Middle Babylonian Literary Texts from the Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection, Jena 3447112565, 9783447112567

Citation preview

Texte und Materialien der Hilprecht Collection 12

Elyze Zomer

Middle Babylonian Literary Texts from the Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection, Jena

Harrassowitz Verlag

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor

Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Herausgegeben von Manfred Krebernik Band 12

2019

Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Elyze Zomer

Middle Babylonian Literary Texts from the Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection, Jena

2019

Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2019 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed in Germany ISSN 0232-3001 ISBN 978-3-447-11256-7 e-ISBN 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

To Jascha amīl māt tâmti

De Man uit Zeeland

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

VORWORT DES HERAUSGEBERS Der vorliegende Band 12 der Reihe „Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection“ (zur Bandzählung siehe Vorwort zu Band 6) setzt eine mit Band 9 (K. Lämmerhirt, Die sumerische Königshymne Šulgi F) eingeschlagene Linie fort, nämlich die Edition wichtiger Einzeltexte der Hilprecht-Sammlung, gegebenfalls unter Einbeziehung von Joins, Duplikaten und/oder verwandten Texte anderer Sammlungen. Der Band enthält vier ebenso interessante wie schwierige Texte aus mittelbabylonischer Zeit, darunter den bereits 1991 vorläufig durch A. Kilmer bekannt gemachten und seither öfters zitierten „Spiele-Text“ HS 1893. Sowohl literaturgeschichtlich als auch historisch bedeutsam ist das „GulkišarEpos“ (HS 1885), das Frau Dr. Zomer identifizieren und durch zwei Fernjoins mit Fragmenten des University Museums (Philadelphia) in großen Teilen rekonstruieren konnte. Ich danke Frau Dr. Zomer sehr herzlich für ihr wissenschaftliches Engagement und für die gute Zusammenarbeit bei der Vorbereitung des Bandes. Die Mittel für den Druck konnten aus einem Budget bestritten werden, das die Friedrich-Schiller-Universität dankenswerterweise der Sammlung 2018 zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Jena, im Juni 2019

Manfred Krebernik

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR Luctor et Emergo Motto of the Zeeland province, Netherlands This volume is partially the result of my thesis Enmity against Samsuditana submitted for the degree Master of Research in 2012 to the University of Leiden under the supervision of Wilfred van Soldt and Jan Gerrit Dercksen. During this preliminary research, the fragmentary HS 1885 was joined by the author with fragment N 4026 (and later N 1338) from the University Museum of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and was identified to be The Epic of Gulkišar, a previously unknown text. I wish to express the utmost gratitute to Manfred Krebernik and Wilfred van Soldt, who allowed me to work on HS 1885 during my thesis, and who later gave me permission to publish this fragment together with the other Middle Babylonian literary fragments HS 1886, HS 1893 and HS 1903 from the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena. The International Association of Assyriology (IAA) kindly awarded me the IAA-prize for Cuneiform Studies in 2016 which enabled me to make further essential collations at the University Museum of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) in March 2017. I would like to thank Grant Frame and Philip Jones for their hospitality at the University Museum and for allowing me permission to publish N 1338 and N 4026. During the numerous visits to the Hilprecht-Sammlung in preparation of this volume. I am thankful for the warm encounters with Kai Lämmerhirt, Jana Matuszak, Szilvia Sövegjártó, Sarah Köhler, Juliane Eule and Karolin Ulbricht. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following scholars for sharing their comments, ideas and insights on various occasions, i.e. Antoine Cavigneaux, Richard Essam, Benjamin Foster, Eckart Frahm, Anna Glenn, Nils Heeßel, Enrique Jiménez, Frans van Koppen, Joachim Oelsner, Jacob Jan de Ridder, Leonhard Sassmannshausen, Wilfred van Soldt, Michael Streck, and Nathan Wasserman. I am especially indebted to Irving Finkel for his collaboration in reading the Games Text during a visit to Marburg (November 2017). Any mistakes, errors, omissions, or flaws remaining in the book are of course mine alone. Finally, I cannot express enough my gratitude once again to Manfred Krebernik, for his patience, kindness and for the long fruitful discussions and conversations in the HilprechtSammlung. Marburg, March 2019

Elyze Zomer

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

CONTENTS Vorwort des Herausgebers ....................................................................................................

VII

Preface by the Author............................................................................................................

IX

The Texts ...............................................................................................................................

1

Catalogue of Texts ...........................................................................................................

1

Provenience of Texts ........................................................................................................

1

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar ....................................................................................................

3

Introduction ......................................................................................................................

3

Text Edition .....................................................................................................................

28

№ 2. Mythological Narrative on Pa(p)nigara ........................................................................

39

Introduction ......................................................................................................................

39

Text Edition .....................................................................................................................

40

№ 3. Ceremony at the Ekur ...................................................................................................

45

Introduction ......................................................................................................................

45

Text Edition .....................................................................................................................

45

№ 4. Games Text...................................................................................................................

49

Introduction ......................................................................................................................

49

Text Edition .....................................................................................................................

51

Bibliographical Abbreviations ..............................................................................................

59

Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................

61

Indices ...................................................................................................................................

69

Plates

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

THE TEXTS Catalogue of Texts №

Text

Museum №

1

The Epic of Gulkišar

HS 1885 + N 4026 (+) N 1338

2

Mythological Narrative on Pa(p)nigara

HS 1886

3

Ceremony at the Ekur

HS 1902

4

Games Text

HS 1893

Provenience of Texts As is the case with almost all cuneiform tablets present in the Hilprecht-Collection in Jena, the four tablets published in this volume derive from the excavations conducted by the Babylonian Expedition in Nippur. Unfortunately, not much is known about the archaeological context of the finds. The majority of texts were found at the so-called ‘Tablet Hill’ (Gibson/ Hansen/Zettler 1998–2001, 549f.), which was later further excavated by the Joint Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. The archaeological finds of the Babylonian Expedition were consequently divided among the collections of the Ottoman Museum (now the Archaeological Museums) in Istanbul, the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Hermann Volrath Hilprecht himself in Jena. This has resulted in the circumstance that tablets belonging to the same archive and even fragments belonging to a single tablet can be found among the three collections, e.g. TMH 10, 13; 14, 18c. Another example can be found in the present volume for The Epic of Gulkišar (HS 1885+), of which two fragments (N 4026, N 1338) have now been retraced in the collections of the University Museum. The old excavation catalogue present in the collection in Philadelphia did not offer any further information regarding the findspot of N 4026 and N 1338.1 A fragment from Istanbul (Ni 13090), known only from the notes of F.R. Kraus (dated 24/11/1949), was kindly brought to my attention by Nathan Wasserman during a visit in Jerusalem (June 2017). Although this fragment cites the name of Gulkišar it does not belong to HS 1885+ and is therefore a different composition, being most likely a hymn to Gulkišar.2 1 Accessed by the author in February 2017 2 The preliminary edition of Kraus is cited below. Similarities between HS 1885+ and Ni 13090 are discussed in the commentary of The Epic of Gulkišar. Hymns adressed to kings are well-known from the Sumerian literary tradition, but are rarely found in Akkadian. Another example from the second millennium BCE can be found in the Hymn to Gungunum, s. Wasserman (2018).

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

№ 1. THE EPIC OF GULKIŠAR Introduction This single-column tablet from Nippur contains a new Akkadian royal epic, here coined as The Epic of Gulkišar. The protagonist is the sixth king of the First Sealand Dynasty, i.e. Gulkišar, who is described as antagonizing the last king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, i.e. Samsu-ditāna. As will be discussed below, the orthography and phonology displayed in this text make contemporary dating possible, but the text is only betrayed as a MB copy through its use of Kassite sign forms. As an Akkadian royal epic, this text shares similarities with other texts dating from the second millennium BCE belonging to this genre, i.e. Hammurabi’s Deeds (Rutz/Michalowski 2016); The Zimri-lim Epic (Guichard 2014); The Tukultī-Ninurta Epic (Machinist 1978; Chang 1981); the Akkadian fragment KUB 37, 139 from Ḫattuša (Zomer 2015); and various fragments of later copies of royal epics dating this period (Grayson 1975b). Historical Context The new direct synchronism in HS 1885+ between the last king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Samsu-ditāna and Gulkišar, a king from the First Sealand Dynasty, sheds new light on the political environment in Babylonia before and after the Fall of Babylon and brings new implications for determining a chronology for the so-called Mesopotamian ‘Dark Age’.1 First Dynasty of Babylon Samsu-iluna The decline of the First Dynasty of Babylon began in approximately the 8th year of Samsuiluna. Southern Babylonia had risen into a mayor rebellion led by Rīm-Sîn (II) of Larsa and Rīm-Anum of Uruk. Samsu-iluna overcame the rebellion, but the vast territorial state which was founded by Ḫammu-rāpi had now started to crumble and control over the south was gradually lost. The first occasions where the Kassites occur as a political entity in the Old Babylonian landscape is in the year-name (Si 9) when a Kassite invasion is listed.2

1 A preliminary study has been presented by the author in a paper titled Enmity Against Samsu-ditana presented during the Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Ghent 2013 and Zomer 2016. Abbreviations are used for kings and their year names, i.e. (Si) = Samsuiluna, (Ae) = Abī-ešuḫ, (Ad) = Ammī-ditāna, (As) = Ammī-saduqa, (Sd) = Samsu-ditāna. 2 The earlier references to Kassites may come from Alalaḫ VII, i.e. AlT 412: 6–7 (Dietrich/Loretz 2006, 91); AlT 238: 20, 33 (Zeeb 2001, 543); AlT 248: 9 (Zeeb 2001, 585). The speculative identification of Kassite personal names in the Ur III-period (Zadok 1987, 16; 1993, 222f.) has not been widely accepted (Shelley 2017, 197 fn. 11). For the gentilic adjective kaššû ‘Kassite’, s. van Koppen 2017, 46f.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

4

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

mu Sa-am-su-i-lu-na lugal-e ugnim Ka-aš-šu-ú ki-kalki gišsuḫuš-bi íb-ta-bu-ra The year: Samsu-iluna, the king, ripped out the foundation of the army of the Kassites at Kikalla.3 (Si 9) Horsnell 1999, 192–193. Coinciding with the year-name (b) of Rīm-Sîn (II) of Larsa: mu dRi-im-den-zu lugal dnin-maḫ-e é-kèški temen-an-ki-bi-da-ta nam-lugal-kalam-kišigál-la-šè gal-bi-ta ba-an-íl-la lú-kúr lú-ḫul-gál Ka-šu-úki kur-ta kur-kur-šè gaba-bi nuge4-a The year: Ninmaḫ raised Rīm-Sîn to kingship over all countries in the Keš temple, the temen of heaven and earth, and the enemy, the evil Kassites from the barbarous country, who could not be driven back from the land to the mountains (?) … (Rīm-Sîn II b) Stol 1976, 54 After their defeat by Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Sîn (II) the Kassites did not disappear from Babylonian soil but seemed to have been well organized in an encampment in the vicinity of Sippar and Kār-Šamaš and were sometimes hired by the Babylonian administration, functioning as mercenary forces serving economic and military functions.4 The early Kassite presence and their threat must have had an important influence on the southern rebellion.5 In a consecutive chain of events, the rebellion was struck down. Rīm-Sîn (II) of Larsa and later Iluni of Ešnunna were both defeated in combat among twenty-six rebel kings.6 RīmAnum in Uruk persevered presumably in year-name (Si 10)7, when it is said that the armies of Idamaras, Emutbalum, Uruk and Isin were defeated. Interestingly, we find in the yearname (ba)8 of Rīm-Anum the defeat of the armies of Emutbal, Ešnunna, Isin and Kazallu. Here we find the alternative writing of Idamaras = Ešnunna9 and the Mutiabal10, a division of the Emutbal.11 So it seems that Rīm-Anum, after the elimination of Rīm-Sîn (II), had to face the other rebels before he himself was eventually defeated.12 Finally, in year-name (Si 11)13 the walls of Ur and Uruk were destroyed, which seems to have been the end of the rebellion. The victory over the south was short-lived. Documentation in the southern area of Ur, Uruk and Larsa disappears after (Si 11). Archaeological evidence also suggests that the south remained abandoned for a long period.14 The abandonment of southern Babylonia seems to have resulted in a partial transmigration to northern Babylonia.15 Recently, the total abandonment of southern Babylonia has been questioned16 and newly published archives (i.e. CUSAS 8 and CUSAS 9) show that the disruption in southern Babylonia starting from the 3 The toponym is otherwise only known from the unpublished MLC 204, s. van Koppen 2017, 52. 4 Van Lerberghe 1995, 382. 5 Rositani 2003, 23. Note the Old Babylonian literary Sumerian fragment CBS 1422 (published by Michalowski 1981), which speaks about the Kassites as the enemy at the time of an extreme crisis. 6 Frayne 1990, 387. 7 Horsnell 1999, 193f. 8 Pomponio/Rositani 1998, 635ff. 9 Stol 1976, 51. 10 Charpin 2004, 341 fn. 1778. 11 Groneberg 1980, 170. 12 Charpin 2004, 341. 13 Horsnell 1999, 195f. 14 Gasche 1989, 109–132. 15 Charpin 2004, 343. 16 Dalley 2009, 8–9.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

5

reign of Samsu-iluna was not sufficient to cause the total abandonment of cities and traditions of scribal activity as has previously been claimed. The reason for this disruption in southern Babylonia is still unclear to us; an Elamite attack, a shift of the Euphrates or the upcoming First Sealand Dynasty.17 Samsu-iluna in (Si 17)18 reinforced the former rebellious territories by (re)building the great fortress of Emutbalum, restoring it back to the Babylonian heartland. One may tentatively argue that this event may be related to one of Samsu-iluna’s royal inscriptions19, in which he refers to his building of six fortresses.20 The Babylonian policy was not only focused on the south, since we know from several year-names dated Samsu-iluna that there were several conflicts with the northern border as well. The interference of Babylon in the area of the Diyala region becomes visible in following year-name: mu Sa-am-su-i-lu-na lugal-e lugal sag-kal kur nu-še-ga-ni bí-in-sì-sì-ga(-a) kìlib ugnim ma-da Èš-nun-naki (…) sag-giš bí-in-ra-a The year: Samsu-iluna, the king, the foremost king, overthrew the foreign country which was disobedient to him and slaughtered the entire army of Ešnunna (…). (Si 20) Horsnell 1999, 207f. Shorty followed by the events mentioned in year-name (Si 23): mu Sa-am-su-i-lu-na lugal-e usu gìr-ra den-líl-le mu-un-na-an-sum-ma-ta Ša-aḫ-na-aki uruki sag ma-da-pum-ma Za-ar-ḫa-nu-umki Pu-ut-raki Šu-ša-aki-(ma) […] x la?-si-a? mi bí-íb-gul-gul-la IIa-ku-un-x […] The year: Samsu-iluna, the king, by the fierce power which Enlil gave him, destroyed Šaḫna, the capital city of the land of Apum, Zarḫanum, Putra, Šuša, […]-lazia (?) […] Yakūn-ašar […] Yakūn-[…]. (Si 23) Horsnell 1999, 211f. The city Šaḫna (= Šeḫnā) is to be identified with Šubat-Enlil (Tell-Leilan)21, found at the far north of the Ḫabur-triangle. It has been questioned whether Ḫana was22 or was not23 an independent kingdom at this time. Yakūn-ašar is well-known from the archives of TellLeilan24, but unfortunately the substantial archives of Yakūn-ašar remain to be found. This leaves us without contemporary material in the area to reconstruct the historical scenario for the kingdom of Ḫana, which was located in the vicinity of its capital, the city of Terqa. The crux lies in how one must interpret the following year-name: mu Sa-am-su-i-lu-na lugal-e á-ág-gá den-líl-lá-ka nam-kù-zu nam-á-gál-bi-ta damarutu-ke4 mu-un-na-(an)-sum-ma-ta Ia-di-a-bu-um ù Mu-ti-ḫu-ur-ša-na lugal-lugal-la an-da-kúr-uš-a (šu-ni sá bí-in-du11-ga) šíta ḫuš-a-na giš-ḫaš-(a) in-ne-en-ak-a The year: Samsu-iluna, the king, at the command of Enlil and by the cleverness and strength which Marduk gave to him, (conquered) Yadi(ḫ)-abu and Muti-ḫuršāna, kings 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Pientka-Hinz 2006–2008, 645. Horsnell 1999, 204. Frayne 1990, 380–383. Frayne 1982, 513. Charpin 1987, 129ff; Eidem 2011, XXXVII. Charpin 1987, 136f. Rouault 2000, 267. Eidem 2011, 6–9.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

6

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

who had become hostile against him, and crushed them with his fierce weapon. (Si 28) Horsnell 1999, 220f. What must be noted here is that instead of naming the conquered countries, their kings are listed. Of all the year-names of the First Dynasty of Babylon, only six of them mention the names of the subjugated enemy kings.25 We can only speculate what happened with the city of Terqa after the fall of Mari. It could be that the city of Terqa was already a subject of the Babylonian kingdom, after the sacking of Mari by Ḫammu-rāpi. This would mean that the kings mentioned here rebelled against their Babylonian overlord.26 Perhaps the city of Terqa was only in control until Ḫammu-rāpi’s death?27 Another, probably more likely possibility, could be that Ḫammu-rāpi did not conquer Terqa at all and that the city and province of Terqa evolved into an independent kingdom.28 In this case the event described in year-name (Si 28) is a border conflict29 and a first sign of an attempt for more control in the region by the Ḫana kings. This would explain the issuing of year-names in Terqa during Yadiḫ-abu, which would be likely to be unpermitted if Terqa was already a vassal-state of Babylon.30 A further indication of an independent kingdom could be that the far north city of Apum in (Si 23) was reached by presumably taking the route over Ešnunna31, whose army was defeated in (Si 20), and not over Terqa. This is strengthened by (Si 24), which refers to Samsu-iluna’s construction of Dūr-Samsu-ilūna in the land of Warum, in which we know that Ešnunna was its capital city.32 Unfortunately, no documents were found at Terqa which can restore the gap between the fall of Mari and the first kings of Ḫana.33 We can conclude from the texts found at Terqa that there were times of continuous struggle for independence and more control over the vicinity, and of domination by Babylonian and perhaps even Kassite rule. The attention of Babylon remained on the region of Terqa as can be seen in (Si 33)34 in which the brick-work of the city of Saggaratum is restored and in (Si 35)35 in which the walls of Amal and Arku(m)36 are repaired and finally in (Si 36) which decribes Samsu-iluna overthrowing the troops of Amurru in the “mountainous” country. At the same time, in approximately Samsu-iluna’s 28th–30th year, authority over central Babylonia was gradually lost. In cities such as Isin, Maškan-šapir and in Nippur documentation disappears and five legal tablets found in Nippur37 bear the name of a king called Ilīma-ilum. This king is known from Babylonian King List A and Babylonian King List B, he is considered to be the founder of the First Sealand Dynasty. Yet this is not the 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Pientka-Hintz 1998, 226; Podany 2002, 40. Rouault 2000, 267. Rouault 1995, 101. Charpin 2004, 356. Buccelati 1988, 47. Podany 2002, 41. Charpin 1987, 136f. Groneberg 1980, 254. Podany 2002, 19. Horsnell 1999, 226f. Horsnell 1999, 228. Situated in the Diyala, s. Horsnell 1999, 228 fn. 171. Brinkman 1993–1997, 6; Oelsner 1974, 261.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

7

first attestation of the Sealand; in two texts dating from the reign of Rīm-Sîn (II), a contemporary of Ḫammu-rāpi, a group of imprisoned Sealand soldiers is mentioned38 and one Sealand king39, whose name has been restored as [Ilīma-il]um40. The synchronism between Samsu-iluna and Ilīma-ilum is also confirmed by an entry in the Chronicle of Early Kings.41 The rising Sealand Dynasty seems to have had influence in Babylonia up to Nippur during the final decade of Samsu-iluna, whose kingdom was reduced to the heartland of northern Babylonia: the cities of Babylon, Dilbat, Kiš, Sippar and their surroundings, but which seems to have extended to the further northern region, i.e. Ḫana, the Diyala and the Ḫabur-triangle. Abī-ešuḫ Samsu-iluna was succeeded by Abī-ešuḫ. Not much documentation is known from his reign, but we know that Abī-ešuḫ also had to deal with the presence of the Kassites and the Sealand Dynasty. Abī-ešuḫ is said to have dammed up the Tigris in order to defeat Ilīma-ilum, but was unsuccessful. This event is best known to us from various sources, first and foremost in the Chronicle of Early Kings: I

A-bi-ši DUMU ISa-am-su-i-lu-na ka-šad IDINGIR-ma-DINGIR iš-[kun(?)]-ma ídIDIGNA ana se-ke-ri lìb-ba-šú ub-lam-[m]a ídIDIGNA is-kìr-ma IDINGIR-ma-DINGIR ul [DABbatma(?)] Abiši, son of Samsu-iluna, set out to conquer Ilīma-ilum. He decided to dam the Tigris. He dammed the Tigris, but did not capture Ilīma-ilum. (Chronicle of Early Kings B: ll. r 8–10) Grayson 1975a, 156 Furthermore, in the year-name (Ae 19? ‘o’) of Abī-ešuḫ reference is made to this event: mu A-bi-e-šu-uḫ lugal-e usu maḫ damar-utu-ka-ta ídidigna giš bí-in-kéš-da The year: Abī-ešuḫ, the king, by the supreme power of Marduk dammed off the Tigris. (Ae 19? ‘o’) Horsnell 1999, 260f. Apparently, this was not the only measure that Abī-ešuḫ had taken against the Sealand Dynasty. In year-name (Ae 21? ‘m’) Abī-ešuḫ is said to have built a fortress on the banks of the Tigris: mu A-bi-e-šu-uḫ lugal-e Bàd-da-A-bi-e-šu-uḫ-ke4 bí-in-dù-a lugal-e ugu giš-gi4-gi4 idigna-ka-ta bí-in-dù-a The year: Abī-ešuḫ, the king, built Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ upstream from the marshlands on the banks of the Tigris. (Ae 21? ‘m’) Horsnell 1999, 262f. íd

Tentatively, it has been suggested that this fortress was built against the territorial ambitions of the Sealand Dynasty and to protect Nippur and central Babylonia from the east and southeast against the threats of waterborne invasion.42 The Sealand Dynasty, which had 38 39 40 41 42

OECT 15, 10:10. Dating the 8th year of Rīm-Sîn (II). OECT 15, 78: 18. Dalley 2009, 1. Note that Dalley prefers to read the name as Ilīma-An. Grayson 1975a, 156. George 2009, 141.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

8

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

occupied Nippur and its environs earlier during the reign of Samsu-iluna, was still attacking the borders of the Kingdom of Babylon during Abī- ešuḫ’s reign. The fact that there was a continuous threat to the dam and Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ is also expressed in a contemporary extispicy report, CUSAS 18, 4, recently published and discussed by George (2013, 13–19). The apparent important event of Abī-ešuḫ damming of the Tigris is also found in a tāmītu-text (K 2556: ii 1–22 // K 4721: r. 4–7 // ND 4393+: iii 17–47 // K 21542: 22–26) from the first millennium published by Lambert (2007, 54–57). The specific position of Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ has been questioned and it has been argued that the above-mentioned year-names are connected, i.e. the function of the fortress was to protect the dam.43 One important topographical detail on Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ is known from several texts, which refers to Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ ša zibbat44 ídḪammu-rāpi-nuḫuš-nišī. The location of this canal has been discussed thoroughly, the general consensus is that it functioned as one of the most important waterways in Babylonia, providing water for all the major cities in Central Babylonia from Nippur and Isin to the southern Babylonian cities of Uruk, Larsa, Ur and Eridu. The main discussion is concerned with whether the canal tapped its water from the Euphrates or from the Tigris.45 The last theory by Van Lerberghe/Voet (2009, 4–6) suggests that the canal tapped its water during the reign of Ḫammu-rāpi from the Euphrates, but by the time of the reign of Abī-ešuḫ it was changed to the Tigris for ecological reasons.46 The dam and therefore Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ should have been strategically placed where the canal reaches the river, easily controlling the water supply47 and protecting the Babylonian heartland against enemy attacks.48 Besides the possibilities of an attack of the Sealand Dynasty, the presence of hostile Kassites in the Babylonian landscape remained. In year-name (Ae 3 ‘d’) we find an early collision between the troops of Abī-ešuḫ and Kassite troops: mu A-bi-e-šu-uḫ lugal-e inim maḫ an den-líl-bi-da-ke4 usu gal-gal-(la) damar-utu-bi-dake4 éren ka-aš-šu-ú The year: Abī-ešuḫ, the king, the supreme command of An and Enlil and the very great power of Marduk the Kassite troops. (Ae 3 ‘d’) Horsnell 1999, 245 These hostile Kassites were probably limited to specific tribes or clans since as mentioned above, numerous texts dated from this period refer to Kassites serving in Babylonian society in both economic and military functions.49 It has to be stressed that this occasion is the last documented hostile encounter naming the Kassites directly. In the Diyala region, Babylon seems to have lost control over the land of Ešnunna, but regained it:

43 Van Lerberghe/Voet 2009, 5. 44 The interpretation of George 2009, 139 is followed here reading KUN and KUN.ḪI.A, pace Van Lerberghe/Voet 2009, 7 reads GÚ ÍD.DAki ‘bank of the river’. 45 Pientka-Hinz 1998, 218–224; Groneberg 1980, 285; Charpin 2004, 366; Richardson 2005, 282–284; George 2009, 123–152; Van Lerberghe/Voet 2009, 4–6. 46 Armstrong/Brandt 1994, 260–262. 47 Van Lerberghe/Voet 2009, 6. 48 The hydronym was still in use in texts from Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ during the reign Samsu-ditāna; for evidence of re-digging canal during the reign of Ammī-ditāna, s. Richardson 2015b. 49 Van Lerberghe 1995, 383.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

9

mu A-bi-e-šu-uḫ lugal-e usu šà-aš-gub damar-utu-ka éren kalam Èš-nun-naki ki-in-DU Ta-ši-ilki-ka-ta mè-a nam-dugud-ba in-ne-en-šub-ba a-ḫu-ši-na lugal Áš-nun-naki LÚ×GAN mi-ni-in-dib-ba The year: Abī-ešuḫ, the king, by the perfect power of Marduk, defeated the troops of the land of Ešnunna in a powerful battle on the road from (?) Tašil50 and seized Aḫušina, the king of Ešnunna, as captive. (Ae 17? ‘dd’) Horsnell 1999, 258f. In the Middle Euphrates region, Ḫana regained its independence by the end of the reign of Samsu-iluna or the beginning of the reign of Abī-ešuḫ. No further references can be found in the Babylonian year-names. There might have been a local power struggle in this region between the local dynasty in Terqa and the Kassite presence in the vicinity.51 It is Kaštiliaš(u) who succeeded Yadiḫ-abu at Terqa, who was likely to be of Kassite origin as we will see later. Babylon’s territory seems to have been pushed back to the border city of Ḫarrādum.52 Ammī-ditāna As stated above, there was a real concern about the protection of Nippur and we now know that during the reign of Ammī-ditāna (Ad 11) the city was partially abandoned and still suffered from enemy attacks. This becomes evidently clear from the mentioned unpublished text where the following phrase occurs: “the citizens of Nippur who fled from Nippur to the banks of the river...”53 The recent publication of the temple archive of Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ makes clear that these citizens were in fact the former clergy of Nippur who continued their practices in Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ.54 The same text also refers to two attempts by an unknown enemy: five hundred enemies with horses and regular troops and three hundred enemies with horses, who on both occasions invaded Nippur and attacked the Ekur-temple. It is stated that they were repelled and defeated, informing us that the city was still capable of defending itself. We can only speculate on the identity of this enemy. However, considering the geographical context we would expect the Sealand Dynasty here as the usual suspects threatening the southern border of the Babylonian heartland. During the reign of Ammī-ditāna it seems that there were real concerns about securing the Babylonian heartland. Several year-names refer to the construction of walls and the building of new fortresses:

50 51 52 53 54

For the toponym Tašil, s. Frayne 1992, 66. Podany 2002, 50. Joannès 2006, 57ff. CUSAS 29, 205 (CUNES 51-02-138). Archaeological evidence suggests that large parts of Nippur were abandoned in the Old Babylonian period, s. Gasche 1989, 124f.; fn. 341; Gibson 1992, 42–44. As it appears, the main reason for abandonment was insufficient water supply, s. Stone 1987, 27f.; Gibson 1992, 43.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

10

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

Table 1: Overview New Fortresses by Ammī-ditāna Year

Activity

Fortress/Fortified City

Location

Ad 9

Building

Maškan-Ammī-ditāna

Bank of the Euphrates

Ad 11

Strengthen the wall of

Kār-Šamaš

Bank of the Euphrates

Ad 16

Building

Dūr-Ammī-ditāna

Silakku River

Ad 32

Strengthen the wall of

Iškun-Marduk

Silakku River

Ad 35

Building

Dūr-Ammī-ditāna

Mê-Enlil Canal

Ad ?

Building

Dūr-Ammī-ditāna

Sarbātum Canal

It is worth noting that there are three fortresses named Dūr-Ammī-ditāna, all attested at another geographical location. We cannot exclude the possibility that all these fortresses are one and the same,55 but we will have to investigate their possible locations. It seems that the Silakku was of great importance for the defence of the Babylonian heartland. The Silakku is likely to have been a natural border, since it is a river and not a canal, as is sometimes misunderstood.56 We know from the Ur-Utu archive (SipparAmnānum) that the Silakku was situated in the irrigation district of Sarbātum,57 located north58 of the Irnina59 in the northern border area of Babylonia.60 This places the locations of both toponyms mentioned in year-names (Ad 16) and (Ad ?) relatively close to each other. The fortress of year-name (Ad 35) at the Mê-Enlil was most likely situated between Kiš and Marad61 and was like the Irnina a branch of the Euphrates, but was located more to the south, which makes it unlikely that the mouth of the Silakku (Ad 16)62 was located at the Mê-Enlil. Furthermore, there is a possible connection between the year-names (Ad ?) and (Ad 35) if they are correct, in relating the Sarbātum Canal with the SAR-BAD Canal63 appearing in the lexical fragments K 4344 and K 4154 (Murgud), where it is immediately followed by the Mê-Enlil, s. MSL 11, 40: 16. As we can see the Silakku, Sarbātum Canal and the Mê-Enlil were all connected or related, but it is an unlikely assumption that there was only one Dūr-Ammī-ditāna bordering all three locations, since they are mentioned with three different topographical names. On the other hand, if we are under the assumption that there were three separate fortresses called DūrAmmī-ditāna, a question arises as to why they would have been so close to one another, probably leading to too much confusion. I would therefore like to conclude that Dūr-Ammī-

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Charpin 1993, 87; Pientka-Hinz 1998, 222 fn. 33. Stol 2009–2011, 484. De Graef 2002, 167. Contrary to the former belief that it was located south of Babylon, s. Frayne 1991, 408. A revision of the flow of the Irnina has been made by Cole/Gasche 1998, 16–23. De Graef 2002, 168. Jacobsen 1960, 177. Further evidence of the location of Dūr-Ammī-ditāna at the mouth of the Silakku is found in AbB 12, 83:6. 63 Stol 2009–2011, 36.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

11

ditāna was several times lost and rebuilt again in this tumultuous area, possibly retreating the border. Concerning the location of the other fortresses and fortified cities, both Kār-Šamaš, which is situated in the direct vicinity of Sippar, and Iškun-Marduk, which is situated at the above mentioned Sikallu River, were located in northern Babylonia at the border with the Diyala region. The location of Maškan-Ammī-ditāna remains speculative. However, there were more active fortresses than the ones listed. First of all, the fortified64 border-city of Ḫarrādum was still under Babylonian control protecting the border with the Middle Euphrates region. There were other fortresses at the northern border with the Diyala region. One near Kār-Šamaš, which was the fortress (birtu) Ḫīrītum65 dating the year-name (Ad 13) and one north of Sippar66, i.e. Kullizu dating the year-name (Ad 21). We might assume that other eponymous fortresses of the predecessors of Ammī-ditāna, which had survived into the Middle Babylonian period remained active during the last phases of the First Dynasty of Babylon67, e.g. Dūr-Sumu-la-El, Dūr-Apil-Sîn and Dūr-Sîn-muballit. The northern policy of Babylon, which was in the offense during Samsu-iluna, was already pushed back during Abī-ešuḫ and at this point changed to a strict defence of the northern borders of the Babylonian heartland. One should keep in mind that building and reinforcing fortresses is not a sign of military and defensive strength, but rather an indication of an authority struggling to secure itself.68 In the south the problems with the Sealand Dynasty remained. Damqi-ilišu was the third king known from Babylonian King List A, Babylonian King List B and King List BM 35572+ and is recorded in the following yearname: mu Am-mi-di-ta-na lugal-e bàd-da Udinimki-ma (erín) Dam-qí-ì-lí-šu-ke4 bí-in-dù-a bí-in-gul-la The year: Ammī-ditāna, the king, destroyed the wall of Udinim which (the people/troops of) Damqi-ilišu had built (Ad 37) Horsnell 1999, 319f. The besiegement of the city of Udinim69 is the last fact recorded in the year-names during Ammī-ditāna’s reign. The settlement is thought to be located in southern Babylonia.70 Unfortunately, we cannot say whether this was an expedition into southern Babylonia or to protect the southern border of the Babylonian heartland or perhaps both. However, we do know that there were still problems with (most probably) the Kassites and the Sealand Dynasty in the area south of Nippur until the end of Ammī-ditāna’s reign. Ammī-saduqa A new development, which can be observed during the reign of Ammī-saduqa, are new references in the royal letters of an unknown ‘enemy’. This ‘enemy’ is principally said to be located in the vicinity of Sippar and libbu mātim (in the midst of the country), i.e. the Babylonian heartland.71 It seems that this enemy is related to the regress of the northern 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Joannès 1992, 11. Richardson 2010, 16 (no. 17 BM 80327) with fn. 18 for additional literature on Ḫīrītum. Richardson 2002, 209 fn. 62. Richardson 2005, 287. Keegan 1993, 142. Summary discussion, s. Horsnell 1999, 319 fn. 176. Pientka-Hinz 1998, 227 fn. 54. Richardson 2005, 274, table 1.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

12

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

Babylonian border as we have seen during Ammī-ditāna. One must note that libbu mātim does not denote the centre of the Babylonian heartland, i.e. the direct vicinity of the urban centres, but rather the countryside behind the fortresses within the heartland.72 It seems that by the time of Ammī-saduqa Babylon was losing control over the northwestern border and there was a struggle for control over Ḫarrādum. The last document date here is (As 17+b)73. Contrary to former belief, this was not the end of the north-western border. The control over Ḫarrādum was lost, but unpublished texts found in Terqa74 carry the names of Ammī-saduqa and Samsu-ditāna, suggesting a period of direct control by Babylon indicating a progress rather than a regress at the north-western border. Ammī-saduqa was therefore right to claim in the introduction of his edict75 that he controlled the Middle Euphrates region. Contemporary with the destruction of Ḫarrādum is the destruction of Sippar-Amnānum (Tell ed-Dēr) in (As 18) as we know from the Ur-Utu archive.76 It has been suggested that both cities were the victim of the same unknown enemy infiltrating from the north.77 However, it seems most likely that this enemy was the Kassites, at least for Sippar-Amnānum. Despite the Kassite aggression in the north, it seems that the political situation during Ammī-saduqa was not entirely desperate. A royal inscription78 from Ammīsaduqa found in Nippur tells us that he repulsed and defeated an unknown enemy, perhaps indicating that he repelled the invasion from the north.79 However, the fact that this text was found in Nippur might reveal that Babylon regained control over the city by this time80 and the enemies who are said to have been repelled in the royal inscription might be identical to the ones earlier mentioned in the unpublished text dating to Ammī-ditāna. Further evidence for Babylonian control over Nippur comes from the archive of Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ, which mentions sacrificial sheep sent to Nippur for religious festivities dating to (As 8 ) = CUSAS 8, 23 and (As 9?) = CUSAS 8, 24 and slaves who are said to have been born in Nippur in (Ad 29) = CUSAS 8, 1 and (As 17+d) = CUSAS 8, 10. Ammī-saduqa is also said to have built an eponymous fortress in the year-name (As 11), where he constructed Dūr-Ammī-saduqa on the bank of the canal Samsu-iluna-naqab-nuḫušnišī at the division with the Euphrates.81 The precise location of this fortress is uncertain, but it is likely to have been situated in the north. Furthermore, in the north-eastern border area we also find during Ammī-saduqa’s reign military bastions in the vicinity of Irnina Canal, e.g. Šarrum-Laba and Ḫalḫalla where a strong military presence is attested.82 The upcoming aggression from the north seems to have been Kassite and there are indications that there was a semi-independent Kassite state since the reign of Abī-ešuḫ, located at the north-western border of the Babylonian heartland, perhaps north of Terqa.83

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Richardson 2005, 279. Kepinski-Lecompte 1992, 34. Rouault 1992, 253. Kraus 1958. Gasche 1989, 38. Kepinski-Lecompte 1992, 35. Frayne 1990, 425–427. Van Koppen 2004, 22. Charpin 2004, 368; Van Lerberghe/Voet 2009, 4. Horsnell 1999, 338f. De Graef 2004, 75f. Podany 2002, 50.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

13

The major implication for this state is the expression of “Kassite houses”84, which are not to be confused with the military camps or the fortified settlements in the Babylonian countryside.85 The existence of such a Kassite state would explain the ability of this enemy to cause sudden destruction in the Babylonian countryside.86 For the reign of Ammī-saduqa we do not find direct conflicts with the Sealand Dynasty; they probably maintained their position in southern Babylonia up to Nippur, consolidating rather than expanding their realm.87 Samsu-ditāna There are some questions concerning the accession of Samsu-ditāna to the throne. It is remarkable that he is only named in Babylonian King List B as the son of Ammī-saduqa. No royal inscriptions of Samsu-ditāna have survived and the famous genealogy of the Ḫammurāpi Dynasty88 ends with Ammī-saduqa. However, the year-names concerning the reign of Samsu-ditāna do not give any indication of difficulties at his accession of the throne and are all related with the cultic and religious deeds of the king. Regarding the relation with the Diyala region, we know of several trading missions89 to Ešnunna dating to (Sd 12) = VS 22, 37 and (Sd 14) = VS 22, 84, implying peaceful relations with the area. However, another text, AbB 12, 182: 12’, probably of a later date, speaks of “the enemies of Ešnunna”, suggesting there were two phases in the relations between Babylon and Ešnunna. This second phase of enmity seems to be related with the TellMuhammad texts, as will be discussed below. As stated above, Samsu-ditāna was in control of the city of Terqa90 and apparently also over the city of Suḫûm.91 Furthermore, it seems that he had a firm grip on the slave trade in the Middle Euphrates region.92 The Babylonian presence in this region sheds new light on the later Hittite raid of Babylon. Both Babylon and Ḫatti shared a common interest in the same territories. One letter (VAT 13157) from a merchant in Babylon during the reign of Samsu-ditāna reveals that there were business contacts with Hittite emissaries.93 As such, it seems that Muršili (I) wanted to strengthen his interest in the Syrian territories and the continuation of his expansion towards Babylon was more likely to be a logical move.94 In the Ḫabur region during the final phases of the Old Babylonian period the formation into one Hurrian polity, i.e. Ḫanigalbat, can be observed.95

84 For a discussion and further references on the possible location and the phrase ÉḪI.A (ÉREN) ka-aš-ši-i, s. van Koppen 2017, 49–51. 85 Pientka-Hinz 1998, 258; van Koppen 2004, 22 fn. 75. 86 Van Koppen 2004, 22. 87 For an elaboration on the Sealand focussing its trade on the Gulf area, s. Boivin 2018, 116 fn. 103. Note especially the discussion on the proto-Canaanite alphabetic inscriptions found on four Sealand tablets and its implications for trade with the Arabian peninsula by Hamidović 2014, 146. 88 Finkelstein 1966. 89 Pientka-Hinz 1998, 296. 90 Podany 2002, 56. 91 Mohammad 2002, 4. 92 Van Koppen 2004, 23 fn. 83. 93 Klengel 1979, 86f. 94 Rouault 2004, 56. 95 Charpin 1997, 190; van Koppen 2004, 23.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

14

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

Samsu-ditāna was the last king of the dynasty. He had to struggle with enemies at the borders of the Babylonian heartland, i.e. to the north: Ḫatti, Kassites and Ḫanigalbat, and to the south96: the Sealand. The enmity against Samsu-ditāna and the Fall of Babylon are well-known topics in literary and historical texts, since this event must have had a great impact on the historical perception of later generations. Table 2: Overview of Historical-Literary Texts on the Fall of Babylon Text

Edition

№1

The Marduk Prophecy

Lambert (1964, 27f.); Borger (1971, 5–20)

№2

The Agum-Kakrime Inscription

Jensen (1982, 134–153); Stein (2000, 150–163); Oshima (2012, 225–252)

№3

tāmītu concerning the safety of the city

Lambert (2007, 24–41)

№4

The Proclamation of Telipinu

Van den Hout (2003, 194–198)

№5

Chronicle of Early Kings

Grayson (1975a, 152–156); Glassner (2005, 268–272)

№6

kudurru Kadašman-ḫarbe (I)

Paulus (2014, 296–304)

№7

The Epic of Gulkišar

Text no. I (= HS 1885+)

Both The Marduk Prophecy and The Agum-Kakrime Inscription refer to the exile of the statue of Marduk in the land of Ḫatti for 24 years, which coincides with the Chronicle of Early Kings, where it is stated that during the reign of Samsu-ditāna the land of Ḫatti marched against Akkad. This event is also attested in the Hittite sources in The Proclamation of Telipinu, where is said that Muršili (I) went to Babylon and destroyed it. All these sources indicate that the Hittites were responsible for dealing the final blow to Babylon. The tāmītutext is dated later97, but recovers the historical perspective of the turmoil before the Fall of Babylon. The text lists several rebellious enemies who threaten the security of the city of Babylon: ÉRINan

E-la-mi-i ÉRIN x-ra-ti-⌈i⌉ ÉRIN re-di-i ÉRIN Kaš-ši-⌈ti⌉ ÉRIN E-da-ma-ra-as šá ina E-da-ma-r[a]-as [áš]-bat u ÉRINni a-ḫi-i šá ŠÀ-šú-nu ÉRIN Ḫa-ni-gal-ba-ti-i u ⌈ÉRINni⌉ a-ḫi-i šá ŠÀ-šú-nu ÉRIN Sà-am--ri-i u ÉRINni a-ḫe-e šá ŠÀ-šú-nu ÉRINan E-da-šú-uš-ti am-m[ar] ba-ir-ti ÉRIN re-si-šú ÉRIN til-la-ti-šú u ÉRIN[n]i a-ḫe-e šá ŠÀšú-nu ÉRIN KÚR [x (x)] ma-la i-ba-áš-šu-ú The Elamite army, the …-ratû98 army, the infantry corps, the Kassite army, the Idamaras army and the foreign troops that are with them, the Ḫanigalbat army and the foreign troops that are with them, the Samḫarû army and the foreign troops that are 96 Note that Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ was at this time still under Babylonian control, s. van Lerberghe/Voet 2009, 119–147. 97 The historical value of the tāmītu-texts has been questioned; were they genuine or just literary constructs? The general opinion considers them to be historical genuine, but subject to scribal ‘modernizations’, s. Charpin 1997, 189f.; Charpin 2004, 244f.; Charpin 2005, 36; Lambert 2007, 20. 98 Suggested is Ḫabratû, s. Lambert 2007, 144.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

15

with them, the Edašuštu army99, all the ‘hunters’, its auxiliary and reserve troops and the foreign troops that are with them: - the enemy troops […] as many as there are…(MC 13, no. 1: 31–41) Lambert 2007, 24–27 The absence of the Sealand Dynasty is noteworthy, but one could conclude that since the oracle question had a duration of just one month, a short-time northern coalition of the above-mentioned troops was expected against Samsu-ditāna, perhaps preceding the Hittite advance.100 (VI) is a kudurru of Kadašman-harbe (I). The disorder that followed after Samsuditāna is ascribed in this text to the “fighting of the Amorites”, “the insurrection of the Haneans” and the “army of the Kassites”. The last text that remains is The Epic of Gulkišar, in which we find the Sealand king Gulkišar antagonizing the Babylonian king Samsu-ditāna. The Hittites raided the city of Babylon, commencing the so-called Fall of Babylon, but what happens thereafter is one of the ‘Dark Ages’ in Mesopotamian history. Traditionally, it is stated that the Kassites took over Babylon shortly after the Hittite raid, but as we have seen the political situation in Babylonia seems to have been more complicated. In particular this view has neglected the role of the First Sealand Dynasty.101 The Early Kassite Kings It is difficult to determine when and where the early Kassite kings should be placed. In order to determine which Kassite king controlled Babylon after the Fall of Babylon we will have to investigate the kings according to their position in the king list(s). Gandaš It is assumed that after the Hittite raid of Babylon the Kassites filled the power vacuum immediately and took control over Babylon. The first Kassite king who comes into question here is Gandaš.102 He is listed in Babylonian King List A as the first king of the dynasty, but it is not certain if he is listed in the Synchronistic King List, in which the first name is heavily damaged. It was previously read from a photo as Iga-an-du-uš.103 New collations were unable to verify this reading and it is suggested that the first sign might indeed be ga.104 The only possible textual evidence for Gandaš is a first-millennium copy (schooltext), BM 77438, of an inscription which was thought to mention the conquest (i-na ka-šad) of

99 For the inpretation of Edašuštu as the “sixty-armed army” as a connation of a face-less and animalistic horde, s. Richardson 2015c. 100 Lambert 2007, 144. 101 A more detailed discussion and evaluation of the historical-literary texts briefly discussed here can be found in Richardson 2015a. Note the reference of the enigmatic unpublished fragment DŠ 1005 from Dūr-Šarrukēn dated to the eight century mentioning an Ammī-saduqa, a Burnaburiaš and the governor (šākin tēmi) of Babylon. The historical value and accuracy of this fragment is doubted by Richardson 2015a, 118f. due to the anachronism of the governor’s title and the apparent erroneous synchronism of Ammī-saduqa with a king(?) named Burnaburiaš. 102 Eder 2004, 214. 103 Weidner 1926, 70. 104 Brinkman 1976, 127.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

16

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

Babylon. However, new collations of this text by Wilfred van Soldt105 have shown a different context, i.e. setting up a shrine in the vicinity of Babylon106: 1. a-na u4-mu nam-ri d?GU4 LUGAL.DINGIR.EN.EN.EN 2. IGa-ad-daš LUGAL kib-ra-a-tú ár-ba-a LUGAL KUR šu-me-ri 3. ù Akkadki-i LUGAL bà-bà-lam a-na-ku-ma 4. i-nu-šu-ma É-kur dEN.LÍL šá i-na ka-mat bà-bà-lam 5. [i-n]a iš-di i-nu-[šu-m]a an-ḫu-sú ú-pa-ši-⌈ḫa⌉ It should be noted that Gandaš is not mentioned in the dynastic genealogy in The AgumKakrime Inscription107, see below. The insertion of Gandaš in the king list might be an example of later modification.108 Agum (I) Agum is the second Kassite king in both the Synchronistic King List and Babylonian King List A, furthermore he is known from one literary text, i.e. The Agum-Kakrime Inscription. Therein he is listed in the dynastic genealogy followed by Kaštiliaš(?), Abirattaš, Urzigurumaš and finally Agum-Kakrime. Agum (I) is called Agum maḫrû “Agum, the Earlier” and Agum rabû “Agum, the Great”. Interestingly, as we will see below, the early Kassite kings seem to have been related109 to the Ḫana region. The first reference for this theory is the so-called ‘Agum letter’ (AbB 6, 24), the dating of which has long been disputed. Suggestions have been made to date this text to the reign of Samsu-iluna. This interpretation is based on the identification of the named Agum with Agum (I) from the king lists.110 However, a new join by van Koppen sheds new light on the situation and he dates this text to the reign of Samsu-ditāna (19) identifying this Agum with Agum (II) from the king lists111, see below. Kaštiliaš(u) (I) Both king lists name Kaštiliaš(u) as the successor of Agum (I) and possibly this king is listed in the dynastic genealogy of The Agum-Kakrime Inscription.112 Furthermore, there is a homonymous king Kaštiliaš(u) of Ḫana, who might be identified with one of the early Kassite kings. The name Kaštiliaš(u) is of Kassite origin and the occurrence of this name in the Ḫana region might be a further argument for the Kassite presence in this area. The abovementioned loanword in Akkadian bukāšum is derived from the Kassite term bugaš, which is not to be understood as a theonym, but as a common term for bull and a de facto designation for the king113, as is the case with the attestation in the ‘Agum letter’. This Kassite term 105 Transliteration by Wilfred van Soldt, kindly provided in personal communication (2012). Note that the reading of (l. 5) is pace Stein 2000, 150 and other editions of this inscription. 106 As already suspected by Ugnad 1944, 82 and Weidner 1957–1971, 138f. This reading is further supported by Bartelmus 2017, 250. For a discussion on the authenticity of the Gandaš Inscription, s. Paulus 2018, 150f. 107 Brinkman 1976, 95 fn. 2. 108 Van Koppen 2010, 460. 109 Landsberger 1954a, 62. 110 Pientka 1998, 259 fn. 14. 111 Van Koppen 2017, 65–67. 112 Collated by Brinkman 1976, 174, but restoration is not certain. 113 Balkan 1954, 102ff.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

17

bugaš is found in the name of a canal in the lower Ḫabur, i.e. Ḫabur-ibāl-bugaš.114 This canal is solely known from one year-name of king Ḫammu-rāpi of Ḫana: Ḫa-am-mu-ra-pí-iḫ LUGAL ídḪa-bur-i-ba-al-bu-ga-aš iš-tu uruBÀD-I-šar-li-imki a+na uruBÀD-I-gi-id-li-imki ip-tu-ú The year: Ḫammu-rāpi, the king, opened the Ḫābūr-ibāl-bugaš-canal, from Dūr-Išarlīm down to Dūr-Iggid-līm. (LH 13, 30–34) Podany 2002, 135f. MU

The question here is whether this canal was dug and constructed during the reign of Ḫammurāpi,115 or was simply reshaped and celebrated as a new creation. It has been proposed that during the reign of Ḫammu-rāpi in the Middle Ḫana period a direct Kassite influence in the region cannot be observed and therefore the construction should be dated to the Early Ḫana period, more specifically the reign of Kaštiliaš(u), which seems to be confirmed by an unpublished text from Terqa.116 Another possibility would be that the person called Kaštil mentioned in an Old Babylonian letter dated to the reign of Ammī-saduqa could be identified with our Kaštiliaš(u). This Kaštil functions as one of the two leaders of 1500 Samḫarî117 troops. He is mentioned as the son of a man named Bēlšunu, which is obviously not a Kassite name, but it has been suggested that many men who have been identified as Kassite had Amorite names.118 Since the early Kassite Kaštiliaš(u) is possibly of Amorite descent, if we believe the interpretation of the dynastic genealogy of The Agum-Kakrime Inscription to be correct as the son of Agum (I), we might assume that Kaštil and Kaštiliaš(u) are not the same person. Then Kaštil would be an adaptation of the name of the famous Kassite king. If the interpretation of the dynastic genealogy is incorrect, then we might identify this Kaštil with Kaštiliaš(u). Another indication for this could be the fact that the term Samḫarî is specifically used for the tribe residing in the Middle Euphrates region119 and as such comprises a further argument for the position that the Kaštiliaš(u) of the Ḫana texts and the early Kassite Kaštiliaš(u) are one and the same. The question remains whether Kaštiliaš(u) of Ḫana can be identified with the third or fifth king of the Synchronistic King List, i.e. Kaštiliaš(u) (I) or (II). The predecessor of the Kaštiliaš(u) of Ḫana was Yadiḫ-abu.120 As mentioned earlier, Yadiḫ-abu and Samsu-iluna had a border-conflict, making them contemporary kings. In view of the assumption that Agum (I) was also a contemporary of Samsu-iluna, it seems reasonable to state that both successors of Yadiḫ-abu and Agum (I), i.e. Kaštiliaš(u) of Ḫana and Kaštiliaš(u) (I), were contemporary as well. Accordingly, Kaštiliaš(u) of Ḫana can be identified with Kaštiliaš(u) (I). This results in the conclusion that Kaštiliaš(u) (I) was probably contemporary with the successor of Samsu-iluna, Abī-ešuḫ and not with the later Ammī-ditāna or Ammī-saduqa.121 The Kassite conquest of Terqa seems to have been

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Balkan 1954, 104; Groneberg 1980, 284. Podany 2002, 67. Reculeau 2010, 208. Kassite tribe, s. van Lerberghe 1995, 384f. Podany 2002, 50. Van Koppen 2010, 459. Podany 2002, 37ff. Colbow 1994, 61–66; Charpin 2002, 72.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

18

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

temporary, since the onomastics do not reveal a Kassite presence in the population of Terqa.122 Ušši Ušši is only named in Babylonian King List A, leaving us without further resources on this king.123 However, can this king be identified with Yaʾusa, a king known from Terqa?124 Yaʾusa would then be an Amorite interpretation of the name. In oath formulas Yaʾusa is found beside another king, i.e. Ḫanaya, whose name has been thought to be Ḫurrian. If Yaˀusa is to be identified with the Kassite Ušši from Babylonian King List A, then we would expect that Yaˀusa was the overlord over his vassal, the local king Ḫanaya.125 The identification of Yaʾusa with Ušši fits the theory of Kaštiliaš(u) (I) being a Kassite ruler over Terqa very well, we would then have two consecutive Kassite sovereigns over Terqa. Abirattaš This king is not known from any contemporary sources and is only mentioned in both the Assyrian King List and Babylonian King List A. He appears in The Agum-Kakrime Inscription, in which it is worth mentioning that the various generations are referred to with the formula māru/aplu of RN2, but in describing the relationship between Abirattaš and Urzigurumaš the term liblibbu is used. It has been suggested that this change of terminology could be an indication that an additional generation may have intervened between these two kings,126 which is supported by the Assyrian King List, which lists another Kaštiliaš(u) (II) between them. Urzigurumaš This king is named as the father of Agum-Kakrime in the dynastic genealogy and is listed in the Synchronistic King List and Babylonian King List A. The second syllable is written /zi/ in the kinglists and /ši/ in The Agum-Kakrime Inscription. If the previous reading is correct, then the combination of Z+Š in The Agum-Kakrime Inscription would indicate the consonant /ž/.127 Ḫurbaḫ/Ḫurbazum Urzigurumaš is followed in the Synchronistic King List not by Agum-Kakrime, but by a king whose name was previously read as IḪar-ba-[ši-p]ak128 and later collated as ⌈IḪar⌉-ba-⌈(x)x⌉.129 Since the discovery of the Tell-Muhammad texts130, the existence of two local rulers in the area of modern Baghdad is now known, i.e. Ḫu-ur-du!-tum and Ši-ip-ta-ul-zi. The reading of the former is later corrected to Ḫu-ur-du-zum131, Ḫu-ur-ba-tum132, Ḫu-ur-ba-zum133 and 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

Frayne 1990, 727. For criticism on this reading, s. Sassmannshausen 2014, 171. As suggested by Rouault 2004, 55f; van Koppen 2004, 23. Rouault 2004, 55. Brinkman 1976, 86. Brinkman 1976–1980, 473; Oshima 2010, 245. Weidner 1921, 14. Brinkman 1976, 11; 98; 129; 327. Alubaid 1983 (unpublished M.A.-thesis). Gasche et al. 1998, 86. Sassmannshausen 2004, 304. Boese 2008, 204.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

19

most recently Hu-ur-ba-aḫ134. Since the phonetic value of the sign ḪAR can also be /ḫur/, we might assume that the seventh king in the Synchronistic King List can be identified with the local king Ḫurbaḫ/Ḫurbazum of the Tell-Muhammad texts.135 It is not certain whether TellMuhammad was his seat of government or was just part of his dominion. We do know that its kings had influence in the neighbouring area of Ešnunna from the following year-name: MU DINGIR.DIDLI ša Áš-nun-na Ḫur-ba-aḫ/zum ú-ud-di-šu The year when Ḫurbaḫ/zum renewed the gods of Ešnunna. (IM 90606) Sassmannshausen 2004a, 304

Considering the idea that most of the early Kassite kings were contemporaries of the First Babylonian Dynasty, we might find some references in Babylonian sources. We have observed that during the reign of Samsu-ditāna the relations between Babylon and Ešnunna changed rapidly in the year-names (Sd 12) and (Sd 14). Can we identify the ‘enemy from Ešnunna’ with the Tell-Muhammad kings?136 Šipta-ulzi The second king known from the Tell-Muhammad texts is a certain Šipta-ulzi. The eight king of the Synchronistic King List was previously read as ITi-ip-ta-[a]k-zi137 and later collated as I⌈x-ib-x⌉-[(x)]-⌈x-x⌉138, now with the revelation of the Tell-Muhammad texts it is reasonable to assume that the eight king of the Synchronistic King List should be identified with Šipta-ulzi. 139 It seems that Šipta-ulzi did not come to power through normal dynastic succession, but was a usurper, since he later quarrelled with the son of Ḫurbaḫ/zum as we can see in the following year-name: MU DUMU Ḫu-ur-ba-aḫ/zum KI LUGAL ik-ki-rù

The year when the son of Ḫurbaḫ/zum became hostile to the king. (IM 92725) Sassmannshausen 2004a, 304 We should consider the possibility that Ḫurbaḫ/zum and Šipta-ulzi were the first Kassite kings to control Babylon. Interestingly, the date-formulas140 of Tell-Muhammad dating Šipta-ulzi mention the following: ša KÁ.DINGIR.RAki ušbu The year (X) in which Babylon was resettled. MU.X.KAM.MA

In the Tell-Muhammad texts we can observe a change in dating-systems.141 The older texts start with the traditional narrative year-name commemorating a recent event of local importance, then during Šipta-ulzi we observe a date-formula of the numerical variety in addition to the narrative year-names. It has been suggested that this dating system could be an indication that a Tell-Muhammad king, i.e. Šipta-ulzi exercised some control over

134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141

Van Koppen 2010, 458 fn. 12. Boese 2008, 204. As suggested by van Koppen 2010, 461. Weidner 1926, 68. Brinkman 1976, 327. Sassmannshausen 2004a, 302; Boese 2008, 205. Sassmannshausen 2004a, 302–305. Van Koppen 2010, 458.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

20

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

Babylon.142 On the other hand the syntax of the formulas remains ambiguous and is subject to interpretation.143 In any case, these numerical date-formulas are an indication that at least Šipta-ulzi must be dated after the Fall of Babylon, which would fit the theory that his predecessor was a contemporary of Samsu-ditāna. Both Ḫurbaḫ/zum and Šipta-ulzi are omitted in the dynastic genealogy, implying that they were not the predecessors of Agum-Kakrime at all. Their occurrence in the Synchronistic King List might be the result of retrospective integration,144 which we also have observed in the case of Gandaš. We should not exclude the possibility that not only were the dynasties in the king lists contemporary, but also the kings within the dynasties. Another argument for the fact that Agum-Kakrime did not inherit the throne from Šipta-ulzi is the reference of Agum-Kakrime in his inscription (i 35–36) stating that he was the one “to settle the land of Ešnunna”. This phrase is normally used to denote reconciliation after an event of warfare. We have assumed that the kings mentioned in Tell-Muhammad exercised authority over Ešnunna in the Diyala region and this reference suggests that Agum-Kakrime overtook this region by force, explaining the omission of Ḫurbaḫ/zum and Šipta-ulzi in the dynastic genealogy and making the kings of Tell-Muhammad the last independent kings in the Diyala region.145 Agum (II)/Agum-Kakrime This king is not initially mentioned in both the Synchronistic King List and Babylonian King List A, he is only known from one literary text, i.e. The Agum-Kakrime Inscription. It is still disputed, whether this text is a contemporary text or a late copy, genuine or forgery.146 The ninth king of the Synchronistic King List has been extensively discussed, it has been read as IA-gu-[u]m147 but this was proven to be false after collation and was reduced to x-gux. 148 Later collation resulted in even more uncertainty, reporting that the supposed sign /gu/ is also questionable.149 The suggestion has been made that one might read I⌈ag-gu⌉ at the beginning150, which does not correspond with customarily spelling A-gu-um.151 However, an alternative spelling is suggested, i.e. ⌈Ag⌉-gu-[m]e.152 Another suggestion that does not correspond with the original copy is I⌈Kak⌉-⌈ri⌉-i[m-m]e.153 It seems likely to assume that Agum (II) can indeed be identified as the ninth king of the Synchronistic King List.154 Agum (II) is known only as Agum-Kakrime in his Agum-Kakrime Inscription. The addition of Kakrime might be seen as an epithet or perhaps even as a throne name.155 The 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154

Gasche et al. 1998, 87; Sassmannshausen 2001, 456; Boese 2008, 203. Van Koppen 2010, 460. Van Koppen 2010, 460. Van Koppen 2010, 460. The latest contribution on this matter with all previous literature is offered by Paulus 2018 Weidner 1926, 68. Weidner 1959–1960, 138. Brinkman 1976, 98. Brinkman 1976, 11 fn. 15. Brinkman 1976, 13. Oshima 2012, 229. Astour 1986, 327–331. Goetze 1964, 98. For the possibility that Agum-Kakrime does not occur at all in the Synchronistic King List, s. Brinkman 1976, 13 fn. 23. 155 Oshima 2012, 227.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

21

meaning of Kakrime is still disputed, ‘the second’ has been considered from the view that Agum (I) is sometimes called Agum maḫrû (Agum the Earlier)156, others take it as an attribution of the Akkadian language kak rēme “Sword of Mercy”157 or kak rimme “Sword of Thunder”158. To return to the question of which Kassite king was the first to rule Babylon, we find some indications in The Agum-Kakrime Inscription. First of all, Agum (II) describes his hegemony, presenting himself as: LUGAL Kaš-ši-i ù Ak-ka-di-i LUGAL KUR KÁ.DINGIR.RAki ra-pa-aš-tim mu-še-ši-ib KUR Áš-nun-na-ak UNmeš DAGALmeš-tim LUGAL KUR Pa-da-an u Al-ma-an LUGAL KUR Guti-i UNmeš šak-la-a-ti

King of the Kassites and the Akkadians, king of the wide land of Babylon, the one who settles the land of Ešnunna, the wide-spread people, the king of Padan and Alman, king of the land of the Gutians, the barbarous people … (Agum-Kakrime: i 31–39) Oshima 2012, 234; 242 Secondly, it is explicitly stated by Agum (II) in his inscription that he refurbished the Esagila upon the return of the statue of Marduk to Babylon. Both indications are solely based on The Agum-Kakrime Inscription and given the discussion on the authenticity of the text one might ignore them. However, even if the text is an ancient forgery, it would be a likely assumption that the later priests and scholars of the Esagila were the inventors, since they had access to its archives with records of ancient Babylonian kings,159 i.e. leaving the historical value still intact. One must note that Agum (II) explicitly does not mention his rule over Sumer in stating his hegemony. This corresponds well with the known presence of the Sealand Dynasty in southern Babylonia as we have seen earlier. As noted above, the ‘Agum letter’ has now been attributed to Agum (II). In this letter the messengers of the king of Ḫalab were delayed on their way to Babylon at ša i-na Éḫi.a A-guum wa-aš-b[u] “the houses of Agum” (AbB 6, 24: 4’). In this text Agum is named with title bukāšum, which seems to be a Kassite loanword in Akkadian160 meaning ‘prince’. This letter suggests that the Kassite stronghold of Agum (II) might be located on the Euphrates somewhere between Terqa and Aleppo, but we cannot identify the exact location of his dominion.161 In concluding his inscription, Agum (II) states that his kingdom stretches from Babylon to the Zagros Mountains (Padan, Alman), including the Diyala region (after most probably defeating the Tell-Muhammad kings). Burnaburiaš (I) The tenth Kassite king listed in the Synchronistic King List is Burnaburiaš (I). He is also attested in the Synchronistic History,162 where he is said to have established the boundary together with Puzur-Aššur (III) of Assyria between their countries. It has been argued that 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

Balkan 1954, 157. Diakonoff 1956, 126. Astour 1986, 331. Oshima 2012, 233. Landsberger 1954, 62. Charpin 2004, 373; Pientka 1998, 259; Podany 2002, 50. Grayson 1975a, 158f.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

22

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

there were possibly two kings in the early Kassite period named Burnaburiaš,163 which was the result of a chronological debate and was founded for the greater part on the regnal years of the Babylonian King List A and Babylonian King List B, which are known to be untrustworthy164 and on the inconsistency between the Synchronistic History and the Synchronistic King List; Burnaburiaš (I) is in the former named as the contemporary of Puzur-Aššur (III) and in the latter as the contemporary of Išme-Dagan (III). A revision of this theory has been made and it seems that only one Burnaburiaš in the early Kassite period suffices.165 The fact that Burnaburiaš (I) is explicitly mentioned in both the Synchronistic History and the Synchronistic King List implies that he ruled over (northern) Babylonia. This would fit the theory that his predecessor Agum (II) was the first Kassite king to rule Babylon. Kaštiliaš(u) (III) The twelfth king of the dynasty was possibly Kaštiliaš(u) (III), according to the Synchronistic King List. The line was first copied as ⌈IKaš-til⌉ […]166 with much uncertainty and later collation could not propose a definite reading either ⌈I⌉[Kaš-til]-[…].167 Recently, a new royal inscription came to light which can be attributed to this Kaštiliaš(u) naming himself “son of Burnaburiaš” and “grandson of Agum”, s. Abrahams/Gabbay (2013). Table 3: Overview of the Early Kassite Rulers Dynastic Genealogy of The Agum-Kakrime Inscription

Babylonian King List A

Synchronistic King List

1. Gandaš

1. Gandaš

1. Agum (I)

2. Agum (I)

2. Agum (I)

2. Kaštiliaš(u) (I)

3. Kaštiliaš(u) (I)

3. Kaštiliaš(u) (I)

4. Ušši 3. Abirattaš

5. Abirattaš

4. Abirattaš 5. Kaštiliaš(u) (II)

4. Uršigurumaš

5. […]-kakrime

6. Urzigurumaš

6. Urzigurumaš

7. (traces)

7. Ḫurbaḫ/zum

(broken)

8. Šipta-ulzi 9. Agum (II) 10. Burnaburiaš (I) 11. […] 12. Kaštiliaš(u) (III)

163 164 165 166 167

Goetze 1964, 98f. Van Koppen 2010, 454. Brinkman 1976, 102ff. Weidner 1926, 70. Brinkman 1976, 175. For a different interpretation, s. Abrahams/Gabbay 2013.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

23

Ulamburiaš Ulamburiaš is not preserved in the king-lists, but there is an entry in the Chronicle of Early Kings: Id

É-a-ga-mil LUGAL KUR tam-tim a-na kurElamtiki i[ḫ-liq]-ma EGIR-šú IÚ-lam-bur-áš ŠEŠ IKaš-til-ía-ÍA kurKaš-[šu]-ú ERÍN-šú id-ke-e-ma KUR tam-tim KURud EN-ut KUR ipu-uš Ea-gāmil, the king of the Sealand, fled to Elam. After he had gone, Ulamburiaš, brother of Kastiliaš(u) (III)), the Kassite, mustered his army and conquered the Sealand. He was master of the land. (Chronicle of Early Kings B: ll. r 12–14) Grayson 1975a, 156 Furthermore, a macehead (?)168 mentions Ulamburiaš as a king of the Sealand and as a son of Burnaburiaš (I) and a frog-shaped weight stone169 names him as the son of Burnaburiaš (I). We can conclude that the downfall of the First Sealand Dynasty started during Ulamburiaš, which is confirmed by the Babylonian King List A and Babylonian King List B, in which Ea-gāmil is listed as the last king of the Sealand. Agum (III) Agum (III) is also not preserved in the king lists, but is attested in the Chronicle of Early Kings: I

A-gu-um DUMU IKaš-til-ía-àš ERÍN-šú id-ke-e-ma a-na KUR tam-tim il-lik uruBÀD-d50 KURud É-galga-geš-na É d50 šá BÀD-d50 ú-šal-pit Agum (III), the son of Kaštiliaš(u) (III), mustered his army and marched to the Sealand. He seized Dūr-Enlil (and) destroyed Egalgašešna, Enlil’s temple in DūrEnlil. (Chronicle of Early Kings B: ll. r. 15–18) Grayson 1975a, 156 The destruction of Dūr-Enlil was the final blow of the Sealand Dynasty. This fortress was most likely located near Nippur and it has even been suggested that Dūr-Enlil was a renaming of Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ170, but this was not received without any criticism.171 However, in a new publication of a group of Middle Babylonian texts from the Cornell University (CUSAS 30) there is an abundance of references to the city of Dūr-Enlilē.172 Note that the temple archive of Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ also belongs to the same collection of the Cornell University; it is highly possible that they share the same provenance. Interpreting this chronicle entry, we can conclude that Dūr-Enlil(ē) was the last stronghold of the Sealand Dynasty. This brings us to the recently published archive of the First Sealand Dynasty (CUSAS 9), the provenance of which is still uncertain, but could possibly be identified with Dūr-Enlil(lē).173

168 169 170 171 172

Stein 2000, 129; Selz 2008, 112. Stein 2000, 129; van Koppen 2010, 455. George 2009, 142. Dalley 2009, 9 fn. 80. For the possible allocation of the group of Middle Babylonian texts in CUSAS 30 to Dūr-Enlil(ē), s. Van Soldt 2015, 29f. Note the objections made by Boivin 2018, 69–72, who locates the provenance of the Sealand archive to be in the triangle, Ur-Larsa-Eridu. 173 Zomer (forthcoming).

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

24

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

A small group of fragmentary texts found in Qalaʾat al-Bahrain confirm the Kassite presence in Dilmun after their conquest of the Sealand. The Kassite control of Dilmun was already suggested from the later correspondence between Enlil-kidinni, the governor of Nippur, and Ili-ippašra, the governor of Dilmun.174 None of the fragmented texts found in Dilmun by the Danish expedition are dated175, but one text from the French expedition is dated to the fourth year of Agum176, who should be identified with Agum (III).177 New excavated texts178 naming the king Ea-gāmil testify that the First Sealand Dynasty ruled Dilmun prior to the Kassite expansion to the south and it seems that the Kassites simply took advantage of the existing situation annexing the totality of the Sealand and dividing it up into several provinces.179 First Sealand Dynasty The new direct synchronism in HS 1885+ gives us new insight in the years after the Fall of Babylon. As for the reason the First Sealand Dynasty occurs in the king lists180, it has been suggested that at least one of these Sealand kings must have had control over Babylon.181 In addition, it should be noted that the Synchronistic King List gives preference for the First Sealand Dynasty over the First Dynasty of Babylon. The Sealand kings Ilīma-ilum and Damqi-ilišu battled the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, who were still in control over the environs of Babylon until the Fall of Babylon. When we consider the possibility of Sealand interference in northern Babylonia, this must have been around or after the Fall of Babylon. The direct synchronism between Gulkišar and Samsu-ditāna depicted in HS 1885+ seems to fit the historical background. Note that an indirect synchronism between the two kings has already been suggested by Goetze (1957, 66) and Jaritz (1958, 193). Not much is available to us concerning Gulkišar. Note however fragment Ni 13090, previously identified by F.R. Kraus, which displays another composition, most likely a Hymn to Gulkišar.182

174 175 176 177 178 179 180

Goetze 1952. Eidem 1997, 76–80. André-Salvini/Lombard 1998, 167. Potts 2006, 116. To be published by A. Cavigneaux and B. André-Salvini. Højlund 1989, 12. First Sealand Dynasty: 1. Ilīma-ilum 2. Ittī-ili-nībī 3. Damqi-ilišu 4. Iškibal 5. Šušši 6. Gulkišar 7. I DIŠ+U-EN (Synchronistic King List only) 8. Pešgaldarameš 9. Ayadaragalama 10. Ekurduana 11. Melamkurkura 12. Ea-gāmil. 181 Goetze 1957, 66. 182 Relevant passages are discussed in the commentary of The Epic of Gulkišar, see below. Since there is little hope of accessing this fragment in Istanbul, I here quote the preliminary edition of F.R. Kraus of Ni 13090 kindly provided to me by Nathan Wasserman in Jerusalem (June 2017): Rs. (?) 1 [............. L]UGAL.MES šu-tu-ra lu-ul-[.....] 2 [.............] na-ra-am dDUR.[.....] 3 [.............] ša ul zu/lu(?) en na ⌈x⌉ [.....] 4 [........................] pu-lu-uḫ-ta [.............]

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

25

Gulkišar is further mentioned in a so-called Distanzangabe in the kudurru BE I/1 83 which states the time which elapsed between his reign and Enlil-nādin-apli183 and the dating of a glass-making text (BM 120960184), which is most likely an antique forgery185. One offering-list (CUSAS 9, 83: 15’) from the Sealand archive mention the divine name dUTU-ana-gul-ki-šár-ku-ru-ub (“Šamaš-bless-Gulkišar!”), which indicates the reverent position of Gulkišar and the ancestor cult of his successors. The First Sealand Dynasty continued the tradition of Sumerian throne names as is demonstrated in for example the names of Pešgaldarameš and Ayadaragalama, who were the respective successors of Gulkišar. Pešgaldarameš might be analysed as “Son-of-a-stag” and Ayadaragalama as “(My)-father-is-the-skillful-ibex”.186 Both kings are found in the Babylonian King List B as “son” of Gulkišar, which may imply that they were the son and grandson of Gulkišar. The name of Gulkišar himself can tentatively be translated as “Destroyer of the Universe”,187 which is a name fit for a king with conquering ambitions. The king lists state that Gulkišar reigned for the notably long and stable period of 56 years. As far as the sources for the First Sealand Dynasty go, it seems evident that Gulkišar held a unique position within his dynasty. Any interference or control the Sealand may have had over Babylon must have been brief. The archive of Gulkišar’s successors do not imply a rule over northern Babylonia, i.e. Babylon and Sippar, but rather an interest in trade and a 5 [........................] ⌈x x x x⌉ 6 [........................] ⌈x x⌉ [........................] (abgebrochen) Vs. (?) 1’ [..........] ⌈x x x⌉ [..........] 2’ [..........] li-iz-nu-na [..........] 3’ [..........] si? i-n[a ..........] 4’ [..........] ⌈x⌉ ⌈x⌉-i É? [..........] 5’ [..........] šú [..........] Rand. 1 [..........] [ ] ⌈x⌉ 2 [..........] É-a ta-ni-ta-ka ul ⌈x⌉ ---3. [..........] Gul-ki-šár [..........] ---- Randesrand ---183 184 185 186

Recent edition by Paulus 2014, 521–524. Oppenheim 1970, 59–65. Preliminary edition and copy were published by Gadd/Thompson 1936. For a discussion and further literature, s. Boivin 2018, 119f. Zomer 2016, 60. Note however that some of the names of the Sealand I kings are found in the Assyrian namelist (VR 44), here we find an explanation for Ayadaragalama, which is equated with I IBILA-dé-a-LUGAL-ma-a-ti ‘Son of Ea, king of the land’. For a recent discussion on the Sealand royal onomasticon, s. Boivin 2018, 37–42. 187 Note however that the correct Sumerian rendering would be ki.šar+gul, s. Landsberger 1954a, 69. It should be observed that the name Gulkišar is consistently found as Gul-ki-šár. A reading /dùg/ instead of /šár/ can therefore not be excluded, which bring us to the possibility of the well-known name pattern X + ki-dùg “X is a good place” in Sumerian onomastics, s. Krebernik 2002, 33f. Neither /gul/ “destruction” nor /sún/ “wild cow” can be rendered as a toponym. This leaves us a to interpret gul+ki.šar to be a regressive rendering from the Akkadian muʾabbit kiššati. This is exactly how the name was understood by a later scribe who equates the name Gulkišar with the Akkadian: Imu-ab-bitkiš-šá-ti (VR 44: i 15).

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

26

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

presence in the area which may denote former control188 In Tell-Muḫammad, close in reach to the north of Sippar, a local Kassite dynasty was present shortly before and after the Fall of Babylon. Accordingly, given that the direct synchronism between Gulkišar and Samsuditāna is valid, the successors of Gulkišar must have faced the rise of the Kassites, who united under Agum (II), subsequently took control over Babylon and made it their capital. Now, with the recently published archive (CUSAS 9) dating the reigns of Pešgaldarameš/Ayadaragalama and the scholarly texts attributed to this dynasty published by George (2007); (2013), Gabbay (2014), and Gabbay/Boivin (2018),189 it is not surprising that we now have another literary work that can be attributed to this dynasty.190 Possible Dating of HS 1885+ Since no archival context is present we should focus on internal criteria of the text: syllabary, orthography, phonology and paleography. The terminus post quem of the date of this composition is obviously delimited by the event demonstrated in this text, i.e. a battle between Gulkišar and Samsu-ditāna, which sets us at the earliest at the end of the Late Old Babylonian period. Early references to HS 1885, before it was joined with the fragments of the University Museum of Pennsylvania, speak of a Middle Babylonian epic, all following von Soden (1959, 231) and the passim references in the AHw, whereas De Jong-Ellis (1979, 217) dates one of the new fragments (N 4026) as Old Babylonian (?). It is therefore important to establish whether HS 1885+ is a contemporary product of the First Sealand Dynasty or a later copy. Syllabary and Orthography Distinction in general between Late Old Babylonian and Kassite is incredibly difficult.191 The orthography of HS 1885+ is largely phonetic, but a few logograms can be found: UD-ma (7’); EDIN (9’); 2.KAM? (20’); MÈ (30’); ⌈É⌉ (r. 19); A.AB.BA (r. 43). Typical post-Old Babylonian sign values include the abundant use of the following CvC signs: GAN /gan/ (6’; 26’); Ú /šam/ (8’; 9’); ŠU /qat/ (8’); KIB /kip/ (20’; 26’); NUMUN /kul/ (25’; r. 17); RAD /rat/ (26’); É /bet/ (26’); GUR /qur/ (27’); KIŠ /kiš/ (27’); GAZ /gas/ (29’); LAGAB /kil/ (r. 9); ŠID /lak/ (r. 10); MUD /mut/ (r. 36); MAN /man/ (r. 37); GAB /qab/ (r. 42); ŠAB /šap/ (r. 49);192 the use of emphatic consonants TU /tú/ (24’) and QA /qa/ (14’; 25’), but note the Old Babylonian use of GA /qá/ (10’; 11’); also note the use of Old Babylonian ZU /sú/ (29’; r. 37) instead of Middle Babylonian ZUM /su/; and the consistent use of ŠU (12’; 13’; 26’; 28’; 188 Dalley 2009, 9. The trade in central and southern Babylonia in this period as depicted in CUSAS 9 can be denoted as stabile and flourishing, s. Boivin 2016b. 189 Note the other literary, administrative texts and two cylinder seals that can be attributed to the First Sealand Dynasty summarized by Boivin 2018, 10–12. Recently, another Sealand I text (HS 200b) concerning the arrangement of a betrothal has been identified and will be published by J.J. de Ridder. 190 Recent excavations at Tell-Khaiber (near Ur) have yielded three administrative tablets dated to the reign of Ayadaragalama. It is hoped that with future excavations and with improved knowledge of Sealand palaeography new and not yet identified texts of this dynasty will come to light. 191 Most recently on the subject, s. Veldhuis 2000; Goodnick Westenholz 2005; Peterson 2016. 192 Use of other CvC-signs in HS 1885+, which are already known starting the Old Babylonian period are: SAR /šar/ (4’; 5’); TAB /tap/ (10’); /tab/ (14’); BUR /bur/ (11’; r. 8); KAL /kal/ (21’); /dan/ (31’); KUM /qum/ (24’; 29’); RI /tal/ (32’); BAD /bat/ (39’); ḪAR /ḫur/ (r. 3); QAR /qar/ 28’; 34’); BAR /bar/ (r. 17); DUR /túr/ (r. 21); MAR /mar/ (r. 23); KUR /mad/ (r. 41); LUḪ /luḫ/ (r. 50).

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

27

r. 15; 27) against later ŠÚ. Once we find the Middle Babylonian use of the aleph-sign in apa-ʾ-ʾa4(ḪA)-as (10’), but on other occasions a simple vowel sign is used: za-i-ri (25’); mua-bi-ta-at (r. 25); tu-ut-ta-i-da (r. 44). The typical Old Babylonian initial plene spelling of verbs I/voc or I/w does not occur in this text. Consistent plene spelling is found for nouns with a vocalic Auslaut: ú-pa-a (6’); pe-e-la-a (10’); a-gi-i (22’); ša-di-i (25’); ša-me-e (r. 38). Plene spelling in Inlaut of nouns is also constantly applied: et-lu-ú-ti (10’); qa-a-qú-li (14’); ka-a-ra (23’); mu-ú-ta (30’); ne-e-[ši?] (32’); mu-ú-tim (r. 1); ka-a-ša (r. 24); li-i-tam (r. 39). Plural and subordinative endings are found both defective: at-mi-šu-um-ma (11’); ú-ḫa-am-ma-tú-šu-nu-⌈ti⌉ (24’); il-tam-ma-ru (27’); i-ma-aḫ-ḫa-ru-ka (r. 24), as with plene spelling: qar-ra-du-ú-šu (28’); iš-mu-ú (28’); atmu-ú-š[u-nu] (30’). The later orthographic change /w/ > /m/ can be observed in at-mi-šu-um-ma (11’); i-tamu (34’); [n]a-mu-ur-ra-at-ka (r. 40). Phonology When mimation is preserved, it is mainly through CvC-signs: i-tap-pu-lam (5’); im-tam (25’); er-bet-tam (26’); ⌈kiš-ša⌉-tim (27’); [t]u?-qum-⌈tam⌉ (29’); mu-ú-tim (r. 1); mu-ša-rum (r. 7); be-lum (r. 22); li-i-tam (r. 39); [pu?]-⌈luḫ⌉-tam (r. 50); once we find mimation through Cv-vC signs: ta-ḫa-za-am (r. 47). Post-Old Babylonian loss of word-initial w– is found in atmu-ú-š[u-nu] (30’); ar-di-ka (r. 5); ⌈ar-di?⌉ (r. 20); il-da-šu-nu (r. 27). The post-Old Babylonian sound change /št/ > /lt/ is consistently found in: ul-te-mé-ed (12’); il-tam-ma-ru (27’); il-te-e[n] (40’, 41’); ul-ta-ḫa-zu-⌈ú⌉ (r. 14). The possessive pronominal suffix /–ya/ is found as /–ʾa/ after the vowel –u– in: ša-ga-an-tu-ú-a (13’); [qu]m-mu-ú-a (24’). Morphology Note the occurrence of the later independent dative pronoun 2ms kâša instead of Old Babylonian kâšum (r. 24) and the use of the thematic vowels u/u instead of e/u for epēšu in ⌈ep⌉-pu-uš (G) (r. 18) and i-ni-pu-uš (N) (r. 22), a typical feature of Middle Babylonian and later texts, but already attested for the Old Babylonian period, s. GAG § 97t. Palaeography As for the palaeography, diagnostic signs for the First Sealand Dynasty have proven to be RI, UZ, ḪU, AR, KA, and GI,193 where the Winkelhaken of the first four signs is written behind the vertical wedge. None of them occurs in such form in HS 1885+. Diagnostic signs identified for scholarly texts dating the Kassite period are KUR, NE, KA, RU, KUG, SIKIL and ḪUR.194 In HS 1885+ the sign NE appears convincing in its Kassite form (Fossey Manuel 13765 ).195

193 For more possible diagnostic signs, see the discussions in Nougayrol 1971, 68f. fn. 4 and George 2013, 129f.; Gabbay 2014, 148. A more comprehensive overview and recent dicussion is provided by Gabbay/Boivin 2018, 24. 194 Peterson 2016, 261 with previous literature. 195 Note that ⌈d⌉BIL.GI (23’) and ne-e-[ši?] (32’), but also the traces for [x]-⌈ne?⌉-e (32’) support the Kassite rendering. For promising results on NE as a diagnostic sign for Kassite script, s. Rutz 2006,

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

28

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

Additionally, I would like to tentatively argue that the sign GUL in HS 1885+ is also ). This typical shape of the sign only written in its Kassite form (Fossey Manuel 27663 occurs in Kassite documents, s. BE 14, 83 no. 177. In conclusion, although some texts from the First Sealand Dynasty already betray postOld Babylonian features,196 as is evidently also the case for HS 1885+, a slightly later early Kassite dating is preferred here due to the use of the aleph-sign in (a-pa-ʾ-ʾa4(ḪA)-as), which is most likely a confusion with AḪ of the original, and the use of the Kassite form of NE and GUL rendering it a Middle Babylonian copy. As such, we should note the recently published text Hammurabi’s Deeds (N 1498+), which was classified by its editors to have a Middle Babylonian dating, although a Late Old Babylonian dating cannot be entirely excluded (Rutz/Michalowski 2016, 33f.) and the aforementioned fragment from Istanbul (Ni 13090) containing a Hymn to Gulkišar, which seems, as far as can possibly be accessed, to be MB as well.197 In this regard the Nippur manuscripts of Hammurabi’s Deeds, the Hymn to Gulkišar, and The Epic of Gulkišar may stem from the same scribal background, i.e. a Kassite scholarly interest in copying historical-literary texts from preceding rulers.

Text Edition Museum n°: HS 1885 (tablet). Plate 1–6 Joined to: N 4026 (E. Zomer 2012), N 1338 (E. Zomer 2014). HS 2819, now the far-right fragment of HS 1885, was identified and joined to HS 1885 by J. Oelsner in ca. 1975 Measurements: 165 × 95 mm References: Von Soden 1959, 231; Schwemer 2001, 176 fn. 1239; Weszeli 2011–2013, 49f. Obverse (missing circa 2 lines) 1’. 2’. 3’. 4’. 5’. 6’. 7’. 8’. 9’. 10’. 11’. 12’. 13’.

[ ................................................. ] ⌈tar? zi⌉ [ ................................................. ] ⌈x ú⌉ ki [x x x x (x)] ⌈ti?⌉ ú-šat-li-ma dIN.NIN.NA [x x x ] ⌈a⌉-a-ba a-šar qab-li [x x x x] i-tap-pu-lam a-šar a-na-an-ti [a]-⌈ša-as⌉-si-ma ki-i dIŠKUR ú-pa-a a-ša-kan a-na um-ma-an Sa-am-su-di-ta-na ⌈ut⌉-ta-a UD-ma a-ma-aḫ-ḫa-as gi-ip-ši-šu-nu ⌈ú⌉-šam-qat ú-pa-ar-ra-ar ki-is-ri-šu-nu ⌈ú⌉-šam-la EDIN a-qá-at-tap et-lu-ú-ti pe-e-la-a a-pa-ʾ-ʾa4(ḪA)-as at-mi-šu-um-ma a-la-aq-qá-ta bur-ma-mi ul-te-mé-ed ma-ra-šu-nu a-bu-ba ša-ga-an-tu-ú-a ú-tar-ra-ka as-li-šu

72 fn. 49. The cursive NE of the Sealand has some similarities with the said Kassite form, note that it consistently has one extra horizontal on the top of the sign, s. Gabbay/Boivin 2018, 24 196 George 2013, 130, most clearly displayed in CUSAS 18, 31. 197 Note the use of ŠÚ (5’) and the lack of mimation in pu-lu-uḫ-ta (r. 4). Note however that a different (older) palaeography is used in the Ni 13090.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

14’. 15’. 16’. 17’. 18’. 19’. 20’. 21’ . 22’. 23’. 24’. 25’. 26’. 27’. 28’. 29’. 30’. 31’. 32’. 33’. 34’. 35’. 36’. 37’. 38’. 39’. 40’. 41’. 42’. 43’. 44’.

[a-š]a-[a]m-ma-at ki-i qa-a-qú-li a-tab-ba-[ak] [(x) x x na]-⌈ak⌉-ri-ia a-ba-⌈ar x x ki-i dur⌉ [x (x)] [ .................. ] ⌈x⌉ ri ti [ ........................................ ] [ .................. ] ⌈x⌉ da [ .......................................... ] [ ..................... ] ⌈x⌉ [ ............................................ ] [ ..................... ] ⌈x⌉ [ ............................................ ] [x x (x)] ⌈at-ta-kip?-ma⌉ 2.KAM? [........................ ] [ki-i] ⌈d⌉Èr-ra-kal a-ša-⌈ag⌉-[gi-iš ....................... ] [ú?-n]a?-ap-pa-ás ki-i a-gi-i ú-[ ........................... ] [a-q]a-am-mi ki-i dBIL.GI ka-a-ra ⌈x x⌉ [x x (x)] [qu]m-mu-ú-a ú-ḫa-am-ma-tú-šu-nu-⌈ti⌉ [ku]l-la-at za-i-ri ú-ša-aš-qa im-tam [ki]b-rat er-bet-tam šu-mi a-ša-kan ⌈ù⌉ ma-at ⌈kiš-ša⌉-tim il-tam-ma-ru ⌈qur⌉-di-ia qar-ra-du-ú-šu [(x)] iš-mu-ú mi-⌈x⌉-[x]-šu ša la-ab-bu gas-sú it-pe-š[u (x x) t]u?-qum-⌈tam⌉ mu-ú-ta la i[d-d]a-ru at-mu-ú-š[u-nu x x (x)] MÈ it-bi-ma ⌈x⌉-[(x)]-šu dan-nu ša [ ......................... i]t?-bu-ú-šu ki-i ne-e-[ši? x]-⌈ne?⌉-e i-tal-li[-il? ............................ -a]n-du ek-du ša ⌈x⌉ [x x (x)]-li-lum mu-tu-[ ................ ] ⌈x⌉ nu [(x)] qar-ra-du-[(x)]-⌈ú⌉ i-ta-mu [x x (x)] ⌈nu?⌉ [(x)] i-ba-aš-š[i x x (x) m/b]a ši ⌈x⌉ [ .................................... ] ša ub-lam [ .................] ⌈x id⌉ [ ..................................... ] i-ta-[––] ⌈ú?⌉ na ⌈x⌉ [––] ⌈a⌉-na [ ................................... ] a-na ⌈x⌉ [––] ⌈x⌉ ru di ⌈x⌉ [––] ù [––] ⌈x⌉ i-sa-bat i-n[a ––] šu [––]-i a-na il-te-e[n ––] [–– il-t]e-en ni si ⌈x⌉ [––] [––] ⌈x⌉-as-su ga [––] [–– t]ar-ru gi ⌈x⌉ [––] [––]-⌈x⌉-ru-uk-ka [––]

Reverse 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

[––] ⌈x⌉ mu-ú-tim [––] [–– z]i? id-di din [––] [––] ⌈x⌉ ul ta-ma-ḫar l[i? ––] ⌈a⌉ [–– q]a!?-bal ḫur-ri [––] ú-⌈ma?⌉-[––] ar-di-ka [––] i-ru-[ub ?––] am ma ak [––] mu-ša-rum ⌈ru⌉ [––] ⌈x⌉ ma [––] ul i-na bur-ki-[šu?-(nu) ––] ⌈x x⌉ [––] ú-ša-kil-⌈šu⌉-[nu-ti.............................................................. ] ni-it-ta-⌈lak⌉ [ ..... ] ⌈x x⌉ [ ................................................... ] am ḫa id [ ... ] ⌈x⌉ na e [ ...................................................... ] i-te-eš-ra ⌈x⌉ [..... ] ši-pi-ir [ ............................................... ] mi-im-ma [.......... ] i-li-ik b[u?............................................. ] ul-ta-ḫa-zu-⌈ú⌉ [ .........] ša-at-ra a-[ ................................... ] šu-me-lu ⌈x⌉ [ ....... ] ša et-lu-ú-[ti]

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

29

30 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

⌈ša⌉-ap-ta-i[a.........]-ra ta-da-ga-l[a]-⌈an⌉-ni [x š]i? pi ra [ ....... kī] ⌈bar⌉-ba-ri a-kul ki-i [z]i-i-bi [x (x)] ⌈ep⌉-pu-uš [ ..... kī] dAšnan!(TIR) i-di pa-ag-ra [i-n]a ⌈É [n]a?-re-e sa-lam-ka lu-uš-zi-iz [ .................. ] ⌈x⌉ a [ša? a]r-ki ga-mi-il a-a-bi te-bu-ú ⌈ar-di?⌉ [ .................. ] ⌈ú⌉ ru iz-za-qá-ra a-na Gul-⌈ki⌉-šár šu-túr et-⌈lu⌉-[ú-ti] [ ........ ] be-lum ki-i ti-du-ú i-ni-pu-uš [ .................. b]u? it-ta-ša ka-la-ma am-mar [ ........ ḫ]u? a-na ka-a-ša i-ma-aḫ-ḫa-ru-ka [ .................. ] ⌈x⌉-li-it-ta mu-a-bi-ta-at ša-di-i dan-n[a-tum] [ ........ ] ⌈ú?⌉-na-[š]i?⌉-ka [ ........ ] il-da-šu-nu ul ⌈x⌉ [(x x)] ⌈x x⌉ ⌈na?⌉ [(x x)] [ ........ ] ⌈x?⌉ ⌈da/ša?⌉-la-ti lu ⌈x⌉ [ ....................................... ] [ ...........]-⌈a?-ti!?⌉ i-na ⌈x⌉ [ ................................................. ] [ .................................. ] ⌈x⌉ [ .............................................. ] [ .......................................................................................... ] [ .............................] ⌈x⌉ [ ................................................... ] [ ............................................ ] ⌈x⌉ ik ta [ ............................ ] [ ............................................ ] ⌈x⌉ i da pi ⌈x⌉ [ ................... ] [ ............................................ ] ga ⌈li/tu⌉ [........................... ] [ .......................... ] ⌈x⌉ [n]a?/⌈ud?⌉ le-mut-ta-⌈šu x⌉ [(x)] [ ....................................... ] ⌈x ú⌉-še-sú-ú ra-man-šu [ ....................................... ] ⌈da/ša?⌉ ša-me-e [ ....................................... ]-⌈ma?⌉ li-i-tam [ ....................................... n]a-mu-ur-ra-at-ka [ ....................................... tu-k]a?-aš-ša-da na-as-mad-ka [ .................................... ] ⌈i⌉-⌈qab⌉-bi [ ............................... ] ⌈x x⌉ na-ra-am-ti A.AB.BA [ ............................... ] ⌈x⌉-ša tu-ut-ta-i-da ia-ši [ .................................. ] ⌈ú?-še?-bil⌉ a-na na-ak-ri-ka [ ....................................... ] ⌈x-x⌉-lu-ni-ik-ku [ ....................................... ]-šu ta-ḫa-za-am [ ....................................... ]-⌈nu⌉-ka [ ......................................... š]ap?-li-ia [ ....................................... pu?]-⌈luḫ⌉-tam [ ....................... ] ⌈ik?⌉ dIN.NIN.NA (missing circa 2 lines)

Translation Obverse 1’. 2’. 3’. 4’. 5’. 6’.

... ... [ ........ ] Ištar bestowed generously. [ ........ ] the enemy (at) the place of battle. [ ........ ] he/she repeatedly answered (at) the place of conflict. “I roar and like Adad I will make clouds!

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

7’. 8’. 9’. 10’. 11’. 12’. 13’. 14’. 15’. 16’. 17’. 18’. 19’. 20’. 21’. 22’. 23’. 24’. 25’. 26’. 27’. 28’. 29’. 30’. 31’. 32’. 33’. 34’. 35’. 36’. 37’. 38’. 39’. 40’. 41’. 42’. 43’. 44’.

I will darken the day for the troops of Samsu-ditāna! I will defeat their massed (body); I will smite (them)! I will scatter their group; I will fill the battlefield (with their corpses)! I will pluck out the young men; I will crush the egg(s)! I will destroy their hatchlings and the piglets! I will make their son(s) clash with a flood! In my roaring, I will beat his young sheep! [I will] tear (them) loose! Like qaqullu-plants I will throw them [down]! [ ........ of] my [en]emy I will catch! [I will ....] like a knot/rope [...]! ... ... ... ... [ ........ ] I will continuously charge and a second (time) [ ....... ]! [Like] Errakal, I will slaugh[ter .............................................. ] [I] will demolish like the flood; I [.......................................... ]! [I] will burn like Girra! The mooring-place [ ......................... ]! In my burning power, I will burn them (all)! I will let [a]ll of (my) enemies be drenched in venom! I will make my name known in the [f]our world quarters! And the land(s) of the entire world will praise my heroic deeds!” His warriors listened (to) his [ ................................................ ] “–The one who is a murderous lion, skilled in battle, (who) does not fear death, whose hatchlings [ ] combat.” He set out … the strong one who […]reared up against him like a … lion he boast[ed ....................................................... ] The furious one who [ .......... ] ....... [........ ] … (His) warriors [..... ] … are speaking [ ...........] … “There is [ ....... ] … [ .....................................] which he brought [ .......... ] … [ ......................] … [––] to [––] To [––] … [––] And [––] he will seize i[n ––] [––] to/for the first [––] [–– fi]rst … [––] [––] … [––] [––] … [––] [––] … [––]

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

[––] (of) death [––] [––] he casted down … [––] [––] you don’t confront [––] … [––] in a hole [––] … [––] (of) your servant [––] He enter[ed––] … [––] The inscription [––] … [––] not on [his/their?] knees [––] … [––]

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

31

32 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

He fed t[hem (i.e. his troops) ............................................. ] “We will depart [................................................................ ] … […] … [ ........................................................................ ”] He went straight ahead [ ...... ] the plan (of) [ ..................... ] Whatever [ ...... ] he went [ ................................................ ] They have instructed [..... ] (what is) written [ ................... ] Left [ ..... ] of the young men [ ........................................... ] “My lips [are ....................................... ] you look at me [ ........ (”)] … [“… like] a wolf! Devour like a vulture! [ ........ ] I will do […] Smite down corpse(s) [like] grain!” [“I]n the house of steles, may I erect your statue!” [ ........ who] follow(s) the one who spares the enemy, my servant [ ........ ] … speaks to Gulkišar, the greatest among men: [“ ...... ] lord, as you know, it will happen! [ ........ ] her sign, I see it all! [ ........ ] against you, they will oppose you! [ ........ ] … the-strong-one-who-destroys-the-mountains (f.) [ ........ ] tore (him) apart. [ ........ ] their offspring not [ ............................................... ] [ ........ ] … [ ........................................................................ ] [ ........ ] in? [ ........................................................................ ] … … … [ .................. ] … [ .............................................................. ] [ .................. ] … [ .............................................................. ] [ .................. ] … [ .............................................................. ] [ ............................................ ] his wickedness [ ................ ] [ ................................................. that] he will save himself. [ ........................................................................ ] heaven. [ ...................................................................... ] victory. [ .......................... ] your awe-inspiring radiance. [ ....................... you] will drive your team (of horses).” [ ...............................................] says. [ .............................] the beloved (f.) of the Sea(land): [“ .......................................... ] you praised repeatedly! [ ....................................... ] I sent to your enemy [ ................................................. ] … [ ................................................. ] battle. [ ................................................. ] your […] [ ................................................. ] below me. [ ...................................................... f]ear. [ ................................................. ”] Ištar.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

33

Commentary 3’. Following Gelb’s (1960, 75) observations, this syllabic spelling of INNIN is to be dated far after the Old Babylonian period. Note however the recent attestation in the Old Babylonian prayer to Anūna (CBS 19842: 89) published by Lambert (1989). For the important role of Ištar of the Sealand I kings, s. Boivin 2016. The receiving person here at the beginning of the text is presumably the favoured king in this epic, i.e. Gulkišar. 4’–5’. Possibly Ištar is still subject in both lines revealing both the antagonist and the place of battle to the protagonist king. The motif of setting the place of conflict is more eloquently found in the Old Babylonian Zimri-lim Epic, s. Guichard (2014, 13: 17–25). The reading ⌈a⌉-a-ba is unlikely to be a learned writing for “Sea(land)”, s. A.AB.BA in r. 43. 5’. Note that we have here ītappulam instead of expected ītappalam. 6’. The simile of Adad making clouds finds a good parallel in his epithet šākin upê “maker of clouds” (AOAT 34, 53: 12; BMS 12+: 2, 4 || AOAT 34, 53: r. 8 (|| SpTU 1, 6: 21’?); LKA 53: 5 || BMS 20 (+) 49: r. 3; BMS 21+: 46), s. Schwemer (2001, 715). 6’–7’. The use of similes concerning storms and violence is a common topos in the texts of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings, s. Schwemer (2001, 176 fn. 1239). 8’/11’. Note the use of the Janus-parallelism: 8’ amaḫḫas (A) - gipšīšunu (B) - ušamqat (A) and in 11’ atmīšumma (A) alaqqata (B) burmamī (A). For further examples of the Janusparallelism in Akkadian literature, s. Noegel (1991; 1994; 1995a; 1995b), Horowitz/Paul (1995), Malul (1995). 10’. The phrase pelâ(m) apaʾʾas can be interpreted in the sense of piercing an egg. However, one would rather expect the more commonly used verb palāšu (GAM). It is therefore more likely to interpret the egg as a metaphorical image for offspring and take the regular meaning of the verb paʾāsu “to crush”. Destruction of progeny is a common topos especially in the curse formula of Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian royal inscriptions, e.g. DN zērašu lilqut. One should note the plene-writing pe-e-la-a, where one would expect pe-la-a. In a NeoBabylonian royal inscription dating Nebuchadnezzar II (VAB 4, 94: 13) we find pé-e-la-a. 11’. atmīšumma is to be taken from (w)atmu “hatchling” and is to be analyzed as atmī-šun-ma, where the apocopated –n is assimilated to the enclitic –ma, s. GAG § 33d. burmāmī is to be derived from barāmu “to be multicoloured” with a reduplication of the third radical probably having a diminutive meaning, s. Kouwenberg (1997, 42). This fits well with the new interpretation of this noun by Weszeli (2011–2013, 50), i.e. “piglet”, what has previously been understood as “porcupine”. The hatchlings and piglets are here metaphorically used for the offspring of the enemy who will be gathered and taken away (i.e. destroyed), which fits with the previous metaphorical statement of “crushing the egg(s)”.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

34

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

13’. The poetic image of aslū for soldiers is frequently found in Akkadian literature, s. CAD A2 336. 14’. We find the entries qāqullu “elletaria cardamomum” in AHw 901b and qaqqullu (qāqullu, qāqultu) “a plant, a tree, a bird” in CAD Q 124b. The interpretation of q. as “elletaria cardamomum” by von Soden is to be rejected. The plant q. is frequently found in enumerations of plants together with mangu and šāmitu, i.e. [ú.teme (NAGA-inverted) = man-[gu], qaq-[qu-lu], š[a-me-tu] ur5-ra = ḫubullu XVII 78ff. (MSL 10, 86); ú.sag.gateme = [qa-qu-lum] Ugarit recension of ur5-ra = ḫubullu XVII (MSL 10, 109); te-e ú.naga-tenû = man-gu, qa-qu-lum, šá-me-tu Diri IV 6ff.; te-me naga-tenû = qa-qu-lum, man-gu, šá-mi-tu A VII/4: 98f. (MSL 14, 468); Ú man-gu, Ú sa-me-tu, Ú qa-qu-lu Uruanna II 278–280; man-ga SAR, šu-mit!(PAP)-tú SAR, qa-qu-ul-lu SAR list of plants in the garden of MerodachBaladan II (CT 14, 50: ii 3–5). Therefore, q. belongs to a group identified by the Mesopotamians as alkaline plants. Von Soden’s attribution of q. to cardamom goes back to Meissner (1891, 293f.) and his edition of the plantlist of Merodach Baladan (CT 14, 50), who links it to the Aramaic qāqullā. This identification of Akkadian q. suits the present context better than the meaning “cardamomum”. A similar use of the alkaline qaqullu plant is found in the Old Babylonian Balag (MMA 86.11.62, r. 18’, s. Volk 2005, 4–10): UL4.UL4tur-ra UL4.UL4 -[maḫ-a]r. 19’. UL4.UL4 útémesar-gin7 šú-šú-[a] “The little kiši-plants, the [finest] kiši-plants, the kiši-plants altogether are overturned like a q.-plant.” For téme (NAGA) = qaqullu, s. Volk (1990, 37). This interpretation is further confirmed by Syriac qāqūllā ( ܳ ܽ ܳ ) ‘an alkaline plant’, which is to be distiguished from qaqūllag ( ܰ ܽ ܰ ) (borrowed from Iranian) “elletaria cardamomum”, s. de Ridder/Zomer (2019). The alkaline plant is a halophyte and known to grow in arid and semi-arid saltflats, saltmarshes and similar environments. The restoration here of šamātu D can be confirmed from its similar meaning to tabāku G and is possibly an allusion to the close relation between qaqullu and šāmitu. 15’. The structure of this line is most likely chiastic. Tentatively, we may read DUR logographically for riksu “knot” or turru “string”. A reconstruction apattar “I will dismantle (them)” or apaššar “I will unravel (them)” seems impossible from the sign traces. 21’. The deity Errakal is well-known from several god-lists (written ´dèr-ra-gal, dèr-ra-kal, dèr-rakal-kal, dèr-ra-kar, dèr-kal), where he is listed among the names of Nergal, s. Wiggermann (1998–2000, 217f.). Errakal is rarely attested in literary texts and his mythological appearance is mainly related to the onset of the great destructive flood as is also the case in our text, i.e. OB Atraḫasis II vii 51–53 tarkullī Er[rakal linassiḫ] (Lambert/Millard1969, 86: 51); NA Atraḫasis (BM 98977+): 15’ Errakal unassaḫa t[arkullī] (Lambert/Millard 1969, 124: 15); Gilgamesh XI 102 tarkullī Errakal inassaḫ (George 2003, 708). Additionally, we should note Erra stating in the Erra Epic IV 118 tarkulla lussuḫma (Cagni 1969, 116). Although not directly, Errakal is found in a similar context in the present text, where he is found in the environment of the destructive flood here (agû, l. 22’). Note additionally, the use of abūbu “deluge” in l. 12’. The occurrence of kāru(m) “quay, mooring place” in l. 23’ is definitely connected with the imagery of destruction caused by the deluge. The fact that

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

35

Errakal occurs here with šagāšu G is not expected, since this verb is traditionally connected with the figures of Erra/Nergal. An alternative reading kī dErra GURUŠ ašaggiš “like Erra I will murder the young man” cannot be ruled out, but the sequence of the signs dÈr-ra GURUŠ/kal is too suspicious to not assume Errakal. The occurrence of Errakal with šagāšu G may be explained from Errakal’s close relation with Nergal. 24’. [qu]m-mu-ú-a is here interpreted as qamû (D inf.)+ locative –u(m) + possesive suffix 1sc – ya. Note that we have here ú-ḫa-am-ma-tú-šu-nu-ti instead of uḫammassunūti 25’. The speaker of the narrative, Gulkišar, now changes the object of his rage and is building up towards the climax of his speech. The focus has now shifted from the troops of Samsu-ditāna to his enemies in general. The idiom šušqû(m) imta(m) is otherwise unattested. The verb šaqû(m) has attestations referring to poison/venom, but these are mainly in relation to magic and witchcraft, s. CAD Š2 25f. A similar phrase is found in the Old Babylonian Epic of Zimri-lim: itbuk imassu ammātātim “he poured his venom out over the lands” (Guichard 2014, 14: 30), which in turn can be compared with the phrase ušatbakšu imta[m] “He (the evil-doer) makes him (Papulegara) pour venom”, in the OB hymn to Papulegara, s. Streck/Wasserman (2008, 344). 26’. The expression ana kibrāt erbettim or kibrāt erbêm/arbāʾi is here attested as kibrāt erbettam. Note however that in a construct chain the genitive case-ending is obligatory. Since kibrāt erbettam clearly functions here as an adverbial accusative of place (GAG § 146), kibrāt erbett– seems to be rendered here as a compound noun. 27’. māt kiššatim “land of the universe” is rather unsatisfying, where one would expect the usual kiššat mātātim “the totality of the lands”. 29’–30’. These lines are to be taken as direct speech from Gulkišar referring to himself as the “murderous lion” and “skilled in battle”, instructing (one of?) his men to make known to the enemy that he does not fear death, i.e. will not evade combat and is ready for battle. 32’. The restoration i-tal-li[-il?] is tentative. It is interpreted here as a Gt of alālu III “to brag, boast”, but a Gt alālu II “to become allied (with)” cannot be excluded. Note that in both cases one would expect itallal. r. 16–19 I interpret these lines to be a dialogue between, presumably Gulkišar and a deity (possibly Ištar, see below), i.e. r. 16 is spoken by Gulkišar to DN, r. 17–18 are instructions of DN to Gulkišar, and r. 19 is again spoken by Gulkišar to DN. r. 18 Note that the normal writing for dAšnan would be dÉZINA (ŠE.TIR) or simply dŠE. The reading dÈZINA (TIR) (MZL 587) follows the lexical list Ea VII 11’ [e-zi-na] = TIR = áš[na]-an, s. MSL 14, 452; and Aa VII/4 80 e-zi-nu = TIR = aš-na-an, s. MSL 14, 467. dAšnan

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

36

№ 1. The Epic of Gulkišar

can be translated as common ‘grain’. The idiom nadû(m) pagra(m) “throwing down a corpse” is well-attested in other historical epics, e.g.: Tukultī-Ninurta Epic iv 20 (Machinist 1978, 90) ina isin tamḫāre šâtu ētiq māmīti ay ēlâ pagaršu liddû During this festival of battle, may the oath-breaker not rise up, (but) let them throw down his corpse! Fragment BM 35322: ii 6’ (Grayson 1975b, 52) ŠUBa pagrēšunu Their corpses were thrown down. Fragment BM 35322: iii 12’ (Grayson 1975b, 54) [felam]ītum ultu muḫḫi dūri pagaršu addi I threw the corpse of the Elamite woman from the wall! r. 19 I interpret the phrase salamka lušzīz “I will erect your statue” to be a promise by Gulkišar to a deity; possibly Ištar, but note –ka instead of –ki. The ‘do-ut-des’-principle occurs more often in historical epics, where the companion deity is promised or finally given a gift by the protagonist king in turn for the aid in battle, e.g.: Erra and Narām-Sîn: 26 (Goodnick Westenholz 1997, 194f.) lūpuškum bītam ša tašīlātu libbi Let me build you a temple in which joy is found! r. 22–42 The speech in the following lines belongs to a new section in the text. I believe that we have here a revelation of a divine sign, i.e. ittu(m) r. 23, predicting the succesful course of battle. To a similar effect, we find in the Zimri-lim Epic ittu(m) connected with an āpilum-priest, i.e. īmurma ittāšu āpilam etel mātīšu “He, the prince of the land, observed the sign (explained by the) āpilum-priest”, s. Guichard (2014, 22: 35). Since these lines are addressed to Gulkišar, I assume that we have here an explanation of the divine sign by a kind of priest(ess). For a further possible analogue example of ittu(m) in the prologue of Codex Hammurapi, s. Wasserman (1992, 14 fn. 25). Note that we find in the Tukultī-Ninurta Epic the explanation of omina and their negative meaning for battle for the antagonist Kassite king in ll. iiia 41– 56, s. Machinist (1978, 96–99); Chang (1981, 100f., 124f.). r. 21 As for the expression šūtur etlūti, note in Ni 13090: 1’ [............. L]UGAL.MEŠ šu-tu-ra lu-ul[.....]. r. 22 Alternative possibilities for i-ni-pu-uš here rendered as N pres. inneppuš, are a cohortative G ī nīpuš “let us do”, N pret. innepuš “it has happened”. r. 25 The epithet muʾabbitat šadî is to be attributed in the present text to Ištar, as the companion deity of Gulkišar. Another occurrence for this epithet for Ištar is found in the Old Babylonian bilingual hymn TCL 15, 16: 14 (AO 5382). r. 37

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

37

The idiom šūsû + ramānu is further only attested in the Cuthean Legend as pagrī u ramānī lusēsi (iii 15) translated by Goodnick Westenholz (1997, 273) “I can get myself out (of trouble)?”/I can put myself out (in order to save the country)?” In the present text, it alludes to the defeat of Samsu-ditāna. r. 43 The feminine epithet narāmti A.AB.BA is to be attributed to Ištar. The Sealand is usually referred to as KUR A.AB.BA/māt tâmti, but is also found abbreviated as A.AB.BA/tâmti, s. Brinkman (1993–1997, 8). The fact that Ištar plays a pivotal role in the present epic and is called “the beloved of the Sea(land)” can also be explained from her apparent prominent role within the First Sealand Dynasty, s. Boivin (2016a; 2018, 29–32, 205). Note additionally, the occurrence of na-ra-am dDUR.[.....] in Ni 13090: r.(?) 2, which is most likely to be attributed to Gulkišar himself. The deity name might tentatively be restored as dDUR.[AN.KI] one of the poetic names of Enlil found in An = Anu ša amēli: 14 and explained as Enlil ša purussê. On the importance of Enlil (and the Nippur pantheon) for the First Sealand Dynasty, s. Gabbay (2014); Gabbay/Boivin (2018).

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

№ 2. MYTHOLOGICAL NARRATIVE ON PA(P)NIGARA Introduction This single-column fragmentary tablet contains a literary composition that relates a previously unknown myth. The protagonist of this narrative is the deity Pa(p)nigara, consistently written dPA4.NIGARGAR.RA (ll. 16’; r. 4; 6; [12]), with NIGAR (= NÌGIN) spelled as U.UD.RU.KID. Examples for the graphic variant U.UD.RU.KID instead of U.UD.KID for NÌGIN in NIGARgar are attested for the second millennium in the Weidner god list from Ugarit for NIN-nigara and Pa(p)nigara (Ugaritica 5, 124 F: ll. 100; 137), s. Simons (2017, 91); examples from the first millennium can be found in CT 24, 26: 105; YBC 2401: iii 22, s. Litke (1998, 73); Richter (2004, 386f.). The male deity Pa(p)nigara is known as the son of the Mother Goddess and her spouse Šulpa’e, specifically in the manifestation as Bara’ullegara/Bara’pa(p)nigara (An = Anum II 60–61). In later god lists (CT 25, 12: 12; STT 379: ii 13) Pa(p)nigara is equated with Ninurta (s. Krebernik 2003–2005, 326). Note additionally, the equation of the author-scribe from Adab IdPA4.NIGARGAR.RA.PA4.ŠEŠ.NE.NE = Idnin-urta-a-šá-red-su-nu (JCS 11, 12: iii 36). Shared characteristics between the two deities can already be found in the second millennium, e.g. the PN dPA4.NIGARGAR.RA-qar-ra-ad (TCL 18, 150: 9; 37); in a kudurru we find dPA4.NIGARGAR.RA EN ku-dur-ri (BBSt 3: vi 11), where the attributed title bēl kudurri is generally ascribed to Ninurta. A possible example in the present text can be found in the reference of Pa(p)nigara seizing borders (11’), which alludes to Ninurta’s epithet bēl misri known from kudurru-inscriptions, see below. Although the deity Pa(p)nigara is relatively well-attested, not much is known about his activities and responsibilities. The fragment presented here alludes to the fertility aspects of Pa(p)nigara, which derive from his association with the Mother Goddess, who is most likely the unspecified female (deity) ordaining a destiny for our protagonist (r. 1). Literary allusions to his connection with fertility are found in the repetitive use of the noun parāʾu (pirʾu) “sprout, shoot” denoting offspring and in the use of collective name arḫūtu for his lineage (r. 6), specified as arḫūtu a(na) rukkubi “fast to pollinate” (i.e. “to breed”) (r. 2). It should be observed that the tablet consisted out of various sections separated by single ruling, of which 3 sections (ll. 1’–11’; 12’–r. 6; r. 7–14) are preserved. The possibility cannot be excluded that this tablet originally contained extracts of multiple compositions. As for the preserved sections, ll. 12’–r. 6 and ll. r. 7 –14 both mention the deity Pa(p)nigara directly. Although the relationship between Pa(p)nigara and Sîn/Šamaš is not entirely clear in the first section, the fact that we have here a deity seeking out an abode (10’) fits well with the following section (12’–r. 6), where the narrative is based on the establishment of Pa(p)nigara in the realm of the gods. As such, the text reminds us of the Old Babylonian Song of Bazi (CUSAS 10, 1) and the well-known Babylonian narrative Enūma Eliš of the first millennium.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

40

№ 2. Mythological Narrative on Pa(p)nigara

Text Edition Museum n°: HS 1886 (tablet). Plate 7–8 Measurements: 35 × 53 mm References: – Obverse (broken)

1’ 2’. 3’. 4’. 5’. 6’. 7’. 8’. 9’. 10’. 11’. 12’. 13’.

[ ........................................................... ] ⌈x⌉ [ (x x)] [x] ⌈x x x⌉ [ ........................... i?]-⌈na? AN.BAR7⌉ ⌈li⌉-ki-il-⌈ma ḫa-rib? a? x x⌉ na a-a ir-ši d 30 ku-ub-ša ša uq-ni-i du-še ik-bi-su-ma ki-ma bu-uk-ri-šu ki dUTU ša-ru-ra ⌈li⌉-it-ba-ši li-il-mi sa-pa-ru-šu sar-ri-ri-šu li-sa-ḫi-ip ḫu-ḫa-ra mu-ut ki-in-ti-šu ki-ma ge-eš-pi-⌈ri⌉ sa-ḫi-pi is-su-ra-ti li-is-ḫu-pi ú-zu-⌈us⌉-su ša il-la-ku! li-sa-ḫiš dA-nu li-ir-t[i]-di {x mi} be [(x)] ⌈x x⌉-ti ù li-ḫi-it {pa?} BARAGmeš li-is-bat mi-si-re-⌈e⌉-[ti ] ⌈d!⌉UTU bu-kur ⌈d30 x x⌉ i-ši-ir ki-is-si dI-gi4-gi4 Ku-bu dIš-tarm[e]š li-ir-bi šu Nin-nu-ú DUMU EN DINGIRmeš

Lower Edge 14’. 15’. 16’. 17’.

[l]i-šár-bí-ma pi-i ti-ni-ši-ti ⌈MU?-šú?⌉ [l]i-iz-bil bil-⌈le-et⌉ lu-li mi-ša-ra li-is!(PA)-se20-⌈qir⌉ ⌈d⌉PA4.NIGA[R]GAR.RA ⌈a⌉-ši-ir-ki-ši-na li-ši-ir-ma li-ir-ḫu-si-‹na› ⌈et⌉-la ⌈ù⌉ ar-da-ta lìḫ-di ŠÁR KI.SI[KIL]-⌈ti⌉

Reverse 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

ul-tu ši-ma ši-mat la ⌈ma-ḫa⌉-ri i-ši-mu-šum-ma ar-ḫu-tu4 a-ru-ku-bi pa-⌈ra-ú-ʾ⌉-šu-ma-mi pa-ru-ú-šu-ma ba-lu4 i-ši-mu-ú ⌈si-qa⌉-ar-šu pa-ar-ú! dPA4.NIGARGAR.RA-ma ba-⌈lu4 i⌉-ši-mu-ú si-qa-ar-šu ⌈ib⌉-bi-ma šum-šu-nu ⌈SAG⌉-su-nu iš-ši ⌈dPA4⌉.NIGARGAR.RA ⌈ar⌉-ḫu-tu4 šum pa-li-šu i-bi šup-tù-úr ki-i ki ad [x (x)] ⌈x⌉ KA-šu-nu pa-ru-šu DIS ḫu-us-si gišA.Z[U? šu-u]š-qí qa-na pa-ru-šu ša-nu-ú ú-sa-pa-ḫi ki-[i? x (x)] ⌈x⌉ na-ki-ri pa-ru-šu ša-al-šu mu-ta-bi-ki ⌈x⌉ [ ...... ] ⌈x⌉ KA-šu-nu pa-ru-šu re-bu-ú ib-bi-ma šu[m-šu-nu SAG-su-n]u iš-ši [(x) x] ⌈x⌉ dP[A4.NIGARGAR.RA … K]A?-šu-nu ri-mi et-lu-ti [ .................................................................] ḫa [ ...................................................................... ] ⌈i? ma?⌉ ti [ ............................................................................................... ] [ ............................................................................................... ] ⌈x⌉ si-i [ .................................................................................................. r]i? (broken)

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

41

Translation Obverse 1’ 2’. 3’. 4’. 5’. 6’. 7’. 8’. 9’. 10’. 11’. 12’. 13’.

... [ ........ ] … [................................................................................... ] at midday. May he hold 2’[ ..... ] and the abandoned (place of) … let him not obtain! Sîn covered him (P.) with a kubšu-headress of lapis (and) quartz and like his (Sîn’s) son, like Šamaš, may he (P.) be clad in brilliance. May he (Šamaš) surround his (P.) wrongdoers in his net! May he (Šamaš) overwhelm the man of his (wrongdoer’s) kinship (with) a ḫuḫārutrap! Like a snare that spreads over birds, may it spread (over them)! His (wrongdoer’s) stance, where he goes, may Anu catch (with a net)! May he (P.) persistently control … and inspect the sanctuaries! May he (P.) seize the borders! (May he) … Šamaš, son of Sîn! He (P.) went straight for the shrines of the Igigi, the Kūbū, (and) the Ištarātu. May he, Ninnû, become great, son of the lord of the gods!

Lower Edge 14’. 15’. 16’. 17’.

May the mouth of mankind make great his name! May he carry the tributes of abundance! May he continuously utter justice! May Pa(p)nigara go straight to their (i.e. mankind) temple oblates and may he rely on them! May he rejoice over the young man and woman, over the totality of young women!

Reverse 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

After she ordained a destiny without equal for him: – “Fast (arḫūtu) to pollinate (are) his sprout(s!)” – His sprouts are huge, they are listening to his speech. The sprouts of Pa(p)nigara are huge, they are listening to his speech. He called them by their names, he raised their heads. Pa(p)nigara called the name of his dynasty ‘arḫūtu’! “Be appeased like […] their mouth!” (is) his first sprout! “Snap the myrtle, erect the cane!” (is) his second sprout! “He disperses li[ke … the …] of the enemy” (is) his third sprout! “Who pours out […] their mouth” (is) his fourth sprout! He called them by [their] nam[es], he raised their heads. … P[a(p)nigara..... ] their m[outh?], wild bulls (among) men!

13–17.

(Too fragmentary for translation)

Commentary 4’. The kubšu-headress or turban is a well-known feature of deities (s. CAD K 485f.); note that we have here the first occasion where it is specified as being adorned with valuable stones such as lapis and quartz. The figura etymologica kubšu kabāšu is furthermore only attested in

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

42

№ 2. Mythological Narrative on Pa(p)nigara

the omen series šumma izbu IX 16’, s. Leichty (1970, 115), and possibly in the physiognomy omina in KAR 395: r. i 3’ DIŠ up-pur // ku-ub-š[u kabiš]. 5’. The form ⌈li⌉-it-ba-ši (litbašī) is morphologically a Gt imp.sf., where in parallel with a-a irši, a precative *lilbaš is expected. A superfluous –i is further attested in the present text for li-is-ḫu-pi (9’), ú-sa-pa-ḫi (r. 9) and possibly ḫu-us-si (r. 8). 6’–7’. sarrirīšu (sarriru) is to be explained as a PaRRiS-form of sarāru “to act false”; one other possible attestation can be found in Mari [s]à-ar-ri-rum (ARM 13, 108: 9’), but this could alternatively be restored as [mu-s]à-ar-ri-rum. As for sarāru < sarāru in Middle Babylonian, note ul sar-ra-ku “I am not dishonest” (CT 43, 60: 21). The spelling sa-pa-ru-šu cannot be interpreted as a plural saparrū-šu, since the verb is singular. According to the context it must either be a status pronominalis singular (saparrušu, but note that the expected form would be saparra-šu or sapar-šu) or a locative (saparruššu). In the following sentence, a double accusative construction seems to be used in a similar sense. The D-stem points to a plural object, which is not overtly expressed. The expression mut kīnti-šu, however, appears to be meant in a collective sense. Despite the use of the singular suffix pronoun (-šu), it most likely refers to the wrongdoers, and not to the deity. 9’. The verb saḫāšu(m) “to catch with a net” was previously only known from lexical lists, i.e. Erim-huš II 115–117 (MSL 17, 32) ku6 dab-ba = bâru(m), [š]u ku6 dab-ba = saḫāšu(m), [ù]rre = ešēšu(m); TE-lá = saḫāšu(m) (AfO 7, 274: 21 // BWL, pl. 73b: 7). 11’. Note the epenthetic vowel mi-si-re-⌈e⌉-[ti] > misrēti (misru, pl. misrū, misrāti, misrēti). The allusion of Pa(p)nigara “seizing borders” may be another example of a shared feature with Ninurta, who is commonly referred to as bēl misri in kudurru-inscriptions, s. Streck (2004, 517); for examples s. Paulus (2014, 344: iii 34; 541: ii 27; 557: v 13; 607: iii 1). 12’. The occurrence of the Kūbū in this line may be explained from the etymology behind the name of Pa(p)nigara “Elder of nigar”, where NIGAR (= NÌGIN) is equated with Akkadian kūbu, izbu “foetus, misbirth”. For a summary of the sanctuaries called (É.)NIGARGAR and their connection with the unborn, s. Krebernik (2003–2005, 326). 13’. Nin-nu-ú is here to be explained as a phonetic rendering of the Sumerian numeral NINNU “fifty”, which is commonly used to designate the deity Enlil, but is also known to be used for his son Ninurta (CT 12, 2: iv 18; CT 25, 50: 14). As such, the use of Ninnû for Pa(p)nigara is another example of the syncretism between Ninurta and Pa(p)nigara in the second millennium BCE. Note the entry Nin-nu-u as the pronunciation for “fifty” in the Babylonian syllabary CT 12, 2: iv 18 explained as ḫa-an-ša-a, kiš-šá-tum, dEn-líl, dNin-urta. 15’. One may suspect here a play on words between lulû “abundance” and lullû “(primeval) man”.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

43

r. 1 Note the unusual spelling in ⌈ma-ḫa⌉-ri for māḫiru “rival”. It remains unclear which divine female figure is acting here, but given the family ties of Pa(p)nigara, the mothergoddess is suspected here. The possibility cannot be excluded that in li-ir-ḫu-si(-‹na›) (17’) we find another allusion to the same female actor. Furthermore, alliteration with the consonants š-m can be observed in the present line. r. 2 Note here the use of enclitic –ma together with the modal particle –mi, for other instances, s. Wasserman (2012, 182–184). r. 2–10 The noun parāʾu occurs in the following spellings in the present text pa-⌈ra-ú-ʾ⌉-šu-ma-mi (r. 2), pa-ru-ú-šu-ma (r. 3), pa-ar-ú! (r. 4), pa-ru-šu (r. 7–10). It is to be derived from pirʾu “sprout, shoot”. The sense of arḫūtu in the present text remains difficult. It is suspected that the arḫūtu are to to be connected with the cult of Pa(p)nigara (perhaps priests?) and that our narrative presents an aetiology offering an etymological explanation for arḫūtu in the sense of “fast” (a-ru-ku-bi “to pollinate”) alluding to the fertility and vegetation aspects of the deity. r. 8 Note for ḫu-us-si that we would expect an imperative ms. ḫusus rather than fs. ḫussī. Possibly we have here another example of a superfluous –i, see above.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

№ 3. CEREMONY AT THE EKUR Introduction This small fragment of a single column tablet contains instructions for a ceremony to be held in and around the Ekur (r. 4). Typical Nippur deities are mentioned, i.e. Ninurta (3’; r. 13), (the throne of) Enlil (11’), and possibly Nin.DU (r. 9). From what can be understood, there appears to be a group of three unspecified cultic functionaries and there is a central role for the nigzallû, cultic objects made of copper. Besides the specific reference to the throne of Enlil (11’) being built, we may assume that this happened for other deities as well during the same ceremony, since we find a reference to [gi]šGU.ZAmeš (18’). Noteworthy is the occurrence of ramkūtu-functionaries (r. 1), who are known from later periods to be connected to the temple cult (CAD R 127). On the reverse an enumeration is found of various animals, foods, and objects as offerings.

Text Edition Museum n°: HS 1902 (tablet). Plate 9–10 Measurements: 58 × 70 mm References: – Obverse (broken) 1’. 2’. 3’. 4’. 5’. 6’. 7’. 8’. 9’. 10’. 11’. 12’. 13’. 14’. 15’. 16’.

[x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [ ............................... ] ⌈x⌉ [........................................................................ ] [x x x x] gi is ⌈ga x⌉ [ ....................................................................................................... ] [x x x] ⌈x⌉ dNIN.URTA ⌈x sa⌉ [ ........................................................... ] [x x x x] ri ša níg-zal-le-e ⌈a-di⌉ ⌈x⌉ [...................................................... ] [x x x] ⌈x⌉ ša šu-me-la gu ú ⌈x⌉ [ ..................................................................... ] [x x x] ra ša-lu-uš-tum ⌈a-na níg?⌉-[zal?-le?-e? ................................... ] [x x (x)] ⌈lu⌉ in-ni-si-ir am-⌈ma⌉-[al? .................................................. ] [ina] ⌈pa-an⌉ i-ga-ri te-re-eq-ma i-na bi ⌈ri?⌉ [................................................... ] ⌈x⌉ ru is-si-dir SAG ŠE ša-⌈nu-ú⌉ [ ......................................... ] [ša]-al-šu ŠE si-id!(DA)-ru šu-ú i-na SI.SÁ [ ..................................................... ] a-di ba-nu gišGU.ZA šá d+EN.LÍL i-bi-ša [ .......................................................... ] [(x)] níg-zal-lu-ú i-tè-ḫu-ú i-na ŠÀ 3 a-na SAG in-ni-[ ............................................. ] ! ša níg-zal-le-e ú-taḫ (DUḪ)-ḫu-ú i-na ma-zal-[ti................................................ ] iš-ta-na-as-si i-na e-se-pi-šu a-ka-la it-[tè?-er? ........................................... ] a-ka-lam i-ta-ra-ak ta-az-ku-ú us-sa-a[r ....................................................................... ] ar-ki SU.KU6 ta-tá[k?]-⌈kir?⌉ ù SU.KU6 ⌈x⌉ [ ................................................. ]

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

46

№ 3. Ceremony at the Ekur

17’. AMAR NU.ZU.ZU ù AB ⌈SU4⌉ [ .................................................... ] 18’. ⌈a⌉-na lam ⌈x⌉ KA a-na ⌈x⌉ [x gi]šGU.ZAmeš i-tar-[ru .......................................................... ] Reverse 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

ú-še-sú-šu-nu-ti ra-am-ku-tu4 i-maḫ-ḫa-ru-šu-nu-ti-ma ú-ša-l[a-mu-.............................. ] ⌈ù⌉ ana AMAR ta-al-la-ku DIS a-na SAG ip-ta-na-an [ .................................................. ] ar-ki ‹SU›.KU6 AMAR a-na SAG ⌈uš⌉-pe-⌈el? x⌉ [ .............................................. ] ar-⌈ki⌉-šu a-na E.KUR DU-ku-ma GU.UN-⌈sú? ta-maḫ?⌉-ḫ[ar? ............................. ] 3 KUR.GImušen 3 UZ.TURmušen 3 TU.KURmušen [ .............................................. ] meš 1 ME 20 KU6 AL.SEG6.GA 1 (GUR) ZI.⌈DA⌉ [............................................ ] [1 M]E ZU.LUM.MA a-na NINDA.I.DE.A 1 ME giMA.SA.AB 40 ⌈e⌉-lam-ku im-maḫ-ḫ[ar (...)] [x] ⌈x⌉ NE.SAG MAḪ GU.UN⌈sú ta-maḫ?⌉-‹ḫa›?-⌈ra-nim?⌉-m[a ................... ] d [x x (x)] ⌈x x⌉ NIN.DU ⌈x x x x⌉ [ ........................................ ] ⌈d⌉ [ ...... ] [x x x s]i-id-ri ⌈a⌉-na ⌈x⌉ [ ..................................................... ] [x x x x] ⌈x ku⌉-tal-li ⌈as-sal⌉-[ ........................................................ ] [x x x x x] ⌈x⌉-ma níg-⌈zal⌉-[lu-ú ................................................ ] [x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ dNIN.URTA uš [ ................................................................. ] [x x x x x (x)] ⌈x⌉ níg-z[al- ......................................................... ] [x x x x x (x)] ⌈x⌉ ⌈x⌉ [................................................................ ] (broken)

Translation Obverse 1’. 2’. 3’. 4’. 5’. 6’. 7’. 8’. 9’. 10’. 11’. 12’. 13’. 14’. 15’. 16’. 17’. 18’.

… … [ ........ ] Ninurta, [ ..................................................................... ] [ ........ ] of the nigzallû, until [ ............................................................. ] [ ........ ] (at) the left … [ ..................................................................... ] [ ........ ] a group of three toward the nig[zallû? ..................................... ] [ ........ ] was observed, as much [as .................................................. ] You will withdraw [from] the front of the wall and with [ .............................................. ] […] the first barley has been put in line, the second [barley ........................................... ] [The th]ird barley – in ordering this line [ ....................................................................... ] Until the throne of Enlil is built, he will stay away [ ....................................................... ] The nigzallû will approach. Three of them will […] at/to the front (of the temple) The one who escorts the nigzallû from (their) cultic position(s) [ ................................... ] he will call out repeatedly. When he doubles it (i.e. repeats the action?), he will t[ake away?] the bread […] he will pound the bread. You became (ritually) clean, he will enclose [ ......................... ] Behind the fisherman, you will change (your position), and the fisherman [ .................. ] An uninitiated calf and a red cow [ .............................................. ] ? to the … (of the ) gate. To the […] (of the) thrones they will return [ ............................ ]

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Introduction

47

Reverse 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

They will let them go out, the ramkūtu-functionaries will receive them and they will com[plete…] and you will go to the calf. One will continuously go to the front (of the temple) [ ....... ] Behind the fisherman he will change (the position of) the calf (facing) to the front (of the temple) […] Behind him they will go to the Ekur and its yield you will rec[eive ............................... ] 3 geese, 3 ducks, 3 wild doves, [ ............................................... ] 120 cooked fish, 1 gur of flour [ ............................................... ] 100 (measures of) dates for mersu-cake, 100 baskets, 40 (pieces) of precious timber will be recei[ved …] [ ... ] the exalted offering, its yield you (pl.) will receive and [ ......................................... ] [ ........ ] … NinDU ..... [ ...................... ] D[N .............................. ] [ ........ ] (of the) line to [ ................................................................. ] [ ............. ] (to/from) the rear part (of the temple) to [ ...................................................... ] [ ............................ ] the nigzallû [.................................................. ] [ ............. ] Ninurta [ ..................................................................... ] [ ............................ ] the nigzal[lû................................................... ] [ ............................ ] [ ..................................................................... ]

Commentary 4’. The Old Babylonian forerunner BM 85983 (http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/P247857) to ur5-ra = ḫubullu equates uruduníg-zal-la-‹‹U›› = níg-zal-lu-u (r i 36). Later manuscripts of ur5-ra = ḫubullu XI 354–356 (MSL 9, 202) have entries for [uruduní]g-zal-lá-da = ŠU-u, maa[g]-šá-ri, pu-uḫ-r[um]. In a private communication, E. Jiménez suggests that either the final –da in Sumerian is wrong or the modern transliteration of these entries are mistaken. No photos are available at the moment to verify this statement. In any case the nigzallû in the present text are copper objects used in a cultic context. 6’. šaluštu(m) as a collective is otherwise only attested in ur5-ra = ḫubullu V 132 (MSL 6, 17) giš apin-gud-3-lá = ša-lu-ul-tu to denote a plough driven by a team of three oxen. Other examples for the use of PaRuS(t) as a collective can be found in Old Assyrian ḫamuštu(m) which is used alongside ḫamištu(m) to denote the committee of five which gives its name to the hamuštu(m)-periods, s. Veenhof (1995/1996); Dercksen (2011). 7’. The tentative restoration of am-⌈ma⌉-[al …] follows the Middle Babylonian ana + mal(a) > ammal, s. GAG § 48j. 7’/9’. Note for in-ni-si-ir (7’) and is-si-dir (9’) that the expected Babylonian forms would be innasir and issadir. Most likely we have here rare examples of the Middle Babylonian change /a/ > /e/ before /i/ in the N-stem, s. Aro (1955, 40). Another example may be restored in in-ni-[…] (12’). 12’.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

48

№ 3. Ceremony at the Ekur

The logogram SAG/rēšu(m), literally “head”, occurring in ll. 12’; r. 2; r. 3 is tentatively interpreted as a part of the temple’s structure, i.e. the front, s. CAD R 283. Note the use of kutallu “the rear part (of the temple)” in (r. 11). 14’. Note that the verb esēpu(m) for to “double” is restricted to mathematical texts. It is here tentatively interpreted as denoting the repetition of a previous action. Another possiblitly is to derive it from esēpu(m) “to gather, collect”. 16’. If the reading ta-ta[k?]-⌈kir?⌉ is correct, we have here a Gt present instead of a Gtn preterite. Note that a Gt reflexive “to change o.s.” or possibly a Gt intensive/lexical is not further attested for nakāru. 17’. The entries [AMAR] ZU.ZU = lum-mu-[du] and [AMAR NU.ZU.Z]U = [lā lum-mu-d]u are found in ur5-ra = ḫubullu XIII 350f. (MSL 8/1 50); meant here is a calf who is not yet sexually active. The entry [ÁB] SU4 = sa-an-t[u] is known from ur5-ra = ḫubullu XIII 339l (MSL 8/1 49). r. 5 Note here the unusual TU.KÚRmušen instead of common TU.KUR4mušen or TU.KURmušen. r. 9 The deity dNIN.DU occurs together with dEN.DU in An = Anum I 104f. among the ancestors of Enlil, s. Cavigneaux/Krebernik (1998–2000, 339). Note however that the name of the deity in this line may include other signs and that another deity therefore may be possible. r. 11 For ⌈as-sal⌉-[…] we might assume ass > ana + sal-[…].

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

№ 4. GAMES TEXT in collaboration with I.L. Finkel1

Introduction This almost complete single column Middle Babylonian tablet begins with an address to Babylon and as such is related to other praise texts addressed to cities such as LKA 32 (Arbela) and KAR 8 (Babylon and Nippur). The remaining content however diverges greatly and is rather unique, listing a wide variety of over 70 activities which can be regarded as (children’s) games. Although not mentioned directly, the narrator of this text is most likely the deity Ištar herself. A discussion on entries related to activities in the cult of Ištar has already been provided by Kilmer (1991, 11–17). Although the text is well preserved it remains extremely enigmatic since it contains various hapax legomena. The tablet contains two sections separated by a single ruling. The first section is concerned with the games of boys/young men,2 while it is explicitly stated that the second section revolves around girls’/maidens’ games, i.e. eleʾi mēlula ša batulāti “I am (also) competent to do the play of girls!” (l. 12), which is reminiscent of Ereškigal’s complaint ultu seḫrāku mārat anāku, ul īde mēlulu ša ardāti, ul īde dakāka ša seḫrāti “Ever since I was small and a daughter, I didn’t know the playing of maidens; I didn’t know the romping of little girls” in the myth Nergal and Ereškigal, s. commentary. The games are generally listed in groups of three according the following pattern, i.e. A, B ù C, and it is suspected that the games in each line are thematically related, a pattern known from Mesopotamian lexical lists.3 A good example is found in šinsu piqru u namūtu “taunting, (making-a-)claim, and mockery” (l. 10), where the general theme is ‘questioning one’s authority’. Whereas the boy’s section is mainly concerned with physical activities, i.e. running games, jumping games, skill-demonstrating games, strength-demonstrating games, and throwing games, the girls’ section appear to be more focussed on household games and dress up/pretend games. An interesting feature for the girls’ games is the use of imperatives, both feminine and masculine. The former is used for girls addressing each other in games thematically related with ‘making a mess’ at home, i.e. “smear-my-hand!”, “dig-out-my-

1 I am indebted to Irving Finkel for his insights regarding children’s games and thankful for the fruitful debates we had during a reading session in Marburg (November 2017). 2 A similar distinction between games only played by boys and girls can be found in the Harari games text called Wīğ mən yitfēqäral? “What plays the child?”, s. Leslau 1965, 191. 3 Although our text is reminiscent of a lexical text, none of the lines corresponds directly to sections from the known lexical lists. Note however the small section in Antagal F 243–246 (MSL 17, 219) on mēlulu ‘playing’, i.e. TUR.DIŠḫi-bi-iz.KAR = me-lu-lu, ÉŠ.ḪÚL e-še-mìnSAR.RA = MIN šá kip-pe-e, giš-bi-za-šutag-ga = MIN šá pa-si, zi-in-gi gìr-ra-ra = MIN šá ta-⸢x-x⸣. For a discussion on the restoration of the last entry, s. Finkel 2007, 29.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

50

№ 4. Games Text

fat!”, and “stir-up-my-dust!” (l. 19), and the latter is used for a girl’s taunting of boys in classic scare games, i.e. “fear-the-[mons]ter!”, “attack!”, and “escape-him!” (l. 20). Noteworthy is the use of words that can be explained as children’s language, i.e. bu-rubu-ru, ḫu-su-ḫu-su, and tu-pu-tu-pu, a feature not uncommon for children’s games.4 The text gives us a unique insight into games in everyday life in Mesopotamia, giving us an example par excellence of the homo ludens. Striking however is the absence of two famous Mesopotamian games, i.e. pukku(gišellag)-mekkû(gišE.KID/KÌD.ma) ‘ball (and) stick’ known from the Gilgameš Epic and the Sumerian poem Bilgames and the Netherworld5, as well as from the Board Game of Twenty Squares, of which the most famous example is the Royal Game of Ur.6 As for the reason why these games are not mentioned in HS 1893, one may argue that only one tradition is depicted here, most likely that of one city (i.e. Babylon) and period (1500-1000 BCE). That not much has changed in the last 3,500 years with respect to what games children play is evident from entries like šalû “submerging” (l. 12), napāgu “hiding” (l. 12), keppû “skipping rope” (l. 3), rapādu “running around” (l. 4). As such the present text is one of the earliest examples of a culture describing games in daily life. Famous other examples are the 4

For other Semitic languages we find in Harari (Ethiopia) the game läggalägga (Leslau 1965, 191), a reduplication of the imperative lägga “hit the ball” derived from the Amharic verbal root lägga (B) ‘to hit the ball’ (Leslau 1963, 99; 1976, 13). Another example from Harari is afär-afär ‘a game with earth’ (Leslau 1965, 191), a reduplication of afär ‘earth’ in Harari (Leslau 1963, 20; 1976, 54). While the aforementioned examples can be explained grammatically, the Akkadian examples in the present text remain obscure. Tentatively, we may explain bu-ru-bu-ru (l. 12) in context with šalû and napāgu, both acts of disappearing, as a deriviation of bâru “to appear”, in this case a reduplicated imperative būr “appear!” resulting in the compound būr(u)būr(u) “appear-appear” Alternatively, one may think of barû “to see” (i/i) with an alternate thematic vowel burūburū instead of birībirī “look-look”. Another possibility would be a reduplicated D infinitive from bâru “to catch”, i.e. burruburru “hunting–hunting” or a D verbal adjective, “hunted-hunted”. Since D-stems often denote the plurality of the direct object, as is the case with bâru “to catch”, s. Kouwenberg (1997, 203), it may fit well for a group game. Similarly, we find in tu-pu-tu-pu (l. 21) a reduplication of an imperative masc.sg tūp(u)-tūp(u) < tâpu (“to be attentive”. Note the attestations of tu-pu instead of tūp as an imperative in Examentext B (BSOAS 20, 263: 12–13) [x x lú igi].bi.da.zu ‹bar›.dag é.dub.ba.ta sag.ús pà.da.me.[en] : [x x ša] pa-nanu-ka tu-pu-ma ina É tup-pi lu ka-a-a-ma-na-[ta] “be attentive to the one before you, always be present in school!” and in Examentext D (JCS 24, 126:5) nam.dub.sar.ra bar.dag ù.bí.ak šu.nì.gál.la a.ra.ab.tuku : ana [t]up-šar-ru-tu4 tu-pú!(PUL)-ma maš-ra-a li-šar-ši-ka “Be diligent in the scribal art and it will provide you with wealth and abundance!” Not likely is a connection with tuppû “to make a common cause”, which is only attested in Old Assyrian. More speculative is ḫu-su-ḫu-su, which is tentatively attributed here to ḫasû (ḫesû) “to cover (up), hide”. Note that one would expect for ḫasû (ḫesû) (i/i) an imperative hisī-ḫisī “conceal-conceal” instead of ḫusū-ḫusū. Alternatively, we might have here a reduplicated D infinitive ḫussû-hussû “concealing-concealing” or a D verbal adjective “concealedconcealed”. Alternatively, the Akkadian forms bu-ru-bu-ru, ḫu-su-ḫu-su and tu-pu-tu-pu can perhaps not be explained at all. Note that in Semitic languages nouns with a reduplication of a two radical root (i.e. QaLQaL, QiLQiL, QuLQuL) often have an onomatopaic meaning, s. Brockelmann 1908, 368f. Other general examples of children’s language not denoting games can be found in Egyptian Arabic, s. Woidich 2006, 111; and children’s rhymes in Classical Arabic, s. Walther 1968. Note that the present text HS 1893 is the sole example from Mesopotamia that may demontrate children’s language. 5 For a discussion on the identification of pukku-mekkû together with previous literature, s. George 2003, 898–900. 6 For an extensive discussion on the Game of Twenty Squares together with previous literature, s. Finkel 2007. Note that one of the antique names in Babylonia for the Game of Twenty Squares is tillat kalbī (ILLAT UR.GI7) “pack of dogs”, s. Finkel 2007, 19; 28.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

51

217 games listed in François Rabelais’s work Gargantua et Pantagruel and the 80 games depicted in the painting De Kinderspelen (Children’s Games) by Pieter Bruegel de Oude (both 16th century).7 Pace Kilmer (1991, 22), there are certainly no traces of a seal impression.8 An interesting feature however is, the very faint vertical stripe traces, which are the result of the scribe flattening the clay before writing. .

Text Edition Museum n°: HS 1893 (tablet). Plate 11–13 Measurements: 69 × 43 mm Previous edition: Scheil 1897, 59 (partial); Kilmer 1991, 9–22 References: Landsberger 1960, 127 fn. 57; ibid. 1961, 22. Obverse 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

a-li KÁ.DINGIR.RAki ša-du-ú ša sur-ri it-tab-ši i+na ŠÀ-šú e-le-lum mu-um-mé-el-lum 3 ù an-za-li-lum ke-ep-pu-ʾ-ú an-ḫu-us-su!?(ZUM) 4 ù bi-it-ta-at bu-kùr ra-pa-du ù IN.⌈NU ḫar!?⌉-rum ša-ak-ki šebu-kàt ù ar-si-ik-⌈ki⌉ il-li-lum šu-ši-šin ù ni-ši-lu-ú iš-ḫu-up-pu ga-pa-aḫ-šu ù ḫu-up-pu šar-ra-ḫu-tu gu-taš-šu-ru ù šar-⌈ra⌉-pu-tum šu-ta-pu-ḫu šu-tar-ru-ḫu ù ri-ik-⌈sa-tu⌉ ši-in-su pi-iq-ru ù na-mu-tu se-e-gu te-el-⌈tum⌉ ù šer9(ŠAR)-gi-tu ša-lu-ú na-pa-gu ù bu-ru-bu-ru kit-pu-lum la-⌈sa⌉-mu ù ta-ba-ak ḫat-ti a-na pi-i ša-bi-it a-ba-ri ú-šal-lam ri-iq-di a-na zi-im-ri ša-ḫu-un-ni i-sa-pi-⌈id⌉ ir-ta e-le-i mé-lu-la ša ba-tu-la-a-ti a-se-gu-ta a-li-lu-ú-a ù ki-se-el-le-⌈tum⌉ [ḫ]a-as-ba-ti ḫa-am-bi(-)is-qí ù kur-si-in-na-bu-ú ⌈se?⌉-ri qá-ti ḫu-ub-ti li-pi-i ù bu-ul-li e-pe-ri [ma?]-gi-il-la a-du-ur ši-ḫi-it ù am-bi-is-su [x] ⌈x⌉ an ḫu-su-ḫu-su ù tu-pu-tu-pu

7 Besides the present Akkadian text (HS 1893), examples of games in Semitic languages can be found in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar (Kahn 2008, 2045–2057), the Ethiopian Gurage languages, e.g. Chaha (Leslau 1966, 208–211; 1983, 63; 106), Muher (Leslau 1981, 106, 196 fn. 78), Tigre (Leslau 1961) and the above-mentioned Harari laguage (Leslau 1965, 190–193). 8 According to Kilmer there is a depiction on the reverse of the tablet of “a procession of dancing men and animals (the clearest figure is a dancing bear)”. The surface of the reverse is smooth and clear except for one round man-made cavity with a stylus just below the ruling on the upper-right.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

52

№ 4. Games Text

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

[x x x (x)] ⌈x pi iš? tu/li iš x⌉ ri [x x x (x)]-bé-e ⌈a-na? nu?-ru⌉-ub [x x x] ⌈x⌉ ka mi [x] ⌈tar? mu?⌉ nu-ga-ti e-li-ni-ti ša man-ni [x x] nu bi-it ma-an-ni ma-la-aḫ-ma-la-aḫ [x x r]u? ù šu-us-sa-as-se-e-a [x]-⌈x⌉-ru-ú man-nu ⌈i+na⌉ mu-ši ⌈e⌉-niš ù ḫu-ur-ru mu-ša-ti-ka bi-la

Translation Obverse 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

My city Babylon, the mountain of obsidian: In its midst emerged, playing, the player, 3and the anzalīlu-entertainer; the skipping rope, its fatigue, 4and “daughters”; “son”, running around and straw-(and)-ditch; “(my-)harrowed(-field)!”, “(a)bukkatu-rush!” and “(my-)millet!”; jubilation, sixty-(and)-two, and the oath-taker; the rogue one, the proud one, and the acrobat; (showing) arrogance, showing-oneself-superior-in-strength, and making-fires; blowing-at-each-other, boasting, and (games with) knots/strings; taunting, (making-a-)claim, and mockery; (crying-a-)lamentation, (telling-a-)saying, and (reciting-a-)šergida; submerging, hiding, and buru-buru; wrestling, running, and stick-heaping; At the command of the one who strikes the lead, he (i.e. the winner) completes (his) dances! At the song of lament, he (i.e. the loser) beats (his) breast! I am (also) competent to do the play of girls! a-se-gu-ta, “alleluʾa!”, and (games with) astragals; potsherds, …, lots, and naming-kursinnu(-bones); “smear?-my-hand!”, “dig-out-my-fat!”, and “stir-up-my-dust!”; “fear-the-[mons]ter!”, “attack!”, and “escape-him!” …, husu-husu and tupu-tupu;

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

… [ ........ ]-toward-the-soft[ ........ ] … [ ........ ]–(of)-wrath, enchantress-of-someone; [ ........ ] house-of-someone, “sailor!-sailor!”; [ ........ ] and “šu-us-sa-as-se-e-a”; [ ........ ], someone-in-the-night; “(O)-weak-and-stupid-bring-me-your-haircombings!”

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

53

Commentary 1. Another reference attributing obsidian to Babylon is found in a eulogy of Babylon on a school tablet from the first millennium (BM 45986+46065+46121+46166): obv. 7’, s. George (1992, 230f.). 2. On *elēlu (> mēlulu) “playing” and mummellu, s. Landsberger (1960, 119f. fn. 30; 1961, 22f.). As discussed by Kilmer (1991, 17f.), the identification of the anzalīlu (anzanīnu, CAD A2 152) remains difficult. Note the additional attestation (an-za-li-li) among other entertainers in the ‘Ur letter’ of Sargon (MC 7, 164: 146). Expected is here the more famous aluzinnu-entertainer, whose actions are described as mēlulu ‘playing (games)’, s. Rollinger (2001, 14). Note the use of alliteration in this line. 3–4. Kilmer (1991, 18) recognized the possibility of reading bittāt “daughters” here, from binātu, but rejected it and interprets it as a G stative 3 fem.sg of bâtu/biātu “to spend the night”. Both bittāt as bukur are in the absolute state. Other examples for the by-form bittu from bintu are known from Akkadian texts from Ugarit, s. Streck (2018, 33). For keppû anḫūssu, we may speculate that anḫūssu is another toy or game related with the skipping rope. For a discussion and further literature on the relation between keppû and Ištar, s. Kilmer (1991, 15); George (2003, 849; 898f.). Note additionally the occurrence in Antagal F 243–246 (MSL 17, 219), s. fn. 3. 5. This line is understood to be of agricultural nature. Although CAD A2 307b notes for arsikku in the present passage that it is uncertain whether it is to be connected with the entries in the lexical lists denoting a ‘kind of millet’, it is most likely correct. ša-ak-ki is to be interpreted as a derivation of šakāku “to harrow”, i.e. šakku (adj.) “harrowed”. More problematic is šebukàt, here tentatively taken as an absolute state of abukkatu (bukkatu) ‘a plant’, well attested in medical texts from the first millennium as ḫīl abukkati “a resin” possibly to be identified with Gummi arabicum, s. Köcher (1995, 212a). Note however that abukkatu (bukkatu) is never attested with /ŠE/ (only with /Ú/) and is listed in the lexical list ur5-ra = ḫubullu XVII 54–57; 58–59 (MSL 10, 84f.) together with rushes like ašlu, urbatu, elpetu, kilīlu, ašlukatu. Köcher (1995, 212a) suspects that two types of plants are hidden behind *abukkatu, i.e. ab(b)ukkatu (bukkatu) and abukkatu. Whether our entry šebu-kàt is to be identified with one of these plants remains speculative. Seen the context of the line, it is reasonable to assume a type of vegetation. Since all games are listed in this section with a nominative case-ending, we may assume here for ša-ak-ki > šakkī ‘my harrowed (field)’ and ar-si-ik-⌈ki⌉ > arsikkī ‘my millet’ a possessive suffix 1sg. Theme: agricultural games. 6. I have no better alternative to Kilmer (1991, 18) in deriving il-li-lum from alālu III “to sing a joyful song”, most likely elēlu I “joyful song”. The entry šu-ši-šin remains enigmatic and I cannot come up with a better suggestion than of Kilmer (1991, 10) “sixty-and-two(?)”. Note that the number sixty-two is expected to be written the other way around in Akkadian,

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

54

№ 4. Games Text

šinšūš(i). In NW-semitic languages both orders may occur, e.g. Ugaritic šbʿm šbʿ “77 (seventy and seven)” and more common tn lʿšrm “22 (two and twenty)”. For the possibility of both sequences in Neo-Aramaic, s. Lipiński (2001, 299 § 35.19). A reading “120” would be šin(a)šūši, s. GAG § 69f. Less likely would be to read “their(f.)-sixty”, where the feminine plural possessive suffix alludes to mankind. Theme: games of exclamation (?). 7. išḫuppu is a derivation of isḫappu/ašḫappu “rogue, rude man”. ga-pa-aḫ-šu is to be interpreted as a form from gapāšu, possibly gapšu or gāpišu. As for ḫuppû “acrobat, cultic dancer” in a cultic context related to Ištar, see the Ištar-ritual from Mari: iii 25–26, s. Durand/Guichard (1997, 55). Theme: physical games. 8. Both deverbal nouns šarrāḫūtu as šarrāpūtu are abstracta built from PaRRāS, i.e. šarāḫu ‘bragging’ > šarrāḫūtu “act of bragging”, šarāpu ‘to burn’ > šarrāpūtu “act of burning”. Alternatively, we may read šarrābūtu instead of šarrāpūtu. Note that the verb šarābu “to wander about” is badly attested and is mainly known from Malku II 95 as šá-ra-bu = alāku and SpTU 2, 6: 3, s. CAD Š2 36b. Theme: games demonstrating skill. 9. šutappuḫu a Št2 from napāḫu is listed in AHw 733a “einander anblasen lassen?” and in CAD N1 269a as “to blow on each other (?)”. This translation of the Št2 of napāḫu remains uncertain, since neither Gt nor Š of napāḫu “to blow” are attested, s. Streck (1994, 179 fn. 104). Theme: games demonstrating skill. 10. Kilmer (1991, 19) interprets pikru as a metathesis of pirku, i.e. AHw pe/irku B “Unrecht” and CAD P pirku A “harm, wrong, fraud”. An easier explanation would be a PiRS-form from paqāru (baqāru) “to (lay) claim to”, i.e. p/biqru “claim”. Theme: games of authority. 11. It is suspected that this line is concerned with various types of recitation games. Kilmer (1991, 19) tentatively suggested connecting se-e-gu with šegû (šigû) ‘(a cry of) lamentation’. The entry tēltu(m) is clear meaning “proverb; pronunciation”. šer9(ŠAR)-gi-tu remains difficult, most likely to be derived from šergiddû (Sum. lw. ŠÈR.GÍD.DA) literally ‘lengthy song’, but which can also denote a specific type of hymn, s. Shehata (2009, 274–278). Theme: utterance/recitation games. 12. Except for HS 1893, napāgu is only known lexically, s. CAD N1 263a. Note that, like our text, it is frequently listed together with šalû, s. Lú excerpt II 70–72 (MSL 12, 106), Erimḫuš II 167–169 (MSL 17, 35f.), Diri II 44–45 (MSL 15, 122).

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

55

The entry bu-ru-bu-ru is similar to ḫu-su-ḫu-su and tu-pu-tu-pu (l. 21), s. below. Theme: hide-and-seek games. 13. Note that the expected plural of ḫattu is ḫattātu. Kilmer (1991, 19) speculates that possibly some kind of relay race is meant here. Alternatively, to “heaping-of-stick(s)” one may render “scattering-of-stick(s)” or “pouring-out-stick(s)”. Assuming that the act of scattering sticks implies that they have to be picked up, the game tabāk ḫatti may denote a game similar to Pick-up-Sticks, Spellicans, Mikado, etc. Alternatively, we may think of a game of stick-dice. This type of dice was made of wood, stone or bone and are known from Mesopotamia (e.g. BM 120856, 1929,1017.438, 1930,1213.534, 1935,0113.848, s. Finkel 2007, 17) and from many other ancient cultures (e.g. Tajikistan, India, Iran, s. Semenov 2007, 173). Note that for Mesopotamia, the stick dice are mainly found with board games such as the Royal Game of Ur and were used to determine the course of the game. Theme: physical skill games. 14–15. After the first enumeration of games, we find in these lines a double statement most likely denoting the concept of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’. The act of ‘completing dances’ (i.e. signs of winning) and ‘beating the breast’ (i.e. signs of losing) and are performed at a type of sound. This is certainly apparent from ana zimri šaḫunni (l. 15). Note that we have here a rare occasion where it is stated that an Eršaḫunga is to be sung (zamāru), which can be added to the exception listed by Maul (1988, 25 fn. 86). Less certain is the expression ana pî šābit abāri (l. 14), which was tentatively translated by Kilmer (1991, 19) as “at the command of the striker-of-strength” together with an alternative reading ša pî bīt abāri “at the command of the house-of-strength”. Given the parallelism in both lines, I would argue for an interpretation šābit abāri as “striker-of-lead” > “a kind of percussionist”, i.e. abāru A ‘(the metal) lead’ instead of abāru B ‘strength’. Note however, that abāru A is not attested as (a part of) a musical instrument. If Kilmer’s assumption is indeed correct, I suggest interpreting the “striker-of-strength” to indicate the concept of the ‘winner’. 16. As shown by Kilmer (1991, 12f.), the phrase eleʾi “I am capable (of)” reminds us directly of the Aluzinnu-text. Another interesting parallel denoting the opposite is found in the text Nergal and Ereškigal, where Ereškigal states: ultu seḫrāku mārat anāku, ul īde mēlulu ša ardāti, ul īde dakāka ša seḫrāti “Ever since I was small and a daughter, I didn’t know the playing of maidens; I didn’t know the romping of little girls”, s. Pettinato (2000, 98f.). One may suspect a certain irony in our text, where it is Ereškigal’s sister Ištar who states she is capable of doing the play of girls. For a discussion on the infinitive mēlulu, s. Landsberger (1960, 119f. fn. 30). Note additionally the section in Antagal F 243–246 (MSL 17, 219), s. fn. 3. 17. As already noted by Kilmer (1991, 20), a-li-lu-ú-a is to be connected with the joyful song alāla (alīlu), similar to [a-lu]-lu-u-a a-lu-lu-u-a in KAR 306: 22.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

56

№ 4. Games Text

Although kisallu literally means ‘astragal’ it most likely denotes in the present context ‘die’, i.e. kisillētu ‘(games with) dice’. For an exentensive discussion of dice in Mesopotamia and the possible identification of kisallu as ‘die’, s. Finkel (2007, 29f.). Theme: unclear. 18. Note ku-ur-si-in-na-bu-ú for kursinnī nabû. Although kursinnu usually denotes ‘lower leg’ or ‘fetlock’ of humans and animals, it is here suspected that a game similar to the game of astragals kisillētu (l. 17) is meant here. Instead of denoting the fleshy part of the lower leg, the specific leg bones are most likely intended here, i.e. tibiae or fibulae. Assuming that his line again contains an enumeration of three, it is suspected that ḫa-am-bi (-)is-qí is to be taken as one entry containing the element isqī ‘lots’, known from other contexts to be used for selection by prognostication, s. CAD I 198b. The entry ḫasbāti ‘potsherds’ in this context may possibly denote another type of prediction game, perhaps comparable to modern coin tossing, i.e. each side of the sherd predicts a different outcome. Theme: prognostication games. 19. All three entries in this line contain feminine imperatives, here denoting games where girls command each other to do something involving filthiness in the context of the household. Theme: household games. 20. Tentatively, I understand here magillu, as “monster”, known as one of the mythical beings slain by Ninurta, s. CAD M1 44b; Cooper (1978, 148). Alternatively, one may restore [an]gi-il-la for angillu (MB > ikkillu AHw 51a), a clamour said by children, s. CAD I 58b. am-bi-is-su is here tentatively interpreted as ambit+šu < nanbit, an imperative in the masculine singular from the irregular verb nābutu (abātu), s. GAG § 97l. Problematic remains the loss of initial n-, of which no further examples exist for imperative forms of verbs I-ʾ in N. Noteworthy is that this line in the girls’ section contains three masculine imperatives. Most likely these games are to be understood as being those where girls taunt boys with various scare tactics. It remains unclear whether the three entries in this line are to be considered as separate games or are three aspects of the same game. Theme: scare games 21. Similar to bu-ru-bu-ru (l. 12), the entries ḫu-su-ḫu-su and tu-pu-tu-pu are most likely to be explained as examples of children’s language with an onomatopaic origin. For a tentative grammatical explanation, s. fn. 203. Theme: unclear. r. 2–3 Note that we have in the genitive construct chain ana nurub […] a rare example of enjambement in Akkadian. Theme: unclear.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Text Edition

57

r. 4–7 This section appears to be concerned with various types of pretend games involving professions such as ma-la-aḫ-ma-la-aḫ (r. 5) > malāḫ-malāḫ “sailor!-sailor!”, grown-up situations such as bīt manni literally ‘house-of-someone’ (r. 5) most likely a game similar to ‘playing house’, and scary imagination games such as elēnītu ša manni ‘enchantress-ofsomeone’ (r. 4) and mannu ina mūši ‘someone-in-the-night’ (r. 7). For elēnītu being one of designations used for the witch in Mesopotamia, s. Zomer (2017, 223). Note that we have here elēnīti ša manni instead of expected elēnītu ša manni. šu-us-sa-as-se-e-a defies any explanation. Suspected is a derivation from the verb šasû (šasaʾu) ‘to shout’, s. already Kilmer (1991, 21). Theme: imagination games r. 8 If the reading ⌈e⌉-niš ù ḫu-ur-ru is correct, we have here another example of an adverbial expression. For the occurrence of both enšu(m) and aḫurrû (Sum. lw. ḫu.ru), s. Sjöberg (1975, 192). Since we have here another masculine imperative form, i.e. bīla(m) together with the masculine possessive suffix –ka, the whole sentence is here interpreted as an exclamation of a girl taunting a boy to bring her his ‘hair combings’ (mušātu). This line remains enigmatic, but one cannot escape the connection of mušātu and its use in magical practices, especially its strong relationship with witchcraft. Hair combings could be used as an object for transferring identity by the witch in Figurenzauber (s. Zomer 2017, 224), e.g. ša ina ḫurri išdudu [mušātīya] “the one (i.e. the witch) who pulled [my combed-out hair] from the garbage pit” and the reversal ša ina ḫurri išdudu lū mušātīša “may what she pulled from the garbage pit be her (own) combed-out hair!” (AMD 8/1, text 7.8: 5/16). Theme: game of dare.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS AbB ActAnt AfO AHw AlT AMD AnOr AoF AOAT AOS ARM ArOr ASJ AuOr AUWE BaF BASOR BBsT BE BiOr BMS BSOAS BWL CAD CM CRRAI CT CTMMA CUSAS FM Fossey Manuel GAG GBAO HdO JAOS

Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Archiv für Orientforschung W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Wiesbaden 1959–1981 D. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, London 1953 Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives Analecta Orientalia Altorientalische Forschungen Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Archives royales de Mari Archiv Orientalni Acta Sumerologica Aula Orientalis Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte Bagdhader Forschungen Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research L.W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum, London 1912 The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Bibliotheca Orientalis L.W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, London 1896 Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford 1959 The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago Cuneiform Monographs Proceedings of the Rencontre assyriologique internationale; Compte rendu de la Rencontre Assyriologique lnternationale Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Corpus of Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Florilegium Marianum Ch. Fossey, Manuel d'assyriologie, Bd. II: Évolution des cunéiformes, Paris 1926 W. von Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik (= AnOr 33, 1952) Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient Handbuch der Orientalistik Journal of the American Oriental Society

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

60 JCS JCSS JEOL JESHO JNES JVBO KAR KB KUB LANE LAOS LKA M.A.R.I. MC MSL MZL MHEO MHEM N.A.B.U OBO OLA OPKF OrNS PSAS RA RGTC RIME RlA RT SANER SMEA SpTU St.Sem TBC TCL TCS UAVA UF VAB VS WZKM ZA

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series Jaarbericht van het Voor-Aziatisch-Egyptisch-Gezelschap Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts I/II (= WVDOG 28, 1919; 34, 1923) Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi Languages of the Ancient Near East Leipziger Altorientalische Studien L. Ebeling (unter Mitwirkung von F. Köcher/L. Rost), Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Aššur, Berlin 1953 Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mesopotamian Civilizations Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon Borger, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (= AOAT 305, 2004) Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occassional Publications Mesopotamian History and Environment, Memoirs Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund Orientalia, NS = Nova Series Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods Reallexikon der Assyriologie (und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie) Recueil de travaux relatifs à; la philologie et à; l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk Studi Semitici. Centro di studi semitici. Università; di Roma Texts from the Babylonian Collection Textes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre Texts from Cuneiform Sources Untersuchtungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Ugarit-Forschungen Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der (Königlichen) Museen zu Berlin Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahams, K./Gabbay, U.2013: “Kaštiliašu and the Sumundar Canal: A New Middle Babylonian Royal Inscription”, ZA 103, 183–195. Alubaid, I.J. 1983: Unpublished Cuneiform Texts from the Old Babylonian Period Diyala Region, Tell-Muhammad. M.A.-thesis, Baghdad. André-Salvini, B. / Lombard, P. 1998: “La découverte épigraphique de 1995 á Qal’at alBahrein: un jalon pour la chronologie de la phase Dilmoun Moyen dans la Golfe arabe”, PSAS 27, 165–170. Armstrong, J. / Brandt, M.C. 1994: “Ancient Dunes at Nippur”, in H. Gasche et al. (eds.), Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancient. Offerts en hommage à Léon De Meyer. MHEO II, Leuven, 255–263. Aro, J. 1955: Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. StOr 20, Helsinki. Astour, M.C. 1986: “The Name of the Ninth Kassite Rule”, JAOS 106, 327–331. Balkan, K. 1954: Kassitenstudien I. Die Sprache der Kassiten. AOS 37, New Haven. Bartelmus, A. 2017: “Die Götter der Kassitenzeit. Eine Analyse ihres Vorkommens in zeitgenössichen Textquellen”, in A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš. Babylonia under the Kassites. UAVA 12/1, Münich, 245–312. Boese, J. 2008: “„Ḫarbašipak“, „Tiptakzi“ und die Chronologie der älteren Kassitenzeit”, ZA 98, 201–210. Boivin, O. 2016a: “On the origin of the goddess Ištar-of-the-Sealand, Ayyabītu”, N.A.B.U. 2016/15, 24–26. — 2016b: “Agricultural Economy and Taxation in the Sealand I Kingdom”, JCS 68, 45–65. — 2018: The First Dynasty of the Sealand in Mesopotamia. SANER 20, Boston/Berlin. Borger, R. 1971: “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten. Zwei prophetische Texte”, BiOr 28, 3–24. Brinkman, J.A. 1976: Materials and studies for Kassite history. Vol I. A catalogue of cuneiform sources pertaining to specific monarchs of the Kassite dynasty. Chicago. — 1993–1997: “Meerland (Sealand)”, RlA 8, 6–10. Brockelmann, C. 1908: Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Berlin. Brun, J. 1895: Dictionarium Syriaco-Latinum. Toronto. Buccelati, G. 1988: “The Kingdom and Period of Khana”, BASOR 270, 43–61. Cagni, L. 1969: L’Epopea di Erra. St.Sem 34, Rome. Cavigneaux, A. / Krebernik, M. 1998–2000: “dNin-DU”, RlA 9, 339. Chang, K.W. 1981: Dichtungen aus der Zeit Tukulti-Ninurtas 1. von Assyrien. Seoul. Charpin, D. 1987 : “Šubat-Enlil et les Pays d’Apum”, M.A.R.I. 5, 129–140. — 1993: “Review of Van Soldt 1990”, RA 87, 97–89. — 1997: “Review of Wiseman/Black 1996”, RA 91, 188–190. — 2002: “Chroniques du Moyen-Euphrate. Le : textes et histoire”, RA 96, 61–91.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

62

Bibliography

— 2005: “Samsu-ditana était bien le fils d’Ammi-saduqa”, N.A.B.U. 2005/36, 38. Charpin, D. / Edzard, D.O. / Stol, M. 2004: Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit. OBO 160/4, Freiburg/Göttingen. Colbow, G. 1994: “Einige bemerkenswerte Abrollungen aus der Zeit Kaštiliašus von Ḫana”, in Calmeyer et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur Altorientalistischen Archäologie und Altertumskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden, 61–66. Cole, S.W. / Gasche, H. 1998: “Second- and First Millennium BC Rivers in Northern Babylonia”, in H. Gasche / M. Tanret (eds.), Changing Watercourses in Babylonia. Towards a Reconstruction of the Ancient Environment in Lower Mesopotamia. Vol. I. MHE II/V, Ghent. Cooper, J.S. 1978: The Return of Ninurta to Nippur. An-gim dím-ma. AnOr 52, Rome. Dalley, S. 2009: Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 9, Bethesda. De Graef, K. 2002: “An Account of the Redistribution of Land to Soldiers in Late Old Babylonian Sippar-Amnānum”, JESHO 45, 141–178. — 2004: “Two Ilšu-ibni’s, two ugula gidru’s. Šarrum-labaki, a military settlement at the Irnina”, AuOr 20, 61–97. DeJong-Ellis, M. 1979: “Akkadian Literary Texts and Fragments in the University Museum”, JCS 31, 216–231. Dercksen, J.G. 2011: “Weeks, Months and Years in old Assyrian Chronology”, BiOr 68, 233–243. Diakonoff, I.M. 1956: The History of Media. Moscow/Leningrad. (Istorija Midii. Moskva/Leningrad). Dietrich, M. / Loretz, O. 2006: “Alalaḫ-Texte der Schicht VII (III)”, UF 38, 87–137. Durand, J.M. / Guichard, M. 1997 : “Les rituels de Mari”, FM 3, 19–78. Eder, C. 2004: “Assyrische Distanzangaben”, AoF 31, 191–236. Eidem, J. 1997: “Cuneiform Inscriptions”, in F. Højlund / H. Andersen (eds.), Qala’at alBahrain, 2: the Central Monumental Buildings. Aarhus. — 2011: The Royal Archives from Tell Leilan. Old Babylonian Letters and Treaties from the Lower Town Palace East. PIHANS 117, Leiden. Finkel, I.L 2007: “On the Rules for the Royal Game of Ur”, in Finkel, I.L. (ed.), Ancient Board Games in Perspective, London, 16–32. Finkelstein, J.J. 1966: “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty”, JCS 20, 95–118. Frayne, D.R. 1982: “Naram-Suen and the Musḫuššu Serpents”, JAOS 102, 511–513. — 1990: Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). RIME 4, Toronto. — 1991: “Notes on R. Kutscher’s ‘Brockmon Tablets’”, BiOr 48, 378–409. — 1992: The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names. AOS 74, New Haven. Gabbay, U. 2014: “A Balaĝ to Enlil from the First Sealand Dynasty”, ZA 104, 146–170. Gabbay, U. / Boivin, O. 2018: “A Hymn of Ayadaragalama, King of the First Sealand Dynasty, to the Gods of Nippur: The Fate of Nippur and its Cult during the First Sealand Dynasty”, ZA 108, 22–42. Gadd, C.J. / Thompson, R.C. 1936: “A Middle Babylonian Chemical Text”, Iraq 3, 87–96. Gasche, H. 1989: La Babylonie au 17e siècle avant notre ere: Approche archaeologique, problems et perspectives. MHEM I, Ghent.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Bibliography

63

Gasche, H. / Armstrong, J.A. / Cole, S.W. / Gurzadyan, V.G. 1998: Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology.(A Joint Ghent-ChicagoHarvard Project). MHEM IV, Ghent/Chicago. Gelb, I.J. 1960: “The Name of the Goddess Innin”, JNES 19, 72–79. George, A.R. 1992: Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40, Leuven. — 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Vol. I–II. Oxford. — 2009: Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 10, Bethesda. — 2013: Babylonian Divinatory Texts Chiefly in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 18, Bethesda. Gibson, M. 1992: “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur”, in M. deJong Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial. CRRAI 35 (= OPKF 14), Philadelphia. Gibson, M. / Hansen, D.P. / Zettler, R.L. 1998–2001 : “Nippur. B”, RlA 9, 546–565. Goetze, A. 1952: “Cornwall: Two Letters from Dilmun”, JCS 6, 137–145. — 1957: “On the Chronology of the Second Millennium B.C.”, JCS 11, 53–73. — 1964: “The Kassites and Near Eastern Chronology”, JCS 18, 97–101. Goodnick Westenholz, J. 1997: Legends of the Kings of Akkade. The Texts. MC 7, Winona Lake. — 2005: “Sing a Song for Šulgi”, in Sefati, Y. et al. (eds.), An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, 343– 373. Grayson, A.K. 1975a: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5, Locust Valley. — 1975b: Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto. Groneberg, B. 1980: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit. RGTC 3, Wiesbaden. Guichard, M. 2014: L’Épopée de Zimrī-Lîm. Florilegium Marianum XIV, Paris. Hamidović, D. 2014: “Alphabetical Inscriptions from the Sealand”, Studia Mesopotamica 1, 137–155. Horowitz, W. / Paul, S. 1995: “Two Proposed Janus Parallelisms in Akkadian Literature”, N.A.B.U. 1995/15, 11–12. Horsnell, M.J.A 1999: The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Hamilton. Jacobsen, T. 1960: “The Waters of Ur”, Iraq 22, 174–185. Jensen, P. 1892: “Inschrift Agum-Kakrime’s, d.i. Agum’s des Jüngeren”, in L. Abel et al. (eds.), Sammlung von assyrischen und babylonischen Texten in Umschrift und Übersetzung. KB III/1, Leipzig, 134–153. Joannès, F. 1992: Haradum I. Une ville nouvelle sur le Moyen-Euphrate (XVIIIe-XVIIe siècles av. J.-C.), Paris. — 2006 : Haradum II. Les Textes de la période paléo-babylonienne (Samsu-iluna – Ammisaduqa), Paris. Kahn, G. 2008: The Neo-Aramaic Dialact of Barwar. HdO 96. Leiden / Boston. Keegan, J. 1993: A History of Warfare. London. Kepinski-Lecompte, C. 1992 : Haradum I. Une ville nouvelle sur le Moyen-Euphrate (XVIIIe-XVIIe siècles av. J.-C. Paris. Kilmer, A.D. 1991: “An Oration on Babylon”, AoF 18, 9–22. Klengel, H. 1979: “Die Hethiter und Babylonien”, ArOr 47, 83–90. Köcher, F. 1995: “Medizinischer Text aus Grab 405”, in R.M. Boehmer, F. Pedde, B. Salje (eds.), Uruk, die Gräber. AUWE 10, Mainz am Rhein.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

64

Bibliography

Kouwenberg, N.J.C. 1997: Gemination of the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32, Assen. Kraus, F.R. 1958: Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-saduqa von Babylon. Studia et Documenta 5, Leiden. Krebernik, M. 2002: “Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons”, in M.P. Streck, S. Weninger (eds.), Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik. AOAT 296, 1–74. — 2003–2005: “Pa(p)niĝara” RlA 10, 325–327. Lambert, W.G. 1989: “A Babylonian Prayer to Anūna”, in H. Behrens, D. Loding, M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honor of Åke. W. Sjöberg. OPKF 11. Philadelphia, 321–336. — 2007: Babylonian Oracle Questions. MC 13, Bethesda. Lambert, W.G. / Millard, A.R. 1969: Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford. Landsberger, B. 1954a: “Assyrische Königsliste und ‘dunkles Zeitalter’”, JCS 8, 31–73. — 1954b: “Assyrische Königsliste und ‘dunkles Zeitalter’ (continued)”, JCS 8, 106–133. — 1960: “Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen”, WZKM 56, 109–129. — 1961: “Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen”, WZKM 57, 1–23. Leichty E. 1970: The Omen Series Šumma Izbu. TCS 4, Locust Valley. Leslau, W. 1961 : “Tigre Games”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 17, 61–68. — 1963: Etymological Dictionary of Harari. Berkeley/Los Angeles. — 1965: Ethiopians Speak. Studies in Cultural Background. I. Harari. Berkeley/Los Angeles. — 1966: Ethiopians Speak. Studies in Cultural Background. II. Chaha. Berkeley/Los Angeles. — 1976: Concise Amharic dictionary. Amharic-English, English-Amharic. Wiesbaden. — 1981: Ethiopians Speak. Studies in Cultural Background. IV. Muher. Berkeley/Los Angeles. — 1983: Ethiopians Speak. Studies in Cultural Background. V. Chaha-Ennemor. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Lipiński, E. 2001: Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar. OLA 80, Leuven. Litke, R.L. 1998: A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: da-nu-um and AN: anu šá ameli. TBC 3, New Haven. Machinist, P. 1978: The Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I. A Study in Middle Assyrian Literature Doctoral Dissertation submitted at Yale University. Malul, M. 1995: “A Possible Case of Janus Parallelism in the Epic of Gilgameš XI, 130”, ASJ 17, 338-342. Meissner, B. 1891: “Babylonische Pflanzenamen”, ZA 6, 289–298. Michalowsli, P. 1981: “An Old Babylonian Literary Fragment Concerning the Kassites”, Annali dell’Instituto Orientale di Napoli 41, 385–389+ pl. 1. Mohammad, K. 2002: “Texts from Šišīn”, Akkadica 123, 1–10. Noegel, S. 1991: “A Janus Parallelism in the Gilgamesh Flood Story”, ASJ 13, 419–421. — 1994: “An Asymmetrical Janus Parallelism in the Gilgamesh Flood Story”, ASJ 16, 306– 308

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Bibliography

65

— 1995a: “Another Janus Parallelism in the Atraḫasīs Epic”, ASJ 17, 342–344. — 1995b: “Yasîm-El's Sophisticated Rhetoric. A Janus Cluster in ARMT XXVI, 419, 1.10'”, N.A.B.U. 1995/90, 81–82, Nougayrol, J. 1971: “Nouveaux textes sur le ziḫḫu (II)”, ZA 65, 67–84. Oelsner, J. 1974: “Neue Daten zur sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Situation Nippurs in altbabylonischer Zeit”, ActAnt 22, 259–265. Oppenheim, A.L. 1988: “The Cuneiform Texts”, in A. von Saldern et al. (eds.), Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia. An Edition of the Cuneiform Texts Which Contain Instructions for Glassmakers with a Catalogue of Surviving Objects, London, 2–104. (Reprint) Oshima, T. 2012: “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions: The Agum-Kakrime Inscription and the Inscription of Kurigalzu the Son of Kadashmanḫarbe”, Babel und Bibel 6, 225–268. Paulus, S. 2014: Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneobabylonischen Zeit. AOAT 51, Münster. — 2018: “Fraud, Forgery, and Fiction: is There Still Hope for Agum-Kakrime?”, JCS 70, 115–166. Peterson, J. 2016: “A Middle Babylonian Sumerian Fragment of the Adapa Myth from Nippur and an Overview of the Middle Babylonian Sumerian Literary Corpus at Nippur”, in L. Feliu, F. Karahashi, G. Rubio (eds.), The First Ninety Years. A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil. SANER 12, 255–276. Pettinato, G. 2000: Nergal ed Ereškigal: il poema assiro-babilonese degli inferi. Rome. Pientka(-Hinz), R. 1998: Die spätaltbabylonische Zeit. IMGULA 2/1–2, Münster. — 2006–2008: “Samsuiluna”, RlA 11, 642–647. Podany, A.H. 2002: The Land of Hana. Kings, Chronology, and Scribal Tradition, Bethesda. Pomponio, F. / A. Rositani 1998: “Rīm-Anum di Uruk”, in M. Dietrich, I. Kottsieper (eds.), „Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf“. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebenjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. AOAT 250. Münster, 635–650. Potts, D.T. 2006: “Elamites and Kassites in the Persian Gulf”, JNES 65, 111–119. Pruzsinszky, R. 2009: Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C. An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues. Vienna. Reculeau, H. 2010: “The Lower Ḫābūr before the Assyrians. Settlement and Land Use in the First Half of the Second Millennium BCE”, in H. Kühne (ed.), Dūr-Katlimmu 2008 and Beyond. Studia Chaburensia 1. Wiesbaden, 187–215. Richardson, S. 2002: The Collapse of a Complex State: A Reappraisal of the End of the First Dynasty of Babylon, 1683–1597 B.C. Doctoral Dissertation submitted at Columbia University. — 2005: “Trouble in the countryside ana tarsi Samsuditana: Militarism, Kassites, and the Fall of Babylon I”, in W.H. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden, 1–4 July 2002. PIHANS 102, Leiden, 273–289. — 2010: Texts from the Late Old Babylonian Period. JCSS 2, Boston. — 2015a: “The Many Falls of Babylon and the Shape of Forgetting”, in D. Nadali (ed.), Envisioning the Past Through Memories. How Memory Shaped Ancient Near Eastern Societies. Cultural Memory and History in Antiquity 3, London /New York, 2016.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

66

Bibliography

— 2015b: “Re-digging Hammurabi’s Canal”, N.A.B.U. 2015/94, 157–158. — 2015c: “Samsuditana and the sixty-armed horde”, N.A.B.U. 2015/37, 56–57. Richter, T. 2004: Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süud- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit. 2. Auflage. AOAT 257, Münster. de Ridder, J.J. / Zomer, E. 2019: “Botanical qaqullu(m)/qāqullā: A Halophyte Plant in Semitic Languages”, WZKM 109. (forthcoming) Rollinger, R. 2011–2012: “Sport und Spiel”, RlA 13, 6–16. Rositani, A. 2003: Rīm-Anum Texts in the British Museum. Nisaba 4, Rome. Rouault, O. 1992: “Cultures locales et influences extérieures. Les cas de Terqa”, SMEA 30, 247–256. — 1995: “Les relations internationales en Mésopotamie du nord: techniques d’expansion et stratégies de survie”, in E. Frézouls, A. Jacquemin (eds.), Les relations internationales : Acte du Colloque de Strasbourg 15–17 juin 1993, Paris. — 2000: “Quelques remarques sur la société de Terqa”, in O. Rouault, M. Wäfler (eds.), La Djéziré et l’Euphrate Syriens de la protohistoire à la fin du IIe Millénaire av. J.–C. Tendances dans l’interprétation historique des données nouvelles. Subartu 7, Leuven, 265–277. — 2004: “Chronological Problems Concerning the Middle Euphrates during the Bronze Age”, in R. Pruzsinszky (ed.), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Vienna, 51–60. Rutz, M. 2006: “Textual Transmission between Babylonia and Susa: A New Solar Omen Compendium”, JCS 58, 63–96. Rutz, M. / Michalowski, P. 2016: “The Flooding of Ešnunna, the Fall of Mari: Hammurabi’s Deeds in Babylonian Literature and History”, JCS 68, 15–43. Sassmannshausen, L. 2001: Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit. BaF 21, Mainz. — 2004a: “Kassite Nomads: Fact or Fiction?”, Amurru 3, 287–305. — 2004b: “Babylonian Chronology of the 2nd half of the 2nd Millennium B.C.”, in H. Hunger, R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000, Vienna 8th–9th November 2002. Wien, 61–70. — 2014: “Kassitische Herscher und ihren Namen”, in L. Sassmannshausen, G. Neumann (eds.), He has Opened Nisaba’s House of Learning. Studies in Honor of Åke Waldemar Sjöberg on the Occasion of His 89th Birthday on August 1st 2013. CM 46. Leiden/Boston, 165–200. Scheil, V. 1897 : “Notes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie assyriens”, RT 19, 44–64. Schwemer, D. 2001: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden. Selz, G.J. 2008: “Das babylonische Königtum”, in J. Marzahn, G. Schauerte (eds.), Babylon. Wahrheit. Berlin, 105–138. Semenov, G.L. 2007: “Board Games in Central Asia and Iran” in Finkel, I.L. (ed.), Ancient Board Games in Perspective. London, 169–176. Shehata, D. 2009: Musiker und ihr vokales Repertoire. Untersuchungen zu Inhalt und Organisation von Musikerberufen und Liedgattungen in altbabylonischer Zeit. GBAO 3. Göttingen.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Bibliography

67

Shelley, N. 2017: “Kaššû: Cultural Labels and Identity in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš, Babylonia under the Kassites. UAVA 12/1–2. Boston/Berlin, 196–208. Simons, F. 2017: “A New Join to the Hurro-Akkadian Version of the Weidner God List from Emar (Msk 74.108a + Msk 74.158k)”, AoF 44, 82–100. Sjöberg, Å.W. 1975: “in-nin šà-gur4-ra. A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna by the en-Priestess Enḫeduanna”, ZA 65, 161–253. Stein, P. 2000: Die mittel- und neubabylonischen Königsinschriften bis zum Ende der Assyrerherrschaft: grammatische Untersuchungen. JVBO 3, Wiesbaden. Stol, M. 1976: Studies in Old Babylonian History. PIHANS 40, Istanbul. — 2009–2011: “Silakku”, RlA 12, 484. Stone, E.C. 1987: Nippur Neighborhoods. SAOC 44, Chicago. Streck, M.P. 1994: “Funktionsanalyse des akkadischen Št2-Stamms”, ZA 84, 161–197. — 1998–2000: “Ninurta/Ninĝirsu. A”, RlA 9, 512–522. — 2018: Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries. Vol. 1: B/P. With the collaboration of Nadezda Rudik. LAOS 7.1, Wiesbaden. Streck, M.P / Wasserman, N. 2008: “The Old Babylonian Hymns to Papulegara”, OrNS 77, 335–358. Ugnad, A. 1944: “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des zweiten Reiches von Isin”, OrNS 44, 73–101. van den Hout, Th.P.J. 2003: “The Proclamation of Telipinu”, in W.W. Hallo, K.L. Younger Jr. (eds.) Context of Scripture. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Volume I, Leiden/Boston. van Koppen, F. 2004: “The Geography of the Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia in the Late Old Babylonian Period”, in H. Hunger, R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), The Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of an international conference of SCIEM 2000 (Vienna 8th–9th November 2002). Vienna, 9–33. — 2010: “The Old to Middle Babylonian transition: history and chronology of the Mesopotamian Dark Age”, Egypt and the Levant 20, 453–463. — 2017: “The Early Kassite Period”, in A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš, Babylonia under the Kassites. UAVA 12/1–2. Boston/Berlin, 45–92. van Lerberghe, K. 1995: “Kassites and Old Babylonian Society. A Reappraisal”, in K. van Lerberghe, A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. OLA 65. Leuven, 379–393. van Lerberghe, K. / Voet, G. 2009: A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from DūrAbiešuḫ. CUSAS 8, Bethesda. van Soldt, W.H. 1990: Letters in the British Museum. AbB 12, Leiden/New York/Copenhagen/Köln. — 2015: Middle Babylonian Texts in the Cornell University Collections. I. The Later Kings. CUSAS 30, Bethesda. Veenhof, K. 1995–1996: “The Old Assyrian ḫamustum-period: a seven-day week”, JEOL 34, 5–26. Veldhuis, N. 2000: “Kassite Exercises: Literary and Lexical Extracts”, JCS 52, 67–94. Volk, K. 1990: “Zur Lesung von teme (NAGA-inversum) und téme (NAGA)”, N.A.B.U. 1990/54, 37–38.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

68

Bibliography

— 2005: “No. 1 Old Babylonian Balag, to the Mother Goddess Aruru”, in I. Spar/W.G. Lambert (eds.), Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C. CTMMA 2. New York Von Soden, W. 1959: “Beiträge zum Verständnis des babylonischen Gilgameš-Epos”, ZA 53, 209–235. Walther, W. 1968: “Altarabische Kindertanzreime”, in M. Fleischhammer (ed.), Studia orientalia in memoriam C. Brockelmann. Halle, 217–233. Wasserman, N. 1992: “A Bilingual Report of Oracular Signs”, RA 86, 1–18. — 2012: Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian. LANE 3, Winona Lake. — 2018: “A Forgotten Hymn in Praise of Gungunum, King of Larsa: TIM 9, 41 and its Historical Context”, in M. Cogan (ed.), In the Lands of Sumer and Akkad. Jerusalem, xix– xliv. Weidner, E.F. 1921: “Die Könige von Assyrien. Neue chronologische Dokumente aus Assur”, MVAeG 26/2, 1–64. — 1926: “Die grosse Königsliste aus Assur”, AoF 3, 66–77. — 1957–1971: “Gandaš”, RlA 3, 138–139. — 1959–1960: “Die älteren Kassiten-Könige”, AfO 19, 138. Weszeli, M. 2011–2013: “Stachelschwein”, RlA 13, 49–50. Wiggermann, F.A.M. 1998–2001: “Nergal”, RlA 9, 215–223. Woidich, M. 2006: Das Kairenisch-Arabische. Eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden. Zadok, R. 1987: “Peoples from the Iranian Plateau in Babylonia during the second millennium BC”, Iran 25, 1–26. Zeeb, F. 2001: Die Palastwirtschaft in Altsyrien nach den spätaltbabylonischen Getreidelieferlisten aus Alalaḫ (Schicht VII). AOAT 282, Münster. Zomer, E. 2015: “KUB 37.139: A Fragment of an (Historical) Royal Epic from Ḫattuša”, N.A.B.U 2015/20, 23–24. — 2016: “Game of Thrones: Koningen in Strijd in the Laat Oud-Babylonische Periode”, Phoenix 62.2, 52–63. — 2017: “Zauberei (witchcraft). A. in Mesopotamien”, RlA 15, 222–224. — (forthcoming): “Enmity against Samsu-ditana”, in the Proceedings RAI 59th.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

INDICES 1. Royal Names Gulkišar Gul-⌈ki⌉-šár 1: r. 21 Samsu-ditāna Sa-am-su-di-ta-na 1: 7’

3. Toponyms Babylon KÁ.DINGIR.RAki 4: 1 Ekur É.KUR 3: r. 4

2. Deities Adad

4. Glossary abāru “(the metal) lead” a-ba-ri 4: 14 abātu I D “to destroy completely” mu-a-bi-ta-at 1: r. 25 abātu II (nābutu) N “to escape” am-bi-is-su 4: 20 abūbu “flood, deluge” a-bu-ba 1: 12’ abukkatu (bukkatu) “a plant” še bu-kàt 4: 5 adāru “to be afraid of, fear” a-du-ur 4: 20 i[d-d]a-ru 1: 30’ adi “until, as far as” ⌈a-di⌉ 3: 4’; 11’ agû “flood” a-gi-i 1: 22’ aḫāzu Š “to instruct” ul-ta-ḫa-zu-⌈ú⌉ 1: r. 14 aḫurrû, hurrû “social inferior person; stupid” ḫu-ur-ru 4: r. 8 akalu “bread” a-ka-la 3: 14’ a-ka-lam 3: 15’ akālu “to eat, devour” a-kul 1: r. 17 akālu Š “to feed” ú-ša-kil-⌈šu⌉-[nu-ti] 1: r. 9 alāku “to go” DU-ku-ma 3: r. 4 i-li-ik 1: r. 13

d

IŠKUR 1: 6’ Anu d A-nu 2: 9’ Ašnan d Ašnan!(TIR) 1: r. 18 Enlil d+ EN.LIL 3: 11’ Errakal ⌈d⌉Èr-ra-kal 1: 21’ Girra d BIL.GI 1: 23’ Igigi d I-gi4-gi4 2: 12’ Ištar d IN.NIN.NA 1: 3’; r. 51 Ištarātu d Iš-tarm[e]š 2: 12’ Kūbū Ku-bu 2: 12’ NinDU d NIN.DU 3: r. 9 Ninurta d NIN.URTA 3: 3’; r. 13 Pa(p)nigara d PA4.NIGARGAR.RA 2: 16’; r. 4; r. 6; r. 1[2] Sîn d 30 2: 4’; 11’ Šamaš d UTU 2: 5’; 11’

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

70

Indices

il-la-ku! 2: 9’ ta-al-la-ku 3: r. 2 alāku Gt “to depart” ni-it-ta-⌈lak⌉ 1: r. 10 alālu, alāla/i, alīli “joyous song” a-li-lu-ú-a 4: 17 alālu III Gt “to boast” i-tal-li-[il?] 1: 32’ ālu “city” a-li 4: 1 amāru “to see, observe” am-mar 1: r. 23 ammal “as much” am-⌈ma⌉-[al?] 3: 7’ ana “to, for” a-na 1: 7’: [30’]; 37’; 38’; 40’; r. 21; r. 24; r. 45; 3: 6’; 12’; 18’; r. 4; r. 7; r. 10; 4: 14; 15; r. 2 ana 3: r. 2 a-‹na› 2: 16’; r. 2 anantu “strife, conflict” a-na-an-ti 1: 5’ anḫūtu “tiredness” an-ḫu-us-su!(ZUM) 4: 3 anzalīlu (a kind of entertainer) an-za-li-lum 4: 3 apālu Gtn “to answer repeatedly” i-tap-pu-lam 1: 5’ ardatu “young girl” ar-da-ta 2: 17’ KI.SI[KIL]-⌈ti⌉ 2: 17’ arḫu “fast (one)” ar-ḫu-tu4 2: r. 2; r. 6 arsikku “a kind of millet” ar-si-ik-⌈ki⌉ 4: 5 a-se-gu-ta (a kind of game) a-se-gu-ta 4: 17 aslu “sheep” as-li-šu 1: 13’ asu “myrtle” giš A.Z[U?] 2: r. 8 ass… = ana s… ⌈as-sal⌉-[…] 3: r. 11 ašru “place” a-šar 1: 4’; 5’

awû Gt “to speak” i-ta-mu 1: 34’ ayyābu “enemy” ⌈a⌉-a-ba 1: 4’ a-a-bi 1: r. 20 bābu “gate” KÁ 3: 18’ bāʾeru “fisherman” ŠU.KU6 3: 16’ ‹ŠU›.KU6 3: r. 3 balālu “to mix up” bu-ul-li 4: 19 baʾālu, bâlu “to be exceptionally big” ba-lu4 2: r. 3; 4 banû “to build” ba-nu 3: 11’ barbaru “wolf” ⌈bar⌉-ba-ri 1: r. 17 bâru “to catch” a-ba-⌈ar⌉ 1: 15’ bašlû “cooked” AL.ŠEG6.GÁmeš 3: r. 6 bašû “to be, exist” i-ba-aš-š[i] 1: 35’ bašû N “emerge, appear” ⌈it⌉-tab-ši 4: 2 batūltu “adolescent girl” ba-tu-la-a-ti 4: 16 bēlu “lord” be-lum 1: r. 22 EN 2: 13’ bêšu “to depart” i-bi-ša 3: 11’ biltu “tribute; yield” bil-⌈le-et⌉ 2: 15’ GÚ.UN-⌈sú⌉ 3: r. 4; r. 8 bintu, bittu “daughter” bi-it-ta-at 4: 4 bītu “house, temple” É 1: r. 19 bi-it 4: r. 5 bukru “son, child” bu-uk-ri-šu 2: 5’ bu-kur 2: 11’ bu-kùr 4: 4

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

71

Indices

burku “knee” bur-ki-[šu?-(nu)] 1: r. 8 burmāmu “piglet” bur-ma-mi 1: 11’ būru “calf” AMAR 3: 17’; r. 2; r. 3 bu-ru-bu-ru (a kind of game) bu-ru-bu-ru 4: 12 dagālu “to look at” ta-da-ga-l[a]-⌈an⌉-ni 1: r. 16 dannu “strong (one)” dan-nu 1: 31’ dan-n[a-tum] 1: r. 25 dušû “quartz” du-še 2: 4’ edû “to know” ti-du-ú 1: r. 22 ekdu “furious” ek-du 1: 33’ elammakku, elamkû (precious wood) ⌈e?⌉-lam-ku 3: r. 7 elēlu I “joyful song” il-li-lum 4: 6 elēnītu “deceitful woman (desig. of witch)” e-li-ni-ti 4: r. 4 emēdu Št2 “to bring in contact together” ul-te-mé-ed 1: 12’ enšu “weak one” ⌈e!?⌉-niš 4: r. 8 eperu “earth, soil” e-pe-ri 4: 19 epēšu “to do” ⌈ep⌉-pu-uš 1: r. 18 epēšu N “to happen” i-ni-pu-uš 1: r. 22 erēbu “to enter” i-ru-[ub?] 1: r. 6 esēru D “to enclose, confine” us-sa-a[r] 3: 15’ esēpu “to double” e-se-pi-šu 3: 14’ ešēru “to go straight” i-te-eš-ra 1: r. 12 i-ši-ir 2: 12’ li-ši-ir-ma 2: 16’

etēru “to take away” it-[tè?-er?] 3: 14’ etlu “young man” et-lu-ú-ti 1: 10’; r. 1[5]; r. 2[1] ⌈et⌉-la 2: 17’ et-lu-ti 2: r. 12 etû D “to darken” ⌈ut⌉-ta-a 1: 7’ gamālu “to spare” ga-mi-il 1: r. 20 gapāšu “to be(come) proud” ga-pa-aḫ-šu 4: 7 gassu “murderous” gas-sú 1: 29’ gašāru Dt “to show oneself superior in strength” gu-taš-šu-ru 4: 8 gipšu “massed body” gi-ip-ši-šu-nu 1: 8’ gišparru “trap, snare” ge-eš-pi-⌈ri⌉ 2: 8’ ḫabātu “to dig (out” ḫu-ub-ti 4: 19 ḫadû “to rejoice” lìḫ-di 2: 17’ ḫamātu D “to burn, to roast” ú-ḫa-am-ma-tú-šu-nu-⌈ti⌉ 1: 24’ ḫa-am-bi(-) (?) ḫa-am-bi(-)is-qí 4: 18 ḫarbu “abandoned land” ⌈ḫa-rib?⌉ 2: 3’ ḫarru I “ditch” ⌈ḫar!?⌉-rum 4: 4 ḫasabtu “potsherd” [ḫa]-as-ba-ti 4: 18 ḫasāsu “to snap off” ḫu-us-si 2: r. 8 ḫattu II “stick” ḫat-ti 4: 13 ḫiātu “to inspect” li-ḫi-it 2: 10’ ḫuḫāru “bird-trap” ḫu-ḫa-ra 2: 7’ ḫuppû “acrobat” ḫu-up-pu 4: 7

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

72

Indices

ḫurru “hole” ḫur-ri 1: r. 4 ḫu-su-ḫu-su (a kind of game) ḫu-su-ḫu-su 4: 21 igāru “wall” i-ga-ri 3: 8’ ilu “god” DINGIRmeš 2: 13’ imtu “venom” im-tam 1: 25’ ina “in, on; by; from” i-na 1: 3[9’]; r. 8; [r. 19]; r. 29?; 2: [2]’; 3: 8’; 10’; 12’; 13’; 14’ i+na 4: 2; r. 7 ina libbi “from them; inside” i-na ŠÀ 3: 12’ i+na ŠÀ-šú 4: 2 irtu “breast” ir-ta 4: 15 ishappu, ašḫappu “rogue, villain” iš-ḫu-up-pu 4: 7 isqu “lot” is-qí 4: 18 issūru “bird” is-su-ra-ti 2: 8’ išāru “(in) order” SI.SA 3:10’ ištēn “one; single; first” il-te-en 1: 4[0]’: [4]1’ DIS 2: r. 7; 3: r. 2 ištu, ultu ul-tu 2: r. 1 itpēšu “expert” it-pe-š[u] 1: 29’ ittu “sign” it-ta-ša 1: r. 23 izuzzu, uzuzzu “to stand” ú-zu-⸢us⸣-su 2: 9’ izuzzu, uzuzzu Š “to erect” lu-uš-zi-iz 1: r. 19 kabāšu “to put on a k.-headdress” ik-bi-su-ma 2: 4’ kalāma “all (of it)” ka-la-ma 1: r. 23

kapālu Gt “to circle around each other, i.e. to wrestle” kit-pu-lum 4: 13 kāru “mooring-place” ka-a-ra 1: 23’ kâša “you” (masc.) ka-a-ša 1: r. 24 kašādu D “to drive (a team of horses)” [tu-k]a?-aš-ša-da 1: r. 41 keppû “skipping rope” ke-ep-pu-ʾ-ú 4: 3 kī “like, just as” ki-i 1: 6’; 14’; 15’; [21’]; 22’; 23’; 32’; r. 17; [r. 18]; r. 22; 2: [1]1’?; r. 7: r. 9? ki 2: 5’; 13’! kibrāt erbettim “the four edges (of the world)” [ki]b-rat er-bet-tam 1: 26’ kīma “like, just as” ki-ma 2: 5’; 8’ kimtu “kin, family” ki-in-ti-šu 2: 7’ kisallu “knuckle bone, astragalus (i.e. dice)” ki-se-el-le-⌈tum⌉ 4: 17 kisru “group” ki-is-ri-šu-nu 1: 9’ kissu “shrine” ki-is-si 2: 12’ kiššatu “all, entire world” ⌈kiš-ša⌉-tim 1: 27’ ŠÁR 2: 17’ kubšu “k.-headdress, turban” ku-ub-ša 2: 4’ kullatu “all, totality” [ku]l-la-at 1: 25’ kullu D “to hold” ⌈li⌉-ki-il-⌈ma⌉ 2: 3’ kurkû “goose” KUR.GImušen 3: r. 5 kursinnu “(bone of) lower leg” ku-ur-si-in-na-bu-ú 4: 18 kussû “throne” giš GU.ZA 3: 11’ [gi]šGU.ZAmeš 3: 18’

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

73

Indices

kutallu “back” ⌈ku?⌉-tal-li 3: r. 11 lā “not, no” la 1: 30’; 2: r. 1 labāšu “to clothe” ⌈li⌉-it-ba-ši (*lilbaš) 2: 5’ lābu, labbu “lion” la-ab-bu 1: 29’ lamādu D “to know sexually” NU.ZU.ZU 3: 17’ laqātu “to gather, destroy” a-la-aq-qá-ta 1: 11’ lasāmu “to run” la-⌈sa⌉-mu 4: 13 lawû “to surround” li-il-mi 2: 6’ lemuttu “wickedness” le-mut-ta-⌈šu⌉ 1: r. 36 leʾû “to be able” e-le-i 4: 16 libbu “inner” s. ina libbi lipû “fat” li-pi-i 4: 19 lītu “victory” li-i-tam 1: r. 39 lulû “abundance” lu-li 2: 15’ magillu “a kind of (mythological) monster” [ma?]-gi-il-la 4: 20 maḫāru “to confront; receive” i-ma-aḫ-ḫa-ru-ka 1: r. 24 i-maḫ-ḫa-ru-šu-nu-ti-ma 3: r. 1 ta-ma-ḫar 1: r. 3 ⌈ta⌉-⌈maḫ?⌉-ḫ[ar?] 3: r. 4 ⌈ta⌉-⌈maḫ?⌉-‹ḫa›?-⌈ra⌉-⌈nim?⌉-m[a] 3: r. 8 maḫāru N “to be received” im-maḫ-ḫ[ar] 3: r. 7 maḫāsu “to beat, defeat” a-ma-aḫ-ḫa-as 1: 8’ māḫiru “rival” ⌈ma-ḫa⌉-ri 2: r. 1 malāḫu “sailor” ma-la-aḫ-ma-la-aḫ 4: r. 5

malû Š “to fill” ⌈ú⌉-šam-la 1: 9’ mannu “someone” ma-an-ni 4: r. 4; 5 man-nu 4: r. 7 maqātu Š “to smite” ⌈ú⌉-šam-qat 1: 8’ māru “son” ma-ra-šu-nu 1: 12’ DUMU 2: 13’ masabbu (a basket) gi MA.SÁ.AB 3: r. 7 mātu “land” ma-at 1: 27’ mazzaztu “position” ma-zal-[ti] 3: 13’ meʾatu “(one) hundred” 1 ME 20 3: r. 6; r. 7 mēlulu (*elēlu) “to play” e-le-lum 4: 2 mé-lu-la 4: 16 mersu (a confection made of dates, oil, butter, etc.) NINDA.Ì.DÉ.A 3: r. 7 mimma “anything, something” mi-im-ma 1: r. 13 misru “boundary, territory” mi-si-re-⌈e⌉-[ti] 2: 11’ mīšāru “justice” mi-ša-ra 2: 15’ mummellu “player” mu-um-mé-el-lum 4: 2 muslālu “midday” ⌈AN.BAR7⌉ 2: 2’ mušarû “(royal) inscription” mu-ša-rum 1: r. 7 mušātu “combed-out hair” mu-ša-ti-ka 4: r. 8 mūšu “night” mu-ši 4: r. 7 mutu “man, warrior” mu-ut 2: 7’ mūtu “death” mu-ú-ta 1: 30’ mu-ú-tim 1: r. 1

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

74

Indices

nabû “to call” ib-bi-ma 2: r. 5; r. 11 i-bi 2: r. 6 ku-ur-si-in-na-bu-ú 4: 18 nâdu, naʾādu Dtn “to praise” tu-ut-ta-i-da 1: r. 44 nadû “to cast down” id-di 1: r. 2 i-di 1: r. 18 nakāpu Gtn “to charge continuously” ⌈at-ta-kip?-ma⌉ 1: 20’ nakārū Gt “to change o.s. (?)” ta-ta[k?]-⸢kir?⌉ nakru, nakiru “enemy” na-ki-ri 2: r. 9 [na]-⌈ak⌉-ri-ia 1: 15’ na-ak-ri-ka 1: r. 45 namurratu “awe-inspiring radiance” [n]a-mu-ur-ra-at-ka 1: r. 40 namūtu “mockery” na-mu-tu 4: 10 napāgu “to disappear” na-pa-gu 4: 12 napāḫu Št2 “to blow at each other (?)” šu-ta-pu-ḫu 4: 9 napāsu “to demolish” [ú?-na?]-ap-pa-ás 1: 22’ narāmtu “beloved (fem.) one” na-ra-am-ti 1: r. 43 narû “stele” ⌈na?⌉-re-e 1: r. 19 nasāru N “be observed, protected” in-ni-si-ir 3: 7’ nasmadu “yoked team(of horses)” na-as-mad-ka 1: r. 41 našāku D “to tear apart” ⌈ú?⌉-na-š[i]-ka 1: r. 26 našû “to lift” iš-ši 2: r. 5; r. 11 nēšu “lion” ne-e-[ši?] 1: 32’ nigzallû níg-⸢zal⸣-[…] 3: r. 12; r. 14 níg-zal-lu-u 3: 12’ níg-zal-le-e 3: 4’; 6[’?]; 13’

ninnû “fifty (for Sumerian NINNU)” nin-nu-ú 2: 12’ nīnu “fish” KU6 3: r. 6 niqû “offering” NE.SAG 3 r. 8 nīš ili “oath” ni-ši-lu-ú 4: 6 nuggatu “anger, rage” nu-ga-ti 4: r. 3 nurbu “moist area” ⸢nu?-ru⌉-ub 4: r. 2 paʾāsu “to crush” a-pa-ʾ-ʾa4(ḪA)-as 1: 10’ pagru “body, corpse” pa-ag-ra 1: r. 18 palû “dynasty, reign” pa-li-šu 2: r. 6 pānu “front” [pa]-⌈an⌉ 3: 8’ panû Gtn “to move constantly ahead” ip-ta-na-an […] 3: r. 2 parāru D “to scatter” ú-pa-ar-ra-ar 1: 9’ parakku “sanctuary” BARAGmeš 2: 10’ paspasu “duck” UZ.TURmušen 3: r. 5 patāru Š “to appease” šup-tù-úr 2: r. 7 pelû “egg” pe-e-la-a 1: 10’ piqru “claim” pi-iq-ru 4: 10 pirʾu, parāʾu “shoot; offspring, descendant” pa-⌈ra-ú-ʾ⌉-šu-ma-mi 2: r. 2 pa-ru-ú-šu-ma 2: r. 3 pa-ar-ú! 2: r. 4 pa-ru-šu 2: r. 7; r. 8; r. 9; r. 10 pû “mouth; command” pi-i 2: 14’; 4: 14 KA-šu-nu 2: r. 7; r. 10; [r.]12? puluḫtu “fear” [pu?]-⌈luḫ⌉-tam 1: r. 50

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

75

Indices

qablu I “middle” [q]a!?-bal 1: r. 4 qablu II “battle” qab-li 1: 4’ qabû “to speak” ⌈i⌉-⌈qab⌉-bi 1: r. 42 qamû “to burn” [a-q]a-am-mi 1: 23’ qamû D “to burn intensively” [qu]m-mu-ú-a 1: 24’ qanû “reed” qa-na 2: r. 8 qaqqadu “head” SAG 3: 9’ SAG-su-nu 2: r. 5; [r. 1]1 qaqqullu, qāqullu (halophyte plant) qa-a-qú-li 1: 14’ qarrādu “warrior” qar-ra-du-ú-šu 1: 28’ qar-ra-du-[(x)]-ú 1: 34’ qatāpu “to pluck” a-qá-at-tap 1: 10’ qātu “hand” qá-ti 4: 19 qēmu “flour” ZÌ.⌈DA⌉ 3: r. 6 qurdu “heroism, pl. heroic deeds” ⌈qur⌉-di-ia 1: 27’ rabû “to be great” li-ir-bi 2: 13’ rabû Š “to make great” [l]i-šár-bí-ma 2: 14’ raḫāsu “to trust” li-ir-ḫu-si-‹na› 2: 17’ rakābu D “to pollinate” a-ru-ku-bi 2: r. 2 ramānu “self” ra-man-šu 1: r. 37 ramku (cultic functionary) ra-am-ku-tu4 3: r. 1 rapādu “to run” ra-pa-du 4: 4 rašû “to acquire” a-a ir-ši 2: 3’ rebû “fourth” re-bu-ú 2: r. 10

redû Gtn “to pursue persistently” li-ir-t[i]-di 2: 10’ rêqu “to be distant” te-re-eq-ma 3: 8’ rēštû “first” SAG 3: 9’ rēšu “head”; of a structure “the upper end, front” SAG 3: 12’; r. 2; 3 riksu “knot” ri-ik-⌈sa-tu⌉ 4: 9 rīmu “wild bull” ri-mi 2: r. 12 riqdu “dance” ri-iq-di 4: 14 sabātu “to seize” i-sa-bat 1: 39’ li-is-bat 2: 11’ salmu “statue” sa-lam-ka 1: r. 19 sēru “steppe, battlefield” EDIN 1: 9’ sīru “exalted” MAḪ 3: r. 8 surru “obsidian, flint” sur-ri 4: 1 sadāru “to place in order, set in a row” is-si-dir 3: 9’ saḫāpu “to spread over” sa-ḫi-pi 2: 8’ li-is-ḫu-pi 2: 9’ saḫāpu D “to overwhelm” li-sa-ḫi-ip 2: 7’ ú-sa-pa-ḫi 2: r. 9 saḫāšu D “to catch (in a net)” li-sa-ḫiš 2: 9’ sāmtu, sāntu “red cow” ÁB SU4 3: 17’ sapādu “to mourn”; with irta “to beat the breast” i-sa-pi-⌈id⌉ 4: 15 saparru “(hunting) net” sa-pa-ru-šu 2: 6’ sarriru, sarriru “wrongdoer” sar-ri-ri-šu 2: 6’

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

76

Indices

sêru “to smear” ⌈se?⌉-ri 4: 19 sidru “line, row” si-id!(DA)-ru 3: 10’ [s]i-id-ri 3: r. 10 sukannīnu “dove, pigeon” TU.KÚRmušen 3: r. 5 suluppu “date” ZU.LUM.MA 3: r. 7 ša “who(m),which; (s)he who, that which; of” ša 1: 29’; 31’; 33’; 36’; r. 15; [r. 20?]; 2: 4’; 9’; 3: 4’; 13’; 4: 1; 16; r. 4 šá 3: 11’ šabātu “to strike” ša-bi-it 4: 14 šadû “mountain(s)” ša-di-i 1: r. 25 ša-du-ú 4: 1 šagāntu “roaring” ša-ga-an-tu-ú-a 1: 13’ šagāšu “to kill, slaughter” a-ša-⌈ag⌉-[gi-iš] 1: 21’ šaḫātu I “to jump; attack; escape” ši-ḫi-it 4: 20 šaḫunnu “lamentation (of appeasement)” ša-ḫu-un-ni 4: 15 šakānu “to make, establish” a-ša-kan 1: 6’; 26’ šakku I “harrowed” šak-ki 4: 5 šalāmu D “to complete” ú-ša-l[a-mu- …] 3: r. 1 ú-šal-lam 4: 14 šalāš “three” 3 3: 12’; r. 5 šalšu “third” ša-al-šu 2: r. 9; 3: 10’ šalû “to submerge” ša-lu-ú 4: 12 šaluštu “group of three” ša-lu-uš-tum 3: 6’ šamāru Gt “to praise” il-tam-ma-ru 1: 27’ šamātu “to tear away” [a-š]a-a[m]-ma-at 1: 14’

šamû “heaven” ša-me-e 1: r. 38 šanû “second” ša-nu-ú 2: r. 8; 3: 9’ 2.KAM? 1: 20’ šaplu “beneath” [š]ap?-li-ia 1: r. 49 šaptu “lip” ⌈ša⌉-ap-ta-i[a] 1: r. 16 šaqû II Š “to make high, elevate” [šu-u]š-qí 2: r. 8 šaqû III Š “to drench” ú-ša-aš-qa 1: 25’ šarāḫu Dt “to boast” šu-tar-ru-ḫu 4: 9 šarrāḫūtu “arrogance” šar-ra-ḫu-tu 4: 8 šarrāpūtu “big fire” šar-⌈ra⌉-pu-tum 4: 8 šarūru “radiance, glance” ša-ru-ra 2: 5’ šasû “to shout, roar” [a]-⌈ša-as⌉-si-ma 1: 6’ šasû Gtn “to call out repeatedly” iš-ta-na-as-si 3: 14’ šatru “written, inscribed down” ša-at-ra 1: r. 14 šemû “to listen, hear” iš-mu-ú 1: 28’ i-ši-mu-ú 2: r. 3; r. 4 šergiddû “šergida (a. Sum. song)” šer9(ŠAR)-gi-tu 4: 11 šeʾum “barley” ŠE 3: 9’; 10’ šī “she” ši-ma 2: r. 1 šiāmu “to decree” i-ši-mu-šum-ma 2: r. 1 šigû, šegû “lamentation” se-e-gu 4: 11 šīmtu “fate” ši-mat 2: r. 1 šinsu “taunting” ši-in-su 4: 10 šinšūši “sixty-two (?)” šu-ši-šin 4: 6

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

77

Indices

šipru “plan” ši-pi-ir 1: r. 12 šerku, širku “gift” a-ši-ir-ki-ši-na 2: 16’ šū “he” šu 2: 13’ šu-ú 3: 10’ ⌈šu⌉-ma 2: r. 4 šumēlu “the left” šu-me-lu 1: r. 15 šu-me-la 3: 5’ šumu “name” šu-mi 1: 26’ šum-šu-nu 2: r. 5; r. 1[1] šum 2: r. 6 ⌈MU?-šú?⌉ 2: 14’ šupêlu “to exchange” ⌈uš⌉-pe-⌈el?⌉ 3: r. 3 šu-us-sa-as-se-e-a (a kind of game) šu-us-sa-as-se-e-a 4: r. 6 šūšišin(a) “sixty(-and-)two” šu-ši-šin 4: 6 šutlumu “to bestow” ú-šat-li-ma 1: 3’ šūturu “supreme, very great” šu-túr 1: r. 21 tabāku “to throw down” a-tab-ba-[ak] 1: 14’ ta-ba-ak 4: 13 tabāku D “to pour out” mu-ta-bi-ki 2: r. 10 tāḫāzu “battle” MÈ 1: 30’ ta-ḫa-za-am 1: r. 47 tarāku G “to beat, pound” i-ta-ra-ak 3: 15’ tarāku D “to beat” ú-tar-ra-ka 1: 13’ tâmtu “sea” (māt) tâmti “Sea(land)” A.AB.BA 1: r. 43 târu “to return” i-tar-r[u] 3: 18’ tebû “to arise, rear up, set out for”; + (w)arki “to follow” it-bi-ma 1: 31’

[i]t?-bu-ú-šu 1: 31’ te-bu-ú 1: r. 20 tēltu “saying, proverb” te-el-⌈tum⌉ 4: 11 tenēštu “people” ti-ni-ši-ti 2: 14’ tibnu “straw” IN.⌈NU⌉ 4: 4 tu-pu-tu-pu (a kind of game) tu-pu-tu-pu 4: 21 tuqumtu “battle” [t]u?-qum-⌈tam⌉ 1: 29’ teḫû “to approach” i-te-ḫu-ú 3: 12’ teḫû D “to introduce” ú-taḫ!(DUḪ)-ḫu-ú 3: 13’ u “and” ù 1: 27’; 39’; 2: 10’; 17’; 3: 16’; 17’; r. 2; 4: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; r. 6; r. 7; r. 8 ul “not” ul 1: r. 3; r. 8; r. 27 ummānu “troops” um-ma-an 1: 7’ ūmu “day” UD-ma 1: 7’ upû “cloud” ú-pa-a 1: 6’ uqnû “lapis lazuli” uq-ni-i 2: 4’ (w)abālu “to bring, carry” bi-la 4: r. 8 ub-lam 1: 36’ (w)abālu Š “to send” ⌈ú?-še?-bil⌉ 1: r. 45 (w)ardu “servant” ar-di-ka 1: r. 5 ⌈ar-di?⌉ 1: r. 20 (w)arki “after, behind”; + alāku “to follow” ar-ki 1: r. [2]0; 3: 16’; r. 3 ar-⌈ki⌉-šu 3: r. 4 (w)asābu D “to increase (intensively)” li-is-si-⌈ib⌉ 3: 14’ (w)asû Š “to let go out”; + ramānu “to save oneself”

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

78

Indices

⌈ú⌉-še-sú-ú 1: r. 37 ú-še-sú-šu-nu-ti 3: r. 1 (w)atmu “hatchling” at-mi-šu-um-ma 1: 11’ at-mu-ú-š[u-nu] 1: 30’ (w)ildu “offspring” il-da-šu-nu 1: r. 27 yâši “me” (acc.) ia-ši 1: r. 44 zāʾiru “enemy” za-i-ri 1: 25’ zabālu “to carry” [l]i-iz-bil 2: 15’

zakāru, zaqāru, saqāru Gt “to speak” iz-za-qá-ra 1: r. 21 zakāru, zaqāru, saqāru Dtn “to speak continuously” li-is!(PA)-se20-⌈qir⌉ 2: 15’ zakû “to be(come) pure” ta-az-ku-ú 3: 15’ zību “vulture” [z]i-i-bi 1: r. 17 zikru, siqru “speech” si-qa-ar-šu 2: r. 3; r. 4 zimru “song” zi-im-ri 4: 1

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

PLATES

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

All handcopies are by Elyze Zomer. Photographs of HS 1885 and HS 1893 are © by The Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena; N 4026 © by Grant Frame; N 1338 © by Cuneiform Digital Library Iniative (P278952); HS 1886 and 1902 © by Takayoshi Oshima.

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 1

№1

Obverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 2

№1

Reverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 3

№1

Obverse (HS 1885)

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 4

№1

Reverse (HS 1885)

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 5

№1 Obverse (N 4026)

Reverse (N 4026)

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 6

№1 Obverse (N 1338)

Reverse (N 1338)

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 7

№2 Obverse

Lower Edge

Reverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 8

№2 Obverse

Lower Edge

Reverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 9

№3 Obverse

Reverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 10

№3 Obverse

Reverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 11

№4 Obverse

Reverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 12

№4 Obverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3

Plate 13

№4 Reverse

© 2019, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11256-7 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19881-3