igi] A-a-ĝu10 šidim 7. [igi] I-su2-a-ri-iq / sagi rev. 1. [igi Puzur4]-A-ku-um 2. igi Šu-ku-bu-um dub-[sar] (blank space) 3. iti ezem-dŠu-dEN.ZU 4. mu dŠu-dEN.ZU [lugal] / Uri5ki-ma-[ke4] / e2 dŠara2 Umma[ki-ka] / mu-du3 “(The theft of) 120 liters of barley, barley stolen by Anāh-i[lī], the leatherworker, at the mouth of the channel of the ‘singers’, has been confirmed by his own words; in front of Iškur-illat, [the temple-administrator]; [in front of] Ajaĝu, the architect; [in front of] Isu-ariq, the cup-bearer; [in front of Puzur]Akum; in front of Šukūbum, the scri[be].”

5

It must be stressed here from the beginning that no paragraph of the Ur-Namma code deals directly with the theft (zuh) of barley: given the economic documentation, where this event is recorded in various occasions (see below), this act must have been subject to a legal procedure that was related to the administrative praxis more than to the Penal Code (see e.g. the considerations of Roth 2001 for the questions related to the different typologies of texts in relationship with legal praxis). On the other hand, robbery (sa-gaz ~ ak), even if not directly involving barley, is foreseen in the code: §2. tukum-bi lu2-u3 sa-gaz-še3 in-ak in-gaz-e, “if a man will accomplish a robbery, will be executed”—see Civil 2011, 253 ad §2 and n. 39, where it is stressed that barley is one of the most common good to be robbed in the administrative records (see also Wilcke 2014: 455ff.). 6 On dIškur-illat (or Adad-tillatī) see Heimpel 2009, 21ff. and e.g. 31 on his relation with Anāh-ilī, the leather worker; the integration could be also [dub-sar], less probably [-še3] (so CDLI, P324596), no picture of the text is available to me. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story?

75

2. Ĝirsu MTBM 52, -/vii/8 obv. 5–6: 0.0.3 kaš 0.0.3 ninda lugal 8 gin2 i3-ĝeš sa2-du11 u4 8-kam / I-ti-a sukkal še zuh-a-aš im-ši-ĝen-na “30 liters of beer, 30 liters of bread, 8 shekels of vegetable oil, regular attribution, day 8 (of the month), for Iti’a7 who has come to (investigate on) the stolen barley.” 3. Umma CUSAS 39 205, ŠS 4/-/obv. 1. IGeme2-dMa-˹mi˺ 2. geme2 Lugal-ma2-gur8-re dumu Ur-ĝešgigir gala 3. ki-su7 a-ša3 ˹d˺Nin-ur4-ra-ka-ta rev. 1. še im-ma-an-zuh 2. en-nu-ĝa2 i3-in-ti-la-am3 3. lugal-na ba-an-na-šum2 4. mu us2-sa Si-ma-num2ki ba-hul “Geme-Mami, female slave of Lugal-magure, the son of Ur-gigir the lamentation singer, has stolen barley from the threshing floor of the field ‘Ninura’:8 she has been taken into custody (and then) has been released to her master.”

7

Iti’a as envoy (sukkal) is well attested both in Ĝirsu (e.g. Atiqot 4, 10, 16, obv. 5, /xiii/3; perhaps the same person is also labelled aga3-us2 lugal, CTPSM 1 169, rev. 10, /vii/-; and lu2-ĝeštukul gu-la, CT 9, 35, obv. 11, -/iv/12) and in Umma (Pomponio 2018, 150f.); see Pomponio 2018, 17, n. 23, for the possibility that the same messengers can be found in the documentation of the two cities. 8 It seems that the most dangerous moment for the watchmen, and the most propitious for the thieves of the barley was during the threshing (ĝeš ~ e3) which took place in the threshing floor (ki-su7), see e.g. BPOA 2 1886, Š 37/-/-: rev. II 1–III 4: šu-niĝin2 1 guru7 21.38;3.3 gur / šu-niĝin2 5;0.5 gur še zuh-a u3 še kar-ra / gan2 šabra / šu-niĝin2 3 guru7 4.44;3.2 3 sila3 gur // še ĝeš-e3-a / ugula saĝĝa dNin-ĝir2-su / Ur-dLama / ensi2, where the theft (if this is the situation here) happened during the threshing of the barley— see also Bramanti 2019, n. 9 (with bibliography), and below. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

76

Franco D’Agostino

4. Ur UET 3 945, AS 9/-/obv. 1–7: 10.1.0 še gur lugal / še šuku-ra A-hu-DU10 engar / mu še e2-gal ba-anzuh-še3 / nu-banda3 Arad2-ĝu10 / [Lugal]-du24-ur3-re i3-dab5 / [La]-la-a9 nubanda3 gu4 / šu ba-an-ti “[La]la’a, the overseer of plough animals, has received 10 gur and 60 liters of barley, (weighed according) to the royal (measure), barley from the allotment of Ahu-ṭāb, the farmer—[Lugal]-dure has taken over Arad-ĝu, the overseer, because he had stolen that barley from (lit. of) the Palace (translation uncertain).” A particular case is represented by the following text from Nippur, where barley belonging to a state economic structure is improperly sold (in other words, from the point of view of the administration it has been stolen): 5. Nippur MTBM 190, AS 2/xi/obv. 1. 1 gur še 2. i3-dub e2 kikken2-ta 3. Na4-gi-na 4. dumu Ur-dEN.ZU-ka-ra 5. Ur-dIg-alim 6. dumu Ur-ĝešgigir ku3-dim2-ke4 7. in-ši-sa10 8. mu-bi-še3 9. Ur-dIg-alim ku3-dim2 rev. 1. su-su-dam 2. ĝiri3 Lu2-dUtu dumu Ba-zi 3. ziz2-da-bi Na4-gi-na i3-su 4. iti še-sag11-ku5 5. mu dAmar-dEN.ZU lugal-e Ur-bi2-lumki mu-hul “Ur-Igalim, son of Ur-gigir, the goldsmith, has bought from Na-gina, the son of Ur-Suena, 1 gur of barley from the granary of the mill; for this, Ur-Igalim, the goldsmith, must refund (that barley); in charge (of the procedure is) Lu-Utu, son of Bazi; Na-gina will repay its (= of the barley) compensation.” 9

For the integration of the PN see UET 3 1351, broken date, obv. I 9′. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story?

77

In this text the word zuh is not used, even if the administration considered the event for sure as a theft.10

2 Stolen barley in Umma Among the documents that record theft of barley from the city of Umma there is a group hinting to a specific situation involving different people, all in charge of the field Kamari and all of them associated for being responsible of the shortfall of a huge quantity of barley.11 The fact happened in the year AS 7, in the case when we have the month recorded, the incident took place during the months vi and vii. To the best of my knowledge, we have six such documents from Umma, presented below. 1. BPOA 1 1320, Umma, AS 7/-/obv. 1. 36.0.0 še gur 2. la2-ux12 gan2 kab2 [d]u11-[ga] 3. mu lu2 še zuh-a 4. nu-mu-dab5 5. ki-su7-ka gu2-ni 6. bi2-in-du3-a-še3 rev. 1. Ur-ĝešgigir dumu Lugal-lu2-ni-ke4 2. su-su-dam 3. a-ša3 Ka-ma-ri2 4. mu Hu-uh2-nu-riki ba-hul Seal 1. Šeš-a-ni 2. dumu Ur-ĝešgigir 3. sukkal ensi2-ka

10

To this hints the use of the word ziz2-da, the term for “(financial penalty as) compensation (for a criminal act)”, see Wilcke 1991; Westbrook 1996 (both for meaning and variant spellings), 450f. for this text; Neumann 2017 (for the meaning of the text). 11 That the tablets refer to one and the same event is based on the identical (more or less, see below) formulation used in them for recording the reason of the refund (su-su) of the barley involved. 12 On the (possible) reading ux of the sign NI in this case see D’Agostino et al. 2019, 58 ad 4.3 (and Jagersma 2010, 130 ad 6.7). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Franco D’Agostino

78

“Ur-gigir, son of Lugal-luni, must refund 36 gur of barley, shortfall of the checked (income) of the field, because he could not catch the man who stole (that) barley and was negligent13 on the threshing floor; field Kamari.” 2. BPOA 1 813, Umma, AS 7/-/obv. 1. 20.0.0 še gur 2. mu lu2 še zuh-a 3. nu-un-dab5-ba-še3 4. Ur-am3-ma-ke4 5. su-su-dam rev. (blank space) 1. mu Hu-uh2-nu-riki ba-hul Seal 1. Ur-am3-ma 2. dub-sar 3. dumu Na-DI “Ur-amma must refund 20 gur of barley because he could not catch the man who stole (that) barley.” 3. Nisaba 9 243, Umma, AS 7/-/obv. 1. 20.0.0 še gur 2. mu lu2 še zuh-a / nu-un-dab5-ba-še3 3. (blank line) 4. Lu2-dUtu dumu Nin-/me-a-ke4 su-su-dam rev. (blank space) 1. mu Hu-uh2-nu-/riki ba-hul (blank space) “Lu-Utu, son of Ninme’a, must refund 20 gur of barley because he could not catch the man who stole (that) barley.”

13

See Karahashi 2000, 95 ad 6.9.1. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story?

79

4. Nisaba 31 24 (BM 111167), Umma, AS 7/-/obv. 1. 36.0.0 še gur 2. la2-ux gan2 kab2 -ga 3. mu lu2 zuh-a 4. nu-mu-dab5 ki-su7-/ka gu2-ni bi2-/du3-a-še3 rev. 1. Ba-sa6-ke414 2. su-su-dam 3. a-ša3 Ka-ma-ri2 (blank space) 4. mu Hu-hu-nu-ri/ki ba-hul Seal (illegible) “Basag must refund 36 gur of barley, shortfall of the check (income) of the field, because he could not catch the man who stole (that) barley and was negligent on the threshing floor; field Kamari.” 5. BPOA 1 1156, Umma, AS 7/vi/obv. 1. 20.0.0 še gur 2. la2-ux gan2! (ĜA2) kab2 du11-[ga] 3. mu zuh-a nu-mu-dab5 4. ki-su7-ka gu2-ni bi2-du3-a-še3 14 There is the possibility to consider the strange orthography as a different way to indicate the sound /g/, reading -ge2 (E2), respect to the orthographic -ge (GI)—personal communication A. Bramanti. See ITT 5 6707 = NSGU 123, where one finds the PN Kuli-sa6-ge2, which is considered “orthographisch ungewöhnlich” by A. Falkenstein, 1956– 1957, 211, that would represent the only other case of this writing with the verb sa6 to the best of my knowledge, respect to the usual He6-sa6-ge, Igi-sa6-sa6-ge, Lu2-sa6-ge etc. It must be considered, though, that 99% of the use of the sign E2 as -ge2 is to be found during Ur III in the name Ha-ba-lu5-ge2, or in any case in connection with the verb lu5 (A-ki-lu5-ge2, Nisaba 26 78, obv. 14, [-/-/-]—perhaps to be restored Ha!-ba!-lu5-ge2, see obv. 5: kišib Ha-ba-lu5-ge2). Please, note that the only exception Ša-ku3-ge2 in Nisaba 23 62, obv. 7, is a misprint (find the correct Ša3-ku3-ge in the indices of the volume). Note also in the texts from ĜARšana the writing -ge2 after the verb /sig/, written si or si3, e.g. CUSAS 3 54, obv. II 4′; 58, rev. I 6; 146, rev. 6; 274, obv. 3 (si). One wonders whether, as lectio facilior, it is not possible to see in Nisaba 31 24, an unexpected use of the genitive to be considered as a sort of hypercorrection of a scribe whose mother-language was probably not Sumerian (see D’Agostino et al. 2019, 12f.)—this hypothesis, with caution, is followed in the transliteration.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Franco D’Agostino

80

rev. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Ur-Zabalam3ki su-su-dam a-ša3 Ka-ma-ri2ki iti šu-numun mu Hu-uh2-nu-riki ba-hul

Seal (illegible) “Ur-Zabalam must refund 20 gur of barley, shortfall of the checked (income) of the field, because he could not catch (or take over?) stole and was negligent on the threshing floor; field Kamari.” 6. BPOA 2 2595, Umma, AS 7/vii/obv. 1. 60.0.0 še gur 2. la2-ux gan2 kab2 du11-ga 3. mu lu2 še zuh-a nu-mu-dab5 4. ki-su7-ka gu2-ni bi2-in-du3-a-15 rev. 1. Šeš-kal-la su-su-dam 2. a-ša3 Ka-ma-ri2 3. iti min-eš3 4. mu Hu-uh2-nu-riki ba-hul Seal 1. Lugal-ni3-lagar-e 2. dub-sar 3. dumu Da-da “Šeš-kala must refund 60 gur of barley, shortfall of the checked (income) of the field, bec he could not catch the man who stole (that) barley and was negligent on the threshing floor; field Kamari.”

3 The administrative aspects Putting in a table the information of the texts, we get the following chart:

15

R. de Maaijer: ki-su7 KA-gu2-nu bi2-in-du3-a, BDTNS 057543 = BPOA 2 2595. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story?

81

Text

Amount of barley (gur)

la2-ux gan2 kab2 du11-ga

mu (lu2 še) zuh-a *dab5

ki-su7-ka gu2-ni bi2-in-du3

Person involved

BPOA 1 1320

36

●

●

●

Ur-ĝešgigir dumu Lugal-lu2-ni Seal: Šeš-a-ni / dumu Ur-ĝešgigir / sukkal ensi2-ka

BPOA 1 813

20

–

●

–

Ur-am3-ma Seal: Ur-am3-ma / dub-sar / dumu Na-DI

Nisaba 9 243

20

–

●

–

Lu2-dUtu dumu Nin-me-a (Unsealed)

Nisaba 31 24

36

●

●

●

Ba-sa6 (Seal illegible)

BPOA 1 1156

20

●

●

●

Ur-Zabalam3ki (Seal illegible)

BPOA 2 2595

60

●

●

●

Šeš-kal-la Seal: Lugal-ni3lagar-e / dub-sar / dumu Da-da

It seems that these people are not accused of theft, but of failure of monitoring, because there was barley stolen and, due to their negligence, they were unable to catch (or find out who was) the thief. Be it as it may, they are held responsible for the shortfall, and even if not considered thieves, they must refund the barley. The barley was stolen during the threshing on the threshing floor: in the management of the harvest it was probably the most dangerous moment for the watchmen of the administration, and the most propitious for the thieves, given the huge amount of barley stored in a unique place, though theoretically well kept.16 The shortfall is labeled administratively as “shortfall of (= in relation to) the checked (amount)” of the barley of the Kamari field taken to the threshing floor. Indeed, the indication “(in) the field Kamari” appears in the texts nos. 1 (BPOA 1 1320), 4 (Nisaba 31 24), 5 (BPOA 1 1156), and 6 (BPOA 2 2595), while it is missing in nos. 2 (BPOA 1 813) and 3 (Nisaba 9 243). The presence or absence of this final rubric can be meaningful and can be associated to another characteristic of this group of texts: the information on the field where 16

See also n. 8 above. Perhaps the thieves could rely, during the threshing, on the different amount of barley before and after the winnowing in order to get away with it, see Bramanti 2019. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Franco D’Agostino

82

the event took place is associated with the indication of the negligence of the official in charge (1, 4, 5, 6), which is absent if no indication of the place is given (2, 3). In fact, while the expression of the failure in finding the guilty person of the theft is always recorded, as it is apparent from the chart above (sometimes with defective or mistaken writings), two texts do not mention the expression for carelessness in monitoring the safety of the barley. Now, as said above, the missing indication of the negligence-formula is paralleled by the non indication of the field where the theft happened. Moreover, we find two different verbal expression for indicating the (failure in) capturing the thief, namely nu-mu-dab5 (4 times) and nu-un-dab5 (2 times); see the following schema (variants are not considered): Text nu-mu-dab5 BPOA 1 1320

a-ša3 Ka-ma-ri2ki

lu2 še zuh-a nu-un-dab5

●

●

BPOA 1 813

●

Nisaba 9 243

●

Nisaba 31 24

●

●

BPOA 1 1156

●

●

BPOA 2 2595

●

●

Putting the infomation together, one wonders whether the differentiation between the verbal forms nu-mu-dab5 (BPOA 1 1320; BPOA 1 1156; BPOA 2 2595; Nisaba 31 24) versus nu-un-dab5 (BPOA 1 813; Nisaba 9 243) is substantively meaningful; if it is so, on the basis of the cislocative value of prefix m(u)- (D’Agostino et al. 2018: 148ff. ad 5.7) it is possible to hypothesize that the tablets have been written for/by two different recipients, the responsible (nu-un-dab5) or the administration (Central Office, whatever it may be, nu-mudab5).17

4 The officials involved The involved officials are obliged to replace different amounts of barley, due probably to their role and importance inside the economic structure they are in

17

In other words, it is possible that the two elliptical tablets were drawn up by a different scribe. Needless to say, this aspect needs further study (see also n. 20). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story?

83

charge of, even if such a differentiation is difficult to appreciate and demonstrate.18 Official

Amount of barley (gur)

Šeš-kal-la

60

Ba-sa6 Ur-ĝešgigir

36

Lu2-dUtu Ur-am3-ma Ur-Zabalamki

20

From the point of view of the Central Office they share all part of the responsibility of what happened, because they are considered personally guilty for the shortfall directly depending from their negligence (expressly recorded or not in the text). The tablets are all sealed but one (Nisaba 9 243). It is worth noting that the extant seals in the texts are never the ones of the person named in the text itself, but the one of a family member (see below), the only exception being represented by Ur-am3-ma sealing his tablet with his own seal (BPOA 1 813).19 Text

Official

Seal

BPOA 1 1320

Ur-ĝešgigir dumu Lugal-lu2-ni

Šeš-a-ni / dumu Ur-ĝešgigir / sukkal ensi2-ka

BPOA 1 813

Ur-am3-ma

Ur-am3-ma / dub-sar / dumu Na-DI

Nisaba 9 243

Lu-dUtu dumu Nin-me-a

No seal

Nisaba 31 24

Ba-sa6

(Illegible)

BPOA 1 1156

Ur-Zabalamki

(Illegible)

BPOA 2 2595

Šeš-kal-la

Lugal-ni3-lagar-e / dub-sar / dumu Da-da

From the above chart it is possible to carry out the following considerations: 18

To this leads the fact that in our texts there is no specific reason given for the different amounts of barley to be refunded, so this is difficult to imagine that this aspect is tied with the fact itself (see below). 19 This fact could corroborate the hypothesis that the tablets were written for (or by) different users, namely the Central office and the officials, because, as explained above, in the document of Ur-amma we find the verbal form nu-un-dab5 and there is not the clause of the negligence. Now, the only unsealed tablet of the group (Nisaba 9 243) presents the formula nu-un-dab5 and does not record either the “negligence” formula, hinting that it was a document for the personal use of the official involved, which could be sealed or not. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

84

Franco D’Agostino

1. The tablet of text 1 is sealed much probably by the son of the official regarded as responsible for the shortfall, and 2. in the case of text 6 the seal is rolled with all probability by the brother of the official, for which see BPOA 1 727, AS 3/-/-, obv. 5–6: kišib nam-ša3-tam / Šeš-kal-la dumu Da-da. If this implies that the officials needed a guarantee from the family to demonstrate their solvency to repay the barley—family which was so considered responsible together with the official in front of the administration—or if, being somehow under trial, they were not able to sign a document themselves, is difficult to ascertain. Finally, one characteristic many of the officials share, apart from Lu2-dUtu and Ur-ĝešgigir to the best of my knowledge, is that they have the function of ša3tam and seem to have the power to act in the name of the administration (namša3-tam), independently from their actual profession—note that what follows is not a complete list of references: Ba-sa6: AnOr 7, 253, [-/-/-]; Princeton 2 346, AS 2/-/- (both texts sealed: Ba-sa6 / dub-sar / dumu Lugal-sa6-ga); Šeš-kal-la: BPOA 1 680, AS 3/-/-; BPOA 1 727, AS 3/-/-; Ur-am3-ma: AAICAB 1/2, 357, AS 7/-/-; CDLI P424401 (WCMA 93.1.109c, Liu Changyu), AS 8/-/-; UrZabalam3ki: MVN 4 21, ŠS 6/-/-, seal: Ur-Zabalam3ki / aga3-us2 ensi2 / A-a-kalla. How, and if, this information is relevant to the fact recorded in our texts is not clear to me.

5 The plot (?), as a conclusion Once the documentation is presented and briefly commented upon, what is left is speculation. We hope, an educated one. First, the facts. A group of (at least) six persons, probably dub-sar’s acting as people in charge for the field Kamari at Umma with the functions of ugula, nu-banda3, nubanda3 gu4, in one case also aga3-us2, share in front of the Central Office the responsibility of the shortfall of barley that happened in the seventh year of the king Amar-Suena, recorded for the months vi and vii. The loss was due to a theft which took place in the threshing floor during the threshing and winnowing of the barley: unfortunately for the officials involved, they were not able to find out who was the thief, or the thieves, who carried out the theft and so they must refund the barley; in four cases, they are said to have been negligent in monitoring the procedure of the threshing. If we add all the amounts recorded in the texts, the total barley to be replaced should reach the measure of (at least) 172 gur, ca. 30 tons.20 20

Widell 2013, 63f. (1 sila3 = ca. 0,6 kg). I think we are authorized to add all the amounts recorded in the six tablets, even if they present a threefold division (60, 36 and © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Stealing Barley in Ur III: a Detective Story?

85

The tablets are mainly sealed, except one, and when the seal is readable, it is not the seal of the responsible that is rolled, but probably that of a member of his family (either the son or the brother). This opens to the speculation that the family of the official is considered equally guilty of failure of monitoring, and ultimately of the loss of the barley and its consequent refunding, in the eyes of the Central Office. Be it as it may, I have been not able to find how the story ended, apart from the fact that these officials apparently went on to work for the administration in the same position also after this incident, so that there must have been a happy end to the unlucky event of the theft.21 In a relatively little city as Umma was, where much probably the people knew very well each other (especially in certain sectors as the administration of the important field of Kamari), it is quite surprising that these responsible ones were not able to find out the guilty person(s). In any case, the central administration decided, in a Salomonic style, to avoid any problem by assuming the de facto responsibility of all the involved personnel. Well, as said at the beginning, the plot told by our texts is for sure unworthy the high competence of Franco in the field of the romans noirs, but I hope he can appreciate my effort to try to put together his two greatest loves (culturally speaking) of Assyriology and detective stories.

Bibliography Bramanti, A., Before the Harvest? Land-grain Accounts in Early Dynastic Umma, in: Borrelli, N. / Scazzosi G. (eds.), After the Harvest. Storage Practices and Food Processing in Bronze Age Mesopotamia (Subartu 43), Turnhout 2019, 37–44. Civil, M., The Law Collection of Ur-Namma, in: George, A.R. (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection (Cuneiform Texts VI. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17), Bethesda, MD 2011, 221–286. D’Agostino, F. / Spada, G. / Greco, A. / Bramanti, A., La lingua dei Sumeri, Milano 2019. Falkenstein, A., Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, I–III, Munich 1956– 1957. Foster, B. / Greco, A. / Alivernini S., Sargonic Texts from Umma in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago / Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts 20 gur, see above), because the documents record singularly every responsible, so hinting that they do not share the refund of the barley assigned to them with other officials. 21 See e.g. Ur-am3-ma, BPOA 6 308, ŠS 5/v/-; Ur-Zabalamki, BPOA 1 1420, ŠS 5/-/-, to avoid the other too common PNs. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

86

Franco D’Agostino

from the Géjou Collection Kept in the British Museum (Nisaba 31), Messina 2019. Heimpel, W., Workers and Construction Work at Garšana (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 5), Bethesda, MD 2009. Jagersma, B., A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian, PhD Dissertation, Universiteit Leiden 2010. Karahashi, F., Sumerian Compound Verbs with Body-Part Terms, Chicago, IL 2000. Neumann, H., Zum außergerichtlichen Vergleich in Mesopotamien in der Zeit der Wende vom 3. zum 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr., in: Pfeifer, G. / Grotkamp, N. (eds.), Außergerichtliche Konfliktlösung in der Antike. Beispiele aus drei Jahrtausenden, Berlin 2017, 27–42. Notizia, P., I prestiti še ur5-ra di periodo neo-sumerico da Ĝirsu-Lagaš. Gli anni Šulgi 12-39 e nuove fonti documentarie, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 34–36 (2017–2019) 269–285. Pomponio, F., Detti di celebri e di non celebri investigatori, Roma 2008. — The Umma Messenger Texts (SUD 1), Messina 2018. Roth, M.T., Reading Mesopotamian Law Cases PBS 5 100: A Question of Filiation, in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 44 (2001) 243–292. Westbrook, R., zíz-da/kiššātum, in: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 86 (1996) 449–459. Widell, M., Sumerian Agriculture and Land Management, in: Crawford, H. (ed.), The Sumerian World, London 2003, 55–67. Wilcke, C., Die Lesung von ÁŠ-da = kiššātum, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1991) 13–14, no. 16. — Early Ancient Near Eastern Law. A History of Its Beginnings. The Early Dynastic and Sargonic Periods, Winona Lake, IN 2007. — Gesetze in sumerischer Sprache, in: Koslova, N. / Vizirova, E. / Zólyomi, G. (eds.), Studies in Sumerian Language and Literature. Festschrift für Joachim Krecher (Babel und Bibel 8), Winona Lake, IN 2014, 455–616.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

When the Phoenicians Came to Cornwall Benjamin R. Foster

No one knows better than the honoree that detective fiction is the recourse of noble minds. I trust therefore that he will not disdain an excursion into regions of high international philology, based on a passing comment in that genre (the smallest point may be the most essential), and beginning with a simple proposition that inconsistency is the sign of a truly great intellect. It is easy to prove this point from the Canon of Sherlock Holmes. In an unusually irritating mood, he denies to Watson that he has ever heard of Thomas Carlyle and professes no knowledge of the solar system. Watson’s reaction was anguished: “That a civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled around the sun appeared to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly recognize it”. Holmes’s Cartesian riposte was to the effect that the brain is like a little empty attic, in which the fool takes all the “lumber” of every sort that he comes across, but the skillful workman is very careful as to what he stockpiles there. But this is the same man who lectures poor Inspector Mac on Jean-Baptiste Greuze, “who flourished between the years 1750 and 1800, I allude, of course, to his working career”. He doesn’t know Carlyle, but he knows the career of Henry Ward Beecher. We are informed that in later years the master wrote a treatise on beekeeping, with observations on the segregation of the queen, and a treatise on the polyphonic motets of Lassus. Indeed, he stresses the value of education to Inspector Gregson in one speech, and, near his retirement, Holmes even goes so far as to say, “Education never ends … It is a series of lessons with the greatest for the last” (Pomponio 2015, 67). One may thus be surprised, or not, that at one point in his life Holmes undertook to study Aramaic. Where does this language fall into his continuum of useless knowledge, such as planetary theory, to useful knowledge, such as the varieties of newspaper print, tobacco ashes, and playing the violin? The strange destiny of Aramaic, as one of its greatest scholars (Rosenthal 1978) once remarked, was that it began as a local Semitic idiom in late second-millennium northern Syria and by the middle of the first millennium BC had spread throughout Western Asia, partly as a result of mass deportation policies of Assyrian kings. In the sixth century BC, this quondam village tongue was one of the official languages of the Persian Empire, understood from Central Asia to © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

88

Benjamin R. Foster

the First Cataract of the Nile, from the Aegean to India. It became the primary language of Jewish and Christian discourse during the early Christian era, and a form of it, Syriac, became the written language of eastern, non-Chalcedonian Christianity, noted for its rich devotional poetry, chronicle writing, hagiography, sermons, and Neo-Platonic philosophy, throughout the Middle Ages (if one may still use this term). Through the medium of Syriac, ancient Greek authors such as Aristotle, Euclid, and Galen reached the Arabs and were eventually reintroduced to the Latin-speaking world through the translation movement in Spain and Sicily from Arabic into Latin. But, like poor Inspector Mac on the subject of eighteenth-century painting, a Victorian gentleman might, at this flood of fascinating information, endeavor to look interested. How would a knowledge of Aramaic be useful to a London consulting detective? Before we probe this question, we should note that Aramaic is by no means the only foreign language to which there is explicit reference in the Canon that Holmes could boast some knowledge of. In fact, Holmes was a rather accomplished linguist. He can quote Horace to the point, but I think that just about anyone who had retained the trappings of a Victorian English education could have had a tag or two of Horace handy. He can quote Flaubert in the original: “L’Homme c’est rien, l’oeuvre c’est tout”. He can trot out a much longer and more complicated epigram from “old Goethe”, as he calls him rather disrespectfully, in the anti-German mode proper to an Englishman of his time, to the effect that human beings are not consistently manufactured, thus reinforcing my opening point about consistency. He knows without looking it up the German word for “revenge”, a word American graduate students in Assyriology, who must pass a German exam, may not always be likely to know. He can recognize and even compose an Italian imperative with a candle at short notice. To this extent he foreshadows the new Europe of the Common Market. We never hear of him actually conversing in a foreign language save in his imposture of Altamount, the spark-plug supplier, in which he regularly speaks American, to the defilement of his English well. So, à priori, we can argue that Holmes thought foreign languages worthy of his attention, a view consonant with educational principles of his time, which placed the study of foreign languages, especially the Classical tongues, not to mention French and German, at the top of useful exercises for the brain. But Aramaic? Here is the pertinent passage. Holmes had decided to vacation in Cornwall, partly to rest from hard work and partly to take his mind off his drug addiction. Watson tells us: “The ancient Cornish language had … arrested his attention, and he had, I remember, conceived the idea that it was akin to the Chaldean, and had largely derived from the Phoenician traders in tin. He had received a consignment of books upon philology and was settling down to develop this thesis when suddenly …” (The Devil’s Foot). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

When the Phoenicians Came to Cornwall

89

Holmes’s recourse to Semitic language study to wean himself from drug addiction reminds us of St. Jerome’s recourse to Hebrew study to forget the attractions of women and the pleasures of the table (Epistle 125; Fremantle 1893, 248). Thus treating Semitic language study as a form of ascetic mortification has noble, even saintly precedent. But Aramaic? Owen Dudley Edwards, the erudite Edinburgh commentator on His Last Bow, with wonderful zeal, has dredged up a literary satire, Translation from an Ancient Chaldee Manuscript, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 2 (1817), 89– 96, pasquinading the local literary scene in the style of the Revelations of John the Divine (Edwards 1993, 195–196). The rub lay on a play between Chaldean and Caledonian. Our commentator is hard put to it to show how A. Conan Doyle, who was, after all, born in 1859 and had a healthy childhood education, would have known of such a ephemeral antique. The commentator reconstructs a tutor who knew of this essay, suggests it was indeed “famous”, and that the tutor taught it to Doyle and Doyle remembered it all those years later. I admire the commentator’s resourcefulness and scholarship, but perhaps he has missed something bigger than Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, even if he may be forgiven for not likely knowing that the first dictionary of Akkadian, and the first major text publications in Assyriology, were produced by a scholar of Cornish, Edwin Norris. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw considerable discussion of the nature of language. Some were interested in the origins of language: was there one primeval tongue from which all others descended, and what was that language? Others, like John Locke, avoided this problem by claiming that language was an arbitrary, learned social convention, rather than an outside gift or something innate in all people: people grunted or yelled, like babies, to express sensations, thence, in due course, Milton. Still others were quite as certain that there was an original language, for which one obvious candidate was Hebrew, another, Hebrew’s arch-rival, Aramaic. “Adam”, after all, meant something in Hebrew, Adam had given the animals Hebrew names, God spoke Hebrew to Adam and Eve and they understood him without having gone to Hebrew school. It would be worth a wound, it would be worth many wounds, to me to tell this story, but the game is afoot. Suffice it to say, then, that Hebrew was a reigning favorite as candidate for the original language of the human race. One could use the testimony of Moses, or one could use etymology: the English word “earth”, for example, is clearly the same word as Hebrew eretz, which means the same thing. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the Hebrew trefonds even of the Homeric poems was considered in a treatise entitled Homerus Hebraizans, printed at Oxford in 1658 (another work of the same title and ilk was printed at Dortmund in 1704). Yale’s first Professor of Oriental Languages, Ebenezer Grant Marsh, to choose an unimpeachable New England example, accepted the priority of Hebrew, but

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

90

Benjamin R. Foster

regarded the Hebrew writing system as later, because no God-given alphabet would have manifested the absurdities of Hebrew, which lacked ways to write vowels (Marsh 1798, 10). In such a climate, Chaldean = Caledonian, the Scotch, and Phoenician = Fein, the Irish, not to mention barrat tanak “land of tin” = Britain, were no jokes at all but serious historical writing. But Aramaic? Here a very distinguished scholar of the English language may be able to help. He writes, speaking of the Gothic and Celtic families, which he considered the two main linguistic families of Europe: “The common parent of both was the Phenician or Hebrew … Of these two ancient languages, the Celtic or British comes the nearest to the Hebrew … the Gothic bears a greater affinity to the Greek or Roman, as being derived from the ancient Ionic or Pelasgic from Phenician …”. According to this scholar, primitive Celtic was best preserved in islands and mountainous regions, hence England, especially Wales and Cornwall. There was a clear affinity between Hebrew and British, shown by links such as Hebrew shekel = English skill, Hebrew rechus = English riches. The difference between Ares and Mars was the Semitic preformative /m/. English endings in –th, such as “birth” and “truth,” were related to Aramaic and Hebrew words in /-yt/, etc. There were astonishing direct loans, such as German binnen compared to Arabic bayna, English “over” compared to Semitic ‘eber, and many others. English was built up from old Semitic monosyllables. On the historical scene, Ireland was colonized from Spain or Carthage; hence Irish was a mixture of Celtic and Punic. Adam, God, and Eve had actually conversed in “Assyrian” (the Classical word for Aramaic, alas for Assyriologists). Indeed, of the languages now known, the most ancient was, in fact, not Hebrew, but Chaldean, because the descendants of Noah had settled in Shinar or Chaldea. Hebrew had lost more of its original words than other Semitic languages, such as Arabic or Aramaic, and, taken as a whole, the European languages had more in common with Chaldee or Arabic, than with Hebrew. What ineffable twaddle. Who, then, is this linguist? He was no less than America’s great promoter of the English language, Noah Webster. The above remarks are excerpted from his Dissertation on the English Language, first published in 1789, and incorporated into his American Dictionary of the English Language, which first appeared in 1806, a decade before the Blackwood’s Magazine spoof. The old subtitle to Webster’s dictionary ran “to which is prefixed an Introductory Dissertation on the Origin, History, and Connection, of the Languages of Western Asia and Europe, with an Explanation of the Principles on which Languages are Formed …”. I have used the 1848 edition, revised by Chauncey A. Goodrich, Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory in Yale College. Noah Webster graduated from Yale in the Class of 1778. He published his American spelling book in 1782, which, by 1837, had sold an estimated 15 million copies in the United States, the closest thing to a best seller, after the © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

When the Phoenicians Came to Cornwall

91

Bible itself, in the New World. Webster’s was the first English dictionary intended to reflect current accepted speech, based on collection of actual instances. It was, in fact, the best handy-sized, useful, reliable dictionary of the English language, anywhere in the English-speaking world, including the sceptered isle, and sold well there in Doyle’s time. Although he was reputed to read twelve languages, I don’t think Webster knew any Semitic language at all, nor do I know what the apostolic twelve purported to be. His source for this farrago of misinformation was the work of an English country clergyman named Henry Rowland, whose Mona Antiqua Restaurata, first published in 1723, lined up Hebrew words with English ones in tabular form. Webster’s contemporary, the Massachusetts clergyman William Bentley, who actually could read both Arabic and Hebrew, dismissed him biliously but not entirely without reason as a “literary quack” (quoted by Pochmann 1957, 53). In the early editions of his dictionary, up to about 1846, each English word, where possible, was printed with a Semitic etymology, the source for which was Yale’s Professor of Hebrew, Josiah Gibbs, a younger contemporary of Webster’s and perhaps America’s most competent Semitist of his time, a careful scholar of Hebrew and Aramaic. How he could associate himself with such a venture I cannot say, but suspect that he was flattered by the attention of a very distinguished man. Gibbs was justly famed as one of Yale’s most boring teachers but also as one of her foremost scholars (Foster 1999). A cruel joke used to make the rounds of ante-bellum New Haven that Gibbs fell into a lengthy philological dispute with his teacher, the Yale man Moses Stuart, Professor of Hebrew at Andover Seminary, but the subject of their dispute turned out to be a speck of dirt on the paper. Webster’s etymologies had their critics, of course, long ago, a well-known case being his Persian etymology for the ever-mysterious “Yankee” (Janghe, a warlike man or swift horse, cited Andresen 1990, 263 note 4), but most histories of American linguistics do not mention his privileging of Aramaic and Phoenician, perhaps out of embarrassment. Webster was thought rather a pagan by New England Congregational standards, being a friend of Benjamin Franklin, for instance, but not long before his death in 1843 he found religion through the inspiration of that same Moses Stuart. Stuart had reinvented Christian Hebrew in America in the early nineteenth century, rescuing it from being a tiresome college formality to a serious intellectual enterprise as it was being carried on in the best German universities of the 1820s and 1830s (Giltner 1988). Gibbs was one of Stuart’s most successful students. It was only natural, then, that Webster should turn to Gibbs for help, as they were no doubt friends and certainly fellow Yale men. Did Gibbs almost believe in Webster’s fantastic etymologies, the flotsam and jetsam of English scholarly rubbish of the preceding century? Or did he just

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

92

Benjamin R. Foster

proofread all those glorious Oriental characters that glow out to us from the early editions of Webster’s dictionary? The great German Hebraist, Wilhelm Gesenius, whose work was well known to Gibbs, had already, in 1815, pronounced all such etymologies as Webster was using to be contrived and farfetched (Gesenius 1815, 65). Gibbs was noted for considering all sides to a question without deciding which one he preferred, so I suspect he just did not take a firm position for or against the reliability of Webster’s ideas. Steeped in this Yale climate, Webster’s dictionary stands out as a curious and utterly forgotten monument to early American Semitic studies. Holmes was in good company indeed. How well was this American viewpoint, which had good English roots in Rowland, known in England? I offer one small clue. In 1836, long after the issue of Blackwood’s Magazine had, one may suppose, been forgotten, an elegant young Yale man called at Cambridge University, to ask Horace Hayman Wilson, Professor of Sanskrit and quondam metallurgist, but known to Assyriologists as the man who presided over the celebrated test of the decipherment of cuneiform, if he could study with him. This man, Edward Salisbury, was amused that the English don of course professed to know nothing of Yale or Harvard, but he was secretly gratified to learn that the Hebrew grammar by Yale’s own Moses Stuart, teacher of Gibbs and friend of Webster, based on the work of the same Gesenius who had rejected scornfully the Phoenician origins of English, was the standard text at Cambridge, which had once exported Hebrew to Massachusetts Bay (Manuscript Diary for July, 1836, Yale Archives Record Group 429 Box 5 Folder 247 folio 68). So, in addition to Webster’s dictionary, the best as well as the worst of American Semitic scholarship was known and actively used in England even before the American Civil War. So it was that, in fact, Sherlock Holmes was picking up on one of the most widely disseminated erroneous linguistic notions of an earlier day, championed by Noah Webster himself, whose dictionary, like Bradshaw, was no doubt within easy reach of the tobacco-filled slipper. By late century, these ideas would have been obsolete and nearly forgotten, trampled to death by German historicism. Yet Holmes and Doyle shared a strong anti-German sentiment, so we can understand a certain reluctance to take up the new-fangled German-style comparative philology without testing the old: as Holmes himself said, the old wheel turns and the same spoke comes up. Perhaps Webster was no more out of date than Jonathan Wild, the 18th-century crime Meister whose career foreshadowed that of the evil doctor who met his end in Reichenbach Falls, and Holmes knew all about Jonathan Wild. Another question: where did the satirists get the idea of a rediscovered “Chaldee Manuscript” in Paris, which they claimed was in the course of publication by no less than “the celebrated Silvester De Sacy”? Dare one

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

When the Phoenicians Came to Cornwall

93

venture the suggestion that it was the alleged discovery, on Crete, during the reign of Nero, of a tin chest with lime bark documents written in a script no one on the island could read, but, when they were shown to Nero, he, laudably excelling his underlings as a Semitist, recognized the writing as Phoenician and ordered a translation into Greek (or some say transliteration into Greek characters: Frazer 1966, 21; Evans 1909, 108–110, with arguments for an authentic Cretan background for the story of the discovery of the box). The result was decipherment of an eyewitness account of the Trojan War by a certain Dictys (named after Mt. Dicte on Crete), who had served at Troy on the Trojan side, retired to Knossos, and ordered his memoirs, in nine volumes, to be buried with him there. Only a fragment of the Greek “original” is now known, perhaps dating to sometime in the second century, so conceivably actually going back to Nero’s time, but a Latin treatment by L. Septimius (not to be confused with the assassin of Pompey), perhaps to be dated to the fourth century of the Christian era, has survived (English translation by Frazer 1966). This now obscure work, known to Petrarch, for example, but not on the top of the reading list for most Latinists today, was one of two major sources for the medieval Troy Story, noteworthy for its strong anti-Homeric slant (Griffin 1908, who traces in detail the non-Homeric elements in the medieval versions of the fall of Troy). Thus, for example, some of its rich embellishments and reversals of the Homeric tale appear in the Troy Book of John Lydgate (d. ca. 1451), court poet to Henry VI and disciple of Chaucer, in a depressing 30,000 heroic couplets, first printed in 1513, republished in 1555 as Auncient Historie and trewe and syncere Chronicle of the Warres between the Grecians and the Trojans, and updated in 1614 simply as Life and Death of Hector (note the titular hero; for bibliographic details, Dictionary of National Biography XII: 311–312). The most enduring legacy of the medieval Troy story is the various versions of Troilus and Cressida, by the likes of Chaucer and Shakespeare. One may well wonder if, turning over the treasures in the antiquarian bookshops of Edinburgh, one of the satirists happened on a printing of the Latin text of Septimius, with its account of Nero’s order, and this turned his devious mind into the paths of literary imposture. He may even have known, in an age of easy Latinity, of the systematic exposure of Dictys as a literary fraud by the Leiden Latinist Voorbroek (Perizonius) in a discourse published in 1702 (Griffin 1908, 37–38). Lydgate’s interminable epic may also have been known to the group as part of their education, since he was highly esteemed as an English poet in their time, though now relegated to oblivion. Perhaps Rowland’s book had reached them as well, since it was known so far afield as the New World and had been twice issued. Doyle’s implied correlation between Aramaic roots and the radix diaboli that lies at the base of the Cornish horror was perhaps a little heavy-handed. If, as Samuel Butler’s satire has it, “Hebrew roots, although they’re found, to flourish

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

94

Benjamin R. Foster

best in barren ground …” (Hudibras Part I, canto 1, lines 57–58), Chaldee roots are surely a different matter and worthy of an adventure in the life of the mind. Fortunately for his reputation among philologists, however, Holmes never produced a trifling monograph on his findings, so we have to content ourselves with his beekeeping and motets. I expect that he joined the most of us in agreeing that Webster was spectacularly wrong, despite his expert help and the early advantages of a Yale education. We still use his dictionary, however, shorn of its Oriental finery. As Holmes reminds us, “All knowledge comes useful to the detective”.

Bibliography Andresen, J., Linguistics in America 1769–1924, London 1990. Edwards, O.D., Arthur Conan Doyle: His Last Bow, Oxford 1993. Evans, A., Scripta Minoa, Oxford 1909. Foster, B.R., Gibbs, Josiah Willard (1790–1861), in: American National Biography 8 (1999), 919–920. Frazer, R.M., The Trojan War: The Chronicles of Dictys of Crete and Dares the Phrygian, Bloomington, IN 1966. Fremantle, W. / Lewis, G. / Martley, W., The Principal Works of St. Jerome. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume VI: Letters and Select Works, Grand Rapids, MI 1893 (reprint). Gesenius, W., Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift, Leipzig 1815. Giltner, J., Moses Stuart, The Father of Biblical Science in America, Atlanta, GA 1988. Griffin, N.E., Un-Homeric Elements in the Medieval Story of Troy, in: The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 7 (1908) 32–52. Marsh, E.G., An Oration, on the Truth of the Mosaic History of the Creation; Delivered at New-Haven, on the Public Commencement, September, Hartford, CT 1798. Pochmann, H.A., German Culture in America, Madison, WI 1957. Pomponio, F., Alquanti più detti di celebri e di non celebri investigatori, Rome 2015. Rosenthal, F., Aramaic Studies During the Past Thirty Years, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37 (1978) 81–91.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity: Marsh Resources and the Role of the enku in Third Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia Angela Greco

Recent studies based on the availability of satellite photography and modern techniques of investigation have questioned the role of marshes in the economic landscape of Southern Mesopotamia in the fourth and, to a lesser extent, the third millennium BC. 1 It has been argued that the exploitation of marsh resources have played a key-role, alongside agriculture and farming, in the growth of Mesopotamian urban civilization. 2 According to these studies, exploitation of marshes may have been underestimated in the past, both in the epigraphic and in the archaeological record, due to ideological and technical issues: the emphasis on the opposition between waste wetlands and fertile agricultural lands affecting the formative period of Mesopotamian archaeology and assyriology;3 or as a result of inadequate recovery methods applied during early excavations. 4 This interpretation and representation of the ancient Southern Mesopotamian landscape is in conflict with the very limited

1

I am glad to dedicate this contribute to Francesco Pomponio, a great scholar of the third millennium BC. Synopsis and single sources (when available in transliterations and photos) of lexical lists may be consulted in DCCLT (Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Lists). Literary texts are cited according to ETCSL (Electonic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature). Economic texts may be consulted in BDTNS (Base de Datos de Textos Neo-Sumérios) and CDLI (Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative). Lists of signs are available in Green / Nissen 1987 (ZATU), Englund / Nissen 1993 (ATU 3), Deimel 1992 (LAK), Schneider 1935 (KWU). Except where otherwise noted, the abbreviations used in this article generally follow the CDLI List of Abbreviations (http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/abbreviations_for_assyriology). I am grateful to Marco Bonechi, Franco D’Agostino, Frederick Mario Fales, Piotr Steinkeller for their suggestions. I am also grateful to Ricardo Dorado Puntch for his help with the English of this article. Obviously, I am solely responsible for any mistakes and inaccuracies. 2 Pournelle 2003, 20. See also Van Neer / Zohar / Lernau 2005, 131. The authors stress how near-shore fishing was a fundamental and optimal strategy that allowed coastal, riverine and lacustrine populations not just to survive, but also to flourish. 3 Pournelle 2003, 9–10. 4 Van Neer / Zohar / Lernau 2005, 132. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

96

Angela Greco

information about marshes in ancient texts. Nevertheless, some opinions on the point may be put forward. As one can easily expect, ideological features also affected the representation of marshes in ancient written documents and, indeed, literary compositions and royal inscriptions from the third millennium BC offer contrasting pictures of marshes, both responding to highly ideologized issues. Marshes can be briefly summarized as a source of prosperity in literary compositions, where they are characterized by abundance of fish and associated to plentiful canebrakes, or depicted as a space to be tamed for regular and long-term exploitation in royal inscriptions: indeed, the great majority of attestations of marshes (Sumerian amb ar or sug ) in the economic documentation refers to fields in presumably drained marshy areas.5 The picture of abudant and prosperous marshes found in literary compositions must have been rooted in the surrounding environmental and economic reality and, consequently they should be reflected as well in the extant third millennium documents. Despite the scanty evidence of marshes as place of provenance of commodities, resources such as reeds, salt grasses, several kinds of fish and birds, typical even if not exclusive of marshy environments, are widely attested in the Mesopotamian documentation. This is clear starting from the Archaic lexical lists of the late fourth millennium, i.e. school compositions which substantially treated areas significant for the economy. 6 In this context, noteworthy is the presence of birds and fish in specific lists, alongside animals and plants. In addition, the scarce evidence of marshes as place of provenance of economic resources can be due to different factors. First, the exploitation of marsh areas might have concerned the non-institutional domain, which in third millennium is essentially underrepresented. What can be traced in third millennium documents is essentially what was managed by the state economy. In this light, indeed, what one can read in royal inscriptions is rulers undertaking drainage works to create arable fields. In particular, Ur-Namma,7 the founder of the Ur III Dynasty (ca. 2112–2004 BC), claims in one of his inscriptions that he drained a marsh and then created a new surface (for agricultural purposes) and a canal as a long-lasting treasure for his capital Ur. 8 Second, as far as fish is concerned, the differentiation of fishermen according to the catch-area consists basically of “fishermen of sweet waters”, Sumerian šu -ku 6 a du 1 0 -ga, and “fishermen of the sea”, Sumerian šu -ku 6 (a-)ab -b a. Although it is probable that the Sumerian word a-ab-ba, “sea”, may also involve littoral marshes at 5

These aspects are treated in depth in Greco 2020. To the best of my knowledge, a negative picture of marshes in literary compositions does not occur before the Early Old Babylonian period (e.g. Lament for Ur, l. 132). 6 Wagensonner 2010, 292. 7 Frayne 1997, 43. 8 See Greco 2020, 27–28. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

97

least in texts from Early Dynastic Ĝirsu, 9 it does not imply however that fishermen active in marsh areas were necessarily labeled as “fishermen of the sea”. Texts from Early Dynastic Ĝirsu show, in fact, that fish from marsh areas could be supplied by fishermen of sweet waters. This is suggested by the example of the fisherman E’igarasu, who in two texts is attested as delivering fish specifically labelled as “marsh fish”, while elsewhere he is qualified as “fisherman of sweet waters”.10 One cannot exclude that the differentiation of fishermen in such cases depended on the type of wetland where “marsh fish” was caught, whether coastal marshes or lacustrine environments, but unfortunately we have not enough evidence in this regard. The third factor relates to the notion of provenance of incoming commodities in economic documents. According to the perspective or purpose of the texts, indeed, the provenance of incoming goods can be: a) the place of exploitation, the specific catch-area, though this information rarely occurs in text; b) the intermediary structures for storing and processing; c) the personal name of workers responsible for production/exploitation (as was the case of the fisherman E’igarasu mentioned above) or officials responsible for circulation of specific commodities, among them also those thriving in marsh areas. As is evident especially in Ur III times, the management and exploitation of goods interspersed in the territory, hence not related to physical circumscribed economic units, may have relied on the intervention of intermediary agents, a sort of interface between workers, i.e. the actual workforce, and receiving institutions.11 Therefore, the employment of intermediary agents may have been the means by which a Central Office gained interspersed and elusive resources. The role of intermediary agent between marsh resources and state or provincial institutions may have been played by the enku (d/r), at least as far as the circulation of fish is concerned.12 9

Hruška 1998, 68; Englund 1998, 81. The texts are: VS 14 139; DP 325; DP 308. All of them belong to the ED IIIb archive of the Emunus in Ĝirsu. These texts are discussed in Greco 2020, 34–35. 11 Similar dynamics affected indeed the circulation of garden produce, i.e. a kind of produce coming from economic units interspersed in the provincial landscapes, and the garden administrators, the s a n t a n a ; because of their intermediary role in the circulation of goods, the s a n t a n a acted as collectors of garden produce on behalf of the central administration and their deliveries concerned produce from different gardens, whose mention was no longer of any interest to the agency which directed the circulation of different kinds of goods on a higher level. See Greco 2015. 12 Arguments supporting this interpretations can be found in Greco forthcoming, where I suggest an interpretation of the e n k u as “fish collector”. 10

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Angela Greco

98

In the Assyriological tradition two interpretations of this professional figure occur, often disregarding a chronological differentiation of the employment of this term: that of “inspector of fishery” and that of “tax collector”. The interpretation as “tax collector” suits better the second millennium professional figure known as mākisu, logographically written ZAG.HA, which is also the usual third millennium writing for Sumerian enku. The professional designation derives from makāsu, basically meaning “to collect taxes”, and indeed this role is clear from Old Babylonian economic documents. 13 The miksum, i.e. the share from a rented field or a tax levied on transported goods,14 was logographically written NIG2.KUD, and indeed Old Babylonian documents also use the logographic writing LU2.NIG2.KUD.DA for mākisu. Therefore, Old Babylonian mākisū were clearly tax collectors and in some cases they are interpreted as “Zollbeamten”.15 Differently, the interpretation as “inspector of fishery” is largely due to third millennium evidence. The engagement in fishery of the enku in the third millennium has been stressed by several scholars, among them Falkenstein,16 Englund (who, nevertheless, recognizes a certain role of the enku in tax collection) 17 and more recently by Steinkeller. 18 In any case, the connection between enku and wetlands or fishery is evident in literary compositions originated in third millennium.

Literary sources Literary hints may be found in compositions concerning two third millennium goddesses associated with wetlands and the city of Eridu: Nanše, daughter of Enki, and NinMarKI, daughter of Nanše. The strong connection of Nanše with watery habitats is well known. It is already clear by the graphic rendering of her name, AB×HA(= ku 6 , Sumerian “fish”), as well as by the iconography, where the goddess is represented with waterfowl at her feet.19 In the balbale-hymn Nanše B,20 the goddess is depicted as being surrounded by different kinds of fish and claims (ll. 19–20) that her husband, the god Nindara, is the enku of the sea:

13

See CAD M1 s.v. mākisu. Stol 2004, 764. 15 Stol 2004, 766. 16 Falkenstein 1949, 68. 17 Englund 1990, 201 and Englund 1998, 142 n. 319 (“fish tithe collector”). 18 In Steinkeller 2017, 21 and Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 49–50. 19 Veldhuis 2004, 24. 20 This hymn is witnessed by the Old Babylonian source VAS 10 199 (= VAT 7025). 14

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

99

Nanše B (ll. 19–20)21 mu-ud-na-ĝu10 mu-un-kud22 ab-ba-ka / u3-mu-un-dar-a mu-un-kud ab-ba-ka “My husband is the e n k u of the sea, Nindara is the e n k u of the sea.”

In the composition Temple Hymns (l. 290),23 the goddess NinMarKI, like her father Enki, is compared to an enku of the sea in the passage concerning her temple in Gu’aba. Temple Hymns (l. 290)24 [... a-a]-ni-gin7 enku ab sikil-sikil-la “[...] ... like her father, an e n k u of the pure seas.”

Therefore, both passages connect the figure of the enku with the sea, suggesting a connection with fishery rather than with taxes. A first clear literary hint of the role of the enku in fishery, and specifically their intermediary role, occurs in the passage of the Cylinder B of Gudea, hence dating to the II Dynasty of Lagaš (ca. 2200–2110 BC), in connection with marsh resources (col. XII, 1–6). Here Gudea claims that he introduced an enku to the god Ninĝirsu, in order to enable a messenger to inform him about the amount of fish in marshes and reeds in canebrakes. Gudea Cylinder B (col. XII, 1–6) ambar-bi ku6HI+SUHUR ku6suhur u3-de6 / ĝeš-gi sig7-ga-bi giha-bu3-ur2 u3-de6 / Iminšatam ra-gaba Gu2-eden-na-ke4 / dNin-ĝir2-su-ra e2-ninnu-a inim-bi ku4-ku4-da / dLamma enku-e Gu2-eden-na / en dNin-ĝir2-su-ra me-ni-da mu-na-da-dib-e “With his divine duties, namely to ensure that Imin-šatam, the messenger of Gu’edena, might inform Ninĝirsu in the E-ninnu about the amount of carp and perch(?) yielded by the marshes, and about the quantity of new shoots of reed yielded by the green reedbeds, he (= Gudea) introduced Lama, the e n k u of Gu’edena, to Lord Ninĝirsu.”25

Another passage of the same composition (col. XIV, 25–XI, 1) stresses the connection between enku and fishery:

21

ETCSL t.4.14.2 The reported passage is a direct speech of the goddess, hence reported in e m e - s a l ; m u - u n - k u d is the e m e - s a l writing for e n k u . 23 This composition was likely originated in the Sargonic period. See Wilcke 1972, 46– 48. 24 ETCSL t.4.80.1. 25 Adapted from translation by G. Zólyomi in ETCSL t.2.1.7 (ll. 1082–1087). 22

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Angela Greco

100

Gudea Cylinder B (col. XIV, 25–XV, 1) id2-de3 a zal-le si-a-da / ambar-ra ba gub-ba-da

HI.SUHURku6

suhurku6 ĝal2-la-da / enku ku3-ĝal2-bi zag-

“(With his duties, namely) to fill the channels with flowing water; to make the marshes full with carp and perch(?) and to have the e n k u and the inspector of dykes stand at their posts.”26

Through a chiasmus, the composition indicates the enku and the inspector of dykes (Sumerian ku 3 -ĝal 2 ) as being respectively responsible for the exploitation of marshes and for the correct flowing of canals, both playing a key-role in a well-administrated state blessed with abudance by the gods. A first clue of the intermediary role of the enku in the circulation of fish can be already traced in late Early Dynastic times (ca. 2500–2340 BC.); a role that is indirectly underlined by URUKAgina’s words in his reform texts: Reforms of URUKAgina (col. III, 4–13) u4-bi-a / lu2 ma2-lah5-ke4 / ma2 e-dab5 / anše u2-du-le / e-dab5 / udu u2-du-le / e-dab5 / u3mu2 u2-mu11 / enku-re6 / e-dab5-ba “In those days (before me), by the chief of the boatmen boats were seized, donkeys by the livestock official were seized, sheep by the livestock official were seized, fish stores by the e n k u were seized.”27

Then, when Ninĝirsu granted the kingship of Lagaš to URUKAgina: Reforms of URUKAgina (col. VIII, 14–23) ma2-ta / lu2 ma2-lah5 / e-ta-šub / anše-ta / udu-ta / u2-du-bi / e-ta-šub / u3-mu2u2-mu11 / enku / e-ta-šub “He removed the chief of the boatmen from (control over) the boats, he removed the livestock official from (control over) donkeys and sheep, he removed the e n k u from (control over) the fish stores.”28

In view of the lack of mentions of sea or marshes, these passages may apparently be ambiguous as far as the correct interpretation of the enku is concerned. Nevertheless, such an ambiguity can be solved by interpreting the word u 3 - m u 2 u 2 -mu 1 1 as a kind of fish store. According to Alster, the u 3 - m u 2 u 2 mu 1 1 was a place for storing fish, a sort of device to keep fish alive. The scholar also argues that URUKAgina abolished the abuse that the enkus, officials in

26

Adapted from translation by G. Zólyomi in ETCSL t.2.1.7 (ll. 1155–1157). Adapted from translation by R. Englund in CDLI no. P431154. 28 Adapted from translation by R. Englund in CDLI no. P431154. 27

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

101

charge of fishing, committed on their clients. 29 At the same time, however, URUKAgina tells us that the en ku s have played a key-role in the circulation of fish.

Lexical sources and source of misinterpretation30 The first attestations of this professional figure may date back to the Archaic period, when GAL.ZAG, commonly accepted as precursor of the third millennium writing for enku (ZAG.HA), is attested in both lexical and administrative texts from Uruk. The Archaic List Lu A attests to a sequence of entries (ll. 82–85) connected with the sign ZAG, the first of them being GAL.ZAG. Archaic Lu A (ll. 82–85)

82. GALa ZAGa 83. NESAGa ZAGa

84. DAG ZAGa

85. DILMUN ZAGa (Figure from Wagensonner 2010, 305)

This sequence includes DAG.ZAG, another professional title attested in economic documents (once as GAL DAG.ZAG) 31 and two other entries, NESAG ZAG and DILMUN ZAG, which, to the best of my knowledge, are attested only in lexical texts. As far as DILMUN ZAG is concerned, Steinkeller notes that if this entry refers to trade with Tilmun at all, ZAG in this context would stand for zag -10, “tithe”, a tax deducted from deliveries. The scholar also notes that this type of duty was levied on Gulf imports in Ur III times on sea-faring traders, as shown by one text from Ur recording beads of carnelian obtained as tithe on sea-faring trade.32

29

See Alster 1991, 5–6, with previous literature. In this regard, see also Steinkeller 2017, 48–49. 31 See below. 32 Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 21. 30

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Angela Greco

102 UET 3 341 (Ur, Ur III)

(Obv. 4–6) [x] 55 ellag2 na4gug / ki-la2-bi 9 gin2 2/3 / za3-10 nam-ga-eš8 a-ab-ba-ka “+55 beads of carnelian, their weight is 9 2/3 shekels, (obtained as) tithe on the seafaring trade.”

A similar duty on firstlings, Sumerian nesaĝ , was also levied in Ur III times on different kinds of products on behalf of Enlil in Nippur, where the firstlings, acquired at least in part as tithe, were brought by ship.33 As we shall see later, this duty involved also the fish deliveries of the enku , likely representing the most traditional aspect of their broader activity. Hypothetically, this lexical sequence may have been arranged on the basis of semi-coherent graphic and thematic principles, according to the structure: (1) profession (1. GAL.ZAG; 3. DAG.ZAG), (2) aspect of his domain of activity related to the tithe (2. NESAG ZAG; 4. DILMUN ZAG). In the Early Dynastic version of Lu A, three new entries have been added to the ZAG-sequence, after the Dilmun entry. ED Lu A (ll. 80–86) 80. GAL ZAG 81. NESAG ZAG 82. PA DAG ZAG 83. DILMUN ZAG 84. SUD AN PA.SIKIL ZAG 85. SUD PA.SIKIL ZAG 86. IDIGNA ZAG (Figure from Biggs 1974, Pl. 1)

Green noted that these new entries may refer to geographical regions, the Tigris (Idigna), and two of difficult interpretation, but also attested in the Early Dynastic List of Cities (ll. 54–55).34 Differently, Bauer argued that these two entries may refer respectively to a harvest deity, d (Ku 3 )- s u 3 sug x (PA.SIKIL), and

33 34

Sallaberger 1993, 155. Green 1984, 94. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

103

grain stalk, s u 3 sug x (PA.SIKIL).35 Whether these entries were understood as being tied to taxation on inland landscape resources or foreign trade, they may have been regarded by the Early Dynastic scribes as being connected to the domain of the professional labeled as PA.DAG.ZAG. The addition of PA (perhaps to be read ugula, the Sumerian word for “supervisor”) to the archaic DAG.ZAG might betray that this entry was still understood by the Early Dynastic scribes as an ancient professional title. Hypothetically, we can interpret this figure as an official responsible for incoming goods levied as taxation and tied to a specific physical place, a sort of storage chamber (Sumerian dag ). In the same way, GAL.ZAG was probably understood as the ancient designation of the professional title somehow connected to the following entry NESAG ZAG. The Early Dynastic Lu A source SLT 24 from Nippur was previously believed to be an Ur III exemplar and thus a witness of the Sumerian society,36 but it has been recently dated by Veldhuis, on a paleographical basis, to the Early Old Babylonian period (ca. 2000–1900 BC). 37 The text provides the syllabic writings of some lemmas of the Early Dynastic composition and extends the reading en ku to all the entries of the ZAG-sequence, likely reflecting the role the mākisu had in the Old Babylonian economy and society, that is, as said above, a sort of tax collector. SLT 24 (Nippur, Old Babylonian) Rev. II, 11: [GAL ZAG] en-ku3 gal Rev. II, 21: [NESAG ZAG] en-ku3 nesaĝ-ĝa2 Rev. II, 31: [PA E2/GA2 ZAG] en-ku3 da kalam-ma Rev. II, 41: [DILMUN ZAG] en-ku3 dilmun-na Rev. II, 51: [AN SUD SIKIL:PA ZAG] en-ku3 u2-si4-na Rev. II, 61: [SUD SIKIL:PA] en-ku3 ba-aš-ti Rev. II, 71: [IDIGNA ZAG] en-ku3 idigna

35

Bauer, 1982. The connection between s u 3 PA.SIKIL and “grain stalk” is confirmed by the Ebla VE 1277: sa-ba-tum (as already noted by Bauer), where the Semitic gloss is šabultum, “ear of barley”, (“spiga”: Conti 2003, 134). Moreover, Kusu can be understood as an epitheton of the goddess Ezina (Akkadian: Ašnan), as the Early Dynastic god lists from Fara and Abu Salabikh (Simons 2018, 145 and previous literature) and the writing u 2 - s i 4 - n a (to be understood as E z i n a 3 ) in SLT 24 rev. II, 51 suggest (see below). 36 Green 1984. 37 Veldhuis 2010, 381. As noted by the scholar, the Early Old Babylonian period represented a watershed in the Mesopotamian lexical tradition, and the Early Dynastic compositions were an anomaly in the Old Babylonian context, where the scribe could rely on and produce a new modern corpus of lexical compositions and didactic tools. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

104

Angela Greco

As already noted by Steinkeller, 38 indeed, the meaning “tax collector” for ZAG.HA does not occur before Old Babylonian times, with enku earlier specifically denoting an official in charge of fisheries. It seems thus plausible that at the end of the third millennium all the entries of the ZAG-sequence of the list were still unrelated to the domain of the enku, and enku was not, if not in single and specific cases of possible defective writings, a reading of ZAG, which in Sumerian stood for “side, border” and derived meanings. The hyperinterpretation of this ancient sequence by Old Babylonian scribes had sometimes misled modern scholars to interpret enk u as tax collector also in third millennium sources.

About DAG.ZAG: a tax collector? The archaic professional title DAG.ZAG (Archaic Lu A, l. 84) is in Old Babylonian SLT 24 (rev. II, 31) understood as en -ku 3 da kalam-ma,39 “tax collector (of the dues from the trade with) the borders of the land” 40 and unrelated to the activities of the other “tax collectors” listed in the following entries. Archaic economic documents do not provide hints on his activity, yet Englund and Damerow41 note that the sign combinations ZAG GAL DAG (MVSO 3 61) and ZAG E2 (MVSO 3 63) may refer to the official attested in Archaic Lu A as DAG.ZAG. In the first case the sign GAL (Sumerian “great”) is added, as often occurs in titles; in the second case, the sign DAG, which can be interpreted as E2+KASKAL, is simply replaced by the similar sign E2. In the course of time, the graphic evolution of the sign DAG (ZATU 53) can no longer be interpreted as E2+KASKAL, since it assumes a peculiar shape characterized by two crossing lines at its lower end (ED I–III), which eventually merged in two vertical closing wedges (Ur III), reaching a similar shape to E2.

38

Laursen / Steinkeller 2017, 21 and Steinkeller 2017, 48–49. Confusion between (partially) similar signs (DAG and KALAM) might have occurred in a hypothetical visual transmission of the composition. Cf. Names and Profession List, where KA2, very similar to DAG (see below), is replaced by KALAM (l. 287): a- u z u k a 2 (OIP 99 69 rev. XI, 9), a - u z u k a l a m (OIP 99 61 obv. XII, 7), a - b u 3 k a 2 (MEE 3 43 rev. IV, 9b). Digressions in ED Lu A l. 82 are: e 2 - p a -˹zag˺ (in YOS 1 12 surf. a, V 10; Old Akkadian Nippur); g a 2 ?- p a - z a g (in SLT 113 surf. a, V 61; OB Nippur), both including signs similar to late third millennium DAG or KWU 844 (d a g x ), which, according to Maekawa, assumed this value at some point in the Sargonic period (Maekawa 1993, 120). The same entry attested in AO 00337 surf. e, 6 (Old Babylonian Ĝirsu) might show no digression: ˹DAG?˺- p a - z a g (see CDLI no. P481014). 40 See Steinkeller 2017, 48. 41 Damerow / Englund 2007, 66. The scholars follow the reading BARA3 (ZATU 53) of Green 1987. 39

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity Archaic DAG ZATU 53

ED I–II DAG (UET 2 105)

ED III DAG LAK 740

Ur III DAG KWU 848 (var.)

Ur III DAG KWU 848

cf. Ur III E2 KWU 843

105

Ur III d a g x KWU 844

DAG×KASKAL

and E2×KASKAL are the ED III writings for ka 2 , Sumerian “citygate”. Later writings are rendered as E2.šeššig, which, at a first sight, might seem an expectable simplified rendering of the sign (cf. LAK 735 and KWU 845 below). Green recognizes in ZATU 275 the archaic counterpart of the sign E2 and indeed analyzes ZATU 275 as E2.šeššig. 42 Szarznyska rejects this interpretation and analyzes the sign as E2+GI+GI. 43 Thus the interpretation of ZATU 275 as KA2 is uncertain.44 ZATU 275

ZATU 53 (DAG) (MVSO 3 64)

ZATU 53 (DAG)

(ED I–II) (ATFU 55)

KA2

42

Green / Nissen 1987, 226. Szarznyska 1992, 273–275. According to her, especially the Uruk IV form of the sign is to be analyzed as E2+GI+GI. For the variants of ZATU 275, see Green 1987, 226. 44 Steinkeller 1995, 702. 43

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Angela Greco

106 KA2 in

ED IIIb (OIP 99 69)

KA2 in

ED IIIb Ebla (QuSem 30 301)

LAK 735 (ED IIIb Ĝirsu)

KWU 845 (Ur III)

ZATU 275 does not occur in Archaic lexical sources, but only in administrative texts from the Uruk IV–III period.45 Nevertheless, ZATU 276, interpreted as KA2+LAM, occurs in administrative documents as well as in an entry (l. 12) of the lexical composition known as Archaic Cities, whose Early Dynastic counterpart is AN&AN DAG×KUR (LAK 741).46 Green compares ZATU 276 to LAM+KUR (ZATU 329) and indeed, this sign could be interpreted as KA2 (E2+KASKAL)+LAM+KUR, where the inscribed signs (KASKAL, LAM+KUR) come out from E2.47 ZATU 276 (KA2+LAM)

KA2+LAM

ZATU 329 (LAM+KUR)

reconstructed (ATU 3)48

KA2+LAM (W 20266,74)

DAG×KUR

(SF 23)

45

Green / Nissen 1987, 226. To the best of my knowledge this entry is attested only in SF 23 obv. I, 12. 47 Green / Nissen 1987, 227. 48 See Englund / Nissen 1993, 146. 46

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

107

In the following ED I/II period the sign KA2 shows a strong similarity with DAG and, indeed, sometimes it is difficult to distinguish them in texts.49 One may wonder if E2+KASKAL (ZATU 53) could be the ancestor of KA2, whose later form may have been the result of the progressive movement of the two rows of crossing lines (KASKAL), originally inscribed in E2, from the middle to the lower end of the sign. In this case, whether the E2+KASKAL stood both for KA2 and DAG, which became differentiated only later, or DAG was a misinterpretation or a conscious adaptation occurred in ED I/II times, still remains unclear to me. Be it as it may, I suggest that the entry 84 of Archaic Lu A may be interpreted as an official responsible for the taxation on incoming goods and tied to a specific physical place, were it a city gate or a storage chamber, whose activity was connected to the following entry DILMUN ZAG, according to the above-mentioned structure: (1) profession (ll. 82 and 84) and (2) aspect of his domain of activity related to the tithe (ll. 83 and 85). This structure was apparently still respected by the Early Dynastic scribes, who added other entries connected with taxes and related to the domain of activity of the PA.DAG.ZAG, but ignored in Old Babylonian times50 (see above). An early echo of the activity of the mākisu as a collector of the share of the yield owed to the palace or temple may be found in the Early Dynastic Word List F (also known as ED Geography B), a composition which seems to deal with physical places and terms tied to different types of crops.51 Here indeed l. 107 reports za 3 k u 5 -da (ZAG.KUD.DA), 52 which might resemble the Old Babylonian logogram for miksum NIG2.KUD.DA tied to the activity of the mākisu (LU2.NIG2.KUD.DA). Which professional figure was involved in the collecting of this kind of tax in Early Dynastic times or later at the end of the third millennium, is unclear to me.53 Probably not the enku, whose connection with taxes in third millennium should be reassessed.

49

Lecompte wonders whether KA2 in AFTU 55 should be read as DAG. The scholar notes however that KA2 is seldom attested in the texts of Archaic Ur (Lecompte 2013, 76–77). 50 Paradoxally, DAG.ZAG might have been an (unrecognized?) ancestor of the later mākisu as the “Zollbeamte” mainly active at the city-gates (KA2 miksi). Stol 2004, 765– 766. 51 With regard to this list, see Civil 2010, 229. The scholar stresses that the entries of this list are arranged according to not yet recognizable thematic criteria. 52 Unfortunately, this entry has no counterpart in the Archaic Word List F. 53 Visicato proposes as ancestor of the mākisu the Early Dynastic d a m - k a s 4 , a professional name which could be interpreted as a Sumerian loan-word borrowed by a hypothetical taprās form of the Akkadian verb makāsu. See Visicato 1992, 97 n. 8. Their connection with the trading and travelling community (Cripps 2013, 5) can suggest an interpretation as tax-collectors at least in ED Dynastic times. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

108

Angela Greco

About the enku and his role in 3rd millennium BC As said above, GAL.ZAG is interpreted as the forerunner of the usual Early Dynastic writing for enku , ZAG.HA, where the second element of the compound has been understood as a phonetic gloss54 (enku k u d ) or with a semantic value55 (HA = ku 6 = fish). This writing (ZAG~a KU6~a) might be already attested in the Archaic corpus outside Uruk, in a text of the Schøyen Collection (MS 2497, unp.), and occurs in the Early Dynastic lexical composition Lu E (l. 46), which according to Veldhuis 56 was apparently created to replace LU A with a modernized list of professions. MS 2497 (Uruk III, administrative, unp.) (CDLI no. P006064)

ED Lu E (ED IIIb, OIP 99 54–56)

Obv. I, 3: 7(N14) 4(N01) ŠE~a ZAG~a KU6~a

46. enku (ZAG.HA)

Administrative documents from the Archaic period do not provide significant hints to their activity. Documents from the Early Dynastic period attest to the existence of “fishermen of the enku”, (šu-ku 6 ) enku,57 while Old Akkadian documents (ca. 2340–2200 BC) record amounts of fish, birds and turtles delivered by enku.58 In one of these texts, the amount of fish delivered by the enku Nammah is placed on the boat.59 ITT 2 4415 (Ĝirsu, Old Akkadian) (Obv. 1–2) 136 ku6 šeĝ6-ĝa2 /1800 ku6agargara(NUN) igi-a (Rev. 1–4) Nam-[mah] / enku / ma2-a i3-ĝal2 / blank space / mu-kux(DU) “136 cured fishes, 1800 igia-spawn?, Nammah the e n k u placed it in the boat, (it’s a) delivery.”

In some texts, the enku managed barley or other commodities, probably as every professional with some bureaucratic duties had to manage or was 54

Green 1984, 94. Steinkeller 2017, 49. 56 Veldhuis 2010, 391. 57 From ED IIIa Fara TSŠ 78; WF 67; WF 68; WF 69. 58 From Old Akkadian Ĝirsu: BM 26382; CT 50, 131; ITT 2 4415; ITT 2 5694; ITT 2 5746; ITT 2 5774; ITT 2 5836; ITT 5 6679; ITT 5 6741; STTI 2 68 Ist L 9339; STTI 2 69 Ist L 9341; STTI 2 79 Ist L 9394. From Adab: CUSAS 20 126. 59 A similar text is in the more fragmentary Old Akkadian ITT 2 5836 from Ĝirsu. 55

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

109

rewarded with, while their engagement and role in fishery is most evident in Ur III documents, especially in those coming from the Umma province. Their engagement concerned in particular the circulation of fish within the province, and to a lesser extent of bird-plumage (Sumerian p a mu šen ). In some texts60 their deliveries are associated to those of the professionals labeled as agar 4 niĝin 2 , whose domain of activity is still unclear. On the other hand, it seems that the enku played a marginal role in the planning of exploitation works and in the payment of deficit in production tied to the workforce of fishermen (a2 šu-ku 6 ), kinds of tasks which indeed pertained, at different levels, to scribes managing workforces and products and supervisors of working groups, that is the ugu la šu-ku 6 , “supervisor(s) of fishermen”, who, according to Englund,61 held responsibility for workers and production. However, the enku were involved in the employment of workers labeled as “boat-builders” (ma 2 -du 3 ),62 which to the best of my knowledge are attested only in Ur III Umma. The intermediary role played by the enku in the circulation of fish in the Ur III period, was already stressed by Englund,63 who recognized the enku as an administrator who received fish deliveries from fishermen and passed them on to a higher authority. Documentation provides us with examples of records of capitals of fish amounts managed by one enku,64 deliveries of fish provided by one enk u for the palace, the merchants, the cult,65 a balanced account of the fish and fish oil managed by one enk u, where the expenditures concern the palace, the governor, different scribes, merchants and the royal sector.66 The following chart shows the cases analyzed by Ouyang67 in connection with fish supplied by en ku s and received by Umma merchants.68 60 See e.g. BPOA 7 1819 (Š 48/-); Nisaba 26 2 (ŠS 8/-); Nisaba 6 11 (IS 1/-); Nisaba 26 7 [...]. 61 Englund 1990, 31. 62 See SNAT 537 (obv. 3: 8 ĝ u r u š m a 2 - d u 3 e n k u ), where part of the workers (ĝ u r u š ) are allocated for the duku-provision (d u 6 - k u 3 ) of Nippur; CUSAS 39 133 (AS 5/-), where the e n k u Ur-Utu takes charge of some workers for bringing fish to the palace (š u - k u 6 KA e 2 - g a l - š e 3 k u 6 t u m 3 - š e 3 ) and boat-builders; UTI 5 3400 (AS 8/ii), where Ur-Utu provides workforce of boat-builders for bringing reeds in a ĝanundepot. The boat-builders were not exclusively employed by the e n k u ; see ASJ 11, 182 [...], where a boat-builders is attested among the boatmen (m a 2 - l a h 5; rev. III, 28–32) of the personnel of the sikkum (ĝ i r i 3 - s e 3 - g a z i - g u m 2 - m a - m e ; rev. III, 33). A possible connection of the boat-builders with the boat of firstlings (m a 2 n e s a ĝ ) is as yet not supported by the documentation. In any case, the interpretation as “boat-builder” is tentative; the Sumerian term for “boat-builder” is m a 2 - GIN2. 63 Englund 1990, 201. 64 SNAT 347 (AS 4/-). 65 UTI 5 3406 (ŠS9/-). 66 Nisaba 6 34 (AS 6/-). 67 Ouyang 2013, 243–245.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Angela Greco

110 Text/merchant

Supplier

Ur-dMa-mi enku TCL 5 6046 (AS 4) merchants (dam-gar3-ne)

Nisaba 6 34 (AS 6) Pa3-da UTI 5 3406 (ŠS 9) A-a-kal-la

Lugal-ku3-ga dumu Ur-dEN.[...] (Lugal-ku3-ga-ni enku dumu Ur-dSuen) Ur-dUtu enku (niĝ2-ka9-aka namenku / Ur-dUtu-ka) Ur-dUtu (enku)

Fish amount (detail)

Fish amount 34,140 u.

Silver value 40.73

3900 u.

10.33

27,600 ku6 ĝir2-us2 6540 ku6 ĝir2-us2 900 ku6 ša3-bar 3000 ku6 ša3-bar 4380 ku6 saĝ-kur2 Total 16200 ku6 ĝir2-us2 (ku6 nesaĝ ib2-ta-zi) 1740 ku6 ša3-bar 4560 ku6 gam-gam Total 54,000 ku6 ĝir2-us2

4380 u. 42,420 u. 16200 u.

4.87 55.93 20.75

1740 u. 4560 u. 22,500 u. 54,000 u.

1.93 5.07 27.75 N/A

3240 ku6suhur 49,680 ku6 ĝir2 13,500 ku6 gam-gam Total

3240 u. 49,680 u. 13,500 u. 66,420 u.

N/A N/A N/A

It is interesting to note that among the deliveries of the en ku Lugal-kugani son of Ur-Suen69 in the account of merchants (TCL 5 6046)70 an amount of fish is characterized by the following notation: TCL 5, 6046 (AS 4/-) (Obv. I, 13–15) 16,200 ku6 ĝir2-us2 / ku3-bi 1/3 ma-na 2/3 gin2 15 še / ku6 nesaĝ-še3 ma2a ba-a-ĝar-ra ib2-ta-zi “16,200 ĝirus-fish, its silver is 20.75 shekels, the fish for the ‘firstlings’, which has been placed on the boat, has already been deducted.”

This notation hints to the tithe, and specifically to the tithe of firstlings which recalls that attested in Archaic/Early Dynastic Lu A, which in Ur III converged in the deliveries for the nesaĝ-provision for Enlil, which, as said above, were made up of several products, among them fruits and fish, brought by ship to Nippur. This tithe was paid in kind, reason why the fish allocated for it was not turned in silver in the merchant account. 68

Among the texts collected by Ouyang, the fish suppliers are specified in seven cases: in four cases they are e n k u , while in three cases they are one high-rank official (Ur-E’e) and one scribe (Ur-Šulpa’e son of Lugal-kugani). 69 Texts attesting Lugal-kuga(ni) son of Ur-Suen as e n k u are Princeton 1 541 (Š 34/-); SAT 2 1161 (AS 9/-); UTI 5 3284 (AS 9/-). 70 The colophon classifies the text as ‘capital of merchants’, s aĝ - n i ĝ 2 - g u r 1 1 - r a d a m gar3-ne. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

111

The following example shows the payment of the tithe levied on the fish collected by the enku Ur-Utu71 and received by the scribe Lugal-niĝlagare son of Lugal-saga. MAH A.2012-0004 (AS 1/i) (Obv. 1–5) 1080 ku6 al-dar / za3-10-bi ib2-ĝar / niĝ2-dab5 ma2 nesaĝ-NE / ki Ur-dUtu -ta / kišib3 Lugal-niĝ2-lagar-e (Seal) Lugal-SI.NE-e / dub-sar / dumu Lugal-sa6-ga “1080 splitted fish, this tithe has been applied (as) allocation for the boat of the new? firstling, supplied by Ur-Utu (the e n k u ), sealed tablet of Lugal-niĝlagare. Seal: Lugal-SI.NE-e, scribe, son of Lugal-saga.”

Here we can see how the applied tithe roughly corresponds to one tenth of the amount provided by Lugal-kuga(ni) in the merchant account of 16,200 units. Therefore, the enk u provided fish to the province for different purposes, among them also that due to Nippur for the nesaĝ- and duku-provisions.72 At this point, who can be interpreted as the proper firstlings-tax collector would be the scribe Lugal-niĝlagare, known to be a “salt and spices” scribe (dub -sar mun gazi): 73 in other documents he is the recipient of different kinds of goods (fruits, dairy products) allocated for the nesaĝ- and duku-provisions (niĝ 2 -dab 5 du 6 -ku 3 u 3 nesaĝ ), 74 the conveyor of fish allocated for nesaĝ- and dukuprovisions,75 the scribe who planned the employment of fishermen also for the nesaĝ-provision.76 71 Texts attesting Ur-Utu as e n k u are BPOA 6 1004 (AS 2/-), MS 1975 (AS 5/-, unp.), Nisaba 6 34 (AS 6/-), ZA 95, 191 (IS 1/-); Nisaba 23 65 [...]; SNAT 537 [...]; UTI 5 3186+3415 [...]. 72 With regards to both kinds of deliveries, see Sallaberger 1993, 154–155. According to the Scholar, such deliveries were not directed to proper festivals, but rather to support the Nippur’s sanctuaries. 73 MS 1975 (AS 5/-, unp.), obv. I, 6. 74 See e.g. CDLI no. P234867 (AS 9/-), MVN 16 673 (ŠS 2/-). 75 See SNAT 345 (AS 4/-). In this text, Lugal-niĝlagare is the conveyor of the fish (to be) provided by the e n k u Ur-Mami and that estimated through the employment of workforce planned by Ur-BaU, likely a scribe (see Greco forthcoming), for both destinations (rev. 9: k u 6 d u 6 - < k u 3 > u 3 k u 6 n e s a ĝ ). The text does not specify whether the delivery of the e n k u was a quote (tithe) deducted from an amount he collected for other purposes or a remnant of previous transactions managed by him. In any case, the text clearly shows that the fish for the nesaĝ-provision was, at least in part, obtained by planning of workforce to be employed in fishing. 76 See AION 64, 41 (ŠS 2/-), a balanced account of workforce of fishermen (n i ĝ 2 - k a 9 a k a a 2 š u - k u 6 ) drawn by Lugal-niĝlagare, where a certain number of workers are allocated on the account of fish for the nesaĝ-provision (rev. II, 1–2: [ . . . ] ĝ u r u š g u b a 2 - b i u 4 3 6 7 7 - [ š e 3 ] / blank space / n i ĝ 2 - k a 9 - š e 3 k u 6 n e s a ĝ - k a u g u 2 b a - a -

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Angela Greco

112

As MVN 16, 739 shows, the final payer of these goods (fruit, vegetables, dairy products, animals and fish collected through provincial officials, whether they belonged to particular institutions or not) allocated to Nippur, as well as the final payer of the tithe of firstling,77 was the governor of the province. MVN 16 739 (Š 41/-) q produce nidba2 du6-ku3* q (1/10) produce nidba2 ma2 nesaĝ* ki ensi2 Ummaki- “q produce, provision for the duku-festival* q (1/10) produce, provision for the boat of firstlings* (supplied) by the governor of Umma.”

Summing up, the documentation shows that the payment of the tithe for the boat of firstlings was surely an aspect of the activity of the en ku , at least in Ur III times, but likely even earlier. However, the en ku was not the final conveyor of goods for this kind of taxation, but only the official who collected fish in the provincial territory for local and national purposes. From the point of view of the royal agency, the enku were surely among the go-betweens of taxation on territory; from the point of view of the province, which was the final payer of royal taxes, they were among the go-betweens of collection of resources, specifically wetland resources. Whether the connection of its writing to the tithe is by coincidence or not is unclear to me. In any case, whatever the actual impact of marsh resources in the growth and thriving of the ancient Mesopotamian economy was, the misunderstanding of the role of the enku in the fishing industry of the third millennium has been surely a way marshes, wetlands and their resources have been neglected in the past.

ĝ a r ). Texts of this kind require sofisticated calculations, likely accomplished away from the exploitation places, where the employed workers were under the authority of the supervisors of fishermen. In addition, accounts of workforce of fishermen concern fishoil and workers (see also L’uomo 49; ŠS 2/d/4), but not fish, which was computed in the accounts of the e n k u . See Nisaba 6 34 (AS 6/-), where Lugal-niĝlagare receives fish from Ur-Utu for the duku-provision (obv. II, 16–19). 77 The tithe to Nippur was calculated on the basis of the produce delivered to the provincial Fiscal Office for this purpose. This assumption is based on quantity of 80 split fish delivered by the governor (rev. 19), roughly corresponding to 1/10 of the quantity of split fish (1080) delivered by the enku in MAH A.2012-0004. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

113

Sitography BDTNS (Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts) http://bdts.filol.csic.es CDLI (Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative) http://cdli.ucla.edu DCCLT (Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Lists) http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt ETCSL (Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature) http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/

References Alster, B., Contributions to the Sumerian Lexicon, in: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 85 (1991) 1–11. Bauer, J., Altorientalischen Notizen 19 (1982). Biggs, R., Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (Oriental Institute Publications 99), Chicago 1974. Burrows, E., Ur Excavation Texts II. Archaic Texts (Ur Excavations. Text 2), London 1935. Catagnoti, A., La paleografia dei testi dell’amministrazione e della cancelleria ad Ebla (Quaderni di Semitistica 30), Firenze 2013. Civil, M., The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 12), Bethesda 2010. Conti, G., Il Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary e il Sumerico di Ebla, in: Marassini, P. (ed.) Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli from Colleagues and Pupils, Wiesbaden (2003), 116–135. Cripps, E., Messengers from Šurrupak, in: Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2013:3 (2013). Deimel, A., Die Inschriften von Fara I: Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen (LAK, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 40), Leipzig 1922. Englund, R., Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient 10), Berlin 1990. — Texts from the Uruk Period, in: Attinger, P. / Wäfler, M. (eds.) Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Früdynastische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1), Freiburg / Göttingen 1998, 15–233. Englund, R. / Nissen, H., Die lexikalischen Listen der archaischen Texte aus Uruk (Archaische Texte aus Uruk 3), Berlin 1993. Englund, R. / Damerow, P., The Proto-cuneiform texts from the Erlenmeyer Collection (Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 3), Berlin 2007. Falkenstein, A., Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagash I, Rome 1949. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

114

Angela Greco

Frayne, D., Ur III Period. 2112–2004 BC (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 3/2), Toronto 1997. Greco, A., Garden Administration in the Ĝirsu Province during the NeoSumerian Period (Biblioteca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo 12), Madrid 2015. — The Taming of Wilderness: Marshes as an Economic Resource in 3rd Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia, in: Water History 12 (2020) 23–38. — Some Considerations on Workers and Officials involved in the Circulation of Fish in the Ur III Umma province, forthcoming (Coppini, C. / Cyrus, G. / Golestaneh, H. (eds.), Proceedings of Broadering Horizons 6). Green, M., Early Sumerian Tax Collectors, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36 (1984) 91–95. Green, M. / Nissen, H., Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk (Archaische Texte aus Uruk 2), Berlin 1987. Hruška, B., Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften von Lagaš, in: Bullettin on Sumerian Agriculture 4 (1998) 61–72. Laursen, S. / Steinkeller, P., Babylonia, the Gulf Region and the Indus (Mesopotamian Civilizations 21), Winona Lake 2017. Lecompte, C., Archaic Tablets and Fragments from Ur (ATFU). From L. Woolley’s Excavations at the Royal Cemetery (Nisaba 25), Messina 2013. Maekawa, K., The Agricultural texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (IX), in: Acta Sumerologica 15 (1993) 107–130. Ouyang, X., Monetary Role of Silver and its Administration in Mesopotamia during the Ur III Period (c. 2112–2004 BCE): A Case Study of the Umma Province (Biblioteca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo 11), Madrid 2013. Pettinato, G., Testi lessicali monolingui della biblioteca L. 2769 (Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 3), Naples 1981. Pournelle, J., Marshland of Cities: Deltaic Landscapes and the Evolution of Early Mesopotamian Civilisation, PhD Dissertation, University of California 2003. Schneider, N., Die Keilschriftzeichen der Wirtschaftsurkunden von Ur III nebst ihren charakteristischen Varianten (KWU), Rome 1935. Sallaberger, W., Der kultische Kalender der Ur-III Zeit (Untersuchtungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7), Berlin / New York 1993. Simons, F., The goddess Kusu, in: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 112 (2018) 123–148. Steinkeller, P., review of Green / Nissen 1987, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 52 (1995) 689–713. — History, Texts and Art in Early Babylonia (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 15), Boston / Berlin 2017.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Neglected Source of Prosperity

115

Stol, M., Wirtschaft und Geselleschaft in Altbabylonischer Zeit, in Attinger, P. et al. (eds.), Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/4), Fribourg / Göttingen 2004, 693–973. Szarzynska, K., Names of Temples in the Archaic Texts from Uruk, in: Acta Sumerologica 14 (1992) 267–285. Van Neer, W. / Zohar, I. / Lernau, O., The Emergence of Fishing Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean region: A Survey of Evidence from Pre- and Protohistoric Periods, in: Paléorient 31 (2005) 131–157. Veldhuis, N., Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanše and the Birds. With a Catalogue of the Sumerian Bird Names (Cuneiform Monographs 22), Leiden / Boston 2004. — Guardians of Tradition: Early Dynastic Lexical Texts in Old Babylonian Copies, in: Baker, H. et al. (eds.), Your Praise is sweet. A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Collegues and Friends, London 2010, 379– 400. Visicato, G., Some Aspects of the Administrative Organization of Fara, in: Orientalia NS 61 (1992) 94–99. Wagensonner, K., Early Lexical Lists Revisited: Structures and Classification as a Mnemonic Device, in: Kogan, L. et al. (eds) Language in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale (Babel und Bibel 4/1), Winona Lake, IN 2010, 285–310. Wilcke, C., Der aktuelle Bezug der Sammlung der sumerischen Tempelhymnen und ein Fragment eines Klageslied, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 62 (1972) 35–62.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Current Approaches towards Ancient Near Eastern Textual Sources: Some Remarks on Contemporary Methodologies for Philological Research Massimo Maiocchi

1 Introduction1 It is no mystery that Ancient Near Eastern Studies changed considerably in the past 20 years. Thanks to new archaeological discoveries, advancements in philology, and technological innovations, the work of present-day scholars looks rather different compared to what it used to be. This paper focuses mostly on the latter factor—namely how technology has brought about profound changes in our approach toward ancient sources. The impact of the so-called digital revolution in all academic fields can hardly be underestimated: an unprecedented, ever-growing wealth of information is now available in many on-line, open-access projects, which I consult daily as part of my work routines. It is instructive to think back for a second to the progress made so far in using computers for extracting information out of ancient texts (a rather large branch of the all-encompassing “field” of Digital Humanities). The earliest implementations of computational methods for the study of ancient sources date back to the 50s. Despite of the fact that some 70 years have passed since those pioneering efforts by Roberto Busa and Josephine Miles, computational philology is still in its infancy. However, I think it is fair to say that contemporary philologists approach digital methods with both great expectations, will of innovation, and the uncanny feeling that many basic tools are still missing. I would like to stress that the following considerations are only marginally related to topics such as “the future of Assyriology” (a subject already explored by the Festschrift honouree) or “what’s new in town” (latest database projects, computer applications, etc.): the methodologies described below are in fact already well known within our

1

I would like to offer this short contribution as a small token of gratitude to our Festschrift honoree Francesco Pomponio, for all I learned from his numerous books, articles, and conference presentations. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Massimo Maiocchi

118

research environments. My goal is rather to highlight the issues that currently affect the digital development of cuneiform studies. More in detail, the methodological problems I am concerned with are: 1) the broader conceptual framework for the study of ancient sources is still poorly understood, little exploited, and clumsily implemented within ancient Near Eastern history and philology; 2) the fundamental features of ancient writing systems (including but not limited to cuneiform) are not yet fully accounted for in digital terms; 3) as a consequence of points 1 and 2, the digital representation of ancient sources is very often still conceptualized as a “digitized” paper edition; 4) there is no such thing as an education program in digital thought, as defined below. I maintain that once these issues are solved, scholars will be able to fully unlock the potential of the cuneiform dataset, thus setting the stage for new avenues for research.

2 Digital thought Before I move on, I would like to briefly touch upon the very notion of “digital”, as in Digital Humanities. I doing so, I would like to raise awareness on the full implications of representing data digitally, be they text, images, or any meaningful collection of information. This is important, as I believe the biggest desideratum in the many fields connected to the study of ancient sources is methodological in nature, namely for digital practitioners to think digitally while implementing their projects. So what does it mean to think digitally? Clearly, any project where a computer is being used to perform some operations on a dataset could be rightfully labelled as digital. However, not all projects are equally born digital, in the sense that the effort in digitization practices and thereby computational methods may or may not be directed in establishing relations within data, in such a way that structured information may emerge from well-formed input data. In fact, I believe that the very heart of the digital process is to link data together—this is in fact what happens in our very brain any time we think of ancient sources, their meaning and historical significance. In this respect, it is instructive to consider for a second the remote origins of digitality. It is certainly true that humans as a species have been technological since their very beginning. The production of Palaeolithic artefacts such as grinding tools, hammers and blades is nothing but an example of how easily the human brain is able to segment the whole of reality in an outstanding amount of smaller entities and mutual relations, as to make them meaningful. A thin piece of rock having one sharp point is not just a lithic object to its maker, it is an arrowhead: it originates from our ability to brace the distance between two entities that are physically far apart, such as a piece of rock and something to eat, through mediation of a strategy (hunting). This, combined with other sapiens features, such as verbal language processing and the ability to © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Current Approaches towards Ancient Near Eastern Textual Sources

119

externalize thought in the form of visible marks, has brought about large scale transformations that eventually lead us to the use of computers. As my former mentor Giorgio Buccellati (2017, 159) puts it: “A major feature that distinguished the first hominini from other members of the animal family was their ability to create contiguity where there was none”. Now, I argue that to think digitally simply means to follow the path set by our ancestors, bracing the distance between data, with the notable difference that the bridges we build are not static as in traditional writing, but dynamic in nature.

3 Digital approaches In practical terms, there are of course many features that a philologist is potentially interested in his or her research. The following table illustrates what has been captured so far in Assyriology: Feature

Rarity in current digital projects2

1. Photo 2. Transcription 3. Transliteration 4. Normalization 5. Translation 6. Meta-data (findspot, dating, etc.) 7. Annotations 8. Grammatological information 9. Network of meta-data 10. Open-access scripts

Common Very rare Common Rare Uncommon Common Uncommon Very rare Very Rare Very Rare

Poorly digital

↓

Fully digital

Items 1–6 in this list are found in any traditional print edition of ancient textual sources, therefore do not require further clarifications. On the contrary, items 7–10 are perhaps less familiar to many Assyriologists. They are briefly explained here. 3.1 Annotations Annotation consists of adding extra information to a digital text. For instance, individual terms within an ancient text may be encoded with information about their base meaning, contextual translation, lexical root, etc. This is usually accomplished using ad-hoc tags marking individual textual elements (signs, 2

Surveyed projects as in Charpin 2014. The evaluation of how much rare a feature is remains problematic, as it depends on the weight to be attributed, for instance, to the many “sub-projects” within ORACC. In addition, within individual projects, some features are intermittent: for instance, a few texts are translated within CDLI. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

120

Massimo Maiocchi

words, syntagms, etc.): many projects rely on the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) guidelines, therefore adopting XML or the like as mark-up language. Unfortunately, there is no room here for a detailed introduction to mark-up languages and best strategies on how to encode texts. I will just provide a possible XML encoding for the name Aššurbanipal, spelled ᵐᵈaš-šur—DÙ—A, in order to illustrate how extra information may be embedded within the text.3

m

d aš - šur —

DÙ

—

A

The annotation process is clearly tedious and time-consuming, but the reward in computational terms is huge. Here, I would like to stress to facts: 1) scripting (described below §3.4) may help saving precious time, to be devoted to data analysis; 2) TEI-based encoding has some limitations (addressed below §4) when dealing with pre-classical sources. 3.2 Grammatological information Going back to the item no. 8 in the list above, grammatological information concerns whatever is meaningful from the point of view of the writing system. Grammatology, as defined by Gelb (1963, 23) in his pioneering study, is in fact the study of writing systems in comparative perspective. However, the data of

3

In order to display the information on screen in human-readable form, an associated style sheet and a piece of software (such as a modern browser) are required. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Current Approaches towards Ancient Near Eastern Textual Sources

121

interest to a grammatologist may be important to a traditional philologist and historian alike, as they may reveal something profound on the archival setting of the documents, the literate milieu they belong to, the society that produced them, etc. For instance, one may be interested in spelling variations (or more in general what signs are used what context, text corpora, etc.), their frequency, their function (logogram/semantogram, syllabogram/phonogram, determinative/ classifier), the frequency of their functions, the relation between spoken and written signs (broken spellings, defective vs. overabundant compounds, etc.). The importance of encoding this kind of information within any digital project is explained below in § 4. Here I would like to stress that to some extent grammatological encoding may again be achieved by scripting (§ 3.4): a powerful enough algorithm may in fact infer most of the relevant information from standard transliterations. The process is semi-supervised, meaning that the user must check part of the output in order to validate the results. Although this operation still requires some time, the gain in terms of manpower is huge. 3.3 Network of meta-data As for the network of meta-data (item no. 9 in the list above), it consists on all relations established within the textual corpus, as described below in § 4. In the case of a database, this entails also its structure, which in turn depends on encoding standards and overall goals. A network of meta-data may also be conceptualized as all meaningful relations between the individual textual and meta-textual elements. For instance, variant spellings of a same word are obviously related to one another, as they reflect the same lexeme. Words attested in a given sub-period of ancient Near Eastern history are also related, as reflecting a given linguistic stage or literacy setting, etc. Such network is made of discrete entities (or nodes, in network terms), selected on the basis of the nature of the research to be carried off, and/or on what questions the encoder is interested in. The same applies to the relations between nodes. The details are given below in §5. Here, I would like to add that such network is clearly multi-modal (i.e. the nodes are entities belonging to different classes and sub-classes: signs, words, roots, personal names, toponyms, etc.). The more modes the better, as far as all modes are clearly distinguished according to encoding standards. Making a meta-data network available as open access makes exploitation by other scholar a relatively easy task, especially if one is able to implement simple scripts that transform such information in whatever is useful to them, without the need to reinvent the wheel. A common way to achieve this is through Linked Open Data, in JSON format, which has gained popularity in recent years.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Massimo Maiocchi

122

3.4 Scripts A script is a small plain text file, containing a set of instructions, most often written in a programming languages such as Python, Perl, C++, Java, etc. Such languages are interpreted, meaning that the user must first install a piece of software (called the interpreter) on his or her local machine in order to run the scripts. The syntax used to express what actions the computer is to perform on the input files (transliterations, photos, etc.) resembles to some extent English syntax—no need to write down low-level instructions, or sequences of 0 and 1. For the sake of clarity, sample Perl script is provided here.4 As an exercise, the script considers an inscription of Ur-Ningirsu II (Edzard 1997, 1.8.9), and prints out the relative word frequency list. #sample Perl script $text = 'ur-d.nin-gir2-su / ensi2 / lagaš.ki / dumu gu3-de2-a / ensi2 / lagaš.ki'; @words = split /\s+/, $text; foreach $word (@words) { $word_frequency{$word}++ } foreach $word (sort keys %word_frequency) { print "$word : $word_frequency{$word}\n" } Output: /:5 dumu : 1 ensi2 : 2 gu3-de2-a : 1 lagaš.ki : 2 ur-d.nin-gir2-su : 1

Of course, there is a lot going on here in terms of syntax (note the use of parenthesis and curly brackets), variable types (marked by special characters $ and %, used for strings and hashes respectively), and operations (split, foreach loops, ++ for incremental count, etc.). With a little extra effort, one may even get rid of the unwanted output “/ : 5”, but this is not relevant for the present discussion. Much more elaborate scripts are commonly used in many digital projects, for instance in order to populate a database on the basis of existing transliterations, checking the consistency of their readings, build indexes of words within individual corpora, etc. Despite of the fact that such scripts are very useful to anyone with a basic software background, most of them remain inaccessible to the user community. Therefore, digital practitioners often finds themselves in the clumsy situation of 4

More scripts are available on my Github page: https://github.com/MMaiocchi. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Current Approaches towards Ancient Near Eastern Textual Sources

123

reinventing the wheel. This is of course disturbing, as scripts are an integral part of the research output.

4 The writing system An in-depth treatment of the features of ancient writing systems that impact in the handling of textual data, therefore on philological research, would require more space than it is here permitted.5 Therefore, I will offer here only general remarks of methodological nature. One may ask: why is it important to address the features of ancient writing systems in a paper devoted to contemporary methodology for philological research? Almost 50 years ago, Civil (1973, 22) already provided the answer to this question: “In the study of an extinct language, the description and analysis of its writing system(s) forms an integral part of its grammar”. Grammars of ancient languages are based on written sources, whose interpretation is dependent on our understanding of the principles governing the writing system. Without such an understanding, philology, be it computational or traditional, remains a limited affair. According to Civil, the first chapter in any such grammar should be devoted to a description of the writing system, followed by a chapter on graphemics, providing the full inventory of symbols, as well as the rules governing the system. Sumerian and Akkadian varieties of cuneiform are of course nonalphabetic in nature (the same holds true for all pristine writing systems): a sign may represent an entire word (i.e. a logogram), a part of a word (morphogram), a syllable (phonogram), or a determinative/classifier (a sign that is not meant to be read aloud, but helps the reader decide what the semantic scope of the words attached to it is: as for cuneiform, determinatives are used to mark deities, plants, textiles, wooden objects, metal objects, etc.). What is at stake here is that the cuneiform writing system is not a monolithic whole. Despite of the fact that we use (almost) the same transliteration conventions for all cuneiform text corpora, Sumerian cuneiform is not the same as Akkadian cuneiform. Not only that, but early Sumerian writing is radically different from classic Sumerian one, archaic texts from Uruk IV are purely semantographic in nature (i.e. they lack of any phonological information), etc. Of course, the fact that writing may be entirely disconnected from speech has profound implications in terms of digital representation of texts, which are invariably overlooked in modern theory. Even within the same archive, scribes 5

As my expertise lies in the study of cuneiform sources from early Mesopotamia I will mostly focus here on what has been done so far in the field of cuneiform studies. However, most arguments should be generalized as to apply to other fields concerned with the study of ancient sources, with special reference to the philological disciplines focusing on the so-called pristine writing systems, i.e. the ancient writing systems from which all other systems derive, directly or indirectly (cf. Woods 2010, 15–19). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

124

Massimo Maiocchi

may use more than one variety of cuneiform. For instance, the texts from the Ebla archives are written using at least three languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, and Eblaic). Some texts are monoglottographic, i.e. they are written in a single language, as in the case of Sumerian lexical lists; others are instead polyglottographic (Sumerian and Eblaic; Sumerian, Akkadian and Eblaic, etc.). In addition, some texts probably originated in a different scholarly milieu (such as Mari’s scriptoria), which expresses a different writing tradition. Finally, it is worth stressing here that non-alphabetic writing systems may offer a non-linear representation of linguistic information. This is especially evident in both Egyptian hieroglyphic and cuneiform sources of the early periods, when scribes often freely placed the signs within individual textual boxes, as to exploit the limited space in the most convenient way. In some literary environments, some spellings remained frozen, for instance the word for silver ku3-bar6 is invariably written bar6:ku3 at Ebla. There, a single determinative may refer to a whole list of items preceding it. These facts make clear that a TEI/XML model for the representation of preclassical sources, albeit possible in principle, remains a less-than-optimal choice. Alternative models exist, but they are not popular within Assyriology. Here, I would like to point out the one developed as part of the Ebla Digital Archives (EbDA) project, which is detailed in Di Filippo et al. 2018.

5 Paper and digital editions As I tried to explain above, a digital text is not just a bunch of visual tokens arranged in such a way as to make linguistic meaning to a decoder, but it includes also a whole set of relations established between its very components. Whereas on paper such relations are hidden (or implicit within the decoder’s brain), in a truly digital text they are explicit, in the form of hyperlinks or relations between entities. The network of such relations grows exponentially with the number of textual elements to be identified (i.e. the morphemes of our grammar of digitality), and belongs to various analytical levels (graphemic analysis, lexicographical analysis, syntax, etc.). However, most projects make little effort to fully embrace a strict digital policy in their implementation. This is not to diminish their value in terms of ease of access to ancient texts’ data, but it is equally important to stress that well-formed indexes on print edition may equally serve the cause. In other words, technological innovation is not yet fully exploited. So what are the benefits of a digital representation of ancient texts that includes not only standard transliterations, but also information on what signs are actually on the tablets, as well as on the properties of the writing system? Through proper digitization, we are able to re-arrange, filter, extrapolate and visualize data in a number of ways, which is a task otherwise impossible to © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Current Approaches towards Ancient Near Eastern Textual Sources

125

accomplish on paper. As for ancient texts, without a proper conceptual framework, the digital representation of ancient texts remains nothing but an embellished paper edition. It may have a better display on screen compared to printed text, or some basic search function, which certainly speed up the research process, but it lacks the conceptual dimension that makes digitality an entirely different realm.

6 Education programs Sadly enough, Assyriology is still behind many fields of the Humanities, when it comes to evaluate digital literacy among its practitioners (be they renown hardcore philologists or beginner students). This is because the methodologies and digital practices mentioned above, with special reference to the features described in §§3.1–4, are as yet not integrated within any education program focused on ancient Near Eastern sources. As such sources exhibit many peculiar features not found in alphabetic systems, the inevitable outcome for those who are to venture in digital approaches to cuneiform texts, is to adapt what has been developed so far for the study of very different textual material. Any such effort is usually frustrated by the fact that the process is much slower than it should: on the one hand, the terminology implied must be translated in something meaningful to a scholar in cuneiform studies. For obvious reasons, the Internet is flooded with tutorials on how to build a commercial database, keeping track of what item is sold most frequently to what customers, which has a lot in common with textual analysis (what linguistic features are associated with what corpus), but the process of abstraction is never made explicit, entirely relying on the student’s side. In addition, “translation” of another approach as to make it work with cuneiform sources may be only partially possible (especially when it comes to adapt TEI standards to encode cuneiform sources). Students of computational linguistics, on the other hand, are more familiar with abstract / all-purpose approaches toward linguistic material, but they are rarely interested in cuneiform sources. As a collaboration between experts in different fields is always heartily welcomed, students in cuneiform studies need clear tutorials on how to build their own database, set-up their scripts for data mining, perform clustering algorithms in their networks of data, etc. Of course, students also need introductory courses in all such techniques for exploring textual sources, tailored on the peculiar nature of the texts to be studied. I have little doubt that future Assyriologists will consider training in digital practices as an integral part of their formation. Such knowledge is in fact crucial in order to achieve broad conclusions on an ever increasing amount of data to be studied, without the need of clumsy—and expensive!—collaborations with professional programmers. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Massimo Maiocchi

126

7 Conclusions In this paper, I tried to highlight methodological issues and operational difficulties in the implementation of current research projects. I would like to conclude here with some desiderata. As a first step, the theoretical framework for Digital Humanities research must be expanded, in order to overcome the fact that digitization often remains an impressionistic affair, lacking of a full digital spirit. In parallel, scholars should produce an in-depth description of the writing system, as without it is nearly impossible to develop software general enough to properly handle ancient textual material in digital form. Once this is done, the TEI model should be critically re-evaluated, in order for data to be represented in the most efficient and elegant way. On the software side, much remains to be done: the development of dedicated scripts for Assyriology is still in its infancy. A Google search for “Python and Assyriology” yields in fact meagre results. One may however argue that a state of digital anarchy will provide more diverse solutions, which will eventually compete, undergoing a process of “natural” selection. Be this as it may, we need to build a community of digital practitioners and students alike, in order to set a path for future research in Digital Humanities projects. This being said, I would like to conclude this contribution on a more positive note. It is amazing to see the constant progress made in the past two decades: almost every year new discoveries are brought about by the use of computational methods, empowered by the latest technologies, in all fields of the Humanities. I personally feel that the current situation is highly stimulating, with plenty of room for creative thought and experiments.

Abbreviations CDLI EbDA ORACC TEI XML

Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative Ebla Digital Archives Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus Text Encoding Initiative eXtensible Markup Language

Bibliography Buccellati, G., Perceptual, Grammatical and Hermeneutical Dimensions of Digitality, in: Mastrandea, P. (ed.), Strumenti digitali e collaborativi per le Scienze dell’Antichità, Antichistica 14, Filologia e letteratura 3 (2017), 159‒ 169. Civil, M., The Sumerian Writing System: Some Problems, in: Orientalia NS 42 (1973), 21‒34. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Current Approaches towards Ancient Near Eastern Textual Sources

127

Di Filippo, F. et al., The “Ebla Digital Archives” Project: How to Deal with Methodological and Operational Issues in the Development of Cuneiform Texts Repositories, in: Archeologia e Calcolatori 29 (2018), 117‒142. Edzard, D.O., Gudea and His Dynasty, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia 3/1), Toronto / Buffalo / London 1997. Gelb, I.J., A Study of Writing (revised edition), Chicago / London 1963. Woods, C., Visible Language: the Earliest Writing Systems, in: Woods, C. et al. (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond (Oriental Institute Publications 32), 15–27, Chicago 2010.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie Pietro Mander ψυχῇσι … τέρψιν ἢ θάνατον ὑγρῇσι γενέσθαι „… moisture appears delightful and not deadly to souls“ (Porphyry, On the Cave of the Nymphs, 4; Taylor 1917, 16) immatima nārum iššamma mila ublu kulili ipqeleppe ina nāri pānuša inaṭṭala pān šamši ultu ullanumma ul ibašši „Es gibt eine Zeit, da der Fluß anschwoll und die Flut herbrachte, da die Eintagfliege auf dem Fluß sich treiben läßt, da ihr Blicksich auf der Sonne Antlitz richtet, doch dann mit einem Male ist nichts mehr davon da!“ (Gilgamesch-Epos, die zehnte Tafel, V. 312–315; Maul 2005, 137)1

1 Ein bemerkenswerter Passus im Epos Inana und Enki Dreimal fleht Inana, bei ihrer Flucht aus Eridu, auf der sie sich der me bemächtigt, ihre treue Nin-šubur mit den Worten an: „Come, my good minister of Eana! My fair-spoken minister! My envoy of reliable words! Water has never touched your hand, water has never touched your feet!“.2 Wie jedoch ist hinsichtlich des Umstands, daß noch nie Wasser weder Hände noch Füße der Göttin berührt habe, diese Präzisierung zu verstehen und zu interpretieren? Der Umstand der dreifachen Anrufung verleitet dazu anzunehmen, diese Besonderheit Nin-šuburs sei nicht ausführlich geschildert, sondern betreffe vielmehr das Wesen des Wassers selbst als Symbol für eine Wirklichkeit, der die Göttin nicht ausgesetzt ist. Es ist, um diesen Passus zu verstehen, daher notwendig, die Bedeutung des Wassers innerhalb der Kosmologie näher zu untersuchen, 1

Der Verfasser dankt hier Dr. Carsten Schmieder für die Übersetzung und Dr. Prof. Claus Ambos für seine freundliche Bemerkungen. Jeder Fehler muß ausschließlich dem Verfasser zugeschrieben werden. 2 ETCSL 1.3.1 Segm. H 30–33; 64–67; 98–101: ĝa2-nu sukkal zid E2-an-na-ĝu10 / sukkal e-ne-eĝ3 sag9-sag9-ga-ĝu10 / ra-gaba e-ne-eĝ3 ge-en-gen6-na-ĝu10 / a šu-zu nu-tag a me-ri-zu nu-tag. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Pietro Mander

130

so daß sich Aussagen über sein Wesen wie auch seine Eigenschaften und Funktionen machen lassen. Meines Erachtens ist es überflüssig, Th. Jacobsens Ausführungen über den Symbolcharakter des Wassers hier in Erinnerung zu rufen, zumal er die Gestalt des Gottes Enki3 erschöpfend beschrieben und ausgedeutet hat. Gleiches gilt für Eliade und das in seinem Traktat Gesagte.4 Da beide Werke hinreichend bekannt sind, ist an dieser Stelle auf eine zusammenfassende Wiedergabe zu verzichten.

2 Die Reise stromabwärts: Der Fluß des Werdens Als Ausgangspunkt dienen zwei babylonische Texte in akkadischer Sprache, die Beschwörungsrituale darstellen, wie sie gegenüber Flüssen vollzogen wurden, wobei hier Fluß einerseits wörtlich als Fluß wie andererseits auch als Gottheit5 zu verstehen ist. Im ersteren nimmt der Fluß eine entscheidende Rolle bei der Schöpfung ein, d.h. er – oder besser sie, denn „Fluß“ ist weiblich – wurde zuerst von Himmel und Erde gezeugt und dann als banāt kalama, „Schöpferin von allem“, angerufen. In dieser Eigenschaft wird er später den Wurm des Zahnwehs zur Welt bringen. Diese Aspekte, noch weit mehr als die Eigenschaften, die mittels Epitheta genannt und zugeschrieben werden, haben Bottéro, den Herausgeber dieser Texte, veranlaßt, von einer zutiefst archaischen Entwicklungsstufe auszugehen, in der sich jene Beschwörungsrituale herausgebildet haben: Eine Epoche, die unmittelbar jenem Moment vorausgeht, wo der Kosmos unter den großen Göttern6 aufgeteilt wurde. Dem ist sich m.E. anzuschließen, zumal jene Aspekte auch in anderen Texten erwähnt werden. Hierbei handelt es sich jedoch nicht um sumerische Texte, sondern um eine Überlieferungstradition, die zu diesen Texten – was durchaus plausibel ist – zeitgleich verlief. Die Flüsse kommen aus dem abzu / apsû hervor, der, wie das Denken, für den Gegenüber unsichtbar bleibt, jedoch durch das verlautete Wort für diesen sich als manifest erweist. Der Gegensatz „verborgen – sichtbar“ ist in der sumerischen Mythologie ein gängiges Schema, worauf auch die Figur des Enlil beruht. 7 Jacobsen stellt dieses „verborgen“ wie folgt heraus: 8 „His [scil. Enlil] skillful planning in intricate designs – their inner workings a blur of threads not to unravel – thread entwined in thread, not to be traced by eye makes him a marvel of divine providence“. Dieses „skillful planning“ sowie die „divine providence“ erfüllt sich durch das Wort Gottes in der Welt: „… Enlil, the lord, the noble / Namnir, / the lord whose command / is not reversed, / is not confounded 3

Jacobsen 1976, 110–116. Eliade 1953, 168–190. 5 Bottéro 1985, Kap. VII. 6 Bottéro 1985, 284. 7 Mander 2015. 8 Jacobsen 1976, 101. 4

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

131

…“ wie es ein sehr alter Hymnus zum Ausdruck bringt.9 Der Erde entsprungen, die den apsû verbirgt, ist der Fluß Ursprung der kleinen Flüsse und letztlich auch des Schlammes, von dem die alten Völker glaubten, aus ihm entstehe das Leben der anderen Lebewesen.10 Diese lediglich hypothetisch existierende archaische Vorzeit findet ihre Entsprechung in der mythischen Dichtung, die auf die schöpferische Fähigkeit des Bodens verweist, wenn er überschwemmt wurde: wie es die Bewässerung des Bodens in der Landwirtschaft ist, wird in Enki and Nin-hursaĝa11 dargestellt, wie Kirk12 bereits nachgewiesen hat. Das Motiv des fließenden Wassers, das aus dem abzu hervorströmt, oder aus dessen Herrn, Enki, wird in den Versen 63–74 beschrieben: „All alone the wise one, toward Nin-tur, the country’s mother, Enki, the wise one, toward Nin-tur, the country’s mother, was digging his phallus into the dykes, plunging his phallus into the reed beds. The august one pulled his phallus aside and cried out: ‘No man take me in the marsh’. Enki cried out: ‘By the life’s breath of heaven I adjure you. Lie down for me in the marsh, lie down for me in the marsh, that would be joyous’. Enki distributed his semen destined for Dam-galnuna. He poured semen into Nin-hursaĝa’s womb and she conceived the semen in the womb, the semen of Enki.“ Es ist bekannt, daß sich in der Folge eine Reihe von Inzesten zwischen Enki und seinen eigenen Töchtern abgespielt hat, bis schließlich Nin-hursaĝa intervenierte, um eine Schwangerschaft der letzten, der Spinnengöttin Uttu, zu verhindern: Sinnfällige symbolische Gestalt, die das kosmische Netz hervorbringt, das auf unsichtbare Weise die Dinge miteinander verknüpft und als der Ort fungiert, an welchem dem in der Zeugung resultierenden Triebverhalten Enkis Einhalt geboten wurde. Erneut ist Nin-hursaĝa die Protagonistin einer Erzählung, die zu jener eine Parallelhandlung aufweist, jedoch auf einer höheren Ebene, und zwar, wie sie im Mythos Lugal-e (= Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta, ETCSL 1.6.2) erzählt wird. Hierin übernimmt der Tigris eine metaphysische Rolle von dem Moment an, wo er durch sein Wasser, das die Ebene hinabströmt, Ackerbau und Landwirtschaft ermöglicht und damit das Überleben der Menschheit, ein Umstand also, der die Möglichkeit darstellt, mittels der das Entstehen individueller Formen im Prozeß des Werdens sich manifestiert. Eine Möglichkeit, die durch Ninlil Wirklichkeit wird und deren Sohn Ninurta als Ordner des Universums ihr

9

Lambert 1976, 430. Bottéro 1985, 284. 11 ETCSL 1.1.1. 12 Kirk 1970, 90–106. 10

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

132

Pietro Mander

den Namen Nin-hursâga gibt. In beiden Mythen ist es somit Nin-hursâga, der sich die Vermehrung des Lebens im Kosmos verdankt.13 Solche parallelen Strukturen, wie sie auf verschiedenen Ebenen statt finden, finden Widerhall in der Schöpfung des Menschen, die auf einer wiederum höheren Ebene sich vollzieht und in The Song of the Hoe erzählt wird.14 Parallel hierzu, allerdings auf einer Ebene unterhalb dieser, wird sie in Enki and Ninmah,15 erzählt, wie von mir an anderer Stelle16 dargelegt wurde. Diese Hierarchie der Ebenen findet sich gleichermaßen im Mythos Enki’s journey to Nibru, wo dieser Gott sich nach Nibru zu begeben hat, um Enlil und die großen Götter zu ehren.17 Es scheint mir notwendig, in die Diskussion um die lebensspendende Kraft des Wassers kontextuell auch ein ikonographisches Element einzubringen: Diese Eigenschaft des Wassers, wie sie den Vorstellungen entsprach, wird durch die untere Abbildung auf einer Alabastervase aus Uruk dargestellt, wobei die Abbildung darüber den Bereich der Vegetation zeigt, dann jenen des Tierreiches und schließlich die Prozession zu Ehren der Göttin.18 Innerhalb dieser Ordnung, wie man sie sich von den Göttern machte, auf einer parallelen Erzählebene, jedoch noch weiter unten angeordnet, wird das Mythologem von den niederen Göttern, müde von der Arbeit an den Kanälen, im Mythos Enki and Ninmah (ETCSL 1.1.2, V. 8–11) realisiert, das als narratives Element dann im akkadischen Atra-hāsis19 wieder aufgenommen wird. Der Fluß wie auch fließendes Wasser im allgemeinen verfügen jedoch – abgesehen davon, ein Symbol des Werdens im Geoffenbarten zu sein – in einem kosmologischen Kontext über weitere Sinnzusammenhänge und Bedeutungen. Erst kürzlich hat Verderame die Bedeutung von Fluß und fließendem Wasser in der Unterwelt20 untersucht, d.h. in einem Kontext, worin dem Fluß eine trennende und zugleich verbindende Funktion zukommt. Wenn er verbindet, fließt der Fluß durch eine Ebene, die über eine Neigung verfügt, und sein Lauf – ebenso wie das Leben – ist unumkehrbar. Er strömt zur bzw. in die Unterwelt. Analog hierzu kann das Trankopfer für die Toten, das ki-

13

Hinsichtlich der metaphysischen Implikationen, wie sie symbolisch im Mythos Lugale sich finden, siehe die Überlegungen, die sich in Bezug auf das mythologische Material ergeben, das von Coomaraswamy untersucht wurde (Coomaraswamy 1944); siehe auch Mander 2015 und 2016, 16–20. Diesem Forschungsbereich, insbesondere hinsichtlich Ninhursaĝa, widmet sich auch die Untersuchung von Mander 2013. 14 ETCSL 5.5.4. 15 ETCSL 1.1.2. 16 Mander 1998, 231–232. 17 ETCSL 1.1.4, V. 83–129. 18 Leick 2002, 52–53. 19 Cf. Kikawada, 1983. 20 Verderame 2014, 29–31. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

133

a-naĝ, diese erreichen und weist dabei dieselbe vertikale Bewegung auf. Es gelangt zu den Schatten in der Unterwelt, indem der Boden das Wasser absorbiert. Wo es kein Leben gibt, ist der Fluß des Wassers beraubt: Die Welt der Toten befindet sich diametral entgegengesetzt zu der der Lebenden. 21 Im Mythos Ninĝišzida’s journey to the nether world manifestiert sich solche Entsprechung im Fluß Id-kura,22 der den Durst nicht zu stillen vermag. Sein Name besagt zwar etwas anderes, doch seine Funktion bleibt dieselbe und er verschlingt sogar Menschen, wie es in Enlil and Ninlil23 heißt. In diesem Mythos kommt die metaphysische Funktion des Flusses vielmehr in einem sprechenden Bild zum Ausdruck: a) der Fluß Id-sala wird als „heilig“24 bestimmt; b) Nuska, der Minister Enlils, bringt den Gott ans andere Ufer, wobei er flußabwärts steuert, so daß jener zu Ninlil gelangen kann. Aus dieser Verbindung geht Suen (V. 35–53) hervor. Ihm werden symbolische Bedeutungen zugeschrieben, die sich auf die Fortpflanzung25 beziehen, ein Merkmal, das später in der platonischen Tradition wieder auftaucht, wo von einer „sublunaren Welt des Werdens“ die Rede ist und wodurch eine begriffliche Kontinuität bezeugt wird. c) Hinsichtlich der Söhne, die Enlil, verschiedene Gestalten annehmend, später mit Ninlil zeugt, nimmt der Same seinen Verlauf in eine andere Richtung. Dreimal bekräftigt Ninlil „The seed of your lord, the bright seed, is in my womb. The seed of Suen, the bright seed, is in my womb“ und erhält stets die gleichlautende Antwort „My master’s seed can go up to the heavens! Let my seed go downwards! Let my seed go downwards, instead of my master’s seed!“.26 Die Irrealität der Handlung im Mythos selbst – es ist unmöglich, eine bereits schwangere Frau noch einmal zu begatten – ist augenscheinlicher Beweis dafür, daß es beabsichtigt war, mittels gewisser Symbole Aspekte aufzuzeigen, die sich auf die kosmische Ordnung beziehen, wie die Doxologie nahelegt (V. 143–154, 21

Van der Stade 2007, 81 und 161. ETCSL 1.7.3, V. 29: id2-kur-ra-ke4 a nu-de2 a-bi nu-mu-un-na-na8-na8, „The river of the nether world produces no water, no water is drunk from it“. 23 ETCSL 1.2.1, Vers 94: id2 lu2 gu7-gu7-ĝu10, „My … man-eating river!“. 24 ETCSL 1.2.1, V. 4: id2-sal-la id2 kug-bi na-nam, „Id-sala is its holy river“, mit Bezugnahme auf die Stadt von Dur-ĝišnimbar; V. 15: id2 kug-ga-am3 nu-nus-e id2 kugga-am3 a nam-mi-tu5-tu5, „The river is holy, woman! The river is holy—don’t bathe in it!“; ähnlich Vers 23. 25 Jacobsen, 1976, 121–127, insbes. 125–126. 26 ETCSL 1.2.1, V. 83–86; 109-112; 135–138: a u3-mu-un-zu a dadag-ga šag4-ĝa2 i3ĝal2 / a dsuen-na a dadag-ga šag4-ĝa2 i3-ĝal2 / a lugal-ĝu10 an-še3 he2-du a-ĝu10 ki-še3 he2-du. 22

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

134

Pietro Mander

in particular 146: „{You are the} lord who make flax grow, lord who makes barely grow“27). Doch nochmals zu den Punkten a, b und c: a) Der Spaziergang Ninlils am Flußufer28 ist dem eines Mädchens, höchstwahrscheinlich Inana, zu vergleichen, und führt am Ufer des Euphrat entlang, wie es im Kolophon hierzu heißt, und zwar in der Beschreibung innerhalb eines balbale:29 Dies ist kein sentimentales Gleichnis – wie es heute der Fall wäre –, sondern als symbolischer Ausdruck des Flusses in seiner kosmologischen Funktion als Grenze zwischen zwei entgegengesetzten Welten zu verstehen, nämlich dem κόσμος, wo der Götter Gnade über das Schicksal waltet, und jener Welt des Chaos.30 Das Flußufer entlangspazierend erhofft das Mädchen Reichtum und Wohlstand für ihr Land,31 ein Bedürfnis, das analog dem Vergehen Ninlils entspricht, und die, wider das Verbot ihrer Mutter, den Fluß hinabfährt, wobei sie das Begehren Enlils weckt, der mit ihr Suen zeugt; der wiederum steht – wie bereits oben gezeigt – für das Hervorbringen des Überflusses. b) Die Fahrtrichtung des Bootes, mit dem Nuska flußabwärts fährt, symbolisiert den Übergang von einer höheren Ebene der Sakralität zu einer niederen, um das Prinzip der Vermehrung der Wesen und Lebewesen zu begründen, wie es das balbale-Lied auf Nanna (ETCSL 4.13.01) poetisch einprägsam zum Ausdruck bringt. Dieser Flußrichtung korrespondiert die andere, jene flußaufwärts, also gegen die Strömung, wohin Nanna sich aufmacht, um die höhere, d.h. göttliche Ebene ihres Vaters Enlil zu erlangen.32 c) Innerhalb dieser Ordnung verortet sich gleichfalls die Flußrichtung des Samens Enlils, der aufsteigt, um Suen zu zeugen (siehe oben, Vers 85: a lugalĝu10 an-še3 he2-du), und der herabfließt (a-ĝu10 ki-še3 he2-du), um Nergal / Mes-lamentaea, Nin-azu und En-bilulu zu zeugen. Dieses Motiv entspricht Nannas/Suens Reise nach Nippur, wie im folgenden zu zeigen sein wird. Die symbolische Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers, wie sie in der Kosmologie zum Ausdruck kommt, spiegelt sich in der Vorstellung des Dahinfließen des Lebens, wie es dem Fluß der Nahrung sich verdankt, verflüssigt durch das Kauen und in Gestalt der gekauten Speisen – durch die hierfür geeigneten Gefäße 27

ETCSL 1.2.1, V. 146: en gu mu2-mu2 en še mu2-mu2 za-e-me-en. ETCSL 1.2.1, V. 24: dnin-lil2-le gu2 id2-nun-bi-ir-tum2-ka i-im-du-de3, „As Ninlil walked along the bank of the Id-nunbir-tum“. 29 Sefati 1998, 210–217. ETCSL 4.08.15 (Dumuzid-Inana O). 30 Mander 2005, 159–160. 31 Im Vergleich mit Gilgameš, Enkidu and the nether world; hierzu siehe auch §§ 3, 5. 32 Mander 2010, 186–187. 28

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

135

und Kanäle bis hinab in den Verdauungsapparat:33 Die kanalartigen Gefäße sind mit Rohrleitungen zu vergleichen, und zwar solchen für flüssiges Metall als auch Bewässerungskanälen.34 Das Fließen einer Flüssigkeit jedenfalls, in welcher Art Kanal oder Leitung auch immer, ermöglicht das Entstehen einer Entität, die so eine Form hat. Wenn das Fließen in eine Gußform hinein statthat, entsteht ein Metallwerkzeug, handelt es sich um Bewässerungskanäle auf einem Feld, entstehen Feldfrüchte oder für den Körper eines Tieres bzw. Lebewesens die Möglichkeit zur Bewegung (und Ausscheidung von Stoffwechselprodukten). Besondere Beachtung verdient Nin-hursaĝa in der Gestalt als Nin-tur,35 d.h. als Uterus, der ihr Symbol ist, wie es ikonographischen Zeugnisse36 bezeugen und wo dieses Symbol unter anderem neben der Abbildung der Göttin zu finden ist. Der Schoß jedoch und somit im weitesten Sinne der Körper, oder auch ein Gefäß – auch dieses ein Körper37 –, sind eine Art „verborgene Schmiede“, worin Prozesse stattfinden, die sich unserer Kenntnis entziehen, da sie dem Auge verborgen sind, jedoch jedem einzelnen Individuum seine Form und sein Wesen verleihen. Diese Eigenheit erstreckt sich bis auf die himmlische Ebene und läßt sich dort ebenso ausmachen: utul šamê (an-šag4) ist der Schoß des Himmels, in dem sich die Gottheiten nachts paaren.38 In diesem Sinne ist auch der Tempel ein „Körper“, der die göttliche Essenz in sich aufnimmt: Von Gottheiten sagt man, jede mögen ihren eigenen Tempel (aus)füllen (si).39 Somit zeichnet sich ein bipolares Schema der göttlichen Anwesenheit ab: Verborgen im an-šag4, jedoch zugleich entfaltet als im Tempel eingeschlossene Macht. Innerhalb dieser Ordnung, zu der sich die Vorstellungen von den Göttern festigten, läßt sich auch der Name von Pu2-ta-e3-a lokalisieren, der soviel bedeutet wie „Gezeugt-um-aus-dem-Brunnen-zu-steigen“ und zugleich den Ursprung der neuen Familie darstellt, die er hiermit adoptiert. Dieser Name verweist zudem auf das Flußordal sowie die Geburt, und zwar in demselben Sinn, wie er nachfolgend noch expliziert wird. Das Dahinfließen des Lebens erfordert unabdingbar nicht nur, daß es erhalten bleibt, daß es gesichert wird durch Nahrung und Ernährung, sondern auch seine Reproduktion, wobei der männliche Samen (stets a als sumerisches Ideogramm) fließt und der Uterus – wie oben gezeigt – hierfür als Gefäß vorgestellt wird. In den Beschwörungsformeln ša3-zi-ga (niš libbi) wird die Sexualität mit einem Fluß verglichen, der dahinfließt.40 Die rhythmischen Kontraktionen, die 33

Steinert 2013, 10. Steinert 2013, 13 Anm. 36. 35 Zu den Namen Ninhursaĝas s. Jacobsen 1976, 104–110. 36 Steinert 2017. 37 Kipfer / Schroer 2015. 38 Heimpel 1986, 130–133; Steinkeller 2005, 19 u. Anm. 19. 39 Sjöberg 1974–1975, 167 Anm. 7 (sic! = 6), 171ff. (Anm. 6); Mander 1986, 45. 40 Biggs 1967, 35. 34

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

136

Pietro Mander

die Ejakulation hervorrufen, gelten als aktiv und das Vergießen des Samens steht im Gegensatz zum Herunterschlucken der Nahrungsmasse, wie sie durch Kauen im Mund sich gebildet hat. Dieser erste Abschnitt des Verdauungszyklus gilt als passiv, da – so die Annahme – die Schwerkraft (downstream/abwärts, wie Steinert herausstellt: Steinert 2013, 10) die zerkaute Nahrung hinab in den Verdauungstrakt bewegt. Mittels der Schwer- bzw. Gravitationskraft kommt somit ein Fließen und Rinnen zustande, das das Überleben der Gattungen – Pflanzen, Tiere und sonstige Lebewesen – gestattet und, zumindest beim Menschen, das Individuum fortbestehen läßt. Es existiert allerdings der hierzu gegenläufige Drang, nämlich der, ein neues (Lebe-)Wesen zu zeugen, wozu der Geschlechtsakt vollführt wird, der eben auch in der Welt der Götter statthat, da jene göttlichen Wesen, die diĝirsag-du und ama-dim2-ma-ni genannt werden, ihm ebenfalls erliegen. Einst ist man von einer Analogie zwischen menschlichem Körper und Kosmos ausgegangen. Daher ist es an dieser Stelle keineswegs abwegig, Tränen zu erwähnen, die ebenfalls Wasser bzw. eine Flüssigkeit sind, das bzw. die aus dem Körper hervorquillt.41 Im Hymn to Nungal42 wird in den Versen 103f. die Funktion des Weinens als eine regenerative Kraft dargestellt: „My house gives birth to a just person, but exterminates a false one. Since there are pity and tears within its brick walls, and it is built with compassion, it soothes the heart of that person, and refreshes his spirits“. Dieselbe Kraft trifft man in verschiedenen Kontexten an: Von ihr machen Inana43 als auch Namma44 Gebrauch, um den Schöpfergott Enki dahin zu bringen, auf ihre Forderungen einzugehen. Hierzu wäre in diesem Kontext m.E. auch die Anrufung Enheduanas an Inana gegen Lugalane45 zu rechnen, zumal in diesem Passus des Ninmešara, in dem die Tränen explizit als Bier, das der Göttin46 angeboten wird, verstanden werden: In Bezug auf sie wird das Tränenopfer auch im Hymn to Inana as Ninegala (Inana D) erwähnt, und zwar von Ama-

41

In diesem Zusammenhang ist daran zu erinnern, daß in der anderen mesopotamischen Sprache, das Akkadische īnu neben „eye“ auch „spring“ bedeutet (CAD I/J: 157b–158a; AHw: 383b B), und so zwei Begriffe, Träne und Quelle, im Denken desjenigen, der spricht, einander sehr nahe sind. 42 ETCSL 4.28.1 (Hymn to Nungal). 43 „Inana came in to see her father Enki in his house, weeping to him, and making her complain to him“ (Enki and the World Order, ETCSL 1.1.3, V. 389–390). 44 Enki and Ninmah, ETCSL 1.1.2, V. 17–19 „Namma, the primeval mother who gave birth to the senior gods, took the tears of the gods to the one who was sleeping [= Enki] …“. 45 Edzard 1987–1990, 114. 46 „I, En-hedu-ana, will recite a prayer to you. To you, holy Inana, I shall give free vent to my tears like sweet beer!“ (ETCSL 4.07.2, V. 81–82). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

137

ušumgalana / Dumuzi,47 diesmal allerdings als libatio, d.h. als Trankopfer für die Toten.48

3 Stromaufwärts fahren: Die Anstrengung, einen höheren Status zu erlangen Gegen die Strömung steuern oder den Strom hinauffahren stellt somit in symbolischem Sinn den Aufstieg zu einer göttlichen Realität dar, d.h. zu einer höheren Ordnung. Somit verläuft die Richtung entgegengesetzt jener von Enlils Samen beim Zeugungsakt von Nanna/Suen. Hierbei, d.h. beim Befahren des Flusses, handelt es sich um eine Pilgerreise. In Hinblick auf Nanna/Suen’s journey to Nibru,49 worin dieser Prozeß dargestellt wird, wird deutlich, daß er umgekehrt zu dem der Ausbreitung verläuft, denn der Gott sammelt Pflanzen und treibt Tiere zusammen, um zu einem Zentrum hin aufzubrechen, das zugleich als Ursprung fungiert und von dem aus ein göttliches Prinzip waltet. Zunächst sind es die Pflanzen, die das Material liefern, um sein Boot zu bauen (V. 39–58), dann kommen die Tiere (V. 157–175, 186–197) und am Ende vollzieht er das Opfer für Enlil im Heiligtum von Nippur (V. 258ff.). Dieser Aspekt der mythischen Handlung entspricht genau der Darstellung, mit der das Gefäß von Uruk verziert ist und worauf bereits verwiesen wurde. Bemerkenswert ist auch, wie das gesamte Land der Sumerer symbolisch an der Reise des Gottes teilnimmt, und zwar von dem Moment an, wo die sieben Städte zu den sieben Etappen auf der Pilgerreise werden: Enegir, Urim, Larsam, Unug, Šuruppag, und eventuell Tummal sowie Nibru. Es ist anzunehmen, daß diese Zahl gewählt wurde, da durch sie die Anzahl der Tage des Mondwechsels teilbar ist. Die Rolle als Ursprung, die der heiligen Stadt Nippur zuteil wird, zugleich Ende und Ziel der Reise, wird in den Versen 34–36 wie folgt beschrieben: „Before Dilmun existed, palm trees grew in my city. Before Dilmun existed, palm trees grew in Nibru and the great mother Ninlil was clothed in fine linen“, worin die Vorstellung vom Ursprung mittels zeitlicher Bestimmung wiedergegeben wird. Auf dieselbe Vorstellung, jedoch mit anderen Worten, wird im Epos Enki’s journey to Nibru50 Bezug genommen: Im Versen 73–74 liest man tatsächlich „As Enki has raised Eridug up, it is an artfully mountain which floats on the wa-

47

„At the New Year, at the festival of Dumuzid, your spouse Ama-ušumgal-ana, Lord Dumuzid, steps forward to you … of weeping are brought to you, Inana, as offerings. The tubes of the underworld are opened for you, and memorial libations are poured down them for you.“ (ETCSL 4.07.4, V. 66–71). 48 Cf. Verderame 2014, 30. 49 ETCSL 1.5.1. 50 ETCSL 1.1.4. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

138

Pietro Mander

ter“. Nanna ist hier die lebendige51 Zeit, d.h. die Zeit der sublunaren Welt des Werdens, und ist verschieden von jener Enkis, der zusätzlich zum Ursprung, von dem aus das Werden selbst seinen Anfang nimmt, eine demiurgische Funktion erhält. Enki, während er auf dem Euphrat gegen die Strömung fährt, verursacht in dessen Wasser Strudel, mittels derer er sich an den Gott wendet, während er weiterhin auf ihm stromaufwärts strebt (V. 85 „The Euphrates rises before him as he does before the fierce south wind.“), so wie zu Beginn von Gilgameš, Enkidu and the nether world52 (V. 1–26)53 die Fahrt Enkis hin zu einer tieferen Ebene des Kosmos, d.h. der Unterwelt, einen Sturm entfesselt, der Steine herumschleudert. Jene Unternehmung resultiert einzig in einem Baum, der Baum huluppu, dem das Wasser des Euphrat ermöglicht zu gedeihen, aber später vom Südwind entwurzelt wird, so daß er in den Fluß fällt, um zu Inana nach Uruk zu gelangen (V. 27–35). Der Baum huluppu ist Resultat eines demiurgischen Aktes und steht als Symbol für den lebendigen Kosmos.54 Des weiteren gibt dieses Mythologem dieselbe Vorstellung durch ein anderes Bild wieder, die bereits weiter oben in Bezug auf das Epos Enki und Ninhursaĝa erörtert wurde. Dort endet die schöpferische Handlung mit der Geburt der Spinnengöttin Uttu, die webend das Netz des Kosmos fertigt.

4 Den Fluß überqueren: Das Flußordal zur Wiederherstellung der Reinheit Um gegen die Strömung eines Flusses zu fahren, bedarf es einer besonderen Anstrengung, in etwa mindestens so, als ob man einen reißenden Fluß überquert. Hierin liegt die Bedeutung des Flußordals, wobei das göttliche Urteil den gewaltigen Mühen entspricht, die nötig sind, um den Zustand der Unreinheit zu überwinden. Daher, auch wenn unschuldig hinsichtlich des Vorwurfs, der schwarzen Magie gehuldigt zu haben, gilt der Beschuldigte nach dem Flußordal als gereinigt, wie es Paragraph 2 des Codex Hammurabi veranschaulicht, auch wenn sich darin eine viel ältere Tradition fortsetzt: šumma awīlum kišpī eli awīlim iddīma lā uktinšu ša elīšu kišpū nadû ana dNarim illak dNaram išallīamma… šumma awīlam šuāti dNarum ūtebbibaššuma ištalam …, „If a man charges another man with practicing witchcraft but cannot bring prove against him, he who is charged with witchcraft shall go to the divine River Ordeal, he shall indeed submit to the divine River Ordeal, … if the divine River Ordeal should clear that man and should he survive, …“,55 worin das Verb ebēbum, in dem D-Stamm gebildet,

51

Eliade 1953, 106. ETCSL 1.8.1.4. 53 Cf. Jacobsen 1993 liefert eine Interpretation, die von ETCSL abweicht. 54 Eliade 1953, Kap. 8. 55 Roth 1997, 81. 52

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

139

wörtlich „[divine River Ordeal] makes him pure“ bedeutet. Allein die Tatsache, unschuldig angeklagt worden zu sein, bedeutet einen Makel für die rituelle Integrität des Individuums, den es zu beseitigen gilt: Wäre sein „ritueller Leumund“ makellos, wäre es nicht Gefahr gelaufen, angeklagt zu werden, obwohl es unschuldig ist.56 Das Paradigma dieser Auffassung findet sich im Hymn to Nungal,57 wo im Vers 8 gesagt wird: e2 id2-lu2-ru-gu2 si sa2 nu-ug7-e erim2-e bar ak, „House, river of ordeal which leaves the just one alive, and chooses the evil ones!“, und im Vers 59: ki en3 tar-re dId2-lu2-ru-gu2-da diĝir ba-sug2-ge-eš / zi-du erim2du bar im-ak-de3 si sa2 mu-un-u3-tud, „The gods are present at the place of interrogation, at the divine river ordeal, to separate the just from the evildoers; a just man is given rebirth“. Der Begriff der Wiedergeburt, hier meiner Ansicht nach als Rückkehr zur rituellen Reinheit sowie deren Integrität und daher als Nähe zum Göttlichen aufzufassen – es handelt sich hierbei um zwei Seiten derselben Medaille –, wird im religiösen Denken Mesopotamiens weiterhin eine Rolle spielen. Zudem ist er in den verschiedensten Ritualen anzutreffen, die in akkadischen Texten überliefert und deren Kultorte auf beiden Flußufern zu finden sind. Hierzu zählt vor allem das Ritual mīs pî, aber auch die Reinigungsriten bīt rimki.58 Das Ritual mēs pî beging man, um einer Statue Göttlichkeit zu verleihen, die Gottheit in sie eingehen zu lassen. Die hierfür angefertigte und bestimmte Statue wurde ans Flußufer gebracht und dort nach Westen hin ausgerichtet, in Richtung Dunkelheit, die der Existenz vorausgeht.59 Im Vollzug dieses nicht einfachen Rituals wird – so hat es Jacobson gedeutet – der Gegenstand, hier die Statue, zum Ursprung der Existenz zurückgeführt, um von dort durch wirksamen Beistand der Gottheit und ihre Anwesenheit in die Welt der Menschen zu gelangen. Dieses Ritual umfaßte eine Wiedergeburt in der Weise, wie ein Herrscher gereinigt wiedergeboren wird, nachdem er das Reinigungsbad des bīt rimki vollzogen hat. Die Lage ähnlicher Gebilde bzw. Gebäude in mythologischen Erzählungen spiegelt einen weiteren Aspekt des bīt rimki wieder, insofern der Kontext ein kultischer ist. Zu nennen sind vor allem jene Schankstuben, die an den Enden der Welt sich befinden. Wie die Hütte des bīt rimki, so sind auch sie, gelegen an den Enden der Welt, Orte des Übergangs, unbewohnte Gegenden, und stellen die Verbindung zu einem anderen Status her. So widerruft eš2-dam (V. 98) von Bilulu in „the haunted desert“ (edin-lil2-la2, V, 95 60 ), an den sich Inana mit

56

Über Unglück infolge des Zorns eines (seines) Gottes bzw. Göttin, siehe Ritter / Kinnier Wilson 1980, 25–26. 57 ETCSL 4.28.1. 58 Læssøe 1955. 59 Jacobsen, 1987, 24. 60 ETCSL 1.4.4 (Inana and Bilulu). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

140

Pietro Mander

Nachdruck61 wendet, seine Entscheidung, einen Ort der Unterwelt62 zu erobern, und zwar in diesem Fall einen Ort, an dem unheilvolle Wesen an ihrem Gatten Dumuzi einen Mord verübt haben. In dieser Erzählung ist das Wasser, das Leben spendet, nicht ein Fluß, sondern jenes, das in den Schläuchen aufbewahrt wird und nötig ist, um die Wüste zu durchqueren (V. 101ff.: kušummud a sed niĝ2 edin-na, „the waterskin for cold water that is used in the desert“). Doch zu dieser neuerschaffenen Realität, wie sie durch die Erzählung etabliert wird – der neuerlangte Status – gesellt sich eine kultisch-rituelle Ebene (V. 102–110), die die libatio mittels Wasser umfaßt.63Auch in dieser Erzählung ermöglicht das Wasser den Übergang zu einem anderen Zustand, sei es indem es aus dem Schlauch den Durst des Reisenden stillt, sei es indem es die Wüste von unheilvollen Wesen befreit. Šiduri, eine weitere weibliche Gestalt, weist Konnotationen auf, die grundlegend verschieden sind von denen Bilulus, die eine Schänke an den Enden der Welt besitzt. Sie kommt in der Standard Version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet X,64 vor sowie auf einer Tafel „reportedly from Sippar“ (hier nicht bei ihrem Namen genannt, sondern als „tavern-keeper“ 65 ), allerdings anders als in der hettitischen Fassung.66 In dieser alt-babylonischen Fassung fordert Šiduri Gilgamesch auf, die einfachen Freuden des Lebens zu genießen, was insbesondere in der StandardFassung fehlt, die jünger ist.67 Die Parallele zwischen der Schänke Šiduris und dem e2-kur von Nungal besteht in deren Verhältnis zueinander, und zwar wie folgt: a) Das Überqueren des Wasser führt; b) zum Leben, denn, einmal „die Wassers des Todes“68 überquert, erlangt man das ewige Leben. Als Enlil Utnapishtim die Unsterblichkeit verlieh, sagte er: eninnama Utnapištim u siništašu lū ēmû kīma ilāni nâšīma / lū ašibma Utnapištim ina rūqi ina pî nārī.69

61

ETCSL 1.4.4, V. 90–92: „That day what was in the lady’s heart? What was in holy Inana’s heart? To kill old woman Bilulu was in her heart! To make good the resting place for her beloved young husband, for Dumuzid-ama-ušumgal-ana—that was in her heart!“. 62 Auch ein anderer Mythos bezeugt die Charakteristik Inanas, z.B. die Parallele in Inana’s Descent to the nether world, wenn die Götting ihr Wollen zum Ausdruck bringt (V. 1–3 an gal-ta ki gal-še3 ĝeštug2-ga-ni na-an-gub, „From the great heaven she set her mind on the great below“). 63 Cf. Verderame 2014, 30. 64 Maul 2005, 126–129; George 1999, 75–79 V. 1–90. 65 George 1999, 123–125. 66 Pettinato 1992, 292, 382–397. Šiduri trägt auch den Namen Nahmizuli. 67 Pettinato 1992, 44. 68 Taf. X, 86 et passim: mê mūti. 69 Taf. XI, V. 204–205: „but now he [= Uta-napishti] and his wife shall become like us gods! / Uta-napishti shall dwell far away, where the rivers flow forth!“ (George 1999, 95). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

141

Grenzort ist auch E-kur von Nungal, der, zumindest in einem gewissen Sinn, sich an den Enden der Welt befindet: Das Gefängnis der Göttin Nungal ist, wie dessen Beschreibungen es im Hymnus stets und immer wieder verlauten,70 auf der Oberfläche der Erde nicht zu lokalisieren. Die Hymn to Nungal weist, wie bereits herausgearbeitet wurde,71 einige Gemeinsamkeiten mit anderen Tempelhymnen auf, doch Hymnen wie Enlil in the E-kur72 und A Hymn to the E-kur,73 die als verwandt mit dem Hymn to Nungal gelten – zumal letzterer aus Nippur74 stammt – können jedoch nicht als topographische Beschreibungen von E-kur verstanden werden, etwa als Darstellungen von Gebäuden oder Gebäudekomplexen, wie es sonst bei Tempelhymnen allgemein der Fall ist. Wenn also das im Hymnus beschriebene Gebäude sich nicht in der realen bzw. physischen Welt existiert, wo man sich immerhin nicht ausschließlich auf es75 bezieht, so kann es jedenfalls dennoch – wenn auch nicht unbedingt physisch76 – von jener Person aufgesucht werden, die bei ihrer persönlichen Gottheit in Ungnade gefallen ist. Aus eben diesen Gründen ist auch E-kur Nungals als Grenzort aufzufassen. Im Hymn to Nungal wird durch den oben zitierten Vers ganz klar herausgestellt, daß der Sitz der Gottheit ein „House, river of ordeal“ ist. Das gleiche Muster findet man im „hymn to the temple of Nuska“ finden, „the E2-melamhuš“ – „house of terrifying radiance“, wie gleichfalls in der Sammlung The Temple Hymns: „The decisions at its [= of the temple Emelamhuš] place of reaching the great judgment – the river of ordeal – let the just live and consign 70

Komoróczy merkt an, daß sie sich nicht im Jenseits befinden kann, da dieses als kurnu-gi4-a, „Land des nicht Zurückkehrens“, bestimmt wird, und im Text wird von der gereinigten Person gesagt, daß ihr das Leben zurückgegeben wurde (Komoróczy 1975, 163). Civil 1993, 75, stellt fest, daß dieses e2-kur nicht mit dem gleichnamigen Heiligtum von Enlil in Nippur identisch ist, und zwar aus verschiedenen zwingenden Gründen. 71 Komoróczy 1975, 159 u. 164. 72 ETCSL 4.05.1. 73 ETCSL 4.80.4. 74 Komoróczy 1975, 158. 75 Edzard 1987, 14; van Ess, 2013, 59–60 u. 77–81. 76 Eine Belegstelle für diesen Sinn findet sich im šir-namursaĝa an Ninsiana für IddinDagan (Iddin-Dagan A, ETCSL 2.5.3.1, V. 112–121), die Jacobsen erörtert (Jacobsen 1989, 274): „At night the skilled and beautiful one (?), the joy of An, the ornament of broad heaven, appears like moonlight; in the heat of the noon she appears like sunlight. After the storehouses of the Land have been filled with fine food, and all the lands and the black-headed people have assembled, {(1 ms. adds:) and the storehouses of the Land have been made full (?),} those who sleep on the roofs and those who sleep by the walls step up before her with …… and bring her their cases. Then she makes her orders known, and identifies the evil. She judges the evil as evil and destroys the wicked. She looks with favour on the just and determines a good fate for them.“ © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

142

Pietro Mander

to darkness the hearts that are evil“77 (Der Tempel Nungals und Nuskas gehören beide zum Komplex des E-kur von Enlil in Nippur). Neben der „mythologischen“ Ebene (Hymn to Nungal) oder einer Verlagerung auf der juristische Ebene (Codex Hammurabi, § 2), werden auch individuelle Ebenen einer Reflektion unterzogen, wie der Ritus des Flußordeals deutlich macht und es auch für rituelle Reinigungspraktiken wie dem bīt rimki gilt. Denn beim Flußordeal erlangt, wie bereits weiter oben ausgeführt, ein zusätzlicher Aspekt Geltung, da es um die Aufhebung der Unreinheit des Unschuldigen geht. Dieser Aspekt wird damit auf gewisse Weise zum wichtigsten Moment während der Beschwörungsrituale. Denn entscheidende Handlung beim Durchführen eines Beschwörungsrituals war nämlich das Besprengen mit Wasser, z.B. „Go, my son, Asalluhi, fill/take a huš-sahar vessel, / bring the holy water(-basin) of Enki, / and recite the Eridu incantation. / As for the man, son of his god, sprinkle water on his (var. their) bed“.78

5 Nin-šubur und ihre Herrin Inana Das Fließen des Wassers, wie gezeigt wurde, nimmt eine fundamentale Rolle innerhalb der Kosmologie ein, und hieraus ergibt sich auch die Bedeutung des Anrufs, den Inana an Nin-šubur richtet: a šu-zu nu-tag a me-ri-zu nu-tag. Inana ist nämlich auf der Flucht aus Eridu und fährt stromaufwärts, wo sie in der Stadt ihres Vaters An – in Bezug auf Enki eine Gottheit höheren Ranges – sich der me bemächtigt, um mit ihnen den Kosmos (darin inbegriffen die Gesellschaft der menschlichen Wesen) nach göttlichen Plänen zu ordnen. Denn der Überlieferung der Uruk zufolge ist An den Vater Inanas. Auch sind jene me dem Schöpfergott Enki nicht Untertan, sondern befinden sich außerhalb des abzu, um in der Welt des Werdens ihre Wirkung zu entfalten. Eine hierzu analoge Aussage findet sich in Gilgameš, Enkidu and the nether world, 79 worin der Figur Inanas eine Scharnierfunktion zwischen den Welten zukommt und diese überirdischen Einfluß auf den Kosmos nimmt, illustriert u.a. durch den huluppu-Baum, der, wie bereits oben erwähnt, von der Strömung den Euphrat hinabgetragen wird.80

77

ETCSL 4.80.1, V. 53–54: eš-bar ki di gal ku5-ru-ba id2-lu2-ru-gu2 / zid-du u3-tud šag4 erim2-ĝal2 mud-še3? ni10-ni10. 78 Geller 1985, 69 Z. 723–726: ĝen-na dumu-ĝu10 dAsal-lu2-hi dughuš-sahar2-ra u3-meni-si / a-gub-ba dEn-ki-ke4 u3-me-ni-kux(DU) / nam-šub Eriduki u3-me-ni-si3 / lu2-ulu3 dumu-diĝir-ra-na ĝeš-nu2-ka-na-ba u3-me-ni-su3-u3-me-ni-si3. 79 ETCSL 1.8.1.4. 80 Diesem Einfluß unterliegen auch pukku und mekku, die in der Folge ebenfalls in die Unterwelt hinabgelangen werden. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

143

Während es plausibel scheint, hinter der Flucht der Göttin in Inana and Enki (ETCSL 1.3.1) das Machtstreben und Wirken des Gottes An81 zu sehen, spielt hingegen die Handlung des Epos Gilgameš, Enkidu and the nether world bei den Toten in der Unterwelt. Die mit Bildern verzierten Seiten des huluppu-Baums stellen die Katabasis eines nicht-menschlichen Wesens dar, Enkidu, denn dieser wurde nicht von Eltern geboren und war auch nie Kind gewesen. Enkidu, eine Art Phantom,82 berichtet Gilgamesch von den Lebensbedingungen der Toten in der Unterwelt. Die Katabasis jedoch legt auch Zeugnis davon ab, daß es sich um der wichtigste Mythos über Inana handelt, da dieser auch ins Akkadische übertragen wurde. Eine Verbindung zwischen Inana’s descent to the nether world (ETCSL 1.4.1) und Inana and Enki läßt sich auch anhand der Rolle Nin-šuburs festmachen, dem die Aufgabe übertragen wird, auf Inana zu warten und Hilfe83 herbeizurufen, falls es ihr nicht gelingt, die Unterwelt wieder zu verlassen: „Inana travelled towards the underworld. / Her minister Ninšubur travelled behind her. / Holy Inana said to Ninšubur: / Come my faithful minister of E-ana, / {my minister who speaks fair words, / my escort who speaks trustworthy words} {(1 ms. has instead:) I am going to give you instructions: my instructions must be followed; /I am going to say something to you: it must be observed}. / On this day I will descend to the underworld“.84 Wie in Inana and Enki, wird von Nin-šubur auch in diesem Epos gesagt sukkal zid e2-an-na-ĝu10 und die nachfolgenden Epiteta haben auch beide Dichtungen gemein. Allerdings heißt es in Inana’s descent to the nether world von Nin-šubur nicht, „Water has never touched your hand, water has never touched your feet!“, und es wird explizit gesagt, daß sie zurückbleiben muß: Sie darf nicht in die Unterwelt hinabsteigen. Wenn jedoch die Toten in der Unterwelt das Ende des menschlichen Lebens bedeuten, so stehen sie für den ständigen Kreislauf des Werdens. In Inana and Enki wird allerdings von Nin-šubur gesagt, sie solle außerhalb des Kreislaufs des Werdens bleiben, und zwar deshalb, weil eben Wasser niemals ihre Hand, niemals ihre Füße berührt hat. Faßt man die symbolische Bedeutung dieser beiden Figuren zusammen, so steht Nin-šubur für ein göttliches Element, das hierarchisch über Inana steht und auch tatsächlich als „faithful minister of E-ana“ beschrieben wird, da sie die Verbindung ist, die als göttlichen Kraft die Verbindung zwischen E-ana und In-

81

Abgesehen vom Namen des Schiffes der Göttin, ma2 an-na, „Boat of Heaven“, vgl. V. 95–108, zu fragmentarisch, um hinreichend verstanden zu werden. 82 Cf. Casey 2009, 52. 83 V. 28–40. 84 V. 26–32. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

144

Pietro Mander

ana symbolisiert, wohingegen Inana innerhalb der Welt der Formen und des Werdens wirkt, und zwar als eine Macht der Gestaltung und des Wandels.

Literatur Biggs, R.D., ŠÀ.ZI.GA – Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 2), Locust Valley, NY 1967. Bottéro, J., Mythes et rites de Babylone, Paris 1985. Casey, J., After Lives – A Guide to Heaven, Hell & Purgatory, Oxford 2009. Civil, M., On Mesopotamians Jails and Their Lady Warden, in: Cohen, M.E. et al. (Hrsg.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda, MD 1993, 7–10. Coomaraswamy, A., Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, in: Speculum 19/1 (1944) 104–125. Edzard, D.O., Lugal-anne, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7 (1987–1990) 114. — Deep-rooted Skyscrapers and Bricks: Ancient Mesopotamian Architecture and its Imagining, in: Mindlin, M. et al. (Hrsg.), Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, London 1987, 13–24. Eliade, M., Traité d’histoire des religions, Paris 1953. Geller, M.J., Forerunners of udug-hul (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 12), Stuttgart 1985. George, A., The Epic of Gilgamesh, London 1999. Heimpel, W., The Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38 (1986) 127–151. Jacobsen, Th., The Treasures of the Darkness, New Haven, CT 1976. — The Graven Image, in: Miller, P.D. et al. (Hrsg.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Philadelphia, PA 1987, 15–32. — The lil2 of dEn-lil2, in: Behrens, H. et al. (Hrsg.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, Philadelphia, PA 1989, 267–276. — The Descent of Enki, in: Cohen, M.E. et al. (Hrsg.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda, MD 1993, 120–123. Kikawada, I.M., The Double Creation of Mankind in Enki and Ninmah, Atrahasis I 1–351, and Genesis 1–2, in: Iraq 45 (1983) 43–45. Kipfer, S. / Schroer, S., Der Körper als Gefäß, in: Lectio difficilior Ausgabe 1/2015 [www.lectio.unibe.ch]. Kirk, G.S., Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient and Other Cultures, Berkeley / Cambridge 1970. Komoróczy, G., Lobpreis auf das Gefängnis in Sumer, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23 (1975) 153–174. Læssøe, J., Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bît rimki, København 1955. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Bedeutung des fließenden Wassers in der sumerischen Kosmologie

145

Lambert, W.G., Rezension zu Robert D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 39 (1976) 428–432. Leick, G., Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City, London 2002. Mander, P., Il pantheon di Abu-Ṣalabīkh. Contributo allo studio del pantheon sumerico arcaico, Napoli 1986. — A 60 anni da “Cosmologia e alchimia babilonesi”: prospettive di ricerca, in: Arcella, L. et al. (Hrsg.), Confronto con Mircea Eliade. Archetipi mitici ed identità storica, Milano 1998, 219–238. — Canti sumerici di amore e morte, Brescia 2005 — I fiumi della Mesopotamia, in: Filippi, G.G. (Hrsg.), I fiumi sacri (Indoasiatica – Venetian Academy of Indian Studies 6), Venezia 2009, 303–322. — The Mesopotamian Exorcist and His Ego, in: Biga, M.G. / Liverani, M. (Hrsg.), Ana turri gimilli, studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J., Roma 2010, 177–197. — Hekate’s Roots in the Sumerian-Babylonian Pantheon According to the Chaldean Oracles, in Sfameni Gasparro, G., at al. (Hrsg.), Religion in the History of European Culture: Proceedings of the 9th European Association for the Study of Religions Annual Conference and IAIR special Conference, Palermo 2013, 115–132. — The Magic Duel from Sumer to Grail: Considerations on a Study by A. Coomaraswamy, in: Biga, M.G. et al. (Hrsg.), Homenaje a Mario Liverani, fundador de una ciencia nueva (I) – Omaggio a Mario Liverani, fondatore di una nuova scienza (I), Isimu. Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la antigüedad 11–12 (2009–2010 [2015]), 81–98. — War in Mesopotamian Culture, in: Ulanowski, K. (Hrsg.), The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome, Leiden / Boston 2016, 5–22. Maul, S.M., Das Gilgamesch-Epos, München 2005. Pettinato, G., La saga di Gilgamesh, Milano 1992. Ritter, E. / Kinnier Wilson, J.V., Prescription for an Anxiety State. A Study of BAM 234, in: Anatolian Studies 30 (1980) 23–30. Roth, M.T., Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Writings from the Ancient World 6), Atlanta, GA 19972. Sefati, Y., Love Songs in Sumerian Literature, Ramat Gan 1998. Sjöberg, Å., Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts, I, Orientalia Suecana 23–24 (1974– 1975) 159–181. Steinert, U., Fluids, Rivers, and Vessels: Metaphors and Body Concepts in Mesopotamian Gynaecological Texts, in: Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes 22 (2013) 1–23. — Cows, Women and Wombs: Interrelations Between Texts and Images From the Ancient Near East, in: Kertai, M.D. / Nieuwehuyse, O. (Hrsg.), From the

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

146

Pietro Mander

Four Corners of the Earth, Studies in Honour of F.A.M. Wiggermann, Münster 2017, 205–258. Steinkeller, P., Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy, in: A. Gianto (Hrsg.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, Roma 2005, 11–30. Taylor, T., On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Thirteenth Book of the Odyssey. From the Greek of Porphyry, London 1917. Van der Stade, V., Mourir au pays des deux fleuves – L’au-delà mésopotamien d’après les sources sumériennes et akkadiennes, Leuven 2007. van Ess, M., Babylonische Tempel zwischen Ur III- und neubabylonischer Zeit: Zu einigen Aspekten ihrer planetarischen Gestaltung und religiösen Konzeption, in: Kaniuth, K. et al. (Hrsg.), Tempel im Alten Orient, Wiesbaden 2013, 59–84. Verderame, L., Aspetti spaziali nella costruzione dell’immaginario infero dell’antica Mesopotamia, in: Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 80 (2014) 23–41.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

A New Manuscript of Ana ittišu II from Nimrud Gianni Marchesi

Ana ittišu (abbreviated as Ai.) is the conventional name of a derivative post-Old Babylonian lexical series of legal content, which is only known from a very limited number of Middle Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian sources.1 It derives from an Old Babylonian forerunner from Nippur and consists of seven thematicallyorganized tablets that juxtapose Sumerian legal terms and formulae with their translations into Akkadian (Landsberger 1937, I–X; Veldhuis 2014, 328–330; cf. ibid., 188–194). Indeed, the more precise ancient name of the series was kiulutin(KI.KAL)-bi-še3 = a-na it-ti-šu(2)2 (corresponding, as was customary, to the incipit of the text3), which was sometimes abbreviated to ki-ulutin(KI.KAL)-biše3.4 However, since the reading ulutin for the compound logogram KI.KAL in the expression ki-KI.KAL-bi-še3 had not yet been established with certainty in 1937,5 when Benno Landsberger published his reconstruction and edition of the 1

I gratefully thank Ali Hazim, the director of the Mosul SBAH, for the authorization to publish the new source of Ana ittišu that is edited here, and the Iraqi-Italian Archaeological Expedition to East Nineveh, for the photographic documentation. In addition, I would like to thank Carlo Zaccagnini, for discussing several issues related to this text with me; Glenn Magid, for checking and revising my English; and Federica Proni for processing the image in Figure 1. 2 See the subscripts to tablets I (MSL 1, 14), II (31), III (50; cf. Hunger 1968, 33, no. 58), VI (89), and VII (104; cf. Hunger 1968, 33, no. 59). 3 Ai. I i 1 (MSL 1, 2): ki-ulutin(KI.KAL)-bi-še3 = a-na it-ti-šu, “(Sumerian) kiulutinbiše means ‘at its sign/mark’ ”, which is an idiomatic expression meaning “at the established time” (or the like). Cf. “The Rulers of Lagash” (Sollberger 1967) ll. 60–61: u4 ĝi6-bi-ta k[i]-ulutin-b[i-še3] saĝ-ba ba-š[i]-i[n-i]l2, “Day and night they carried (baskets with offerings) on their heads to her at the appointed times” (transliteration and translation modified). For a detailed discussion of the phrase ana ittīšu, see Landsberger 1964, 62– 79. 4 See Ai. IV Anhang rev. 8' (MSL 1, 69): im-gid2-da 23-kam2-ma ki-ulutin-bi-še3, “23rd ‘long tablet’ (= extract tablet) of Kiulutinbiše”. 5 We owe this reading to Kraus (1939), although the value ulutin of KI.KAL had long been known from the Diri-manuscript CT 11, pls. 49–50, 82-8-16,1 rev. 2: u2-lu-tin KI.KAL = it-tum, published in 1900. Note that the attested syllabic writings show some inconsistences as regards the exact nature of the medial dental (d/t) and final nasal (m/n) © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

148

Gianni Marchesi

series in question (= MSL 1), this lexical composition is generally referred to in scholarship as Ana ittišu—although the alternative name Kiulutinbiše is also found in the most recent literature. The latter, more suitable designation is employed in the on-line edition of the Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts (DCCLT).6 For the sake of convenience, the traditional name, Ana ittišu, will be retained here. When discussing this series, Veldhuis (2014, 329) pointed out that Ana ittišu “is located outside of the mainstream of lexical history”, which explains the limited number of known exemplars. Even so, it is quite surprising to read that “no new sources have been identified since 1937” (ibid.).7 The discovery of a new manuscript after more than eighty years, however small and fragmentary it may be, is noteworthy in itself. This is especially so since the piece in question allows us to fully recover a section of the text that hitherto was only partially known from another incompletely preserved manuscript and that had been erroneously restored. The text we are discussing (Figure 1) was found in November 2019 on the surface of the Nimrud acropolis near the ruins (destroyed by Daesh) of the entrance to the Nabû temple.8 It is a small fragment (5.6 × 2.6 cm) of what was presumably a four-column tablet (two columns on each side),9 which preserves a few fragmentary lines of text belonging to the two columns of the reverse (that is, columns iii and iv); these lines read as follows:

of this word; see NATN 511 rev. 16: … ki-lu-ti-in (Ur III); NRVN 1 96 rev. 3: ki-˹lu˺-tiba (Ur III); TMH NF 1‒2 3 rev. 1: ki-lu-ti-im-ba (Ur III); Nigga 501 (MSL 13, 110): lu-dina KI.KALit-tum (OB); Diri IV 267 (MSL 15, 160‒161): u2-lu-TIN KI.KAL = it-tum (post-OB); Erimḫuš II 264 (MSL 17, 41): [KIu2-l]u-TINKAL = it-tum (post-OB); Ḫḫ I 236 (MSL 5, 26): KI.KALu2-lu-dim2-bi-še3 = MIN (= a-na it-ti-šu) (post-OB). Despite these variants, however, the etymon of the word in question can be reconstructed with confidence as ulutin, assuming the existence of a phonological rule of the type: n > m in the environment __b (that is, dental nasals become bilabial nasals before other bilabial phonemes). Cf. Jagersma 2010, 50. 6 http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/. 7 As regards Wiseman / Black 1996, 34, ad no. 238 (“Lexical, unidentified. Perhaps similar to ana ittišu”), it should be noted that the text fragment in question seems rather to belong to a tablet of incantations (note the repetition of ḫe2-pa3, “be exorcized”, in ll. 5'– 6'). 8 Coordinates: 36°05′51.33′′ N 43°19′50.18′′ E (with a 3 m error of the GPS). It is probable that the tablet of which this fragment was part belonged to the library of the Ezida, the temple of Nabû at Kalḫu/Nimrud. Cf. Wiseman / Black 1996, 1–7. 9 Assuming that the original tablet had the same format as the duplicate manuscript from Nineveh (see below)—as is most likely. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

A New Manuscript of Ana ittišu II from Nimrud

149

Col. iii (= Rev. i) 1'. i[gi……………………………………………………………] 2'. ig[i……………………………………………………………] 3'. ig[i……………………………………………………………] 4'. ig[i……………………………………………………………] 5'. ig[i……………………………………………………………] 6'. i[gi……………………………………………………………] (rest broken) Col. iv (= Rev. ii) 1'. […………………….]-na KIMIN ˹id-din˺-šu 2'. [……………-gu]l = a-na KIMIN ka-ši-iš __________________________________________________ (dividing line) 3'. […………-i]n-ku5 = u2-gal-lib-šu 4'. […………]-˹ĝar˺ = ab-bu-ut-ta iš-kun-šu 5'. [……………………-n]a KU3.BABBAR id-din-šu 6'. [………………………………………]-šu ul i-˹kun˺ 7'. […………………………………………-š]u iḫ-ta-liq 8'. [……………………………………………] ˹u2˺-te-ru-ni-šu2 9'. [………………………………………………………….-š]u (rest broken)

Figure 1. Nimrud fragment of Ana ittišu II

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

150

Gianni Marchesi

Albeit fragmentary, the text of col. iv is clearly a duplicate of Ai. II iv 1'–9' (MSL 1, 28), which was previously known only from a single source from Nineveh (II R, pls. 12–13, K. 46 [= ASKT 2] + K. 2083 [Meissner 1892, 31]; = CDLI P382242), while that of col. iii likely corresponds to the missing beginning of col. iii in the Nineveh manuscript (MSL 1, 25).10 Here follows a new edition of this section of the text, based on both sources (A = Nineveh; B = Nimrud); line numbers in the reconstructed text of Ai. II are according to the on-line edition of DCCLT (see above). Signs that were still preserved when Rawlinson made his copy of the Nineveh tablet (then published in II R, pls. 12–13, in 1866) but that are not present either in the later copy by Haupt (ASKT 2; 1881) or on the photograph published in CDLI (no. P382242) are marked with an asterisk.

Ai. II 280ff. 280. A iv 1'. B iv 1'.

[zišx(AŠ2)-da in]-ni*-in*-˹šum2˺ = [a]na kiššāti iddinšu [zišx(AŠ2)-da in]-ni*-in*-˹šum2˺ = [……………………….] [……………………………….] = [a]-na KIMIN ˹id-din˺-šu “He gave him into servitude” (Sum.: “He gave him as indemnity”)

[zišx(AŠ2)-d]a* b[a*]-ab*-gul = ana kiššāti kašiš [zišx(AŠ2)-d]a* b[a*]-ab*-gul = ˹a-na˺ […………] [……………………….-gu]l = a-na KIMIN ka-ši-iš “He is subjected to servitude” (Sum.: “He is held as indemnity”). __________________________________________________(dividing line)

281. A iv 2'. B iv 2'.

10

282. A iv 3'. B iv 3'

[um]bin mi-ni-in-ku5 = ugallibšu [um]bin mi-ni-in-ku5 = u2-g[al-……] [……………-i]n-ku5 = u2-gal-lib-šu “He shaved him” (Sum.: “He cut (his hair) with the razor”).

283. A iv 4'. B iv 4'.

[ga]r3 in-ni-in-ĝar = abbutta iškunšu [ga]r3! in-ni-in-ĝar = ab-bu-ut-t[a ……….] [……………]-ĝar = ab-bu-ut-ta iš-kun-šu “He put the abbuttu-braid on him”.

285. A iv 5'. B iv 5'.

[k]u3-še3 in-ni-in-šum2 = ana kaspi iddinšu [k]u3-še3 in-ni-in-šum2 = a-na KU3.BABBAR [………] […………………………-n]a KU3.BABBAR id-din-šu “He sold him” (lit.: “He gave him in return for silver”).

But cf. Ai. IV ii 43–57 (MSL 1, 58). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

A New Manuscript of Ana ittišu II from Nimrud

151

286. A iv 6'. B iv 6'.

[lu]gal-a-ni nu-un-ši-in-ge = ana bēlīšu ul ikūn [lu]gal-a-ni nu-un-ši-in-ge = a-na EN-šu [………] [……………………………………]-šu ul i-˹kun˺ “He was not loyal to his master”.

287. A iv 7'. B iv 7'.

˹e2˺ lugal-a-ni-ta ba-da-zaḫ2 = ištu bīt bēlīšu iḫtaliq ˹e2˺ lugal-a-ni-ta ba-da-zaḫ2 = iš-tu E2 EN-š[u ………] [………………………………………….-š]u iḫ-ta-liq “He has fled from the house of his master”.

288. A iv 8'. B iv 8'.

[ba]-da-zaḫ2-ta im-ma-an-gur-eš = ištu iḫliqu uterrūniššu [ba]-da-zaḫ2-ta im-ma-an-gur-eš = iš-tu iḫ-li-qu ˹u2˺-[…………] [………………………………………………..] ˹u2˺-te-ru-ni-šu2 “After he had fled, they brought him back”.

289. A iv 9'. B iv 9'.

ba-da-zaḫ2-ta im-ma-an-gur-eš-a-ta = ištu iḫliqu uterrūniššu ba-da-zaḫ2-ta im-ma-an-gur-eš-a-ta = iš-tu KIMIN u2-te-ru-niš-[…] [……………………………………………………………….-š]u “After he had fled (and) they had brought him back”.

Commentary 280. Cf. OB Lu D 137 (MSL 12, 206): lu2 zišx(AŠ2)-da-a šum2-ma = ša ki!(DI)ša-[a-ti/tim], “person given as indemnity” (Sum.) = “one subject to servi[tude]” (Akk.). For examples of the expression ana kiššāti nadānu in context, see CḪ §§ 117–118 (Borger 1979, 25–26; cf. Finet 1973, 78–79); “Edict of Ammiṣaduqa” § 20 (Kraus 1984, 180–181; cf. ibid., 264–265); and Edubba 1 11 (Muhamed 1992, 43–44, 11 pls. 17 and 46); 12 for kiššātu meaning “subjection, enslavement, servitude” (for debt or crime), see, among others, Finet 1978; Kraus 1984, 266–276; and Westbrook 1996. As far as the Sumerian term zišx(AŠ2)-da (= “ziz2-da”) is concerned, its meaning appears to have been different in origin—zišx-da having been mostly used in the sense of “indemnity, compensation” in sources from the third millennium BC (see Westbrook 1996, 449–450; Westenholz 2014, 203; Molina 2016, 328–329; and Bartash 2017, 73 and 75) and the Old Babylonian period (Spada 2011, 217).13 For the reading of AŠ2-da as zišx-da (rather than ziz2da), note the syllabic spellings za-aš2-da (RIME 1, 273, URU-KA-gina 3 iii

11

In line 12, instead of ki-ma ša-tim, read: ki-iš!(MA)-ša-tim (Stol 2004, 864 n. 1613). Court judgement: two thieves are condemned to be given into servitude to the robbed person (ll. 9–12: PN1 u PN2 ana PN3 ana kiššātim iddinūšunūti). 13 Also note udu-zišx-da, “sheep (given) as compensation”, in Copenhagen Forerunner to Ḫḫ XIII ii 8' (MSL 8/1, 92). Cf. n. 18 below. 12

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

152

Gianni Marchesi

11' and 24'; TLB 2 4 rev. 5114 ) and zi-iš-da (SNAT 373: 8;15 cf. Wilcke 1991). 16 In post-Old Babylonian lexical and bilingual texts, zišx-da is replaced by zisx(AŠ2),17 zisx-am3,18 or nam-zisx.19 Therefore, the occurrence of the form zišx-da in Ai. should be regarded as an archaism, which the origin of this series in the Old Babylonian period (see above) would explain. 281. Cf. a-[n]a [k]i-iš-ša-tim [i]k-k[a]-ši-iš in “Edict of Ammiṣaduqa” § 21, vi 4–5 (Kraus 1984, 180–181), which until now was the only known occurrence of kašāšu in connection with kiššātu. Here, also note that the equation gul = kašāšu is otherwise unattested. Sumerian gul is, rather, the equivalent of Akkadian kalû; see Nabnitu IX 255 (MSL 16, 122): gul = MIN (= ka-lu-u) ša2 a-me-li. 282–285. Cf. Ai. VII iii 23–28 (MSL 1, 101): tukum-bi dumu ad-da-na-ra / adda-ĝu10 nu-me-a / ba-an-na-an-du11 / umbin mi-ni-in-AK-a / gar3-ra-aš mi-niin-du3-e / u3 ku3-{babbar}-ga-aš mi-ni-in-šum2- = šum-ma ma-ru a-na a-[bi-šu2] / ul a-bi a[t-ta] / iq-ta-[b]i / u2-g[al-la]-ab-šu / ab-bu-[ut]-tum i-šaak-kan2-šu2 / u3 a-na KU3.BABBAR i-nam-din-šu2, “If a son says to his father ‘You are not my father’, he will shave him, he will put the abbuttu-braid on him, and he will sell him”. For additional parallels, see Klein / Sharlach 2007, 7 (ll. 14–18) and 9 (ad loc.). 282. For the reading of TAR as ku5, see CUSAS 43 64 iii 27: umbin an-ku5-ře6, in which ku5-ře6 should be understood as a historical writing that reflects the original presence of the phoneme /ř/ in the verbal base ku5(-d/r) (etymon: /kuř/). Cf. Jagersma 2010, 43–45. 283. For the abbuttu-braid as a mark of slavery, see, most recently, Potts 2011.

14

me-lem4-ma-ni 5-kam-ma za-aš2-da-še3 ba-an-šum2. Cf. Edzard 1991, 231; and Civil 2003b, 84–86. 15 Photo in CDLI (no. P130133). 16 In this connection, also note zi-iš as a reading of AŠ2 in the Proto-Ea-like text UET 7 163 i 12 (cf. MSL 14, 113). This value of AŠ2 also occurs when AŠ2 is used as a logogram for “emmer” (Sumerian zišx; see Marchesi forthcoming) and in one of the writings of a homonymous term denoting “a leather part of armor or helmet”, which is variously written zi-išzišx(AŠ2) (MEE 3, 148, “Lista di parole sumeriche B” rev. ii 13), (e)ze-eš, or zi(iš) zišx(SA) (see Civil 2003a, 51; id. 2008, 43, l. 285, and 126, ad loc.). 17 See Ea I 329 (MSL 14, 193): zi-is AŠ2 = kiš-ša2-tum/tu2; and Erimḫuš V 78 (MSL 17, 70): zi-iszisx(AŠ2) (var. zisx(AŠ2)zi-is-am3) = kiš-ša2-tum. Cf. Borger 1973, 175, ad i 29f. [NB The spelling zi-IZ can stand for either zi-is (= /zis/) or zi-iz (= /ziz/) but the former reading is preferable, especially in consideration of the etymon /zišda/ (or /zašda/; see above)—/s/ being closer than /z/ to /š/ in sound.] 18 See Ḫḫ I 34 (MSL 5, 11) zisx(AŠ2)zi-is-am3 = kiš-ša2-tum; and Ḫḫ XIII 87 (MSL 8/1, 15): udu zisx(AŠ2)-am3 = MIN (= im-mer) kiš-ša2-ti (cf. n. 13 above). See also previous note. 19 See Borger 1973, 165, col. i 29–30: … nam-zisx(AŠ2)-ta dib-ba // … kiš-ša2-ti ṣab-ta/ti. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

A New Manuscript of Ana ittišu II from Nimrud

153

287–289. For ḫalāqu with reference to slaves, see, most recently, Tenney 2011, 106–107.

Bibliography Bartash, V., Sumerian Administrative and Legal Documents ca. 2900–2200 BC in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 35), Bethesda, MD 2017. Borger, R., Die Weihe eines Enlil-Priesters, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 30 (1973) 163–176. — Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke. Heft II: Die Texte in Umschrift (Analecta Orientalia 54/I), Roma 19792. Civil, M., Of Bows and Arrows, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 55 (2003) 49–54. — Reading Gilgameš II: Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa, in: Sallaberger, W. et al. (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14), Wiesbaden 2003, 77–86. — The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A (Archaic HAR-ra A) (Archivi Reali di Ebla, Studi 4), Roma 2008. Edzard, D.O., Gilgameš und Huwawa A. II. Teil, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 81 (1991) 165–233. Finet, A., Le code de Hammurapi (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient), Paris 1973. — Le “gage” et la “sujétion” (nipûtum et kiššatum) dans les textes de Mari et le code de Ḫammurabi, in: Akkadica 8 (1978) 12–18. Hunger, H., Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 2), Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968. Jagersma, A.H., A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian, PhD Dissertation, University of Leiden 2010. Klein, J. / Sharlach, T.M., A Collection of Model Court Cases from Old Babylonian Nippur (CBS 11324), in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 97 (2007) 1–25. Kraus, F.R., Die sumerische Entsprechung der Phrase ana ittišu, in: Friedrich, J. et al. (eds.), Symbolae ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentes Paulo Koschaker dedicatae, Leiden 1939, 50–60. — Königliche Verfügungen in altbabylonischer Zeit (Studia et documenta ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentia 11), Leiden 1984. Landsberger, B., Die Serie ana ittišu (Materialen zum sumerischen Lexikon 1), Roma 1937. — Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen, in: Die Welt des Orients 3/1–2 (1964) 48–79.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

154

Gianni Marchesi

Marchesi, G., Il lessico sumerico dei cereali. I. Il farro e i suoi derivati, forthcoming. Meissner, B., Studien zur Serie ana ittīšu, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 7 (1892) 16–32. Molina, M., Cases on Malpractice by Provincial Officers at Umma, in: Corò, P. et al. (eds.), Libiamo ne’ lieti calici. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Lucio Milano on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 436), Münster 2016, 319– 335. Muhamed, A.K., Old Babylonian Cuneiform Texts from the Hamrin Basin. Tell Haddad, London 1992. Potts, D.T., The abbuttu and the Alleged Elamite “Slave Hairstyle”, in: Vacín, L. (ed.), u4 du11-ga-ni sá mu-ni-ib-du11. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hruška, Dresden 2011, 183–194. Sollberger, E., The Rulers of Lagash, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21 (1967) 279–291. Spada, G., A Handbook from the Eduba’a: An Old Babylonian Collection of Model Contracts, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 101 (2011) 204–245. Stol, M., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Altbabylonischer Zeit, in: Attinger, P. et al. (eds.), Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/4), Fribourg / Göttingen 2004, 643–975. Tenney, J.S., Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society. Servile Laborers at Nippur in the 14th and 13th Centuries B.C. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 51), Leiden 2011. Veldhuis, N., History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Records 6), Münster 2014. Westbrook, R., zíz-da / kiššātum, in: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 86 (1996) 449–459. Westenholz, A., A Third-Millennium Miscellany of Cuneiform Texts (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 26), Bethesda, MD 2014. Wilcke, C., Die Lesung von ÁŠ-da = kiššātum, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1991) 13–14, no. 16. Wiseman, D.J. / Black, J.A., Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 4), London 1996.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times Manuel Molina

Some years ago now, when I was a student at Università degli Studi La Sapienza, in Rome, Franco Pomponio was my first teacher of Akkadian. Since then, he has lost nothing of his enthusiasm, dedication to his students and generosity. These qualities, which I admire as his friend, match the respect I feel for Franco as a leading scholar in Assyriology. I hope that he will enjoy this small contribution that I present here to celebrate such a long and fruitful career.1 In the past years I have published a number of court records from the NeoSumerian provincial archive of Umma. These texts offer new and interesting insights into the judicial activity of the Umma province, and also a revealing perspective of the relationships between the different administrations—local, provincial and royal—that converged in this area of the Sumerian state. The British Museum still holds some unpublished cuneiform tablets of this type, which further enlighten some of these aspects and deal with cases of various kinds. Eight of these tablets are presented here, all of them purchased from the Paris dealer I. Elias Gejou (see Molina 2008, 125–127): No.

Museum no.

Registration no.

BDTNS no.

Date

Court case

1

BM 106495

1913-4-16-1327

058044

AS5/ix

Compensation for a burglary

2

BM 111032

1914-4-4-1098

069917

AS2

Compensation for theft from a granary

1

This research has been made possible thanks to the financial support granted by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación through the project PID2019-106923GBI00. The cuneiform tablets from the British Museum are here published or cited by kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. I am grateful to Bram Jagersma for the valuable comments on Text no. 3 he made to me some years ago. All the abbreviations used are those of BDTNS (http://bdtns.filol.csic.es). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

156

Manuel Molina

No.

Museum no.

Registration no.

BDTNS no.

Date

Court case

3

BM 110193

1914-4-4-259

069143

Š42

A purchased slave who escaped

4

BM 110490

1914-4-4-556

069379

–/–

Negligence in the custody of a prisoner

5

BM 112804

1914-4-4-2870

168845

AS2/xii

A woman enslaved for debt

6

BM 111186

1914-4-4-1252

070071

AS2

A debt to an oxherd

7

BM 111173

1914-4-4-1239

070058

–/–

The status of three men

8

BM 110614

1914-4-4-680

069503

AS8/v

A father sued by his children

No. 1. Compensation for a burglary BM 106495 (1913-4-16-1327) BDTNS 058044 Umma. Amar-Suen 5/ix 75×45×22 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/058044

rev.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

e2 Lu2-dŠara2-ka / de5-de5-ga-ke4-eš 1 Šeš-a-ni dumu / Nin-ki-ša-ra i3-bi2-za-bi-še3 ba-ab-/tum2 e2 ab-ba-ta im-ma-ra-ba-al 1 Ur-du6-eš3 1 Ur-niĝarxĝar 1 Lu2-dNin-šubur 1 Ur-tur-tur 1 Igi-diĝir-še3 lu2-ki-inim-ma-me Ur-dĜeštin-an-ka / maškim di til-la Ki-aĝ2 Ur-dĜeštin-an-ka maškim-/e nam-e[ri]m2-bi ku5-dam 1 Da-ad-da-ĝu10 1 Inim-ma-AN dam-gar3 1 Ur-lugal dumu Gu-du-du lu2 ki-ba gub-ba-me –––––––––––– iti dLi9-si4 mu En-unu6-gal / dInanna ba-huĝ

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 157

Translation Because the house of Lu-Šara was plundered, Šešani, son of Ninkišara, (as a compensation) for the financial loss, was brought. He was taken out of the house of the father. Ur-du’eš, Ur-niĝar, Lu-Ninšubur, Ur-turtur (and) Igi-diĝirše were the witnesses. Ur-Ĝeštinana was the commissioner of the case concluded by Ki’aĝ. It is Ur-Ĝeštinana, the commissioner, who will take the corresponding (declaratory) oath. Daddaĝu, Inima-AN, the merchant, (and) Ur-lugal, son of Gududu, were the bystanders. Month of Lisi (month ix). Year in which Enunugal(anna) was installed (as en-priest) of Inanna (AmarSuen 5). Comments The interpretation of this tablet stands on the meaning of the verb de 5 -de 5 -g. In his study of the compound na de 5 -g, Walther Sallaberger (2005, 250f.) showed that the basic meaning of de 5 -g was “to collect, gather, pick up” (Akk. laqātu); when referred to sheep, it then meant “collected sheep”, i.e., the animals’ corpses collected in the steppe. This verb, always reduplicated, appears very frequently also in the expression ab-sin 2 -ta la-ag de 5 -de 5 -ga “earth clods removed from irrigation furrows” (Civil 1994, 86). Now, much more rarely, this verb was also used with e 2 “house”. In these cases it clearly means “to plunder, strip (a house)”, which is the meaning 4 (luqqutu) of laqātu in CAD L, 101. This is also the meaning of de 5 -de 5 -g in a long and unpublished legal text from Umma kept in the British Museum (BM 106097), of which an excerpt follows: obv. ii 1–11: e 2 Ur- d En-lil 2 -la 2 -ka ba-de 5 -de 5 , niĝ 2 zuh-a-bi še munu 4 ˹x˺ k u š a-ĝa 2 -la 2 ĝ i š an-za-am, e 2 Nin-ĝiškim-zi-ta im-ma-raba-al (...) e 2 de 5 -de 5 -ga Ur- d En-lil 2 -la 2 -ka “The house of Ur-Enlila has been plundered. The stolen things: barley, malt, ..., leather sacks (and) anzam-vessels, were recovered from the house of Ninĝiškimzi. (...) (This case concerns) the plundered house of Ur-Enlila.” obv. ii 12–14: e 2 Lugal-ĝu 1 0 -ma-aĝ 2 u 3 A-da-ga ba-de 5 -de 5 , niĝ 2 zuh-a-bi, e 2 Nin 9 -kal-la lukur-ka ba-an-ku 4 “The houses of Lugalĝu-maĝ and Adaga have been plundered. The stolen things were brought into the house of Ninkala, the lukur-priestess.”

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

158

Manuel Molina

In this light has also to be interpreted DAS 334, which records the detention of a merchant involved in a case of theft from a house: PN1 mu gu 4 zuh-aše 3 , PN2 dam-gar 3 mu e 2 de 5 -de 5 -ga-še 3 , lu 2 al-dab 5 -ba, e 2 -gal-še 3 “PN1, because (an) ox(en) was/were stolen; PN2, merchant, because a house was plundered: the men were seized (and taken) to the palace.” Likewise, an Old Akkadian text from Girsu (OPBF 5 82) records a list of goods that were stolen from a house, summarising them as niĝ 2 -gur 1 1 e 2 de 5 -de 5 -ga-kam “it is the property of a house that was plundered.” Finally, another Old Akkadian fragmentary text from Girsu (RTC 92) seems to deal also with plundered houses: bar e 2 PN de 5 -de 5 -ga-ka “because the house of PN was plundered”. Therefore, the tablet records a judicial procedure motivated by the plundering of Lu-Šara’s house. The process had been tried by judge Ki’aĝ and witnessed by five people. After the trial it was decided that Šešani, son of Ninkišara, carried out from “the father’s house”, would be handed over to LuŠara as a compensation for the loss. Perhaps because Šešani escaped, a new claim was brought by the aggrieved party. As a result of this claim, the verdict of judge Ki’aĝ was confirmed by Ur-Ĝeštinana, the commissioner (maškim) during that process, who was summoned for that purpose and who was asked to take a declaratory oath. Other cases of commissioners called on to confirm previous decissions made by a judge have been published by Molina 2008, 127 no. 1; Molina 2010, 201 no. 1; Veenker / Johnson 2009, 363. For this and the other roles of the maškim in judicial procedures, see Molina 2013, 127f., 2014, 408, Culbertson 2018. Other cases tried by judge Ki’aĝ have been discussed by Veenker / Johnson 2009, 356 and Molina 2010, 203, 2013, 127. We are not informed about Šešani’s identity, but it is not certain that he was the burglar. The fact that his mother Ninkišara was mentioned by name rather points at her as the one involved in the burglary, perhaps in a similar way as the women recorded in BM 106097, cited above. The “house of the father” where Šešani was taken from was perhaps the house of his grandfather, i.e., Ninkišara’s father. Šešani was supposed then to work for Lu-Šara in order to compensate him for the loss. Finally, the identity of the latter, the owner of the house, is also unknown. The fact that Inima-AN, the merchant, was among the bystanders (see Molina 2013, 137), could point to his identification as a well known merchant from Umma (YOS 4 48, etc.), but this is only speculation.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 159

No. 2. Compensation for theft from a granary BM 111032 (1914-4-4-1098) Umma. Amar-Suen 2 BDTNS 069917 70×48×16 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/069917

rev.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5

1 AN-ga-a še eren2-na-da ib2-/da-tuš-am3 guru7-bi in-burux (PU2) še-A še ba-a-e3 la2-i3 15.1.0 gur im-de6 1 Lu2-ša-lim 1 dUTU.ILLAT 1 I3-li2-a ha-za-num2 nam-lu2-inim-ma-še3 / ib2-ta-e3-eš [PN nam-erim2-ma] ba-ni-dab5 [nam-erim2-bi] u3-ku5 [AN]-˹ga-a˺ ib2-su-su igi Lu2-ama-na-še3 ba-ge-/en8 (blank space) di til-la dumu Niĝ2-su4-daki mu dAmar-dSuen lugal-/e Ur-bi2-lumki mu-/hul

Translation It was (the case) that AN-ga’a was on duty with the barley of the eren-people. He made a hole in the granary. He took away barley-A (and) barley. He brought the missing quantity of 15.1.0 gur (ca. 4,560 l of barley). Lušallim, Šamaš-illat and Ilija, the mayor, appeared as witnesses. [PN] was taken to the oath. Once the oath will be taken, AN-ga’a will repay (the barley). It was confirmed before Lu-amana. Concluded case (concerning) citizens of Niĝsuda. Year in which Amar-Suen, the king, destroyed Urbilum (Amar-Suen 2). Comments This tablet records a process against AN-ga’a, who made a hole in a granary and stole the barley kept inside. The barley belonged to the eren-people of Niĝsuda, a royal settlement controlled by the crown (Steinekeller 2013, 356, 390). After the testimony of the witnesses, AN-ga’a was considered guilty and ordered to repay the barley. It was stated that he would do that once the declaratory oath had been taken by one of the participants in the process (cf. Sallaberger 2008). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

160

Manuel Molina

One of them, Ilija, was a mayor (ḫazannum), probably of Niĝsuda. The fact that the case concerned the property of royal settlers from Niĝsuda was no doubt one of the reasons why it was tried by Lu-amana, a peripatetic judge who tried other cases brought at Ur and Nippur (Molina 2013, 127). 3: For the reading buru x of PU2 “to dig, pierce”, see Civil 2011, 232. 4: The identification of še- A, a barley by-product, is uncertain. It was contained in different kinds of pot (ITT 2 3802, MVN 21 203: rev. i 3–4, NATN 825: 19, SAT 1 66, AUCT 1 320), with a lid made of tanned sheepskin (YOS 4 292, Nisaba 15/2 739, Nisaba 15/2 884, BDTNS 198802, BM 111087 unpubl.), or in leather sacks ( k u š a-ĝa 2 -la 2 : MVN 16 768, BPOA 6 233). It is recorded together with other cereals and by-products (TUT 126, Syracuse 371), but more frequently with beer, fish, ghee (i 3 -nun), sour milk (ga-šea, ga- SIG7-a), cheese (ga-gazi, ga-ar 3 ), fruits, eggs, spices and other foodstuff (ITT 2 3802, Archi, OrAnt 11, 269 9, AUCT 1 320, MVN 14 552, SAT 1 66, SAT 2 695, BPOA 6 1265, AAICAB 1/4, Bod. S 416). It could be roasted (Boson, Aegyptus 21 159, BPOA 2 2248). Texts from Irisaĝrig record a forester coming to the city to collect še- A (Nisaba 15/2 557, 558, 561, 563). Heimpel, who discussed the term, wrote that it was an item of fine food that could have been part of the royal breakfast (2009, 52). rev. 4: For the reading of Niĝsuda, see Steinkeller 2012, 42.

No. 3. A purchased slave who escaped BM 110193 (1914-4-4-259) BDTNS 069143 Umma. Šulgi 42 76×46×20 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/069143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 rev. 1′

1 I-din-dEr3-ra 3 gin2 ku3-babbar-še3 E-pu3-zum-še3 d Nanna-ku3-zu in-ši-sa10 A-a-ni-šu mu l[ugal?] mu bad3 ma-da / ba-du3-ta sa10-a ka E-pu3-[zum] / u3 A-a-ni-šu-k[a] ba-an-ge-en6 igi Šu-i3-li2 ˹x˺-[še3] [ig]i I3-li2-˹x˺-[(x)]-/˹še3˺ [...] (ca. one line lost) [...] ˹x-x˺ © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 161

2′ 3′ 4′ 5′ 6′ 7′

[igi-ne]-ne-še3 [sa10-a]-aš ba-ge-e[n6] ˹a2˺ arad2 u3 niĝ2 u2-g[u] / de2-a su-su-de3 ba-˹šum2˺ u3 dumu-ne-n[e] / inim ib2-ĝal2 (blank space) mu Ša-aš-ruki ba-/hul

Translation (A man named) Iddin-Erra, for 3 shekels of silver, from Epuzum, Nanna-kuzu bought. Aja-nīšu (swore by) the name of the ki[ng?]. That he was sold since the year in which the wall of the land was built (Šulgi 37) was orally confirmed by (lit. “in the mouth of”) Epuzum and Aja-nīšu. Before Šu-ilī, the ..., before Ilī-..., ... before them, he was proven as having been sold. He (Epuzum) has been condemned to repay the labour of the slave and the things that were lost, and his children (Nanna-kuzu’s) have accepted the agreement. Year in which Šašru was destrroyed (Šulgi 42). Comments The tablet records a case concerning the purchase of a slave from Epuzum by Nanna-kuzu. The background of the case is not explicit, but it is plausible that the slave, named Iddin-Erra, was the son or a relative of Epuzum, the seller, who would have sold him for debts. It probably happened that Iddin-Erra escaped, so a claim was made. After the statement by Epuzum and Aja-nīšu (apparently a witness to the sale) confirming that Iddin-Erra had in fact been sold, Epuzum was made responsible for the flight of Iddin-Erra, probably because there was a warranty against flight. It was then decided that Epuzum would pay for the labour expected from Iddin-Erra during the years that had elapsed since the purchase (Šulgi 37). Moreover, he would also repay for other unspecified losses connected with the disapperance of the slave. If this interpretation is correct, it should be noted that, in this case, the compensation did not consist in a substitute or in the purchase price, as happened on other occasions (cf. Steinkeller 1989, 70, Molina 2008, 130). On the contrary, it was decided that the work the slave was supposed to have done needed to be repaid. Because the duration of the warranty was probably limited in time (cf. Steinkeller 1989, 70, Molina 2008, 130), we might assume that the ambiguous year-name mu Ša-aš-ru k i ba-hul “year in which Šašru was destroyed” should be better interpreted as Šulgi 42, rather than Amar-Suen 6. Thus, five years would have passed between the purchase of the slave and the claim recorded in our text. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

162

Manuel Molina

The last sentence is interpreted as a no-contest clause, where inim ĝal 2 is understood as “to make the agreement present”, i.e., “to accept the agreement” (cf. inim-ma ĝal 2 “to be in the agreement” in no-contest clauses, discussed by Steinkeller 1989, 55–58). “His children” (dumu-ne-ne) would then be the children of Nanna-kuzu, the buyer, who would have made the claim. Concerning the physical features of the tablet (see photo in BDTNS), it is interesting to note the description by Taylor (2011, 12): “the inner core of BM 110193 has a thin crust of clay produced by dampening with water; this was perhaps intended to act as a bonding layer.”

No. 4. Negligence in the custody of a prisoner BM 110490 (1914-4-4-556) BDTNS 069379 Umma. Undated 72×53×17 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/069379

rev.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

lu2 a2 ½a lu2 A-da-ga A-bu-DU10-e A-tu-ra en-nu-ĝa2 in-na-ni-in-ku4 (KWU 147) A-tu-da ba-an-da-zah3 mu-bi-še3 A-bu-DU10-e dam A-tu-re la-ba-an-dab5 ensi2-ke4 A-bu-DU10-ra igi-ni in-na-an-ĝa2-ar dam A-tu-ra šu ba-ra-ne2 lu2-zu iti 1-kam-ka ha-mu-ra-an-tum2-mu in-na-an-du11 A-bu-DU10-e nu-un-še a-ra2 3-am3 lu2 in-ši-gi4 ĝiš nu-un-na-an-tuku-am3

Translation A half(day) man, a man of Adaga: Abu-ṭāb brought him in prison for Atu. He ran away from Atu.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 163

For that reason, Abu-ṭāb (and) the wife of Atu not having detained him, the governor appeared before Abu-ṭāb (and) told him: “as the wife of Atu released (him), he/she should bring your man to you in one month.” Abu-ṭāb did not obey. Three times he (the governor) sent someone to him, but it was (the case) that he did not listen to him. Comments This tablet records a confrontation between the governor of Umma and a certain Abu-ṭāb about a prisoner. As I reconstruct the facts, Abu-ṭāb arrested a worker and put him into the custody of Atu. Nevertheless, the worker escaped from him, apparently with the connivance of Atu’s wife and Abu-ṭāb himself. For that reason, the governor summoned Abu-ṭāb and, blaming Atu’s wife for the flight, told him that the runaway should be brought to him before one month. It is unclear to me whether the one responsible for bringing back the fugitive was Atu or his wife. In any case, Abu-ṭāb did not obey the governor’s command, even when an envoy was sent to him on three occasions. It is complicated to ascertain the background of the case. I understand that the runaway was a man of Adaga, rather than “a man (in service at the) irrigation ditch (a-da-ga)”, which theoretically would also be possible, assuming that Adaga was someone close to the provincial administration (some sealing officials named Adaga would be good candidates). We could also speculate that Abu-ṭāb belonged to the royal sphere of influence, frequently in conflict with the provincial administration. He could tentatively be identified with a mayor (ha-za-num 2 ) also called Abu-ṭāb, who intervened in another process conducted by the governor (L’uomo 45; cf. Taylor 2010, 214). A similar conflict (Molina 2010, 210 no. 7) was the case of a thief of trees whom Ea-šar, the second in command of the general of GARšana, had in custody (en-nu-ĝa 2 in-ti-am 3 ) and whom he did not accept to hand over to the governor. This text also concludes in a similar way: a-ra 2 3-am 3 ensi 2 -ke 4 , lu 2 in-ši-gi 4 , numu-un-tum 2 “for three times the governor sent someone there, (but) he (Eašar) did not bring him.” 1: ½a is here interpreted as a writing of šu-ri-a “half” with a phonetic complement. 5: For PN-da zah 3 used with the prefix {da}, meaning “to run away from PN”, see Edzard 1968, 138, Balke 2006, 101, Jagersma 2010, 452. rev. 6: this verbal form of the verb še-g “to agree, be in agreement; to obey” (ePSD http://oracc.org/epsd2/o0039028) is also found in TMH NF 1/2 271: i 10 (= NSGU 209) // Çıǧ et al., ZA 53, 61 6, BPOA 1 382 (see Sallaberger 2008, 168), and Studies Leichty 392: rev. i 8.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

164

Manuel Molina

No. 5. A woman enslaved for debt BM 112804 (1914-4-4-2870) Umma. Amar-Suen 2/xii BDTNS 168845 51×45×20 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/168845

rev.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5.0.0 še ur5-ra gur Ha-an-du Ur-dDumu-zi-da-ke4 in-˹na˺-an-sum Ha-an-du mu še nu-da-su-ga-še3 Nin-ur2-ra-ni in-/na-dib5 igi A-kal-la-še3 igi dUtu-in-zu-še3 igi Ab-ba-še3 ˹ša3˺-ba Ur-dDumu-zi-da / [na]m-erim2-bi u3-ku5 [ba]-an-tum2-mu d[i-ti]l-la dumu Ummaki [iti] dDumu-zi mu dAmar-dSuen lugal-e / Ur-bi2-lum mu-hul

Translation Ur-Dumuzida gave Handu 5 gur of barley as a loan. Because he could not repay the barley, Handu transferred Nin-urani to him (= Ur-Dumuzida). Before Akala, before Utu-inzu, before Abba. From among them Ur-Dumuzida will take the corresponding (declaratory) oath and then he (= Ur-Dumuzida) will take her (= Nin-urani). Concluded case (concerning) citizens of Umma. Month of Dumuzi (month xii). Year in which Amar-Suen, the king, destroyed Urbilum (Amar-Suen 2). Comments This case deals with a credit of barley that Ur-Dumuzida had with Handu. Because Handu was not able to repay his debt, he was obliged to send Nin-urani (probably his wife or his daughter) to work for his creditor. The verdict would only be effective after Ur-Dumuzida had taken the declaratory oath.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 165

No. 6. A debt to an oxherd BM 111186 (1914-4-4-1252) Umma. Amar-Suen 2 BDTNS 070071 55×46×16 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/070071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rev. 1 2 3

Ur-dub-la2-da Lu2-/dŠara2 gu4-re6 in-da-/an-ti-il-am3 igi ensi2-ka-še3 igi Lu2-diĝir-ra-še3 teš2-bi-da niĝ2-kas7 ib2-/da-ab-a5 3 ⅔ gin2 15 še ku3-babbar Ur-dub-la2-ke4 Lu2-dŠara2-da ba-an-/da-tuku (blank space) Ur-ku3 maškim di til-la-bi-/im di til-la dumu Ummaki mu dAmar-dSuen lugal-e / Ur-bi2-lumki mu-hul

Translation It was (the case) that Lu-Šara had the oxen stay with Ur-dubla. Before the governor and before Lu-diĝira they made the account with each other. Ur-dubla has a credit of 3⅔ shekels and 15 grains of silver with Lu-Šara. Urku is the commissioner of the concluded case. It is a concluded case (concerning) citizens of Umma. Year in which Amar-Suen, the king, destroyed Urbilum (Amar-Suen 2). Comments The case recorded in this tablet deals with a claim brought by Ur-dubla, who tended the oxen of Lu-Šara. The dispute about the silver owed to Ur-dubla by Lu-Šara for his work was solved in court before the governor and a certain Ludiĝira (for his identity, see Molina 2013, 135 n. 110). The fact that this case involved people from the royal sector would be suggested by the fact that Urku was a soldier (aga 3 -us 2 ) who also acted as commissioner in other legal processes (Studies Owen, 208 no. 5; Fish, MCS 2, 75 = BDTNS 012442; Fish, AnOr 12, 103 4) that took place at Umma (see Molina 2013, 128). 1: According to Jagersma 2010, 167, gu4-re6 was the normal spelling of /guře/ (directive) in Old Sumerian texts, while gu4-e was preferred in the Ur III period. In fact, this is the only example for this spelling known to me in Ur III texts. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

166

Manuel Molina

No. 7. The status of three men BM 111173 (1914-4-4-1239) Umma. Undated BDTNS 070058 59×47×16 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/070058

rev.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1

1 Ba-zi-˹ge˺ 1 Nita u3 Ša3-igi-ĝu10 lugal-ĝu10 ma-an-ta-/ni-in-gi4-eš Šu-Dur-ul3 lu2-kiĝ2-gi4-a / lugal im-da-ĝen igi ensi2-ka-še3 di-bi ba-ab-du11 Zuluhu2 niĝ2 na-me-še3 / la-ba-ge-en6 (blank space)

Translation Bazige, Nita and Ša-igiĝu: “my king send them here for me.” Šu-Durul, envoy of the king, came with him (= Zuluhu). Before the governor the case was brought. Zuluhu was not confirmed on any of the things. Comments The tablet records a process concerning the status of three men. Zuluhu claimed that they were sent to him by the king, and a royal envoy came to the process to support his version. Nevertheless, the governor of Umma did not accept the claim, in what seems to be a new example of the conflict between the royal and the provincial administrations. In fact, Zuluhu declared that the men were sent to him by the king, and his claim was supported by a royal envoy. On the other hand, he possibly was the same Zuluhu recorded in other legal procedures with three different functions, all of them closely related to the royal administration: colonel (YOS 4 1), city elder (Studies Owen, 206 no. 4), and mayor (Fish, AnOr 12, 102 3; Princeton 1 36; Mél. Charpin, 698 no. 1). Moreover, if he were indeed the same person, his career would be an example of promotion from the local elite to the military and the local administration (Molina 2013, 135–136 and nn. 115–116).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 167

No. 8. A father sued by his children BM 110614 (1914-4-4-680) Umma. Amar Suen 8/v BDTNS 069503 48×41×16 Photo: http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/069503

rev.

lo.ed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 1

1 Ur-dBil3-ra a-ra2 1-kam di ba-ab-dab5 dumu-dumu munus-kam 1 Lu2-dŠara2 dumu / šeš-gal ibila-am3 a-ra2 2-kam Ur-dBil3-e ensi2-ra di nu-mu-dab5 in-na-/an-du11 igi egir šakkan6-še3 igi iri-še3 iti RI mu en Eridu/ki ba-huĝ gudu4 dNin-a-zu

Translation For the first time, a judgement was rendered for Ur-Bil(games). It was (the case) of the daughters (of Ur-Bilgames). Lu-Šara, the elder son, who is the heir (of Ur-Bilgames), (laid the charges) for the second time. Ur-Bil(games) said to the governor: “he (the judge) did not render a judgment.” Before the vice-general; before the city elder. Month of RI (month v). Year in which the en-priest of Eridu was installed (Amar-Suen 8). (Case concerning) the gudu-priest of Ninazu. Comments This text records the statement of a certain Ur-Bilgames, who probably was the gudu-priest of the god Ninazu mentioned in the lower edge of the tablet. The text recalls a first process initiated by his daughters, which apparently concluded in favour of Ur-Bilgames. Later on, his eldest son and heir Lu-Šara started a second process against him, but the appeal was rejected. On this occassion, it seems that a new claim against Ur-Bilgames was brought, probably again by any of the siblings, and probably once again—although not explicitly stated on the tablet—rejected. The fact that the two bystanders—a vice-general and a city © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

168

Manuel Molina

elder, both possibly named Ur-niĝar—belonged to the royal administration (Molina 2013, 132 n. 68, 137 n. 120) indicates a conflict in which royal interests were at risk. Nevertheless, for the time being it is not possible to go beyond the plausible identification of Ur-Bilgames as a gudu-priest of god Ninazu. The cult of this deity was not widespread in the province of Umma. I only know one record mentioning a field of Ninazu (Nisaba 11 22: rev. ii 29, iii 12), which measured 6 iku (ca. 12.7 ha.). The same tablet records an allotment of 3 iku assigned to Ur-Bilgames (rev. i 19′), possibly the gudu-priest of our text, in charge of a small shrine devoted to his cult. Ur-Bil(games), the gudu-priest, is also recorded in Nisaba 11 34: ii 13. For the gudu-priests of Umma, see now Huber Vulliet 2019, 233. 1, rev. 1: For Ur- d Bil 3 , an abbreviated form of Ur- d Bil 3 -ga-mes, see Balke 2017, 409 n. 1363. 3, rev. 3: For di dab 5 “to render a judgement”, see Sallaberger 2008, 170 n. 32. 4: dumu-dumu munus is here interpreted as a plural of dumu munus “daughter”, in the same way as the plural of dumu nita ( 2 ) “son” is formed by dumu-dumu nita (OSP 1 47, OAkk). Another attestation of dumudumu munus is found in PBS 8-2 166: ii 12′ (dumu-dumu munus nin 9 -a-na “the daughters of his sister”, OB). It is unclear from the copy whether Glassner, JCS 35, 211 2 (OAkk) records dumu-dumu munus˹munus˺ kinkin (HAR), or dumu-dumu ˹munus˺ ˹kinkin 2 ˺ (˹HAR˺.HAR). 5: dumu šeš-gal is the designation for the “eldest son”, also found in Durand, RA 71, 126: i 2 (see the discussion by Wilcke 1985, 222f.). rev. 5: iri has been restored from TCL 5 6058 (= NSGU 110) and Studies Owen, 203 no. 2, which list consecutively Ur-niĝar x ĝ a r egir šakkan 6 and Ur-niĝar x ĝ a r ab-ba iri, the latter text in the abbreviated form Ur-niĝar x ĝ a r egir iri (cf. Molina 2013, 132 n. 68 and 137 n. 120).

Bibliography Balke, T.E., Das altsumerische Onomastikon. Namengebung und Prosopografie nach den Quellen aus Lagas (dubsar 1), Münster 2017. Civil, M., The Farmer’s Instructions. A Sumerian Agricultural Manual (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 5), Sabadell 1984. — The Law Collection of Ur-Namma, in: George, A.R. (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection (Cuneiform Texts VI. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17), Bethesda, MD 2011, 221–286.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 169

Culbertson, L.E., The maškim in Ur III Legal Documents, in: A. García-Ventura (ed.), What’s in a Name? Terminology Related to the Work Force and Job Categories in the Ancient Near East (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 440), Münster 2018, 169–187. Edzard, D.O., Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur, Munich 1968. Heimpel, W., The Location of Madga, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 61 (2009) 25–61. Huber Vulliet, F., Le personnel cultuel à l’époque néosumérienne (ca. 2160– 2003 av. J.-C.) (Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 14), Madrid 2019. Jagersma, B., A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian, PhD Dissertation, Universiteit Leiden 2010. Molina, M., New Ur III Court Records Concerning Slavery, in: Michalowski, P. (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1), Boston 2008, 125– 143. — Court Records from Umma, in Kleinerman, A. / Sasson, J.M. (eds.), “Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It?” Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, Bethesda, MD 2010, 201– 217. — Court Officials at Umma in Ur III Times, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 103 (2013) 125–148. — From Court Records to Sammelurkunden: A new tablet from Umma and TCL 5, 6047, in: Koslova, N. et al. (eds.), Studies in Sumerian Language and Literature. Festschrift für Joachim Krecher (Babel und Bibel 8), Winona Lake, IN 2014, 399–421. — Sumerian Judicial Procedures against Tomb Robbers, in: Chambon, G. et al. (eds.), De l’argile au numérique. Mélanges assyriologiques en l’honneur de Dominique Charpin (Publications de l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien du Collège de France 3), Paris 2019, 693–712. Sallaberger, W., The Sumerian Verb na de5(-g) “To Clear”, in: Sefati, Y. et al. (eds.), An Experienced Scribe who Neglects Nothing. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, Bethesda, MD 2005, 229–253. — Der Eid im Gerichtsverfahren im neusumerischen Umma, in Michalowski, P. (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1), Boston 2008, 159– 176. Steinkeller, P., Sale Documents of the Ur-III-Period (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 17), Stuttgart 1989. — More on the Reading of the Toponym GARšana, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (2012) 52–53, no. 42.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

170

Manuel Molina

Taylor, J., Tablets as Artefacts, Scribes as Artisans, in: Radner, K. / Robson, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford 2011, 5–31. — Ḫazannum: The Forgotten Mayor, in: Kogan, L. et al. (eds.), City Administration in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. 2 (Babel und Bibel 5), Winona Lake, IN 2010, 207–222. Veenker, R. / Johnson, J.C., The Appellate Process in a Legal Record {di til-la} from Ur III Umma, in: Altorientalische Forschungen 36 (2009) 349–364. Wilcke, C., Familiengründung im alten Babylonien, in: Müller, E.W. (ed.), Geschlechtsreife und Legitimation zur Zeugung, Freiburg 1985, 213–317.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 171 1. BM 106495

2. BM 111032

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

172

Manuel Molina 3. BM 110193

4. BM 110490

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Court Cases on Burglaries, Fugitives, Debts and Other Matters in Ur III Times 173 5. BM 112804

6. BM 111186

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

174

Manuel Molina 7. BM 111173

8. BM 110614

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Meannedu, Ruler of Umma Salvatore F. Monaco

Meannedu is one of the governors of Umma, who in the Early Dynastic IIIb period ruled for a quite long time (Monaco 2013 and 2015). Such long duration of reign seemed unacceptable to Almamori,1 who proposed the attribution of the highest dating to Enannatum of Lagash, rather than to Meannedu. However, such hypothesis is founded on many very weak bases, as evidenced below. 1. Interpretation of the inscription on the statue IM 51145 [ ] me-an-ne2-˹x˺ / [ ] [e]n-an-[ ] as “Meannedu son of Enannatum” (Basmachi / Edzard 1958, Sollberger / Kupper 1971, and Steible 1982 read “Meannesi”). 2. Identification of Meannedu (?) dumu Enannatum I with Meannedu ensi2 Umma. 3. Interpretation of Meannedu’s dating in Ozaki 2008, no. 1 as year 23 instead of year 5. Assumption that “The numeral, which is missing from CDLI P251871 [MS 2824], is also almost certainly a year denotation near the end of ‘20s’ ”, without explanation. 4. Interpretation of Meannedu’s datings as referring to Enannatum I’s rulership, consequently: a) Meannedu’s ensiship would start in year 16 (?), and end in year 32 of Enannatum I’s rulership; b) Entemena’s ensiship would start in year 32 of Enannatum I, with a duration of more than 27 years: being firstborn he had a quite long life! Meannedu was younger, but his ensiship ended as soon as Entemena became ensi2. 5. Assumption that the dating in ITT 5 9236 (year 27) refers to Enannatum I, and not to Entemena, as usually accepted. 6. Assumption that Entemena’s inscriptions do not fully describe historical events: according to Entemena (Steible 1982, 230–245, Ent. 28–29) his father Enannatum I defeated UrLumma and Entemena killed him in the middle of the city of Umma; thereafter Ila, the sanga-administrator of Zabalam, was put as governor of Umma. Entemena would have purposely not cited Meannedu and Usar-HI, who would have ruled Umma between UrLumma and Ila. The reason (not explained by Almamori) would be that 1

Almamori 2014. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

176

Salvatore F. Monaco

the inscription describes only the events relevant to the contrast between Lagash and Umma: being Meannedu son of Enannatum I the situation was under control, and consequently not worth to be mentioned. But, how about Usar-HI? He was the successor of Meannedu (this is proved by the synchronism with Salah,2 sanga-administrator of Zabalam), who, according to Almamori, left his place as soon as Enannatum I died (32th year of ensiship): if this happened because the situation run out of control, why is it not mentioned in Entemena’s inscription? 7. Assumption that the Giššakidu ugula-e2 (occurring in a tablet dated to year 28, CUNES 47-12-025) was the son of Ila. The name Giššakidu occurs in several tablets with the title of nu-kiri6, simug, šu-peš, lu2-bappir, who clearly are not the same persons (some are in texts from Lugalzagesi’s time). Cited parallels in Adab texts do not show that an ugula-e2 has ever succeded to become ensi2. 8. As an alternative interpretation—considered much less probable—, Almamori suggested also that Meannedu’s datings refer to Entemena’s rulership, with the sequence of Umma rulers UrLumma → Meannedu → Usar-HI → Ila → Giššakidu → (Edin) → U2.U2. According to him: “This reconstruction, however, would bring about another difficult hypothesis that more than 30 years after En-metena’s enthronement, Il came from Zabalam so as to free Gišša”. This alternative explanation does not take into account the rulership of Usar-HI, who comes after Meannedu, consequently Ila could not “free Gišša” just at the end of Entemena’s rulership (unless Ila was so powerful as to install in Umma one of his men, i.e., Usar-HI!). Edin is only mentioned once with a “?”, and not included in his chronology (cf. Figure 1 and by comparison Figure 2 below). 9. About the datings of Meannedu referred to the ensi2 of Lagash, it is not taken into account that the mu-iti dating system always refers explicitly to the ensi2 recorded in the colophon of the tablet, who is always a ruler of Umma. Moreover, there is no other occurrence of a member of the Lagashite ruler’s family installed in Umma (the case of Nammahni, son of the Umma governor and a daughter of the Lagash governor, in the Lagash II period, shows that he ruled first Umma and then Lagash: the two cities were in very good relationships in that period). 10. There is indeed a period, when the control of Umma by Lagash was particularly oppressive, i.e., in first years of Lugalzagesi’s ensiship, starting most probably in the second year of UruKAgina’s rulership, when he changed his title from ensi2 to lugal. This is evident from two facts: a) the reaction of Lugalzagesi against Lagash in the year 8 of UruKAgina was particular violent; b) the mu-iti dating system, which was temporarily replaced by a dating system quite symilar to that in use in Lagash, returned in use 2

On the reading “Salah” of the composite DI.UD cf. Spycket 1981, 86 n. 211. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Meannedu, Ruler of Umma

177

immediately after the defeat of Lagash (SANTAG 7 5 dated 16 mu 13 iti, surely attributable to Lugalzagesi, since it records commodities brought to the palace by UrNinIldum i3-du8, who is well known from tablets dated to Lugalzagesi’s years 6, 7, and 8). Even in such period, when Lagash was so strong to successfully repel the repeated attacks from Uruk, in the submitted city of Umma it was a man from Umma and not from Lagash who ascended the throne.

Figure 1. Sequence of the rulers of Umma according to Almamori (after Almamori 2014, 32)

11. Usually, when two brothers rule one after the other, the durations of their rulerships are not long. For instance, Rimuš ruled 9 years and Maništušu 15 years, for a total of 24 years. Both AmarSin and ŠuSin ruled 9 years each, for a total of 18 years. Enentarsi ruled 6 year after his brother Enannatum II, who surely did not have a long rulership. If we consider that Eannatum rulership was certainly not short, since he is credited to have conducted several campaigns against Ur, Nippur, Akshak, Larsa, Uruk, Umma, Kish, Elam, and Mari, how could have his brother Enannatum I outlived him by 32 years?3

3

Cf. the sequence and duration of reigns in the tables provided in the introduction of Monaco 2011. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

178

Salvatore F. Monaco

Figure 2. Sequence of the rulers of Umma according to Monaco (after Monaco 2015, 163)

In conclusion, the hypotheses of Almamori should be fully rejected, and the sequence and duration of reigns of the Umma rulers remain as reported in the above cited papers.

Bibliography Almamori, H.O., Gišša (Umm Al-Aqarib), Umma (Jokha), and Lagaš in the Early Dynastic III Period, in: Al-Rāfidān 35 (2014) 1–37. Basmachi, F. / Edzard, D.O., Statue of a Son of Enannatum I in the Iraq Museum, in: Sumer 14 (1958), 109–113. Monaco, S.F., Early Dynastic mu-iti Cereal Texts in the Cornell University Cuneiform Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 14), Bethesda, MD, 2011. — Some New Light on Pre-Sargonic Umma, in: Feliu, Ll. et al. (eds.), Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26–30 July 2010, Winona Lake, IN 2013, 745–750. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Meannedu, Ruler of Umma

179

— More on Pre-Sargonic Umma, in: Archi, A. (ed.), Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome 4–8 July 2011, Winona Lake, IN 2015, 161–166. Ozaki, T., Three Early Dynastic Sumerian Sales Contracts of Immovables Housed in the Okayama Orient Museum, in: Journal of Ancient Civilizations 23 (2008) 55–64. Sollberger, E. / Kupper, J.-F., Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 3), Paris 1971. Spycket, A., La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien (Handbook der Orientalistik 7/1.2B1), Leiden / Köln 1981. Steible, H., Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 15/1–2), Wiesbaden 1982.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia: Unpublished Ur III Documents in the Yale Babylonian Collection Palmiro Notizia ĝiš-rin2 sa ak pu2 niĝ2-ĝiri3-a-kam dam-gar3 ku-li-ni-ir lu2 na-an-tuku-tuku “Weighing scales made with a net are a trap made for the feet; A man should not take a merchant for his friend” SP 3.64 (Alster 1997, 92)

This article presents four previously unpublished texts from the Yale Babylonian Collection related to the archives of SI.A-a and Tūram-ilī, two of the largest non-institutional archives from the Ur III period.1 These reconstructed archives document the wide range of economic activities in which wealthy individuals, merchants, and their extended families were engaged for the benefit of their households, from the issuing of loans to the purchase and sale of slaves, animals, and land. More importantly, the records from their private archives also give us insight into how these economic actors operated within their local urban communities as facilitators of exchange and as tax farmers on behalf of institutional clients.2 The provenience of the SI.A-a and Tūram-ilī tablets is unknown. Based on prosopographical connections and similarities in the calendars, it has been recently argued that these archives originated in the city of Irisaĝrig or in its surrounding region, although this hypothesis has been questioned.3 Besides, no 1

This research has been made possible thanks to the financial support granted by the Italian Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca through the PRIN 2015 project (2015PFPLLP) “Cambiamento e continuità nell’amministrazione, nella gestione e nel valore del lavoro nell’antica Mesopotamia, dal periodo neo-sumerico a quello paleo-babilonese (XXI–XVI secc. a.C.): nuove fonti. Edizione e studio comparato di materiale cuneiforme di tre collezioni (British Museum, Harvard Semitic Museum e Yale Babylonian Collection)”. Text abbreviations follow those of the Database of NeoSumerian Texts project (http://bdtns.filol.csic.es). 2 For an extensive study of the private archives of SI.A-a, Tūram-ilī, and Ur-Nuska, a merchant from Nippur, see Garfinkle 2012. For the archive of the Adab merchant Eṣidum, comprising ca. one hundred texts see Kamil 2018. 3 See Garfinkle 2012, 78–81, Owen 2013, 64–65, 103, and the remarks in Molina 2013, 72 n. 27. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

182

Palmiro Notizia

consensus has yet been reached on the precise location of Irisaĝrig.4 The Tūram-ilī archive comprises fifty-nine cuneiform tablets, all housed in the Nies Babylonian Collection at Yale University. More specifically, the texts fall within the following range of museum numbers: NBC 6543–10027, plus NBC 1306. Two looted tablets, now kept in the Sulaimaniah Museum (Taher 2010), and six documents published by Owen in Nisaba 15/2 (nos. 349, 538, 540, 679, 680, and 899), all from Irisaĝrig, are possibly related to the same archive. As regards the SI.A-a archive, Garfinkle counted seventy-seven tablets (Garfinkle 2012, 36); in addition to them one may add two texts published in Nisaba 15/2 (nos. 11 and 1028), which show strong links with the archive and, perhaps, also the legal document from the Rosen Collection Nisaba 32 260 (ŠS.05.09.22; Nippur calendar). A group of thirty SI.A-a tablets is kept in the Iraq Museum, while the remaining texts are scattered among several collections, mostly in the US (forty-five texts), but also in Denmark (one text) and in the United Kingdom (one text). Fourteen out of forty-five SI.A-a tablets in US museums are housed in the Yale Babylonian Collection and were published in 2003 by Garfinkle (Garfinkle 2003); quite interestingly, seven of them bear NBC numbers similar to the Tūram-ilī texts and to the four tablets studied in the present article: NBC 5614–9925.5 Finally, two texts published by Mayr (Mayr 2002, 62–63)—one from the Yale Babylonian Collection (NBC 10023) and the other from the Rosen Collection (CUNES 48-09-020)—in which SI.A-a and Tūram-ilī are not directly mentioned, may nevertheless suggest a connection between the two archives, on the basis of the seal of Šu-Ninšubur, son of Eštarnuʾʾid, impressed on both tablets and on Van de Mieroop, JCS 38, 63 27 (NBC 10022), yet another text belonging to the Tūram-ilī archive. More tablets related to the SI.A-a and Tūram-ilī archives are likely to be found, in my opinion, among the unpublished Neo-Sumerian texts of the Yale collections.6 The four tablets from the Nies Babylonian Collection edited here, some of which are fragmentary or badly eroded, were identified in July 2016 while working on unpublished Ur III loan contracts in the framework of the research project “Toward a History of Credit and Debt: Institutional and NonInstitutional Lending Practices in Third Millennium Babylonia”, funded by the 4

On the possible location of Irisaĝrig, see Molina 2013 and Viano 2019. For an overview of the looted tablets from this settlement sold on the Internet by galleries and auction houses or kept in private collections see Molina 2020, 329–333. 5 The other seven texts bear YBC numbers. 6 For the catalogue of the 5,172 Ur III tablets in the Nies Babylonian Collection see Sigrist 2001. Note that the catalogue gives no information on the acquisition of the tablets by the Yale Babylonian Collection and provides only short—and occasionally inaccurate and/or incomplete—descriptions of the texts. Thus, for example, NBC 10056 was catalogued by Sigrist as a “loan of barley” from “Kish”, while the month name (kir11-si-ak) was not included in the description. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

183

Gerda Henkel Foundation. They were then collated in June 2018 and are published here by kind permission of Agnete Wisti Lassen, Associate Curator of the Yale Babylonian Colection.

Catalogue Text

Museum no.

Size (mm)

Date

Contents

1

NBC 5605

57×50×26

ŠS.07.07.00

barley loan

2

NBC 7635

48×49×26

ŠS.05.00.00

loan of an unknown commodity

3

NBC 10024

52×45×17

IS.01.12.00

silver loan

4

NBC 10056

94×56×23

IS.03.09.00

sale document

Text 1 (NBC 5605) Barley loan ŠS.07.07.00 57×50×26 mm Unopened envelope (unruled) Sealed obv. 1 2 3 4 rev. 1

2.0.0 še gur lugal ur5-še3 ki SI.A-a ˹na˺-[gada]/-ta ur-dšul-gi / dumu i-ti-˹DIĜIR˺ šu ba-ti iti a2-ki-ti BLANK SPACE 2 mu dšu-dsuen / lugal-e za-ab-ša/-liki mu-hulu/-a SEAL (illegible) Translation Ur-Šulgi, son of Iddin-ilum, received two gur (ca. 600 l) of barley as a loan from SI.A-a, the chief shepherd. Month: Akiti festival. Year: Šu-Suen, the king, smote the land of Zabšali. (Seal) ... Comments The present barley loan is unwitnessed. However, another loan document belonging to the SI.A-a archive (MVN 13 884; AS.04?.00.00) clearly shows that the name of the witnesses could be present only on the tablet and not on the clay envelope enclosing it.7 7

For the role of the witnesses in the Ur III documentation see Pomponio 2009. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

184

Palmiro Notizia

obv. 2. Ur-Šulgi son of Iddin-ilum is otherwise unknown in the Ur III documentation. A certain Iddin-ilum son of Išlulu occurs in MVN 8 184 (ŠS.01.00.00) as a recipient of barley and silver provided by SI.A-a. Garfinkle (2012, 165) suggested that he might have been the same person as the Iddin-ilum captain of sixty men (ugula ĝeš2-da) attested as a witness in the sale document MVN 8 152 (AS.01?.00.00), in which SI.A-a bought 3 sar of uncultivated land. Another Iddin-ilum borrowed silver from SI.A-a in TIM 3 150 (no year name). rev. 1. The tablet bears a Reichskalender month name (a2-ki-ti). In the SI.A-a archive both the official state calendar and a local calendar were in use (Garfinkle 2012, 37–41).

Text 2 (NBC 7635) Loan of an unknown commodity ŠS.05.00.00 48×49×26 mm Unopened fragmentary envelope (unruled) Sealed obv.

(one line lost) ˹x˺ [...] ki ˹SI˺.˹A˺-˹a˺-[ta] i-ti šu ˹ba˺-˹ti˺ igi ma-˹šum!˺ igi DIĜIR-˹e˺-ri-iš rev. igi be-li2-SIPA igi ˹zi˺-na-a BLANK SPACE 3 mu us2-sa dšu-d˹suen˺ / ˹lugal˺ ˹uri5˺ki-˹ma˺-[ke4 bad3 mar-tu] ˹mu˺/-[ri-iq-ti-id-ni-im mu-du3] le.ed. [(x)]-˹x˺-na i-ti kišib / [(x)]-˹x˺ ˹u2˺-tul2-ma-ma SI.A-a lo.ed. in-na-šum2 SEAL 1 i-ti 2 dumu šu-dIŠKUR 1′ 2′ 3′ 4′ 5′ 1 2

Translation Iddin received ... from SI.A-a. Before Mašum; before Ilam-ēriš; before Bēlī-rēʾi; before Zina’a. Year after the year: Šu-Suen, king of Ur, [built the Amorite wall] Mu[riqTidnim]. ... Iddin, Utul-Mama gave the sealed tablet ... (to) SI.A-a. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

185

(Seal) Iddin, son of Šu-Adad. Comments The presence of witnesses, and the final clause, suggest that the text was most likely a loan contract.8 The meaning of the fragmentary clause recorded on the left and the lower edge of the envelope, that is, after the year name, is unclear to me. Perhaps it refers to the transfer of the sealed document (i.e., the present document) to the creditor (SI.A-a) by Utul-Mama, who was somehow directly involved in the transaction, and probably even attended the issuing of the loan.9 A less likely possibility is that the clause concerned the loss of Iddin’s seal. Utul-Mama was a merchant who also frequently participated in the economic activities of the chief shepherd SI.A-a. According to Garfinkle (2012, 101, 162) he was a business associate of SI.A-a’s and his representative in the community of merchants. Out of seventy-seven tablets attributed to the archive, Utul-Mama occurs as a witness in fourteen documents, mostly loan contracts (11 texts), but also sale documents (2 texts) and receipts (1 text). In the sale document NYPL 376 it was Utul-Mama’s son, Naplis, who witnessed the transaction. Furthermore, on two occasions Utul-Mama witnessed loan contracts with Ilamēriš10 and he occurs once as a witness in an antichretic arrangement contracted between SI.A-a and Bēlī-rēʾi (NPLP 365; ŠS.07.00.00): both Ilam-ēriš and Bēlīrēʾi appear in the witness list of the present text. The merchant by the name of Utul-Mama occuring in a silver loan contract written at Nippur (NYPL 370; IS.01.01.00), might be the same individual known from the SI.A-a texts (Garfinkle 2004, 23). In the seal legend of NYPL 370 Utul-Mama is said to be the son of the merchant NE.NE. Note that a certain Utul-Mama appears as a witness also in Text 4 (NBC 10056) (see below). obv. 3′. Unless we are dealing with a hypocoristic name—even though the seal legend also reads i-ti—, Iddin is hitherto unattested in the texts belonging to the SI.A-a archive. For the reading of this personal name see Hilgert 2002, 297. obv. 4′. Mašum is not known from other texts of the archive. obv. 5′. The name of the second witness is partially preserved (igi DIĜIR-e-[riiš]) also on the small portion of the tablet visible on the upper edge of the 8

Note, however, that witness lists are attested also in some receipts of the SI.A-a and Tūram-ilī archive (Garfinkle 2012, 66 Table 5.2, 88–90 Table 6.2). For the occasional difficulty in distinguishing simple receipts from loan documents in the absence of specific components (repayment clause, promissory oath, list of witnesses, etc.) see Garfinkle 2012, 65, 90–91. 9 For the preparation and following destruction of written loan agreements in Ur III times see Steinkeller 2002 and the remarks by Garfinkle (2012, 46–48). 10 MVN 13 902+903 (ŠS.07.00.00) and MVN 13 742+743 (ŠS.08.00.00). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

186

Palmiro Notizia

fragmentary envelope. Ilam-ēriš (written DIĜIR-e-ri(2)-iš) appears in the archive as a recipient of barley provided by SI.A-a (MVN 8 184; ŠS.01.00.00), and often as a witness in texts dated between Šu-Suen 3 and Ibbi-Suen 2, as well as in the undated silver loan TIM 3 150.11 rev. 1. Bēlī-rēʾi, son of Šu-Eštar, was a farmer (engar). 12 In NYPL 365 (ŠS.07.00.00) he borrowed a considerable amount of barley (17 gur = ca. 5,100 l) from SI.A-a, while in the barley loan contract Lane 1 (Garfinkle 2012, 177 no. 44) he sealed the document on behalf of another farmer, Zumakum. Both NYPL 365 and Lane 1 (Garfinkle 2012, 177 no. 44) are antichretic arrangements in which the farmers Bēlī-rēʾi and Zumakum were required to repay the interest on the loans in harvest labor. rev. 2. Perhaps a variant spelling of the personal name zi2-na-a. Zina’a is not attested elsewhere in the archive.

Text 3 (NBC 10024) Silver loan IS.01.12.00 52×45×17 mm Tablet (unruled) Sealed 1 ma-na ku3-babbar ki diĝir-˹sa6˺-˹ga˺ nu-ur2-dšu-˹dsuen˺ šu ba-ti iti ba-ra-[um] ˹šum2˺-˹mu˺-˹dam˺ BLANK SPACE 2 iti še-˹KIN˺-ku5 3 mu i-bi-dsuen(EN/.ZU) ˹lugal˺

obv. 1 2 3 4 5 rev. 1

SEAL col. i 1 2 3 4 col. ii 1 2

[...] lugal-kala-ga lugal uri5/ki-ma [...] [...] / AN [...] ˹dumu˺ [...]

11

MVN 13 905+906 (ŠS.03.00.00), MVN 13 902+903 (ŠS.07.00.00), MVN 13 742+743 (ŠS.08.00.00), MVN 13 748+749 (IS.02.11.00). 12 Another Bēlī-rēʾi, followed by the professional designation šu-i, “barber”, is known from the SI.A-a tablet TIM 3 145 (date lost). Interestingly, in the Irisaĝrig tablet Nisaba 15/2 1026 (date lost), a certain Bēlī-rēʾi engar EN×MAŠ.GAG is attested. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

187

(rest illegible) Translation Nūr-Šu-Suen received one mana (ca. 500 g) of silver (as a loan) from Diĝirsaga. He will return it in the month ba-ra-um. Month: cutting grain. Year: Ibbi-Suen (is) king. (Seal) ... mighty king, king of Ur ... son of ... Comments Despite the lack of the customary formula ur5-ra/še3, the presence of a repayment clause indicates that the document recorded a loan agreement. The amount of silver involved in the transaction is considerable. Similar and larger amounts are attested only in a limited number of loan contracts, mostly from Nippur, 13 but also from Ur and Garšana. 14 Only two texts from the private archives of SI.A-a and Tūram-ilī account for comparable amounts of silver.15 Based on the occurrence of the Akkadian month name ba-ra-um, which is otherwise known only from three loan documents belonging to the SI.A-a archive,16 it can be suggested that the present loan contract originated in the same unknown site where the SI.A-a tablets where illicitly excavated. Note, however, that the repayment formula šum2-mu-dam is unattested in the SI.A-a texts (but cf. Foster, ASJ 12, 54; see below). I assume that iti še-KIN-ku5 refers here to the twelfth month of the year, in accordance with the Nippur and Irisaĝrig calendars.17 This would fit nicely with Garfinkle’s suggestion that iti ba-ra-um is likely to be assigned to the pre-harvest period (Garfinkle 2012, 162– 163). At Nippur, the usual due date for repayment of both barley and silver loans was the third month of the calendar (Lutzmann 1976, 67–68). In the few Irisaĝrig texts where the term of the loan is specified, it could be the third (Nisaba 15/2 849; IS.02.09.00), the sixth (Nisaba 15/2 681; IS.01.00.00), or the eighth month (CUSAS 3 1479; ŠS.06.00.00). Moreover, in the loan documents 13

E.g., Ontario 2 419 (1 ma-na), NATN 343 (1 ma-na), NATN 253 (1 ma-na 2 1/2 gin2), NYPL 370 (1 ma-na 12 gin2), NATN 205 (1 ma-na 12 gin2), NATN 593 (1 1/3 ma-na 2 1 /2 gin2), Foxvog, ASJ 18, 91 28 (1 1/2 ma-na), NRVN 1 87 (1 2/3 ma-na 1 2/3 gin2), NATN 311+269 (2 ma-na), Nisaba 30 97 (2 ma-na), NRVN 1 61 (5 ma-na). It is perhaps worth noting that in many of the Nippur loan documents in which large amounts of silver are involved, either the active participants were merchants and members of their families, or the nature of the arrangements was that of a commercial partnership (BE 3-1, 16). 14 Ur: e.g., UET 3 364 (1 ma-na). Garšana: CUSAS 6 1545 A+B (1 ma-na). 15 SI.A-a: MVN 8 168 (1 ma-na). Tūram-ilī: Van de Mieroop, JCS 38, 77 37 (10 2/3 mana 8 gin2 igi-6-ĝal2 6 še). 16 MVN 8 153, MVN 13 900+901, TIM 3 148, all dated to Amar-Suen 8. 17 For the Irisaĝrig calendar see Ozaki 2016. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

188

Palmiro Notizia

of the Tūram-ilī archive which used the Irisaĝrig calendar, the most common month of repayment was the third.18 obv. 2. The personal name Diĝir-saga appears in the witness list of MVN 8 151 (undated), which documents the purchase of a slave in Nippur by SI.A-a (Steinkeller 1989, 248). In MVN 8 151 the name is followed by one broken sign that likely specified Diĝir-saga’s title or professional designation. If the sign in question is sukkal, as the traces in the copy suggest, then Diĝir-saga might be the same individual that appears in the the witness list of the Nippur document Çig et al., ZA 53, 90 26 as the son of a certain Unguba. 19 Moreover, he might be identical to the money-lender named Diĝir-saga who is known from some published and unpublished Nippur loan contracts.20 In the letter-order Foster, ASJ 12, 54, an Ur III tablet of unknown provenance written in Akkadian, a man named Diĝir-saga is ordered to give silver to UrŠulpa’e as a loan to be repaid (šum2-mu-dam) in barley after the harvest. Interestingly, Foster, ASJ 12, 54 = NBC 8097 falls within the same range of museum numbers of the SI.A-a and Tūram-ilī tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection. obv. 3, SEAL. Since the personal name Nūr-Šu-Suen is known only from a dozen Ur III texts, all dating between Šu-Suen 4 and Ibbi-Suen 3, it is safe to assume that all occurences refer to one and the same person. Nūr-Šu-Suen is documented as a general (šakkan6) in the Umma tablet AAICAB 1/2, Ashm. 1971-396 (ŠS.06.09.00) and the royal settlers under his command were frequently involved in operations within the Umma province.21 The name of this high official before his appointment as military commander by king ŠuSuen is unknown (Waetzoldt 2008, 247). In Puzriš-Dagan texts, Nūr-ŠuSuen contributed animals designated as royal deliveries (mu-kux lugal) together with other well-known generals of the Ur III army.22 He also held large tracts of agricultural land at Irisaĝrig as indicated by Nisaba 15/2 1064 (undated). 23 At Nippur, Nūr-Šu-Suen is mentioned in the legal document 18

Van de Mieroop, JCS 38, 32 7 (ŠS.08.09.00), JCS 38, 36 10 (ŠS.09.10.00), JCS 38, 51 19 (IS.02.00.00). The seventh month occurs in Van de Mieroop, JCS 38, 77 37 (ŠS.05.07.00), 19 Çig et al., ZA 53, 90 26 belongs to the archive of the Nippur merchant Ur-Nuska (Garfinkle 2012, 132). In the legal text NRVN 1 5, also from Ur-Nuska’s documents, a certain Diĝir-saga “of the governor’s house” (e2 ensi2-ka) is attested as a witness. 20 MVN 3 295 (ŠS.09.07.11), CUNES 52-04-086 (ŠS.09.08.08; reference courtesy L. Allred), MVN 3 325 (IS.02.05.00), NBC 10042 (IS.03.12Reichskalender.00). 21 Cf. the texts Nebraska 38 (undated) and UTI 5 3231 (ŠS.05.00.00) (Steinkeller 2013, 397-398, 417). 22 BPOA 7 2536 (ŠS.04.02.[xx]), PDT 1 589 (ŠS.04.12.00), TRU 177 (ŠS.05.12diri.25). 23 In the Irisaĝrig documentation a royal envoy (lu2-kin-gi4-a lugal) by the name of NūrŠu-Suen is also attested (Nisaba 15/2 791; IS.02.06.24). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

189

NRVN 1 6024 and, most importantly, in the interest-free loan NATN 614 (IS.2.06.00) in which he borrowed 1,000 liters of barley from Maba and swore to repay it at harvest time (egir buru14-še3 su-mu-dam [sic]). The seal of the royal servant type impressed on this tablet, whose inscription was read by Hattori in her doctoral dissertation (Hattori 2002, 314–315), is probably identical to the seal rolled on NBC 10024. Although the seal owner’s name and his patronymic are barely legible on both tablets, the signs which Hattori read as ĜIR3?-X might in fact indicate the title šakkan6 (KIŠ.ARAD).

Text 4 (NBC 10056) Sale document IS.03.09.00 94×56×23 mm Tablet (Unruled) Sealed obv. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 rev. 1 2 3

1 saĝ-nita d IŠKUR-ba-ni mu-ni/-im niĝ2-sam2-ma-ni 3 gin2 / igi-3-ĝal2 ku3-babbar ki ur-ddumu-zi-da/-ta šu-na in-ši-sa10 igi da-a-a-ti nu-banda3 igi lu2-kiri3-zal igi lu2-dinanna igi u2-tul2-ma-ma dam / i3-li2-KAL nu-bala-e-de3 ur-ddumu-zi-da mu lugal-bi in/-pa3 BLANK SPACE 4 iti kir11-si-ak 5 mu di-bi2-dsuen(EN/.ZU) lugal uri5ki-ma-ke4 6 si-mu-ru-umki mu/-hulu

SEAL 1 2 3 4

24

ur-ddumu-zi/-da dam-gar3 dumu šeš-kal-la UNINSCRIBED

For a discussion of this text see Steinkeller 2001, 50–51. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

190

Palmiro Notizia

Translation Šuna bought from Ur-Dumuzida one man, his name is Adad-bāni (and) his purchase price (is) three shekels and sixty grains of silver (= ca. 28 g). Before Dayati, the colonel; before Lu-kirizal; before Lu-Inanna; before Utul-Mama, ... of Ilī-dan. Ur-Dumuzida swore by the name of the king not to change (the terms of the agreement). Month: kir11-si-ak. Year: Ibbi-Suen, king of Ur, smote Simurrum. (Seal) Ur-Dumuzida, merchant, son of Šeš-kala. Comments The month name on the present sale document belongs to the calendar in use at Irisaĝrig and is also attested in four Tūram-ilī tablets.25 While no sale document is known from the Irisaĝrig corpus and from Tūram-ilī’s private archive, the general structure of NBC 10056 and its formulary resamble that of TIM 5 12 (ŠS.01.00.00) and TIM 9 103 (IS.01.00.00), two sale documents belonging to the SI.A-a archive.26 The silver paid by Šuna for the purchase of Adad-bāni is particularly low when compared with the average price of male slaves in Ur III times (Steinkeller 1989, 135–136 Table 7). This may suggest that Adad-bāni was a child or an adolescent (Steinkeller 1989, 132, 138). Lacking specific information on his filiation, title or professional designation, not much can be said about the buyer, Šuna, certainly an abbreviated personal name. As regards the seller, it would be tempting to identify Ur-Dumuzida, son of Šeš-kala, with the well-known merchant by the same name who was active at Umma between Šulgi 32 (BPOA 6 1369) and Ibbi-Suen 1 (BJRL 64, 109 56).27 According to Snell, the Umma merchant Ur-Dumuzida could have been the son of another prominent merchant, Šeš-kala (Snell 1982, 99–103). This hypothesis, however, has been rejected by Neumann (1993, 78 and n. 52) on the basis of the sealing on Peters, AR RIM 4, 8 (Š.46.00.00), which provides a different patronymic for Ur-Dumuzida, that is, lugal-ZAR?-[x] dam-gar3, a merchant hitherto undocumented in the Umma records. At any rate, another good candidate for the identification of the merchant Ur-Dumuzida, son of Šeš-kala, is perhaps his namesake who appears in NATN 511, a legal dispute between the Nippur merchants Ur-Nuska and

25

Van de Mieroop, JCS 38, 31 6 (ŠS.08.09.00), JCS 38, 32 7 (ŠS.08.09.00), Garfinkle, JCS 54, 39 9 (ŠS.09.09.00), Taher, JCS 62, 26 2 (IS.03.09.00). 26 See in particular the no-contest clause nu-bala-e-de3 which occurs only in the present text and in TIM 9 103. 27 See in detail Neumann 1993, 79 n. 58 and Neumann 1999, 49 n. 22. For the role of merchants in slave trade in Old Babylonian times see Richardson 2019. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

191

Adda’a.28 A merchant named Ur-Dumuzida is not attested in the Irisaĝrig tablets presently known.29 obv. 6. This individual is plausibly the same colonel as the da-a-a nu-banda3 who delivered animals to Puzriš-Dagan from year Šulgi 47 to Ibbi-Suen 1.30 Moreover, a certain Dayati, son of Šarrum-..., not followed by any title or professional designation, appears also in the SI.A-a texts as a borrower of silver (MVN 13 886+887; ŠS.05.08.00) and as a witness in a loan contract (MVN 8 157; ŠS.07.00.00). obv. 9. As Utul-Mama and Ilī-dan are male personal names, the sign dam must be a mistake for another sign (i.e., dumu, šeš, arad2). It is highly improbable to assume that the scribe simply omitted the sign gar3 for dam-gar3, thus referring to the merchant Utul-Mama31 “(subordinate) of Ilī-dan”, although a merchant by that name is attested in the sale document of unknown provenance Steinkeller, Sale Documents 126 (ŠS.05.00.00). SEAL: The seal of Ur-Dumuzida has no visible scene and the legend appears unfinished, with an empty case after the third line. The inscription is poorly carved and all signs are inverted horizontally. Since the quality of carving does not necessarily reflect the socio-economic status of the seal owner and is not indicative of a rural provenience (Mayr 2005, 12), such features may simply suggest that the seal was not manufactured in an institutional workshop.32

Bibliography Alster, B., Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections, Bethesda, MD 1997. Garfinkle, S.J., SI.A-a and His Family. The Archive of a 21st Century (BC) Entrepreneur, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 93 (2003) 161–198. — Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia. A Study of Three Archives from the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC) (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 22), Bethesda, MD 2012. 28

For this text see Steinkeller 2004, 103-104 and Garfinkle 2012, 131–132, 240–241. Owen 2013, 103. 30 Nisaba 30 18 (Š.47.01.06), PDT 1 5616 (AS.09.06.06), AUCT 3 145 (IS.01.05.023). 31 For the merchant Utul-Mama see above commentary to Text 2. 32 For scribal errors and seals with no scene in the Umma documentation see Mayr 2005, 16, 41. Dr. Rudi Mayr (personal communication) kindly informed me that seals with no scene are also attested on Garšana tablets. For the quality of seals belonging to merchants in Tūram-ilī tablets see Mayr 2002, 53. Cf. Studevent-Hickman 2018, 3 for the seals of the Aradĝu archive. 29

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

192

Palmiro Notizia

Hattori, A., Texts and Impressions. A Holistic Approach to Ur III Cuneiform Tablets from the University of Pennsylvania Expeditions to Nippur, PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 2002. Hilgert, M., Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit (IMGULA 5), Münster 2002. Kamil, A. Kh., Une nouvelle archive privée d’un marchand de l’époque d’Ur III, in: Attinger, P. et al. (eds.), Text and Image. Proceedings of the 61e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Geneva and Bern, 22–26 June 2015 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 40, Series Archaeologica), Leuven / Paris / Bristol 2018, 207–223. Lutzmann, H., Die neusumerischen Schuldurkunden. Teil I: Einleitung und systematische Darstellung, Inaugural-Dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg 1976. Mayr, R.H., The Seals of the Turam-ili Archive, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 54 (2002) 49–65. — Seal Impressions on Tablets from Umma (unpublished manuscript), 2005. Molina, M., On the Location of Irisaĝrig, in: Garfinkle, S.J. / Molina, M. (eds.), From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D. Proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid, 22–24 July, 2010, Winona Lake, IN 2013, 59–87. — The Looting of Ur III Tablets after the Gulf Wars, in: Sommerfeld, W. (ed.), Dealing with Antiquity. Past, Present & Future. Proceedings of the 63rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at Philipps-Universität Marburg, July 24–28, 2017 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 460), Münster 2020, 323–352. Neumann, H., Zu den Geschäften des Kaufmanns Ur-Dumuzida aus Umma, in: Altorientalische Forschungen 20 (1993) 69–86. — Ur-Dumuzida and Ur-DUD. Reflections on the Relationship between Stateinitiated Foreign Trade and Private Economic Activity in Mesopotamia towards the End of the Third Millennium BC, in: Dercksen, J.G. (ed.), Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia (MOS Studies 1). Proceedings of the First MOS Symposium (Leiden 1997) (Publications de l’Institut historiquearchéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 84), Leiden 1999, 43–53. Owen, D.I., Cuneiform Texts Primarily form Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. Vol. 1: Commentary and Indexes (Nisaba 15/1), Bethesda, MD 2013. Ozaki, T., On the Calendar of Urusaĝrig, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 106 (2016) 127–137. Pomponio, F., La presenza e la funzione dei “testimoni” nella documentazione neo-sumerica, in: Bellotto, N. / Ponchia, S. (eds.), Witnessing in the Ancient Near East / I testimoni nella documentazione del Vicino Oriente Antico. Proceedings of the Round Table Held at the University of Verona, February 15, 2008, Padova 2009, 29–46.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

193

Richardson, S., Walking Capital. The Economic Function and Social Location of Babylonian Servitude, in: Journal of Global Slavery 4 (2019) 1–58. Sigrist, M., Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts in the Nies Babylonian Collection (Catalogue of the Babylonian Collection at Yale 3), Bethesda, MD 2001. Steinkeller, P., Sale Documents of the Ur-III-Period (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 17), Stuttgart 1989. — The Ur III Period, in: Westbrook, R. / Jasnow, R. (eds.), Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 9), Leiden / Boston / Köln 2001, 47–62. — Money Lending Practices in Ur III Babylonia. The Issue of Economic Motivation, in: Hudson, M. / Van de Mieroop, M. (eds.), Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East (International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies 3), Bethesda, MD 2002, 109–137. — Toward a Definition of Private Economic Activity in Third Millennium Babylonia, in: Rollinger, R. / Ulf, C. (eds.), Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World. Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction (Melammu Symposia 5, Oriens et Occidens 6), Stuttgart 2004, 91–111. Studevent-Hickman, B., Sumerian Texts from Ancient Iraq. From Ur III to 9/11 (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 5), Atlanta 2018. Taher, S.M.T., Texts Relating to the Archive of Turam-ili in the Sulaimaniah Museum, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62 (2010) 25–27. Viano, M., On the Location of Irisaĝrig Once Again, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 71 (2019) 35–52. Waetzoldt, H., Die Haltung die Schreiber von Umma zu König Šusuen, in: Michalowski, P. (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1), Boston 2008, 245–249.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

194

Palmiro Notizia

Plate I. NBC 5605 (Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection; photography by Klaus Wagensonner)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

Plate II. NBC 7635 (Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection; photography by Klaus Wagensonner)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

195

196

Palmiro Notizia

Plate III. NBC 10024 (Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection; photography by Klaus Wagensonner)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Money-Lenders and Merchants from Central Babylonia

Plate IV. NBC 10056 (Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection; photography by Klaus Wagensonner)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

197

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives David I. Owen

The conservation and research on tablets from the Rosen Collection, donated to or on loan at the Jonathan and Jeannette Rosen Ancient Near Eastern Studies Seminar and Tablet Conservation Laboratory in Cornell University, have provided additions to previously published archives as well as the discovery of texts from previously unknown sources containing particularly interesting new data. The publication of the following tablets highlights some of these new data, the inter-relationships of individuals mentioned in these texts, and the associated rich terminology, often enhancing the information from texts published hitherto. Work in the Cornell collections and the resulting publications in the CUSAS series have progressed rapidly thanks to the extraordinary cooperation of an international group of colleagues1 supported efficiently by the staff of the Rosen Seminar in Ithaca and Rudi Mayr at the Rosen Collection in New York City.2 In 1

For many years Franco Pomponio has contributed significantly to the study of texts from the third and second millennia BC in Mesopotamia. In addition, he collaborated with this writer to organize his Italian colleagues to edit hundreds of tablets from the third millennium in the Rosen Collection formerly at Cornell University that resulted in the publication of various volumes in the CUSAS series. These contributions reflect my fruitful and cordial collaboration with colleagues in Italy that began already in 1976 with publications in the MVN series. I trust this offering in Franco’s honor reflects the extent of my gratitude for his warm friendship and his many contributions to Assyriology. I am pleased to acknowledge the help of Tohru Ozaki (Shizuoka) and Marcel Sigrist (Strasbourg) who generously permitted me to utilize CUSAS 40/1–2 (2019) in advance of its publication and, in addition, provided observations that enhanced the interpretation of the texts published herein. I would like also to thank Manuel Molina (Madrid), who commented on an early draft of this article and provided helpful suggestions. Text abbreviations follow those of the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts project (http://bdtns.filol.csic.es). 2 The extraordinary progress on the publication of the Rosen Collection was made possible thanks to the generous and ongoing support of Jonathan and Jeannette Rosen and the Rosen Foundations for which we all remain grateful. I am indebted also to Alexandra Kleinerman, Rosen Foundation Research Associate in the Jonathan and Jeannette Rosen Ancient Near Eastern Studies Seminar and Tablet Conservation Laboratory for bringing to my attention some of the Cornell-Rosen Collection texts © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

200

David I. Owen

addition, colleagues continue to refer individual texts and private collections to us for publication.3 The publication of ca. 1300 texts from Garšana4 followed by an additional ca. 3500 Iri-Saĝrig texts,5 all from the Third Dynasty of Ur,6 together provide extraordinary opportunities to enhance the study of related archival groups and thereby expand the horizons of Ur III history and culture. The following selection of texts represents another byproduct of fruitful collaboration among Assyriologists at a moment when so much of the cultural included here as her work on the collection catalogue and resulting publications progresses, and for her help editing this paper; and to Laura Johnson-Kelly, Collection Manager and Head Photographer/Conservator of the collection, for the conservation and numerous high-quality photographs that facilitated the reading of many of these tablets. As of June 30, 2019, the Jonathan and Jeannette Rosen Ancient Near Eastern Studies Seminar and Tablet Conservation Laboratory at Cornell University was closed and its staff terminated at the order of the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and with the support of Department of Near Eastern Studies faculty. This is a regrettable example of how university politics and political correctness can diminish academic freedom and stifle research. Despite nearly two decades of highly productive research and publication, independent and extraordinary external financial support, international collaboration and widespread scholarly recognition, the collection was dissolved without discussion or justification. In addition, this collection of thousands of cuneiform tablets is being sent to Baghdad, many without conservation, study or publication, and likely will never be seen again by scholars. This brought an abrupt end to the most widely published university cuneiform collection in the United States and therewith reduced substantially Cornell’s commitment to the study of Assyriology. 3 E.g., Owen 2016a, 2016b, 2020. 4 Cf. Owen / Mayr 2007. 5 As a result, Nisaba 15/1–2 (Owen 2013) requires substantial revision and augmentation based on new evidence from the additional ca. 2000 Iri-Saĝrig tablets published by Marcel Sigrist and Tohru Ozaki (see following note). 6 Sigrist / Ozaki 2019. Note also the newly established order of the Iri-Saĝrig calendar by Ozaki (2016). Future work on the archive must incorporate the revised month sequence as follows: I iti šu-ĝar-ra II iti šu-ĝar-gal (formerly ĝešapin) III iti ĝešapin (formerly kir11-si-aka) IV iti ezem-dli9-si4 V iti ezem-a-bi VI iti gi-si11-ga VII iti ezem-dšul-gi VIII iti níĝ-den-líl-lá IX iti kir11-si-aka X iti níĝ-e-ga XI iti ezem-a-dara4 (// ezem-an-na) XII iti še-kíĝ-ku5 XIII iti diri-še-kíĝ-ku5 © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

201

legacy of Iraq is being dispersed, ignored, or otherwise destroyed. Every effort is being made to record unprovenanced tablets posted on the Internet or available elsewhere in private collections so that the data will not be lost.

Concordance Text

CUNES

Date

1

58-06-005

ŠS 8/ix/-

2

58-05-011

ŠS 8/v/-

3

58-05-022

4

Photo

CDLI no.

BDTNS no.

P412121

190216

P412097

190206

ŠS 2/ix/-

P412108

190196

58-05-012

ŠS 3/viii/-

P412098

190186

5

58-05-001

ŠS 3/x/-

P412087

190175

6

58-05-028

ŠS 8/viii/-

P412114

190202

7

58-05-003

ŠS 4/x/-

P412089

190177

8

51-10-064

AS 5/-/-

P325796

189820

9

58-05-026

ŠS 3/-/-

P412112

190200

10

58-05-008

ŠS 5/xii/-

P412094

190182

11

58-05-009

ŠS 4/vi/-

Plate II

P412095

190183

12

58-05-018

ŠS 4/vi/-

Plate III

P412104

190192

13

58-05-016

ŠS 7/[]/-

Plate IV

P412102

190190

14

50-01-022

-/iv/-

P324645

190325

15

48-06-322

-/-/-

P329930

190033

16

48-06-049

AS 1/vi/-

P322638

190337

17

50-01-024

ŠS 2/xi/-

P324647

190520

18

50-01-030

ŠS 2/xi/-

P324653

190521

19

53-02-117

ŠS 9/viii/-

P328901

190614

20

51-03-010

IS 2/xi/-

P325396

185791

21

50-01-023

IS 5/vii/-

P324646

190471

22

LSO.1003

ŠS 9/-/-

P387862

173167

Plate I

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

202

1. CUNES 58-06-005 Date: ŠS 8/ix/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Tablet obv. 1. 2 gada 2. 7 gada šà-ga-dù 3. ki ša-at-eš18-tár 4. kìšib a-ga-ti-a rev. BLANK SPACE – SEAL 5. iti dli9-si4 6. [m]u má-gur8-mah ba(upper edge) ~ab-du8 Seal ša-at-eš18-tár dumu-mí-lugal a-ga-ti-a KA? [AL? DU?] A? Comments Ll.3–4. Cf. Nisaba 15/2 985:3–4 (IS? [n]/vii/- [P412122]), where both appear together. For a comprehensive study of an Iraq Museum archive of the princess Šāt-Eštar and her interaction with Agatia, cf. Dhahir 2017, 42–43. Seal. For the same seal impression, cf. Nisaba 15/2 985 ([IS? n]/vii/- [P412122]). The reading of the last line remains obscure. Cf. the comments on ŠātEštar’s seal in Dhahir 2017, 43.

2. CUNES 58-05-011 Date: ŠS 8/v/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Photo: Plate I Envelope obv. 1. 30 ku6agargara(NUN)-ab-ba 2. 10 ku6agargara(NUN)-ab-ba ~ al-dar-ra © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

203

3. mu-kux(DU) 4. šu-kab-tá 5. [šu-ér-ra] rev. 6. [šu] b[a-(an-)ti] BLANK SPACE – SEAL 7. iti ki-siki-dnin-a-zu 8. mu dšu-dsuen lugal-e ~ má-gur8 mah den-líl (upper edge) ~ dnin-líl-ra ~ mu-ne-dím Seal šu-kab-[tá] a-[zu] šu-èr-[ra] [IR11-zu] Tablet obv. 1. 30 ku6agargarax(NUN) [ab-ba] 2. 10 ku6agargarax(NUN) ab-ba ~ al-dar-ra 3. mu-kux(DU) 4. šu-kab-tá rev. 5. šu-èr-ra 6. [šu ba-(an-)ti] 7. [iti ki-siki-dnin-a-zu] 8. [mu dšu-dsuen lugal-e] ~ [má-gur8-mah-den-líl] (upper edge) ~ [dnin-líl-ra] ~ [mu-ne-dím] Comments Ll.1–2. For another variety of this fish, recorded in larger numbers, cf. Owen 2020, no. 3:4 (= CUNES 58-01-033, ŠS 9/i/23 [P412027]): 120 gur-dub-tur ku6 agargarax(NUN)-SAL.7 For al-dar-ra, “split (dried fish)”, cf. Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 104 s.v. 7

Cf. Owen 2020, 259–260, comments to no. 3:4 (also Plate III below). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

204

L.3. The reading has now been established according to Sigrist / Ozaki 2019, comment to 1:5: “The reading mu-tù of mu-DU, often mu-kux, is based on ‘[zú-lu]m-bi m[u]-tu(TU) ki Nibruki-da-lú’ in Owen, NATN (1982) 600, rev. 2 (AS 1 Nippur; P121298) and ‘mu-tu u4 buru14-šè’ in Sigrist, AUCT 4, 15, 6 (Samsuiluna 7 X 29; P249647).” L.5. Šu-Erra, previously attested at Garšana as a scribe and maškim (Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 361 s.v.), deals often with fish. Add to those references, CUSAS 6 1549 A+B (ŠS 6/x/- [P412029]), 1550 A+B (ŠS 6/x/[P412036]), 1561:2 (ŠS 8/iv/- [P412032]), 1564 A+B (ŠS 8/vii/- [P412034]). The Šu-Erra lú-i7 (“canal-man”) mentioned in CUNES 58-01-033:9 (ŠS 9/i/23 [P412027]),8 may be the same individual because of his association with the canal. Seal. Šu-Erra’s seal impression is found also on CUSAS 6 1550 B (ŠS 6/x/[P412036]), 1561 (ŠS 8/iv/- [P412032]), and 1564 (ŠS 8/vii/- [P412034]).

3. CUNES 58-05-022 Date: ŠS 2/ix/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Envelope obv. 1. 1.0.0. ésir-é-a gur 2. 20 gú su6 3. níĝ šu tak4-a ki ù-ba~a énsi-dam-sul(DUN)ki 4. ĝìri dsuen-ba-ni ~ lú-šušin(MÙŠ.EREN)ki rev. 5. šà é-dšu-dsuen 6. zi-ga ĝìri šu-[káb-ta] 7. ki ša-ru-um-ba-ni~ta ba-z[i] 8. iti šu-eš5-ša 9. mu má-[dàra-abzu]~den-ki-k[a ba-ab-du8] Seal d suen-ba-ni IR11 šu-ga-da

8

Cf. also Owen 2020, 260, comments to no. 3:9. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

205

Tablet obv. 1. 1.0.0. ésir-é-a gur 2. 20 gú su6 3. níĝ šu tak4-a ki ù-ba~a énsi dam-sul(DUN)ki 4. ĝìri dsuen-ba-ni ~ lú-šušin(MÙŠ.EREN)ki rev. 5. šà é-dšu-dsuen 6. zi-ga ĝìri šu~káb-ta 7. ki ša-ru-um-ba-ni~ta ba-zi 8. iti šu-eš5-ša 9. mu má-dàra-abzu(upper edge) ~den-ki-ka ba-ab~du8 Comments L.1. For ésir-é-a, “wet bitumen”, cf. Stol 2012, 54, §5. L.3. For the reading DUN = sul in the geographical name, cf. Schrakamp 2014 and the comments in Owen 2016c, 14–15, with previous bibliography. The identification of a-dam-sul(DUN)ki with Tepe Surkhegan appears to be confirmed by an inscription found at the site. Cf. Steinkeller 2013, 299 n. 43. L.4. Suen-bani is attested also as a messenger (lú-kaš4) from Kimaš in the Ĝirsu text, SAT 1 139:4 (-/iii/- [P131248]), and likely is the same royal messenger known from Iri-Saĝrig, Nisaba 15/2 39:12 (AS 7/viii/3 [P387972]), 40:12 (AS 8/iv/- [P388027]). L.5. For the Bit-Šu-Suen, well-known from Garšana sources, cf. Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 624–627.

4. CUNES 58-05-012 Date: ŠS 3/viii/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Envelope obv. 1. 10.0.0. kà-ma-am-tum gur 2. 3.0.0. še ku-mul gur © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

206

3. 4. 5. 6.

3 gú 30 ma-na úkul 10 gú ki-lá ha-šu-um [10 gú ha-š]u-um gur [2700 ki-ri-ip] ~ [ar-gi5-núm] [lú-dnin-šubur] [mu-kux(DU)]

7. 8. rev. 9. [šu-káb-ta] 10. š[u-dnisaba] BLANK SPACE – SEAL 11. šu ba-an-[ti-eš] 12. iti ezem-dšu-dsuen (upper edge) 13. mu si-ma-númki ~ ba-hul Seal col. i na-ra-am~ì-lí sukkal ì-du8 šu-dnisaba col. ii dub-sar IR11-zu

Tablet obv. 1. 10.0.0. kà-ma-am-tum ~ gur 2. 3.0.0. še ku-mul gur 3. 3 gú 30 ma-na ~ ú-kul 4. 10 gú ki-lá ha-šu-um 5. 1.1.0. ha-šu-um gur rev. 6. 2700 ki-ri-ip ~ ar-gi5-núm 7. lú-dnin-šubur 8. mu-kux(DU) 9. šu-dkáb-[t]a 10. šu-dnisaba

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

207

11. šu ba-an-ti-eš 12. iti ezem-dšu-dsuen (upper edge) 13. mu si-ma-nu-umki ~ ba-hul Comments L.1. kà-ma-am-tum, “a kind of vegetable”, is attested in four, previously published, texts from Garšana, Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 92 s.v. and in a broken context along with various vegetables in an Umma text, MVN 18 650:2′ (date lost [P119973]). L.2. For ku-mul, Akk. kamunu, “cumin”, cf. CAD K s.v. It is attested in texts mostly from Umma and Ĝirsu, twice from Ur, and once in an undated text from Iri-Saĝrig where 30 liters of “cumin” are received from Ur-Dumuzi, the mun-gazi scribe, along with other food items. Cf. Nisaba 15/2 185:13–17 (n.d. [P453694]). L.3. For ú-kul, Akk. išbabtu, “a plant, weed”, cf. CAD I s.v. It is attested frequently at Umma but only twice at Ĝirsu, and at Garšana only in this text. L.4. ha-šu-um, CAD H, 144 s.v. ḫašû B “(a plant yielding seeds used as a spice)”, was attested previously only once at Garšana in CUSAS 3 548:18 (IS 4/i/- [P322465]). Note that BDTNS treats it as a personal name and not as a commodity. Note also that the text is an expenditure (zi-ga) of SimatIštaran and that the scribe is Turam-ili, perhaps the same person that ŠuNisaba serves. L.9 and seal. Šu-Nisaba is a relatively common name in both the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig archives where a Šu-Nisaba is known as a scribe, royal messenger, and cupbearer, possibly all the same person. Cf. Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 582–583, and Owen 2013, Vol. 1, 531 s.v. for references. His seal identifies him as a scribe and servant of Turam-ili sukkal ì-du8. He deals with valuable commodities often associated with merchants but he does not appear to have been a merchant himself. However, Naram-ili’s title, sukkal ì-du8, is associated with only two other named individuals, ĝìri ur-dšul-pa-è sukkal ìdu8 (UET 3 845:15, Š 42/viii/-, Ur [P137169]; ur-dšul-pa-è sukkal ì-du8, PPAC 5 331:ii.2, Š 43/i/-, Ĝirsu [P463986], and PI-ip-hur sukkal ì-du8 (MVN 7 36:2, -/i/8, Ĝirsu [P114968]). Otherwise it appears often alone and suggests that it was associated with a well-known official whose name was understood but not written. It is possible that there was only one sukkal ì-du8 in office at any one time. At Garšana, the most widely attested sukkal ì-du8 was Naram-ili, the

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

208

father of Šu-Kabta, the general and physician,9 but he appears only on seal impressions and is presumed to have been the same official well-attested at Puzriš-Dagan. His seal is found only on this and the following tablet. It would be one of the few seals of an individual who is directly Naram-ili sukkal ì-du8’s servant and not the servant of Šu-Kabta dumu Naram-ili sukkal ì-du8; the only others being PDT 1 495 (Š 38/x/- [P125911], na-raam-ì-lí / sukkal ì-[du8] / i-dì-dsuen / dub-sar IR11-[zu]). Naram-ili sukkal ìdu8’s earliest seal as servant of Šulgi is found on BRM 3 39 (Š 40/xii/[P107257]). The seal was used through AS 1/xii/-, CDLI P387674, after which it was reissued (recut?) and dedicated to Amar-Suen, BRM 3 74 (AS 2/ii/29 [P107277]). The career of Naram-ili was studied exhaustively by Wu 2008, 1–8.

5. CUNES 58-05-001 Date: ŠS 3/x/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Envelope obv. 1. 20 ma-na al-la-ha~ru-um li-iq-tum 2. 5 gú al-la-ha-ru-um ~ saga10 3. 0.1.3. im-kù-sig17 4. 2 g[ú zi]-ba-tum rev. 5. [ki ku-ru-ub-é-a-ta] 6. [šu-dnisaba šu ba-an~ti] [BLANK SPACE – SEAL] 7. [iti ezem-mah] 8. [mu si-ma-númki] ~ [ba-hul] Seal col. i na-ra-am~ì-lí sukkal ì-du8 9

Naram-ili occurs only on seal inscriptions that were not included in the index volume, Kleinerman / Owen 2009 since all seal inscriptions will be indexed in the promised publication of the Ĝaršana seal impressions by Rudi Mayr. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

209

šu-dnisaba col. ii dub-sar IR11-zu

Tablet obv. 1. 20 ma-na al~la-ha-ru-um li~iq-tum 2. 5 gú al-la-ha~ru-um saga10 rev. 3. 0.1.3. im-kù-sig17 4. 2 gú zi-ba-tum 5. ki ku-ru-ub-é-a-ta 6. šu-dnisaba šu ba-an~ti 7. iti ezem-mah (upper edge) 8. mu si-ma-númki ~ ba-hul Comments L.1. The commodity, al-la-ha-ru-um lí-iq-tum, “a mineral tanning agent”, appears with this spelling in only one additional text, Nisaba 15/2 573:1 (IS 1/ii/- [P453928]), where it occurs with ú-háb, an ingredient used for processing textiles. Note also the Ĝirsu text, PPAC 5 1685:rev.i.6 (IS 2/-/[P380502], 5 sìla [lí-iq-tum] al-la-ha-ru), listed among various agricultural and mineral products in Ur. Alla/uharu itself is attested frequently at Umma (lí-iq-tum al-la-ha-ru) and occasionally at Ĝirsu and Ur (cf. BDTNS/CDLI s.v.). It is, presumably, identical with al-lu-ha-ru-um li-iq-tum attested also at Garšana, in CUSAS 3 668:1 (ŠS 8/v/- [P324129]), where it is received by Aštaqqar, the fuller. It is recorded in two qualities, ordinary (gen) and fine (saga10) and in larger quantities from 1 → 11 minas. Cf. Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 15 s.v. L.3. For im-kù-sig17, Akk. šaršerrum, “reddish clay”, at Garšana, cf. Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 86 s.v. L.4. zibatum, perhaps a kind of cord used for nets (Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 211 s.v.), occurs only once at Garšana, (CUSAS 3 1162:rev.i.9, ŠS 8/iv/[P324703]: 20 ma-na gu-ĝešba zi-ba-tum), three times each at Umma (8 mana zi-ba-tum, Snell, Ledgers, pl. 17 10:rev.i.2, AS 7/vii/- [P112502], Fish,

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

210

MCS 8, 84–87, Š 47/i/- [P112567], and UTI 6 3503:12, ŠS 3/vii/[P142520]), and Ur (9 gú 19 ma-na zi-ib-ba-tum, UET 3 1505:i.14′–15′, 5 gú 8 ma-na zi-ba-tum, 1505:v.35, and šu+níĝin 14 gú 39 ma-na zi-ba-tum, 1505:viii.35, ŠS 9/-/- [P137831]), and once at Puzriš-Dagan (10 2/3 ma-na 5 gín ˹zi?˺zi!-ba-tum níĝ-.NU-a, DoCu EPHE 312:1, Š 45/v/29 [P109268]), and always in large quantities. L.5. Kurub-Ea is known as a merchant (dam-gàr) at Iri-Saĝrig, Nisaba 15/2 72:3 (AS 7/-/- [P453626]), and three years later as a supervisor of merchants (ugula-dam-gàr) in Nisaba 15/2 195:23 (ŠS 1/i/30 [P333686]). L.6. For Šu-Nisaba, cf. the comments to no. 4:10 (CUNES 58-05-012) above. Seal. See previous text no. 4:9 for comments to the seal.

6. CUNES 58-05-028 Date: ŠS 8/viii or x/Provenance: Garšana Sealed (seal illegible) Envelope obv. 1. 600 ki-[ri-ip] ~ ar-gi5-[núm] 2. be-lí-[am?-ma]~[ri?-ta] 3. mu-k[ux(DU) šu-kab-ta] 4. [š]u-èr-[ra] 5. [šu] ba-a[n-ti] rev. 6. šà [tum-ma-alki] [BLANK SPACE – SEAL] 7. [iti ezem-dšul-gi] 8. mu šu-dE]N.ZU ~ [lugal-uri5ki-ma-ke4] ~ [má-gur8-den-líl-] ~ [dnin-líl-ra mu-] ~ [ne-dím] Seal šu-èr-[ra] dub-sar-[x] [IR11 šu]-kab-[ta]

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

211

Tablet obv. 1. [600] ki-ri-ip ~ ar-gi5-núm 2. be-lí-am?-ma-[r]i? ~ta? 3. mu-kux(DU) šu-káb-ta 4. šu-èr-ra rev. 5. [šu ba-an]-ti 6. [šà tum-m]a-alki BLANK SPACE 7. [iti ezem-dš]ul-gi 8. [mu šu-dE]N.ZU ~ [lugal-uri5]ki-ma-ke4 ~ [má-g]ur8-den-líl~[dnin-líl]-ra mu~[n]e-dím Comments L.1. For kirripu, “a pot”, cf. CAD K s.v., known hitherto only from Mari. The identification of arginum remains obscure. Since Šu-Erra, who is often associated with the distribution of fish, receives these vessels filled with arginum, it may be a kind of spice or preservative derived from a conifer or its resin as noted in CAD A/2, 253 s.v. argānu. Cf. the comments of Brunke 2011, 165, §3.3.1.5. The substance is found four times in a single Nippur text, NATN 825:11, 13, 15, (27?), 30 (AS 1/i/20 [P121522]), always in small amounts (1 or 2 sìla), in association with onions (sum-sikil), and brought by various high officials that include the énsi of Marda (l.4) and prince Šu-Suen (l.8), among others, and received by Ur-mes, possibly the énsi of Iri-Saĝrig.

7. CUNES 58-05-003 Date: ŠS 4/x/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Envelope obv. 1. [1] gú še-gín 2. [k]i ì-lí-aš-ra-ni-ta 3. šu-dnisaba 4. šu ba-an-ti © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

212

rev. 5. [iti ezem-dšul-gi] [BLANK SPACE – SEAL] 6. [mu bàd mar-dú]~[mu-ri-iq ti-i]d~[ni-im ba-dù] Seal col. i na-ra-am~ì-lí sukkal ì-du8 šu-dnisaba col. ii dub-sar IR11-zu Tablet obv. 1. 1 gú še-gín 2. ki ì-lí-aš-ra~ni-ta 3. šu-dnisaba ~ šu ba-an-ti rev. BLANK SPACE 4. iti ezem-dšul~gi 5. mu bàd mar-dú~iq-ti-id(upper edge) ~ni-im ba-dù Comments L.1. This is the largest attested quantity of še-gín, “glue”. The 48 1/2 ma!-na šegín, Fish, MCS 6, 16 BM 106065:rev.i.2 (AS 5–9/-/- [P112813]), is the only other large quantity of glue known. L.2. Both Ili-ašrani and Šu-Nisaba are well-represented in the Garšana archives. Cf. Kleinerman / Owen 2009 s.v.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

8. CUNES 51-10-064 Date: AS 5/-/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Sealed Tablet obv. 1. [DIŠ id]-ni-id 2. [DIŠ šu?-d]nin-šubur 3. [DIŠ ša]-at-mi-m[i] 4. [DIŠ] za-za 5. [inim]-ma-bi na-me-éš I[R]11 za-za-me-éš 6. 7. ga-an-da-a dam ku-bi-na 8. mu lugal IR11-su hé-me-éš ~ bí-du11 9. in[i]m-bé íb-be 10. di-na-me ba-ra-ab-dúr~re in-ne-du11 11. igi i-ku-núm dumu-lugal rev. 12. DIŠ ba-a-a nu-bànda 13. DIŠ šar-ri-a ugula-10 14. DIŠ nu-úr-ì-lí [ugu]la-10 15. DIŠ si-mu ugula-10 16. DIŠ ur-dda-mu ugula-10 17. DIŠ puzur4-dadad ugula-10 18. DIŠ ki-nu-nu 19. DIŠ puzur4-eš18-tár 20. DIŠ AN-ba-a 21. [DIŠ] nu-hi-ilum 22. [DIŠ] ba-la-ti [BLANK] SPACE – SEAL 23. [lú-inim-m]a-bi-me-éš 24. [mu en-T]E.UNUGki-gal(upper edge) ~[dinana] ba-huĝ-ĝá Seal ba-a-[a?] àga-ús-[gal?] dumu la-b[i-x]

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

213

214

David I. Owen

Comments This unusual legal text, a sworn statement before witnesses, is perhaps related to the damaged legal text, SNAT 320:.ii.4 (AS 2/-/- [P130080], búr za-za), the only other text in which Zaza appears. L.1. On this name, previously read á-lí-id, note the syllabic spelling, id-dì-ni-id lú-an-na [so photo], Maekawa, ASJ 15, 198 98:rev.7 (-/-/- [P102564]), for idni-id on the unpublished Ĝirsu tablet, PTS 1057:ii.7 (Š 40/-/- [P469939]). Since both tablets are barley accounts of Alla, the singer (nar), the Maekawa text is likely be dated close to, or in the same year, i.e. Šulgi 40. Ll.2–4. Restorations tentative. L.3. The element /mi-mi/ is known as early as the Old Akkadian name, um-mimi. It is attested as an element in Ur III names such as i-mi-mi, lú-mi-mi, ninmi-mi, and nin-šu-mi-mi. L.4. Zaza appears here and perhaps also in the related(?) legal text (noted above) as a personal name although the (same?) element /za-za/ is found in an unusually wide variety of names, e.g. a-za-za,10 áb-za-za, am-ma-za-za, baza-za, bi-za-za, bí-za-za, bu6-za-za, ga-za-za, ì-za-za, maš-za-a, PI-za-za, subi-za-za, za-za-bi, za-za-ga, za-za-ga-mu, za-za-LUM, za-za-na-a, za-za-ti. Cf. BDTNS/CDLI s.v. for references. L.5. This legal phrase, coupled with the negative plural of me, is not attested elsewhere in the Ur III legal corpus. L.7. Ganda’a is known from the undated Iri-Saĝrig text, Nisaba 15/2 1048:4 (n.d. [P388037]), possibly the same woman. Two other attestations of the name, spelled ga-an-da, are found in the Susa text, MDP 54 16:3 (n.d. [P332443]), and an unknown source, van Dijk, ZA 55, 81 11803-84:10′([]/-/[P142566]). Neither can be associated with our text. Her husband’s name, Kubina, may be related to the Old Assyrian names, ku-bi-na-tal, TCL 20 91:49 and ku-bi-na-tá, ICK 2 61:24, but the name is not attested so far in the Ur III period. L.8. For the interpretation of this line, cf. Çıǧ et al., ZA 53, 69 10:3′–4′, níĝ-zuhbi hé-me / bí-du11 (date lost [P142545]). L.10. This line is a hapax. Cf. L’uomo 45:14–15 (n.d. [P112464]), lú-ní-zuh baan-ku-re-eš lú-ní-zuh ba-an-ku-re-eš-ša-ke4-eš. L.11. This is the first attestation of a prince by this name. However, the name Ikunum is known from several sources as a high-ranking individual, although without the qualification dumu-lugal. He is likely the same person who appears among other royal family members and officials at Puzriš-Dagan in PDT 1 368:8 (Š 32/v/- [P125784]), Babyl. 8 Pupil 17:7 (Š 45/i/10 10

Azaza occurs as a female slave’s name in the Nippur text, NATN 761:3 (ŠS 3/-/-, [P121458], a-za-za saĝ-munus mu-ni-im). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

215

[P104826]), Nisaba 8 52:28 (AS 9/iii/15 [P320503]). Cf. BDTNS/CDLI sub i-ku-núm/nu-um, passim. L.12. Ba-a-a nu-bànda is attested at Puzriš-Dagan in AAICAB 1/1 Ashm. 1923415:rev.1 (Š 48/xii/20 [P142788]), OIP 121 89:12 (AS 5/v/7 [P123819]), Nik. 2 476:14 (AS 5/ix/29 [P122159]), and BPOA 6 565:6´ (RN [n]/vii/21 [P210346). Note also, ba-a-a dumu nu-bànda in the Ĝirsu messenger texts, Nisaba 22 105:rev.15 (-/x/13 [P406464]) and SAT 1 116:18 (-/x/10 [P131225]), possibly all referring to the same person. L.14. Nur-ili ugula-10 is attested in the SI.A-a archive slave sale, Garfinkle 2012, 170–171, no. 32:13 (ŠS 4/vi/- [P299123]) and in the Iri-Saĝrig text, Nisaba 15/2 356:4 (ŠS 6/i/- [P453791], ugula-10). The designation ugula-10 occurs only at Iri-Saĝrig and in the SI.A-a archive. Of the five individuals in this list of witnesses as ugula-10, only Nur-ili is attested elsewhere as one. Note that the designation ugula-10 follows names only in the SI.A-a archive. It precedes names in the Iri-Saĝrig texts. L.20. The name AN-ba-a is found in only two Umma texts, MVN 21 354:33 (ŠS 3/iv/- [P120591]), Nisaba 3/1 131:19 (messenger text, -/xi/29 [P201761]), and one Ĝirsu messenger text, Santag 7 199:12 (ŠS 4/xi/12 [P218274]). L.24. Únu(TE.UNUG)ki-gal, not unu6(TE.AB)-gal, is clear. The spelling is a hapax in the year name. Seal. The restorations are tentative because the seal impression is not clear. Names beginning with la-bi- are rare.

9. CUNES 58-05-026 Date: ŠS 3/-/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Envelope obv. 1. [120 ku6eštub 3-kam-] ~[ús] 2. [a-bu-ṭabu(DU10) nu-bànda] 3. [mu-kux(DU)] 4. [šu-kab-tá] rev. 5. šu-èr-ra 6. šu ba-ti 7. iti šu-eš5-ša 8. mu dšu-dsuen ~ [lug]al-uri5ki-[ma-] ~ [ke4 si-ma-númki] © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

216

~ [mu-hul] Seal ĝeš-sa6-ga dumu ma-na-mu Tablet obv. 1. 120 ku6eštub 3-kam~ús 2. a-bu-ṭabu(DU10) nu-bànda 3. mu-kux(DU) 4. šu-kab-tá rev. 5. [šu-èr-ra] 6. [šu ba-ti] 7. [iti šu-eš5-ša 8. [mu dšu-dsuen] ~ [lugal-uri5ki-ma-] ~[ke4 si-ma-númki] ~ mu-hul Comments L.2. Abu-ṭabu is known from four additional texts from Garšana, CUSAS 3 188:8′ ([ŠS 8]/[ii]/- [P332474]), 189:15 (ŠS 8/ii/- [P329374]), 193:18 (ŠS 9/iii/2 [P325176]), and 507:10 (ŠS 9/iv/4 [P323841]). An a-bu-DU10 nubànda is known also once each from Puzriš-Dagan, Babyl. 7, pl. 21 13:1 (ŠS 5/xi/- [P104787]), and a Ĝirsu messenger text, TCTI 2 4186:16, 20 (-/iii/3 [P133351]), who may or may not be the same person. Seal. Ĝeš-sa6-ga is known from three Ĝirsu texts, PPAC 5 1399:2 (Š 47/-/[P379838]), Nisaba 7 23:5 (ŠS 9/-/- [P205734]), and RTC 293:6 (ŠS 1/-/[P128446]) where he is the father of lú-dnin-ĝír-su. His (if he is the same person) father, ma-na-mu, is known also as the father of lugal-unken-né in three texts from Umma; Santag 6 19:rev.ii.18 (Š 38/-/- [P212191]), Nebraska 44:270 (AS 3/-/- [P121729]), and TLB 3 169:rev.ii.15′ ([]/-/- [P134309]). He never appears independently nor is the seal on our tablet attested elsewhere.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

217

10. CUNES 58-05-008 Date: ŠS 5/xii/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Envelope obv. 1. 30 ku6 al-dar-ra 2. 10 ku6eštub 3-kam-ús 3. 20 ku6eštub-ús 4. šu-dnisaba 5. [šu ba-an-t]i rev. 6. [ugula ba-ab-ba-e] 7. [ĝìri i-ti-da] 8. [iti maš-dà-gu7] 9. [mu ús-sa bàd] ~ [mar-dú ba-dù] Seal ì-lí-bi-la-[ni] IR11 na-ra-am-ì-lí (muhaldim? nin9?-lugal?) Tablet obv. 1. 30 ku6 [a]l-dar-ra 2. 10 [ku6eštub 3-kam]-ús 3. 20 [ku6eštub]-ús 4. [šu-dnisab]a rev. 5. šu ba-an-ti 6. ugula ba-ab-ba-e 7. ĝìri i-ti-da 8. iti maš-dà-gu7 9. mu ús-sa bàd ~ mar-dú ~ ba-dù Comments L.6. Ba-ab-ba-e is found previously on only one other Garšana text, CUSAS 6 1543:3 (ŠS 6/iii/- [P412012]) and one text from the SI.A-a archive, MVN 13 890:11 + 891:10 (AS 4/-/- [P117661]), presumably the same person. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

218

Seal. Read with BDTNS. The name Ili-bilani is well-attested both at Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig and may represent more than one individual. However, here he is surely from Garšana where Naram-ili was very active and where other servant seals are known. See above nos. 5:6 (CUNES 58-05-001) and 4:seal (CUNES 58-05-012).

11. CUNES 58-05-009 Date: ŠS 4/vi/Provenance: Nippur Sealed Photo: Plate II Envelope obv. 1. [0.0.5.7 sìla za-ha-din] 2. [é-gal-ta] 3. [ĝìri ma-da-mu]-gin7 4. [mu-kux(DU) šu-kab]-tá 5. [šu-dnisaba] rev. 6. [šu] ba-[a]n-ti 7. šà nibruki BLANK SPACE – SEAL 8. iti ezem-dnin-a-zu 9. mu ús-sa si-ma~[númki ba-hul] Seal [PN] [dub]-sar [dum]u šu-dKA.[DI] Tablet obv. 1. 0.0.5.7 sìla za-ha-din 2. é-gal-ta 3. ĝìri ma-da-mu-gin7 4. mu-kux(DU) šu-kab-tá 5. šu-dnisaba rev. 6. šu ba-an-ti BLANK SPACE 7. iti ezem-dnin-a-zu © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

8.

219

mu ús-sa si-ma~númki ba-hul

Comments L.1. For za-ha-din, cf. Brunke 2011, 42, §2.32, “a type of onion.” L.3. For this name, cf. also CUNES 58-01-033:22 (ŠS 9/i/23 [P412027]).11 For the name, written syllabically, cf. DoCu EPHE 600:11, dam ma-da-mu-gi-na munu4-mú (Ĝirsu, [RN n]/i/- [P109298]), 232:3 (ŠS 6/iv/- [P109202], ma-damu-gi-in [Simat-Ištaran text]), and SAT 3 1708:12 (Umma, ŠS 6/-/[P144908]). The latter two references likely refer to the same person in our text. This and CUNES 58-01-033:22 would be the first attested spellings with /gin7/. L.6. The tablet omits the line šà nibruki.

12. CUNES 58-05-018 Date: ŠS 4/vi/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Photo: Plate III Envelope obv. 1. 10 b[a-NAM] 2. šu-d[šamaš dam-gàr] 3. mu-[kux(DU)] 4. šu-kab-[tá] rev. 5. šu-d[nisaba] 6. šu ba-ti BLANK SPACE – SEAL 7. iti ezem-dnin-a-zu 8. mu ús-sa si-[ma]~númki ba-h[ulu] Tablet obv. 1. 10 ba-NAM 2. šu-dšamaš dam-gàr 3. mu-kux(DU) 4. šu-kab-tá 11

For the publication of this text, cf. Owen 2020, no. 3. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

220

5. šu-dnisaba rev. 6. šu ba-an-ti BLANK SPACE 7. iti ezem-dnin~a-zu 8. mu-ús-sa si(upper edge) ~ma-núm Seal šu-èr-ra dub-sar IR11 [šu-kab-tá] Comments L.1. ba-NAM is not attested otherwise. L.2. Šu-Šamaš, a Garšana merchant, is known previously only from CUSAS 6 1549a+b:9 (ŠS 6/x/- [P412029]). The name is rather common and reflects different officials and individuals.

13. CUNES 58-05-016 Date: ŠS 7/[]/Provenance: Garšana Sealed Photo: Plate IV Envelope obv. 1. 0.0.1. sum-e-lum 2. ĝìri tá-zi-[zi] 3. mu-kux(DU) 4. šu-káb-tá 5. šu-ér-r[a] rev. 6. šu [ba-ti] [BLANK SPACE – SEAL] 7. it[i ...] 8. mu [dšu-dsuen] ~ lugal-[uri5ki-] ~ ma-ke4 [ma-da] ~ za-ab-š[a-l]i[ki] ~ mu-hul © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

221

Seal šu-kab-[tá] a-[zu] šu-èr-[ra] [IR11-zu] Tablet obv. 1. [0.0.1.] sum-e-lum 2. ĝìri ta-zi-zi 3. [mu]-kux(DU) 4. [šu]-káb-tá 5. [šu]-èr-ra rev. 6. [šu ba-ti] [BLANK LINE] 7. [iti . . .]-x 8. [mu dšu-dEN].ZU ~ [lugal-uri5ki-] ~[ma-ke4 ma-da] ~ [za-ab-ša-liki] (upper edge) ~ mu-hul Comments L.1. sum-e-lum is attested previously in Nisaba 15/2 1083:2 (ŠS 3/viii/[P454219]). It follows sum-sikil, thus, presumably, a variety of onion. L.2. Name written tá(DA)-zi-zi on envelope and ta-zi-zi on tablet.

14. CUNES 50-01-022 Date: -/iv/Provenance: Garšana Sealed (seal illegible) Tablet obv. 1. 1.1.1.5 zì gur BLANK SPACE – SEAL 2. ki a-bí-a-ti-ta 3. ip-qú-ša rev. 4. šu ba-an-ti © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

222

BLANK SPACE – SEAL 5. iti u5-bí-gu7 BLANK LINE Comments Ll.3–4. The personal names are well-known at Garšana. Cf. Kleinerman / Owen 2009, 381–382 s.v. and Owen 2020, no. 4:12 (=CUNES 58-05-017, ŠS 9/xi/[P412103]), a-[b]í-a-ti nu-bànda-gu4.

15. CUNES 48-06-322 Date: -/-/Provenance: Garšana Not sealed Tablet obv. 1. 6 ur-dsi4-an-na 2. 6 a-da-làl 3. 6 ì-lí-bí-la~ni 4. ugula u-bar rev. 5. ì-lí-dan 6. ugula tu-ra-am-ì~lí 7. nu-bànda šar-ru-um-ì~lí BLANK SPACE Comments The personal names are all well-known at Garšana.

16. CUNES 48-06-049 Date: AS 1/vi/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Not sealed Tablet obv. 1. 2.3.0. še gur 2. ki na-bí-dEN. ~ZU-ta © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

223

3. [l]i-lum-dan 4. šu ba-ti rev. 5. iti gi-si11-[ga] BLANK SPACE 6. mu damar-dEN. ~ZU lugal Comments L.2. A Nabi-Suen sukkal is known also at Puzriš-Dagan from AS 2 → AS 7. The name appears again at Iri-Saĝrig from ŠS 9 → IS 3 as a courier (rágaba) and royal messenger (lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal). Possibly they are the same individual although the name occurs often without function at Iri-Saĝrig as well as at other sites. Cf. BDTNS/CDLI s.v. for references. L.3. Lilum-dan is attested only at Iri-Saĝrig in three texts, two ration distribution accounts (= messenger texts), Nisaba 15/2 597:27 (IS 1/vi/17 [P453946]), 758:18 (IS 2/iv/15 [P454041]), and as ĝìri, Ozaki, JAC 24, 57 3:4 (IS 3/x/- = Nisaba 15/2 955:4 [P448063]). He is presumably the same individual read as Li-lum-ma(= dan?!), CUSAS 40/2 29:7 (IS 1/vii/-).

17. CUNES 50-01-024 Date: ŠS 2/xi/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Fragmentary envelope; sealed (seal illegible) Tablet obv. 1. 2.0.0. še gur 2. máš-bi-šè 2 kir11-aš-ur4 ~ dab5-dam 3. ki ip-qú-ša-ta 4. ur-dutu sipa 5. šu ba-an-ti rev. 6. iti ezem-an-na BLANK SPACE 7. mu má-dàra-abzu~den-ki ba-dím Comments This and the following text contain a month name that is used both at Iri-Saĝrig and Ur. The nearly identical loans of 2 bushels of barley and the 2 ewes to be © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

224

David I. Owen

“seized” as interest remain unique. The source of the loans is assigned to IriSaĝrig although the month name is more common at Ur. However, none of the participants is attested at Ur. The shepherd Ur-Utu is known from Umma and Ĝirsu (MVN 22 16:rev.ii′.31-32, date lost [P206160]), while the name is attested also at Iri-Saĝrig without the qualification as shepherd. Ipquša and Ea-bani are common names at Iri-Saĝrig and the latter also at sites other than Ur. Finally, the month name ezem-an-na appears to be an alternate designation for ezem-adara4 at Iri-Saĝrig (see below). Of course, as an unprovenanced text, it may come from an, as yet, unidentified site. L.2. There are five additional attestations read variously as AŠ.KIN/UR4 but correctly read as aš-ur4, Akk. iltennû baqnu, “first plucked”, in ePSD s.v., modifying sheep and goats in the Ĝirsu text, SNAT 266:7 (AS 5/x/[P130026], 9 udu-mí aš-ur4), at Umma, DoCu EPHE 223:1 (Š 43/viii/[P109193], 2 udu-níta aš-ur4), and 223:2 (8 udu-mí aš-ur4), and at PuzrišDagan, and MVN 15 268:6 (ŠS 9/vi/- [P118533], 1 máš-ĝìri aš-ur4), and AUCT 2 103:5 (-/-/- [P103921], 2 udu-níta aš-ur4). The usual term for the repayment of interest on barley loans is máš ĝáĝá(-dam), not dab5-dam that is used here, suggesting an unusual circumstance, possibly the seizure of sheep for unpaid interest, underlying these loans. L.4. The shepherd Ur-Utu is attested in texts from Umma: NYPL 121.rev.11 (AS 6/-/- [P122657]), SNAT 453:ii.10 (ŠS 1/xiii/- [P130213], sipa áb), TSDU 15:2 (ŠS 3/xi/- [P135186]), Nisaba 6 8:iv.23 (IS 3/-/- [209203]), Fish, MCS 6, 4, BM106045:rev.vii.36 (ŠS 5/-/- [P112581] = Nisaba 6 21, nagada, sipa udu-eme-gi-ra, sipa nam-en-na), Nisaba 24 24:rev.i.25 (ŠS 6/-/[P375982]), SET 270:rev.ii.3 (n.d. [P129680]), from Nippur: one barley loan, Zettler, BBVO 11, 299 6N-T842:7 (Š 47/xi/- [P105096]), and from Ĝirsu: CT 10, 44 BM014348:7 (IS 4.vii/- [P108633]), MVN 22 16:rev.ii′.31– 32 (date lost [P206160], kurum7-aka sipa udu-gukkal-ke4-ne). They may, or may not, represent the same individual in our text. L.3. The name Ipquša is most common at Iri-Saĝrig and is held by various individuals, none of whom can be associated directly with the Ipquša of these texts.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

18. CUNES 50-01-030 Date: ŠS 2/xi/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Not sealed Tablet obv. 1. [1]+1.0.0. še gur 2. máš-[b]i-šè 2 kir11-aš-ur4 ~ dab5-dam 3. ki ip-qú-ša-ta 4. èr-ra-ba-ni rev. 5. šu ba-ti BLANK SPACE 6. [it]i ezem-an-na 7. [mu má]-dàra-abzu~[den]-ki ba-dím

19. CUNES 53-02-117 Date: ŠS 9/viii/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Sealed Tablet obv. 1. [n.n.n.] še gur 2. ki SI.A-a-ta 3. be-lí-dan 4. šu ba-ti rev. BLANK SPACE – SEAL 5. iti níĝ-den-líl-lá 6. [m]u dšu-dsuen ~ lugal-uri5 ~[ki]-ma é-dšára~[ĜEŠ].KÚŠUki-ka ~ mu-dù Seal be-lí-[dan] dub-sar dumu lú-ša-[lim] © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

225

David I. Owen

226

Comments L.2. For the association of SI.A-a texts with Iri-Saĝrig, cf. Garfinkle 2012, passim. L.3. The name Beli-dan is well-known from Iri-Saĝrig but it could represent various individuals. If they are all the same person, his seal may be found on CUSAS 40/2 247 (IS 2/viii/13): di-bí-dsuen / da-núm / lugal-ŠEŠ./ABki // be-lídan / dumu zi-zi / IR11-zu. L.6. For this Iri-Saĝrig month name, cf. Cohen 2015, 209 and 211.

20. CUNES 51-03-010 Date: IS 2/vii/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Not sealed Tablet obv. 1. 96.3.2.2 [sìla] ~ zú-lum gur 2. mah-hu-bi 1.3.0.3 sìla ~ gur 3. 0.0.1. ĝeštin-hád 4. mah-hu-bi 10 gín 5. 255 ĝešpèš še~er-gu tab-ba 6. 1380 peš-múrgu 7. 50 zé-na rev. 8. 20 gú á-an zú~lum 9. ki kù-dnin-gal-ta 10. mu-kux(DU) 11. dnana-mu-dah 12. šu ba-ti BLANK SPACE 13. iti ezem-an-na 14. mu en-dnana ~ máš-e ì-p[àd] Comments Ll.2, 4. The clearly written term, mah-hu-bi, perhaps meaning “its volume/ value”, is not attested otherwise. L.5. “255 double strings of figs.” © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

227

L.7. “50 talents of date-palm fronds midribs”, Akk. zinû. L.8. “20 talents of ‘date spadix’ ”, Akk. sissinnu. L.9. Ku-Ningal sagi is well-known at Iri-Saĝrig in the first years of Ibbi-Suen, but since the name is known from other sites, it is not possible to associate this individual with any one of them. L.11. A Nana-mudah is known best from Puzriš-Dagan, from Ur, and from Umma dating from the reign of Šulgi into that of Ibbi-Suen. However, it is impossible to connect the similarly named individuals from the different sites (cf. BDTNS/CDLI s.v.).

21. CUNES 50-01-023 Date: IS 5/ezem-dšul-gi/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Sealed Tablet 1. 0.1.0. dabin 2. ki ip-qú-ša-ta 3. šu-eš18-tár 4. šu ba-ti rev. BLANK SPACE - SEAL 5. iti ezem-dšul-gi 6. mu dumu-mí-lugal énsi~za-ab-ša-liki-ke4 ~ ba-an-tuku Seal šu-eš18-tár dub-sar-kibx(GIG) dumu i-ti-zu IR11 dšul-gi-ra Comments L.7. If the provenance is correct, this would be the latest, dated Iri-Saĝrig tablet attested so far. Seal. Note the seal, CUSAS 6 1554 (ŠS 6/xii/-), where Itizu is the father of Zabula, and possibly also the father of Šu-Eštar. The scribal specialty, dubsar-kibx(GIG), “wheat scribe”, is not attested hitherto among the extraordinary array of scribal “specialties” at Iri-Saĝrig. Cf. Owen 2013, Vol. 1, 83–87.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

David I. Owen

228

22. Barakat LSO.100312 Date: ŠS 9/-/Provenance: Iri-Saĝrig Not sealed Tablet obv. i 1. 2.0.0. gána 1.0.0. sud še-bi 19.3.4. gur 2. engar-a-ni BLANK LINE 3. a-šà-dšu-dsuen-ti-kál 4. 2.0.0. gána 0.0.3. sud 37.1.0. gur BLANK LINE 5. a-šà-nin-gal-zu 6. engar-a-ni BLANK LINE 7. šuku a-bu-um-ba-qar šabra 8. 1.0.0. gána 26.2.4. gur BLANK LINE 9. a-šà-ba-bu-hu 10. šuku i-pá-lí-is [...] 11. 0.0.4. 1/2 gána 4.˹0.2. gur˺ 12. a-šà-SIG7-˹AN˺.[...] 13. šuku u-x-nu-˹...˺ 14. 0.1.0. gána 7.0.0. ˹gur˺ 15. ˹a˺-šà-nin-gal-˹zu˺ 16. [ki lú/lu]gal-˹...˺ BLANK LINE obv. ii (partially obscured by salt crystals) 1. 5.1.4. 1/2 [gána] 1.0.3. sud 34.4.4. gur 2. uru4-a nin9-NE 3. 2.1.0. gána [n] ˹sud˺ 8.2.0. ˹gur˺ 4. sa6-[...] 5. 2.[n.n. gána n.n.n. gur] 6. ˹x˺ [...] 7. ˹...˺ 8. ˹n.n.n. gána 16.2.0. gur˺ NÍTA-[...] 9. 10. ˹...˺ [...] 11. [...] (remainder lost) 12

Cf. Nisaba 15/2 669 (IS 1/-/-, [P333671]) and 918 (IS 2/-/-, [P411938]). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

obv. iii (completely obscured by salt crystals) rev. i 1. ˹...˺ [...] 2. a-šà-dšu-dE[N.ZU-...] 3. 0.0.1. gána 0.˹2.4. gur˺ 4. a-šà-dšu-[dsuen-...] BLANK LINE 5. ˹...˺ [...] 6. 1.0.0. gána 1.˹3.n. gur˺ 7. amaš?-[...] 8. 0.1.0. gána [n.n.n. gur] 9. lú-ma-[ma] 10. 0.2.0. gána ˹0.4.n. gur˺ 11. a-ku-˹x˺ [...] 12. 0.2.0. gána ˹n.n.n.˺ [gur] 13. u4-ma-[...] 14. 1.1.3. gána ˹n.n.n. sud˺ 8.[4?.n. gur] BLANK LINE 15. šu-ma-mi-tum 16. a-šà-saĝ-du-nesaĝ 17. 0.1.3. gána 0.0.4. sud 3.0.0. gur 18. en-igi-ni-˹íb˺-[zu] 19. 3.0.0. gána ˹3˺.[n.n. sud n.n.n. gur] 20. máš-g[u-la dumu?] lu[gal-...] 21. [...] (remainder lost) rev. ii 1. [...] 2. ur-˹x˺-[. . . .] 3. 1.0.0. gána 0.0.4. sud 3.2.3. gur BLANK LINE 4. a-da-làl 5. a-šà-nin-gal-zu — 3.0.5. gána 0.0.11. sud — 28.1.2. gána maš nu-tuku — 17.1.0. n.n.n. sud — 226.2.3. še gur 6. 5.0.0. gur še máš a-šà-ga? 7. apin-lá BLANK LINE 8. šu+níĝin 5.1.4. 1/2 gána 1.0.3. sud 9. šu+níĝin 34.4.4. še gur 10. apin-lá nin9-ne

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

229

230

David I. Owen

11. šu+níĝin 3.0.5. gána 0.0.1.sud máš ì-tuku 12. šu+níĝin 28.1.2. gána 17.1.1. sud 13. šu+níĝin 46.2.4. še [gur] 14. ˹...˺ rev. iii 1. [...] še máš gur 2. [...]-ta 3. [n]+27.0.5. 1/2 gána 326.2.2. še gur BLANK SPACE 4. a-šà-gíd-da 5. še ĝeš è-a 6. šuku engar šà-gu4 ù ĝìri-sè-ga gu4-apin 30-kam 7. a-bu-um-ba-qar šabra 8. ĝìri a-da-làl dub-sar 9. mu dšu-dsuen lugal-uri5ki-/ ~ma-ke4 é-dšára-ummaki-ka mu-dù Comments Frequently, one face of a typical tablet from Iri-Saĝrig is obscured by a thick crust of salt crystals (a result of the natural conditions in which the tablets were found) and, aside from a damaged section, the tablet would become mostly legible when baked and soaked. Unfortunately, this treatment was not possible given the lack of access to the tablet. Nevertheless, it is worth recording until such time as the text might become available and read in its entirety. In this unusual case, photos of a group of tablets confiscated by authorities in Lebanon (including these four tablets now posted on BDTNS) were made available to Manuel Molina who referred the text to me to include here. L.obv.i.3. a-šà-dšu-dsuen-ti-kál is attested in Nisaba 15/2 669:obv.i.5, obv.i.20, obv.ii.15, and rev.i.14 (IS 1/-/-, [P333671]). L.obv.i.5. a-šà-nin-gal-zu is attested in Nisaba 15/2 669:i.8, ii.2, ii.18, rev.i.17 (IS 1/-/-, [P333671]). Ll.obv.i.7, rev.iii.7. Abum-baqar šabra is attested in five additional Iri-Saĝrig texts: Nisaba 15/2 496:4 (ŠS 9/ix/-, [P453880], 588:rev.12 (IS 1/-/-, [P454000], šabra), 669:le.edge (IS 1/-/-, [P333671]), 674:4 (IS 1/iv/-, [P453940]), 1030:obv.ii.1 (šabra) and obv.ii.14 ([IS 1/-]/-, [P454183], šabra). Possibly the same as a-bu-ba-qar in the undated Adab? text, Sigrist et al., Studies Civil 2, 311 no. 1:9 (n.d., [BDTNS 196866]). L.rev.i.18. The name en-igi-ni-íb-zu is found primarily on Ĝirsu texts from Š → AS 1 and unlikely the same individual (cf. BDTNS/CDLI s.v.). L.rev.iii.4. The phrase a-šà-gíd-da is found frequently in Umma texts and occasionally at Ĝirsu. Aside from the current text, it appears in two

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

231

additional Iri-Saĝrig tablets, a pisaĝ-dub-ba, Nisaba 15/2 893:2 and 7 (IS 1– 2/-/-, [P454106]), and 918:rev.ii.9 (IS 2/-/-, [P411938]). In the latter, note the similar context in lines rev.ii.9–11, a-šà-gíd-da / še ĝeš è-a/ šà di-ni-ik-tumki, with the same scribe, Adalal in rev.ii.13. L.rev.iii.8. Adalal, the scribe, is attested primarily at Iri-Saĝrig from AS 9 → IS 3 and once from Ur (IS 8/ix/-, [137419]), if indeed the latter is the same person. The name is common at other sites but as a scribe it is limited to IriSaĝrig.

Bibliography Brunke, H., Essen in Sumer. Metrologie, Herstellung und Terminologie nach Zeugnis der Ur III-zeitlichen Wirtschaftsurkunden (Geschichtswissenschaften 26), München 2011. Cohen, M.E., Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, MD 2015. Dhahir, I.S., Das Archive der Šāt-Eštar. Keilschrifturkunden aus der Zeit der Dritten Dynastie von Ur, PhD Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin 2017. Garfinkle, S.J., Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia. A Study of Three Archives from the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC) (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 22), Bethesda, MD 2012. Kleinerman, A. / Owen, D.I, Analytical Concordance to the Garšana Archives (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 4), Bethesda, MD 2009. Owen, D.I., Cuneiform Texts Primarily form Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. (Nisaba 15/1–2), Bethesda, MD 2013. — New Additions to the Iri-Saĝrig/Al-Šarākī Archives, in: Corò, P. et al. (eds.), Libiamo ne’ lieti calici: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Lucio Milano on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 436), Münster 2016a, 337–362. — A New Silver, Balanced Account, in: Feliu, Ll. et al. (eds.), The First Ninety Years: A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 12), Berlin / Boston 2016b, pp. 250–261. — The Nesbit Tablets (Nisaba 30), Winona Lake, IN 2016c. — Contributions to the Dossier of Princess Simat-Ištaran, in: Amazzoni, A. et al. (eds.), From Mari to Jerusalem and Back. Assyriological and Biblical Studies in Honor of Jack Murad Sasson, University Park, PA 2020, 244–271. Owen, D.I. / Mayr, R.H., The Garšana Archives (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 3), Bethesda, MD 2007. Ozaki, T., On the Calendar of Urusaĝrig, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 106 (2016) 127–137.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

232

David I. Owen

Schrakamp, I., On the reading of a-dam-DUNki, in: Cuneiform Digital Library Notes 2014:14. Sigrist, M. / Ozaki, T., Tablets from the Irisaĝrig Archives (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 40/1-2), University Park, PA 2019. Steinkeller, P., Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered, in: De Graef, K. / Tavernier, J. (eds.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009 (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58), Leiden / Boston 2013, 293–317. Stol, M., Bitumen in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Textual Evidence, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 69 (2012) 48–60. Wu, Y., Naram-ili, Šu-Kabta and Nawir-ilum in the Archives of Ĝaršana, Puzriš-Dagan and Umma, in: Journal of Ancient Civilizations 23 (2008) 1– 36.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

Plate I. Text 2 (CUNES 58-05-011)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

233

234

David I. Owen

Plate II. Text 11 (CUNES 58-05-009)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

New Sources from the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig Archives

Plate III. Text 12 (CUNES 58-05-018)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

235

236

David I. Owen

Plate IV. Text 13 (CUNES 58-05-016)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Euripide et le sacrifice humain à Carthage : notes de lecture Sergio Ribichini « Nous ne sommes, au théâtre comme en poésie en général, jamais sûrs de savoir vraiment de quoi ça parle » P. Judet de la Combe1

Entre realia et tragédies « La vie de leurs enfants est chère à tous les hommes, et nul ne donnerait son fils à tuer ». Ces paroles, tirées des Phéniciennes d’Euripide2 et mises dans la bouche de Créon, seigneur de Thèbes, illustrent bien l’opposition radicale de l’auteur tragique à l’égard du sacrifice humain. Et si, sur dix-huit tragédies euripidéennes conservées, neuf mentionnent l’immolation d’un être humain, il ne fait aucun doute que, pour leur auteur, ce type d’offrande est sans équivoque une atroce cruauté, une coutume sans rapport avec les lois en vigueur, à laquelle s’adonnaient, comme des « barbares », les Grecs d’autrefois.3 La mort que Macaire, Polyxène, Ménécée, Iphigénie et d’autres protagonistes des tragédies d’Euripide acceptent librement pour le salut de leur cité, garantit à celle-ci la gloire et pour eux-mêmes des honneurs comparables à ceux qu’entraîne la « belle mort » des jeunes soldats tués au combat. L’immolation volontaire de ces victimes suscitait donc, parmi les spectateurs contemporains d’Euripide, une admiration inconditionnelle, pour ce geste d’abnégation. Le poète est un grand maître dans l’art de susciter ces sensations, devant la mort acceptée par ses héros.4 Mais le système qui naguère exigeait de tels sacrifices se voyait en même temps condamné sans appel dans l’actualité, en tant que pratique injuste, rejetée même par d’autres protagonistes des récits mythiques (Créon en premier) et désormais interdite dans l’Athènes de la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C. Euripide ne 1

Judet de la Combe 2010, 12, mentionné par Daries-Berdery 2013, 61. Mes remerciements sincères à Reine-Marie Bérard et Bruno D’Andrea qui ont eu la patience de relire mon texte français et qui m’ont donné de bons conseils. 2 E. Ph. 965–966: πᾶσιν γὰρ ἀνθρώποισι φιλότεκνος βίος / οὐδ’ ἂν τὸν αὑτοῦ παῖδά τις δοίη κτανεῖν. 3 Sans compter sept autres cas, dans les tragédies fragmentaires ; voir Bonnechère 1994, 231. 4 Voir en général Daries-Berdery 2013. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

238

Sergio Ribichini

justifie pas, de la sorte, l’attitude d’Agamemnon et d’autres héros qui jadis succombaient à la tentation de pratiquer ce rite, en soi-même répréhensible. Ni la nature souvent volontaire du geste des jeunes immolés, ni la fatalité typique d’un temps révolu, ni la force contraignante d’un oracle ne parviennent à masquer, dans ces tragédies, les connotations négatives associées à ce type d’offrande, et les mauvais résultats finalement obtenus par ce moyen. Bref : la répulsion morale qu’éprouve Euripide, comme beaucoup d’autres auteurs en Grèce classique, face à l’immolation de victimes humaines, est indiscutable.5 D’ailleurs, notre poète ne se soucie nullement de prendre en compte l’actualité du sacrifice humain dans les coutumes rituelles de divers peuples contemporains ; mais en lisant ses tragédies on perçoit bien que pour lui c’est la Tauride6 la terre barbare par excellence où donner la mort à tout étranger de passage est/était pratique courante, tandis qu’il ressort clairement l’absence de toute référence aux coutumes de populations sémitiques à ce propos, qu’il s’agisse ou non de Phéniciennes comme les jeunes femmes du Chœur de la tragédie éponyme.7 Donc, même s’il n’est pas exclu qu’Euripide ait aussi inclus les populations phénico-puniques parmi les peuples qui faisaient des sacrifices humains, l’examen des textes concernés conduit plutôt à écarter la présence de références directes à d’éventuelles pratiques de ce type, que ce soit en Phénicie ou à Carthage. Cette conclusion, à mon avis, est désormais assurée, en dépit de certains reculs dans l’historiographie contemporaine. Elle mérite pour autant d’être mise à l’épreuve une fois de plus, à travers l’analyse ponctuelle de deux passages des ouvrages du poète qui ont été utilisés, le premier dans l’Antiquité, le deuxième à l’époque moderne, précisément pour établir que la pratique du sacrifice humain chez les Phéniciens d’Orient et d’Occident était connue du tragédien, ou même pour formuler l’hypothèse d’une influence directe de la coutume sémitique sur ce grand poète de la Grèce classique.8 Il me semble que quelques notes de lecture supplémentaires peuvent nous permettre de mieux saisir la perspective du poète et de faire progresser quelque peu l’analyse du volet « auteurs classiques » dans la construction du dossier sur le sacrifice punique d’enfants, en 5

Voir Nancy 1983 ; Bonnechère 1994, 260–272. Voir Bremmer 2013. 7 La présence du Chœur des « Phéniciennes » fonctionne comme une espèce de regard en arrière, comme un souvenir du passé. Voir Chalkia 1986, 208–210, même à propos du rôle de la Phénicie chez Euripide. 8 Quelques autres fragments des tragiques grecs (Sophocle, fr. 160 Radt, et Eschyle, fr. 455 Radt, en particulier) ont été utilisés de la même manière parmi les témoignages littéraires les plus anciens sur le sacrifice humain, tel que les Grecs concevaient qu’il fût pratiqué chez les Phéniciens et les Carthaginois. J’en parlerai dans un autre contexte. Voir aussi Tragica adespota fr. 233 Kannicht-Snell apud Hsch. λ 949, que j’ai traité dans Ribichini 2013. 6

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Euripide et le sacrifice humain à Carthage : notes de lecture

239

liaison avec les sources bibliques, d’une part, et les trouvailles archéologiques des lieux sacrés dits tophets, de l’autre.9 Le premier passage, extrait de l’Iphigénie en Tauride, est cité par Diodore de Sicile, au Ier s. av. J.-C., à propos du grand holocauste de victimes humaines qui aurait été effectué devant une statue de Cronos dans la Carthage assiégée par Agathocle de Syracuse en 310 av. J.-C. Dans ce texte, l’historien d’Argyrion prétend qu’Euripide trouva précisément dans le rite carthaginois l’idée de promettre au feu le cadavre d’Oreste, dont il est question dans une de ses tragédies, exactement comme l’ancien mythe d’après lequel Cronos dévora ses propres enfants se justifierait par les coutumes carthaginoises. La deuxième occurrence porte sur les Phéniciennes, la tragédie qui a été mon point de départ pour cet hommage à un ami très proche, à un camarade de notre vie d’études sur l’Antiquité, à un assyriologue cultivé et sensible mais aussi à un esprit curieux, passionné d’énigmes. Une étude de René Rebuffat, d’il y a près de 50 ans,10 a suggéré de mettre en parallèle la présence sur scène de jeunes filles phéniciennes, qui donnent le titre à l’œuvre, et le rôle qu’assume, dans cette pièce, l’épisode du sacrifice de Ménécée, le fils du régent de Thèbes, ce Créon frère de Jocaste et seigneur de la ville après le départ d’Œdipe. Il s’agit notamment des vers 911–1018, 1090– 1092 et 1313–1316 de la pièce.

La mort volontaire et les enfants avalés Pour ce qui est du premier texte, il me semble d’abord que l’hypothèse d’une transposition de rites puniques dans l’Iphigénie en Tauride ne nous révèlerait rien d’autre que la pensée de Diodore, qui, du reste, semble se soucier de présenter un tel rapprochement seulement comme « possible », par rapport à un événement qui s’est produit à Carthage presqu’un siècle après la mise en scène de ce drame à Athènes. Voici, en effet, le texte de Diodore de Sicile XX 14, 6–7 et la traduction récente de Cécile Durvye : 11 6. ἦν δὲ παρ’αὐτοῖς ἀνδριὰς Κρόνου χαλκοῦς, ἐκτετακὼς τὰς χεῖρας ὑπτίας ἐγκεκλιμένας ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, ὥστε τὸν ἐπιτεθέντα τῶν παίδων ἀποκυλίεσθαι καὶ πίπτειν εἴς τι χάσμα πλῆρες πυρός. εἰκὸς δὲ καὶ τὸν Εὐριπίδην ἐντεῦθεν εἰληφέναι τὰ μυθολογούμενα παρ’αὐτῷ περὶ τὴν ἐν Ταύροις θυσίαν, ἐν οἷς εἰσάγει τὴν Ἰφιγένειαν ὑπὸ Ὀρέστου διερωτωμένην « τάφος δὲ ποῖος δέξεταί μ’, ὅταν θάνω; 9

Voir D’Andrea 2018. Voir Rebuffat 1972. 11 Durvye 2018, 23–24. 10

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

240

Sergio Ribichini

πῦρ ἱερὸν ἔνδον χάσμα τ’εὐρωπὸν χθονός ». 7. καὶ ὁ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι δὲ μῦθος ἐκ παλαιᾶς φήμης παραδεδομένος ὅτι Κρόνος ἠφάνιζε τοὺς ἰδίους παῖδας, παρὰ Καρχηδονίοις φαίνεται διὰ τούτου τοῦ νομίμου τετηρημένος. « 6. Il y avait chez eux [= à Carthage] une statue en bronze de Cronos qui tendait ses mains renversées, penchées vers la terre, de sorte que celui des enfants que l’on plaçait roulait et tombait dans une sorte de gouffre rempli de feu ; c’est d’ailleurs vraisemblablement de là qu’Euripide a tiré la légende12 rapportée dans son œuvre à propos du sacrifice en Tauride, lorsqu’il représente Iphigénie à qui Oreste demande : “– Et quel tombeau m’accueillera lorsque je serai mort ? – Le feu sacré à l’intérieur et un vaste gouffre dans la terre”. 7. Et la légende13 qui a cours chez les Grecs et qui leur vient d’une ancienne tradition, selon laquelle Cronos faisait disparaître ses propres enfants, semble avoir été entretenue chez les Carthaginois par cet usage ». Pour la description de la statue du Cronos carthaginois, on le sait depuis longtemps, Diodore paraît dépendre de façon assez considérable d’un extrait de Clitarque, historien du IVe siècle av. J.-C.,14 qui parle également de cette idole de bronze en terre d’Afrique mais qui n’établit aucune relation avec l’histoire d’Oreste et de son errance pénible. D’ailleurs, ce jeune héros, frère d’Iphigénie et meurtrier de sa mère Clytemnestre pour venger son père Agamemnon, est le protagoniste d’autres drames grecs, soit d’Euripide que d’Eschyle, qui suivent son parcours, toujours traqué par les Erinyes, sans aucun « accent punique » pour le passage par le feu qui attendrait son cadavre. D’un autre côté, l’œil de Diodore sur ces « crédits » sémitiques tant pour le feu destructeur que pour le Cronos grecs n’est pas surprenant : son attitude négative envers les Carthaginois et leurs rites sanglants est bien connue, tandis que Cronos, pour lui, est le destinataire surhumain typique pour ces sacrifices.15 Il faut aussi tenir compte de la réputation que ce premier roi des dieux avait acquise dans le monde classique vis-à-vis des immolations humaines, en raison du mythe de son repas cannibale, dévoreur de ses propres enfants avant le règne

12

« Légende », d’après Durvye 2018 ; je dirais plutôt : le « récit mythique » (τὰ μυθολογούμενα). 13 « Légende », d’après Durvye 2018 ; il s’agit plus précisément du mot « mythe » (ὁ μῦθος). 14 Voir Gras 2018, X–XI, et Durvye 2018, 23–24. 15 Sacrifice punique d’un enfant à Cronos même dans D.S. XIII 86, en Sicile, pour mettre fin à une épidémie ; sacrifice aux dieux des plus beaux de leurs prisonniers, immolés par le feu, de nuit, après une victoire dans D.S. XX 65. Sur l’attitude de cet historien voir entre autres Tahar 2004 ; Pillot 2012. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Euripide et le sacrifice humain à Carthage : notes de lecture

241

de Zeus, qui lui avait valu d’être associé aux territoires « barbares », surtout à l’ouest de la Grèce (Italie, Afrique du Nord, etc.).16 De plus, l’affirmation de l’écrivain sicilien, isolée comme elle est dans la littérature classique, n’est pas du tout nécessaire à la compréhension du contexte des vers d’Euripide. Ce contexte montre bien, au contraire, que le poète fait simplement référence au feu du bûcher funèbre auquel Iphigénie destinera le corps d’Oreste après le sacrifice. Le passage évoque également les services qui suivront, c’est-à-dire des pratiques funèbres tellement usuelles dans le monde grec qu’il n’y a pas vraiment aucune raison de songer à un emprunt étranger sur un brasier en bronze au-dessous d’une statue. Voici en effet le texte d’E. IT 621–635 : OR IPH OR IPH OR IPH OR IPH

« OR IPH OR IPH OR IPH OR IPH

16

αὐτὴ ξίφει θύουσα θῆλυς ἄρσενας; οὔκ, ἀλλὰ χαίτην ἀμφὶ σὴν χερνίψομαι. ὁ δὲ σφαγεὺς τίς, εἰ τάδ’ἱστορεῖν με χρή; ἔσω δόμων τῶνδ’εἰσὶν οἷς μέλει τάδε. τάφος δὲ ποῖος δέξεταί μ’, ὅταν θάνω; 625 πῦρ ἱερὸν ἔνδον χάσμα τ’ εὐρωπὸν πέτρας. φεῦ· πῶς ἄν μ’ἀδελφῆς χεὶρ περιστείλειεν ἄν; μάταιον εὐχήν, ὦ τάλας, ὅστις ποτ’εἶ, ηὔξω· μακρὰν γὰρ βαρβάρου ναίει χθονός. οὐ μήν, ἐπειδὴ τυγχάνεις Ἀργεῖος ὤν, ἀλλ’ ὧν γε δυνατὸν οὐδ’ ἐγὼ ’λλείψω χάριν. πολύν τε γάρ σοι κόσμον ἐνθήσω τάφῳ ξανθῷ τ’ἐλαίῳ σῶμα σὸν †κατασβέσω† καὶ τῆς ὀρείας ἀνθεμόρρυτον γάνος ξουθῆς μελίσσης ἐς πυρὰν βαλῶ σέθεν. 635 Toi, femme, de l’épée, tu frapperais des hommes ? Non, mais j’aspergerai tes cheveux d’eau lustrale. Et qui m’égorgera ? Puis-je le demander ? Ceux qui s’en chargeront sont dans ce sanctuaire. Et quelle tombe alors recevra mon cadavre ? Le feu sacré, brûlant dans l’abîme rocheux (ou : caverne ténébreuse) Si les mains de ma sœur pouvaient m’ensevelir ! ». Inutiles souhaits, ô Grec, qui que tu sois ! Elle habite (ta sœur) bien loin de ces terres barbares. Mais, puisque, toi aussi, tu es d’Argos, au moins tu recevras de moi ce que je puis donner. Je veux abondamment parer ta sépulture, sur ton corps tout brûlant, j’épandrai l’huile blonde,

Voir Hughes 1991, 125 et 237–238, note 153, et plus en général Nagy 2009. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

242

Sergio Ribichini

je verserai, sur ton bûcher, le suc extrait des fleurs par le travail de l’abeille au corps fauve ».17 Finalement, comme l’a déjà remarqué Pierre Bonnechère,18 il existe dans la tradition classique d’autres parallèles possibles pour ce passage, notamment l’épisode des vierges locriennes promises à une mort sans honneur19 et le prétendu sacrifice humain de Phocée, où Clément d’Alexandrie soutient que les habitants brûlaient un homme en l’honneur d’Artémis Tauropolos.20 Ces deux cas confirmeraient l’existence d’une tradition (mythique) grecque relative à des victimes humaines jadis vouées au bûcher, tradition de laquelle, en l’occurrence, Euripide pourrait bien s’être inspiré ici.

Se traverser la gorge, guérir le territoire Le rôle assigné par Euripide à l’immolation de victimes humaines dans ses tragédies et la possibilité qu’il se soit inspiré dans quelques cas des infanticides rituels pratiqués par les populations phénico-puniques sont également au centre des extraits du deuxième poème, mentionnés ci-dessus et tirés des Phéniciennes, si l’on accepte l’interprétation qu’en a donnée René Rebuffat.21 À son avis, la présence d’un Chœur de Phéniciennes transforme, dans la pièce d’Euripide, le sacrifice du fils de Créon en une allusion aux sacrifices d’enfants sémitiques. Les circonstances de la mort de Ménécée (comme celles d’Iphigénie à Aulis) concordent d’ailleurs largement avec ce que nous savons de leur rituel, même si elles restent adaptées au cadre hellénique des drames. C’est la situation d’Athènes assiégée et la péripétie politique qui venait de la rapprocher de Carthage qui expliquent cette allusion. Voici, en résumé, la position de l’historien et archéologue français, grand spécialiste de l’Afrique antique récemment disparu. Cette tragédie, en effet, à l’instar d’autres drames d’Euripide, porte un titre qui trouve son explication dans la composition du Chœur, constitué en l’occurrence de jeunes nobles phéniciennes, originaires de Tyr. Le poète imagine que ces παρθένοι phéniciennes, πρὸ τοῦ γάμου, sont en route pour Delphes, où elles deviendront les suivantes du dieu et de sa sœur ; elles sont les

17

Voir la traduction de Parmentier / Grégoire 1925, 138. Bonnechère 1994, 239 note 50. 19 L’histoire remontait à la chute d’Ilion ; leurs cadavres étaient brûlés sur du bois stérile et sauvage, puis leurs cendres étaient précipitées dans la mer, du haut d’un promontoire rocheux. Voir l’analyse de Bonnechère 1994, 150–163. 20 Clem. Al. Protr. III 42. Voir Bonnechère 1994, 133 et note 554. 21 Rebuffat 1972. 18

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Euripide et le sacrifice humain à Carthage : notes de lecture

243

plus belles de leur âge, offertes, comme Iphigénie dans d’autres circonstances, en prémices au souverain pythique.22 Dans le contexte des événements qui font l’objet du drame s’insère l’épisode de la mort rituelle qui a pour héros le jeune prince Ménécée. Obéissant à l’oracle de Tirésias, mais contre la volonté de son père, Ménécée se donne lui-même la mort, en se transperçant la gorge d’un glaive, pour le salut de son pays et pour empêcher qu’il devienne la proie des Argiens. C’était en effet l’époque de l’expédition des Sept contre Thèbes, quand Polynice, l’aîné des fils d’Œdipe, chassé de Thèbes par son frère Etéocle, s’était présenté en armes devant les murailles de sa cité.23 La mort volontaire de Ménécée prélude donc, dans la trame de la tragédie, à l’échec de l’attaque lancée par les agresseurs, au duel final entre Etéocle et Polynice, qui se tuèrent l’un l’autre, au suicide de Jocaste et aux décisions de Créon qui, à nouveau maître de Thèbes, ordonne qu’Œdipe soit envoyé en exil et interdit l’ensevelissement de Polynice sur le territoire thébain. Mais il est bien possible que ce soit Euripide, lui-même, qui ait inventé le mythe et le personnage du jeune Ménécée.24 Rebuffat a donc proposé d’expliquer le choix d’Euripide – celui d’un Chœur de jeunes femmes étrangères et celui du titre de Phéniciennes dans un drame relatif à la descendance d’Œdipe – à la lumière du sacrifice de Ménécée, inspiré selon lui par la coutume qu’avaient les Phéniciens et les Puniques de pratiquer de telles offrandes. Il a tenté d’établir un rapprochement ponctuel entre les données du texte d’Euripide et les informations relatives aux pratiques phénicopuniques telles qu’elles étaient connues au moment où il publia son étude, c’està-dire au début des années 1970. À ses yeux, ce qui ressort de l’analyse du texte tragique est, dans une large mesure, en accord avec ce qui nous est connu part d’autres sources sur le rite carthaginois. Rebuffat met en évidence, dans son analyse, des correspondances qui lui ont paru considérables, quant à l’âge des victimes (des enfants entre 0 et 12 ans pour le monde carthaginois ; des jeunes garçons et des jeunes filles à l’âge de raison pour le théâtre grec), quant à la procédure de l’offrande (l’égorgement, avec une certaine emphase sur le sang qui s’écoule avec la vie immolée), quant à l’interdiction des pleurs durant le rite (les parents des enfants qui ne peuvent pas fondre en larmes à Carthage – la fermeté d’Iphigénie et d’autres héros de la tragédie grecque), quant à l’autoimmolation ou à la libre acceptation du sacrifice (Ménécée, Hamilcar, etc.), enfin quant à la possibilité de substituer à la victime humaine un animal, dans les deux contextes culturels. Pour ce qui est du Chœur, il s’agirait en réalité de femmes provenant de Carthage, et les raisons de l’existence d’un tel ensemble 22

Cf. vv. 202–260 ; voir Bonnechère 1994, 122. Euripide reprend ici le thème des Sept contre Thèbes d’Eschyle, dans une perspective temporelle plus large : De Cremoux 2012, 306–307. 24 Hughes 1991, 74 ; Bonnechère 1994, 121. L’épisode est inconnu avant Euripide, mais, après lui, il fait partie intégrante du mythe des Sept. Voir Amiech 2008, 28. 23

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

244

Sergio Ribichini

devraient être cherchées dans la situation politico-militaire contemporaine, plus particulièrement dans les rapports amicaux qui existaient alors entre la métropole punique et Athènes, suite à l’intervention carthaginoise en Sicile en 409 au profit de Ségeste (contre Sélinonte, alliée de Syracuse, ennemie d’Athènes).25 La présence de ces femmes étrangères servirait donc à transformer la mort de Ménécée en une allusion explicite à la pratique sacrificielle en usage dans la métropole africaine, dont les membres du Chœur provenaient. En dépit de l’intérêt de cette étude, les hypothèses qui y sont défendues, et notamment le rapprochement ponctuel entre la mort de Ménécée et le rite punique du molk, ont été l’objet de critiques plus nombreuses que les opinions favorables, tant dans le domaine des études phéniciennes26 que dans le domaine classique.27 Les Phéniciennes du Chœur, tout en donnant à ce drame son titre, ne sont nullement mêlées aux événements décrits dans la tragédie : elles sont juste de passage à Thèbes, durant un voyage à destination de Delphes et commencé à Tyr, la ville de laquelle était venu même le fondateur de Thèbes, le phénicien Cadmos ; et l’hypothèse selon laquelle elles proviendraient de Carthage, plutôt que de Tyr, ne trouve pas d’appui solide dans le texte.28 D’un autre côté, le sacrifice volontaire du jeune héros pour le salut de la cité est présenté de manière classique comme un choix délibéré pour sauver la ville, au même titre que les guerriers qui « affranchis des oracles, et sans être contraints par un arrêt du Ciel, le bouclier au flanc, accepteront la mort en combattant pour la patrie devant les tours ».29 Le fils de Créon, adolescent charmant de haute origine30 mais trop jeune pour prendre part au combat, s’enfonce un glaive dans la gorge et se laisse tomber du haut de la forteresse. 25

Rebuffat utilise une hypothèse de M. Radermacher, reprise déjà par Grégoire et al. 1961, 129–131. Voir aussi De Cremoux 2012, 306. 26 Voir Xella 1975, 241–242 ; plus récemment, cet auteur semble avoir atténué ses critiques : voir Xella 2009, 63–66. 27 Voir O’Connor-Visser 1987, 94–98. Bonnechère 1994, 8 note 21, fait juste une remarque négative. Amiech 2008 et Daries-Berdery 2013 ignorent complètement cette hypothèse. 28 L’idée que les femmes du Chœur soient venue de la Phénicie (Tyr) et non pas de Carthage semble plus probable à Chalkia 1986, 209 note 219. Leur provenance de Carthage, affirmée par Rebuffat 1972, 30, a été accueillie par Xella 1975, 242, et réitérée par Xella 2009, 64–65. Amiech 2008, 28, souligne que « le choix d’un chœur de jeunes Phéniciennes n’étonne plus puisque c’est lui qui assure le lien entre Thèbes et l’ancêtre fondateur Cadmos ». 29 E. Ph. 991–1018 ; voir en particulier 1006–1014 : Créon annonce au Chœur que « faisant couler mon sang aux noires profondeurs de l’enclos du dragon, là où le devin l’a prescrit, je délivrerai mon pays. J’ai dit. Je pars pour faire à la Cité le don glorieux de ma mort, et, du mal qui l’atteint, guérir le territoire ». Pour le thème du sacrifice volontaire pour le salut de la communauté dans la scène euripidéenne voir Roussel 1922. 30 Bonnechère 2013, 26. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Euripide et le sacrifice humain à Carthage : notes de lecture

245

Son sacrifice, « tantôt exigé par la Terre assoiffée de libations sanguinaires, tantôt par Arès en compensation du meurtre, par Cadmos, du dragon qui occupait le futur site de Thèbes, est également le moteur de la tragédie, l’unique solution pour la sauvegarde de la cité ».31 D’ailleurs, chaque pièce du poète est un moment de spectacle à part entière, cherchant des éléments de spectacle originaux.32 Mais Les Héraclides, Hécube, Erechthée, Iphigénie à Aulis et Les Phéniciennes sont à ce propos un bloc homogène, non seulement à propos du motif du sacrifice en soi, mais aussi pour la distinction sociale des jeunes gens se sacrifiant et des schémas à la fois rhétoriques et rituels récurrents (couronnes, rites préliminaires, offrants, origine extrahumaine de la situation, discours de l’enfant qui s’approche à la mort volontaire, etc.). Les motivations du sacrifice volontaire de Ménécée, ainsi que le schéma littéraire suivi (sacrifice à des fins communautaires, conçu comme un φαρμακός pour résoudre une situation de danger, ou pour l’alléger, à travers le recours à une solution extrême, requise par la divinité au moyen d’un oracle), ressemblent si nettement à celles d’autres mises à mort de jeunes victimes humaines dans les tragédies d’Euripide, rappelées ci-dessus, que l’on ne peut pas accepter d’y voir la transposition précise d’un rite punique, reconstruit du reste sur la base de données littéraires plus tardives et souvent indirectes. Sans trop de questions superflues, on admettra que le sang de Ménécée est versé dans Les Phéniciennes d’Euripide de manière parfaitement cohérente avec les canons de la mythologie grecque ;33 il coule de sa gorge comme une libation qui sert à venger le meurtre du dragon tué par le fondateur de Thèbes (le tyrien Cadmos), pour apaiser Arès et pour faire de ce dieu un allié.34 Aucune allusion, en définitive, dans les lamentations du Chœur « phénicien » à une éventuelle coutume sémitique connue de l’auteur ; aucune référence, dans tout le texte, à un usage hypothétiquement hérité du fondateur « phénicien » (selon le mythe grec) de la lignée thébaine, d’autant plus par le biais d’un transfert virtuel de Cadmos à Carthage.35 31

Bonnechère 1994, 123. Voir l’analyse ponctuelle de De Cremoux 2012. 33 En effet, la mythologie grecque connaît des centaines de cas de morts volontaires, avec plusieurs spécificités : voir Voisin 2017. 34 Cf. vv. 931–935 (paroles de Tirésias à Créon) : « Dans le repaire où le dragon né de la terre surveillait les eaux de Dircé, ton fils doit être égorgé pour donner à la terre une libation sanglante ; c’est l’effet de l’antique ressentiment conçu contre Cadmos par Arès qui venge le meurtre du dragon né de la terre ». Sur la scène (vv. 1090–1092), le Messager annonce que le fils de Créon, « celui qui est mort pour le pays, sauveur du territoire, s’est traversé la gorge de son glaive noir, debout au sommet des tours ». Voir Sabbatucci 1976 et Jameson 1991 : 214–215. 35 Le seul point d’appui que je vois est dans les Dionysiaques (XIII 363–366) de Nonnos de Panopolis qui, au Ve s. ap. J.-C., imagina que Cadmos aurait célébré en Libye ses noces avec Harmonie et qu’en souvenir de cet hymen il y aurait fondé cent villes dotées 32

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

246

Sergio Ribichini

L’importance d’une lecture en contexte Dans les deux cas concernés, pour conclure, il y a lieu de réfléchir sur l’interaction entre l’information dont nous disposons et son scénario concret, aussi bien que sur le rapport entre le primat de l’expression littéraire et le « bricolage » des données factuelles qui se réalise, aujourd’hui encore, dans les processus de reconstitution historique.36 Il ne s’agit pas d’innocenter les Carthaginois d’une pratique redoutable, comme on l’a fait jadis pour les Grecs en supposant l’importation phénicienne d’une telle coutume ;37 ni d’afficher à la reconstruction historique des sentiments de contrariété et d’incrédulité pour un rite trop éloigné de nos propres coutumes. Il s’agit plutôt de reconnaître la juste valeur à chaque source d’information ; ou, pour mieux dire, de bien comprendre le rôle du contexte dans nos lectures. On pourrait d’ailleurs remarquer, de manière générale, que le débat sur le sacrifice punique d’enfants est loin d’être achevé. Bruno D’Andrea, lui-même, dans sa synthèse récente sur la question,38 n’a pas voulu la régler de manière définitive. Mais il est vrai également que plusieurs éléments du soi-disant volet « classique » du rite carthaginois, c’est-à-dire le dossier des auteurs grecs et latins qui ont affirmé l’existence d’une telle habitude meurtrière en vogue chez les Phéniciens et les Puniques, relèvent souvent moins de la réalité historique et littéraire que d’une volonté historiographique récente, de trouver des points de comparaison aux réalités archéologiques des célèbres tophets. Pour ma part, je crois depuis longtemps que la construction de ce prétendu dossier est une création artificielle de quelques savants modernes, qui choisissent un certain nombre de sources classiques et bibliques à partir de leur interprétation sacrificielle des dépositions de nourrissons dans les tophets ; la sélection de « extraits » d’auteurs classiques et de la Bible ainsi créée confirmerait l’hypothèse du sacrifice d’enfants pratiqué dans de tels sanctuaires. En agissant de la sorte, le cercle herméneutique qui essaie de comprendre le tout pour comprendre la partie devient en réalité un cercle vicieux.39 En ce sens, Diodore de Sicile a fait école, grâce à ses jeux de citation, d’allusion, de référence. Euripide, quant à lui, avec son inspiration modelée sur les mythes grecs, conformément à cette procédure serait l’indice le plus ancien sur les rites puniques. Ces notes de lecture montrent au contraire que de nombreux arguments plaident en faveur de l’inconsistance de ces deux prétendus « témoignages », « consonances », « retentissements », ou quelle que de remparts inaccessibles dominés par des tours de pierre. Carthage est dite aussi « Kadméenne » dans des auteurs beaucoup plus récents : Sil. It. Pun. I 6 et 106 ; St. Byz. s.v. Karchedon et Eust. in Dion. Per. 195. 36 Bonnechère / Gagné 2013. 37 Bonnechère 1994, 6–9. 38 D’Andrea 2018. 39 Voir Balzaretti 2018, 177. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Euripide et le sacrifice humain à Carthage : notes de lecture

247

soit la définition qu’on en donne. Pour le sacrifice molk et ses tonalités anciennes et modernes, en définitive, il est mieux de rayer ce grand poète de la liste des témoins.

Bibliographie Amiech, Chr., Le sacrifice de Ménécée : sa place, son rôle dans les Phéniciennes d’Euripide, dans : L’information littéraire 60 (2008) 22–29. Balzaretti, C., Il sacrificio dei bambini: aspetti metodologici. Una selva di problemi, dans : Rivista Biblica 66 (2018) 173–204. Bonnechère, P., Le sacrifice humain en Grèce ancienne, Athènes / Liège 1994. — Victime humaine et absolue perfection dans la mentalité grecque, dans : Bonnechère, P. / Gagné, R. (éds.), Sacrifices humains. Perspectives croisées et représentations / Human Sacrifice. Cross-cultural Perspectives and Representations, Liège 2013, 21–60. Bonnechère, P. / Gagné, R., Le sacrifice humain : un phénomène au fil d’Ariane évanescent, dans : Bonnechère, P. / Gagné, R. (éds.), Sacrifices humains. Perspectives croisées et représentations / Human Sacrifice. Cross-cultural Perspectives and Representations, Liège 2013, 7–20. Bremmer, J.N., Human Sacrifice in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris: Greek and Barbarian, dans : Bonnechère, P. / Gagné, R. (éds.), Sacrifices humains. Perspectives croisées et représentations / Human Sacrifice. Cross-cultural Perspectives and Representations, Liège 2013, 87–100. Chalkia, I., Lieux et espace dans la tragédie d’Euripide. Essai d’analyse socioculturelle, Paris 1986. Daries-Berdery, B., Réflexions autour des Phéniciennes d’Euripide. Entre Vrai et Faux, une poétique de l’œuvre ouverte, dans : Pallas 91 (2013) 61–72. D’Andrea, B., Bambini nel «limbo». Dati e proposte interpretative sui tofet fenici e punici, Roma 2018. De Cremoux, A., Ménécée, un héros très discret. Réflexions sur le sacrifice dans les Phéniciennes d’Euripide, dans : Dubel, S. / Montandon, A. (éds.), Mythes sacrificiels et ragoûts d’enfants, Clermont-Ferrand 2012, 299–314. Durvye, C., Diodore de Sicile. Bibliothèque historique, tome XV, livre XX, Texte établi, traduit et commenté par Cécile Durvye, Paris 2018. Gras, M., Pour une lecture du tophet, dans : D’Andrea, B., Bambini nel «limbo». Dati e proposte interpretative sui tofet fenici e punici, Roma 2018, VII–XII. Grégoire, H. / Méridier, L. / Chapoutier, F., Euripide, Tome V, Paris 1961. Hughes, D.D., Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece, London / New York 1991. Jameson, M.H., Sacrifice Before Battle, dans : Hanson, V.D. (éd.), Hoplites. The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London / New York 1991, 197–227. Judet de la Combe, P., Les tragédies grecques sont-elles tragiques ?, Paris 2010.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

248

Sergio Ribichini

Nagy, A.A., Qui a peur du cannibale ? Récits antiques d’anthropophages aux frontières de l’humanité, Turnhout 2009. Nancy, C., Φάρμακον σωτηρίας : le mécanisme du sacrifice humain chez Euripide, dans : Théâtre et spectacle dans l’antiquité (Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 5–7 novembre 1981), Leiden 1983, 17–30. O’Connor-Visser, E.A.M.E., Aspects of Human Sacrifice in the Tragedies of Euripides, Amsterdam 1987. Parmentier, L. / Grégoire, H., Euripide. Tome IV, Paris 1925. Pillot, W., Un peuple de traîtres? La traîtrise des Phéniciens et des Carthaginois dans les sources grecques, d’Homère à Diodore de Sicile, dans : Queyrel Bottineau, A. / Couvenhes, J.-Chr. / Vigourt, A. (éds.), Trahison et traîtres dans l’Antiquité ; Actes du colloque international (Paris, 21–22 septembre 2011), Paris 2012, 75–91. Rebuffat, R., Le sacrifice du fils de Créon dans les Phéniciennes d’Euripide, dans : Révue des Etudes Anciennes 74 (1972) 14–31. Ribichini, S., (Canto di) Usignolo di Libia, dans : Arruda, A.M. (ed.), Fenícios e Púnicos, por terra e mar. Actas do VI Congreso Internacional de Estudos Fenícios e Púnicos, I, Lisboa 2013, 256–265. Roussel, P., Le thème du sacrifice volontaire dans la tragédie d’Euripide, dans : Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 1–2 (1922) 225–240. Sabbatucci, D., Per una lettura delle Fenicie correlata al momento culturale ateniese, dans : Religioni e Civiltà 2 (Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 42, 1976) 81–11. Tahar, M., La Carthage impie de Diodore, dans : Revue Tunisienne des Études Philosophiques XXI/36–37 (2004) 141–151. Voisin, J.-L., Remarques sur la mort volontaire dans la mythologie grecque, dans : Pallas 104 (2017) 325–343. Xella, P., Studi sulla religione fenicia e punica, 1971–1973, dans : Rivista di Studi Fenici 3 (1975) 227–244. — Sacrifici di bambini nel mondo fenicio-punico nelle testimonianze in lingua greca e latina – I, dans : Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 26 (2009) 59–100.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods: Two New Texts Annunziata Rositani

This paper presents a study on a group of nine cuneiform texts coming from the bīt asīrī, “the house of prisoners of war”, dating to the kingdom of Rīm-Anum, in which the gift of war prisoners by the king to different deities is registered. It is with warm gratitude that I am offering here my modest contribute to my mentor, Francesco Pomponio, who introduced me to the study of cuneiform and followed me in my path to becoming an Assyriologist. When Francesco Pomponio started teaching at the University of Messina, the study of the Ancient Near East in this University completely changed: many students, among which myself, started to follow with increasing interest his lessons, which were so solid and appealing at the same time. He supervised my degree thesis and later my PhD dissertation too. He introduced me, a beginner student in my first year of PhD, to the British Museum Study Room for the Middle East collections, thus letting me know the cuneiform world. There is a strict connection between that past and the present at the University of Messina; it would be impossible to imagine the latter without the twenty-five years of hard work and significant presence of Francesco Pomponio. His rigour, accuracy and irony as a scholar and a teacher are for all of us a professional example to emulate.

1 Introduction to the texts The texts here presented come from a particular place, called bīt asīrī, or “house of prisoners of war”. During my PhD years, I started studying a group of texts, then unpublished, which were kept at the British Museum. Previously, about 100 texts had been published from the same provenience.1 In 2003, thanks to 1

See A 4700 (transliterated in CAD M/1, 261a; see also Charpin 1980, 75 and Seri 2013, 308 no. 25); Arnaud 1977, 7–8 nos. 1‒4; Figulla 1914, 7, 18–23 nos. 13, 36‒55; Fish 1957, 3; Loretz 1978, 122–137, 139–159 nos. 1‒40 (see also Charpin 1980, 75‒76); Oberhuber 1960, 77, no. 106; Scheil 1898, 64‒65 (republished in Leemans 1961, 67, no. 13; see also Simmons 1978, Plate CX, no. 338); Simmons 1978, 23–24, Plates CX–CXII nos. 337‒342, 346 (7 texts; see also Charpin 1979, 193‒194); Speleers 1925, 81–82 nos. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

250

Annunziata Rositani

professor Pomponio, my PhD dissertation was published, in which I provided the edition of over 150 bīt asīrī additional texts.2 In the following years more than 70 new texts from the “house of the prisoners of war”3 have been published: some of them, which are kept at the British Museum, by myself,4 while others, scattered in various collections in the United States, by Andrea Seri and other scholars.5 Although coming from the antiquities market and not from regular digs, we can be sure that all these texts come from the same place thanks to prosopographical and other internal evidence, as the occurrence of Sîn-šemi ugula asīrī, “the overseer of the house of prisoners of war”, and of the same é a-si-ri/rum. The majority of the bīt asīrī texts bring a Rīm-Anum-year-name. Therefore, as far as we can currently tell, they need to be dated in the short period between the 8th‒10th years of the reign of Samsu-iluna (1742‒1740 BC), i.e. during the rebellion of South Mesopotamia against the central administration of Babylon.6 244, 250. See also Rositani 2018, 42 n. 2. For a list of bīt asīrī texts in the chronological order of publication see Rositani 2020, 1‒2 n. 2. 2 Rositani 2003, 61‒193 nos. I. 1‒67, II. 1‒83, III. 1‒4, to which one might add BM 16379, published in the Appendix, dated to 11th.VIII.Samsu-iluna 8 (154 texts). 3 According to Leemans, we translate asīrī as “the prisoners of war”. See AHw 1, 74; CAD A/II, 331‒332; Leemans 1961, 57‒76 with references to previous bibliography. See also Stol 2004, 790‒793 and Seri 2013 especially 10‒15. For a recent overall view about the slavery see Stol 2011 with previous bibliography. 4 Rositani 2009, 99‒118 nos. 1–16; Rositani 2014, 42‒58 nos. 1–10; Rositani 2017‒ 2019, 297‒300 nos. 1–2. I am currently working on the translation and the publication of a few other texts from the same archive, kept at the British Museum. 5 Seri has published some texts from the Kalamazoo Valley Museum, in Seri 2007 among which nos. 45 and 47 come from the bīt asīrī and probably are dated to the reign of Rīm-Anum. More recently she has published other 42 texts in Seri 2013, 266‒323, nos. 1–42 kept at the Free Library of Philadelphia (nos. 1‒24); at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago (no. 25 = A 4700 already transliterated in CAD M/1, 261a; and collated in Charpin 1980, 75, and no. 26); at the Princeton Theological Seminary (no. 27) and at the Yale University (nos. 28‒42). See also Charpin 2014, 121‒141. Another text, kept at the École Pratique des Hautes Étude, HE 615 catalogued in Durand 1982, 34, copied at Plate 82, has been published in Charpin 2014, 123 n. 14, where the scholar suggests to date the text at the Unug-year-name (9th.XI). Finally, we have to remember NCBT 848 (Michalowski / Beckman 2012), with the complete version of the Emutbalum-year-formula of Rīm-Anum (year “c”) and MAH 16526 (Cavigneaux / Clevenstine 2020). 6 For the chronological placement of Rīm-Anum see Pomponio / Rositani 1998 and Rositani 2003, 11‒15 where a duration of 18 months for his reign is suggested, between the 8th and the 10th year of Samsu-iluna. This hypothesis has been accepted by many scholars, see Charpin 2004, 338 with n. 1757; Stol 2006, 366‒367; Charpin 2014, 128‒ 130. See also Rositani 2018, 43‒45, with n. 4; Rositani 2017‒2019, 288‒289 with n. 5. For an analysis of the parallelism between the kingdoms of Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa and Rīm© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

251

During the reign of Rīm-Anum the bīt asīrī—located exactly in the city of Uruk, in southern Mesopotamia7—was an institutional entity,8 where the prisoners of war were held captives, under the supervision of an ugula asīrī, almost always Sîn-šemi, from their arrival up to the time of their assignment, or between one assignment and another. It was managed by the state, and probably connected to a granary and with the production of flour where the prisoners were employed as grinders, at least during the period in which they stay inside bīt asīrī.9 The war prisoners belonged to the state at least immediately after their capture, and probably remained permanently under its control for their whole lives as forced workers employed in government activities, unless they were freed thanks to the payment of a ransom, through diplomatic agreements or by an “act of freeing” of a king.10 The war prisoners were given to individuals, household or “houses” as temporary labour force under the authority of a designated person, remaining, nevertheless, under the superior authority of the bīt asīrī, where they returned after they had finished working, without being ever included in slave private property or slave trade. Although private chattel Anum of Uruk see now Rositani 2020, 2‒6. Differently Seri 2013, 30‒31, 52‒54 suggests a longer span of time for the power of Rīm-Anum on Uruk, two years and four months, and a different parallelism between the reigns of the two rebel kings (Rīm-Sîn II and Rīm-Anum): Rīm-Anum first year = second year of Rīm-Sîn II = ninth year of Samsu-iluna; Rīm-Anum second year = third year of Rīm-Sîn II = tenth year of Samsuiluna (year in which Samsu-iluna killed Rīm-Sîn II); Rīm-Anum third year = eleventh year of Samsu-iluna. 7 It was precisely placed in the palace of Sîn-kāšid at Uruk, where another 86 texts dated to the reign of Rīm-Anum have been discovered during regular excavations, the majority of which were found in area 30 of the palace. For a list of these texts see Rositani 2018, 44 especially n. 5 with references to previous bibliography; Rositani 2017‒2019, 289 especially n. 7, with references to previous bibliography, and lastly Rositani 2020, 3–4 with n. 6. Even if these texts do not belong to the bīt asīrī archive, the presence in the two groups of texts of some common elements and personal names allows us to say that they come from the same context. See Seri 2003, 166‒167, 319 with text no. 39 and Charpin 2014, 123‒124. 8 According to Charpin 2014, 132‒133 the bīt asīrī in the Rīm-Anum period was not only a bureau, an “administrative unit” (see Seri 2013, 140), but a real place with a physical collocation, a “camp de transit”, “transit camp” or a prison camp for the temporary arrangement of war prisoners. 9 See Rositani 2018 with references to the previous bibliography. Here the author, according to Feigin 1934, 224‒225; Gelb 1973; van der Toorn 1986, 248‒253; Seri 2013, 10‒15 and lastly Charpin 2014, 130‒131, presents an overview of the bīt asīrī and asīrī occurrences to support this hypothesis, analysing not only the Rīm-Anum archive, but also different mentions of prisons in other Ancient Near Eastern textual sources and in the Bible. 10 See Rositani 2018, 59‒61 with references to previous bibliography. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

252

Annunziata Rositani

slavery is well attested in the Old Babylonian period, no private ownership of war prisoners is explicitly recorded in our bīt asīrī texts; therefore, we possess no direct evidence that any asīrum entered the market for foreign slaves or was sold abroad.11 So we can say that the status of war prisoners was a special one, different from the condition of chattel slaves, especially of foreigner ones, and at the same time different from the state of debt slaves, being more similar to a servitude condition, often for life, at the direct dependence of the palace.12

2 The already published “nì-ba lugal ana DN” texts Among the bīt asīrī texts, very interesting is a small group of cuneiform tablets that register the presentation of war prisoners as offerings by the king to some gods or goddesses such as the goddesses Nanāya and Kanisurra or the gods Rammānum, Šamaš, Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea, obviously the last two together in the same text. In the majority of these texts the prisoners are received by the sanga-officials, the chief-administrator of the temple of each god.13 Here I will present all these already published texts in their chronological order:

Text 1 Museum no.: VAT 3964 (CDLI no. P372789) Edition: Figulla 1914, 18 no. 36 Date: 6th.XI.Lugal-year-name obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. rev. 7.

[I]

˹a˺-wi-˹il˺-dna-bi-um ˹ia?-ša-x-x-x˺-ki a-˹si-ri ša-al-la!-at!˺ ì-si-inki ša a-na dra-ma-nu-um šar-rum i-qí-šu nam-ḫa-ar-ti I i-din-dšamaš sanga dra-ma-nu-um zi-ga

11

See Rositani 2017‒2019, 290‒297 and now Rositani 2020, where a study on the public management of war prisoners during the reign of Rīm-Anum is presented. For a comparation with the archives of Mari see Charpin 2004 132; Lion 1997 and 2004. 12 For the categories of slavery see Westbrook 2003, 380‒381. The use of the terms sagníta or sag-mí, usually translated as “slave”, for war prisoners in many bīt asīrī texts could not be relevant. Indeed, according to Steinkeller 1989, 128–131 these terms could be “gender descriptions”, and not “social classificatory terms”, see also Gelb 1982; Farber 2005, 109–112; Steinert 2012, 175 n. 162 and lastly Gabriella Spada’s contribution in this volume. See also Charpin 2004, 131–132. 13 See also Seri 2013, 131–132, 180, 199, 251. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

253

8. nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi 9. ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– 10. [itu] zíz-a u4-6-kam 11. [mu] ri-im-da-nu-um lugal Seal

Unclear

1–2

Awīl-Nabium, Iaša(?)…, prisoners of war, booty of Isin, 3–4whom the king presented to the god Rammānum. 5–6Received by Iddin-Šamaš, the chiefadministrator of the temple of the god Rammānum. 7–9 Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. 10–11 Month XI, 6th day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: Unclear. Notes The text is very damaged in the upper half of the obverse and in the right side of the reverse; the breaks at the top of the obverse preserve us to read the line 2. obv. 1. In Rositani 2003, 131 no. II. 22 (22th.XI.Lugal-year-name), see below text no. 3, another Awīl-Nabium occurs, who too was given as gift to the same god Rammānum by the king and received by the sanga of the deity, the chief-administrator of the temple. In spite of the coincidences and the temporal proximity between the texts, in Rositani 2003, 131 no. II. 22 AwīlNabium is qualified as son of Inbi-erṣetim, man of Ešnunna belonging to Munawwirum; moreover, the sanga of Rammānum is someone else, Anumilī (see below). Therefore, they are two different people with the same name, both given as gift to the same deity, in the same month of the same year. obv. 2. The reconstruction of the term a-˹si-ri˺ is an hypothesis on the basis of the copy of the text. Prisoners from the booty of Isin occurs also in Rositani 2003, 122–123, 125–126, 129–130, 157–158 nos. II. 13, 16 (see below no. 2), 20, 51; Rositani 2017‒2019, 298–299 no. 2; Speleers 1925, 82 no. 250 (see below no. 7); see also Figulla 1914, 20 no. 43 and Rositani 2003, 174– 175 no. II. 72 (prisoners brought back from the “Gate of Isin”); Figulla 1914, 22 no. 50 (prisoners brought back from the “Fortress of the King of Isin”); whereas Loretz 1978, 129–130 no. 20; Rositani 2003, 69 no. I. 13; Seri 2013, 304–305 no. 21 register flour allocations for messengers of Isin. Messengers from Isin are attested in bīt asīrī texts dated from the tenth to the twelfth months of the same Rīm-Anum first year (Lugal-year-name); therefore, in the same months that register in Uruk a great number of war

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

254

Annunziata Rositani

prisoners from this city.14 It would be suggestive to hypothesize that the presence of Isin messengers in Uruk was due to the negotiation to obtain the liberation of their prisoners, thanks to the payment of a ransom or a diplomatic agreement. obv. 4. Here we find the preterit of the verbal form qâšu(m) and the Akkadian šarrum, in the place of the more frequent nì-ba lugal. For qâšu see CAD Q, 156–159 1, especially 157 d with reference to the text here presented (Figulla 1914, 18 no. 36): “to make a votive offering, dedicate”. obv. 6. Iddin-Šamaš occurs also in Rositani 2003, 134 no. II. 25 rev. 3, see below text no. 5. For the sanga-official, as “chief administrator of a temple” see CAD Š/1, 377–382 and AHw s.v. šangû. See also Charpin 2014, 135 (see below text no. 4 note at rev. 7). rev. 11. The Lugal-year-name: mu ri-im-da-nu-um lugal-e, “year (in which) Rīm-Anum (became) king”, is the year-formula of the first year of the RīmAnum reign (Charpin 2014, 125–126). For the reconstruction of the other year-names see lastly Rositani 2020, 4–6 with references to the previous bibliography.

Text 2 Museum no: BM 23214 Edition: Rositani 2003, 125‒126 no. II. 16 Date: 11th(?).XI.Lugal-year-name

rev.

Seal

[I]

˹gur-ru˺-du-um zi-ib-ba-tum!ki a-wi-il-dadad ˹ugula mar-tu˺ lú èš-nun-na 4. ˹na˺-[wi]-ir-be-lí 5. ˹šà˺ [sa]-la-at ì-si-in˹ki˺ 6. [nì]-ba lugal a-˹na dka˺-ni-sur-ra 7. nam-ḫa-ar-ti a-na-dmarduk-at-˹kal˺ sanga dka-ni-˹sur˺-[ra] 8. zi-ga nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-˹mi˺ 9. ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– 10. [itu] zíz-a u4-x+11-˹kam˺ 11. [mu] ri-im-da-nu-um lugal

obv. 1. 2. 3.

uru

[a-na]-d[marduk-at-kal]

14

See also Rositani 2003, 23; Rositani 2018, 45, 47, 54, 59; Rositani 2017‒2019, 290– 291, 295, 299; Rositani 2020, 10–11, 15–17; see also Cavigneaux / Clevenstine 2020, 28 about assignations of flour for messenger from Larsa. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

255

[dumu] i-ri-ba-[am ] [ìr] dnin-[ ] 1–2

Gurrudum of (the town of) Zibbatum; 3Awīl-Adad, the overseer of the Amorites, man of Ešnunna; 4–5Nawir-bēlī, from the booty of Isin. 6Gift (of the) king to the goddess Kanisurra. 7Received by Ana-Marduk-atkal, the chiefadministrator of the temple of the goddess Kanisurra. 8–9 Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. 10–11 Month XI, x+11th day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: Ana-Marduk-atkal, son of Irībam-…, servant of Nin-… Notes The obverse is very damaged, only the right side of the tablet is in an acceptable condition. The reverse, even if better preserved, has a few broken parts at the top and on the right. The poor state of the tablet, which involves the year name, prevents the clear reading of the day number. obv. 1. A break in the lower part of the first and second signs preserved me from reading well this person name in Rositani 2003, 125. Here I am following the collation of Seri 2013, 328. obv. 2. For this name of place, that do not occur in other Rīm-Anum’s texts, see Groneberg 1980, 264; see also there Zibnātum. obv. 3. Awīl-Adad is here qualified with the high military title of ugula mar-tu, literally, “overseers of the Amorites”, followed by the annotation “man of Ešnunna”,15 therefore an eminent war prisoner presented as gift by the lugal to the goddess. obv. 5. Here I am following the collation of Seri 2013, 328. For the other mentions of war prisoners from the booty of Isin see above, previous text, note at obv. 3. rev. 7. War prisoners are offered to Kanisurra also in the text no. 6 (see below) where the chief-administrator of the temple of the goddess is the same AnaMarduk-atkal, see below. See also here, § 4.1 about Rositani 2003, 127–128 no. II. 18, that registers the assignation of a boy by the ugula i7 Asurrûm to the sanga of Kanisurra, no name occurs here. For the role of the sanga see above, previous text note at rev. 8 and below text no. 4 note at rev. 7 with n. 16. rev. 10. The day number is not well preserved. In Sigrist et al. 1996 the text is dated at the 11th day, but one could suggest to read the 21st day of Šabāṭum

15

About Ešnunna see Saporetti 2002; Rositani 2003, 15–26; Charpin 2004, 347–348; van Koppen / Lacambre 2008–2009; Seri 2013, 47–51; Charpin 2014, 129; Guichard 2016, with references to previous bibliography. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

256

Annunziata Rositani

both for the part of signs still readable16 and for the great similarity of the text with Rositani 2003, nos. II. 22, 23, and 25 (here nos. 3, 4, and 5) all dated 22nd.XI.Lugal-year-name and with Rositani 2003, 132–133 no. II. 24 (here no. 6), dated 22nd.XII.Lugal-year-name. Seal. The integration of the seal of the sanga Ana-Marduk-atkal is based on text Rositani 2003, 132–133 no. II. 24, where it is better legible, see below text no. 6.

Text 3 Museum no: BM 16449 Edition: Rositani 2003, 131 no. II. 22 Date: 22nd.XI.Lugal-year-name I a-wi-il-dna-bi-um obv. 1. 2. dumu ˹in˺-bi-er-ṣe-tim lú èš-nun-naki 3. ša mu-na-wi-rum énsi lú èš-nun-˹na˺ki 4. ša dda-gan-ma-AN 5. iš-tu mu-ti-a-ba-alki 6. ú-ša-ri-a-am rev. 7. [nì]-ba lugal a-na dra-˹ma-nu˺-um 8. nam-ḫa-ar-ti IAN-ì-lí 9. sanga dra-ma-nu-um 10. ˹zi-ga!˺ nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi 11. ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– 12. [itu] ˹zíz˺-a u4-22-kam 13. mu ri-im-da-nu-um lugal

Seal

AN-ì-[lí]

[dumu] d˹nin˺-[ ] ìr dra-˹ma˺-[nu-um] 1–2

Awīl-Nabium, son of Inbi-erṣetim, man of Ešnunna, 3of Munawwirum, the énsi, man of Ešnunna, 4–6whom Daganma-AN has sent from Mutiabal, 7gift (of the) king to the god Rammānum. 8–9Received by AN-ilī, the chief-administrator of the temple of the god Rammānum. 10–11Issued at the responsibility of Sînšemi, the overseer of the ‘prisoners of war’. 12–13 Month XI, 22nd day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: AN-ilī, son of Nin-…, servant of the god Rammānum.

16

See Rositani 2003, 243. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

257

Notes The reverse is in extremely poor condition of preservation, totally lost on its left side. The bottom edge too is damaged in the left corner, in correspondence with the month. obv. 2. Seri 2013, 329 reads ˹in!-bi˺-er-ṣe-tim. thanks to a copy of this tablet in the PhD Dissertation of A. Uchitel (no. 12), pointed out to her by M. Stol. She writes that: “The first sign in! is broken and, from the copy, looks like e”. I prefer here to follow her collation for the first sign, whereas the second sign bi is well readable and not broken. obv. 3. A certain Munawwirum, son of a rubûm, i.e. a prince of Ešnunna, likely Narām-Sîn, was active in Tanip where he kept on good terms with the king of Mari, Yakhun-Lim, to which Munawwirum brought clothes.17 rev. 7. As we have seen above, also in Figulla 1914, 18 no. 36 dated 6.XI.Lugalyear-name, war prisoners were given by the king to the god Rammānum, received by the sanga of Rammānum that there is Iddin-Šamaš. The present text is dated only 16 days after Figulla 1914, 18 no. 36, so it is plausible that Iddin-Šamaš and AN-ilī held the office of sanga simultaneously. See below the commentary to text no. 5 rev. 11. Seal. It is an exception that the sanga of the god Rammānum declares himself servant of the same god. See Charpin 2014, 138.

Text 4 Museum no: BM 16453 Edition: Rositani 2003, 131‒132 no. II. 23 Date: 22nd.XI.Lugal-year-name šamaš-na-aḫ-ra-ri lú èš-nun-naki ša i-lu-ni énsi lú èš-nun-naki ša iš-tu mu-ti-a-ba-alki Id da-gan-ma-AN ˹ú˺-ša-ri-a-am [nì]-˹ba˺ lugal a-na dšamaš [nam]-˹ḫa˺-ar-ti Iu-bar-˹d˺šamaš sanga dšamaš 8. zi-˹ga˺ nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi 9. ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– Uninscribed 10. itu zíz-a u4-22-kam

obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. rev. 7.

17

Id

See Saporetti 2002, 222, 226, 231. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

258

Annunziata Rositani

11. Seal

mu ri-im-da-nu-um lugal d

ra-˹ma˺-[nu-um

]

1–2

Šamaš-naḫrari man of Ešnunna, of Ilūni, the énsi, man of Ešnunna,3–5whom Daganma-AN has sent from Mutiabal, 6gift (of the) king to the god Šamaš. 7 Received by Ubār-Šamaš, the chief-administrator of the temple of the god Šamaš. 8–9Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. 10–11 Month XI, 22nd day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: [ ] Rammānum [ ]. Notes The tablet is eroded: the obverse is damaged along the left edge, the bottom corner of the same side has completely broken off. The reverse too is damaged on the left side. obv. 1. For the reading of the personal name I am following here the collation of Seri, 2013, 329.18 obv. 2. Ilūni king of Ešnunna was defeated and killed by Samsu-iluna, according to an inscription of the king of Babylon,19 the so-called inscription “Bilingual C” that records: “the year was not half over when he killed Rīm-Sîn (II), who had caused Emutbalum to rebel, (and) who had been elevated to the kingship of Larsa. In the land of Kiš, he heaped up a burial mound over him. Twentysix rebel kings, his foes, he killed; he destroyed all of them. He defeated Ilūni, the king of Ešnunna, one who had not heeded his decrees, led him off in a neck-stock, and had his throat cut. He made the totality of the land of Sumer and Akkad be at peace, made the four quarters abide by his decree”.20 This inscription could be dated in the 24th year of Samsu-iluna’s reign, seeing as it commemorates the construction of the fortification walls of Kiš, that took place in the 23rd year of Samsu-iluna and was celebrated in the year formula of the following year (Si 24).21 On the basis of this inscription

18

She gave a new reading of the line also thanks to the Uchitel’s (1985) autograph (no. 11), courtesy of M. Stol, that I have never seen. 19 See Kupper 1980, 63 with reference to previous bibliography. 20 Cf. Frayne 1990, 387 no.7 ll. 92–115. 21 Cf. Horsnell 1999, 213–214: mu sa-am-su-i-lu-na lugal-e (lugal) nam-kù-zu mu-unur4-ra bàd kišiki-(a) bàd me-lám-bi kur-kur-ra dul-la gú i7buranun-na mu-un-dù-a (ù) bàd sa-am-su-i-lu-na (lugal) ma-da wa-ru-um-ma-(ke4) gú i7túr-ùl-ka-ta bí-in-dím-ma (x x x x x x TA LÍMMU.BA …). See also Stol 1976, 53; Rositani 2003, 15–27; Seri 2013, 31–36; Charpin 2014, 124–130. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

259

Charpin22 argued that Ilūni reigned and died at the same time as Rīm-Sîn II instead of the 23rd year of Samsu-iluna, as had been previously thought. On this king of Ešnunna new data are now known.23 Nevertheless, the Ilūni, énsi of Ešnunna, who occurs here, cannot be the Ilūni, king of Ešnunna, whereas another énsi of Ešnunna, Munawwirum, occurs in text no. 3, dated at the same day; or maybe is the same Ilūni, before he became king.24 rev. 7. About the sanga of the god Šamaš as an administrator of the temple of this god in Uruk and not as sanga of the Ebabbar of Larsa see Charpin 2014, 135.25 Seal. Maybe the seal could be integrated with the one of the preceding text: ANilī, son of Nin-…, servant of the god Rammānum.26

Text 5 Museum no: BM 86052 Edition: Rositani 2003, 133–134 no. II. 25 Date: 22nd.XI.Lugal-year-name warad-dza-ba4!-ba4! malgûmki ša i-din-dmar-tu malgûmki I ì-lí-ra-bi èš!-nun-naki dumu ḫu-za-lum ˹na/ru˺-ub èš-nun-naki 2 sag-ìr-meš [ša] ˹iš˺-tu mu-ti-a-ba-alki d da-˹gan˺-ma-AN ú-ša-˹ri-a˺-am nì-ba ˹lugal a˺-na dlugal-˹ìr˺-ra dmes-lam-ta-è-a27 nam-ḫa-ar-ti i-din-dšamaš ù lugal-ID-da-me-meš zi-ga nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———–

obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. rev. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

I

22

Cf. Charpin 1998, 33. Cf. Charpin 1986, 127, 175; Charpin 1998; Saporetti 2002, 377; Charpin 2004, 340– 341, 347; Seri 2013, 49–51; Guichard 2016. 24 The title of énsi can have here the meaning of “iššakku-officer” (CAD I/J, 263) or “prominent” of the reign of Ešnunna. See Rositani 2003, 20, 131–132; Guichard 2016, 27–28, differently Seri 2013, 49–51. 25 Charpin 2014, 135: “il est sûr en effet que le saĝa de Šamaš administrait un temple de ce dieu à Uruk, de même que ses collègues voués à Kanisurra ou Rammanum”. 26 See Rositani 2003, 132 n. 237: [AN-ì-lí] [dumu dnin- ] [ìr] dra-˹ma˺-[nu-um]. 27 Cf. Lambert 1987, 143–145. 23

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

260

Annunziata Rositani

14. 15. Seal

Uninscribed itu zíz-a u4-22-kam mu ri-im-da-nu-um lugal Illegible

1–2

Warad-Zababa (man of) Malgûm, of Iddin-Amurrum (man of) Malgûm; Ilī-rabi (man of) Ešnunna, son of Ḫuzālum … (of) Ešnunna: 5–82 male slaves whom Daganma-AN has sent from Mutiabal, 9–10gift (of the) king to the gods Lugal-irra (and) Meslamtaea. 11–12 Received by Iddin-Šamaš and lugal-ID-da-me-meš. 13Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. 14-15 Month XI, 22nd day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: Illegible. 3–4

Notes The tablet is very damaged and crumbly. obv. 1. Malgûm occurs also in Rositani 2003, 123–124 no. II. 14 obv. 6. In this text, dated to the 6th.XI.Lugal-year name, a certain Ḫummurum of IbbiAmurrum, the ugula mar-tu of Malgûm, was given to the “house of the birds”, or “poultry house” together with two other slaves of other people, one of these slaves belonged to another important military official, Inbi-erṣetim, the ugula mar-tu (obv. 2). For a synthesis of the main hypotheses about the geographical location of Malgûm see Groneberg 1980, 156–157. It has at last been established, thanks to a letter of Yarîm-Addu (no.373 [A.223]), that it lays on the route between Susa and Babylon (cf. ARMT 26 2, 154), probably along the bank of the Tigris at North-East of Maškan-šapir. obv. 4. Maybe it could be suggested the reading: ˹ru˺-ub èš-nun-naki, rubûm i.e. prince of Ešnunna.28 A certain Ḫuzālum features in a contract loan, coming from the town of Šaduppûm, that registers a great amount of barley. In this contract among the debtors occurs Igilḫluma, šakkanakkum of Zaralulu during the reign of Ibālpî-El II of Ešnunna, whereas the loan is granted by a Ḫuzālum, probably an official of Ešnunna, since the šakkanakkum had to repay the loan to this town.29 Nevertheless between the reign of Ibāl-pî-El II of Ešnunna (1779– 1765 BC) and the reign of Rīm-Anum (1742–1740 BC), passed too many years to suggest that this guarantor might be identified with the Ḫuzālum

28 29

See Rositani 2003, 133 n. 241. See Saporetti 2002, 112. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

261

mentioned in the text here presented, unless we hypothesize a very long activity for him. rev. 9. Seri 2013, 330 suggests the reading dlugal-gìr-ra. I prefer here my previous reading ìr, also based on my copy of the sign. rev. 11. As already seen, Iddin-Šamaš occurs in text no. 1 as sanga-official, the chief-administrator of the temple, of the god Rammānum. We could suppose that he is the same person as in the text here presented, if we hypothesize that Iddin-Šamaš, from the temple of Rammānum, where he was sanga simultaneously to AN-ilī,30 accesses to the other temple where he carried out the role of sanga too, or something similar, since in the text here presented the mention of the sanga-office do not occur. If this hypothesis is true, the intrusion of Iddin-Šamaš in the administration of the temple of gods Lugalirra and Meslamtaea, let us suppose a connection between these temples and a more prestigious role of the Rammānum temple. However, there is another possibility: that in the 16 days between the two texts, from the 6th to the 22nd of month XI of the first year of Rīm-Anum’s reign, the same official changed his role from sanga of the god Rammānum to sanga, together with another official, of the gods Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea. Thus, instead of presuming that Iddin-Šamaš and AN-ilī held the office of sanga simultaneously, we may suppose a change of officials: Iddin-Šamaš passed from chief-administrator of the temple of Rammānum to administrator of the one of Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea, whereas AN-ilī replaced him, becoming the new chief-administrator of the temple of Rammānum. Nevertheless, it is known that the sangas often belonged to a few families, indeed the sangaoffice was usually transmitted from father to son, inside the same family, such as true dynasties of sangas are known from Sippar31 and so at Ešnunna for the temple of Ištar Kitītum of Ishchali-Nērebtum.32 On the other hand we know that in Sippar it is attested a second sanga,33 so it is more likely that Iddin-Šamaš and AN-ilī were simultaneously sangas of the temple of Rammānum, and that Iddin-Šamaš carried out an office also in the temple of Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea. It is also possible that the name is the same, but they are two different people.

30

See above the text no. 3. See also Seri 2013, 199. See Tanret 2010, especially 201–204. 32 See Saporetti 2002, 231 with references to previous bibliography. 33 See Tanret 2010, especially 202–204. 31

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

262

Annunziata Rositani

Text 6 Museum no: BM 23227 Edition: Rositani 2003, 132–133 no. II. 24 Date: 22nd.XII.Lugal-year-name ˹I˺a-˹sa-li?˺-[ia] šà lú a-si-˹ri˺ ša it-ti Iwarad-˹tu-tu-ubki˺ il-li-ku-nim-˹ma˺ [ ] Id da-gan-ma-˹AN˺ ú-ša-ri-˹a˺-[am] nì-ba lugal a-na ˹d˺[ka-ni]-˹sur-ra˺ nam-ḫa-ar-ti a-na-˹dmarduk-at˺-[kal] sanga dka-ni-sur-ra 9. zi-ga nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– 10. itu še!-kin-kud u4-22-kam 11. mu ri-im-da-nu-um lugal

obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. rev. 8.

Seal

a-na-d˹marduk˺-[at-kal] dumu i-ri-ba-˹am˺ [ ] ìr dnin-[ ]

1–2

Asalija(?), out of the prisoners of war 3–4who came with Warad-Tutub, Daganma-AN had sent, 7gift (of the) king to the goddess Kanisurra. 8Received by Ana-Marduk-atkal, the chief-administrator of the temple of the goddess Kanisurra. 9Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. 10–11 Month XII, 22nd day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: Ana-Marduk-atkal, son of Irībam-…, servant of Nin-… 5–6

Notes The obverse is in extremely poor condition of preservation, badly damaged in all the right side with two major broken parts at the top and bottom corners. The reverse is better preserved. obv. 1. For this personal name see Ranke 1905, 67 and recently Streck 2000, 201, 228–229, 388. obv. 3. Here I accept the collation of Seri 2013, 329. rev. 8. As already seen, Ana-Marduk-atkal, occurs as chief-administrator of the temple of the goddess Kanisurra also above in text no. 2. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

263

rev. 10. Here too I follow the collation of Seri 2013, 330, although the first sign of the month seems to be šu more than še.34 Seal. The seal of Ana-Marduk-atkal is here better readable than in text no. 2, nevertheless his role of the sanga of the goddess Kanisurra is not indicated in it. The same happens in the seal of AN-ilī, sanga of Rammānum (see above text no. 3).

Text 7 Museum no.: MRAH O.0154 (CDLI no. P387786) Edition: Speleers 1925, 82 no. 250 Date: not dated obv. 1′. [ ] 2′. [ ] ˹x˺ [ ] 3′. ˹nì-šu˺ ˹x x˺-su-um ugula mar-tu 4′. éren-meš bi-ir-tim 5′. šà ša-la-at 6′. ì-si-inki 7′. nì-ba lugal 8′. a-na dna-na-a rev. 9′. nam-ḫa-ar-ti 10′. Idnin-urta-ib-ni-šu 11′. ù i-ku-un-ka 12′. zi-ga nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi 13′. ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– Sealed Broken, date lost Seal

i-ku-un-ka ˹dumu˺ li-˹x˺-[ ] ìr [ ]

… … 3′responsibility of [ ]-sum, overseer of the Amorites, 4′–6′troop of the fort from the booty of Isin, 7′–8′gift (of the) king to the goddess Nanāya. 9′–11′Received by Ninurta-ibnīšu and Ikūn-pî. 12′–13′ Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. … Seal: Ikūn-pî, son of Li-…, servant of … 34

See Rositani 2003, 133 and 243. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

264

Annunziata Rositani

Notes Unfortunately the text is damaged in correspondence with the date, but we can suppose that it belongs to Rīm-Anum’s reign thanks to the mention of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. Moreover, it could be dated likely to the Rīm-Anum’s Lugal-year-name, thanks to the comparison with the other texts which register war prisoners as king gifts for deities. The mention of the booty of Isin may confirm this hypothesis, see above about the texts nos. 1, 2, and below no. 8. obv. 1′–3′. Here I follow the collation of Seri 2013, 342 based on the picture of the tablet. obv. 4′. See below no. 8. obv. 8′. About the goddess Nanāya see Stol 1998, 146–151; see also Charpin 2014, 131 with n. 55 about an interesting prophecy of the goddess Nanāya found at Uruk, inside the Sîn-kāšid palace in which the goddess announces to her messenger: “Jusqu’à ce que j’installe un pasteur fidèle et fasse revivre Uruk (qui était) morte, tu moundrai la ration-sûtum d’Uruk”. rev. 11′. The reading of this name I suggest here is based on the picture in CDLI (no. P387786). We do not have any indication here about the function of these two people who received the prisoners; we may presume that Ninurtaibnīšu and Ikūn-pî are both temple officials, seeing as they received the gift for the goddess Nanāya, however they are not qualified as sanga. Seal. The reading of the seal I suggest here is based on the picture in CDLI.

3 Two unpublished “nì-ba lugal ana DN” texts from the British Museum35 To these already published texts, we can add two unpublished texts coming from the bīt asīrī, kept at the British Museum, that register the gift of prisoners by the king to the gods Šubula and Enlil.36 35

I wish to express all my gratitude to the Trustees of the British Museum especially to Dr. Jonathan Taylor (Assistant Keeper / Curator of Cuneiform Collections in The Department of the Middle East) for giving me the opportunity to study and take photos of the unpublished tablets here edited. I am also very grateful to Dr. Christopher Walker (Curator of Cuneiform Collections, now retired) for bringing to my attention many unpublished Old Balylonian texts, among which the ones here published. 36 I had the opportunity to study these texts thanks to the financial support granted by the Italian Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca through the PRIN 2015 project “Cambiamento e continuità nell’amministrazione, nella gestione e nel valore del lavoro nell’antica Mesopotamia, dal periodo neo-sumerico a quello paleo-babilonese (XXI–XVI secc. a.C.): nuove fonti. Edizione e studio comparato di materiale cuneiforme di tre collezioni (British Museum, Harvard Semitic Museum e Yale Babylonian Collection)” (2015PFPLLP; Principal investigator: F. Pomponio). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

265

Text 8 Museum no: BM 86108 Edition: unpublished37 Date: 7th.XI.Lugal-year-name Size (mm): 43×38×22 I ta-ri-˹bu˺-[um] obv. 1. 2. šà ša-al-la-˹at ì-si-in˺ki 3. nì-šu ap-pa-˹su˺-[um?] ˹ugula˺ mar-tu 4. éren-meš bi-ir-˹tim GÌR? DU6 5˺ 5. šà ša-la-˹at˺ 6. ì-si-in˹ki˺ lo.e. 7. nì-ba lugal rev. 8. a-na dšu-bu-la 9. ˹nam-ḫa-ar-ti˺ dnin-urta-[ ] 10. sanga dšu-bu-la 11. zi-ga nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi 12. ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– Unwritten, sealed up.e. 13. iti zìz-a u4-7-kam 14. mu ri-im-da-nu-um ˹lugal˺

Seal

[d]nin-urta-[ dumu ì-lí-[ ] ìr [ ]

]

1–2

Taribum from the booty of Isin, 3responsibility of Appasum(?), overseer of the Amorites, 4troop of the fort …, 5–6from the booty of Isin, 7–8gift (of the) king to the god Šubula. 9–10Received by Ninurta-…, chief-administrator of the temple of the god Šubula. 11–12 Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. 13–14 Month XI, 7th day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: Ninurta-…, son of Ili-…, servant of … Notes The text is very similar to text no. 7 (see above) which might strengthen the hypothesis that this text also should be dated at the Šabāṭum month (XI) of the Rīm-Anum lugal-year-name.

37

The text has been catalogued in Seri 2013, 141, 347 and 404. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Annunziata Rositani

266

obv. 3. Maybe the same ugula mar-tu occurs also in text no. 7 obv. 3′. obv. 4–6. See above text no. 7 obv. 4′–6′. rev. 8. About Šubula, an underworld deity, son of Nergal, see Michalowski 2013, 241 with references to previous bibliography. rev. 9. I wonder if he could be the same Ninurta-ibnīšu as in text no. 7 rev. 10′ who receives, together with Ikūn-pî, the prisoner-gift from the king for the goddess Nanāya. As seen above, in text no. 7 Ninurta-ibnīšu is not qualified as sanga of Nanāya, however he must be a temple official, maybe of both deities as seen above about Iddin-Šamaš chief-administrator of the temple of Rammānum and in same time administrator of the temple of Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea too (see above note to text no. 5 rev. 11).

Text 9 Museum no: BM 88590A Edition: unpublished38 Date: 22nd.XI.Lugal-year-name Size (mm): 41×43×25 a-hu-ši-na lú èš-nun-naki ša dEN.ZU-e-ri-ba-am na/ru-ub lú ˹èš˺-nun-naki ša dda-gan-ma-AN iš-tu mu-ti-a-ba-alki ù-ša-ri-a-am ˹nì˺-ba lugal a-na dEN.LÍL Unwritten, sealed 7. ˹nam-ḫa˺-ar-ti ˹i˺-din-˹dEN.LÍL˺ 8. ˹sanga˺ dEN.LÍL 9. zi-ga nì-šu dEN.ZU-še-mi 10. ugula a-si-ri ———––––––––––––––——————–––———– Unwritten, sealed 11. iti zíz-a u4-22-kam 12. mu ri-im-da-nu-um lugal

obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. lo.e. 6. rev.

Seal

I

˹i-din-dEN.LÍL˺ dumu dna-˹x x˺ [ ] ìr ri-im-d[a-nu-um]

1–2

Aḫūšina, man of Ešnunna, of Sîn-erībam, … man of Ešnunna, 3–5whom Daganma-AN has sent from Mutiabal, 6gift (of the) king to the god Enlil. 38

The text has been catalogued in Seri 2013, 48 n. 32, 114, 115, 121, 141, 349, 405. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

267

7–8

Received by Iddin-Enlil, chief-administrator of the temple of the god Enlil. Issued at the responsibility of Sîn-šemi, the overseer of the prisoners of war. 11-12 Month XI, 22nd day (of the) year “Rīm-Anum (became) king”. Seal: Iddin-Enlil, son of Na-…, servant of Rīm-Anum. 9–10

Notes obv. 2. Maybe here as in text no. 5 obv. 4 it could be suggested the reading: ˹ru˺-ub èš-nun-naki, prince of Ešnunna; see above the note at text no. 5 obv. 4.

4 Other attestations 4.1 One more “ana sanga Kanisurra” attestation in Rīm-Anum’s texts Slightly different is the occurrence in Rositani 2003, 127–128 no. II. 18 (13th.XI.Lugal-year-name). Here we find two registrations. In the first we read: “one young man, Sîn-ašarēd of Marduk-naṣir, the overseer of the Asurrûm canal, (who has been given) to the chief-administrator of the temple of the goddess Kanisurra” (obv. 1–3). In the continuation, the text registers another delivery: “one young man, Awīl-Adad, conveyor Marduknaṣir, who had been taken from the house of the housekeeper and was given to Ṣillī-Ištar, (man of) Kisurra” (obv. 4–rev. 3). The conveyor of the second registration is probably the same Marduk-naṣir, overseer of the Asurrûm canal, who occurs in obv. 2. In this text the young man given to the sanga of Kanisurra is not qualified as nì-ba lugal ana Kanisurra, so it is likely that he had been given personally to the sanga by Marduk-naṣir, the only authoritative person in the text, in which, unusually, Sîn-šemi does not occur at all.39 The second registration in the text, in which the same Marduk-naṣir moves a young man from the house of the housekeeper to Ṣillī-Ištar, (man of) Kisurra, seems to confirm this hypothesis. The same Marduk-naṣir, overseer of the Asurrûm canal, occurs in Rositani 2003, 157–158 no. II. 51, which registers the delivery of a group of female and male slaves for the female weavers, among which there is a prisoner, “Kunši-šarratum, out of the group of Marduk-naṣir, the overseer of the Asurrûm canal” (obv. 5–6), such as “Šīma-aḫāti, from the booty of Isin, who has been taken from the group of Sîn-ibnīšu, the overseer of the soldiers” (obv. 7–rev. 1). So it seems that these prisoners, captured respectively by Marduk-naṣir and Sîn-ibnīšu, have been assigned by them to the house of the weavers. Similarly, in Rositani 2003, 156–157 no. II. 50 is registered the delivery of 14 male and female slaves of Marduk-naṣir, overseer of the Asurrûm canal, to Sîn-bēl-ilī, overseer of the female weavers. 39

See also Rositani 2020, 18 with n. 61. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

268

Annunziata Rositani

Thanks to these occurrences we can say that Marduk-naṣir, such as other military officials, has the power to assign war prisoners out of his group to centres or authorities people, and to move prisoners from one to another “house”, household, specialists or authorities people where they will be used as forced labor.40 On the other hand, the dating of Rositani 2003, 127–128 no. II. 18 at the 13th day of month XI of the Lugal-year-name, so close to the donations of prisoners by the king to the same goddess Kanisurra in text no. 2 (see above), let us to imagine the same historical context of the other assignations of prisoners as gift of the king to god and goddess. 4.2 Other attestations of nì-ba lugal In the text Loretz 1978, 137 and 159 (copy) no. 39 (BM 14228), dated to the 10th.VII.Unug-year-name, Warad-Ištar from the retinue (ri-du-ut) of Etel-pîŠamaš and Ninurta-abī taken from the house of the weavers is presented by the king (nì-ba lugal) to Ibanni-ilum, the sipad-shepherd. Moreover, in the text Rositani 2003, 169 no. II. 65 (BM 15713), dated to the 21st(?).VIII.Unug-yearname41 we read that a man Saniq-qabūša of Ea-bēl-ilī, who is under the responsibility of Sîn-bēl-ilī, is given as gift by the king (nì-ba lugal) to IbniAdad. The mention of Sîn-bēl-ilī, well known overseer of the weavers (ugula mí uš-barmeš) as the person under which authority is Saniq-qabūša let us to understand that the man presented by the king to Ibni-Adad had been previously employed as weaver at the é míuš-barmeš. 4.3 Another nì-ba attestation in a Rīm-Anum text Finally, the term nì-ba occurs in one more text, Sanati-Müller 1996, 394 no. 254, dated to the reign of Rīm-Anum, coming not from the bīt asīrī but from the Sîn-kāšid palace. However, here the gift is not for a deity but for a man, Irība-[ ], and the object of the gift is not a prisoner but 20 bundles of reeds for a goldsmith and maybe a silversmith, if the reconstruction of the blank is right:42

40

About the assignment of the war prisoners see also Charpin 2014, especially 132; Rositani 2018, 2017‒2019 and 2020. For a comparison with the assignment of the deportees in the archives of Mari see Lion 1997 and 2004 (especially 221–224). 41 The number of days is written 20 and followed by three vertical wedges one on the top of the other, see Rositani 2003, 169 no. II. 65 Rev. 1 and 246 (with the copy of the sign). Therefore, it could be an irregular 1 or an irregular 3, whereas I would exclude that it is “even a faulty 9”, as suggested by Andrea Seri (see Seri 2013, 338). 42 See Sanati-Müller 1996, 394 n. 112. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. rev.

20 giḫi.a a-na kù-dím ù [ ] nì-ba i-ri-ba-x-[ ] šu-ti-a na?-su-um-x [ ] Lost

Seal

[ ] ˹dumu˺ [ ] x AN ˹x˺ [ì]r ˹ri˺-im-da-[nu-um]

269

Notes This text is part of a group of texts discovered in the Sîn-kāšid palace, where 86 more texts dated to Rīm-Anum have been discovered during systematic excavations, the majority of which in area 30. For a list of these texts see Rositani 2018, 44; Rositani 2017‒2019, 289, and, lastly, Rositani 2020, 3. See also Charpin 2014, 123–124 especially n. 16 and Seri 2013, 25, 110. obv. 3. An Irībam-[ ] occurs in texts nos. 2 and 6 above as patronymic in the seal of Ana-Marduk-atkal.

5 Conclusive remarks As we can see in the texts here analysed, the war prisoners that the king presented to different deities were always male and in the majority of cases were qualified as “men of Ešnunna” or connected to people of Ešnunna, such as in texts nos. 2, 4, 5, and 9. Sometimes the prisoners were high-ranking military officers, as for instance Awīl-Adad, the ugula mar-tu of Ešnunna (text no. 2) or were connected with important people, such as Munawwirum (text no. 3) qualified as énsi lú Ešnunna, “officer” or “prominent” of the reign of Ešnunna, already known elsewhere as rubûm, “prince of Ešnunna”, or Ilūni (text no. 4), who is qualified here as énsi lú Ešnunna too and known as king (šarrum) of Ešnunna in other sources. Moreover, it is likely that also Ḫuzālum (text no. 5) and Sîn-erībam (in text no. 9) could be qualified as rubûm, “prince of Ešnunna”. Prisoners presented to deities were often sent from Mutiabal by Daganma-AN (texts no. 3, 4, 5, and 9) and they were mainly men of Ešnunna. In text no. 5 one of the two prisoners sent from Mutiabal by Daganma-AN is qualified as a man of Malgûm, of another man of Malgûm. Daganma-AN, who sent a war prisoners to Uruk also in text no. 6, could be a king of Mutiabal or a claimant to the throne in this area, ally of Uruk or at RīmAnum’s service, or, more likely, a prestigious military ranking under the order of the king of Uruk.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

270

Annunziata Rositani

In many texts the war prisoners are qualified as “booty” (šallatum) of Isin, such as in texts no. 1, 2, 7, and twice in text no. 8. Texts no. 7 and 8 provide additional information: the war prisoners from the booty of Isin are troops of a fort. Considering the shared characteristics of war prisoners given to deities as royal gifts, it is not unlikely that these men enjoyed a preferential treatment, in fact it is possible that in the temples they may have worked at less hard jobs than the other prisoners. Moreover, since they were of higher status, giving them to the temples could be a way to preserve them, because they could eventually have been exchanged to rescue other prisoners, or in exchange for a ransom, or to negotiate agreements with other kings. Their high status gives them an accordingly high value. Furthermore, we see that all the texts in which a prisoner of war occurs as gift for a god or a goddess is dated to the first year of Rīm-Anum (Rīm-Anum Lugal-year-name or Rīm-Anum 0 according to the reconstruction of Charpin 2014, 129), the majority of which at month XI (7 texts), one text at month XII, whereas the date of text no. 7 is lost, even if thanks to its great similarity to text no. 8 it would be possible to suggest its dating at month XI of the Lugal-yearname too. The fact that 7 texts out of 9 are dated certainly to the same month, and 4 thereof even at the same day, is very interesting: 22nd.XI.Lugal-year-name (texts nos. 3, 4, 5, and 9). Thanks to these data it is possible to reconstruct a military action of Rīm-Anum together with his allies at the beginning of month XI of his first year or immediately before, in the VIII. month, during which many important prisoners were captured from Isin, Mutiabal, Malgûm and Ešnunna, the same places that the king Rīm-Anum said to have defeated in his third year name. The gift of prisoners to the most important deities could also refer to a specific situation: a public event probably in the course of a triumph. The hypothesis of a public dedication of the captives to the temples could be connected to the proclamation of a mîšarum edict by Rīm-Anum in his first year of reign (according to Charpin 2014, 126–127; see also Charpin 1987), mentioned in his second year of reign, the Unug-year-name, as it is possible to see in the complete year formula: mu ri-im-da-nu-um lugal-e numun-da-rí namen-na-ke4 unugki-ga ù á-dam-bi un sùḫ-a-bi si bí-in-sá (/ mi-ni-ib-gi4), year 1 according to Charpin 2014, 129. Thus, the new king tried to secure his newly achieved power by seeking support from the people and the clergy.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

271

Bibliography Arnaud, D., Textes Relatifs à l’histoire de Larsa. I, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 71 (1977) 3–8. Cavigneaux A. / Clevenstine E., MAH 16526 - Bīt asīrī flour receipt, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2020, 27–28, no. 12. Charpin, D., review of S.D. Simmons, Early Old Babylonian Documents (Yale Oriental Series 14), New Haven / London 1978, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 36 (1979) 193–194. — A propos du bīt-asīrī sous Rīm-Anum, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 74 (1980) 75–76. — Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe–XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.) (Hautes études orientales 22), Genève / Paris 1986. — Les décrets royaux à l’époque paléo-babylonienne, à propos d’une ouvrage récente, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 34 (1987) 36–44. — Iluni, roi d’Ešnunna, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1998, 33–34, no. 29. — Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002–1595), in: Charpin, D. et al. (eds.), Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 106/4), Fribourg / Göttingen 2004, 25–480. — Chroniques Bibliographiques 15. Le royaume d’Uruk et le Pays d’Apum, Deux voisins de Babylone vaincus par Samsu-iluna, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 108 (2014) 121–160. Durand, J.M., Documents cuneiform de la IVe Section de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Tome I. Catalogue et copies cuneiformes (HEO 18), Paris / Genève 1982. Farber, G., SAG as pars pro toto for “person” and “dead body”, in: Sefati, Y. et al. (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, Bethesda 2005, 108–115. Feigin, S.I., The Captives in Cuneiform Inscriptions, in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 50 (1934) 217–245. Figulla, H.H., Altbabylonische Verträge. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, vol. XIII, Leipzig 1914. Fish, Th., A-sa on Ur III Telloh Tablets (Manchester Cuneiform Studies 7), Manchester 1957. Frayne, D.R., Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595bc) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, vol. 4), Toronto / Buffalo / London 1990. Gelb, I.J., Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973) 70–98. — Terms for Slaves in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: Dandamayev, M.A. et al. (eds.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster 1982, 81–98.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

272

Annunziata Rositani

Groneberg, B., Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes III. Die Ortsund Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit, Wiesbaden 1980. Guichard, M., Guerre et diplomatie: Lettres d’Iluni roi d’Ešnunna d’un collection privée, in: Semitica 58 (2016) 17–59. Horsnell, M.J.A., The Year Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon, vol. 1, Hamilton 1999. Kupper, J.R., Iluni, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5 (1980) 63. Lambert, W.G., Lugal-irra and Meslamta-ea, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7 (1987) 143–145. Leemans, W.F., The asīru, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 55 (1961) 57–76. Lion, B., Les enfants des familles déportées de Mésopotamie du nord à Mari en ZL 1ʼ, in: Ktèma 22 (1997) 109–118. — Les familles royales et les artisans déportés à Mari en ZL 12ʼ, in: Nicolle, C. (ed.), Nomades et sédentaires en Mésopotamie. Compte Rendue de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 10–13 juillet 2000) (Amurru 3), Paris 2004, 217–224. Loretz, O., Die ASĪRUM-texte (I), in: Ugarit-Forschungen 10 (1978) 121‒160. Michalowski, P., Šubula, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 13 (2013) 241. Michalowski, P. / Beckman, G., The Promulgation of the Name of the Third Year of Rim-Anum of Uruk, in: Boiy, T. et al. (eds.), The Ancient Near East, a Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 220), Leuven 2012, 425–433. Oberhuber, K., Sumerische und akkadische Keilschriftdenkmäler des Archäologischen Museum zu Florenz, Innsbruck 1960. Pomponio, F. / Rositani, A., Rīm-Anum di Uruk, in: Dietrich, M. / Kottsieper, I. (eds.) Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden Schülern und Kollegen (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 250), Münster 1998, 635–649. Ranke, H., Early Babylonian Personal Names from the Published Tablets in the So-Called Hammurabi Dynasty (B.C. 2000) (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Series D. Researches and Treatises 3), Philadelphia 1905. Rositani, A., Rīm-Anum Texts in the British Museum (Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 4), Messina / Roma 2003. — Some Rīm-Anum Texts from the bīt asīrī Kept at the British Museum, in: Rivista degli Studi Orientali 82 (2009) 97‒121. — More Rīm-Anum’s Texts from the bīt asīrī, in: Semitica. Cahiers publiés par l’Institut d’Études Sémitiques du Collège de France 56 (2014) 35‒64.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

273

— From Freedom to Slavery: Work and Words at the House of Prisoners of War in the Old Babylonian Period, in: Journal of Global Slavery 3 (2018) 41‒67. — I prigionieri di guerra come forza lavoro asservita a Uruk durante il regno di Rīm-Anum, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 34‒36 (2017‒2019) 287‒305. — The Public Management of War Prisoners Within and Outside the bīt asīrī, in: Archiv Orientální 88 (2020) 193‒219. Sanati-Müller, Sh., Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Fünfter Teil. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts II, in: Baghdader Mitteilungen 23 (1992) 119–161. — Texte aus dem Sîn-kāšid-Palast. Neunter Teil. Rohrtexte, in: Baghdader Mitteilungen 27 (1996) 365–399. — Kollationen zu ‘Ein Tontafelarchiv aus dem Palast des Sîn-kāšid in Uruk’ von Gerlinde Mauer, in: Baghdader Mitteilungen 31 (2000) 181–193. Saporetti, C., La rivale di Babilonia. Storia di Ešnunna ai tempi di Ḫammurapi, Roma 2002. Scheil, V., Le nouveaux roi Rīmānum, in: Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 20 (1898) 64–65. Seri, A., The Mesopotamian Collection in the Kalamazoo Valley Museum, in: Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2007:1 (2007) 1–45. — The House of Prisoners. Slavery and State in Uruk during the Revolt against Samsu-iluna (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 2), Boston / Berlin 2013. Sigrist, M. et al., Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, vol. II, London 1996. Simmons, S.D., Early Old Babylonian Documents (Yale Oriental Series 14), New Haven / London 1978. Speleers, L., Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie antérieure des Musées royaux du cinquantenaire à Bruxelles: textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens, Bruxelles 1925. Steinert, U., Aspekte des Menschseins im Alten Mesopotamien. Eine Studie zu Person und Identität im 2. und 1. Jt. v. Chr (Cuneiform Monographs 44), Leiden / Boston 2012. Steinkeller, P., Sale Documents of the Ur III Period (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 17), Stuttgart 1989. Stol, M., Studies in Old Babylonian History, Leiden 1976. — Nanâya, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9 (1998) 146–151. — Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit, in: Charpin, D. et al. (eds.) Mesopotamien: die altbabylonische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 106/4), Fribourg / Göttingen 2004, 643–975. — Rīm-Anum, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11 (2006) 366–367.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

274

Annunziata Rositani

— Sklave, Sklaverei. B. Altbabylonisch, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12 (2011) 564–571. Streck, M., Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band 1. Die Amurriter. Die onomastiche Forschung. Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 271/1), Münster 2000. Tanret, M., The Seal of the Sanga: On the Old Babylonian Sangas of Šamaš of Sippar-Jaḫrūrum and Sippar-Amnānum (Cuneiform Monographs 40), Leiden / Boston 2010. van der Toorn, K., Judges xvi 21 in the Light of Akkadian Sources, in: Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986) 248–253. van Koppen, F. / Lacambre, D., Sippar and the Frontier between Ešnunna and Babylon. New Sources for the History of Ešnunna in the Old Babylonian Period, in: Ex Oriente Lux 41 (2008–2009) 151–177. Westbrook, R., Old Babylonian Period, in: Westbrook, R. (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (Handbuch der Orientalistik 72), Leiden 2003, 361–430.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

War Prisoners as Gifts of the King Rīm-Anum for Goddesses and Gods

Figure 1. Text 8 = BM 86108

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

275

276

Annunziata Rositani

Figure 2. Text 9 = BM 88590A

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

The River Ordeal in the Third Millennium BC Cristina Simonetti

1 Introduction1 Trial by ordeal was a judicial tool adopted both in ancient and in medieval periods to determine the guilt or the innocence of someone in the absence of clear and proven evidence. It was always of a physical nature. In Ancient Mesopotamia trial by ordeal was known as river ordeal. The accused party was thrown in a river (usually the Euphrates River, but sometimes a canal) and expected to swim back to shore if innocent. Failure to do so indicated guilt. Another use of the trial by ordeal was when the ownership of something of value, whether be land, slaves, livestock, quantity of silver or barley, and other exchange goods, had to be ascertained. While there is plenty of information concerning river ordeal as used in the last two millennia BC,2 very little is known regarding the Third Millennium BC. As a matter of fact only four juridical texts remain to now, three dating back to the Sargonic, or Old Akkadian Period, and one to the Neo-Sumerian Period.3 1

I dedicate this research to my dear friend and professor Francesco Pomponio, who was my first professor of Akkadian and read with me and other colleagues (Lucilla and Guido) the Ebla texts and the Old Babylonian letters some years ago. 2 Dossin 1939; Bottéro 1981; Freymer-Kensky 1977; Heimpel 1996; Festuccia 2016. 3 There are also some others documents relating the river ordeal, but they are administrative and literary documents, so they are not useful for the topic of this paper, that is juridical. The administrative texts (AUCT 1 276, CST 252, SAT 2 709 and other interesting ones) are quoted by Heimpel 2009 and attested some gifts given to people came back from the river ordeal, or some expenditure for people who have something to do with the river ordeal. There is also an attestation in Verderame 2012, related to a throne. Finally, there is an interesting literary text: some lines from the Nungal Hymn, edited by Sjöberg 1973, and then by Civil 1993. The translation of Civil is: “When the time (for the trial) has come, the Prison is made up as for a public festival / The gods are present at the palace of interrogation, at the river ordeal / separating the Honest from the Evildoer, it gives birth to a just one”, and his comment (Civil 1993, 74) is: “It is not clear whether the trial is metaphorically compared to a River Ordeal, or an ordeal effectively takes place”. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Cristina Simonetti

278

2 The Sargonic texts The three texts which date back to this period are different from one another. The first (TMH 5 49)4 is a sort of procedure of ordeal trial. Unfortunately it is badly damaged and we can only read the name of the person who stood the trial but the reason why he had to stand it is unknown. We don’t know the name of the official who witnessed the trial either. The second document (TMH 5 159)5 is possibly an administrative record which lists seventeen ordeal trials along with the names of people who stood the trial, the reason for it, and the names of the officials who supervised the trial. None of the documents say anything about the result of the trial. Finally the last document (FLP 37)6 is a certification issued to the person who stood the trial for someone else and survives the ordeal. In this case the recording doesn’t mention the reason why he had to stand his trial nor the name of the official who supervised the event. Yet, the record mentions three witnesses of which two are women. Here are the translated texts. TMH 5 49 Ur-Enlila, son of Enlile, (from ?) é-LÚ.BU, went down to the river concerning … from IN. Seal … (broken) … TMH 5 159 1. Concerning a field, [N]in-barage [and …] went down to the river. Umu-ili, the cupbearer, was the commissioner. 2. Concerning 1 lidga of barley, Girini, Ur …, Aneda, Enlilra, Amar-Ezinu (and) Lugalra instead of Lugalkar, … went down to the river. [blank line] 3. Concerning a field, Lugal-ša, the farmer, (and) Lugal-inim-gina, (from) Mašpada went down to the river. Adda-tur was the commissioner. 4. Concerning a slave [x]+5 shekel of silver, Nin-a-maḫ instead of Ur-Ezinu, the merchant, went down to the river. UD.UD, the cupbearer, was the commissioner. 5. Concerning 3 sheep …, the slave of Kaba instead of Umu-ili, the man of the great scribe, went down to the river. Urki was the commissioner. 6. Concerning 25 iku Šeš-[band]a (and) Lugal-usarmu […] went down to the river. Ur-emaḫ, the barber, was the commissioner. 7. Concerning 1 mana and 6 shekels of silver, 1 bovine and 50 lidga of barley … belong(?) to Lugal-usar-mu. Šeš-… went down to the river. [blank line] 4

Falkenstein 1941–1944; Edzard 1968, 153–154 no. 98. Falkenstein 1941–1944; Edzard 1968, 154–160 no. 99; Westenholz 1975, 79–81 no. 159. 6 Owen 1988. 5

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

The River Ordeal in the Third Millennium BC

279

8. Concerning 9 iku Ur-eša, … for Šeš-banda, the priestnašakku went down to the river. Lugara was the commissioner. 9. Concerning a field LUL.KA the … (and) Ur-Nusku, son of Šeš-tur went down to the river. Ur-Gula, the cupbearer was the commissioner. 10. Concerning … Nin… wife of Mašda went down to the river. Sud-gala, the barber, was the commissioner. 11. Concerning a field Lugal-ezen (and) Ur-Ezida went down to the river. Lugalnigzu was the commissioner. 12. Concerning 9 iku Ur-BU.ḪA.[…] … went down to the river. Amar-… was the commissioner. 13. 1/2 sar of house belongs to Mizani. Inanna-ursag paid 1/3 mana of silver. U[D].UD, son of Inanna-ursag instead of Nin-durra went down to the river. [blank line] 14. Concerning 3 sar […]-Enlil (and) Lugal-men went down to the river. Lugalezen, son of […], was the [commi]ssioner. 15. Concerning 1/3 mana of silver, Tirku, the merchant, Lugal-nì-BE-du with Adda-tur went down to the river. Ur-Sud-da was the commissioner. 16. [Concerning] […] [U]mu-ilikam7, Ua, with Nu-KA-a, Ua went down to the river. Ur-Iškura was the commissioner. 17. Concerning a field Sadu-Bea, IGI.DU-da (?), Ur-Mama (?) went down to the river for a vine (?). … was the commissioner. FLP 37 Ur-Dumuzi has come (out8 from the river ordeal). For Ur-Enlila,9 from (the place) Ninhursag at the River, he (i.e. Ur-Dumuzi) came forth for him. Its (i.e., the ordeal’s) assertory oath he swore to him. [Blank line] With respect to the “charge”, he “absolved” him. [Blank line]. Ur-sa, the shepherd of the sanga; Kubunari, the wife of Ur-eš[lil], the mer, Ninani, the wife of Eḫe, the singer, [blank line]. They were the witnesses. Ur-Dumuzi went down to the river without any known reason, instead of UrEnlila10 but he swam back to the shore, so Ur-Enlila was acquitted. So it is 7

Edzard 1968, 156, reads “[…] belongs to Muni…”. I agree with Civil 2011, 259. 9 The name is the same of Edzard 1968, 153–154 no. 98, but they are probably different people (see also Owen 1988, 308). 10 Cf. Civil 2011, 259: “In other words, PN1 and PN2 in this case are not adversaries: on the contrary and following a practice encountered repeatedly in the history of the ordeals, PN1 volunteered (for pay) to be subjected to the ordeal in place of PN2. This new perspective cannot be discussed here, but the dative PN2-ra, restated in the verb (mu-nata-gir5 ‘he floated out for him’), becomes crucial”. Contra Owen 1988, 310: “…this legal account was written to provide the documentation for the resolution of legal actions 8

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

280

Cristina Simonetti

possible that this document was written by a scribe and then handed to UrDumuzi or, more probably, to Ur-Enlila for safe-keeping.

3 The Neo-Sumerian source: the Ur-Namma Code To conclude in the Ur-Namma Code11 there are two articles connected with river ordeal: namely articles 13 and 14. They introduced two specific cases for which the river ordeal is necessary. The first case regards witchcraft, the second charges of adultery to a betroth girl. If the accused gets back safe and sound from the ordeal, both articles impose the plaintiff a penalty to be paid to the accused. § 13 tukum-bi nam-˹KA×X-zu?˺ lú lú-ra in-da-˹ab-lá˺ díd-lú-˹ru-gú-šè˺ lú ì-túm-mu d íd-lú-˹ru-gú˺ um-zalag-zalag lú in-túm-mu-a 3 gìn kù-babbar ì-lá-e “If a man accuses another of witchcraft (?) and brings him to the river ordeal, after the river ordeal has cleared him, the man who brought him (to the ordeal) will pay three shekels of silver”. § 14 tukum-bi dam guruš-a-da úr-ra ná-a lú ì-da-lá íd-dè ù-um-zalag-zal[ag] lú ì-dal[á-a] 1/3 ŠA [ma-na kù] ì-[lá-e] “If a man accuses a betrothed woman of sleeping with another man, after the river clears her, the man who made the accusation will pay twenty shekels of silver”.12 Paragraph 13 calls to mind article 2 in the Ḫammurapi Code which contemplates that if the charge was not backed by evidence the accuser should be put to death. Whereas in the Ur-Namma Code the accuser must pay three silver shekels. Paragraph 14, on the other hand, regardless of whether the charges are against a girl or a man, is interesting as it contemplates a penalty much higher than that of paragraph 13. The article 14 as well, can be compared to article 132 in the Ḫammurapi Code which contemplates the river ordeal for the wife brought by Ur-Enlila against Ur-Dumuzi for which the latter had to undergo an ordeal by water at a place (?) on the river (di7) called dNinḫursag”. 11 See Civil 2011. 12 Contra Civil 2011, 247: “If a man accuses someone of sleeping with a betrothed woman, after the rivers clears him, the man who made the accusation will pay twenty shekels of silver”. Roth (1997, 18) translates: “If a man accuses the wife of a young man of promiscuity but the River Ordeal clears her, the man who accused her shall weigh and deliver 20 shekels of silver” (I don’t agree thoroughly with her). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

The River Ordeal in the Third Millennium BC

281

charged with adultery without direct evidence though. However, this article doesn’t contemplate any about the penalty for the accuser. Curiously during the Neo-Sumerian period the groundless charges of adultery betrothed women were considered much more serious than false accusations of witchcraft. In the following Old Babylonian period the opposite would happen.

4 Conclusions From the few records at hand we can conclude that as far back as the Third Millennium BC the river ordeal was rather popular and widely accepted in Mesopotamia as a tool of the legal system. Not only was carefully regulated through sets of written laws but it was overseen by appointed officials and/or witnesses. The reasons for undergoing ordeal were basically two: first to delegitimate heavy accusations such as adultery or witchcraft, and second to confirm ownership over a much disputed property. In the latter case it was possible to undergo the trial personally or pay somebody else to take your place. Who survived the ordeal was absolutely acquitted or was declared owner of the disputed goods. For each case a certification was issued upon the completion of the ordeal.

Bibliography Bottéro, J., L’Ordalie en Mésopotamie ancienne, in: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia III 11/4 (1981) 1005–1067. Civil, M., On Mesopotamia Jails and their Lady Wardens, in: Cohen, M.E. et al. (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda 1993, 72–78. — The Law Collection of Ur-Namma, in: George, A.R. (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection (Cuneiform Texts VI. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17), Bethesda, MD 2011, 221–286. Dossin, G., Un cas d’ordalie par le dieu fleuve d’apres une lettre de Mari, in: Friedrich, J. et al. (eds.), Symbolae ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentes, Paulo Koschaker dedicatae (Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia 2), Leiden 1939, 112–118. Edzard, D.O., Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausend aus der Zeit vor der III Dynastie von Ur, München 1968. Falkenstein, A., Eine gesiegelte Tontafel der altsumerischen Zeit, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 14 (1941–1944) 333–336. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

282

Cristina Simonetti

Festuccia, S., Un tuffo nell’Eufrate: le attività natatorie nella Mesopotamia antica, in: Marazzi, M. et al. (eds.), Maria, Lacus et Flumina. Studi di storia, archeologia e antropologia “in acqua” dedicati a Claudio Moccheggiani Carpano (Ricerche di storia, epigrafia e archeologia mediterranea 5), Roma 2016, 163–179. Freymer-Kensky, T., The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East, PhD Dissertation, Yale University 1977. Heimpel, W., The River Ordeal in Hit, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 90 (1996) 7–18. — The Location of Madga, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 61 (2009) 25–61. Owen, D.I., A Unique Late Sargonic River Ordeal in the John Frederick Lewis Collection, in: Leichty, E. et al. (eds.), A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9), Philadelphia 1988, 305–311. Roth, M.T., Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (Writings from the Ancient World 6), Atlanta 1997. Sjöberg, Å.W., Nungal in the Ekur, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 24 (1973) 19–46. Verderame, L., Sedie, troni e portantine nell’antica Mesopotamia, in: Notizia, P. / Pomponio, F. (eds.), Scritti in onore di Pietro Mander, Annali dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale” 72 (2012) 149–168. Westenholz, A., Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena. Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Documents from Nippur and Fara in the Hilprecht-Sammlung vorderasiatischer Altertümer Institut für Altertumswissenschaften der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Copenhagen 1975.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

“I Want to Break Free”: Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation Gabriella Spada

Introduction This paper presents a study of five cuneiform tablets which belong to the category of Sumerian model contracts. It is a great pleasure for me to dedicate this modest contribution to Prof. Francesco Pomponio, who devoted much of his career to the study of Sumerian texts. I would like to express my gratitude to him who, back in 2002, together with Prof. Franco D’Agostino and Prof. Lorenzo Verderame introduced me (an inexperienced young graduate) to the cuneiform tablets in the glorious “tablet room” (i.e., the British Museum Study Room for the Middle East collections).

1 Typology of the tablets The five tablets presented here,1 which can be labeled model contracts, include two of the five types of tablets in the typology first proposed by M. Civil.2 According to this classification, most school tablets belonged to one of five physical types, categorized by their shape and format and identified by a number (Types I, II, III, IV and Prisms), each of which represents a particular

1

I wish to express my gratitude to Bruno Overlaet (Curator of the Ancient Near East, Iran & Islam Collections, Art & History Museum, Bruxelles) and to Hendrik Kameeuw (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) for making available to me the interactive 2D+ images of MRAH O.118 and O.119. Previously, I had received from Dominique Hoornaert (Department of Antiquity, Art & History Museum, Bruxelles) a scan of the images of O.120. The cuneiform tablets from the British Museum are published or cited by kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. I am also grateful to Franco D’Agostino and Marten Stol, who read earlier and partial drafts of this paper and offered helpful comments and suggestions, and to Ronald Veenker who revised the English of the article. Needless to say, I bear the full responsibility for any errors and omissions. 2 Civil 1979, 5. See also Civil 1969, 27–28 and Civil 1995, 2308, which includes additional “types” to describe the sources from later periods; cf. also Tinney 1999, 160. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Gabriella Spada

284

pedagogical function. Only one tablet of the corpus (no. 5) can be identified as a Type II tablet, whereas the remaining four are Type III tablets. A Type II (or “Teacher-Student”) tablet is a medium-size tablet on which different exercises were typically written on the obverse and reverse. The obverse (conventionally labeled as II/1) contains a model composition written by the instructor—an extract from a lexical list, or one to four model contracts— with room in the second column for the student to copy it multiple times, until he knew it by heart. The student then used the reverse (II/2), which is divided into three to five columns, to review a text he had previously studied. A Type III tablet, instead, is a single-column exercise (Sumerian im-gid2-da, “long tablet”) containing a ten- to twenty-line extract from a composition, or one to four model contracts. These contracts, which are usually separated by single or double rulings, were written by students, perhaps copied from a teacher’s model on a Type II/1 tablet.

2 The texts Four tablets of the corpus (nos. 1–4) record the self-emancipation of a certain Antalu, the slave of Šeš-bantuku; no. 5 is a legal document dealing with the imprisonment of a (runaway?) potter. With the exception of no. 4, these tablets have already been published in Limet 2000 (nos. 1–2 and 5) and in Isma‘el 2007 (no. 3). The transliterations and collations here presented have been made based on photographs. The images of nos. 1–2 and 53 have been sent to me by the curator of the Art & History Museum (cf. note 1), whereas the images of no. 3 have been taken by Palmiro Notizia—whom I thank—during his stay at the British Museum Study Room for the Middle East collections in April 2019. With regard to no. 4, I relied exclusively on the copy and the photograph published in Isma‘el’s volume.

Text 1 Museum no.: MRAH O.120 Editions: Speleers 1925 no. 45 (copy); Roth 1979, 109–111; Limet 2000, 2–3 and 16–17 (copy). School format: Type III tablet Provenance: uncertain4

3

For nos. 2 and 5, note the CDLI number indicated for a high-resolution image of each tablet. 4 According to the museum files, O.118, O.119, and O.120 (nos. 5, 2, and 1, respectively) were acquired on 11/11/1913; a note written at the acquisition time reads “probably Ahimer/Kish”, without any further documentation explaining this hypothesis (B. Overlaet, personal communication, April 2019). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

u.e. obv. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 rev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

285

˹a˺-ḫa-am-mar-ši [1] ˹saĝ˺-nita2 [I] an-ta-lu2 ˹mu˺-ni-im arad šeš-ba-an-tuku ki šeš-ba-an-tuku lugal-a-ni-ir ni2-te-a-ni in-duḫ saĝ-ki-a-ni in-dadag ĝeš-ĝiri3-a-ni in-gaz ama-ar-gi4--a-ni in-ĝar ˹nam˺ dutu-še3 in-na-an-ba en-nam šeš-˹ba-an˺-[tuku] al-til-la-bi-še3 i[n-n]a-/il2-i[l2] egir šeš-ba-an-tuku ba-uš2 dumu-meš šeš-ba-an-tuku ˹nam˺ an-ta-lu2 arad--ĝu10 mu-un-dug4-a 2 ma-na kug-babbar i3-la2-e lu2-ki-inim-ma itud-bi mu-bi

Translation 1–7

[A] man named Antalu, the slave of Šeš-bantuku, redeemed himself from Šešbantuku, his master. 8–11He (= Šeš-bantuku) has cleared his forehead (and) smashed his foot fetters: he (thereby) has freed him (and) offered him to Šamaš. 12–13 As long as Šeš-ban[tuku] lives, he (= Antalu) will support him. 14–19After Šeš-bantuku will die, should (any of) Šeš-bantuku’s sons declare to Antalu: “(You are) my slave”, he will pay (to him) two minas of silver. 20–21(Its) witnesses, its month, its year. Notes This is the longest and most articulated version of the contract recording the self-emancipation of Antalu, the slave of Šeš-bantuku. Manumission was one of three ways through which slavery could be ended5 and often took the form of a ceremony during which some symbolic acts occurred6 (see the notes on lines 8– 11 below). It is noteworthy that the script of this tablet, and of nos. 2 and 5, 5

In addition to manumission, a slave could be freed through redemption and debt-release (see Westbrook 2003, 384). 6 For a study of these symbolic acts related to the slave manumission see Malul 1988, 40–76. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

286

Gabriella Spada

appears to be archaized and seems to recall the typical Ur III script.7 The notation in the upper edge, instead, appears more cursive and late.8 u.e. The personal name Aḫam-arši, “I have a brother”, which appears as a notation in the upper edge of the tablet, is the Akkadian reading of the Sumerian name Šeš-bantuku (cf. Roth 1979, 109 and 148 n. 15). It seems that the apprentice scribe felt the need to add this notation as an aid to correctly link that Sumerian name to its Akkadian counterpart, apparently more familiar to him. This same tip is also found in text no. 5, where under the Sumerian name at line 1 there are traces of its Akkadian counterpart written in smaller script (see the note to no. 5, l. 1 below). However, it should be noted that in this present case the positioning of the glossa in the upper edge of the tablet is unusual. It could therefore suggest a different explanation, such as an aid to quickly identify the content of the tablet as one dealing with Šeš-bantuku/Aḫam-arši—in this case the choice to use the Akkadian version of this personal name and not the Sumerian one, which appears in the contract, must be attributed to the fact that Akkadian was the vernacular language of the apprentice scribes in the Old Babylonian schools. 1. For a discussion about the usage of the word saĝ in combination with nita(2), “male”, and munus, “female”, see Steinkeller 1989, 128–131;9 cf. also Gelb 1982, Farber 2005, 109–112, and Steinert 2012, 175 n. 162. 5–6. The formula ki PN lugal-a-ni-ir (or similar10) instead of the expected ki PN lugal-a-ni-ta (or, more correctly, ki PN lugal-a-na-ta) is not uncommon in the Old Babylonian documents, both school exercises (especially in slave manumissions) and real-life contracts (deeds of sale). Apparently this formula seems to mix two constructions which are used to indicate the seller in sale contracts during the Ur III period. They are the construction ki ...(ak)-ta, “from”, and the dative suffix -ra, which sometimes replaced the directive -še3, the expected case after the name of the seller in the construction with the verb sa10 (cf. Steinkeller 1989, 15 and 157; see also D’Agostino et al. 2019, 89 n. 2). It is possible that this expression has then

7

Tablet no. 5 (MRAH O.118, labeled as RIAA 047 in BDTNS) is tentatively dated to the Ur III period in BDTNS. 8 One wonders therefore if the scribe has copied it directly from an Ur III tablet. 9 The terms saĝ-nita(2) and saĝ-munus are commonly translated in the literature as “slave” and “slave-girl”, respectively, being considered as a sort of synonymous with arad(2) and geme2. By translating them as “man” and “woman”, I follow the idea of Steinkeller that saĝ-nita(2) and saĝ-munus are basically gender descriptions, whereas arad(2) and geme2 are social classificatory terms. 10 We find also ki PN1 dumu-munus PN2 nin-a-ni-ir (e.g. TCL 1 134 obv. 4–6) and ki PN1 dumu PN2 lugal ĝeškiri6-a-ni-ir (e.g. TIM 5 21 obv. 6–8). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

287

become common even in other type of contracts, such as the slave manumissions, replacing the construction ki PN lugal-a-na-ta. 7. This Sumerian expression corresponds to Akkadian ramanšu ipṭur. This situation is also evoked in the Hammurapi Code §32, where a soldier or a fisherman taken in captivity during a royal campaign redeem themselves.11 Differing from some real-life documents which mention the price paid in exchange for emancipation,12 here it is simply stated that the slave redeemed himself, without any reference to a payment, probably because the assumed obligation of life-long support of his master (ll. 12–13) was considered to be the price for his freedom. 8–11. This phraseology pertaining to manumission of slaves may appear both in real-life contracts and in school texts (not only in model contracts,13 but also in legal phrasebooks, such as OB Sippar Ura I–II, and MB Emar Ura I–II14). 8. The first act is expressed by the Sumerian formula saĝ-ki ~ dadag (Akkadian pūta ullulu/ubbubu), “to cleanse, purify the forehead”. As for the material which may have been used as the cleansing agent in the purification ceremony, it is unclear whether it was oil or water, since usually the texts are completely silent about it.15 9. Usually, in the model contracts from Nippur the second symbolic act is represented by the formula dug ~ gaz (Akkadian karpata ḫepû), “to break the pot (of slavery)”, but that is not the case here, where we find the expression ĝeš-ĝiri3 ~ gaz16 (Akkadian kurṣa ḫepû) “to smash the foot fetters”. Whereas Roth (1979, 105) considers the breaking or removing the foot fetters as a symbolic act pertaining to manumission, Malul (1988, 40 n 1) states that

11

šumma ina bītišu ša paṭārim ibašši šûma ramanšu ipaṭṭar “if there are sufficient means in his own estate for the redeeming, he himself shall redeem himself” (Roth 1997, 87). 12 E.g. BE 6/2 8 (Nippur, Rīm-Sîn 51/v) reports the payment of ten shekels of silver by a slave-girl in order to redeem herself from her mistress. In a document from Ur (UET 5 191, dated to Rīm-Sîn 54), instead, a slave redeems himself twenty years after his master’s death, providing another slave in exchange for his own freedom to the brothers of the deceased (cf. Charpin 1986, 85–86, and Charpin 2018). 13 Most model contracts recording the manumission of slaves through symbolic acts come from Nippur. Among others, TMH 11 1 is an Old Babylonian prism from Nippur which contains a collection (having a certain degree of standardization) of nine manumission contracts (cf. Spada 2018, 11–30). 14 Cf. Veldhuis 2014, 190–193. 15 Malul (1988, 46–47) has suggested the employment of oil, based on parallels with a later manumission text from Ugarit and the Middle Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta epic. 16 But in legal phrasebooks, such as MB Ura II Seg. 3 36′′, the verb is duḫ (Akk. paṭāru), “to loosen”; cf. its edition in DCCLT: http://oracc.org/dcclt/Q000065. See also FLP 1287 ii 8 (= Roth 1979, 33 and 112) where ĝeš-ĝiri3-ni in-duḫ appears. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

288

Gabriella Spada

there does not seem to be anything symbolic in removing a slave’s foot fetters upon his manumission, and categorizes it as a technical act. 10. According to Roth (1979, 112–114), it was the ama-ar-gi4 ~ ĝar formula (lit: “to establish [one’s] return to the mother”, corresponding to Akkadian andurāru šakānu, “to establish [one’s] freedom”17) that legally effectuated the slave’s freedom, whereas the symbolic acts, which may precede—or follow—it were not constitutive elements in the process of manumission. Differently, Malul (1988, 63–64) states that this clause does not represent the constitutive element of manumission, but seems to have the character of a summary remark on the written level describing the status of freedom newly granted to the slave by means of a symbolic ceremony. 11. Please note well the simultaneous presence of nam (having the sense of Akkadian ana; this usage is not uncommon in Old Babylonian texts, being attested in documents of various provenience18—cf. also MBGT II 52 = MSL SS1, 79) and of the terminative posposition -še3. We found this same construction in an exemplar of OB Sippar Ura I–II, CBS 1862 (P230219)19 rev. ii′ 7. Furthermore, in an unpublished tablet from Sippar (or its vicinity), BM 7906220 obv. 7, which records phraseology pertaining the manumission of a slave-girl,21 we found a similar expression with the expected dative 17

D. Charpin (1987, 37) argues that this formula means “retour à son statut originel”, that is, return to the status one has at birth, meaning freedom for one born free, but slavery to his or her former master for a house-born slave. 18 There are attestations from Larsa (e.g. TCL 10 67, 70 and 117; TCL 11 169–170 and 175; cf. also the Larsa model contract Cotsen 52177 [= Spada 2012]), from Nippur (e.g. ARN 36; BE 6/2 11; TMH 10 7 and 34), from Ur (e.g. UET 5 94, 124, 202 and 415), and from Uruk (e.g. YOS 15 343). 19 CBS 1862 belongs to the so-called Khazaba Collection (University Pennsylvania Museum), coming—for the most part—from Sippar or its vicinity. 20 BM 79062 is a tablet in landscape format whose reverse is almost completely uninscribed, containing only a first line and two scattered signs. On the left edge there is a colophon, whose content is not entirely clear to me, and whose script seems more cursive and later than that on the tablet. Both for its format and its script in the colophon, my impression is that this tablet is not to be dated to the Old Babylonian period (as in Leichty et al. 1988, 180) but rather to the Kassite period. 21 In addition to the usual terminology concerning the manumission of slaves, the following expression also occurs: ĝeš-rin2-a-ni igi dutu-ke4! in-kud, “he broke her weighing scale in front of Šamaš”. To the best of my knowledge, a similar clause in a context of freeing slaves appears only in one more text, CT 48 49 obv. 3: fPN karpassa ḫapiat qablīssa šebret. The Akkadian term qablītu, which generally means “middle part, inner part” (cf. CAD Q, 3–6), can also have the value of “balance” (see the discussion in Guichard 2016, 367–368). This expression, therefore, would mean “her pot is smashed, her balance is broken”. The weighing scale was a typical instrument of the merchant, who seems to act as weigh-master in the private sector, a sort of “neutral party” between the seller and the buyer in sales contracts (Bartash 2017, 82–83). Cf. also a Sargonic text © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

289

posposition -ra: dutu-ra in-na-an-ba. This therefore confirms the correspondence between the two constructions: nam PN/DN-še3 and PN/DNra. The Sumerian verb ba, Akkadian qȃšu, “to give as a gift, to dedicate”, here indicates the consecration of the freed slave to the god Šamaš. As far as I know, this is the only model contract which mentions the dedication of the freed slave to a deity. Similarly, this situation occurs only in few real-life manumission documents.22 Based on this observation and on the evidence that slaves could be dedicated to deities without being first freed, Malul (1988, 56) claims that there seems to be no direct relation between a slave’s manumission and his consecration to a deity. 12–13. For a similar terminology see the Middle Babylonian lexical list Ura II, Seg. 3, 43′′–44′′: en lugal-a-ni al-til-la / lugal-a-ni in-il2-[il2?] / [...]-˹it?˺ / [...]˹x˺-ar-ša it-ta-na-ša-˹šu?˺;23 cf. also CAD N2, 96 s.v. našû. Differently, in manumission model contracts from Nippur the clause establishing the duty on the part of the freed slave to support his former master for the rest of his life is usually expressed by the formula ud til-la-niše3 igi-ni-še3 i3-gub-bu, “as long as he (= the master) lives, (s)he will serve him”.24 14–19. This clause establishes a rather high penalty (two minas, almost one kg of silver) for any of Šeš-bantuku’s natural sons who, after his father’s death, claims the manumitted as his own slave. However, in Nippur manumission model contracts a penalty is not specified, but there is a formula that prohibits members of the master’s family from illegally reclaiming the slave: egir PN1 ba-uš2-a-ta (or: ud kur-še3) ibila PN1 a-na me-a-bi PN2-ra namwhich records the purchase of a slave (MC 4 no. 61 = Steinkeller 1992, 100–102) and mentions a merchant holding the balance: PN dam-gar3 lu2 ĝeš-rin2 dab5-ba-am3, “It is PN, the merchant, who held the weighing scale”. The balance was also a symbolic instrument related to the solar god, who acted as a guarantor of correctness in metrological and weighing operations in economic transactions. This connection is made explicit by a Late Akkadian cylinder seal in the Moore Collection (Eisen 1940 no. 42 = Boehmer 1965 no. 1105), where a human figure holds a pair of scales before Šamaš; behind him stands another man carrying a goat as ritual offering, while a third and smaller figure holds an unidentified object—a knife or a container—over an altar. For the weighing scale in Mesopotamia see Stol 2014–2016. The parts of the balance are treated in Ura VI, 108–119c (= MSL 6, 60f.); for a discussion of them see Powell 1971, 238–242. 22 E.g. TCL 1 66–67 (Sippar, Sîn-muballiṭ 9) and 68–69 (Sippar, Sîn-muballiṭ?), both texts with envelopes dealing with the same manumitted slave-girl, named Amat-Ištar, who was consecrated once to Ištar and once to Šamaš and Aja. 23 Cf. its edition in DCCLT: http://oracc.org/dcclt/Q000065. 24 In TMH 11 1 §9 (= Spada 2018, 28–29) the formula is slightly different: en-na PN1 lugal-a-ni u3 PN2 nin-a-ni na-an-ga-til3-la igi-ne-ne-še3 i3-gub-bu, “as long as PN1, his master and PN2, his mistress live, he will serve them”. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

290

Gabriella Spada

geme2(/arad-da)-ni-še3 inim nu-um-ĝa2-ĝa2-a, “after PN1 (= the master) will have died (or: in the future), any heirs of PN1, however many there may be, will not raise a claim against PN2 (= the slave) concerning his/her status as a slave”. 20–21. The omission of witnesses and dates, both essential for the legal validity of functional contracts, has always been considered the most prominent characteristic of a model contract. Some model contracts, including the contract here presented, allude to the witnesses and date that have been omitted by the notation “(its) witnesses, its month, its year”. However, there is at least one school exercise which has witnesses and dates: this is the case with CUSAS 43 38 (= Spada 2019, 74–90), a prism which collects seventeen model contracts, all of them ending with a list of one to three witnesses (the last one is always the scribe) and the date (month and year—most yearnames seem not to be attested elsewhere).

Text 2 Collection no.: MRAH O.119 Editions: Speleers 1925 no. 49 (copy); Limet 2000, 2 and 15 (copy). CDLI photograph: P200932 School format: Type III tablet Provenance: uncertain Of this tablet the obverse is nearly completely preserved; on the reverse, which is partly destroyed, the lower part is clearly anepigraphic. Therefore, it is not possible to know how much text is missing. obv. 1 1 saĝ-nita2 2 Ian-ta-lu2 3 mu-ni-im 4 arad šeš-ba-an-tuku 5 ki šeš-ba-an-tuku 6 lugal-a-ni-ir 7 ni2-te-a-ni in-duḫ 8 ˹saĝ-ki˺-a-ni in-dadag 9 ˹ĝeš-ĝiri3˺-a-ni in-gaz 10 [am]ar-˹gi4˺-a-ni in-˹ĝar˺ rest missing Translation 1–7

A man named Antalu, the slave of Šeš-bantuku, redeemed himself from Šešbantuku, his master. 8–9He (= Šeš-bantuku) has cleared his forehead (and)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

291

smashed his foot fetters: he (thereby) has freed him (rest of the contract missing).

Text 3 Collection no.: BM 80491 Measurements: 8×5×2.5 cm School format: Type III tablet Provenance: Sippar (or its vicinity)25 Whereas the obverse is almost completely preserved (only the lower right corner is broken), the reverse is erased and only a few traces of signs are visible. obv. 1 1 saĝ-nita2 2 Ian-ta-lu2 3 mu-ni-im 4 arad šeš-ba-an-tuku 5 ki šeš-ba-an-tuku 6 lugal-a-ni-ir!(NI) 7 ni2-te-a-ni i3-˹duḫ˺ 8 saĝ-ki-a-ni ˹in˺-d[adag] 9 [ĝe]š-ĝiri3-[a-ni in-gaz?] rest missing Translation 1–7

A man named Antalu, the slave of Šeš-bantuku, redeemed himself from Šešbantuku, his master. 8–9He (= Šeš-bantuku) has cl[eared] his forehead (and) [smashed? his] foot fetters (rest of the contract missing). Notes 9. The reconstruction of the verbal form is based on the formulary in nos. 1 and 2. However, the verb could also be duḫ, as in other school texts (see n. 16 above).

Text 4 Collection no.: IM 92207 Editions: Isma‘el 2007, 63–64, pl. 19 (copy) and 46 (photograph); cf. also Charpin 2009, 146. School format: Type III tablet Provenance: Tulul Khattab

25

Cf. Leichty et al. 1988, 230. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Gabriella Spada

292

It is not clear from Isma‘el’s copy whether the reverse is blank or so damaged that the entire surface is lost. Since the author does not provide any information about it, it is not possible to know whether the original text continues beyond line 11. obv. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 saĝ-nita2 I an-ta-lu2 mu-ni-[i]m arad šeš-ba-an-[tuku] ki šeš-ba-an-t[uku] lugal-a-ni!(IR)-ir!(NI) ni2-ta-a-ni in-duḫ saĝ-ki-a-ni in-dadag ĝeš ḫar-a-ni in-duḫ gar3-a-ni in-˹bur˺ amar-gi-a-ni in-ĝar

Translation 1–7

A man named Antalu, the slave of Šeš-ban[tuku], redeemed himself from Šešbant[uku], his master. 8–11He (= Šeš-bantuku) has cleared his forehead, released his ring (and) loosened his abbuttu: he (thereby) has freed him. Notes This exercise comes from modern Tulul Khattab, which is about forty km from Sippar, in the Diyala Basin. The ancient name of this site is not clearly known, and the hypothesis that Tulul Khattab can be identified with the ancient ṢupurŠamaš, as suggested by Isma‘el (2007, 8–10), is not completely convincing (cf. Charpin 2009, 147–148 and van Koppen / Lacambre 2008–2009, 153 n. 13). 4–5. Charpin has corrected this personal name as ŠEŠ.BA.TUK!, stating that this mistake by the scribe would be due to his inexperience. In his copy at l. 5 Isma‘el copied the beginning of another sign—likely TUKU—which follows AN; therefore the name could be the expected Šeš-bantuku. 9. Here there seems to be a variation in the manumission phraseology: in place of the term for foot fetters (ĝeš-ĝiri3), what Isma‘el copied in his edition is ĝeš ḫar, which he however translated as “fetters” (Isma‘el 2007, 64). The Sumerian term ĝešḫar, corresponding to Akkadian semeru, is usually interpreted as “ring” (so Charpin 2009, 146). It is not entirely clear what kind of “ring” is here referred to. According to the CAD (CAD S, 224), the term semeru can also refer to “manacles, shackles for hand and foot, clasp to hold the abbuttu hairdo”, that could fit our case. The notion should probably be disregarded that ĝešḫar may indicate a nose-ring, to which a nose-rope was © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

293

tied in order to prevent the flight of slaves and prisoners of war,26 since it was usually identified with Sumerian eš2-giri17, corresponding to Akkadian ṣerretu. 10. Based on the copy of the tablet, the verbal form seems to be in-bur (Sumerian bur(2) corresponds to Akkadian pašāru, “to loosen”) rather than in-kud, as Charpin had suggested.27 In this formula the Sumerian term gar3/kar, Akkadian abbuttu, could refer to the metal clasp that hold the abbuttu (cf. CAD A, 49 s.v. abbuttu, 4 and discussion section; cf. also CAD P, 244 s.v. pašāru, 13b).

Text 5 Collection no.: MRAH O.118 Edition: Speleers 1925 no. 47 (copy); Limet 2000, 1–2 and 15 (copy). CDLI photograph: P200931 School format: Type II tablet obv. i. 1 Imaš-tab-ba˹ma-a-šum˺ baḫarx(DUG.BUR) ˹zaḫ3?˺ 2 IM ba-an-tuku 3 Išeš-ba-an-tuku 4 šakkan6ša-ak-˹kan˺ iriki 5 en-nu-uĝ3-še3 6 [b]a-ni-in-kur9 7 [Ima?-da?-m]u?-gi-na 8 [...]-da-a-ni 9 [... š]u ba-an-ti rest of the column missing Translation 3–6

Šeš-bantuku, the military governor of the city, did send into detention 1– 2 Maštabba, the runaway? potter who ...; 7–9[Mada?-m]ugina, ... received [...] (rest of the document missing). Notes This fragmentary tablet can be identified as a Type II tablet. What is preserved on the obverse is the first part of the left column (the teacher’s), recording a text which deals with the imprisonment of a man, allegedly identified as a runaway? potter. The tablet seems to have been cut in two on purpose, to preserve the 26

Nose-ropes for slaves are attested in Ur III texts, particularly in some letter-orders; cf. Molina / Such-Gutiérrez 2004, 8–9. 27 “La lecture de la racine verbale n’est pas absolument sûre; on attend « raser » (KU5 = gullubum)”, cf. Charpin 2009, 146. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

294

Gabriella Spada

teacher’s example. The section of text kept on the reverse is very damaged and not readable.28 1. The Sumerian personal name Maštabba, literally “twin”, is not known elsewhere, so far as I know.29 However, the corresponding Akkadian name, Mȃšum, has been known since the Old Akkadian period and is found in Ur III and Old Babylonian documents.30 As Limet noticed, there are traces of a “glose illisible” in smaller script under the name (Limet 2000, 1). Based on the interactive 2D+ image that the museum staff has kindly made available to me (see note 1 above), I was able to identify the signs that, as expected, are ma-a-šum. Since the Sumerian version of this personal name was not apparently widespread, unlike its Akkadian counterpart, it is possible that this glossa has been added (by the teacher or by the pupil himself) as an aid to identify correctly that name. The name Maštabba is followed by a term that Limet had transliterated and interpreted as KAŠ.GAR-kam: “le signe KAŠ a remplacé un signe ŠIM qui s’imposait; la lecture est ningi – ou variante”; he accordingly translated this expression as “qui est brasseur”. Based on the images available to me, the first two signs seem to be DUG.BUR, read baḫarx, “potter”. They are followed by a partially abraded sign that could be zaḫ3, “to be fugitive, to flee”. This expression, therefore, can be tentatively interpreted as “a runaway potter”. If my reading is correct, this legal case would deal with the imprisonment of a worker who had ran away from his work assignment.31 One of the functions 28

The only signs I can identify with confidence are on col. i′ 7′–8′: lu2 [...] / itud [...]: they could belong to the expression lu2-ki-inim-ma itud-bi mu-bi, the typical notation which in model contracts allude to the omission of the witnesses and the date (cf. the textual note to no. 1 ll. 20–21 above). 29 In general, the Sumerian term maš-tab-ba does not seem to be frequently used in administrative documents. It is noteworthy that it appears three times in an Old Babylonian tablet from Uruk (BaM 23 180) listing the delivery of textiles as gifts to certain people (niĝ2-ba PN). The expression niĝ2-ba maš-tab-ba, followed by further specification (namely lu2 ki-sur-raki, dumu nu-ĝeškiri6 and šu-luḫ) has been interpreted by Sanati-Müller (1992, 144–145) as “doppeltes Geschenk”, since the amount of textiles is double compared to the other deliveries. Perhaps we should translate this expression as “gift for the twins (who live in Kisurra/sons of the gardener/for the ritual cleansing)”. 30 In Ur III texts it appears as ma-šum (e.g. AUCT 3 504 obv. 4; BPOA 1 736 obv. 1; CUSAS 3 399 rev. 1) or, more frequently, ma-aš2 (e.g. AnOr 7 306 obv. 16; MVN 1 150 obv. 8; Nisaba 16 38 obv. 9). In Old Babylonian texts the form ma-a-šum (e.g. AbB 4 94 rev. 6; PIHANS 117 79 obv. 3; YOS 8 28 rev. 6) and ma-šum (e.g. JCSSS 2 41 obv. 4; PIHANS 117 78 obv. 3; TCL 10 129 rev. 3) occur. 31 For the latest discussion on prison and the functions of imprisonment in early Mesopotamia see Reid 2018. Among the Ur III documents from Umma, a case of a potter named Lugal-niĝ-lagare is known, who had been imprisoned for running away and leaving his work assignment. SAT 3 1502 (dated to Šū-Sîn 4) mentions Lugal-niĝ-lagare © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

295

of detainment in early Mesopotamia was, in fact, to force job performance (see Reid 2018, 90–96). The detention of fugitive workers might have been a form of punishment that was meant to deter future flight attempts. The situation recorded here, the imprisonment of a worker running away from his work responsibility, is not uncommon during the Ur III period. Flight among slaves and lower-stratum workers in the administration was a punishable offense—as the evidence of “fugitive-catchers”, the subsequent prison, mutilation, or binding runaways might face suggests (Reid 2015, 582). In general, flight in the Old Babylonian period, instead, did not usually result in time spent in prison as it did in the previous period, and non-slave workers were able to leave their position without being pursued (cf. Renger 1972, 177–178, and Snell 2001, 55–57. For the latest discussion on flight in the Old Babylonian period see Charpin 2016). This leads one to believe that the present Old Babylonian school text is modeled on a situation that may well have occurred in the Ur III period. 2. It is not clear how to interpret this line.32 If we read the first sign as ni2, we have the formula ni2 ~ tuku, whose standard meaning—“to be attentive/respectful”, corresponding to Akkadian na’ādu, palāḫu—does not fit in this context.33 The only case known to me in which there is a similar expression is an Ur III tablet from Umma, SDU 94** (= Steinkeller 1989, 285–286), recording the sale of a female: tukum-bi / [s]aĝ-e ni2 ba-an-tuku, “if there is a claim(?) on the ‘head’ (lit.: if the ‘head’ acquires a claim)”. Steinkeller’s interpretation is based on the idea that ni2 would stand here for niĝ2, “thing, something” in the Sumerian construction niĝ2 ~ tuku, equated to Akkadian baqrī rašû, “to have/acquire a claim”. However, this solution does not seem to fit the present case, since the reason for Maštabba is being placed under guard is explained on line 1—if my reading and interpretation of the last sign is correct. Due to the presence of ni2, that also means “itself”, we could hypothetically consider line 2 as an expression like “he handed himself over”, i.e. “he gave up”. On this basis, therefore, the verb ba-an-tuku could indicate the causative form of the verb “to get”. The tentative translation of lines 1–6 would then be “Šeš-bantuku, the military governor of the city, did send into detention Maštabba, the runaway? potter who had given up/ delivered himself”. receiving rations in prison; in SAT 3 1597 (dated to the following year) probably the same person, named Niĝ-lagare, is included in the crew of potters again, indicating that potters could be imprisoned for running away and later returned to the crew after serving time in prison (cf. Reid 2018, 94 and Reid 2015, 596–597; see also Dahl 2010, 286 n. 34). 32 It is noteworthy to point out that lines 2 and 3 differ only in the first sign. 33 Limet (2000, 1) translated as “(Maštabba, qui est brasseur,) a eu des craintes”. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Gabriella Spada

296

4. In smaller script there is a glossa that I tentatively read as ša-ak-˹kan˺.34 This seems to represent the pronunciation of the Sumerian signs KIŠ.ARAD, to be read accordingly šakkan6. If my interpretation is correct, therefore, this would seem to be the first known case in which the pronunciation of the Sumerian word is made explicit. For the latest discussion of the Sumerian KIŠ.ARAD see Keetman 2019. 7–9. Since the initial portion of each of these lines is lost, it is not possible to reconstruct with certainty their content on the basis of the preserved signs. The final signs of line 7 seem to suggest a personal name, tentatively restored here as ma-da-mu-gi-na, a well-attested name in Ur III documents.35 The preserved signs at the end of line 8 would suggest the expression [ad]da-a-ni, referring to the preceding name (“Mada-mugina, his father”), but there seems to be too much space before -da-a-ni to justify such a reconstruction. Consequently I have no certain interpretation to propose for lines 8–9.

Bibliography Bartash, V., Supervision over Weighing in Early Dynastic and Sargonic Mesopotamia, in: de Boer, R. / Dercksen, J.G. (eds.), Private and State in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 58th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Leiden 16–20 July 2012, Winona Lake 2017, 79–87. Boehmer, R.M., Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit (Untersuchtungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4), Berlin 1965. Charpin, D., Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe–XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.) (Hautes études orientales 22), Genève / Paris 1986. — Les décrets royaux à l’époque paléo-babylonienne, à propos d’une ouvrage récente, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 34 (1987) 36–44. — Chroniques Bibliographiques 12. Archives paléo-babyloniennes: les textes et le terrain, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 103 (2009) 131–148. — State and Society: Flight in the Near East during the Old Babylonian Period (20th–17th Centuries BCE), in: Bartoloni, G. / Biga M.G. (eds.), Not Only History. Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza–Università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 April 2009, Winona Lake 2016, 91–104.

34

It had been differently read by Speleers and Limet, as ša-ak-an? and ša-ak-nu respectively. 35 Could perhaps this man have paid a bail in order to release Maštabba from his detention? © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

297

— En marge d’EcritUr, 2: retour au n° 7 Quiet Street, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2018, 16, no. 12. Civil, M., The Series lú = ša and Related Texts (Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 12), Rome 1969. — Ea A = nâqu, Aa A = nâqu, with their Forerunners and Related Texts (Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14), Rome 1979. — Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography, in: J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York 1995, 2305–2314. D’Agostino, F. et al., La lingua dei Sumeri, Milan 2019. Dahl, J.L., A Babylonian Gang of Potters, in: Kogan, L. et al. (eds.), City Administration in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Winona Lake 2010, 275–305. Eisen, G.A., Ancient Oriental Seals, with a Description of the Collection of Mrs W.H. Moore (Oriental Institute Publications 47), Chicago 1940. Farber, G., SAG as pars pro toto for “person” and “dead body”, in: Sefati, Y. et al. (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, Bethesda 2005, 108–115. Gelb, I.J., Terms for Slaves in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: Dandamayev, M.A. et al. (eds.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East, Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster 1982, 81–98. Guichard, M., Une prière bilingue inédite de Mari. L’art d’amadouer son dieu et seigneur: de la littérature à la pratique, in: Durand, J.M. et al. (eds.), Colères et repentirs divins: Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 24 et 25 avril 2013 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 278), Fribourg / Göttingen 2016, 343–376. Isma‘el, Kh. S., Old Babylonian Cuneiform Texts from the Lower Diyala Region. Telul Khattab (Edubba 9), London 2007. Keetman, J., KIŠ.ARAD sumerisch šakkanakkum und šakkanak zu lesen, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2019: 8–10, no. 6. Leichty, E. et al., Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, volume VIII: Tablets from Sippar 3, London 1988. Limet, H., Documents sumériens des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire Bruxelles, in: Akkadica 117 (2000) 1–20. Malul, M., Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 221), Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988. Molina, M. / Such-Gutiérrez, M., On Terms for Cutting Plants and Noses in Ancient Sumer, in: Journal of the Near Eastern Studies 63 (2004) 1–16. Powell, M.A., Sumerian Numeration and Metrology, PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota 1971. Reid, J.N., Runaways and Fugitive Catchers during the Third Dynasty of Ur, in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 58 (2015), 576– 605.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

298

Gabriella Spada

— The Birth of the Prison: The Functions of Imprisonment in Early Mesopotamia, in: Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 3 (2018) 81–115. Renger, J., Flucht als soziales Problem in der altbabylonischen Gesellschaft, in: Edzard, D.O. (ed.), Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten – XVIII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, München, 29. Juni bis 3. Juli 1970 (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften), München 1972, 167–182. Roth, M.T., Scholastic Tradition and Mesopotamian Law: a Study of FLP 1287, a Prism in the Collection of the Free Library of Philadelphia, PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 1979. — Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (Writings from the Ancient World 6), Atlanta 1997. Sanati-Müller, Sh., Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Fünfter Teil. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts II, in: Baghdader Mitteilungen 23 (1992) 119–161. Snell, D.C., Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East, Leiden 2001. Spada, G., I modelli di contratto nell’edubba paleo-babilonese. Un esempio di contratto di adozione, in: Notizia, P. / Pomponio, F. (eds.), Scritti in onore di Pietro Mander, Annali dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale” 72 (2012) 133–148. — Sumerian Model Contracts from the Old Babylonian Period in the Hilprecht Collection Jena (Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection 11), Wiesbaden 2018. — Old Babylonian Model Contracts and Related Texts, in: George, A.R. / Spada, G., Old Babylonian Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Part Two. School Letters, Model Contracts, and Related Texts (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 43), University Park 2019, 73–145. Speleers, L., Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie antérieure des Musées royaux du cinquantenaire à Bruxelles: textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens, Bruxelles 1925. Steinert, U., Aspekte des Menschseins im Alten Mesopotamien. Eine Studie zu Person und Identität im 2. und 1. Jt. v. Chr. (Cuneiform Monographs 44), Leiden / Boston 2012. Steinkeller, P., Sale Documents of the Ur III Period (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 17), Stuttgart 1989. — Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad (Mesopotamian Civilizations 4), Winona Lake 1992. Stol, M., Waage. A. Philologisch. In Mesopotamien, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 14 (2014–2016) 602–604. Tinney, S., On the Curricular Setting of Sumerian Literature, in: Iraq 61 (1999) 159–172.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Model Contracts Recording Slave Self-Emancipation

299

van Koppen, F. / Lacambre, D., Sippar and the Frontier between Ešnunna and Babylon. New Sources for the History of Ešnunna in the Old Babylonian Period, in: Ex Oriente Lux 41 (2008–2009) 151–177. Veldhuis, N., History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 6), Münster 2014. Westbrook, R., Old Babylonian Period, in: Westbrook, R. (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (Handbuch der Orientalistik 72), Leiden 2003, 361–430.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture Marten Stol

Introduction When one reads text no. 358 in Luc Dekiere’s MHET II/3, the personal names Ali-waqrum (1–2) and Šēp-Sîn (11) are the first surprises: these names are rare in Old Babylonian Sippar and frequent in Larsa. More important, the formula issip-ma itabbal (8–9) is not attested in Sippar but known from Larsa. The formula kišib.a.ni íb.ra.aš (13) points to Larsa as well. In fact, this tablet (BM 15929) was registered in the BM catalogue among many Ur III texts and two tablets dated to Rīm-Sîn, king of Larsa (see Figulla / Sigrist / Walker 1996, 22 no. 149). What is more, this Larsa text about a rented field states that the lessee “will collect and take along [the expected harvest] for the work that he will do” (ana mānaḫāti išakkanu issimma itabbal) (6–9)—which means that the harvest is ceded to him, a compensation for his work on the field. This arrangement is new to us. The text is not a normal field lease contract in being unusually short, nor mentioning the size and location of the field. It just wishes to record this arrangement. No oath, but three witnesses and the imprints of the seal of IbbiAmurrum, undoubtedly another Larsean (Dekiere 1995, 152). We are grateful to Luc Dekiere for having smuggled in this Larsa text in MHET II/3. Lotte Oers (Ghent) has shown that the esip tabal contracts from Susa do not reflect a hypothecary agreement (so Koschaker, followed by many), but are normal contracts, a variant of the cultivation contract (ana errēšūtim), with the difference that the cultivator gets 100% of the yield (“take [all of] it along”). Oers writes: “In an esip tabal-agreement the lessee has paid in advance. What he does with the field after this is his own responsibility. (…) With an errēšūtumcontract, on the other hand, the lessor runs a risk. If the lessee does not cultivate the field, there will be no harvest to divide” (Oers 2013, 164).1 We observe with interest that in Susa the errēšūtum cultivation contract has the clausula “he shall sow, do the (agricultural) work (verb anāḫum), (and) grow 1

Petschow (1984, 195–211) discussed the complexities of prepaying the field rent in Babylonia proper (“Vorauszahlung”, “Voll-Pachtvorausleistung”). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marten Stol

302

the crop” (irriš innaḫ urabba), whereas this phrase is lacking in the esip tabal texts. This verb anāḫum with this meaning is only attested in Susa, and the wellknown word mānaḫtum is derived from it.2 Let us now have a look at other esip tabal contracts. First, a few remarks on the terminology. Tabal is the imperative of the verb tabālum, in fact the Gt of wabālum “to carry”, where the infix -t- has a separative meaning, “to carry away”. In a grammatical study Kouwenberg (2005, 90) rejected this accepted opinion and he translated “to take along”. In our form (tabal) the difference between the two is minimal. In Sumerian šu su-ub tùm.3

Esip tabal as a compensation for work performed Now to the texts. Revealing are some from Nippur. 1. Stone 1987, no. 32 (Plate 54) One iku of uncultivated field (KI.KAL), situated in the area “Field(s) that do(es) not know the Plough” (a-šà apin nu-zu, 2), rented from a father and his son by Nannatum (a nešakkum), “for bringing (the field) under cultivation (teptîtum), during three years, for collecting (and) taking along (the harvest) (šu su-ub-bu tùm-mu-dè)”. Three not entirely clear lines follow, possibly “In (!) the fourth year he will have the usufruct (?), one fourth” (10–rev. 2).4 Remark on line 2: the field name is known from the list of fields surrounding Nippur (see the Excursus at the end of this contribution), mainly field names, but here any uncultivated piece of land can be meant, as in no. 60:1. The field’s qualification KI.KAL fits this location. We understand that collecting the harvest is the reward for bringing the field under cultivation (teptîtum). This is a variant of the common rule that a person who performs this work has to pay the rent in the third or fourth year only. 2. TMH 10 87 A similar text, written by the same scribe. Again 1 iku of uncultivated KI.KAL field, rented for the first cultivation by Abum-waqar, from three persons, named lú didli, again for three years. Follows [n]am šu su-bu-ta ba-an-tùm. This 2

Oers 2013, 162; Mauer 1980, 127 (“sich abmühen”). Connecting Sum. níg-ŠID-ta šu su-ba with esēpu is not relevant; Maekawa 1999, 151, on top (“excerpted”); Attinger 2005, 254 n. 181 (“effacé d’un compte”). 4 See Charpin 1990, 11. Lines 10–rev. 2: [m]u-4-kam-ma-ta (rev.) […] ˹a˺-šà-ga-ke4, igi4-gál ninda al-kú-du/dè(?) (Charpin misses ninda and reads al-ag-e = al-ág-e(?); see also my note on PBS 8/1 21:30, here no. 14). This reminds me of mu-3-kam i-ka-al-ma in contracts on teptîtum texts and the maintenance of date gardens: VAS 7 21:10; VAB 5 135; Cocquerillat 1967, 171; cf. Pomponio 1978, 36 (with note 68); Mauer 1980, 146 (with note 12); see now Wilcke 2020, 340. 3

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

303

Sumerian formula may be an attempt to translate ana (= nam) nēsepētim itabbal (a word to be studied later). 3. PBS 8/1 83 (month XI) [A field, undoubtedly uncultivated] “he rented (in line 12 only!) ‘for cultivation’ (errēšūtum)—in(!) the third year he will collect and take along (the harvest)”, in unusual Sumerian (mu-3-kam-ma-ta šu su-ub ba-an-ta (10–11).5 4. UM 29-13-262 (no date), in Roth 1979, 136–137 no. 363 (copy) [A field] is rented by Sîn-pāṭer at three-thirds (for the cultivator), “in order to irrigate the field” (a-dè) (5′). “At the time of the harvest, as much barley as there may be: the owner of the field will take (šu ba-ab-te) one-third of it; the cultivator will collect (and) take along the remainder” (8′–rev. 1). The irrigating of the field is stressed here and this technique a dè is not normal. That may be the reason why the cultivator can “take along the remainder”. What does “the remainder” mean here? Does it refer to the poor yields on the corners of fringes of the field (see on YOS 12 401)? Note a similar phrase in the school text Cavigneaux 1996, 87 no. 183, še íb-tag4-a-bi lú (!) APIN.LÁ-ka (= errēšum) u4 buru14 ba-an-tùm-mu, “At harvest time, the cultivator will take along the barley, its remainder”. Anyhow, it looks like an extra above his two-thirds.6 5. YOS 12 72 (20.VI-b, Si 3) Eight iku of field for sesame, in the (sacred) area of the Akitu-House (?) of the god Šamaš, named “the garden of the sons of Balmu-namḫe”, rented from them (i.e., from Bala and his brothers) by the Elamite Atta-kuzir, for a period of three years, “in order to create a (date) garden and to repair any breach (?) (u pirṣim ṣabātim)” (6–7), with this inserted clausula: “Barley and sesame he may grow and collect and take along” (10–11). The contract concludes, “He will be responsible for any hewn down tree and any breach not repaired (pirṣum la ṣabtum)” (12–15). Witnesses are the god Šamaš, Ibbi-Enlil(?), and the Elamite Napir-Akšak. Here, a date garden is to be created (like “the opening” of a field) and between the trees (KI.UD = teriktum, so CAD) there will be enough room for

5

Koschaker / Ungnad 1923, 107 no. 1691; Kienast 1978, I, 91 note 111. The Sumerian was thought to stand for ana esēpim; so Mauer 1980, 83; see now Wilcke 2020, 339. 6 For the irrigation a dè, see Sauren 1966, 72–73 (“diese Arbeit bezieht sich darauf, die abgeernteten Felder vor der neuen Bestellung völlig zu durchtränken”); Civil 1994, 68– 69 (“not normal”), 99 n. 8; Waetzoldt 1990, 9–11 (“Überfluten von Feldern zwecks Hochwasserkontrolle”); Wilcke 1999, 334–336. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marten Stol

304

cultivating the two crops. Harvesting all of them is the compensation for planting a garden.7 6. VAS 8 74, 75 (Case) (Sippar) Two men had been partners (tappû) in a field and they had shared (ana šēna izuzzū) the deep-ploughing (miḫiṣ ḫarbim), but a third person appeared and shared with (i-zu-[zu-ú]) the first partner (Kurûm) half of the field (muttāt eqlim), “for collecting and taking along (the harvest)” (ana esip tab[al]). “He/They will not […] the field. The work performed (?) (ma-n[a-aḫ/ḫa-ti …]), like (?) (qá-t[i …] equally (?) (mi-[it-ḫa-ri-iš]) ... [they …]” (15–20). Was the third man attracted to do the work (mānaḫtum) and rewarded by ceding half of the harvest to him? The deep-ploughing, typical for “opening” a field, may have stopped and he stepped in to continue the work. We presently will see that the irrigating had stopped and (again) another person finished the work, or that the ploughing was finished (see on YOS 12 401, here no. 7).8 Until now, most of the esip tabal texts describe situations where a field was “opened” for first cultivation. Which is not entirely surprising because it took two or three years before the cultivator could enjoy a full harvest. A piece of land as a reward In many field leases the work to be done (mānaḫtum) is specified, from the first ploughing to the sowing of the seed. Gerlinde Mauer conveniently summed up the activities: (1) majjārī maḫāṣum “to deep-plow”, “in the Fall, with the ḫarbu-plow or the majjārī-plow”. “This procedure (…) demanded a higher investment (such as the renting of a span of oxen plus laborers)”, quoting Riftin 1937, 107 no. 53:13–14, “two plough-teams (giš apin-gud) which majjārī imḫaṣū u iprikū”. Parāku means “to plough (or harrow)” crosswise; CAD P, 158 4 a. (2) (parāku)marāru (both are rare), (3) šakākum “to harrow”, (4) šebērum “to break up clods”, (5) šalāšum “to harrow for the third time” (rare), (6) šipram epēšum “to fulfill the work”; this is not a specific activity, but “includes the activities (1) through (5)” (Mauer, note 45), (7) šer’am šakānum “making the furrows; to drill”, (8) erēšum “to seed-plough”.9

7

Charpin 1981, 535, 546 (Archives J). “Repair a breach” (?) in lines 7, 14, is inspired by NB batqa ṣabātu, “to repair”, CAD Ṣ, 25 f., cf. now OB bitqam ṣabātum, “to repair a breach”, Reculeau 2018, 322 no. 7:15–17. 8 The first and only attempts were made by Landsberger 1926, 171, with note 3. Details: eqlam ḫarbam maḫāṣum is now attested in Arnaud 1989, Pl. 53 no. 151:12. Ana šēna zâzum in AbB 4 23:23. 9 Mauer 1983, 63–78. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

305

7. YOS 12 401 (Si 21) Nidnuša rents a field (1 bùr) from two persons with Elamite(?) names, at onethird for the owner (Drittelpacht). He has to perform these activities on the field: eqlam majjārī igammar išakkak ú [sic] irriš. In an addendum we read: “The lower end of his field: he may collect (i-si-ip-ma!) and take along 5 iku of field, from the spillway (and on) (?)” (15–18). The first witness has an Elamite name, Marduk-sunki(r) (also in YOS 12 380:15), the name of the second, Kaspuša, is known from Lower Yaḫrurum: TIM 5 40:2, and Grant 1938, 240–241, no. 8:14 (sandanakkum).10 Here, land is given as compensation for the work done (mānaḫtum). It seems to be situated in a corner and might have been of low quality. This passage has in common with AbB 3 2:41–48 the word šepîtum, “lower end of a field”. There, Ipqu-Šala had hoed a part of a field given to him, but the giver wants to cultivate the field himself. “Measure out his plot of hoed land (ripqātum) and I myself will compensate his work/expenses (mānaḫātišu appalšu)”. “If it is all right with you, let him cultivate the top (qaqqadum) of the lower end of the field on the canal (ušallum) that you did cultivate.” Here a plot of land is ceded to him (for one year?), as compensation for his work, just as here, in YOS 12 401. Why “taking along” the extra land in YOS 12 401? Here, the exceptional ašà majjārī igammar “he shall finish the majjārū” (11–12) may be the reason.11 This verbal form igammar is also attested in a similar context in Gautier 1908, 62–63 no. 27 (= VAB 5 124; 4.V Hamm. 32): the owner E. majjārī imaḫḫaṣ igammar-ma, “will finish the majjārī maḫāṣum”, and the cultivator I. irreš-su, “will seed-plough (the barley)” (lower edge 1–rev. 3). Then it is stipulated that the owner and the cultivator each get a half share of the yield (mišlānī zâzum). This is most unusual: normally they get one third and two-thirds, respectively. G. Mauer described majjārī maḫāṣum as hard work, involving high investments, and one can imagine that a cultivator could not meet the challenges. How risky this first phase was, may be clear from a field lease for three years (teptîtum), first stating that he has to do the plouging (maḫāṣum and parākum) and making the furrows, then threatening that he has to deliver 60 kor of barley per bùr if he does not perform exactly these two ploughings; YOS 12 560. It is small wonder that a man was angry when his field that had undergone these two ploughings was taken away from him, and Lu-Ninurta redressed the situation: he should not lose (elûm Gt) the work he had invested (ina mānaḫtišu la ušellūšu); AbB 4 68:25. We have seen that in VAS 8 74, 75 a third person had to step in at the time of the deep-ploughing with the ḫarbu-plough. In Gautier 1908, 62–63 no. 27 the owner steps in by finishing the cultivator’s aborted job. Note that the 10

Charpin 1981, 527, Archives B 9 (Nidnuša). Already CAD G, 28 g. (with a wrong translation) felt that this was strange: “possibly imaḫḫaṣ has been omitted before igammar”. Inspired by Gautier 1908, 62–63 no. 27. 11

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marten Stol

306

month within the agricultural year in which such agreements were (re)made might be relevant. As to the half shares: in a field lease from Sippar the cultivator promised to “perform the work” (šipram ippuš) under the same conditions as his neighbours. “If he does not perform the work, he will take (only) half of the barley” (mišlānīšu še’am ileqqe) (VAS 8 62, 63; VAB 5 130). This must mean that he is not entitled to the usual two-thirds that the neighbours are getting.12 We will see later that the “half shares” agreement is not unusual in our texts. There now is a similar passage about “finishing” an activity in the field lease OECT 15 107:7–9, “from it [2 bùr], 1 bùr of field has been irrigated with water (mê makir), the remainder (sittum), 1 bùr of field, Uselli will irrigate with water mê U. imakkar)”. Here, the two lessees (not Uselli!) “will take 3 iku of field per 1 bùr, their work”. “To take” (leqûm) is an equivalent of tabālum, as in more texts, to be studied later. In all three texts one of the works to be done has not been completed and the extra land is here the reward for compensating the extra effort. 8. TLB I 206 (16.VI) Ḫabil-aḫī rents 3 bùr of a “sowing-field” (thus W.F. Leemans: GUG4.ŠE) for cultivating during one year; the rent is as that of his neighbours. Then follows: “He will collect and take along (the yield of) 3 iku per 1 bùr, that (is), 3 bùr of field (means) 9 iku” (12–14). The reason for giving this land is not clear from the text. It may be an unusual variant of the normal field rent—or does an unpaid debt loom at the background? As in the esip tabal text UET 5 401.13 9. TIM 5 42 (III, after Rīm-Sîn 30) Iddin-Nanaja rents 5 bùr of field, the subsistence-field of Šamaš-māgir, the son of Ṣilli-Šamaš, from this Šamaš-māgir, for cultivation, for this year (á-mu-ú-ašè). Šamaš-māgir will receive his half of the yield (mišlānišu šu-ba-ab-te-gá, 9– 11). He will be responsible for (obligations toward) the king and the governor (šabra). “From (the) 6 (so!) bùr of cultivated field (gána-zi) Iddin-Nanaja can choose and take (i-na-sà-aq-ma ileqqe) 6 iku, where it is good (soil) (ašar damqu), for collecting (a-na né-sé-pe-[tim]; this was scribbled between the lines)” (14–17). 14 This new word nēsepētum “collecting” must stand for the combination of the imperatives esip tabal. Clearly, the word was not essential, 12

So Kohler / Ungnad 1910, 58 no. 1027, “bekommt er nur die Hälfte”. Not so Schorr 1913, 183, and Pomponio 1978, 45, but Petschow 1984, 191–192 tends to the other opinion. 13 Charpin 1986, 476–477; Veenhof 2004, 443–444. Note also the informative letter published by Tammuz 1996, 125–126. See now Wilcke 2020, 324. 14 A field ašar damqu also in AbB 4 114:12, Dalley / Walker / Hawkins 1976, 308:12–13. Explained as “which is situated near water”, AbB 4 1:10–11. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

307

but was added just for clarity’s sake. Here we observe again that the lessee can “take along” the total yield of only a part of the field—undoubtedly a remuneration for the work done. He even can “choose and select” his land; this a second modification of tabālum, just like leqûm (see above).15 Earlier in the text it was said that the owner gets half of the yield which seems to imply that the other half will be that of the lessee. This is the rather rare “half shares” lease which we have met in Gautier 1908, 62–63 no. 27. New in this text is that the owner takes care of the obligations towards king and majordomo, i.e., the Crown, State (12–13)—is that the reason for half shares? Did the State invest the plough-teams (epinnum), or more? “Les intendantsšabrûm étaient impliqués dans la distribution, le confiscation et la mise en culture des terres agricoles d’après la documentation du Sud mésopotamien”.16 We are lucky: the same Šamaš-māgir is named in the letter YOS 15 35, written by Hammurabi’s “minister” Lu-Ninurta to Šamaš-ḫāzir. “From the field of Šamaš-māgir, the son of Ṣilli-Šamaš, you give 4 bùr to Ea-kīma-ilija. He shall choose and take (the field he wishes). Give the remainder (sittum) to Šamašmāgir”. We know an Ea-kīma-ilija as “singer” in this correspondence (AbB 4 14:4, 16; AbB 9 188:4). The terminology is similar to that in TIM 5 42: “from” a field the cultivator can “choose and select” a specific portion. The same situation? One aspect in this letter is disturbing, however: the 4 bùr that he can “choose and take” greatly exceeds the sizes of the esip tabal fields in the texts listed below, at the beginning of “Barley as compensation”: in most cases 3 iku per bùr. Could it be that this attribution of fields takes place on a higher level, where the subsistence fields were assigned (esēḫum; cf. isiḫtum) to the “owners” by Lu-Ninurta, at the court of Hammurabi? If so: does the “king” and the majordomo in the formula TIM 5 42:12 refer to Rīm-Sîn and his “minister”, and are they Hammurabi and Lu-Ninurta in our letter?17

15

In a contract on the cultivation of garlic we again find “he can choose and select (the land)” (TCL 11 202:11). In other garlic contracts we see similar phrases: “The ten SAR of field they will take, wherever they may lay their hands on” (TIM 5 44:7–11), “a field, as much as they wish” (YOS 12 135:1). Garlic often was grown in date palm gardens, between the trees, wherever there was room. 16 Béranger 2019, 157. King and majordomo (šabra, signs PA.AL): compare this combination in a literary letter referring to the Ur III period: ensí (written im-sik) ù šàab-ra-a, Edzard 1974, 13, 18 no. 1 i 28, with p. 26. The same pair in a Larsa text published by Limet 1990, discussed at the end of this contribution (no. 15). What is PAAL-aš (?) in BIN 7 177:21? Read as iš7-ka-rum by Fiette 2018, 258. The šabra in Ur III agriculture (Umma): Steinkeller 1981, 118–119, 121. 17 This letter was discussed by Fiette 2018, 112, 154, cf. 156. Line 10: K.R. Veenhof saw dumu-me-eš in the erasure (YOS 15, p. 6). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

308

Marten Stol

10. OECT 15 91 (5. V Hamm. 32) Summarized by Fiette 2018, 242. A field of 2 bùr, the subsistence field of Šamaš-ḫāzir, in the area of god Nanna, [then, unexpectedly, follows the remark “Šu-Ninmar and Uselli ‘gave’ the field”, 5–6, written as if in parentheses—they may have assigned (esēḫum) the field to Šamaš-ḫāzir], leased for cultivation from him by Sîn-iddinam, the rakbûm, and Aplum, son of Sîn-iqīšam. The obligation to do work on the field follows (majjārī maḫāṣum, šerḫam šakānum in months VI and VII, 11–13). Then: “From it (šà-ba) he can collect and take along 6 iku of field. If he does not cultivate (erēšum), he has to deliver 60 (1 šuši) kor pro bùr” (14–18). Baptiste Fiette included this text in the wider context of Šamaš-ḫāzir leasing out subsistence fields. He points out that it is striking that nowhere in this group it is said how the (procentual, or whatever) division of the yield between the owner and the cultivator is, nor is the duration of the agreement given (Fiette 2018, 245, 250). No division of the yield. How, then, did the lessee earn his living? At the end of his discussion of this group of texts he suggests: “En tous les cas (…), son [= the cultivator’s] engagement sur un cycle annuel de culture exige une rétribution régulière sous forme de rations de grain (…)” (Fiette 2018, 251). There is no proof that this happened here. Rations were given to simple workers, but higher up in society they were given a field to live from, see Stol 2004, 732–734. It is clear that the lessees in this group did not do the actual work on the fields; they were the organizers. The identification of Mānum with the man in the list of rations OECT 15 26:14 (so Fiette 2018, 287 on line 14) is uncertain. Mānum was the lessee in OECT 15 39 and the “last year’s cultivator” (ša M. šaddaqdi še’am īpušu) in TCL 11 149:2 (Fiette 2018, 252). No duration is given. Surprisingly high is the fine for not cultivating the field: “he has to deliver 60 kor pro bùr” (Fiette 2018, 247–248). K. Butz, after a long discussion, would agree and offers a solution by answering Fiette’s second point, “no duration”: “Pachtung auf mehrere Jahre”, Butz 1979, 294–301; similarly Mauer 1980, 91–92.18 “Wir müssen demnach von einer Pacht von 6 Jahren ausgehen, wovon drei Jahre jeweils Brache sind, oder zumindest nicht Gerste angebaut wird und die 60 gur pro bùr verteilen sich auf drei Ernten, die durchschnittlich 13,2-fachen Ertrag im Verhältnis zum Saatgut geben. Und dies ist keineswegs sehr schlecht [referring to situations in Germany 1800, Spain 1948–1963]” (Butz 1979, 301). If this is true, we are no more surprised that the durations are not given in the Šamaš-ḫāzir field leases!

18

“Year”: better is “cultivation period”, according to Mauer 1983, 70 (note 51) (“by renting a field one has to think of one year of cultivation and one year of fallowness”); Mauer 1980, 95; Wilcke 2020. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

309

Prosopography of OECT 15 91 Šu-Ninmar is also attested in BIN 7 177:29, with seal 4 (correct Fiette 2018, 259). The first witness is Nidnuša, the ababdûm (here syllabically ab-ab-du, 19), known from Smith 1926, 437 BM 117580:28 (where the temple of Ninmar is mentioned; year Rīm-Sîn 54), and the unpublished AUAM 73.3195:19 (= HTS 5) (oath to Ninmar and Rīm-Sîn; Rīm-Sîn year 56). The god Ninmar in both texts suggests that we are in or around Ašduba; see Charpin 1980, 144–146. Uselli, “the brother of Dingir-mansum” (22): perhaps the Uselli in line 5 (with Šu-Ninmar); possibly in OECT 15 33:19 (Fiette 2018, 253), 107:8 (Fiette 2018, 250, 252), TCL 11 152:21 (Fiette 2018, 244). Dingir-mansum, brother of Uselli (22), could be the šakkanakkum, known from BIN 7 177:2, 25, OECT 15 33:16 (Fiette 2018, 253); see Fiette 2018, 251 note 856. Both brothers in TCL 11 164:5, 10 (Fiette 2018, 296, with note 999). For the geographical context of a-gàr Nanna: compare pirik Nanna in OECT 15 39:2. It was situated on the canal Kaba in OECT 15 91:3, TCL 11 149:20–21 (with Mānum as the previous cultivator) (Fiette 2018, 252), TCL 11 171:10 (Fiette 2018, 279), and BIN 7 177:9 (Fiette 2018, 258). Elsewhere in OECT 15 more texts on fields in the a-gàr Nanna are mentioned. Probably in Ašduba.

Nēsepētum We met with this word in TIM 5 42:16 where it refers to an esip tabal agreement. In a few more texts the word appears again. 11. YOS 12 543 (10+.II, Si 11?) Ten iku of field, the subsistence field of Ištar-ili, rented from him by the partners Ilšu-ilišu, Bala, and Ištar-ili, for planting sesame: “3 iku, their … field (a-šà e-liti-šu-nu, 7), they will take as nēsepētum, for their work performed; [as to the remaining] 7 iku of field: two-thirds the cultivator will take, one third the owner of the field” (7–13). Then follows this standard formula in partner contracts: “The works (mānaḫātum) to be performed they will perform, the one as much as the other”. The meaning of elîtum probably is “high lying terrain, high land”, CAD E, 99 6. As in: “Give instructions so that one does not let its higher parts lie fallow. One should water them (eliātišu la inaddû mê lilputū)”, AbB 14 139: 20–22. Was this the land of their own choosing—or was second-rate land imposed on them?19

19

Charpin 1981, 535, 546 (Archives J). Seal impressions and discussion: Charpin 1987a and 1987b. The duo Ilšu-ilišu and Bala were specialists on šikkatum fields and also involved in majjārī maḫāṣum (Riftin 1937, 150 no. 128). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marten Stol

310

12. YBC 5755:10–12 (12.IX Hamm. 32) i-na 1 bùr 3 iku a-na ne-sé-pe-ti-šu-nu i-le-qú-ú, so 3 iku per bùr. This is a tappûtum field lease of a field, a-šà éš-gàr Iddin-Ea, rented by Lubluṭ-ilum and Iddin-ilum. Only this line, with its intriguing new word nēsepētum, was transliterated by me when I was preparing AbB 9 in Yale in 1977. In July 2019 Klaus Wagensonner kindly made the photos which are published here (Plate I).

Summary Up till now we saw that the cultivator could select and take along a piece of land: OECT 8 15:4–5 [9 iku from 57 iku]; OECT 15 91:14–15 [6 iku from 2 bùr]; 107:15–17 [3 iku per bùr]; 142:13–15 [3 iku per bùr], TIM 5 42:14–17 [6 iku], TLB I 206:12 [3 iku per bùr], YOS 12 401:15–18 [5 iku per bùr]), YBC 5755:10 [3 iku per bùr]. So 3 iku per bùr seems to be the rule.

Barley as compensation In other texts the lessee gets barley as nēsepētum. 13. OECT 15 39 (6.V Hamm. 35) Summarized by Fiette 2018, 243. A field, situated in pirik Nanna, [a subsistence field of] Šamaš-ḫāzir, is rented by Mānum. “From 60 (kor), 6 kor, the nēsepētum: (this) Mānum, the cultivator, will take. In months VI and VII he will lay out the furrow(s). If he does not sow the field, he shall deliver (the) barley, per (ina) 1 bùr 60 kor” (6 –rev. 1). As an afterthought follows: “He shall harrow, break (the clods), and lay out the furrow(s)” (rev. 2–4). So the cultivator “takes” 10% of the yield (following Fiette 2018, 245). One assumes that this is the compensation for the agricultural work that is to be done. Possibly the “harrowing” and “breaking (the clods)” which he is obliged to perform when he does not “sow” the field (rev. 2). The 10% norm is also attested in another payment in barley, “from 60 (kor), 6 kor the cultivator will take for his work (mānaḫtum)”, and certainly the nēsepētum is meant (YOS 12 530:13–15). Another example of barley given for doing extra work on the field: “Because he weeded the field twice (kasāmam išnû), Gurrurum [the cultivator] will take 1 kor of barley from the zibbat ḫaṭṭim. Also, he will hoe the grass” (BIN 7 197:11–14; Mauer 1980, 146; with a collation by C. Wilcke).20 20

The fine “60 kor per 1 bùr” for not cultivating a field (ul irriš-ma), lines 12–14, is well known; see Fiette 2018, 246f. Cf. Pomponio 1978, 45–48; Mauer 1980, 137–140 (“Auflagen und Strafklauseln”). Also in the Larsa(!) texts Dekiere 1996 (= MHET II/5), no. 564:13, TIM 5 46:18. Viewed in a broader context by Petschow 1984, 191–193. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

311

We see that in other texts the word nēsepētum is not mentioned explicitly but is intended—among which many Šamaš-ḫāzir texts collected by Fiette 2018, 245–246. Also in YOS 12 530, as we saw above. Clearly, mentioning the word was not essential and now we understand why the word was inserted in TIM 5 42:16 at the last minute. A fine example is the renumeration for creating a date plam garden found in a Nippur text: 14. PBS 8/1 21 Again, the word nēsepētum is not mentioned. [A field] is rented by Lu-Isina “for planting ([gub]-bu-dè, ana zaqāpim) date palms and tamarisks” (1–2), for “laying out (gá-gá-dè) a garden” (10). “As to the laying out of the garden, LuIsina will take along 35 sar of empty space (KI.UD = teriktum), within the Lower Sheep Field (…), for his expenses (nam á-kúš-a-ni-šè ba-an-tùm-mu)” (16–21) (…). “Until the palms have grown 3 cubits high, he will have the usufruct(?), one-third of it” (29–30).21 Finally, there is one text which may remind us of those presented above. 15. Limet 1990, 38–39 no. 3 (no date) Here, 9 iku of unc[ultivated] land is leased “for cultivation”, the work to be done by the lessee is šakākum, šebērum, and šerḫam šakānum in months VI and VII. If the work is not done, he has to deliver 60 kor pro bùr (1 bùr 1 gur še ì-ág-e, rev. 1–3). The owner will take his half share of the yield (šu-ri-a-bi šu baab-te-gá) and is responsible for (obligations toward) the king and the majordomo (!), rev. 6–7)—half shares, as in TIM 5 42, again with those obligations.

Isolated administrative text from Larsa (Rīm-Sîn) 16. YOS 8 173 3 bùr of field, in Āl-Balmunamḫe, subsistence field of Iddin-Sîn, rented by RīmSîn-šega-Enlil, “for flattening sesame and sowing barley, ana nēsepētim. Per 1 bùr 10 kor” (6–9). He shall deliver 5 kor of barley in a measure of(?) the city of Išme-Sîn, on 30.IV. The cultivator has to fulfill the duties to the palace, the State (straw and silver). No witnesses; sealed by the cultivator. Dated to month III.22

21

Koschaker / Ungnad 1923, 119 no. 1723; MSL 1, 194, 195. In PBS 8/1 21:18 a-šà sila4 (“Field of young sheep”), cf. MSL 11, 99 Nippur Forerunner 82. As to the usufruct in line 30, I see igi-3-gál-bi kaš al-KA-dè (kú or nag?), and see above, on ninda al-kú-e (?) in Stone 1987, no. 32 (Plate 54) rev. 2 (here no. 1). 22 The measure: Mauer 1980, 114. For “zehn Kor pro Hufe”, see Mauer 108: also in YOS 8 55, CḪ § 44. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marten Stol

312

What does this “per bùr 10 kor” mean? Butz defines it as “Halbpacht”, based on his insight that the total yield of 1 bùr must be 40 kor, half is 20 (due to one year fallow), and half of that after the division of the harvest (Butz 1979, 300, 301, bottom). 20 kor indeed is the rule in Kienast 1978, II, 95–96 no. 97; more in Mauer 1983, 68 n. 37. Similar computations were made by Stol 2004, 840–843, based on 60 kor per bùr: half is 30 kor, half of that is 15 kor. About fields of soldiers (Stol 2004, 784, cf. 842–843): “die ideale Norm ist umgerechnet 15 Kor Gerste pro bur (18 iku), d.h.: die Hälfte der Hälfte des idealen Feldertrages, 60 Kor pro bur” (= Halbpacht).

Excursus on fallow land: an attempt General: Butz 1979, 317–322. He distinguishes a-šà sù “Brachfeld” from kankal “vermutlich Neubruchland, oder Kulturland, das sehr lange nicht mehr bebaut worden war” (Butz 1979, 319). Also Stol 2004, 840–841. Presargonic Lagash. gána dag-LAK449×Ú.BA (var. -giš-bar), “kultivierbares Ödland” (A. Deimel, ŠL no. 394, d); “land left fallow and full of weeds” (sometimes together with saline plots unusable for cultivation) (Yamamoto 1979, 88, cf. Yamamoto 1980, 170–171); GÁNA-dag-NUNUZ.KISIM5×Ú.BA, “Feld mit ‘Gestrüpp’ ”, Selz 1989, 190 Nik. 31 i 3, with note, and Index, 554b, like GÁNAdag-LAK449×Ú.BA; possible variants are GÁNA-dag-giš-bar, GÁNA-dag (Selz 1989, 191). Ur III. a-šà sù, lit. “empty land”, as in the laws of Ur-Namma, § 41: “If a man gives a field to another to cultivate, (but) he does not till (uru4) it (and) leaves it fallow (šà sù-ga ì-gar), he shall pay three kor of barley for each iku (of field)”.23 In administrative texts GÁN-BALA, contrasted with gána-uru4-a in Maekawa 1989, 158–160, 163, 165–169 (Tables 2–4, 8–14, 17–19), discussed by Grégoire 1970, 234–236, 285 (s.v. bal III). See already Oppenheim 1948, 75, his last remark on G 26 (Akkadian nabalkutu). De Maaijer 1998, 55, reads buru14-bala, “left fallow” (in Lagash). The sign is rather bùr. Of course, this word has been connected with the Akkadian loan-word burubalûm and even turbalû (lex.; durbal “fallow”, MSL 12, 49 OB Proto-Lu 460), see Charpin 1980, 163. Old Babylonian. “Cultivated land” rarely is named gána-zi = mēreš(t)um; here in TIM 5 42:14, and in more contexts (especially literary); see Stol 1988, 182 n. 6. It is contrasted to gána-sù (written BU, often transcribed as a-šà GÍD). In UET 5 664 II 7; Fiette 2018, 336–337 no. 5, lines 97–98, 134–135, 145–146. Contrasted to ab-sén in Birot 1969, 1:2–3, etc., with pp. 40–41; OECT 15 106 I 1–2, etc., Ellis 1977, 144 no. 6:8–9, 16–17, 22–23. Remarkable is the contrast with 2-nu, OECT 15 123:1. An uncultivated field from the preceding year: “If 23

Civil 2011, 241–242, 248. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

313

the field not has been cultivated during the last year and was left abandoned (la eriš-ma nadi), take a sealed tablet for new cultivation (teptîtum) for two years, and it will come into (a normal) rent relation in the third year”, AbB 2 92:15–19 (Stol 2004, 848). In some early OB texts from Sippar and Dilbat KA.GAR is contrasted to the uncultivated KI.KAL (kankal) (CT 33 43, MHET II/3 429). One line stipulates “he will turn the KI.KAL into KA.GAR” (MHET II/5 789:12–14). Is KA.GAR related to šer’am šakānum (Sum. ab-sén gá-gá, as in TIM 5 50 rev. 10)? Later periods. Assyrian: karapḫu, K. Deller apud Mauer 1980, 91–92. NeoBabylonian: nabalkattu, CAD N/1, 10 b., the verb on page 15f., with van Driel 1990, 236. Aramaic: b’l’, Mandaic bala, “rural area; uncultivated ground”; Watson 2018. Uncultivated or “bad” (ḫul) fields are listed in MSL 11, 97–98 Nippur Forerunner 34–36: a-šà gán-da, a-šà gán-bùr, a-šà apin-nu-zu. Cf. 130 ii 31–33 (the last line offers a “bad”, ḫul, field). The first (34) is attested in PBS 8/1 12:3, 11, a-šà šuku gán-da, qualifying a subsistence field (so here it is not a “field name”); but it is a name in TMH 10 41:9, 189:7. The second (35) is GÁN, followed by the “gloss” (Cohen) bùr, as in MSL 11, 98 Nippur Forerunner 35; also 130 ii 32; seen by Cohen 2005, 60, on ii 36′′–37′′ (p. 57). For the copies of this bùr in the lexical texts, see Jean 1935, 169, ii 32 (= bùr in MSL 11, 130 Old Babylonian Forerunner 1 ii 32), or SLT 211 i 8, 214 i 17 (= bùr in MSL 11, 98 Nippur Forerunner 35), followed in PSD B, 201a, 6. Actually, here the sign bùr is written like GAM, as in the headings of Middeke-Conlin 2018, 282, 286, 291 (copies); looking like “20” in Arnaud 1983, 287 no. 1, heading III. Interpreted as BÙR-gunû = bùru-u = šuplum “depth”. Could this gán-bùru-u be a variant of GÁN-BALA (known from Ur III Lagash; see above)? Note that GÁNA can be a variant of gala, in gá-la dag; Steinkeller 1989, 66 n. 192. The third (36) literally means “field that has not known the plough”, Goddeeris 2018, 110, on line 36; with a-šà KI.KAL šà a-šà apin-nu-zu (TMH 10 46:1–2). Akkadian: eqlu la eršu, MSL 11, 171 BM 72143:14′.

Bibliography Arnaud, D., Catalogue des document inscrits trouvés au cours de la huitième campagne (1978), avec une annexe de textes divers concernant le royaume de Larsa, in: Huot, J.-L. (ed.), Larsa (8ème et 9ème campagnes, 1978 et 1981) et ’Oueili (2ème et 3ème campagnes, 1978 et 1981): Rapport préliminaire, Paris 1983. — Altbabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 1), Berlin 1989. Attinger, P., A propos de AK «faire» (II), in: in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 95 (2005) 208–275.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

314

Marten Stol

Béranger, M., Du signe à l’enveloppe, in: Chambon, G. et al. (eds.), De l’argile au numérique. Mélanges assyriologiques en l’honneur de Dominique Charpin (Publications de l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien du Collège de France 3), Paris 2019, 125–168. Birot, M., Tablettes économiques et administratives d’époque babylonienne ancienne conservées au Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève, Paris 1969. Butz, K., Ur in altbabylonischer Zeit als Wirtschaftsfaktor, in: Lipiński, E. (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5), Leuven 1979, 257–409. Cavigneaux, A., Uruk. Altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI-4/5 (Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte 23), Mainz 1996. Charpin, D., Archives familiales et propriété privée en Babylonie ancienne. Étude des documents de « Tell Sifr » (Hautes Études Orientales 12), Genève / Paris 1980. — La Babylonie de Samsu-iluna à la lumiére de nouveaux documents, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 38 (1981) 517–547. — Le Clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe–XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.), (Hautes Études Orientales 22), Genève / Paris 1986. — Notices prosopographiques, 1: une novelle famille d’abrig d’Enki-d’Eridu, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1987a) 19, no. 35. — Notices prosopographiques, 2: les descendants de Balmunamhe, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1987b), 19–20, no. 36. — Une mention d’Alašiya dans une lettre de Mari, in: Revue d’ Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 84 (1990) 125–127. Civil, M., The Farmer’s Instructions. A Sumerian Agricultural Manual (Aula Orientalis, Supplementa 5), Barcelona 1994. — The Law Collection of Ur-Namma, in: George, A.R. (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Cuneiform Texts VI. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17), Bethesda 2011, 221–286. Cocquerillat, D., Aperçus sur la phéniciculture en Babylonie à l’époque de la 1ère Dynastie de Babylone, in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of Orient 10 (1967) 161–223. Cohen, M.E., Another Old Babylonian Forerunner to HAR-ra = Ḫubullu XX– XXII, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 57 (2005) 55–61. Dalley, S. / Walker, C.B.F. / Hawkins, J.D., The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell al Rimah, London 1976. Dekiere, L., Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum, Part 3: Documents from the Reign of Samsu-iluna (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series III, Texts, vol. 2), Ghent 1995.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

315

— Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum, Part 5: Documents without Date or with Date Lost (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series III, Texts, vol. 2), Ghent 1996. van Driel, G ., Neo-Babylonian Agriculture, Part III. Cultivation, in: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 5 (1990) 210–266. Edzard, D.O., Deux lettres royales d’Ur III en sumérien “syllabique” et pourvu d’une traduction accadienne, in: Labat, R. (ed.), Textes littéraires de Suse (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 57), Paris 1974, 9– 34. deJong Ellis, M., An Agricultural Administrative Archive in the Free Library of Philadelphia, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29 (1977) 127–150. Fiette, B., Archibab 3. Le Palais, la terre et les hommes. La gestion du domaine royal de Larsa d’après les archives de Šamaš-ḫazir (Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 20), Paris 2018. Figulla, H.H. / Sigrist, M. / Walker, C.B.F., Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, II, London 1996. Gautier, J.-É., Archives d’une famille de Dilbat au temps de la première dynastie de Babylone (Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire), Cairo 1908. Goddeeris, A., Fields of Nippur. Irrigation Districts and Lexicography in Old Babylonian Nippur, in: Tavernier, J. et al. (ed.), Topography and Toponymy in the Ancient Near East. Perspectives and Prospects. (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 71), Leuven 2018, 97–112. Grant, E., Ten Old Babylonian Contracts, in: Grant, E. (ed.), The Haverford Symposium on Archaeology and the Bible, New Haven 1938, 225–245. Grégoire , J.P., Archives administratives sumériennes, Paris 1970. Jean, C.-F., Vocabulaire du Louvre, AO 6447, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 32 (1935) 161–174. Kienast, B., Die altbabylonischen Briefe und Urkunden aus Kisurra (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 2/I–II), Wiesbaden 1978. Kohler, J. / Ungnad, A., Hammurabi’s Gesetz, Band IV, Leipzig 1910. Koschaker, P. / Ungnad, A., Hammurabi’s Gesetz, Band VI, Leipzig 1923. Kouwenberg, N.J.C., Reflections on the Gt-stem in Akkadian, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 95 (2005) 77‒103. Landsberger, B., Schwierige akkadische Wörter, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 3 (1926) 164–172. Limet, H., Actes juridiques paléo-babyloniens, in: Tunca, Ö. (ed.), De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à Monsiuer J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, Liège 1990, 35–57. de Maaijer, R., Land Tenure in Ur III Lagaš, in: Haring, B. / de Maaijer, R. (eds.), Landless and Hungry? Access to Land in Early and Traditional Societies, Leiden 1998, 50–73. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

316

Marten Stol

Maekawa, K., The Girsu “Seed-and-Fodder Texts” of Šulgi 41, in: Zinbun 24 (1989) 135–202. — The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (XII), in: Zinbun 34 (1999) 145–166. Mauer, G., Das Formular der altbabylonischen Bodenpachtverträge, InauguralDissertation an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München 1980. — Agriculture of the Old Babylonian Period, in: Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 15 (1983) 63–78. Middeke-Conlin, R., Estimation and Observation. A Study of Two Old Babylonian Tabular Administrative Documents, in: Attinger, P. et al. (eds.), Text and Image. Proceedings of the 61e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Geneva and Bern, 22–26 June 2015 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 40, Series Archaeologica), Leuven / Paris / Bristol 2018, 281–291. Oers, L., To Invest in Harvest. Field Leases in Old Babylonian Susa, in: Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19 (2013) 155–169. Oppenheim, A.L., Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eames Babylonian Collection in the New York Public Library (American Oriental Series 32), New Haven 1948. Petschow H.P.H., Die §§ 45 und 46 des Codex Hammurapi. Ein Beitrag zum altbabylonischen Bodenpachtrecht und zum Problem: Was ist der Codex Hammurapi?, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 74 (1984) 181–212. Pomponio, F., I contratti di affitto dei campi per la coltivazione di cereali pubblicati in YOS 13, Napoli 1978. Reculeau, H., Florilegium marianum XVI. L’agriculture irriguée au royaume de Mari: Essai d’histoire des tecniques (Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 21), Paris 2018. Riftin, A.P., Starovavilonskie juridičeskie i administrativnie dokumenti v sobranijach SSSR, Moskau / Leningrad 1937. Roth, M.T., Scholastic Tradition and Mesopotamian Law. A Study of FLP 1287, a Prism in the collection of the Free Library of Philadelphia, PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 1979. Sauren, H., Topographie der Provinz Umma nach den Urkunden der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur, Inaugural-Dissertation an der Ruprecht-Karl-Universität zu Heidelberg 1966. Schorr , M., Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 5), Leipzig 1913. Selz, G., Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš. Teil 1. Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 15/1), Stuttgart 1989. Smith, S., Assyriological Notes, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1926) 433–446.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Esip tabal in Agriculture

317

Steinkeller, P., The Renting of Fields in Ancient Mesopotamia and the Development of the Concept of Interest in Sumerian, in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 24 (1981) 116–121. — Sale Documents of the Ur-III-Period (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 17), Stuttgart 1989. Stol, M., Old Babylonian Fields, in: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 4 (1988) 173–188. — Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit, in: Charpin, D. / Edzard, D.O. / Stol, M., Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/4), Fribourg / Göttingen 2004, 643–975. Stone, E.C., Nippur Neighborhoods (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 44), Chicago 1987. Tammuz, O., Two Small Archives from Lagaba, in: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 90 (1996) 121–133. Veenhof, K.R., Pfand. B., in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10 (2004) 443–445. Waetzoldt , H., Zu den Bewässerungseinrichtungen in der Provinz Umma, in: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 5 (1990) 1–29. Watson, W., Newly Found: Fellow Nouns for a “Fallow Field”, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2018, 120–121, no. 77. Wilcke, C., Flurschäden, verursacht durch Hochwasser, Unwetter, Militär, Tiere und schuldhaftes Verhalten zur Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur, in: Klengel, H. / Renger, J. (eds.), Landwirtschaft im alten Orient. Ausgewählte Vorträge der XLI. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Berlin, 4.-8.7.1994) (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 18), Berlin 1999, 301–339. — Die Klausel á mu-ú/u8-a-šè in altbab. Miet- und Feldpachtverträgen aus Nippur, Isin und unbekannter Herkunft: Politische Motive für die Stilisierung von Rechtsurkunden?, in: Azzoni, A. et al. (eds.), From Mari to Jerusalem. Assyriological and Biblical Studies in Honor of Jack Murad Sasson, University Park 2020, 322–353. Yamamoto, Sh., The “Agricultural Year” in Pre-Sargonic Girsu-Lagash, in: Acta Sumerologica 1 (1979) 85–97. — The “Agricultural Year” in Pre-Sargonic Girsu-Lagash (II), in: Acta Sumerologica 2 (1980) 169–181.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

318

Marten Stol

Plate I. YBC 5755 (Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection; photography by Klaus Wagensonner)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi, die sich nur im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. nachweisen lässt, und zwar für den Zeitraum zwischen der präsargonischen Periode und der II. Dynastie von Lagaš (s. Tab. I), hat Schwierigkeiten bei der Übersetzung bereitet, wie der unterschiedliche Umgang der Wissenschaftler mit dem Ausdruck lú-igi zeigt:1 Die meisten Wissenschaftler haben das Wort unübersetzt gelassen,2 während andere entweder eine wörtliche Übersetzung („Mann des Auges“)3 gewählt oder lú-igi als Abkürzung für die Personengruppe lú-iginígin(-na) gehalten haben.4 F. Pomponio, G. Visicato und A. Westenholz kommt das Verdienst zu, die ersten gewesen zu sein, den Beruf zutreffenderweise, aber

1

Ich möchte A. Kleinerman und D.I. Owen ganz herzlich für die Kollation der Hülle von CUSAS 3 1057 danken. Für die Fotos der Hülle von CUSAS 3 1057 bin ich A. Kleinerman auch sehr dankbar. Die Abkürzungen richten sich nach http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/ wiki/abbreviations_for_assyriology. Andere bibliographische Abkürzungen sind folgende: Biga, Fs Klein = Biga 2005; Himrin 4 = Rasheed F., The Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin Area, Baghdad 1981; SCTRAH = Molina, M. et al., Sargonic Cuneiform Tablets in the Real Academia de la Historia. The Carl L. Lippmann Collection (Catálogo del Gabinete de Antigüedades. I.1.6), Madrid 2014. Ferner sind noch folgende Abkürzungen zu berücksichtigen: Akk. = Akkadisch; Altakk. = Altakkadisch; AS = Amar-Suen; E = énsi; Enz = En-entarzi; GN = Göttername; L = lugal; Luag = Lugal-agu; Lug = Lugal-anda; Luzag = Lugal-zagesi; Man = Man-ištūšu; NrS = Narām-Suen; PN = Personenname; Präsarg. = Präsargonisch; Sum. = Sumerisch; Š = Šulgi; Šrk = Šar-kališarrī; ŠS = Šū-Suen; Ukg = Uru-KAgina; unv. = unveröffentlicht. 2 Gelb (1979, 37, 48), Gelb et al. (1991, 185 LÚ.IGI {meaning unknown}), Maiocchi (2009, 41 Übersetzung zu 18 obv. 3, 105 Übersetzung zu 78 rev.i 8) – er translitiriert lúIGI und schlägt auf S. 42 18 obv. 3 vor, dass lú-IGI eine Variante zu lú-IGI.DU oder agrig(IGI.DUB) sein kann – und Visicato / Westenholz (2010, 39 Übersetzung zu 103 obv. i 4). Ferner siehe Schrakamp (2008, 702 BdI Adab 258 K Vs. II 6) und Schrakamp (2013, 213 103 Vs. i 4), der lú-igi für eine Berufsbezeichnung hält. 3 Bauer (1972, 107 VI 5, 114 VI 5, 622 lú-igi) und die Deutung des PN Lú-igi bei Balke (2017, 229 mlú-igi). 4 Fronzaroli (2003, 59–60 {21}) und Bartash (2013, 31 No. 13 obv. ii 2, 226 lú-igi {a social status}). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

320

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

ohne weitere Erläuterungen, als „sorvegliante“5 zu deuten. F. Pomponio, in dessen umfassenden Themengebieten das 3. Jahrtausend einen zentralen Stellenwert einnahm, möchte ich folgenden Kommentar zur Richtigkeit der Übersetzung als „sorvegliante“ widmen.

1 Etymologie und Bedeutung Die Bedeutungsbestimmung der Bezeichnung lú-igi, die sich, ausgenommen von PN (s. Abschnitt 3), als Beruf sehr spärlich zwischen der präsargonischen Periode und der II. Dynastie von Lagaš nachweisen lässt (s. Tab. I), muss sich hauptsächlich auf die Etymologie gründen, da der beschränkte Textbestand nicht sehr ertragsreich ist. Außerdem ist keine akkadische Entsprechung für lú-igi bekannt, da der Beruf bis jetzt in keiner lexikalischen Liste überliefert ist.6 Das Wort lú-igi besteht aus lú, „Menschen/Mann“,7 und igi, „Auge, Vorderseite“,8 das in den Wendungen „vor“ oder „persönlich/unter Aufsicht“ mit den Postpositionen -šè und -ta vorkommt.9 Daraus ergibt sich, dass lú-igi, 5

Pomponio et al. (2006, 274 lú-igi). Diese Deutung ist von Balke (2017, 229 Anm. 651) – „Wächter(?)“ – mit Umsicht übernommen worden. 6 Siehe die ED lú-Listen, MSL 12, 10–20, die altbabylonischen Listen Proto-Lu, MSL 12, 33–67 und LÚ.TÚG = ašlāku, MSL 12, 158–218, und die spätere Liste lú = ša, MSL 12, 93–143. Zu igi = šību(m), „Zeuge“, in den lexikalischen Listen siehe Anm. 11. 7 Siehe z.B. Falkenstein (1957, 133–134 lú), AHw I, 90–91 awīlu(m), „Mensch; Bürger“, CAD A/II, 48–57 amīlu „1. human being (in contrast to gods and animals), man, person, [...]“ und Selz (1993, 82 {1:1}). 8 Siehe z.B. Falkenstein (1957, 121 igi), AHw I, 383 īnu(m) „Auge; Quelle“, CAD I–J, 153–158 īnu „1. eye, [...]“, AHw II, 585 maḫru(m) II „Vorderseite“, CAD M/I, 105–108 maḫru „1. past, bygone time, 2. (as prep.) before, in the presence, in front of (persons, objects, staples) with, [...]“, AHw II, 818–822 pānu(m) I „Vorderseite“; Pl. „Gesicht“ und CAD P, 84–95 panu A „1. front, front part, [...]“. 9 Die Bedeutung von igi als „vor“ lässt sich in der Wendung igi...(-ak)(-šè), wörtlich „(in Richtung auf) die Augen von...“, die hauptsächlich in Zeugenlisten, siehe z.B. Falkenstein (1957, 121 igi), Steinkeller (1989, 105), Gelb et al. (1991, 233 7.9.1) und Jagersma (2010, 188), und in PN, siehe z.B. Limet (1968, 256 b}), Balke (2006, 210 Anm. 918), vorkommt, ersehen. Diese Bedeutung von igi findet sich wahrscheinlich in den Berufen ÁBBA-igi-dEN.ZU/dNanše/NINAki(-na), „ ,Ältester‘/,Älteste‘ vor EN.ZU/Nanše/ NINA“, Belege bei Gelb (1984, 268 10.) – präsargonisch, Ur und Lagaš –, nar-igi, „Sänger vor “, UET 3 1433 Rs. I 5′ ([?] / [?]) – Ur III, Ur – und nar-[igi]-lugal[ka?/šè?], „Sänger vor dem König“, TCL 5 6058 = NG 2, 181–183 110 14 (AS 5 / iv -) – Ur III, Umma –. Zum letztgenannten Beruf siehe die altbabylonische Proto-LuListe MSL 12, 56 646–647. Der in altakkadischen Texten bezeugte Beruf nu-bànda-IGI, dessen Deutung noch unbekannt ist (siehe Abschnitt 2), scheint hierher nicht zu gehören. Die Bedeutung „persönlich/unter Aufsicht“ findet sich in der Wendung igiPossesivsuffix-ta, wörtlich „durch/mit den Augen des Possesivsuffixes“, siehe dazu Selz (1993, 394 vor {1:1}) und Balke (2006, 149 Anm. 642). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

321

wörtlich „Mann: Auge“, bedeutet, worauf der einzige Beleg mit Anführung eines Genitivs ohne Postpositionen verweist: lú-igi-u8-síg-ka, „,Mann: Auge‘ der Mutterschafe der Wolle“ (s. Tab. I 1 Nr. 3–4).10 Daraus geht hervor, dass er die Wollmutterschafe zum Zweck der Bewachung beobachtete, so dass die Übersetzung von lú-igi als „Wächter“ zutreffend ist. Diese Passage zeigt auch, dass lú-igi keine Abkürzung für einen/eine mit igi+Verb gebildeten/e Beruf/ Personengruppe wie a-igi-du8, „Wasser Seher/Beobachter“ > „Wasseraufseher“, IGI.DU, „,der vorangeht‘/Anführer“, igi-du8, „Seher“, und lú-igi-nígin(-na)(-me), „,Mensch/Leute, (der/die) die Augen umherschweifen lässt/lassen‘“, darstellt. Aus der Wendung von igi-...(-ak)(-šè) „vor jemandem“, in den Zeugenlisten entstand (LÚ.)IGI = šībum, „Zeuge“, ab Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im akkadischen Milieu, die in den lexikalischen Listen als IGI überliefert ist.11

10 Vgl. die Übersetzung von Balke (2017, 229 Anm. 651) „Wächter(?) der Wollmutterschafe“, welche der auf S. 147 men-abzu-a-túm(DU) b „Mann im ,Angesicht‘ der Mutterschaf-Wollschafe (= Kontrolleur?)“ widerspricht. Dafür, dass die Wendung igi...ak-šè bei lú-igi-u8-síg-ka nicht vorliegt, sprechen die Anführung von lú- und die Tatsache, dass die Auslassung von -šè vor der altakkadischen Zeit seltsam ist, siehe z.B.: präsargonisch, [ig]i-Géme-d[B]a-ba6-ka-šè, „vor Geme-Baba“, FAOS 15 2/2 61: I 3′ ( 3 / -) – Lagaš –; altakkadisch, igi-PN(-ak)-šè, „vor PN“, CUSAS 11 256: I 3–II 7 (- / -) – igi-PN (Vs. I 3–4, 7), unbekannte Herkunft –, BIN 8 29 = SRU 80: 6–7 (- / -) – Isin –, OSP 2 44: I 6–7 (- / -) – Nippur –, igi-PN, „vor PN“, MAD 4 14 = ZA 63, 258–261 Nr. 27 Rs. 14–19 ({NrS} / -), 15 = ZA 63, 247–250 Nr. 21 Rs. 22–˹24˺ ({Šrk} / -) – beide Texte aus Isin –, und Ur III, igi-PN-šè / igi-PN, „vor PN“, bei Steinkeller (1989, 105), 20/30 guruš (šà-gu4) igi-apin, „(Rindertreiber-)Arbeiter vor dem Pflug“, in Nippur-Texten, PPAC 5 157: 5 (- / v 29), 100: 4 (- / vi 13), SNAT 233 Rs. 2 (- / vi 20), 230: 7 (- / vi 22), PPAC 5 124 Rs. 2 (- / vii 5). Siehe auch igi als Vorsteher in Abschnitt 2. Darüber hinaus weist lú-igi-u8-síg-ka darauf hin, dass die Übersetzung „Mann des Auges“ für lú-igi in der in Anm. 3 angeführten Bibliographie nicht zutreffend ist, da udusíg(-k) einen inneren Genitiv enthält, worauf der in präsargonischen Lagaš-Texten bezeugte Beruf sipa-udu-síg-ka, wörtlich „Hirte der Schafe der Wolle“, vgl. Bauer (1972, 71 III 6), verweist. 11 Siehe AHw III, 1228–1229 šību(m) „grau; alt, Alter, Greis; Ältester; Zeuge“ und CAD Š/II, 390–399 šību A „1. old man, old woman, 2. (in pl. elders), 3. witness, [...]“, vgl. Fronzaroli (2003, 59 {21}). Zu beachten ist, dass der Ausdruck [LÚ].IGI.ZU im Ur-IIIzeitlichen GARšana-Text CUSAS 3 1057 Hülle Rs. 14 (ŠS 8 / ii 29), der als šībūs([LÚ].IGI)-sú, „seine Zeugen (des Malik-bāni)“, interpretiert werden könnte, indem er das erste Zeugnis für lú-igi = šību(m) bilden würde, zu streichen ist, denn A. Kleinerman und D.I. Owen kollationierten die Zeile und teilten mir Folgendes (E-Mail vom 4.6.2019) mit: „we now read very clearly [x].˹x˺.TI.ZU and David suggested reading [igi] ˹ì˺-ti-zu, a name which is attested“. Diese Kollation konnte ich aufgrund der von A. Kleinerman gesandten Fotos der Hülle verifizieren. D.I. Owens Zeilendeutung als ein weiterer Zeuge des Malik-bāni namens Iddi-ZU, der auf der Tafel nicht vorkommt, erscheint sehr plausibel.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

322

2 Schreibung Wie die Tab. I zeigt, wird der Beruf lú-igi immer mit den Zeichen LÚ und IGI geschrieben. Es gibt jedoch mit igi- beginnende Berufsbezeichnungen, die auf den ersten Blick mit lú-igi in Beziehung gesetzt werden könnten, da Berufskurzformen mit Auslassung von LÚ bekannt sind:12 igi-nagar(-k),13 „Vorsteher? der Holz-Handwerker“, igi-èš?(AB),14 „Vorsteher? (des) Sanktuarium(s)?“, igiu,15 „Vorsteher? (der) 10 (Arbeiter/Soldaten)“, und igi-NIM-ma(-é-gal),16 „Vorsteher? der NIM(-Leute) (des) Palast(es)“.17 Diese Berufsbezeichnungen müssen von lú-igi aus zwei Gründen getrennt werden: Erstens kommen sie nie mit dem Element lú- vor, und dessen Auslassung kann nicht aufgrund des Anhängens eines Genitivs erklärt werden, worauf lú-igi-u8-síg-ka in zwei präsargonischen Texten (s. Abschnitt I) verweist.18 Zweitens erfordert es der Kontext, igi als igi...(-ak)(-šè), „vor“ bzw. „Vorsteher“, zu interpretieren.19 Diese Deutung wird ebenfalls durch die Tatsache unterstützt, dass igi-u anscheinend den Vorläufer

12

Siehe z.B. früh-dynastisch IIIa und präsargonisch: (lú-)SI/má-gal-gal, „(Mann) (der) großen Schiffe“, Pomponio (1987, 301 lú-má-gal-gal), Bauer (1992, 2–3 49), Selz (1998, 257); altakkadisch: (lú-)sa12-du5, „Katasterleiter“, TCBI 2 I-56 Rs. 2 (- / -) – Isin –, Molina et al. (2014, 280 sag-du5), (LÚ.)TÚG, „Walker“, Gelb (1955, 234 Line 7), Hernández (2014, 59 2.1.6.2.11.1), BIN 8 85: 8 (- / -), 264: 2 (- / -) – beide Texte aus dem „Mesag-Archiv“ –, (lú-)uz-ga, „(königlicher) uz-ga(-Beamte)“, Steinkeller / Postgate (1992, 60 No. 27 iv 15), Molina et al. (2014, 78 33 o.3) und Ur III: (lú-)KAŠ4, „Läufer“, und (lú-)rá-gaba, „ra2-gaba-Bote“, Such-Gutiérrez (2015, 21 1, 25 Anm. 86, Anm. 93). 13 Biga, Fs Klein, 30–33 I 9 ({Luag} / -) – altakkadisch, Adab –. 14 CDLI P257561: II 4 (8 mu / 10 iti -) – unv. Text, altakkadisch, Umma –. 15 STTI 31 Rs. II′ 4 ([?] / [?]) – altakkadisch, Lagaš –. 16 Zu diesem in Ur-III-zeitlichen Texten aus Nippur bezeugten Beruf, den Lugal-mágur8-re, der Aufseher über die Weberinnen (ugula-uš-bar), ausübte, siehe Such-Gutiérrez (2003: 168). 17 Weitere Belege könnten folgende zwei Bezeichnungen aus der altakkadischen Zeit sein: PÙ!.PÙ! dumu-igi-é-ga[l], „Sohn (des) Vorsteher(s)? (des) Palast(es)“, JCS 35, 174 No. 15: 6 (- / -) – unbekannte Herkunft –, wenn kein PN ist, und A.SUM.IGI, CUSAS 27 157 Rs. 4 (- / -) – Umm el-Hafriyat –, immer wenn A-sum igi, „Asum, der Vorsteher?“, zu deuten wäre, wie die Verfasser der Textpublikation, Milano / Westenholz (2015, 303 a-šúm IGI), annehmen; jedoch ist ein PN A-sum meines Erachtens unbekannt. 18 Zu einer möglichen Ausnahme siehe NIM-ma anstatt lú-NIM-ma, „Elamiter“, bei Kienast / Volk (1995: 27 {16–17}). 19 Der Kontext dieser Berüfsbezeichnungen schließt eine Interpretation als ši(IGI) – Akkadisches Determinativpronomen im Genitiv – + Beruf/Ort, wie z.B. DUMU Ì-lí-a-ḫi ši GIŠ.GI, „Sohn des Ilī-aḫī, des (Mannes) des Röhrichtes“, Himrin 4 22: 3–4 (- / -), vgl. I-lía-ḫi šu GIŠ.GI, „Ilī-aḫī, der (Mann) des Röhrichtes“, Himrin 4 20: 5–6 (- / -) – beide Texte altakkadisch, Tell Suleima –, aus. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

323

des in der Ur-III-zeitlichen bezeugten ugula-nam-u/ugula-u(-a), „Aufseher (über) 10 (Arbeiter/Soldaten)“,20 darstellt. Eine Kurzform von lú-igi könnte in der altakkadisch bezeugten Berufsbezeichnung nu-bànda-IGI21 liegen, wenn nu-bànda-igi zu lesen wäre und eine Variante des im Man-ištūšu-Obelisken bezeugten NU.BÀNDA LÚ.IGI, „Oberaufseher (über) die Wächter“, darstellte (s. Tab. I 2 Nr. 8).

3 lú-igi als Personenname Das Wort lú-igi ist viel häufiger als PN bezeugt,22 und obwohl man weiß, dass Berufe PN wurden,23 muss offen bleiben, ob bei diesen PN der Beruf gemeint 20 Zu ugula-nam-u/ugula-u siehe Steinkeller (1979, 180 Anm. 14). Die Schreibung ugula-u-a[(-x)] ist auf dem Siegel von Ip-qú-ša in CUSAS 3 1206 (IS 1 / xi -) – GARšana – belegt. 21 CDLI P424073 Rs. II 15 ([?] / [?]) – unv. Text, Lagaš? –, RTC 127: III 9′ ([?] / [?]) – Lagaš –, VO 6, 43+Pl. III 5: 5′ ([?] / [?]) – unbekannte Herkunft – und CUSAS 26 123 Rs. III 1 (- / -) – Keš? –. 22 Präsargonisch: Lagaš, ITT 5 9233 Rs. I 1 (- / -), FAOS 5/1, 344 Uru’inimgina 28 3, vgl. Balke (2017, 229 mlú-igi); altakkadisch: Lagaš, MVN 3 113: II 5 ([?] / [?]), STTI 170 Rs. I 8 ([?] / [?]), CT 50 98: I 16 (- / -), CUSAS 26 176: II 19 (- / -) – „Lugal-raArchiv“ –, unbekannte Herkunft, OIP 104, 116–140 No. 40 Side B VII 6 ({Man} / -), CUSAS 27 250 Rs. III 3 (- / -); Lagaš II: MVN 6 529: 8 (Gudea / -), 282: I ˹6˺ ([?] / [?]); Lagaš II/Ur III: RTC 254: I 11 (- / -); Ur III: BPOA 7 1702: 2 (AS 3 / viii -) – Umma –, TCTI 2 3460: 3 (ŠS 2 / -) – Lagaš –, Nisaba 9 164: 3 (- / -) – Umma – und wahrscheinlich in folgenden Texten: Präsargonisch, FT 2, pl. XLIII AO. 12171 Rs. I 4 ([?] / [?]) – Lagaš, beachte Balke (2017, 229 Anm. 652), der vorschlägt, dass FT 2, pl. XLIII AO. 12171 Rs. I 4 wohl kein PN, sondern eine erweiterte Funktionsbezeichnung von [Ur]-d[Nin-a]-su [gal-U]N?, „Hauptmann“, ist, vgl. S. 432 mur-dnin-a-su; jedoch naga˹si?˺ (Rs. II 1) muss nach Textstruktur ein Beruf (jener von Lú-igi) oder der Zweck des Kleinviehs sein –, CUSAS 23 7: III 2 (2 mu / 8 iti -) – Zabalam –, CUSAS 33 78: I 1 (iti 7 / ˹10?˺ mu -), 202 Rs. I 1 (iti 10 / [x] lá-˹1˺ ˹mu˺ -), 205: III 1 (3 mu / iti 3 -) – die drei Texte aus der Umma-Region – , 211 Rs. I 6 (2 mu / 10 lá-1 iti -) – Zabalam –, CUSAS 23 13: II 2 (- / -), CUSAS 33 208: II 1 (- / -) – beide Texte aus der Umma-Region –; altakkadisch, CT 50 177: 2′ ([?] / [?]) – Lagaš –, OSP 1 81 Rs. II′ 3′ (- / -) – Nippur –; Lagaš II: RTC 214 Rs. 4 (- / -). Fraglich bleibt, ob der PN Lú-igi in folgenden Ur-IIIzeitlichen Texten vorkommt: DCS 66: 3 (- / -) – [L]ugal/Lú-igi, Lagaš – und SAKF 90 Rs. 1 (- / -) – Lú-igi-? ˹x?˺, Umma? –. 23 Zu PN, die aus Berufen hervorgegangen sind, siehe folgende Beispiele: Präsargonisch (Lagaš), Foxvog (2011, 78–79 NAMES CONNECTED WITH OCCUPATIONS), Balke (2017, 23–24 E); altakkadisch, bur-gul, „Siegelschneider“, Molina et al. (2014, 37, 197 262 o.2), gala, „Klagesänger“, Gabbay (2008, 49 {5}), má-gur8-si, „Schauermann“, CUSAS 11 90: I 4 ([?] / [?]) – Adab –, nagar, „Holz-Handwerker“, CUSAS 20 14: 4 (- / ix 23) – Adab –, CUSAS 27 32 Rs. III 22 (- / -) – Umm el-Hafriyat –, wohl CUSAS 26 182: 5 (- / -) – „Lugal-ra-Archiv“ –, šu-i, „Barbier/Bader“, Pomponio / Visicato (2015,

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

324

ist, besonders wenn man bedenkt, dass lú-igi in der Ur-III-Zeit nur als PN (s. Anm. 22), aber nicht als Beruf (s. Tab. I), belegt ist.24 Darüber hinaus besteht kein Hinweis auf die gelegentlich geäußerte Annahme,25 dass es sich dabei um eine Abkürzung für einen der wenigen mit Lú-igi- beginnenden PN handelt:26 Name

Bedeutung

Periode

Lú-(d)Igi-(a)ma(-šè)

„Mensch der (Gottheit) Igiamaše“

Präsargonisch – Ur III27

Lú-igi-da

„Beim? Wächter?“28

Früh-dynastisch IIIa29

Lú-igi-è

„Mensch (mit) hervortretenden Augen“

Ur III30

Lú-igi-LUM

„Mensch (mit) .?. Augen“

Ur III31

Lú-igi-nígin

„Mensch, (der) die Augen umherschweifen lässt“

Früh-dynastisch IIIa32

Lú-igi-nim-šè

„Mensch nach Norden“

Präsargonisch33

Lú-igi-sag9(-sag9)

„Mensch (mit) (sehr) schönen Augen“

Ur III34

Lú-igi-si4

„Mensch (mit) braunen Augen“

Ur III35

77 124 rev. 9) – CUSAS 13, 4 obv. ii 4 ist wohl zu CUSAS 11, 50 obv. iv 4 zu korrigieren –, Beruf/Sozialkategorie UN-íl, „ ,Träger‘ “, Edzard (1968, 210 UN-íl), und Ur III, Limet (1968, 49 4), vgl. Gabbay (2008, 52 Anm. 40). 24 Vgl. dasselbe Problem beim Element KU, das in PN vorkommt und eine Sorte von Hirten (= „Hüter“) außerhalb von PN bezeichnet, siehe dazu Bauer (2004, 2). 25 Siehe Steible (1982, 174 Uru’inimgina 28 {1}) und Struve (1984, 116 Lú-igi), die Lúigi als Abkürzung für Lú-dIgi-ama-šè annehmen, vgl. Schrakamp (2008, 702 BdI Adab 258 K Vs. II 6). 26 Vgl. Balke (2017, 229 Anm. 651), der bezüglich Lú-igi-sag9-sag9 behauptet, dass der PN seiner Ansicht nach nie als Lú-igi erscheint. 27 Präsargonisch: BIN 8 86: II 24, III 39 ({Luzag} 7 / -), HUCA 49, 40 4: II 10 ({Luzag} 8 / -), BIN 8 59: I 4 (- / -), 90: II 14 (- / -) – die vier Texte aus Zabalam –; altakkadisch: CHEU 54: II 13 (5 mu / iti -) – Umma –, BIN 8 392 = FAOS 19, 136–137 Um 6: ˹6˺, Rs. 1[0] (- / -) – Umma? –; Lagaš II: ITT 2 4661 = CDLI P214455: 11 (Gudea / -) und Ur III: z.B. Limet (1968, 479 Lú-Igi-ma-šè, Lú-dIgi-ma-šè). 28 Die Deutung gründet sich auf PN wie Ad-da-da, „beim Vater“, siehe dazu z.B. Pomponio (1987, 20 ad-da-da) und Balke (2017, 80 mad-da-da). 29 WF 22 = EDATS 115: Rs. IV 3 – Fara –, vgl. Pomponio (1987, 148 lú-igi-da) und Balke (2017, 229 Anm. 651). 30 MVN 6 69: 10 (- / -) – Lagaš –. 31 Nisaba 5, 88 136. ([?] / [?]) – Ur –. 32 WF 95 Rs. VII 1 – Fara –, vgl. Pomponio (1987, 148 lú-IGI+LAGAB). 33 Siehe Belege aus der Umma-Region bei Notizia / Visicato (2016, 222 256 obv.i.4). 34 Siehe z.B. Limet (1968, 480 Lú-igi-ša6-ša6) und Waetzoldt (2010, 246). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

325

4 Die Tätigkeit Die Berufsbezeichnung des En-abzu-a-DU als lú-igi-u8-síg-ka, „Wächter der Wollmutterschafe“, in zwei präsargonischen Texten (s. Tab. I 1 Nr. 3–4) bildet bis jetzt die einzige Passage, in der ausdrücklich angegeben wird, wen oder was lú-igi bewachte, nämlich die Wollmutterschafe. Die Bezeichnung u8-síg(-k), die fast nur in diesem Beruf belegt ist,36 spricht für die Bewachung bzw. die Haltung hauptsächlich von Wollmutterschafen.37 Statt u8-síg(-k) ist die allgemeine Bezeichnung udu-síg(-k), „Wollschafe“, die übliche, die hauptsächlich in den präsargonischen Lagaš-Texten belegt ist.38 Unter den letztgenannten Quellen 35

CT 1, 41–42 96-3-28,1 Rs. II 6 (AS 8 / -) – Lagaš – und fraglich Nisaba 6 36: I 1[2] (AS 7 / vi -) – Umma –. 36 u8-síg(-k) ist mit Ausnahme des Berufes des En-abzu-a-DU im präsargonischen Text aus Ur StPohl 13 n. 3: I′ 2′ ([-] / [?]) bezeugt. 37 Die Hirtenbezeichnung orienterte sich nach der Hauptgruppe der behüteten Tiere, und die Hirten konnten anscheinend ihre behüteten Tiere wechseln, siehe z.B. Stepien (1996, 53–54) hinsichtlich der Ur-III-zeitlichen Umma-Texte. Außerdem behüteten die Schafund Ziegenhirten im 3. Jahrtausend jeweils auch Ziegen und Schafe, vgl. Hruška (1995, 75–76), Stepien (1996, 19, 53, 191), Postgate (2009, 117 5.1) und Anm. 39, 45. Hirten der Mutterschafe sind im 3. Jahrtausend selten belegt: sipa-u8-gi6-gi6, „Hirte der schwarzen Mutterschafe“, im früh-dynastischen IIIa-Text aus Fara RTC 14 = SRU, 32– 34 7: IV 1, vgl. Pomponio (1987, 259 ur-dnin-unug 9}); sipa-u8(-k), „Hirte der Mutterschafe“, im präsargonischen Lagaš-Text DP 59 Rs. X 7 (Lug 3 / -), vgl. Balke (2017, 226 mlam-sag-rú b), und sipa-u8-gi6, „Hirte der schwarzen Mutterschafe“, im UrIII-zeitlichen Umma-Text AAICAB 1/4 Bod. S 389: 2 (AS 1 / x -). Lú-Zàbalamki, der im letztgenannten Text als Hirte der schwarzen Mutterschafe bezeichnet wird, kommt als sipa-udu-gi6(-Ib-gal), „Hirte (der) schwarzen Schafe (des Heiligtums) Ibgal“, BPOA 7 2455 Rs. 36–37 (Š 40 / xii -), Aleppo 432: 3 (Š 38–Š 45 / -), MVN 13 187 Rs. 11 (Š 48 / iii 6), und als sipa-udu-eme-GI-ra, „Hirte der sumerischen/einheimischen Schafe“, SET 130: II 70, 72–73 (AS 4 / -), in anderen Umma-Texten vor. Beachte, dass Stepien (1996, 159 243b, 211 16) Lu-Zabalam, Hirte der sumerischen/einheimischen Schafe, mit dem Hirten der Ziegen (sipa-ud5-da), der auch in SET 130: IV 114–115, 118–[1]1[9] genannt wird, identifiziert. 38 Früh-dynastisch IIIa (Fara): TSS 929 = MDOG 140, 165 1.3.: 1, WF 131 = CDLI P011089: I 1, Rs. I 2, WF 151* = CDLI P011110: III ˹2˺, ˹3!˺; präsargonisch: z.B. Bauer (1972, 660 udu-síg), Alberti / Pomponio (1986, 31 n. 3 obv. I′ 2′), CUSAS 33 58: I ˹2˺, 5 et passim (˹iti˺ ˹7?˺ / 11 mu -), 65: I 2, ˹5˺ et passim (iti 6 / 11 mu -) – beide Texte aus der Umma-Region –, CUSAS 11 18: 1 (- / -) – Adab –, vgl. Schrakamp (2013, 205 18 Vs. 1); präsargonisch/früh-altakkadisch: CUSAS 11 45: I 3 (- / -) – Isin? –, und altakkadisch: Nik 2 51: 1 (1? mu / 2 iti 13 u4), Nik 2 53: II 7! (5 mu / 8 iti -), vgl. Foster (1982, 31 Nik II 53, 37–38 Group A.7.2), CT 50 47: 1 (- / -) – die drei Texte aus Umma –, ITT 2 4499: ˹1˺ (- / -) – Lagaš –, CUSAS 27 165: 1 (- / -) – im Gegensatz zu udu-ur4-ra, „Schafe, (die) gerauft (worden sind)“, Umm el-Hafriyat –. „Wollschafe“ sind in der II. Dynastie von Lagaš nicht belegt, und in der Ur-III-Zeit kommt die Bezeichnung nur in OIP 115 213: 1 (Š 42 / x -) – udu-níta-síg-sag10, „guter Wollwidder“ – und in der Königsinschrift © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

326

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

liefern die Texte aus dem é-MUNUS/dBa-ba6 die reicheren Informationen über die Wollschafe. Dementsprechend waren die Schafe in é-MUNUS/dBa-ba6 in zwei Hauptgruppen unterteilt: Mastschafe (udu-níg-kú-a) und Wollschafe (udu-síg{k}), die jeweils grundsätzlich als Schlachtvieh und zur Wollproduktion dienten, und für welche hauptsächlich jeweils Ú.Ú, der anscheinend unterschiedliche Berufe ausübte, und 2/3 sipa-udu-síg-ka, „Hirten der Wollschafe“, zuständing waren.39 Jedem dieser Hirten der Wollschafe unterstanden ein oder zwei gáb-ra, „Hirtengehilfen“, die sie bei ihrer Tätigkeit unterstützten.40 Wie lú-igi-u8-síg-ka in dieser Struktur integriert war, bleibt unbekannt, da er nicht zum Personal des é-MUNUS/dBa-ba6 gehörte.41 En-abzu-a-DU, der Wächter der Wollmutterschafe, war beim Stadtfürsten tätig, da er nach CT 50 44: III ˹1˺–˹2˺, Rs. II ˹4˺–III 1 (Tab. I 1 Nr. 3), wie si[pa-udu]-sí[g-ka-me], „Hirten der Wollschafe sind (sie)“, RIME 3/2, 216–218 Šulgi 2031 64 – udu-ama-síg, „ablammendes Wollmutterschaf“ – vor. 39 Diese Aufgliederung lässt sich vor allem in den monatlichen Gersten- und Emmerlieferungen ersehen, die in der Zeit von En-entarzi und bis zum 2. Regierungsjahr Lugal-andas Gerstenlieferungen an Ú.Ú für udu-níg-kú-a, „Mastschafe“, und an zwei Hirten der Wollschafe für udu-síg(-k), „Wollschafe“, erwähnen, siehe dazu und zur Entwicklung der Gerstenlieferungen für die Mastschafe und Wollschafe Wu (2006, 1–9). Diese Aufteilung ist ab dem 3. Regierungsjahr Lugal-andas mit Variationen noch vorhanden, unter denen die Erwähnung von 3 Hirten der Wollschafe und die Behütung von 1 oder 2 maš-bar-dul5, „Ziegenbock/böcken (mit) Vlies“, neben Wollschafen ab dem 5. Regierungsjahr Lugal-andas herausragen, vgl. Wu (2006, 2). Zur Opposition udu-nígkú-a / udu-síg(-k) siehe auch FAOS 15 1/1 161: II 1, Rs. IV 6 ({Lug?} / -) und gáb-raudu-níg-kú-a, „Hirtengehilfe der Mastschafe“, und gáb-ra-udu-síg-ka, „Hirtengehilfe der Wollschafe“, bei Selz (1995, 92 16, 17). Zur Verwendung der Mastschafe als Schlachtvieh siehe z.B. FAOS 15 1/1 163 Rs. V 2, VI 6–IV 3 (- / -), Rosengarten (1960, 101–111), Hruška (1995, 79 Nähere Bezeichnungen [...] - niga) und Postgate (2009, 118 § 5.2). Zur Haltung der Wollschafe für die Wollproduktion siehe ihre „Schur“ z.B. in VS 25 55 Rs. I 1, II 4 (Lug 2 / -), AWL 174 IV 1, V 4 (Lug 5 / -) und DP 258 Rs. V! 1, VI! 2 (Ukg E 1 / -). 40 Die Gersten- oder Emmerzuteilungen aus der Zeit Uru-KAginas lassen 1 oder 2 gáb-ra, „Hirtengehilfe(n)“, bei jedem Hirten der Wollschafe erkennen, die in den Zuteilungen entweder für šà dub-didli(-me), „auf einzelnen Tafeln (Verzeichnete) (sind {sie})“, oder für lú-šuku-dab5-ba(-me), „Leute, die ein Versorgungslos übernommen haben, (sind {sie})“, erwähnt werden: z.B. FAOS 15 2/1 4 Rs. VIII 5–9, IX 10 (Ukg E 1 / -) und FAOS 15 2/2 52 Rs. XI 10–XII 1, XIII 17, XV 3 (Ukg E 1 / -). Die Hirten der Wollschafe gehörten zu lú-šuku-dab5-ba(-me), und wenn beide zusammen genannt werden, erhielten die Hirtengehilfen normalerweise den gleichen Getreidebetrag wie der Hirte, bei dem sie tätig waren: z.B. FAOS 15 2/1 4 Rs. VIII 5–6 (Ukg E 1 / -) und 12: V 7–VI 2 (Ukg L 6 / -); jedoch gibt es Ausnahmen, in denen die Hirtengehilfen einen kleineren Betrag bzw. die Hälfte bekamen, z.B. FAOS 15 2/1 6 Rs. XI 11, ˹12˺ (Ukg L 2 / -) und FAOS 15 2/2 67: VI ˹5˺, ˹6˺ (Ukg L 6 / -). 41 Vgl. seine Abwesenheit in der Tabelle des Personals des Baba-Tempels bei Selz (1995, 83–96). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

327

(Rs. I 3), Amar-ezem kuš7, dem „Herdenverwalter (des Stadtfürsten)“, unterstand.42 Der Text weist ebenfalls darauf hin, wie es für andere Fälle aufgrund der Texte aus dem é-MUNUS/dBa-ba6 bekannt ist (s. Anm. 39), dass sowohl En-abzu-a-DU als auch die Hirten der Wollschafe neben Wollschafen auch über Ziegen verfügten.43 Die abweichende Berufsbezeichnung und das gemeinsame Vorkommen in demselben Text weisen auf verschiedene Tätigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Wollschafen hin. Die Erwähnung der Wollmutterschafe als Grundbestand der Herde des En-abzu-a-DU lässt an eine Trennung der weiblichen Tiere von den erwachsenen Wollwiddern denken, durch die in der Brunftzeit Unruhe in der Herde aufgrund einer höheren Zahl männlicher Tiere verhindern werden sollte,44 eine Praxis, die für Herden anderer Tiere bezeugt ist.45 Der Grund für eine mit lú-igi- (lú-igi-u8-síg-ka) statt einer mit sipa42

Amar-ezem taucht als kuš7-énsi(-ka), „Herdenverwalter (des) Stadtfürst(en)“, in folgenden Texten auf: AWL 175: II 7–8 (Lug 3 / -), 7: I 8–II 1 (Lug 4 / -), 68: II 7–˹8˺ (Lug 4 / -), DP 226: II 5–6 (Lug 4 / -), 206: I 6–7 ({Lug} 5 / -), 132: II 9–10 (Lug 5 / -), 133: II 7–8 (Ukg L 1 / -) und TSA 5: V 4′–5′ (Ukg L 2 / -). Ein Amar-ezem kuš7-dNinGír-su, „Herdenverwalter (des) Nin-Girsu“, ist nur unter Lugal-anda belegt: DP 59: VIII 9–10 (Lug 3 / -), 226: VII 4′–5′ (Lug 4 / -) und 132: V 9–10 (Lug 5 / -). Zu beiden Personen vgl. Balke (2017, 89 mamar-ezem a). 43 Es ist aufgrund der ersten Zeile des Textes (Vs. I 1), die 2 maš-gaba lá-a, „entwöhnte Ziegenböckchen (als) Fehlbetrag“, erwähnt, anzunehmen, dass der Text verschiedene Erstattungsbeträge von Ziegenböckchen bei mehreren Posten anführt. Bei En-abzu-a-DU und den Hirten der Wollschafe werden jeweils 4 maš-gaba Gír-sú(ZU)ki, „entwöhnte Ziegenböckchen (vom?) Girsu“, (Vs. II 8–III ˹2˺) und 94 maš LUL.GU-è(U[D.D]U)[(-a)], „Ziegenböckchen (als) abgelieferte LUL.GU(-Abgabe)“, bei den Hirten der Wollschafe (Rs. I 2–˹3˺) verzeichnet. Diese Ziegenböckchen werden als ˹maš˺-šà-˹du10˺, „ ,gutherzige‘ (= sehr kleine) Ziegenböckchen“, in der gesamten Summe (Rs. II 3) bezeichnet. Zu beachten ist ferner die Annahme von Balke (2017, 161 en-kù e), nach welcher En-kù (Rs. I 1) der in Rs. I ˹3˺ angeführte Hirte der Wollschafe ist; jedoch muss En-kù nach dem Kontext zum Posten in Vs. III 4 gehören. 44 Siehe dazu und zu den anderen zwei Methoden (Schlachtung der jungen Widder und Kastration), um dieser Unruhe während der Paarungszeit auszuweichen, z.B. Benecke 1994, 175–178. 45 Siehe die Trennung bei Equiden, sipa-AMA.GAN.ŠA, „Hirte der züchtenden (Equiden)“ (Muttertiere, Stutenfohlen, Hengstfohlen und 1jährige Fohlen von kúnga- und DUN.GIEquiden), und sipa-amar-RU-ga, „Hirte der .?. Tierjungen“ (2- bis 4-jährige Fohlen von kúnga- und DUN.GI-Equiden), und Rindern, ùnu, „Kuhhirte“ (Kühe, Färsen, 1-jährige Jungstiere und ein Zuchtstier), und sipa-gu4-tur-tur, „Hirte (der) kleinen Stiere“ (2- bis 4jährige Jungstiere), bei Bauer (1998, 539–540). Es ist anzunehmen, dass En-abzu-a-DU, wie die Kuhhirten, auch eine kleine Anzahl von Zuchtwiddern (im Verhältnis 1 zu 10 Mutterschafe) hatte, denn es ist nicht üblich, um Krankheitsübertragung zu vermeiden, Zuchtwidder anderer Herden für die Paarung auszuleihen, vgl. Tell al-Hiba im 20. Jahrhundert, wo die Herden normalerweise aus 8–10 Mutterschafen und 1 Widder bestanden und die Ausleihe eines Widders für die Paarung selten war, bei Ochsenschlager (1993, 34), vgl. Weszeli (2019, 468), und die altakkadichen Texte aus © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

328

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

gebildeten Bezeichnung, die beim Hüten anderer Mutterschafeherden bezeugt ist (s. Anm. 37), liegt wahrscheinlich in einer Hervorhebung der Wache zum Schutz vor Gefahren, besonders vor Raubtieren,46 die auf der Weide nötig war.47 Mit Ausnahme der Berufsbezeichnung des En-abzu-a-DU (lú-igi-u8-síg-ka) ist auffälligerweise nur lú-igi bezeugt (s. Tab. I 1 Nr. 1–2; 2 Nr. 1–8; 3 Nr. 1), was für eine bestimmte Wache spricht; es bleibt jedoch offen, ob es sich immer um Wollmutterschafe handelt,48 da die Bezeichnung „Wollschafe“ nach der präsargonischen Periode selten nachweisbar ist. Außerdem ist sie in Adab während der altakkadischen Zeit nicht belegt (s. Anm. 38), dem Ort, von dem die meisten Zeugnisse für lú-igi stammen (s. Tab. I 2). Auch wenn man Umma MAD 4 29 = 76: I 1–8, Rs. I 2–3 (2 mu / 8 iti -), 59: 1–Rs. 7 (2 mu / 8 iti -) – die Aufzählung des Kleinviehs (19 Stück) in Vs. 1–4 stimmt nicht mit der gesamten Summe (18 Stück Kleinvieh) in Vs. 5 überein – und CDLI P462402: 1–6, Rs. 3–4 (2 mu / 8 iti -) – unv. Text –, nach welchen das vom Hirten A-bí-LUL im Jahre 8 behütetes Kleinvieh, das Ur-dŠára gehörte, zumindest aus 15 züchtenden Mutterschafen und 3 Widdern nebst 9 Lämmern und 70 Ziegen bestand; jedoch hatten die Herden im 3. Jahrtausend normalerweise eine große Anzahl von Widdern (von weniger als die Hälfte bis zu einer größeren Anzahl als Mutterschafe), die anderen Zwecke nebst Paarung hatten, siehe z.B. CUSAS 33 66: I ˹1˺–˹2˺, II 1–2 ([] mu / 8 iti -) – präsargonisch, Zabalam? –, Umm elHafriyat bei Milano / Westenholz (2015, 31) – altakkadisch – und in der Ur-III-Zeit die gesammelten Lagaš-Texte bei Snell (1986, 202–217), Mander (2008, 100–106) und die Daten der Umma-Herden bei Stepien (1996, 41–46). Diese große Anzahl von Widdern ist noch in der neubabylonischen Zeit bezeugt, siehe dazu Weszeli (2019: 466–469 3.2.3) – mit früherer Literatur –. 46 Siehe z.B. Angriffe von ur, „ ,Hund/Hunden‘ “: präsargonisch, RTC 50: I 6–7 (Lug 6 / -) – Lagaš – , vgl. Selz (1993, 367 {1:9} 4.1), CUSAS 11 30 Rs. I 2 (- / vi 19) – Adab –; altakkadisch: Wahrscheinlich MAD 4 27: [8]–Rs. 10 (15 mu / 10 iti -), vgl. Foster (1982, 68 I MAD 4 27 {15/10/0}), und Ur III: Vor allem in Lagaš-Texten, siehe dazu Heimpel (1995, 107 Predation). Es ist angenommen worden, dass ur in diesen Passagen einen Löwen bezeichnet, siehe z.B. Heimpel (1995, 107 Predation) und Wilcke (2010, 357 Anm. 23); jedoch ist nicht ur, sondern ur-maḫ das übliche Wort für Löwen, und Angriffe von Hunden sind bezeugt, siehe z.B. im 20. Jahrhundert in Tell al-Hiba bei Ochsenschlager (1993, 33–34). Zu Angriffen von „wilden Tieren“ auf Vieh siehe Waetzoldt (2008, 380 § 6.2) und Civil (2011, 279 §D3), vgl. Such-Gutiérrez (2019, 433 Anm. 84). Ferner siehe gestohlene Tiere auf Feldern bei Heimpel (1995: 106–107 Theft) und Civil (2011, 274–275 §C6) und die Gefahren auf der Weide im 20. Jahrhundert in Tell al-Hiba bei Ochsenschlager (1993, 33–34). 47 Es ist zu bemerken, dass diese Hevorhebung der Achtung auf die weblichen Tiere beim Weiden bei ÁB.KU (= ùnu), wörtlich „Kühe hütend“, vgl. Bauer (2004, 2), im Vergleich zu sipa-áb, „Hirte (der) Kühe“, siehe dazu Such-Gutiérrez (2019, 412 Anm. 2), belegt ist. Beachte die Deutung von ùnu = ÁB.TUŠ als „der (die Tiere/Rinder) (auf) der Weide / (im) Grase liegen oder lagern lässt“ bei Selz (1993, 87 {3:14}) und Selz (2010, 191 Anm. 16). 48 Vgl. Schrakamp (2013, 213 103 Vs. i 4), der lú-igi-u8-síg-ka für die mögliche Vollform von lú-igi hält. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

329

aufgrund seiner Erwähnung neben Katasterleitern ([sa12]-˹du5˺-me) (s. Tab. I 2 Nr. 1) und einem šita-URU, „šita (der) Stadt?“,49 (s. Tab. I 2 Nr. 4), die in der Landwirtschaft tätig waren, annimmt, dass lú-igi Wache über Mutterschafe ausübten, endete ihre Tätigkeit in der Ur-III-Zeit, da der Beruf zu dieser Zeit nicht mehr belegt ist und anscheinend von Hirten übernommen wurde, da nur die „Hirtenschaft“ der Mutterschafe belegt ist (s. Anm. 37). Gegen diese Vermutung spricht auch nicht, dass lú-igi in Gruppen arbeiten konnten, worauf die Bezeichnung des Be-lí-GÚ als NU.BÀNDA LÚ.IGI, „Oberaufseher (über) die Wächter“,50 im Man-ištūšu-Obelisken (s. Tab. I 2 Nr. 8) und die Nennung zweier lú-igi nebst zwei Katasterleitern ([sa12]-˹du5˺-me) (s. Tab. I 2 1) verweisen.

49

Der noch zu untersuchende Beruf šita-URU(-k) ist hauptsächlich in Adab während der altakkadischen Zeit belegt und ist trotz der Schreibung šita-URU×A in CUSAS 11 141: II 1 (- / xii -) wohl als „šita (der) Stadt“, zu deuten, vgl. Schrakamp (2012, 278 21) und Bartash (2013, 132 No. 123 obv. 6). Der Beruf, dessen innerer Genitiv in JCS 35, 171 No. 7: 7 (- / -) – unbekannte Herkunft – ausgedrückt wird, scheint einen Verwalter eines Dorfes zu bezeichnen, der für Vieh und Tierprodukte zuständig war: z.B. erstattete er 1 kuš-ud5, „Ziegenhaut“, und 1 su-lá-a, „in der Sonne getrocknetes Stück Fleisch“, CUSAS 11 141: I 1–II 2 (- / xii -), und lieferte 1 máš, „Böckchen“, CUSAS 13 31 Rs. ˹3˺–4 (- / -), und 1 Gefäß ì-šáḫ, „Schweinefett“, CUSAS 23 123: 6 (- / -). Es ist zu bemerken, dass Ad-da, šita-URU×A in CUSAS 11 141: I 4–II 1, als šu-GAM in SCTRAH 7: 4–5 (- / iv -) bezeichnet wird, vgl. Molina et al. (2014, 63 7 o.5). šu-GAM ist wohl mit dem seit der früdynastischen Periode I bezeugten Beruf GAM.GAM, „(der Mann, der die Tiere unter das Joch) beugt“, in Verbindung zu bringen, siehe Belege bei Zarins (2014, 239–240) und die präsargonischen Lagaš-Texte DP 128 Rs. VII 1 (Ukg L 2 / -), 129 Rs. VI 3 (Ukg L 3 / -), vgl. Balke (2017, 150 men-DU {= kux?} e, 466 Anm. 1574) – „der (Tiere) einzäumt(?)“ –. In Verbindung damit steht der Beruf anše-gam, „(der Mann), der die Equiden (unter das Joch) beugt“, im präsargonischen Lagaš-Text AWL 195: I 5 (- / -), vgl. Bauer (1972, 543 I 5), Selz (1995, 91 Viehwirtschaft 3) – „der die Esel ,einfährt‘ “ –, Zarins (2014, 238–239) und Balke (2017, 418 mur-den-ki g, 466 Anm. 1574) – „Eseleinzäumer(?)“ / „(Ur-Enki), der die Esel einzäumt(?)“ –. 50 Zu beachten ist, dass dieser Be-lí-GÚ von Be-lí-GÚ NU.BÀNDA in demselben Text OIP 104, 116–140 No. 40 Side C XVIII 2–3, 13, XIX 13 ({Man} / -) zu unterscheiden ist. Für die Deutung „Oberaufseher (über) die Wächter“ und nicht „Oberaufseher (und) Wächter“ spricht die Tatsache, dass es sich immer um einen Genitiv handelt, wenn ein Nomen NU.BÀNDA im Man-ištūšu-Obelisken folgt, z.B. NU.BÀNDA ÁBBA.ÁBBA, „Oberaufseher (über) die Eltern“, (Side A XV 4), vgl. Gelb (1984, 267 7. d}), NU.BÀNDA GIŠ.KIN.TI, „Oberaufseher (über) die Handwerker“, (Side C XVI 14), und NU.BÀNDA šana-e, „Oberaufseher (über) die Läufer?“, (Side A XIV 3, XV 10). Zu šānûm als Läufer siehe AHw III, 1167 šānû(m) „Läufer, Traber“ und CAD Š/I, 409 šānû „runner“. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

330

5 Gesellschaftliche Stellung Die wenigen verfügbaren Daten scheinen auf unterschiedliche Stellungen der lúigi hinzuweisen: Einige genossen eine relativ hohe Stellung, denn sie verpachteten Land (0,72 ha oder 5,58+0,18? ha) (s. Tab. I 1 Nr. 2, 4) und erhielten ku6tur-tur, „kleine Fische“, (s. Tab. I 2 Nr. 2), 33600 l Gerste (s. Tab. I 2 Nr. 3) und 1 Stück verschiedener guten Textilien (s. Tab. I 2 Nr. 4; 3 Nr. 1). Im Gegensatz dazu hatten andere offenbar einen niederen Status, da Ur-GÁ ein Flüchtling (lúzàḫ-a) war (s. Tab. I 1 Nr. 1) und A!(MIN)-GÍR-gunû-gal zusammen mit einem Mann/Arbeiter (lú) versetzt wurde.51 Die Tätigkeit der Wächter wurde anscheinend lediglich von Männern ausgeübt, da nur männliche Personennamen bezeugt sind, die mehrheitlich sumerisch sind, wie die folgende Tabelle zeigt: Personenname

Sprache

Bedeutung

Periode

Belege

A!(MIN)-GÍRgunû-gal

Sum.

„Vater/Wasser (ist) prächtig“52

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 7

En-abzu-a-DU

Sum.

„Herr (ist) für den Abzu passend / Herrn hat man (Namensträger) in den Abzu gebracht“53

Präsarg.

Tab. I 1 Nr. 3–4

Im2/[4?]-tá-lik

Akk.

„Er (GN) ging mit sich zur Rate“

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 2–3

Ìr-ru-ZUM

Akk.

„.?. “54

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 8

Lú-dNanše

Sum.

„Mensch der Göttin Nanše“

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 1

Lugal-á

Sum.

„König/Herr (mit) Arm/Kraft / König/Herr, dem Kraft (gegeben ist)“55

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 4

51

ECTJ 25: I 1–6 (- / -), vgl. Tab. I 2 Nr. 7. Es fällt wegen der Auslassung der Kasuspostpositionen schwer, die Textpassage zu interpretieren. Aufgrund einer der folgenden Passagen (Vs. II 4–6), 1 lú Ur-abzu-ke4 ba-ta-è, „Einen Mann/Arbeiter hat Urabzu daraus hinausgehen lassen“, ist anzunehmen, dass Lugal-me-šè-gál den Wächter A!(MIN)-GÍR-gunû-gal und einen Mann/Arbeiter von A-zu5-zu5 zurückkehren lassen hat. 52 Siehe Biggs (1974, 70 Line 8), vgl. Gelb et al. (1991, 55 No. 14 vi 4), und Selz (1993, 290 {8:5}). Beachte die mögliche Deutung von GÍR-gunû in PN als einer Sorte von Baum und einer „großen Dornenhecke“ jeweils bei Flückiger-Hawker (1999, 166 39) und Krebernik (2002, 22 Anm. 90) – „(Bedeutung [...] unsicher)“ auf S. 21 (5) – und als kiši17, „Akazie“, bei Foxvog (2011, 76 a-kiši17-gal) und Balke (2017, 70 a-kiši17-gal). 53 Vgl. die Deutungsprobleme des strukturell ähnlichen PN É-an-na-túm(DU) bei z.B. Frayne (2008, 126 E1.9.3), Foxvog (2011, 70 Anm. 33) und Balke (2017, 130 Anm. 291) – alle mit früherer Literatur –. 54 Siehe Gelb (1957, 68 ’xRZ?). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

331

Personenname

Sprache

Bedeutung

Periode

Belege

PÙ.PÙ

.?.

,.?.“

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 8

Šu-na

Sum.

„In seine/ihre Hand (hat er/sie es zurückgeführt)“56

Lagaš II

Tab. I 3 Nr. 1

Tul8(LAGAB×TIL)ta

Sum.

„Der aus einem Brunnen (Gefundene) (= Findling)“57

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 5–6

Ur-GÁ

Sum.

„Diener des Gebäudes?“58

Präsarg.

Tab. I 1 Nr. 1

Ur-dNin-a-su

Sum.

„Diener des Gottes Nin-asu“

Präsarg.

Tab. I 1 Nr. 2

Ur-u4-su13

Sum.

„Diener (für) lange Tage“

Altakk.

Tab. I 2 Nr. 1

Der PN Tul8(LAGAB×TIL)-ta zeigt, dass er trotz seiner niedrigen Beginn als Findelkind in der Gesellschaft aufsteigen konnte.

55 Es handelt sich um einen abgekürzten PN aus Adab, dessen Vollform einer der folgenden PN sein kann, die während der präsargonisch/früh-altakkadisch- und altakkadischen Zeit in Adab belegt sind: Lugal-á-maḫ, „König/Herr (mit) erhabenem/er Arm/Kraft“, z.B. Molina et al. (2014, 174 218 r.1), CUSAS 20 68 Rs. ˹4˺ (- / i -), CUSAS 13 21 Rs. ˹6˺ ([?] / [?]); Lugal-á-sum-ma, „König/Herr, dem Kraft gegeben ist“, CUSAS 11 106: I 3 (- / vii -), 140: II 2′ (- / -); Lugal-á-zi-da, „König/Herr (mit) gerechtem/er Arm/Kraft“, CUSAS 11 144: II 3 (- / iv -), und sehr fraglich [Lug]al?á?(DA)-da-DU, „.?.“, PPAC 1 A 816 = CDLI P216049: 2 (- / ix -). 56 Vgl. Balke (2017, 387 mšu-na-mu-gi4). Beachte Falkenstein (1956, 97 59 4) „er hat ihm (na-) eine Guttat erwiesen“, vgl. Limet (1968, 246 A, 305 135). Zu Šu-na als Kurzform für Šu-na-mu-gi4 siehe Limet (1968, 246 A, 305 135), Foxvog (2011, 64 šuna{-mu-gi4}) und Balke (2017, 387–388 Anm. 1293). Beachte jedoch Notizia / Schrakamp (2010, 243 3. Vs. 2), die die Mögligkeit für die Abkürzung für einen anderen mit Šu-na- gebildeten PN nicht ausschließen. 57 Der PN Tul8(LAGAB×TIL)-ta(-pà-da) könnte ein weiblicher PN sein, siehe z.B. den PN in den präsargonischen Lagaš-Texten bei Balke (2017, 397–398 ftúl-ta-pà-da); jedoch ist es aufgrund des Kontextes (Angabe der Genealogie des Lugal-lá) anzunehmen, dass es sich um einen Mann handelt. 58 Die Deutung dieses in Adab belegten PN ist nicht eindeutig, da der PN entweder eine Kurzform für einen der in Adab bezeugten PN, Ur-dGÁ.BAR.MIN, CUSAS 26 122: 2 (- / -) – Schultext –, Ur-gá-mu-[], PPAC 1 A 707 Rs. 15 ([?] / [?]) – beide Texte altakkadisch –, oder für den PN Ur-gá-nun, der bis jetzt nicht in Adab belegt ist, sein kann. Zu Ur-gánun siehe z.B. CUSAS 33 147: I ˹2˺ ([?] / [?]) – präsargonisch, Umma-Region –. In Adab ist bis jetzt nur die Schreibung Ur-ganun belegt: CUSAS 11 55: II 2′ (- / -) – präsargonisch/früh-altakkadisch – und CUSAS 19 147: 7 (- / -) – altakkadisch –.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

332

Zusammenfassung Aus den oben angeführten Daten geht hervor, dass die Etymologie des Berufes lú-igi, der sich bis jetzt nur im 3. Jahrtausend bzw. zwischen der präsargonischen Periode und der II. Dynastie von Lagaš nachweisen lässt, „Mann: Auge“ ist und einen „Wächter“ bezeichnet. Nur die Berufsbezeichnung des Enabzu-a-DU (lú-igi-u8-síg-ka, „Wächter der Wollmutterschafe“) in zwei präsargonischen Texten aus Lagaš führt das Objekt der Wache, nämlich die Wollmutterschafe, an. Mit Ausnahme der Berufsbezeichnung des En-abzu-a-DU ist nur lú-igi belegt; jedoch scheint es, dass lú-igi Wache über Mutterschafe ausübte, obwohl dies aufgrund des beschränkten Textbestandes offen bleiben muss. Über ihre Stellung berichten uns die Texte, dass der Beruf lú-igi aufgrund der PN nur von Männern ausgeübt wurde und dass sie einen unterschiedlichen Status hatten: Einige scheinen eine relativ hohe Stellung gehabt zu haben, denn sie verpachteten Land und erhielten kleine Fische, 33600 l Gerste und gute Textilien, während andere, wie ein Flüchtling und einer, der in eine andere Tätigkeit versetzt wurde, anscheinend einen niederen Status hatten. Nach der II. Dynastie von Lagaš ist lú-igi als Beruf nicht mehr belegt, dessen Tätigkeit offenbar von den Hirten übernommen wurde. Ab Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends entstand das Sumerogram (LÚ.).IGI für šībum, „Zeuge“, aus der Wendung igi...(-ak)(-šè) „vor jemandem“, der sumerischen Zeugenlisten; jedoch steht (LÚ.).IGI trotz derselbe Schreibung nicht in Zusammenhang mit dem Beruf lúigi.

Tabelle I: Belege für die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi59 1. Präsargonische Zeit A) Adab 1 CUSAS 11 103: I 1–II 1, Rs. II 1

-/-

B) Lagaš 2 AWL 7: V 10–VI 6, X 1– Lug 4 / 2

1(aš@c)? Lugal-usar4-gu10 dumu-Ur-dšèŠer7-da sukkal 1(aš@c)? Ur-GÁ lú-igi 1(aš@c)? Lugal-en8-s[u13] . . lú-zàḫ-a-me 2 1/2(iku) GÁN še-muš sù!-la maš A-˹tu˺60 a[šgab]

59 In der vorliegenden Tabelle wird lú IGI im sogenannten „Vertrag zwischen Ebla und A.BAR.SAL4ki“ aus Ebla ARET 13, 43–76 5 (21) 13, 18, (22) [3], 9 nicht aufgenommen, da die von Fronzaroli 2003, 45 (21), (22) angenommene Interpretation als lú-igi, „uomo autorevole“, nicht sicher ist, siehe z.B. andere Interpretationen bei Lambert (1987, 360) und Pettinato (1989, 390 Articoli del trattato § 1). 60 Vgl. Balke (2017, 76 ma-tu {=dú} a).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

3

CT 50 44: II 6–III 3, Rs. II 3–III Ukg L 3 / 1

4

VS 25 21: III 2–Rs. II 3

2. Altakkadische Zeit A) Adab 1 CUSAS 13 18: 1–6

-/-

-/-

2(iku) G[Á]N še-GU4 sù-la maš Ur-dNin-a-su lú-igi aša5-ma-n[u]-ma-n[u] . . 1(bùr) 6 1/2 1/4 1/6?(iku) GÁN sù-la maš maš-bi 4 1 maš-gaba é-bábbar udu-a 4 maš-gaba Gír-sú(ZU)ki E[n]-abzu(ZU+A[B])-a-D[U] lú-igi-u[8]-sígka 5 En-KISAL-si . . šu-nígin 270 lá-1 ˹maš˺-šà-˹du10˺ Amar-eze[m] kuš7 1 1/2(iku) G[ÁN] 5;0.0 tuku 2(èše) 2(iku) ˹1/2?˺ (iku) GÁN sù-la maš ˹En˺-abzu([ZU+A]B)-˹a˺-DU // lú-igi-u8-sígka – unbeschriebene Kolumne – aša5-˹gíd˺-d[a aš]a5-[ùri-r]ú-˹a˺ ˹GÁN˺-bi ˹(x.)x.x.x˺ ˹maš?˺-[bi? x?]

Ur-u4-su13 Lú-dNanše lú-igi-me DIŠ Sag-˹TUK?˺.DU DIŠ ˹Ḫa˺-ma-DU [sa12]-˹du5˺-me 1 GÁ×GI4 ku6-tur-tur ˹Ì˺-lí-iš-tá-kál [1 GÁ]×GI4 ku6-tur-tur [Im2/4-t]á-lik lú-igi [abgebrochener Rest der Vorderseite] 30;0 Ur-nu ˹x˺.[(x)] 120 lá-8 še gur Ím-tá-li[k] lú-igi 600 lá-60 Lugal-NÍG dam-gàr 2 (bar-dul5-Ù.LAL) šita-URU 1 Lugal-á lú-igi 1 Du-du nu-bànda DIŠ DIŠ

2

TCBI 1 258=CUSAS 26 298: II [?] / [] 27 3–6

3

CUSAS 13 78: Rs. I 5–10

-/-

4

CUSAS 35 300: II 11–15

-/-

B) „Mesag-Archiv“ 5 BIN 8 328: []–Rs. 8

-/-

333

[zerstörte Vorderseite] [x GÁN Lugal?-lá?] // dumuTul8(LAGAB×TIL)-ta lú-igi

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

334

6

CUSAS 26 295: 1–Rs. 3

C) Nippur 7 ECTJ 25: I 1–6

-/-

-/-

D) Unbekannte Herkunft 8 OIP 104, 116–140 No. 40 Side (Man) / A XIII 23–25, XVI 15–19, Side B XIII 16–XIV 1, XV 3–5, Side C XVII 24-26, XVIII 11–12

1(iku) GÁN šu-ku6 LU.Á.KI.DI.A 1 1/2(iku) GÁN nu-kiri6 LU.Á.A.ZI 1(aš@c) še-numun 0;0.4 Gu-NI.DU 1(aš@c) Lú-ERIM 1(aš@c) ˹Lugal˺-lá dumuTul8(LAGAB×TIL)-ta lú-igi LU.Á.A.ZI a-šà-bi 4 1/2(iku) GÁN aša5-GAB 1(aš@c) A!(MIN)-GÍR-gunû-gal lú-igi 1(aš@c) lú A-zu5-zu5 Lugal-me-šè-gál ba-ta-gur 1(aš@c) U-bìl-GA.ZU DUMU Ìr-ru-ZUM LÚ.IGI

. . ŠU.NÍGIN

50 LAL-1 DUMU.DUMU A-ga-dèki

ÁBBA.ÁBBA GÁN GÁN Ba-azki in BÀD-dEN.ZUki . . 1(aš@c) ÁRAD-Sú-ni DUMU PÙ.PÙ LÚ.IGI . . ŠU.NÍGIN 30 GURUŠ ÁBBA.ÁBBA GÁN Gir13-tabki . . 1(aš@c) Iq-bí-GI DUMU Be-lí-GÚ NU.BÀNDA LÚ.IGI . . ŠU.NÍGIN 10 DUMU.DUMU ÁBBA.ÁBBA

3. II. Dynastie von Lagaš 1 MVN 6 282: Rs. I 7–13

[?] / [?]

1 túgníg-lám Lugal-GÍR-gunû!-gal ki-Gu-tium 1 túgníg-lám Šu-na lú-igi 1 túgníg-lám Ur-NÍG mar-˹sa-x?˺

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

335

Bibliographie Alberti, A. / Pomponio, F., Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Texts from Ur Edited in UET 2, Supplement (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 13), Rome 1986. Balke, Th.E., Das sumerische Dimensionalkasussystem (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 331), Münster 2006. — Das altsumerische Onomastikon. Namengebung und Prosopografie nach den Quellen aus Lagas (dubsar 1), Münster 2017. Bartash, V., Miscellaneous Early Dynastic and Sargonic Texts in the Cornell University Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 23), Bethesda, MD 2013. Bauer, J., Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch (Studia Pohl 9), Rome 1972. — lú-SI, in: Altorientalische Notizen 49 (1992) 2–3. — Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte, in: Attinger, P. / Wäfler, M. (Hrsg.), Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1), Freiburg / Göttingen 1998, 431– 585. — KU als Berufsbezeichnung, in: Waetzoldt, H. (Hrsg.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 9), Heidelberg 2004, 1–4. Benecke, N., Der Mensch und seine Haustiere. Die Geschichte einer Jahrtausendealten Beziehung, Stuttgart 1994. Biga, M.G., A Sargonic Foundation Cone, in Sefati, Y. et al. (Hrsg.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, Bethesda 2005, 29–38. Biggs, R.D., Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (Oriental Institute Publications 99), Chicago / London 1974. Civil, M., The Law Collection of Ur-Namma, in: George, A.R. (Hrsg.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schoyen Collection (Cuneiform Texts VI. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17), Bethesda, MD 2011, 221–286. Edzard, D.O., Sumerische Rectsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenchaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen. Neue Folge Heft 67. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Erschließung von Keilschrifttexten. Serie A/4. Stück), München 1968. Falkenstein, A., Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. Zweiter Teil. Umschrift, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Abhandlungen. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen. Neue Folge Heft 40. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Erschließung von Keilschrifttexten. Serie A/2. Stück, II. Teil), München 1956. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

336

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

— Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. Dritter Teil. Nachträge und Berichtungen, Indizes und Kopien (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen. Neue Folge Heft 44. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Erschließung von Keilschrifttexten. Serie A/2. Stück, III. Teil), München 1957. Flückiger-Hawker, E., Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 166), Freiburg / Göttingen 1999. Foster, B.R., Umma in the Sargonic Period (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences 20), Hamden, CT 1982. Foxvog, D.A., Aspects of Name-Giving in Presargonic Lagash, in: Heimpel, W. / Frantz-Szabó, G. (Hrsg.), Strings and Threads. A Celebration of the Work of Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, Winona Lake, IN 2011, 59–97. Frayne, D.R., Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 1), Toronto / Buffalo / London 2008. Fronzaroli, P.,Testi di cancelleria: i rapporti con le città (Archivio L. 2769) (Archivi reali di Ebla. Texti 13), Roma 2003. Gabbay, U., The Akkadian Word for “Third Gender”: The kalû (gala) Once Again, in: Biggs, R.D. et al. (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at The Oriental Institute of University of Chicago July 18–22, 2005 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62), Chicago 2008, 49–56. Gelb, I.J., Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum. Texts of Legal and Business Interest (Fieldiana: Anthropology 44/2), Chicago 1955. — Glossary of Old Akkadian (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3), Chicago 1957. — Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia, in: Lipinski, E. (Hrsg.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East. I. Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April 1978 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5), Leuven 1979, 1–97. — Šîbût kušurrā’im, “witnesses of the indemnity”, in: Journal of Near Eeastern Studies 43 (1984) 263–276. Gelb, I.J. et al., Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. Text (Oriental Institute Publications 104), Chicago 1991. Heimpel, W., Plow animal inspection records from Ur III Girsu and Umma, in: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 8 (1995) 71–171. Hernández Álvarez, J., Estudio de Isin en el III milenio a través de sus fuentes arqueológicas y textuales, PhD Dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid 2014. Hruška, B., Herden für Götter und Könige. Schafe und Ziegen in der altsumerischen Zeit, in: Altorientalische Forschungen 22 (1995) 73–83.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

337

Jagersma, B., A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian, PhD Dissertation, Universiteit Leiden 2010. Kienast, B. / Volk, K., Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (SAB) (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 19), Stuttgart 1995. Krebernik; M., Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons, in: Streck, M.P. / Weninger S. (Hrsg.), Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 296), Münster 2002, 1–74. Lambert, W.G., The Treaty of Ebla, in: Cagni, L. (Hrsg.), Ebla 1975–1985. Dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, 9–11 ottobre 1985), Napoli 1987, 353–364. Limet, H., L’anthroponymie sumerienne dans les documents de la 3e dynastie d’Ur (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, Fascicule CLXXX), Paris 1968. Maiocchi, M., Classical Sargonic Tablets Chiefly from Adab in the Cornell University Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 13), Bethesda, MD 2009. Mander, P., Nuovi “Shepherd-Texts” da Lagash, in: Michalowski, P. (Hrsg.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist (The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1), Boston 2008, 99–108. Milano, L. / Westenholz, A., The “Šuilisu Archive” and Other Sargonic Texts in Akkadian (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 27), Bethesda, MD 2015. Molina, M. et al., Sargonic Cuneiform Tablets in the Real Academia de la Historia. The Carl L. Lippmann Collection (Catálogo del Gabinete de Antigüedades. I.1.6), Madrid 2014. Notizia, P. / Schrakamp, I., Ein sargonischer Personenkauf aus dem British Museum, London (BM 103707), in: Altorientalische Forschungen 37 (2010) 242–251. Notizia, P. / Visicato, G., Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Administrative Texts Mainly from the Umma Region in the Cornell University Cuneiform Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 33), Bethesda, MD 2016. Ochsenschlager, E.L., Sheep: Ethnoarchaeology at al-Hiba, in: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7 (1993) 33–42. Pettinato, G., Ebla. Nuovi Orizzonti della storia, Milano 1989. Pomponio, F., La prosopografia dei testi presargonici di Fara (Studi Semitici. Nuova serie 3), Roma 1987. Pomponio, F. et al., Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Volume I, Roma 2006.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

338

Marcos Such-Gutiérrez

Pomponio, F. / Visicato, G., Middle Sargonic Tablets Chiefly from Adab in the Cornell Universtity Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 20), Bethesda, MD 2015. Postgate, J.N., Schaf (sheep). A. In Mesopotamien, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasaitischen Archäologie 12 (2009) 115–120. Rosengarten, Y., Le concept sumérien de consommation dans la vie économique et religeuse. Étude linguistique et sociale d’après les textes présargoniques de Lagaš, Paris 1960. Schrakamp, I., POMPONIO, F. a. o. – Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab. Le tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienzia (Le tavolette cuneiformi delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia, volume 1 and 2), in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 65 (2008) 661–712. — MAIOCCHI, M. – Classical Sargonic Tablets chiefly from Adab in the Cornell University Collections. (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology, CUSAS 13), in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 69 (2012) 275–290. — G. Visicato and Aa. Westenholz, Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab in the Cornell University Collections, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 65 (2013) 201–228. Selz, G.J., Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš. Teil 2. Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen. 1. Abschnitt: Einleitung; Texte aus dem Harvard Semitic Museum. 2. Abschnitt: Texte aus: Free Library Philadelphia, Yale University Library, Babylonian Section. Indices, Textkopien, Photos (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 15), Stuttgart 1993. — Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13), Philadelphia 1995. — Von Treidlern, Schiff(bau)ern und Werftarbeitern, in: Archiv Orientální 66 (1998) 255–264. — Immer nur Söhne und keine Töchter? Zu einem Familienrelief des Ur-Nanše (Urnanše 20 = RIME 1 E1.9), in: Shebata D. et al. (Hrsg.), Von Göttern und Menschen. Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg (Cuneiform Monographs 41), Leiden / Boston 2010, 187–196. Snell, D.C., The Rams of Lagash, in: Acta Sumerologica 8 (1986) 133–217. Steible, H., Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Teil II. Kommentar zu den Inschriften aus ‘Lagaš’. Inschriften außerhalb von ‘Lagaš’ (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5), Wiesbaden 1982. Steinkeller, P., Alleged GUR.DA = ugula-géš-da and the Reading of the Sumerian Numeral 60, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 69 (1979) 176–187.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Die Berufsbezeichnung lú-igi

339

— Sale Documents of the Ur-III-Period (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 17), Stuttgart 1989. Steinkeller, P. / Postgate, J.N., Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad (Mesopotamian Civilizations 4), Winona Lake, IN 1992. Stepien, M., Animal Husbandry in the Ancient Near East. A Prosopographic Study of Third-Millennium Umma, Bethesda, MD 1996. Struve, V.V., Onomastika rannedynasticesgoko Lagaša, Moskau 1984. Such-Gutiérrez, M., Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend (Materiali per il vocabolario sumerico 9/I), Roma 2003. — Das ra(2)-gaba-Amt anhand der schriftlichen Quellen des 3. Jahrtausends, Archiv für Orientforschung 53 (2015), 19–39. — Man and Animals in the Administrative Texts of the End of the 3rd Millennium BC, in: Mattila, R. et al. (Hrsg.), Animals and their Relation to Gods, Humans and Things in the Ancient World, Wiesbaden 2019, 411–453. Visicato, G. / Westenholz, A., Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab in the Cornell University Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 11), Bethesda, MD 2010. Waetzoldt, H., Rind. A. In mesopotamischen Quellen des 3. Jahrtausends, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasaitischen Archäologie 11 (2008) 375–388. — Die Bedeutung von igi-saĝ/saĝ5/sag9/sag10, in: A. Kleinerman, A. / Sasson, J.M. (Hrsg.), Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, Bethesda, MD 2010 245–255. Weszeli, M., For the Gods or for Money? Sheep Husbandry at the Temples in First Millennium Babylonia, in: R. Mattila, R. et al. (Hrsg.), Animals and their Relation to Gods, Humans and Things in the Ancient World, Wiesbaden 2019, 455–482. Wilcke, C., Eine Pflug-Zugtier-Inspektion aus Umma. Grenzen der Haftung für anvertrautes öffentliches Eigentum, in: Stackert, J. et al. (Hrsg.), Gazing on the Deep. Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, Bethesda, MD 2010, 351–372. Wu, Y., Sheep, Goats, Pigs, Calves and Ducks in the House of the Lady in Girsu (2400 B.C.) – Studies on Old Sumerian Archives from Girsu Part 4 –, in: Journal of Ancient Civilizations 21 (2006) 1–27. Zarins, J., The Domestication of Equidae in Third-Millennium BCE Mesopotamia (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 24), Bethesda, MD 2014.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur Lorenzo Verderame

I owe my interest in Neo-Sumerian administrative texts to Franco Pomponio.1 In 2004, having finished my PhD, I was working at the British Museum cataloguing and transcribing astrological texts, when Franco recruited me in what was my first Neo-Sumerian project and the beginning of a long series of fortunate events. Christopher Walker, keeper of the Western Asiatic Department at the British Museum and patron and promoter of many projects carried out at the Study Room, asked Franco (D’Agostino) and Franco (Pomponio) help in a salvage project on Woolley’s Ur excavation epigraphic material, which was still unpublished. Walker’s concern was that this material, on loan to the British Museum, could be soon returned to Iraq, risking getting lost in the turmoil of that period. In July 2004 a task force of five Assyriologists (D’Agostino, Pomponio, Paoletti, Spada, Verderame) labelled, measured, photographed, catalogued, and partly transcribed more than one thousand objects.2 The NeoSumerian documents were included in the Nisaba 5 catalogue, published a few months after (November 2004). The “Italian job”, as Walker coined the operation and labelled the dozens of trays with Ur tablets, was the beginning of a long-lasting collaboration with the British Museum whose results found their way in Nisaba’s volumes. 1

The texts hereby published have been presented for the first time at the 5th ICAANE, Madrid 2006, in a joint paper with Davide Nadali (“Works and Sculptors in Words: The Evidence of Artistic Production in the Texts of the Third Millennium B.C.”) and again in a paper I gave at the LVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale held in Rome in 2011 (“Sculptors and Statues in Neo-Sumerian Sources”). The original study on statues and sculptors in Neo-Sumerian sources has grown since 2005 and has become a study soon to be published by the present author (Verderame forthcoming). 2 One may wonder why my collaboration to the project is not credited in Nisaba 5. The reason is simple, and silly. Having agreed to remove the name from the title—already full of names, we forgot to place it among those of the collaborators in the acknowledgements. To repair to this gaffe Franco graciously gave up his share of messenger texts to me which I have eventually published with D’Agostino (D’Agostino / Verderame 2003). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Lorenzo Verderame

342

As a result of the 2004 work on the Ur texts, I have collected, copied, and transcribed most of the texts in the catalogue and have begun to publish those related to material culture and artisans.3 In the present paper, I publish three Neo-Sumerian documents related to the fashioning of statues. Since the archaeological and iconographic evidence of statues is scant, particularly in the Third Dynasty, the Ur texts provide information which can be usefully studied when trying to reconstruct the process of making images.4 The three texts published here, from Woolley’s excavation at Ur held by the British Museum, concern deliveries of materials to the artisans for the fashioning and decoration of copper and composite statues.

1. U. 18815 33×37×16 Š 24/V/Nisaba 5, 17 no. 27; BDTNS: 071131 / CDLI: P331089; Plate I. Obv. 1 2 urudua2 alan / nin 2

ki-la2-bi 20+8 1/2 / ma-na

3

ab-ba i3-la2 Rev. (blank space) 1 iti munu4 gu7 4

2

mu kar2-harki ba-/hul

Two copper arms of a statue of a lady/queen their weight is 28 minas and half (= c. 14.25 kg). Abba has weighed.

Month of “the eating malt (festival)” (V), year (when) Karhar was destroyed (Š 24).

The document records the weighing of two copper arms by Abba in the 24th year of Šulgi’s reign. The two copper arms weigh c. 7 kg each and are part of a statue of a lady or queen (nin).5 To my knowledge, this is the only reference to statue arms in Neo-Sumerian sources.6 3

Verderame 2012. Janet Politi collated almost all of the texts of Nisaba 5 in 2012. See Verderame forthcoming and, for the Neo-Assyrian sources, Nadali / Verderame 2019. 5 For other references to lady/queen copper statues (urudualan nin) see UET 3 329. 6 In a previous stage of this study I believed that another reference to statue’s arms could be found in U. 18831, which is catalogued in D’Agostino et al. (2004, 17) as “control of weight of silver to be used to plate (ba-a-gar) an arm of …”. However, collation and careful reading of lines 1–2 of U. 18831 (1/3 ŠA 2 gin2 / la2-igi-6-ĝal2 ku3-bar6 / a2-˹x˺ ku34

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur

343

Concerning the artefact, I suggest two hypothesises: 1) either the body of the statue was also made of copper, 2) or the main part of the statue (its body) was made of a different material, such as wood,7 to which copper arms were then applied.8 Other parts of the same statue (head, hands, feet and attached objects) could have been added, substituted, restored or covered with leaves of different material.9 Neo-Sumerian documents record the issue of gold, shell, and other material to be added to statues (Verderame forthcoming). The second text published here (U. 30117) is a good example. Another one is TLB 3 163, recording the issue of silver, lead, and other materials for finishing a statue of Šu-Su’en, and the parallel text DAS 397, both proceedings from Ĝirsu and dated to ŠS 8: TLB 3 163 Obv. 1) 1 ˹gin2˺ ku3-babbar 2) 1 ma-na a-gar3 3) 5 gin2 ˹ni3˺-hi 4) ki ur-den-ki-˹ta!˺ Rev. 1) alan dšu-˹dEN:ZU˺ 2) ĜA2 šu du7-du7-de3 3) kišib nin-u3-kul-e/-ki-aĝ2 4) mu ˹ma2-gur8-mah˺ d-lil2 / ˹d˺[nin-lil2-r]a ba-ab-du8. Seal: Seal illegible. DAS 397 2 ma-na na4al-ga-mes 2) [x] ma-˹na˺ a-˹gar5˺ 3) ˹x˺ ma-˹na˺ uruda! 4) [x si]la3 im ku3-sig17 5) [x B]A LUM? NI ˹x˺ Rev. 1) [ki x]-dUtu-ta 2) [ala]n dšu-˹dEN:ZU˺ 3) [šu d]u7-du7-de3 4) [kišib ni]n-u3-kul/-[e-ki]-aĝ2 5) ˹mu˺ [ma2]-˹gur8˺mah ˹den˺-lil2 dnin-˹lil2˺ ba-ab-du8. Seal: Seal illegible. Obv. 1)

A comparison with the metal (copper or bronze) life-size heads dated to the late third millennium and kept in the Iraq Museum and the Metropolitan may give an idea of the dimension of the statue to which the two copper arms of U. 18815 were attached; however, my quest for information about the weight of these two pieces from publications and curators has yet been unsuccessful. The great bulk of the Craft Archive of Ur dates from the 11th and 12th year of Ibbi-Su’en.10 U. 18815 is dated back to the years of Šulgi’s reign, as the only bar6 ba-a-ĝar) suggests that aškud (A2.MUŠ2), “doorknob”, must be read in the broken passage instead of arm (a2) of statue, for there is no space for a long sign such as alan. 7 For wood statues see L’uomo 55: o. ii 10; Nisaba 24 25: r. i 11; U. 30128: o. 5. 8 For the different terms related to the addition of metal and stone to statues see below. Compare the pass of MVN 4 143, where bitumen and glue are issued for a copper statue (1/2 sila3 esir2 5 gin2 še-gin2 / alan uruda ba-an-ĝar, o. i 1–2). 9 Compare the comment about the Akkadian copper/bronze head of a king from Nineveh, now in the Iraq Museum, of Braun-Holzinger 1984, 17 “Der Kopf Nr. 49 war zum Einsetzen in einen Körper, wahrscheinlich aus anderem Material, gearbeitet; ein reich ausgeschmückter Holzkörper ließe sich ergänzen, der aber auch mit Kupferblech belegt gewesen sein könnte”. 10 For the chronology of the Craft Archive of Ur and related problems see Loding 1974, 4–5. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Lorenzo Verderame

344

two other texts mentioning Abba: UET 3 296 (Š 27/XI/-) and U. 15624 (unpubl.; Š 24/IX/-); both texts record the weighing of copper objects by Abba. The document bears a month name from the Ĝirsu calendar, as the other earlier texts from Ur (Widell 2004).

2. U. 30117 47×70×20 [x]/VII/Nisaba 5, 30 no. 165; BDTNS: 167035 / CDLI: P331647; Plate II. Obv. 1 ˹5˺ ma-na ku3-[sig17] / si-[sa2] 2 [x]+10 ma-na 9 1/2 gin2 n[a4]zagin3 3 urudu alan lugal an-ub-da-/limmu2ba gub-ba dah-he-de3 4 ˹1/3˺ ŠA ku3-sig17 si-sa2 5

urudu

6

3 1/3 ma-na ku3-sig17 si-sa2

7

urudu

alan munus dumu-ga nindake4 / pa9 šu-ba ĝal2-la dah-he-de3

alan munus dumu-ga bi-luh / [pa9? šu?]-ba ĝal2-la ĝa2-ĝa2-de3

Rev. 4 1/3 ma-na ku3-sig17 si-sa2

1

2

3

4 5 6 7 8 9

urudu

alan munus dumu-ga a-bi2/za(-)TU[M x] ˹x˺ gaba gub-ba / [ĝ]a2-ĝa2-de3 10+5 [ma]-na 1/2 gin2 / n[a4za-gin3? A]L? U2 si3--de3 ki-lugal-ku3-zu-ta a-a-ĝu10 šu ba-an-ti ĝiri3 lu2-diĝir-ra [ga]ba-ri dub-ba iti a2-ki-ti (rest broken)

5 minas (= c. 2.5 kg) of refined gold, 10+x minas and 9 1/2 shekels (= 6+x kg) of lapis lazuli to be added to a standing copper statue of “the king of the four regions”. One third of mina (= c. 0.16 kg) of refined gold to be added to a copper statue of a woman breastfeeding a child, in her hand is a … Three minas and one third (= c. 1.7 kg) of refined gold to be added (for the decoration? of) a copper statue of a woman cleaning a child, in her [hand] is [a …] 4 minas and one third (= c. 2.166 kg) of refined gold to be added (for the decoration? of) a copper statue of a woman having a child at her breast … Fifteen minas and half shekel (= c. 7.76 kg) of [lapislazuli] ... From Lugal-kuzu Ajaĝu received, Lu-diĝira is the responsible. Copy of a tablet. Month “akiti” (VII) ...

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur

345

The text records the delivery from Lugal-kuzu to Ajaĝu of precious materials, refined gold and lapis lazuli, that must be added to decorate and embellish11 four different copper statues: 1. A standing copper statue of “the king of the four regions” (urudualan lugal anub-da-/limmu2-ba gub-ba, o. 3); 2. A copper statue of a woman breastfeeding a child, in her hand is a … (urudualan munus dumu-ga ninda-ke4 / pa9 šu-ba ĝal2-la, o. 5); 3. A copper statue of a woman cleaning a child, in her [hand] is [a …] (urudualan munus dumu-ga bi-luh / [pa9? šu?]-ba ĝal2-la, o. 7); 4. A copper statue of a woman having a child at her breast … (urudualan munus dumu-ga a-bi2-/za(-)TU[M x] ˹x˺ gaba gub-ba, r. 2). The first statue is that representing “the king of the four regions”, an expression referring to a model as we can deduce by the reference in other documents12 and from the use of other similar expressions (Verderame forthcoming). A text possibly from Puzriš-Dagān records the issue of three minas of lapis lazuli for (the decoration of) the “copper statue of ‘the king subduing from the lower sea to the upper sea’ ” (mu urudaalan lugal a-ab-ba sig-ga a-˹ab˺-ba igi-nim-da gu2 [ĝar-še3]; AnSt 33, 74: o. 2). UET 3 310, records the issue of metal for the fashioning or decoration of the basement of three royal statues described as “the runner king on the chariot”, “the king in festival (praying?)”, “the king …” (alan lugal kas4 ĝišgigir / alan lugal sizkur2 / u3 alan AN.GU2-ka, o. 2-4). The third document published here (U. 30138) may refer to another model (see below) with the expression “the king drinking beer”. With regards to statues, gub-ba means “standing”13 in opposition to tuš-a “seated”.14 The other three statues are female15 and represent a woman and a child in different attitudes:16 the woman is breastfeeding, cleaning, or having at her breast a suckling baby (dumu-ga).17

11

For the decoration of stone statues see the recent article by Thomas 2016 and compare the pass of Nisaba 24 34, where three standing statuettes made of lapis lazuli, encrusted with gold and with a silver thread (necklace or a decor?) are recorded (3 alan na4zagin3 gub-ba ku3-sig17 ĝar-ra gu-bi ku3-babbar); for different terms related to the “addiction” (dah, ĝar, si3) of material to metal and stone objects see below. 12 UET 9 366, 5 (-/iii/AS 7): o. 5 (a-ra-LUM ka [alan] lugal an-ub-da-limmu2-ba [gubba(?)] zabar 8-la2). 13 UET 9 366: 1–2 (alan / [l]ugal an-ub-da-limmu2-ba gub-ba); Nisaba 24 34: i 3 (alan na4za-gin3 gub-ba) 14 UET 3 372: 4 (mu urudaalan lugal tuš-a-še3), 494: 3 (mu alan lugal tuš-a na4za-gin3 tur), 520: 2 (mu alan lugal tuš-a na4za-gin3-še3). 15 For other statues of women see UET 3 697, 757, 770. 16 For statues representing women see for instance UET 3 697, 757, 770. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

346

Lorenzo Verderame

Figure 1. Clay plaque from Tello (AO 12570, © Musée du Louvre)

The second has in her hand an object (SA6), and this may be the case of the third statue as well, although the text is broken. This may be a palm branch (pa9), which is commonly represented in the hand of goddesses and women in Early Dynastic iconography. Note that the Akkadian equivalent, kappu, is also a term for a small bowl18 and exemplars of late third millennium statuettes show a seated woman with a bowl or phial in her hand (Figure 2). However, both the palm branch and the bowl are not found associated with a child in female iconography.

17

For dumu-ga see CT 50, 108: 6, r. 7; CT 50, 109: 5–6; MVN 6 423: r. 8 and 10; PDT 2 1177: r. 5; UET 3 329, 1765. See also the passage of Gilgameš and Huwawa A 169, “Your wet nurse knows very well how to nourish a suckling baby (dumu-ga)”. The term bunga (UŠ.GA) may refer to older babies as the passage from a hymn to Išme-Dagan (Išme-Dagan K 25–26), “to see that women amuse themselves by using children’s language (eme-bunga), to see that children (bunga) amuse themselves by using women’s language”. For the motif of the woman with child in Mesopotamia see Nadali 2014 and in general Budin 2011. For statues of suckling babies (dumu-ga) see UET 3 329. 18 CAD K s.v. distinguishes the two terms, kappu A and kappu B. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur

347

Figure 2. Seated female statue (AO 23995, © Musée du Louvre)

The fourth statue may be a standing one, for the final gub-ba may refer to the statuette position. The term a-bi2-za (r. 2) is perhaps a variant of a-bi-za “(ein Dekorationsstück)” according to Paoletti 2012, 136 (with previous literature). Note, however, the copper object urudua-bu-za-tum in an unpublished text from the Lanier Theological Library, Houston (BDTNS 192050 = CDLI P432482). Here, the a-bu-za-tum is listed together with other copper objects in a record of precious goods among which a small gold solar disk (ša-am-ša-tum tur ku3-sig17, o. 1) and stone items (o. 7–r. 3) kept in the cupboard of the treasure (of the shrine) of Allatum in Anzagar (gu2-ne-saĝ-ĝa2-ka ĝal2-la / ni3?-gur11 dAl-la-tum ša3? An-za-gar3ki, r. 6–7). a-bu-za-tum is a hapax but is homophone of Akkadian abūsātu(m), “forelock”, (CAD A1, 92 s.v.). Besides being documented in first millennium BC sources, the term abūsātu(m) may be related to a-bu-za-tum and the a-bi2-za-tum of our text, describing a feature of the child the woman is holding; it may refer to the forelock of children as the ancient Egypt sidelock of youth. A forelock on a child’s head is barely perceivable in the Old Akkadian cylinder seal BM 89343 (Boehmer 1965, 97–98 no. 556), but it is clearly distinguished in another seal (Figure 3) from the same period kept in the Louvre (A 176(?); see Boehmer 1965, 97–98 no. 555).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

348

Lorenzo Verderame

Figure 3. Old Akkadian cylinder seal (A 176; © Musée du Louvre); Boehmer 1965, pl. XLVII no. 555

In the text, three different terms are used to describe the purpose of the issued material: ĝa2-ĝa2-de3, d/tah-he-de3, and si3--de3. While the three terms seem to refer to the same action of “adding” material to existing statues, the fact that they appear in the same document means that they are not synonyms and different actions are to be inferred. One may wonder if these are generic administrative terms or refer to specific techniques instead. According to Limet (1960, 159), Sumerian dah, “to add”, refers to plating (“dorure”) in texts dealing metals and stones;19 note however that in the text here published the process meant by dah involve the addition of both gold and lapis lazuli to a copper statue (U. 30117: o. 1–3). ĝa2-ĝa2 refers to metal (usually silver) to be added to objects of different material (metal, stone, wood), such as a chair (NABU 2001: 7) or a balaĝ (UET 3 298). According to Limet (1960, 153ff.), there is no difference between ĝar and ĝa2-ĝa2, having the same meaning of “incruster … incrustations d’un métal sur un autre métal”, and in jewellery, when referred to a process of adding metal to stone, “entourer”.20 Limet (2001) translates the verb as “to plate” (“plaquer”). Molina (1988, 272ff., and 1989, 85) translates ĝar as “encapsulation” and “granulation” (“capsulación y granulación”) and, in relation to cylinder seals, “encapsulation” (“capsulación”), which could fit the context of UET 3 448, where gold is applied to a lapis lazuli seal. Similarly, Paoletti (2013, 343) translates ĝar as “gilding” and “encapsulation (cylinder seals/beads)”. si3-de3 is a variant of the more common si3-ge(4)-de3 which is found with stones added to other objects. It is rarely documented. Limet (1960, 163–164) translates “sertir”, following Oppenheim (1948, 50 n. a, “inlaid”); similarly Molina (1989, 85) (“engastado”), Paoletti (2012, 162) “mit (Edel)-Steinen oder Elfenbein einlegen, besetzen”, and Paoletti (2013, 343) “stone inlay, intarsia”.

19

“A-t-on refondu l’objet pour y incorporer une nouvelle quantité de matière précieuse? On doit plutôt comprendre qu’il s’agissait d’une sorte de dorure: le terme tah serait alors l’équivalent de ziz5 (= zu’unu) ‘orner’” (Limet 1960, 159). 20 Note, however, the use of ĝar with regards to different other type of material (bitumen and glue) to be added to a metal statue see note 8. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur

349

In our text the entries are clearly ordered according to the type of process: gold (and lapis lazuli) is to be added to embelish (dah) the first two statues and to gild (ĝa2-ĝa2) the third and fourth statue. In the fifth entry, lapis lazuli is perhaps to be inlaid (si3). Besides the last entry, where is not clear if the stone refers to the object or to what is to be added, the material of the four statues is not specified. Thus it is unclear if the processes meant by dah, ĝa2-ĝa2, and si3 are metal on metal, or metal on stone. The gold and lapis lazuli are issued by Lugal-kuzu and delivered by Ludiĝirra, who can be identified with the homonymous metalworkers (simug) of the Craft Archive of Ur. Ajaĝu is barely documented in Ur, but his name is twice followed by the title of šabra: UET 3 331 and UET 9 429. The former document is a recepit of metal objects, thus the šabra Ajaĝu may well be identified with the receiver of our text as well.

3. U. 30138 43×38×18 ŠS 8/XI/Nisaba 5, 32 no. 186; BDTNS: 071263 / CDLI: P331218; Plate III. Obv. 1

˹1/3 ŠA urudu x˺ [(x)] / urudualan lugal / kaš naĝ-K[A?]

2

[x n]a4an-zu-g[ur4?] [x x] ˹x˺ [x]

3

One third of mina (= c. 0.16 kg) of copper [...] for a copper statue of the king drinking beer; [...] anzugur-stone [...]

Rev. 1 2 3 4

5 6

[x x] ˹x˺ [(x)] [šu ba-(an)]-˹ti˺ [iti e]zen an-[na] [mu] dšu-dE[N.ZU lugal] / Uri5kima-[ke4] ma2-gur8-ma[h] ˹d˺[En-lil2 dNin]-lil2-/[ra mu-nedim2]

[PN] [recei]ved. [Month] of “the sky/An festival” (XI), [year (when)] Šū-Su’[en, king] of Ur, [built] the lofty magur-boat [for Enlil and Nin]lil.

The end of the first entry, naĝ-K[A], could be the duplicated form na8-na8. The relationship between the king and drinking beer is mostly related to documents from Puzriš-Dagān recording the issues of silver rings (har) “when ‘my king’ in the house of … has drunk the beer”;21 see also the long list of goods labelled as 21

AUCT 1 176: o. 2–3, 793: o. 2–4, 918: o. 3–5, 942: r. 2–3; BPOA 10, 510–511 (SM 1911.10.225): o. 2–3; JCS 10, 31 12: r. 1–2. Compare also the legenda of Ušĝu’s seal who bears the title of lu2-na8-na8-lugal (YOS 15 165). © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Lorenzo Verderame

350

“(goods) [issued] in Ur when ‘my king’ has [drunk] beer in the house of Šarruilī”22 and the single entry of a gold finger ring as mu-kux of the sukkal-mah Arad-Nanna “when ‘my king’ has drunk the beer in his house”.23 Three texts from Iri-saĝrig record deliveries for (the rite of) “the king drinking beer” (kaš naĝ lugal).24 A plausible parallel to the statue mentioned in the first line of our text may be concealed in the fragmentary passage of another document, where EDIN-pa-e3 stone is issued for the fashioning of a statue(?) of the runner king25 drinking beer (lugal kas4 kaš / [...] na8-na8) and a woman libating (sagi) in front of him (UET 3 697: o. 1–3); see Spycket (1968, 68). For the relationship between these expressions and statue models, see above. The an-zu-gur4 stone mentioned in l. 2 appears only twice in Neo-Sumerian documents: — YOS 4 296 (PD; Š 37/III/-): o. 14, a text registering “15 beads (ellag2) of anzugur-stone” in the list of properties (ni3-gur11) of the goddess Nin-e2gal; — SAT 2 39 (PD; Š 31/VI/-): o. 2, recording “one small statue of anzugurstone” (1 alan na4an-zu-gur4-me ˹tur˺). It may be a variant of the stone known as an-za/zu2-gul-me in Akkadian sources; see Schuster-Brandis (2008, 396).

Bibliography Boehmer, R.M., Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4), Berlin 1965. Braun-Holzinger, E.A., Figürliche Bronzen aus Mesopotamien, München 1984. Budin, S.L., Images of Woman and Child from the Bronze Age: Reconsidering Fertility, Maternity, and Gender in the Ancient World, Cambridge 2011. D’Agostino, F. / Laurito, R. / Pomponio, F., Neo-Sumerian Texts from Ur in the British Museum. Epigraphical and Archaeological Catalogue of an Unpublished Corpus of Texts and Fragments (Nisaba 5), Messina 2004. D’Agostino, F. / Verderame, L., Umma Messenger Texts in the British Museum. Part Three (Rivista di studi orientali, Supplemmento LXXVI), Pisa / Roma 2003. 22

BPOA 10, 479 Phillips 13: r. iii 11) u4 lugal-[ĝu10] 12) e2 Šar-ru-˹i3˺-[li2-ka] 13) kaš i3-[naĝĝa2-a] 14) mu-[de6?] 15) ša3 ˹Uri5˺ [ki-ma]. 23 JCS 54, 7 52: r. iv 2′) 1 šu-gur ku3-sig17 huš-a 3′) ki-la2-bi 1 gin2 4′) mu-kux Arad2-dNanna sukkal-mah 5′) ša3 e2-a-še3 6′) u4 lugal-ĝu10 e2-a-na kaš in-naĝ-ĝa2-a. 24 Nisaba 15/2 315: r. 1, 279: o. 14, 738: r. i 3. 25 Compare the reference to the statue of “the runner king on the chariot” in UET 3, 310 (alan lugal kas4 ĝišgigir, o. 2), discussed above. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur

351

Limet, H., Le travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Pilosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 155), Paris 1960. — Une tablette d’Ur III provenant d’Ur, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (2001) 9–10, no. 7. Loding, D.M., A Craft Archive from Ur, PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 1974. Molina, M., La manufactura de las piedras preciosas segun los textos de Ur de la tercera dinastia, PhD Dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid 1988. — Las piedras preciosas en los textos económicos de Ur de la Tercera Dinastía, in: Aula Orientalis 7 (1989) 81–93. Nadali, D., Family Portraits. Some Considerations on the Iconographical Motif of the “Woman with Child” in the Art of the Third Millennium B.C.E., in: Marti, L. (ed.), La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes, et images. Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Paris 6-9 July 2009, Winona Lake, IN 2014, 227–239. Nadali, D. / Verderame, L., Neo-Assyrian Statues of Gods and Kings in Context, in: Altorientalische Forschungen 46 (2019) 234–248. Oppenheim, A.L., Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eames Babylonian Collection in the New York Public Library, Tablets of the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur (American Oriental Series 32), New Haven 1948. Paoletti, P., Der König und sein Kreis. Das staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur (Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 10), Madrid 2012. — The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaya: Mesopotamian Jewellery-Making Techniques at the End of the Third Millennium B.C., in: Garfinkle, S. / Molina, M. (eds.), From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid 22–24 July 2010, Winona Lake, IN 2013, 333–345. Schuster-Brandis, A., Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel. Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 46), Münster 2008. Spycket, A., Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines à la Ire dynastie de Babylone (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 9), Paris 1968. — La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien (Handbook of Oriental Studies 7/1), Leiden / Boston 1981. Thomas, A., The Faded Splendour of Lagashite Princesses: A Restored Statuette from Tello and the Depiction of Court Women in the Neo-Sumerian Kingdom of Lagash, in: Iraq 78 (2016) 215–239.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

352

Lorenzo Verderame

Verderame, L., Sedie, troni e portantine nell’antica Mesopotamia, in: Notizia, P. / Pomponio, F. (eds.), Scritti in onore di Pietro Mander, Annali dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale” 72 (2012) 149–168. — Statues and Sculptors in Third Millennium Mesopotamia: The Written Evidence, (forthcoming). Widell, M., The Calendar of Neo-Sumerian Ur and Its Political Significance, in: Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2004:2 (2004).

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur

Plate I. U. 18815 (© The Trustees of British Museum)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

353

354

Lorenzo Verderame

Plate II. U. 30117 (© The Trustees of British Museum)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Fashioning of Statues in Three Neo-Sumerian Unpublished Texts from Ur

Plate III. U. 30138 (© The Trustees of British Museum)

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

355

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Nergal in Phoenician Context Paolo Xella

A bilingual—Greek and Phoenician—inscription, found in 1842 in a private garden in Piraeus, near Athens, and dating to the 3rd (or the end of 4th) century BC, draws our attention for various reasons.1 Besides being one of the far from numerous bilingual texts of this type,2 it is characterized by the names, provenance and titles of the characters mentioned in it and, above all, by the unexpected attestation—still unique in the Phoenician documentation of the eastern and the western Mediterranean—of the ancient Babylonian god Nergal. The aim of this brief study—which I dedicate with affection and esteem to Franco, to whom I am bound by several decades of friendship, collaboration and joint ventures of various kinds—is to take stock of the document (which calls into question Mesopotamia, so beloved by the scholar celebrated here), its scope and implication and, above all, to try to understand the historical and religious reasons underlying the presence of this substantially chthonic, but also differently faceted divinity, in the Phoenician context. In fact, the inscription emanates from a community of Sidonians located in Pyraeus and already well integrated at the time of Alexander the Great.3 It is engraved on a marble base, probably a small altar with a funerary function, as shown by the text written in honour of a Sidonian woman, who remembers her father and the one who took charge of erecting the small monument in her memory. The Greek text, shorter than the Phoenician one and affixed above it in larger characters, mentions only the woman’s name, her patronymic and origin: Ἀσεπτ Ἐσυμσελήμου Σιδωνία “Asept (the daughter) of Esymselēm Sidonian.” The Phoenician inscription, which consists of two lines, is longer and provides more information: 1

CIS I 119 = KAI 59; cf. IG II/2 10271. See recently Briquel-Chatonnet 2012; Bianco 2015. 3 Baslez / Briquel-Chatonnet 1991. 2

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

358

Paolo Xella

1. ʾnk ʾspt bt ʾšmnšlm ṣdnt ʾš yṭnʾ ly 2. ytnbl bn ʾšmnṣlḥ rb khnm ʾlm nrgl “I am Asept, the daughter of Eshmunshillem, Sidonian. (This is) what erected to me Yatonbel, the son of Eshmunṣalaḥ, the high priest / chief of the priests of god Nergal.” Examining the text in greater detail, we first note the simple faithful Greek transcription of the Phoenician personal name ʾspt, attested so far only in this one case:4 it is the feminine of ʾasap frequent in Hebrew, from the root ’sp “to gather”, “to collect”.5 Among the names of the other characters, ytnbl, Yatonbel deserves special attention: in fact, this is not an erroneous form of ytnbʿl, Yatonbaʿl, but a theophoric personal name containing the name of the Palmyrene god Bel, also attested only in this case in the Phoenician and Punic onomastic repertoire. This Yatonbel was not just any character: he was probably linked to the deceased by family ties (husband?) and held the office of high priest of the god Nergal, whose cult is foreign to the Phoenician religious traditions. En passant, it should be remarked that the syntagm ʾlm nrgl in our inscription is undoubtedly to be translated “the god Nergal”, with ʾlm here in plural form but with singular value, just as in other clear cases in the Phoenician documentation.6 This clarification is stimulated by the unfounded hypothesis concerning the alleged characteristic of the Babylonian god as a “double divinity”, which would lead us to consider here ʾlm a dual.7 In addition to grammatical reasons, it must be added that this alleged “duality” of Nergal—based on his power to range between heaven, earth and the underworld—is totally devoid of evidence in the cuneiform documentation concerning this god, for whom, at most, a dialectic of male vs. female powers in bringing death has been noted, but in consonance with his consort Ereshkigal.8 Once we have removed this pseudo-issue, one wonders what a priest of Nergal was doing there, and the reasons for his cult in a Phoenician community that had been settled in Pyraeus from at least the end of the 4th century BC. Given the extraneousness of the Babylonian god to the Phoenician and Punic

4

Benz 1972, 272; Bianco 2015, 58–59. DNWSI II, s.v. ʾsp1. On Hebrewʾasap, see Noth 1928, 181–182 and no. 198. 6 See PPG3: § 240.4, 162; § 241.4, 169; § 306.1, 215. 7 Chiodi 1998. 8 Wiggermann 2001. On Nergal, see also von Weiher 1971; Lambert 1973; Livingstone 1999. 5

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Nergal in Phoenician Context

359

pantheon, we must hypothesize his presence in our context as being due to an external import. As is well known, the most important cult center of Nergal was Kutha (possibly, modern Tell Ibrāhīm), in northern Babylonia:9 consequently, it is legitimate to look at this as the potential center from which the cult radiated and penetrated the Syro-Palestinian area,10 from whence it may have passed to Greece. Unfortunately, available sources do not provide precise information and we can only formulate hypotheses in this regard. On the one hand, an important text often taken into consideration is 2 Kings 17 (1ff. and 24ff.) about Israelites deported to Assyria, and foreign peoples deported to Israel under the reign of Hosea: here, however, the information consists merely of the statement that the inhabitants of Kutha (like those of other cities, including the enigmatic Sepharvaim) were allowed to continue practicing their traditional cults.11 On the other hand, Assyrian sources confirm a deportation occurred of the inhabitants of Kutha in Syria-Palestine, but unfortunately it is not stated precisely where. In any case, this event did not occur under Sargon II—as some have claimed: Kutha is never mentioned in his Annals—but under Sennacherib, during his campaign against MerodachBaladan in the years 704–702.12 This is what can be noted from the historical point of view. But how do things stand on a strictly religious level? Behind the presence of Nergal in this context, complex phenomena of theological assimilations occurred that call into question various areas and epochs (in addition to Babylonia, also Palmyra, Hatra and Tarsus), even though it is very difficult to pinpoint the ways and directions by means of which these occurred. Faced with the assimilation of Heracles and Nergal attested by sufficient evidence at Palmyra, H. Seyrig proposed that this phenomenon could have been further favoured there by a syncretism Melqart-Nergal.13 However, his hypothesis has not found much credit. In addition to—among others—R.

9

Edzard / Gallory 1980–1983. Kutha was a renowned cult center of deities related to the Nether World, and its name occasionally stands for the term ‘Nether World’ itself. 10 W. Röllig, in KAI II, 72–73. 11 “The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Kutha, Awwa, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the children of Israel. They took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its cities” (2 Kings 17,24). The Kuthaeans were devoted to Nergal; as for Sepharvaites, the Phoenician rite of burning sons and daughters to the enigmatic gods Adrammelek and Anammelek is mentioned. 12 Levine 1982, especially 29–30. On Kutha in Sennacherib’s inscriptions, see Grayson / Novotny 2012, §1 15.18.22.23, §2 12, §3 12, §4 10, §8 10, §9 11, §15 I 18′, §16 I 56, §17 I 47, §22 I 41, §23 I 36. See also Becking 1992. 13 Seyrig 1944–1945. On the problem of an indiscriminate use of the term “syncretism”, however, see Xella 2006. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Paolo Xella

360

Dussaud,14 C. Bonnet,15 and E. Lipiński16 have also expressed scepticism regarding a direct involvement of the Tyrian god in this phenomenon. C. Bonnet, on the one hand, inclines towards a direct syncretism Nergal / Heracles, possibly at Hatra, where the cult of the Babylonian god is well attested, “implanté dans le sillage de l’expansion macédonienne”;17 according to E. Lipiński, on the other hand, the identification Nergal / Heracles could date back to at least the 5th century BC: the Nergal of Pyraeus could have been conceived “à l’image d’un Héraklès oriental ou de Nergal de Tarse”, without necessarily involving Melqart.18 At present, there are no new elements that can advance our analysis. However, it is worth proposing a couple of concluding remarks. On the one hand, Tarsus could actually come into play as a possible location for syncretistic phenomena: Cilicia was a region where Phoenician influence had a long history, and its “Baal of Tarsus” may have played a role in this intriguing game of assimilations.19 On the other hand, an important clue offered by our bilingual inscription must not be overlooked: the priest of Nergal at Pyraeus, Yatonbel, bears a name containing the god Bel, which could suggest links with Babylonia, although it is hard to believe that Nergal was worshipped as such by a community of Sidonians settled in Greece. But Bel is also the main god of Palmyra, an international city open to multiple cultural and religious influences, a place that was very well suited to hosting various cults and syncretistic phenomena in which even the Phoenician traditions left important traces.20 The problem is fascinating and current evidence leads us to an interpretative limit that cannot be overcome in the hope that new data will emerge in this regard, the question must remain open.

Abbreviations CIS = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. DNWSI = Hoftijzer, J. / Jongeling, K., Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, I–II (Handbuch der Orientalistik 21), Leiden / Boston 1995. KAI = Donner, H. / Röllig, W., Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, I–III, Wiesbaden, 1966–2002 [I5 2002; II2 1966; III2 1969].

14

Dussaud 1948. Bonnet 1988, 148–153. 16 Lipiński 1995, 242–243. 17 Bonnet 1988, 151. On Nergal at Hatra, see Greenfield 1988. 18 Lipiński 1995, 243. 19 See Jenkins 1973; Chuvin 1981. 20 See, e.g. Garbini 1998. 15

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

Nergal in Phoenician Context

361

PPG3 = Friedrich, J. / Röllig, W., Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von M.G. Amadasi Guzzo unter Mitarbeit von W.R. Mayer (Analecta Orientalia 55), Rome 1999.

Bibliography Baslez, M.-F. / Briquel-Chatonnet, F., Un exemple d’intégration phénicienne au monde grec: les Sidoniens au Pirée à la fin du IVe siècle, in: Atti del II Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, I, Roma 1991, 229–240. Becking, B., The Fall of Samaria. An Historical and Archaeological Study (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 2), Leiden / New York / Köln 1992. Benz, F.L., Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (Studia Pohl 8), Rome 1972. Bianco, M., Considérations sur les anthroponymes phéniciens transcrits en grec dans les inscriptions bilingues gréco-phéniciennes, in: Semitica et Classica 7 (2015) 53–62. Bonnet, C., Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès tyrien en Méditerranée (Studia Phoenicia 8), Leuven / Namur 1988. Briquel-Chatonnet, F., Les inscriptions phénico-grecques et le bilinguisme des Phéniciens, in: Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 156/1 (2012) 619–638. Chiodi, S.M., Studi mesopotamici I: Nergal, un dio doppio, in: Rivista di Studi Fenici 26/1 (1998) 3–20. Chuvin, P., Apollon au trident et les dieux de Tarse, in: Journal des Savants 1981/4 (1981) 305–326. Dussaud, R., Melqart, in: Syria 25 (1948) 205–230. Edzard, D.O. / Gallory, M., Kutha, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6 (1980–1983) 384–387. Garbini, G., Gli dei fenici di Palmira, in: Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei ser. 9.9 (1998) 23–37. Grayson, A.K. / Novotny, J., The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1 (Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1), Winona Lake, IN 2012. Greenfield, J.C., Nergal dḥšpṭ, in: Acta Iranica 28 (1988) 135–143. Jenkins, G.K, Two New Tarsus Coins, in: Revue Numismatique 15 (1973) 30– 34. Lambert, W.G., Studies in Nergal, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 30 (1973) 355–363. Levine, L.D., Sennacherib’s Southern Front, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 34 (1982) 28–58. Lipiński, E., Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 64), Leuven 1995. © 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)

362

Paolo Xella

Livingstone, A., Nergal, in: van der Toorn, K. et al. (eds.). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd extensively revised edition, Leiden / Boston 1999, 621–622. Noth, M., Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, Stuttgart 1928 (Reprographischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Stuttgart 1928, Hildesheim / New York 1980). Seyrig, H., Antiquités Syriennes. Héraklès-Nergal, in: Syria 24 (1944–1945) 62–80. von Weiher, E., Der babylonische Gott Nergal (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 11), Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971. Wiggermann, F.A.M., Nergal, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9 (2001) 223–226. Xella, P., ‘Syncrétisme’ comme catégorie conceptuelle: une notion utile?, in: Bonnet, C. / Pirenne-Delforge, V. / Praet, D. (eds.), Les religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain cent ans après Cumont (1906–2006), Rome 2006, 135–147.

© 2021, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-112-0 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-113-7 (E-Book)