Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents in the British Museum (Dubsar) 9783963270727, 3963270721

Citation preview

dubsar 11 Sandowicz • Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents

www.zaphon.de

Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents in the British Museum Małgorzata Sandowicz

dubsar 11 Zaphon

dubsar-11-Sandowicz-Cover.indd 1

05.07.2019 16:34:20

Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents in the British Museum

Małgorzata Sandowicz

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

dubsar Altorientalistische Publikationen Publications on the Ancient Near East Band 11 Herausgegeben von Kristin Kleber und Kai A. Metzler

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents in the British Museum

Małgorzata Sandowicz

Zaphon Münster 2019 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Illustration auf dem Einband: BM 114550 (Obv.), Text 30, Zeichnung von Małgorzata Sandowicz

Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents in the British Museum Małgorzata Sandowicz dubsar 11

© 2019 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany Printed on acid-free paper ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 ISSN 2627-7174

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Acknowledgments The work presented in this book was conducted within the context of a project financed by the Polish National Science Centre (DEC-2012/07/B/HS3/01126) that allowed me to spend several months searching for dispute documents in the Assyriological heaven: the Arched Room of the British Museum. I am grateful to the Museum staff for their assistance and to the Trustees of the Museum for granting me permission to publish and to quote from the tablets under their care. I am indebted to those colleagues and friends who brought texts to my attention and lent a helping hand at various stages of my work on this book. Christopher Walker, as usual, generously shared his catalogues, forthcoming papers, and observations. Jeanette Fincke’s photographic assistance could invariably be counted on. Bastian Still’s list of Dilbat names facilitated prosopographic searches of texts from this city. Special thanks are due to Stefan Zawadzki and Radosław Tarasewicz, who referred me to numerous legal texts, and with whom I spent hours discussing the intricacies of Babylonian documents on the top floor of our London haven on Bedford Street. I am deeply grateful to Aleksandra Podhorodecka and Zygmunt Podhorodecki, who opened their house and hearts to us and were always willing to host us in London. Stefan Zawadzki and Magdalena Kapełuś read the entire manuscript and suggested numerous corrections and clarifications. Michael Jursa recommended several improvements to my reading of the letter BM 72743. Kristin Kleber and Kai Metzler kindly agreed to accept the manuscript for publication in the series dubsar and guided me through the revision and editing process. The responsibility for any errors and omissions in the following pages rests, of course, with me alone. Finally, I thank Grześ for his love, patience, and support. It is to him that this book is dedicated.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Contents Introduction........................................................................................................ IX Conventions and Abbreviations ........................................................................ XV Catalogue of Texts .......................................................................................... XIX Concordances British Museum Numbers ....................................................................... XXI British Museum Registration Numbers ................................................. XXII I.

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings ............................. 1

II.

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus) ........................................................ 19

III. Transcripts of Trials................................................................................... 38 III.1 Transcripts of Trials: Babylon ..........................................................38 III.2 Transcripts of Trials: Borsippa? ........................................................45 III.3 Transcripts of Trials: Dilbat..............................................................47 III.4 Transcripts of Trials: Sippar .............................................................52 III.5 Transcripts of Trials: Uruk and Surroundings ..................................96 IV. Memoranda of Legal Proceedings ........................................................... 113 V.

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings ....................................................... 128

VI. Other Dispute-related Texts ..................................................................... 157 Bibliographical Abbreviations ......................................................................... 191 Bibliography .................................................................................................... 195 Indices Personal Names in Text Editions ..............................................................217 Personal Names in Commentaries and Notes ...........................................243 Geographic Names in Text Editions .........................................................246 Geographic Names in Commentaries and Notes ......................................247 Divine Names in Text Editions.................................................................248 Divine Names in Commentaries and Notes ..............................................249 Temple Names in Text Editions ...............................................................249 Temple Names in Commentaries and Notes.............................................250 Selected Akkadian Words and Phrases in Text Editions ..........................250 Selected Akkadian Words and Phrases in Commentaries and Notes .......260 General Index............................................................................................261 Texts Cited................................................................................................267 Copies ....................................................................................................Pls. I–LVI © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Introduction The present volume comprises critical editions of fifty-one hitherto unpublished Babylonian texts presently housed in the British Museum in London. They were written between the mid-seventh century and the first quarter of the fifth century BCE, a period that includes the final decades of the Assyrian domination over Babylonia, the rule of the Chaldean dynasty, and the reigns of the first three Persian kings who sat on the Babylonian throne.1 Although these texts stem from various archives, the decision to remove them from their archival contexts and publish them together is justified, as when grouped and treated as a coherent whole, they effectively contribute to an understanding of Neo-Babylonian dispute settlement mechanisms. The Babylonian system of administering justice was rooted in southern Mesopotamian traditions dating back to the third millennium BCE. This system vested the power to hear trials in civic and temple collegial bodies, officials, and judges, who usually sat in panels. Cases were also traditionally resolved via alternative means of dispute resolution (negotiations, mediation, and arbitration). In the first millennium BCE, the system underwent two major alterations. The first, which took place at some point during the Assyrian rule over Babylonia, introduced elements of the Assyrian machinery of justice (i.a., new judicial offices). The second reform, which was likely implemented in the latter part of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign, reintroduced judicial panels and established a central court in Babylon. It was part of a profound reorganization of the state administration that resulted, among other effects, in increased bureaucratization. Scribes began to write down many legal actions that had previously gone unrecorded, new legal formularies appeared, legal parlance underwent substantial changes, and state functionaries became more involved in legal proceedings. These innovations, further fueled by an increase in political and economic stability, resulted in an outpouring of legal texts, among them documents produced in the course of dispute resolution proceedings. Consequently, the Neo-Babylonian litigation process may be reconstructed in greater detail than is the case for any other period in Mesopotamian history. Not only proceedings in courts of justice become better known, but also preliminaries to trials (i.a., bringing of complaints, summoning of parties and witnesses, and pre-trial hearings), postlitigation procedures (i.a., handling of penalties), and, most remarkably, out-ofcourt settlements. Those documents that provide accounts of disputes resolved out of court employ the same language, sometimes even the same formularies, as records of in-court lawsuits, hence the cautious preference throughout this book for the

1

Due to the linguistic and formulaic continuity that characterize documents from this period, they are conventionally termed “Neo-Babylonian.” The label “early Neo-Babylonian” is used in this book in reference to texts written up to the middle of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

X

Introduction

neutral terms “dispute” (instead of “court case” or “trial”) and “dispute documents” (instead of “court documents” or “judicial documents”). The corpus of Neo-Babylonian dispute documents is rich and varied, despite the fact that no archives of judicial institutions survive from first millennium BCE Babylonia. However, this corpus suffers from a fundamental shortcoming: it is very unevenly distributed. The majority of texts from which the litigation process may be reconstructed derive from temple archives, chiefly from the archive of the Eanna temple of Uruk. Private archives feature dispute documents far less frequently, with one notable exception. In the archive of the Babylon branch of the Egibi family, a notably large group of litigation texts unrelated to the Egibi businesses were preserved. They were collected by a family member, Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, who worked as a court scribe and as a royal judge. Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin must have had a particular interest in Babylonian jurisprudence and legal documentation.2 His copies record in close detail the activity of the judicial collegium to which he belonged and the practice of the law in sixth-century Babylonia in general. Diachronically, the irregular distribution of Neo-Babylonian dispute documents mirrors the character of the entire Neo-Babylonian textual corpus. The period covering the seventh century and the first two decades of the sixth century BCE is underrepresented, and the bulk of relevant sources are concentrated in the reigns of Nabonidus, Cyrus, and Cambyses. Some clusters of litigation texts have come down to us by accident. For example, the lion’s share of legal deeds from the Eanna belongs to a dossier that was probably put aside after an investigation into a large-scale embezzlement of temple property.3 The geographic distribution of the corpus is likewise patchy. Conspicuously slim is the body of dispute documents from a number of Neo-Babylonian metropoles, such as Borsippa and Cutha, where judicial institutions must have had a strong footing. Furthermore, very little is known of the ways in which disputes were settled in the countryside, away from the large urban centers. In addition to the uneven chronological and geographical distribution of the source material, one issue in particular hampers the reconstruction of the system of administering justice in the Chaldean and Achaemenid periods. While judicial procedures in these periods are fairly well known, many aspects of the court structure remain obscure. It is only when it comes to Babylon and Uruk, and, to some extent, also Sippar, that judicial institutions can be reconstructed with confidence. Moreover, even in the case of centers from which rich textual material survives, the jurisdictions of courts remain partly elusive and the reasons behind the composition of particular judicial panels are ambiguous. It is largely unclear who was entitled to address particular judicial bodies, what subject matter could be brought before such bodies, and under what circumstances. Why did judges sit alone at 2 3

Van Driel 1985/1986: 55. Van Driel 1998: 67–68. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Introduction

XI

times when, on other occasions, they sat alongside local functionaries? Why did officials sometimes acted alone as adjudicators? What was the legal authority of temple officials? Even more difficult to establish is the vertical structure of the court system, as texts detailing interactions among various judicial institutions and functionaries (or institutions and functionaries appearing in judicial capacities) are indeed rare. The texts in the present volume were selected for publication in order to address these major obstacles, which impair a nuanced understanding of the NeoBabylonian litigation process. First, this book seeks to supplement the picture dominated by the material from Uruk and Babylon in the areas, in which our knowledge is particularly limited. It expands the slim corpus of early dispute records by adding documents from the reigns of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn and Kandālanu (Nos 1, 35–39). It presents texts that originate from or allude to proceedings held in cities that have hitherto contributed disproportionally little to our knowledge of the Neo-Babylonian administration of justice, such as Borsippa (Nos 15 and 41), Cutha (No. 37), Dilbat (Nos 4, 16, 36, and 45), Ḫursagkalamma (No. 44), and Larsa (Nos 2 and 32). Furthermore, it introduces documents that describe judicial proceedings in provincial centers in the Babylonian hinterland, namely Ālu-šaIaqiʾ-ilī (No. 29) and Dūr-Ugūmu (No. 31). In addition to filling chronological and geographical gaps in the source material, the texts included below lend insight into the court system, within the framework of which disputes were resolved. They provide new evidence of judges appearing alone (No. 49), sitting in panels (Nos 14, 16, 30, 41, 42, 48, 50, and 51), and alongside other functionaries (Nos 15, 32, 40, 46, 47). Nos 14 and 32 contribute to the understanding of the diachronic development of judicial panels; they are the earliest known Neo-Babylonian documents drafted before collegia of judges. A number of texts feature as members of judicial bodies officials who seldom appear in this role, such as a country governor of Akkad (No. 39), a deputy governor of the Sealand (No. 30), a deputy governor of Puqūdu (No. 29), a rab ālāni (No. 36), a šušānu (No. 24), an uppadētu (No. 47), a bēl qanâte (No. 45), a policeman (No. 45), and royal messengers (No. 31). Another group of documents makes it possible to explore the involvement of governors of Babylon (Nos 13, 17, 19, 28, 38, 43, and 46), Borsippa (Nos 15), Cutha (No. 37), and Dilbat (No. 45) in the administration of justice. The texts presented in the following pages shed also light on Babylonian civic and temple bodies. They provide information concerning the composition of collegia of elders and other assemblies in large cities such as Babylon (Nos 13 and 35), Cutha (No. 37), and Dilbat (Nos 4, 36, and 45), as well as in the countryside (Nos 29 and 31). At least thirteen documents elucidate the makeup and activity of Sippar’s legal bodies, namely kiništu, “the temple assembly” (Nos 6, 7, 10, and 18), šībūt āli, “the city elders” (Nos 11, 17, and 19), and ērib bīti (u) šībūt āli, “the temple enterers (and) the city elders” (Nos 20–22, [25], 26, and 43). While many legal deeds from Sippar have been known © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

XII

Introduction

for quite some time, only a handful of dispute documents from this town have been published up to date, even though the extant corpus of Sippar litigation texts is in fact significant. The Sippar material edited below allows a better insight into the ways the system of justice operated in towns administered by high priests in cooperation with civic and temple communities. The picture that emerges contrasts with that presented by texts from the Eanna of Uruk, one of the country’s largest and richest religious institutions. It is possible that, other than in large cities and temples, the judicial systems of mid-size towns such as Sippar were affected to a lesser degree by contemporary political decisions and hence retained more traditional forms. Several new texts allow for the identification of hierarchy clusters within the court system. One such cluster, comprising judges, temple officials, and the Sealand authorities, may be pinpointed in the Uruk material (No. 30). Documents from Sippar reveal vertical hierarchy chains beginning with the Ebabbar authorities and leading upwards (to the governor of Babylon [No. 43]) and downwards (to the authorities of one of Sippar’s satellite temples, the Eulmaš of Akkad [Nos 6, 7, 23, 33]). The material published below also facilitates the identification of the jurisdictions of certain Babylonian judicial bodies. A group of Sippar texts demonstrates beyond doubt that the legal authority of courts chaired by high priests was not restricted to cases involving temple property or personnel. The high priest of the Ebabbar, together with the enterers of the Ebabbar and the city elders, handled private property claims (Nos 20–22, 24?, 26, 42, and 43) and disputes in which women (Nos 20, 24, and 26), West Semites (No. 26), and slaves (No. 21) participated as parties. The appearance of judges from Babylon in Borsippa (No. 41) invites speculation concerning their geographical jurisdiction. Of particular interest is fresh evidence on the extensive judicial power of governors of Babylon, which may be gleaned from documents describing their involvement in the disputes of Sippareans (Nos 17, 19, and 43), even as far away as in Susa (No. 46). While primarily chosen for the light they shed on the judicial system, the texts in this volume make it possible to advance our knowledge of many other aspects of the Neo-Babylonian litigation process. They feature less frequently encountered parties to trials, such as women (Nos 3, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27), West Semites (No. 26), slaves (No. 21), and oblates (No. 45). Some documents disclose little-known procedures (e.g., alternative dispute resolution [Nos 1–3] and procedures implemented upon the infringement of cultic purity rules [No. 18]), previously unknown or little attested formularies (such as a litigant’s letter to judges [No. 51] and transcripts of interrogations [Nos 5–12] and negotiations [No. 1]), and uncommon sealing systems (No. 16). Others bear witness to the frequent use of oaths in court proceedings (Nos 15, 18, and especially 22). The new contexts identified by these texts allow for a more accurate understanding of several legal

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Introduction

XIII

terms and expressions (e.g., sipru [No. 9] and ina ḫūd libbi [No. 35], enû ... šuzuzzu [No. 16], ina qātē ... turru [No. 31], ina muḫḫi ... izuzzu [No. 31]). Many texts from the Sippar collection included below were written by AradBēl, descendant of Adad-šammē, a man who for forty years worked as a scribe in sixth-century BCE Sippar. His area of expertise was legal documents, judicial texts in particular. The legacy of Arad-Bēl is substantial. To the forty texts that identify him as scribe listed by A. C. V. M. Bongenaar (1997: 481–82), at least thirty more may be added presently (seven of which are included in this volume). The formal characteristics of these tablets and their distribution in the British Museum’s collections suggest that these documents could have been the private copies of Arad-Bēl. Similarly to Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, the court scribe and judge from the Egibi family, Arad-Bēl may have collected legal, particularly dispute, texts out of professional interest or as a hobby. The arrangement of the texts within this volume corresponds, insofar as is possible, to the presumed course of Neo-Babylonian legal proceedings. This book thus opens with records of negotiations, mediation, and/or arbitration (Ch. I), moves on to transcripts of pre-trial procedures (Ch. II), and then proceeds to trial transcripts and memoranda of trials and other legal proceedings (Ch. III–IV), and documents recording post-trial actions (Ch. V). The remaining texts are collectes in Ch. VI—a dispute background may be presumed in the case of some of them, while others present judicial officials in capacities other than those associated with adjudication, usually as esteemed witnesses. Within each chapter, texts are organized chronologically; the documents presented in Ch. IV are further grouped by place of issue.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Conventions and Abbreviations Officials’ Titles šangû šatammu bēl piqitti qīpu paqūdu sepīru rab qanâte šakin māti šākin ṭēmi tupšar Ebabbar4

high priest (temple) administrator (temple) supervisor (temple) resident policeman (left untranslated) (left untranslated) provincial governor governor (College) scribe of the Ebabbar

Dating Abbreviation of full dates follows a day-month-year pattern. Royal names are abbreviated as follows (all dates are BCE): Esh Ššu Kand Nbp NbkII AM Ngl LM Nbn Cyr Camb Bard NbkIII NbkIV DarI Xrx

Esarhaddon (681–669) Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (668–648) Kandalānu (648–627) Nabopolassar (626–605) Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562) Amēl-Marduk (561–560) Neriglissar (559–556) Lâbâši-Marduk (556) Nabonidus (555–539) Cyrus (538–530) Cambyses (529–522) Bardia (522) Nebuchadnezzar III (522) Nebuchadnezzar IV (521) Darius I (521–486) Xerxes (485–465)

The months of the Babylonian calendar are as follows: I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

nisannu ayyaru simānu duʼūzu abu ulūlu

VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII.

tašrītu araḫsamnu kislīmu ṭebētu šabaṭu addaru

4 The reading tupšarru rather than ṭupšarru (and tuppu rather than ṭuppu) follows CAD: Ṭ 148 and Streck 2009: 136–39.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

XVI

Conventions and Abbreviations

Weights and Measures Weight 1 šiqlu (shekel) 1 manû (mina) 1 biltu (talent)

= 60 shekels = 60 minas

= ca. 8.33 g = ca. 500 g = ca. 30 kg

Surface (reed system) 1 ammatu (cubit) = ca. 1.75 m2 1 nikkasu = 3.5 ammatu 1 qanû (reed) = 2 nikkasu

= ca. 6.125 m2 = ca. 12.25 m2

Surface (seed system) 1 qû 1 sūtu 1 pānu 1 kurru (kor)

= 6 qû = 6 sūtu = 5 pānu

= ca. 75 m2 = ca. 450 m2 = ca. 2,700 m2 = ca. 13,500 m2

Capacity 1 qû 1 sūtu 1 pānu 1 kurru (kor)

= 6 qû = 6 sūtu = 5 pānu

= ca. 1 liter = ca. 6 liters = ca. 36 liters = ca. 180 liters

Symbols and Abbreviations anc. b. Bertin BM coll. d. dau. DN Dur f. FLP gf. gm. GN gs. h. L. l.e. l.h.e.

ancestor brother unpublished copies by G. Bertin (British Museum) siglum of tablets in the British Museum collated descendant daughter divine name durative father siglum of tablets in the Free Library of Philadelphia grandfather grandmother geographic name grandson husband tablet’s length (cm) lower edge left-hand edge

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Conventions and Abbreviations

m. NBCT o.e. Pf PN f PN PN/PN2//PN3 Pret rev. RN s. sis. Strassmaier t: Th. u.e. W. w. YBC ⌈x⌉ ⌈...⌉ [x] [...]

x? x! x* +

XVII

mother siglum of tablets in the Newell Collection of Babylonian Tablets (Yale University) sign(s) written over erasure perfect personal name female personal name PN, son of PN2, descendant of PN3 preterite reverse royal name son sister unpublished copies by J. N. Strassmaier (British Museum) miswritten sign(s) tablet’s thickness (cm) upper edge tablet’s width (cm) wife siglum of tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection (Yale University) sign partially preserved fragment partially preserved sign damaged or reconstructed fragment damaged or reconstructed sign missed by scribe sign mistakenly added by scribe reading uncertain sign emended collated sign join

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Catalogue of Texts Text No. 1

BM number BM 38248

BM date number 1880-11-12, 130

Issue place

Issue date (D-M-Y)

Ruler

Babylon

6.12.13

Kand

?

?

2

BM 108912

1914-4-7, 78

Larsa

[1]6 .10 .42

NbkII

3

BM 64970

1882-9-18, 4951

Sippar

[x]+2.[x].2

AM

4

BM 40788 +BM 40823

1881-4-28, 333 +1881-4-28, 370

[Dilbat]

[x.x.x]+1

Nbn

5

BM 63551

1882-9-18, 3518

[Sippar]

5+[x.x.x]

[RN]

6

BM 67595

1882-9-18, 7593

[Sippar]

[x.x.2–15]

[Nbn]

7

BM 101913

1883-1-21, 3574

[Sippar]

[x.x.2–15]

[Nbn]

8

BM 84059

1883-1-21, 1222

Sippar

4.3.3

Nbn

9

BM 83623

1883-1-21, 786

(Sippar)

9.[x].3

Nbn

10

BM 67534 +BM 68568

1882-9-18, 7532 +1882-9-18, 8566

Sippar

[x.x.8–17]

[Nb]n

11

BM 65893

1882-9-18, 5885

[Sippar]

[x.x.1–7]

Cyr

12

BM 74466

1882-9-18, A.186

(Sippar)

28.3.1

Camb

?

13

BM 30155

1869-10-6, 3

[Babylon ]

[x.x.x]

[NbkII]

14

BM 61432

1882-9-18, 1406

[Babylon]

[x.x.x]

[NbkII?]

15

BM 32175

1876-11-17, 1902

[Borsippa?]

[x.x.x]

Cyr

16

BM 47475

1881-11-3, 180

Dilbat

[x.x].2

Ngl

17

CT 55 126 (BM 57645) +BM 59757 +BM 73034

1882-7-14, 2056 +1882-7-4, 4167 +1882-9-18, 13044

Sippar

[x.x.]0

[Ngl]

18

BM 63755

1882-9-18, 3722

[Sippar]

[x.x.8–15]

[Nbn]

19

BM 70214

1882-9-18, 10215

[Sippar?]

[x.x.x]

[Nbn– Camb]

20

BM 64626

1882-9-18, 4606

Sippar

⌈25⌉.5.⌈6⌉

Cyr

21

BM 65307

1882-9-18, 5292

[Sippar]

4+[x].9.6

Cyr

22

Mardukrēmanni 8 (BM 67336) +BM 65172

1882-9-18, 7332 +1882-9-18, 5154

Sippar

4.[x].6+[x]

Cyr

BM 73118 +BM 84019

1882-9-18, 13128 +1883-1-21, 1182

Sippar

[x.x].7?

Cyr

23

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

XX Text No.

Catalogue of Texts BM number

BM date number

Issue place

Issue date (D-M-Y)

Ruler

24

BM 101541

1883-1-21, 3202

Sippar

[x.x.7–9]

Cyr

25

BM 67747

1882-9-18, 7745

[Sippar]

30.[x.x]

[Cyr /Camb]

26

CT 55 194 (BM 58214) +BM 61474

1882-7-14, 2623 +1882-9-18, 1448

[Sippar]

[x.x.5–7]

[Cyr]

27

BM 68991

1882-9-18, 8990

[Sippar?]

[x.x.x]

[RN]

28

BM 67225

1882-9-18, 7221

[x]

8.1.4+[x]

N[xx]

29

BM 114577

1920-6-15, 173

Ālu-šaIaqiʾ-ilī

10+[x].11.3

Ngl

30

BM 114550

1920-6-15, 146

Uruk

24.6.10

Nbn

31

BM 114591

1920-6-15, 187

[...]

[x.x.x]

[RN]

?

32

BM 103505

1911-4-8, 195

Larsa

2+[x].1 .3[4]

NbkII

33

BM 114730

1920-12-13, 22

(Sippar?)

(x.x.8–15)

(Nbn)

34

BM 64105

1882-9-18, 4074

–

–

–

35

BM 77907

1885-4-30, 100

Babylon

[x].1.1

Ššu

36

BM 47480 +BM 47783

1881-11-3, 185 +1881-11-3, 488

Dilbat

23+[x].4.2

Ššu

37

BM 33905

Sp. 1

Cutha

28.1.12

Ššu

38

BM 77945

1885-4-30, 138

[Babylon?]

23+[x.x].⌈19⌉

Ššu

39

BM 49511

1882-3-23, 502

[Sippar?]

[x.x.0–13]

[Kand]

?

40

BM 62918

1882-9-18, 2887

⌈30 ⌉.[x].20+[x]

DarI

41

BM 43881

1881-7-1, 1642

Borsippa

[x.x].36

DarI

42

BM 63339

1882-9-18, 3307

[Sippar]

[x.x.x]

[RN]

43

BM 59582

1882-7-14, 3992

[Sippar]

[x.x.x]

[Nbn /Cyr]

44

BM 26651

1898-5-14, 469

Ḫursagkalamma

21.10.6

Camb

45

BM 47423

1881-11-3, 128

Dilbat

7.1.6

DarI

46

BM 68563 +BM 68965

1882-9-18, 8561 +1882-9-18, 8964

[Sus]a?

12.11.17

DarI

47

BM 31355

1876-11-17, 1082

[Babylon]

[x.x.33+x]

[DarI]

48

BM 31800

1876-11-17, 1527

[Babylon]

19.[x.30+x]

DarI

?

49

BM 64271

1882-9-18, 4247

[Sippar]

⌈9 ⌉.4.[x]

[DarI]

50

BM 50657

1882-3-23, 1648

[x]

[x.x.x]

[RN]

51

BM 72743

1882-9-18, 12751

–

–

–

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Concordances British Museum Numbers BM number BM 26651 BM 30155 BM 31355 BM 31800 BM 32175 BM 33905 BM 38248 BM 40788 +BM 40823 BM 40823 +BM 40788 BM 43881 BM 47423 BM 47475 BM 47480 +BM 47783 BM 47783 +BM 47480 BM 49511 BM 50657 BM 57645 +BM 59757 +BM 73034 BM 58214 +BM 61474 BM 59582 BM 59757 +BM 57645 +BM 73034 BM 61432 BM 61474 +BM 58214 BM 62918 BM 63339 BM 63551 BM 63755 BM 64105 BM 64271 BM 64626 BM 64970

Text No. 44 13 47 48 15 37 1 4 4 41 45 16 36 36 39 50 17

26 44 17

14 26 40 42 5 18 34 49 20 3

BM number BM 65172 +BM 67336 BM 65307 BM 65893 BM 67225 BM 67336 +BM 65172 BM 67534 +BM 68568 BM 67595 BM 67747 BM 68563 +BM 68965 BM 68568 +BM 67534 BM 68965 +BM 68563 BM 68991 BM 70214 BM 72743 BM 73034 +BM 57645 +BM 59757 BM 73118 +BM 84019 BM 74466 BM 77907 BM 77945 BM 83623 BM 84019 +BM 73118 BM 84059 BM 101541 BM 101913 BM 103505 BM 108912 BM 114550 BM 114577 BM 114591 BM 114730

Text No. 22 21 11 28 22 10 6 25 46 10 46 27 19 51 17

23 12 35 38 9 23 8 24 7 32 2 30 29 31 33

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

XXII

Concordances

British Museum Registration Numbers BM registration number Sp. 1 1869-10-6, 3 1876-11-17, 1082 1876-11-17, 1527 1876-11-17, 1902 1880-11-12, 130 1881-4-28, 333 +1881-4-28, 370 1881-4-28, 370 +1881-4-28, 333 1881-7-1, 1642 1881-11-3, 128 1881-11-3, 180 1881-11-3, 185 +1881-11-3, 488 1881-11-3, 488 +1881-11-3, 185 1882-3-23, 502 1882-3-23, 1648 1882-7-14, 2056 +1882-7-4, 4167 +1882-9-18, 13044 1882-7-14, 2623 +1882-9-18, 1448 1882-7-14, 3992 1882-7-4, 4167 +1882-7-14, 2056 +1882-9-18, 13044 1882-9-18, A.186 1882-9-18, 1406 1882-9-18, 1448 +1882-7-14, 2623 1882-9-18, 2887 1882-9-18, 3307 1882-9-18, 3518 1882-9-18, 3722 1882-9-18, 4074 1882-9-18, 4247 1882-9-18, 4606 1882-9-18, 4951

Text No. 37 13 47 48 15 1 4 4 41 45 16 36 36 39 50 17

26 43 17

12 14 26 40 42 5 18 34 49 20 3

BM registration number 1882-9-18, 5154 +1882-9-18, 7332 1882-9-18, 5292 1882-9-18, 5885 1882-9-18, 7221 1882-9-18, 7332 +1882-9-18, 5154 1882-9-18, 7532 +1882-9-18, 8566 1882-9-18, 7593 1882-9-18, 7745 1882-9-18, 8561 +1882-9-18, 8964 1882-9-18, 8566 +1882-9-18, 7532 1882-9-18, 8964 +1882-9-18, 8561 1882-9-18, 8990 1882-9-18, 10215 1882-9-18, 12751 1882-9-18, 13044 +1882-7-14, 2056 +1882-7-4, 4167 1882-9-18, 13128 +1883-1-21, 1182 1883-1-21, 786 1883-1-21, 1182 +1882-9-18, 13128 1883-1-21, 1222 1883-1-21, 3202 1883-1-21, 3574 1885-4-30, 100 1885-4-30, 138 1898-5-14, 469 1911-4-8, 195 1914-4-7, 78 1920-6-15, 146 1920-6-15, 173 1920-6-15, 187 1920-12-13, 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Text No. 22 21 11 28 22 10 6 25 46 10 46 27 19 51 17

23 9 23 8 24 7 35 38 44 17 2 30 29 31 33

I. Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings 1. BM 38248

Pl. I

1880-11-12, 130 W. 5.5 x L. 4.2 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. l.e. 11. 12. 13. rev. 14. 15. 16. 17.

md

nà-numun-ib-ni a lú.é.bar-dinnin-tin.⌈tir⌉.ki a-na mdamar.utu-gar-mu a mmu-líb-ši ki-a-am iq-bi um-ma 5½ ma.na 5 ⌈gín kù⌉.babbar ú-ìl-ti šá mmu-sum.na a mir-an-nu ina ugu mṣil-la-a ia-ʾ-lu mmu-mu i-na na-áš-par-ti-ia ú-ìl-ti ina ⌈ugu⌉ mṣil-la-a i-te-ʾ-⌈il⌉ kù.babbar a-tu-ú-a šu-ú kù.babbar-a bi-in-ni m gar-mu i-pul-šú um-ma lú.ra--ta-nu ina ugu é mṣil-la-a in-da-ṭu-ú at-ta it-ti lú.ra-šu-ta-nu mi-ṭi md

nà-numun-dù iš-me-ma ina ḫu-ud lìb-bi-šú 1 ma.na 50 gín kù.babbar ku-mu 5½ ⌈ma.na⌉ 5 gín kù.babbar ina šuii mdamar.utu-gar-mu iš-ši ù ⅔ ma.na kù.babbar ku-mu ra-šu-ti-šú ár-ki-tu šá ina ugu mṣil-la-a iš-ši ul i-tar-ma mdnà-numun-dù a-na ugu ra-šu-ti-šú ma-la ba-šu-ú it-ti dumu.meš šá mṣil-la-a ul i-dab-bu-ub

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

lú.mu-kin-nu men-šú-nu a mir!(t:ni)-a-ni šeš-šú šá mmu-mu m sum-nu-nu a-šú šá mmu-mu a mir!(t:ni)-a-ni m a-qar-a a mdù-eš-dingir mdnà-gin-ibila a-šú šá mníg.du a mir-a-ni ma-a a lú.báḫar f bu-na-ni-ti al-ti mden-tin-iṭ a mden-e-ṭè-ru u mdamar.utu-kar-da dumu-šú u lú.umbisag mnu-⌈um⌉-mu-ru a mši-gu-ú-a

u.e. 25. tin.tir.ki iti.še u4.6.kám mu.13.kám 26. kan-da-la-nu lugal tin.tir.ki Translation 1–7 Nabû-zēru-ibni, descendant of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili, said to Marduk-šākinšumi, descendant of Šumu-libši, as follows: “(As for) the five minas and thirty-five shekels of silver, the promissory note that Šumu-iddin, descendant of Irʾanni, drafted to the debit of Ṣillāya—Šumu-iddin drafted (this) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

2

8–10

11–15a

15b–17

18–28

24 25–26

Chapter I

promissory note to the debit of Ṣillāya (acting) as my agent. This silver is mine. Give me my silver!” (Marduk-)šākin-šumi answered him: “(Other) creditors of Ṣillāya’s house are satisfied with partial refunds. You (too), be satisfied with a partial refund, as are (other) creditors.” Nabû-zēru-ibni heard him out and in the joy of his heart took from Mardukšākin-šumi one mina and fifty shekels of silver instead of five minas and thirty-five shekels of silver. And he took two-thirds of a mina of silver for his former loan to Ṣillāya. Nabû-zēru-ibni will not go back to (the issue of) any of his loans. He will not litigate against the descendants of Ṣillāya. Witnesses: Bēlšunu, descendant of Irʾanni, the brother of Šumu-iddin, Iddinūnu, son of Šumu-iddin, descendant of Irʾanni, Aqarāya, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, Nabû-mukīn-apli, son of Kudurru, descendant of Irʾanni, Aplāya, descendant of Paḫḫāru, f Bunnānītu, the wife of Bēl-uballiṭ, descendant of Bēl-eṭēru and Marduk-eṭēru-ilēʾʾi, her son, and the scribe Nummuru, descendant of Šigûa. Babylon, month of addaru, sixth day, thirteenth year of Kandalānu, king of Babylon.

Commentary BM 38248 describes a settlement in a case involving four parties: a creditor, Nabû-zēru-ibni, descendant of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili; a debtor, Ṣillāya, whose family name is not given in the text; Nabû-zēru-ibni’s agent, Šumu-iddin, descendant of Irʾanni; and Marduk-šākin-šumi of the Šumu-libši family. At some point in the past, Nabû-zēru-ibni granted Ṣillāya a loan of over five and a half minas of silver. He acted through his agent, Šumu-iddin, who presumably recorded the loan in a promissory note written in his own name.5 Some time later, Nabû-zēruibni sought to recover the silver back, but, instead of turning to Ṣillāya with the request, he went to Marduk-šākin-šumi. It is reasonable to assume that Ṣillāya was no longer alive at that point and that Marduk-šakin-šumi, who was perhaps a member of Ṣillāya’s family, was the trustee of his estate. Since neither judges nor arbitrators are named in the text, the settlement between the creditor Nabûzēru-ibni and Marduk-šākin-šumi must have been reached by means of negotiation. 5

Cf. Oaths and Curses O.205, in which an agent drafts a promissory note in his name but gives the creditor a contract of agency (šaṭāru ša našparti) in which their relationship is defined. Nabû-zēru-ibni could have supported his claim with such a contract of agency. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

3

Nabû-zēru-ibni was not the only individual to whom Ṣillāya had debts. Other creditors also turned up. In lines 8–9, they are referred to as “the creditors of the house of Ṣillāya” (rašûtānū ša ina muḫḫi bīt Ṣillāya), which may be understood literally (as referring to creditors with claims to a house) or—more likely—figuratively (as referring to the creditors of Ṣillāya’s family). Unfortunately, Ṣillāya apparently left little behind, and the trustee, Marduk-šākin-šumi, could offer the creditors partial repayments only. These offers were accepted. Nabû-zēru-ibni had no choice but to do the same: instead of his five minas and thirty-five shekels of silver, he went home with one mina and fifty shekels, less than a third of his original capital. In addition, he managed to recover two thirds of a mina of silver, which he had lent to Ṣillāya on another occasion. Occasional acceptance of partial payments in lieu of full payments must have been inevitably part of creditors’ risky businesses. A dossier revealing the history of one insolvent debtor demonstrates that creditors were ready to accept half (AM 16 and 19) or even as little as a quarter (Amēl-Marduk 7 = Amēl-Marduk 8) of their original loans.6 All of these settlements were presumably preceded by lengthy give-and-take processes. Nabû-zēru-ibni’s agent Šumu-iddin is not mentioned in the procedure described in BM 38248; he is also absent from the witness list. He was presumably no longer alive when the settlement was negotiated. However, the witness list features three members of his family: his brother, Bēlšunu; his son, Iddinūnu; and Nabû-mukīn-apli, whose relation to Šumu-iddin is not identified in the text. Beyond these three relatives of Šumu-iddin and two other men (from the Eppēšilī and Paḫḫāru families), the witness list features a woman, fBunnānītu, the wife of Bēl-uballiṭ of the Bēl-eṭēru family, and her son. fBunnānītu’s presence at the transaction was certainly not accidental: she must have been related to one of the parties. She may have been the daughter of the debtor Ṣillāya or Ṣillāya’s widow (remarried to Bēl-uballiṭ); in that case, her son would be Ṣillāya’s son or grandson. Alternatively, fBunnānītu could be an Irʾanni, perhaps a widow of Šumu-iddin, whose son would be entitled to a share of Šumu-iddin’s estate under specific circumstances. By their presence at the transaction, the three men of the Irʾanni family and f Bunnānītu and her son signified their consent to the terms of the settlement and undertook that they would not lodge claims against Nabû-zēru-ibni requesting the return of the silver in the future. The archival setting of BM 38248 is uncertain. It makes sense that such a deed would enter the archive of any of the three parties involved: that of Nabû-zēruibni (as a record confirming the Irʾannis’ consent to the transaction), that of Marduk-šākin-šumi (as a record confirming the satisfaction of Nabû-zēru-ibni’s claims and the Irʾannis’ consent to it), or that of the Irʾannis’ (as a record confirming the satisfaction of Nabû-zēru-ibni’s claims). 6

Sack 1972: 35–36, cf. Wunsch 2003a: 169–70, Westbrook 2006: 141–42. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

4

Chapter I

Notes BM 38248 is listed in Brinkman and Kennedy 1983: 44 (L.72). 2 Marduk-šākin-šumi appears as a debtor in Weidner, AfO 16 no. 5 drafted fourteen days later (20.12.13Kand). 4 Outside BM 38248, not much is known about Šumu-iddin’s branch of the Irʾanni family. To my knowledge, neither Bēlšunu nor Iddinūnu are attested in the published material. Little more may be said about the third relative, Nabû-mukīn-apli. His father, Kudurru, is attested as a witness in documents from Babylon and Borsippa, and his grandfather Bēl-ušallim and his uncle Nādin-aḫi were scribes.7 This Nādin-aḫi could be the father of Šumu-iddin and Bēlšunu—such a close relationship could account for Nabû-mukīn-apli’s presence at the transaction—but Nādin-aḫi’s appearance as a scribe in the fifteenth year of Kandalānu (deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 16: 11), three years after BM 38248 was written, suggests otherwise: if he was the father of Šumu-iddin, Nādin-aḫi would presumably have been present at a transaction involving his late son’s businesses. 5 The form ia-ʾ-lu no doubt derives from eʾēlu, but the expected form is īʾil(l)u. If the prefix form is an Aramaism, it would corroborate the assumption that the Aramaic preformative vowel in the seventh century BCE was still /a/ (ya- rather than later yi-), as argued by Gzella (2014: 95–96). 9–10 “Satisfied with partial (refunds)” or “satisfied with less,” lit. “to be short in quantity” (CAD M1: 429–31). 11 On the expression ina ḫūd libbi, “in the joy of the heart,” see pp. 131–32. 13, 15 It is noteworthy that the acceptance of silver is rendered with the verb našû “to take up, to lift, to carry away” rather than maḫāru or eṭēru “to receive.” 21 Aplāya, descendant of Paḫḫāru, is also a witness in VAS 4 3: 12 (Babylon, 9Ššu). 22 Women rarely appear as witnesses, unless as ina ašābi-witnesses.8 Here, f Bunnānītu’s appearance likewise has to be treated as such, notwithstanding the missing key-words ina ašābi. f 22 Bunnānītu’s husband, Bēl-uballiṭ, owned a plot of land on the Euphrates in Babylon.9 23 In Neo-Babylonian, the personal suffix -šu is often used for third-person feminine (instead of -ša); it is therefore not obvious that Nabû-eṭēru-ilēʾʾi is described here as the son of fBunnānītu. The suffix could also refer to f Bunnānītu’s husband, Bēl-uballiṭ. However, since the woman is the focus here, the former possibility seems more likely. 24 The scribe Nummuru also wrote Weidner, AfO 16 no. 5 (Babylon, 13Kand). 7

See Nielsen 2011: 139–40 for the reconstruction of the Irʾannis’ family tree and references; cf. Nielsen 2015a: 92, 181, 269. 8 See Jursa 2005: 11–12 for rare exceptions. 9 Nielsen 2011: 56169. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

2. BM 108912

5

PL. II

1914-4-7, 78 W. 5.3 x L. 3.4 x Th. 2.0 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. l.e. 5. 6. rev. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. u.e. 13. 14. 15. 16. l.h.e. 17. 18.

md

en-⌈x-x⌉ a-šú šá mden-kar! md nà-muo.e.-muo.e. a-šú šá md30-en-šeš.meš-šú md utu-dù-ùru ⌈a⌉-šú šá mdu.gur-e?! md nà-šeš.meš-gi -šú šá miq-bi-a m

si-lim-dingir a-šú šá mla?!-⌈ba?⌉-[ši] an-nu-ú-tu lú.mu-kin-nuo.e..meš šá ina igi-ni-šú-nu mdutu-tak-lak it-ti md⌈ki⌉-dutu-tin i-tur-ru u uš-šú šá ip-⌈pu⌉-ul i-⌈pu⌉-uš ⌈mx x a⌉-šú šá md⌈en⌉-šeš.meš-su u lú.umbisag m⌈ki-damar⌉.utu-tin a-šú šá m [x] ⌈x⌉ a ud.⌈unug.ki iti.ab⌉ u4.[1]6?.⌈kám⌉ mu.42.kám dnà-níg.du-ùru lugal tin.tir.ki [(x)] mšá rit mu mdutu-numun-mu a-šú šá mìr?-⌈x-x-x⌉ md

utu-⌈x⌉-[x]-šá a!-šú m šu-ma-⌈a-aʾ⌉

Translation 1–5 Bēl-⌈...⌉, son of Bēl-ēṭir!, Nabû-šumu-iddin, son of Sîn-bēl-aḫḫēšu, Šamaš-tabni-uṣur, son of Nergal-iqbi?, Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim, of Iqbiya, Silim-ili, son of Lâbâ[ši]? 6–9 —these are the witnesses in whose presence Šamaš-taklāk lost his case against Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, and he (re)built the foundation (of the house) that he (had) demolished. 10 ..., son of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība (was an additional witness). 11–14 And the scribe: Itti-Marduk-balāṭu, son of [...]a?. Larsa, month of ⌈ṭebētu⌉, six[teen]th? day, forty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), king of Babylon. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

6 15–18

Chapter I

... Šamaš-zēru-iddin, son of Arad?-⌈...⌉ (and) Šamaš-[...]ša, son Šumāya (were additional witnesses).

Commentary This tablet belongs to the archive of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu (son of Lâbâši) of Larsa and his sons, who were entrepreneurs active in southern Babylonia from the midreign of Nebuchadnezzar II on. They engaged in various businesses, including ḫarrānu ventures, land and tax farming, and animal husbandry.10 Not much is known about their family immovables. Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu came into the possession of an empty lot, presumably in Larsa,11 but it must have been a property other than the one dealt with in BM 108912, since the contract for its sale was signed a few years later, during Amēl-Marduk’s reign. Another property of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu is mentioned in an unpublished document YBC 3526.12 This fragmentary tablet records a statement made by Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu to Šamaš-taklāk in reference to a plot of land in Larsa, on which Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu had built a house (⌈é⌉).13 Since the name Šamaš-taklāk is uncommon, it is probable that YBC 3526 and BM 108912 deal with the same dispute and the same house. The chronological order of these two documents is not straightforward due to the damaged date of issue of BM 108912, which was drafted either on the sixth (⌈6.10⌉.42NbkII) or on the sixteenth of ṭebētu ([1]6.⌈10⌉.42NbkII). Consequently, YBC 3526 (10.10.[42NbkII]) was written either four days before or six days after BM 108912. The later dating of BM 108912 seems more probable for reasons elucidated below. The text is chaotically phrased: the name of an additional witness has been added after the operative section, before the name of the scribe, and yet another two or three names appear at the end of the document. It is also clumsily written, with several erasures, a missing sign, and signs that were written with a split stylus. Furthermore, the use of tenses in the document is difficult. If the clause uš-šú šá ip-puul i-pu-uš describes a chain of actions that took place in the past (“he (re)built the foundation that he had demolished”), the first verbal form should be in the preterite and the conjunctive (ippulu). The emendation of the second verb to ippuš (“he will (re)build the foundation that he had demolished”) is tempting, yet it seems farfetched as long as the entire context of the dispute remains only partly known. If, despite these grammatical difficulties, the clause indeed describes two past actions, the objective of the drafting of BM 108912 was to confirm not only that Šamaš10

Beaulieu 1991, Wright 1994: 134–39, Beaulieu 2000b, Jursa 2005: 108–9. Beaulieu 2000b: 50–53. 12 Mentioned in Beaulieu 2000b: 49+14 and 66, ad no. 22 13 Ll. 1–5: mki-dutu-tin a-šú šá ml[a-b]a-ši a-na mdutu-tak-lak a-šú [š]á md[x x x]-ni ki-a-am iq-bi ⌈um⌉-ma qaq-qar ⌈x x⌉ KAL-ti šá mdnà-níg.du-ùru lugal tin.tir.ki ina ud.unug.ki ⌈aṣ⌉ṣa-bat ⌈ù é⌉ ina ⌈lìb-bi⌉ e-te-pu-uš “Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, son of Lābâši, spoke to Šamaštaklāk, son of [o o o]ni as follows: ‘I took possession of the land ⌈x x⌉ x x of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and built a house on it’” (Beaulieu 2000b: 4914). 11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

7

taklāk lost the case but also that he fulfilled the obligation to rebuild the foundation that had been imposed upon him. A possible course of events may then be reconstructed as follows: Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu erected a structure that Šamaš-talāk demolished for unclear reasons; Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu took legal steps in order to assert his rights (YBC 3526); Šamaš-taklāk then lost his case and rebuilt the structure (BM 108912). Although brief, BM 108912 presents several more interpretation problems. The first of these is the object of the dispute. The word uššu, “foundation, foundation trench,” is usually the object of laying (nadû, šakānu), establishing (šuršudu, kunnu), or reinforcing (dunnunu).14 Numerous texts refer to constructing (epēšu) and destroying (napālu) buildings and cities from their foundations to their parapets but never to destroying an uššu itself; admittedly, however, royal inscriptions and letters mention foundations reinforced with stone or laid with bricks that could be demolished. In view of the rarity of this expression, an emendation of uš-šú, “foundation,” to é-šú, “his house,” is tempting. This interpretation becomes impossible, however, once the chronological framework set by the documents is reconstructed. According to the sequence of events suggested above, BM 108912 was written six days after earlier proceedings (YBC 3526). If the dating of both documents is correct, the structure would have to have been rebuilt over a period of six days. This would hardly be feasible in the case of a house; however, if the disputed construction was not an entire house but rather a part of it, such as a foundation, Šamaš-taklāk could conceivably have completed the task in such a short period of time. The sign denoting the structure in YBC 3526: 5 is partly damaged (⌈é⌉); perhaps the reading ⌈uš-šú⌉ or ⌈suḫuš⌉ is not impossible. The second major difficulty posed by BM 108912 is the interpretation of the verb iturru in l. 8. Literally “to go back,” in the litigation context, târu is the opposite of zakû, “to become cleared, to win a case,” and hence means “to be proven guilty” or “to lose a case.”15 It is common in documents from earlier periods, especially in those describing the outcomes of oath or ordeal procedures.16 In firstmillennium Babylonian dispute documents, both zakû and târu are rare. They appear in only a few texts describing trials: OIP 114 23 PN a-na pa-ni-ía ki-i 12taš-pur di-⌈ni⌉ ina pa-an lú.a.kin-ka 13ki-i id-bubu it-tu-ra “When you sent PN to me, (and) when they had prosecuted the case in the presence of your messenger, he was proved guilty.” (transl. S. W. Cole) (followed by a report on the arrest of PN)

11

14

Cf. CAD U: 304–8. CAD T: 257–58. 16 Frymer-Kensky 1977: 385–87, eadem 1981: 129–31, Gurney 1983: 48–49, 54–55, Faist 2011: 260–61, eadem 2014: 193–98. 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

8

Chapter I

OIP 114 110 11’ a-na íd.ḫur-šá-na be-lí ⌈liš⌉-[pur]-⌈šú-nu-ti⌉-ma 12’ki-i it-⌈tu⌉-ru-ú-⌈ni⌉ 13’ ⌈a⌉-na ḫi-bil--šú-nu ⌈be-lí⌉ 14’li-x-x-šú-nu-⌈ti⌉ “Let my lord se[nd] them to the river ordeal; and if they are proved guilty, let my lord [...] them for their wrong.” (trans. S. W. Cole) Rutten, RA 41 15f PN a-na maḫ-ri ši-bu-ut uru 16tu-bil-ši-ma PN dumu-šú gal-ú i-tur-r[u] f PN brought (the tablet) before the city elders and PN, her son, lost his case.17 YOS 19 90 5 PN ù PN2 7di-i-ni (...) id!-dab-bu-ú-⌈ma⌉ 10[PN2 it-ti] PN (...) i-tur-ru 1220 u8.udu.[ḫi.a ku-u]m ⌈sa-ár-ti šá⌉ 13udu.níta šá PN3 14šá ina sa-ár-ti ti-ikku šá PN id-du-ú ù 16ḫa-ba-lu šá ṣe-e-nu-⌈uš⌉ ù ṣi-ib-te-e-tú 17⌈šá⌉ PN4 lú.sipa-šú ina muḫ-ḫi PN2 18ip-ru-us-su-uʾ PN and PN2 argued the case (...) and [PN2] lost his case [against] PN (...). They sentenced PN2 (to pay) 20 head of flock [fo]r the theft of the sheep of PN3, with which he had fraudulently accused PN, and for having put PN4, his (PN’s) shepherd, in fetters. A Neo-Babylonian paraphrase of an Assyrian document features târu having the same meaning: Ezida 220 2 PN it-ti PN2 3ù PN3 di-i-ni id-bu-bu-ú-ma PN 4iz-ka-a (...) PN2 u PN3 9 [i]-tu-ru-nim-ma18 PN argued the case against PN2 and PN3. PN won the case (lit. was cleared) (...). PN2 and PN3 lost their case. 17 Roth 1991–1993: 15: “(he) withdrew his suit”; Wunsch 2000b/II: 110: “zog seine Klage zurück.” 18 Or: [it]-tu-ru-nim-ma. Caroline Waerzeggers reads this fragment [ul? i]-tu-ru-nim-ma and considers it a part of a quitclaim clause (“Šulā and Nabû-iddin [= PN2 and PN3] will not come back (to litigate)”); however, there is not enough space for these two signs in the lacuna at the beginning of the line (coll.). Also, even taking into account the unusual formulary of this document, a quitclaim is not expected to appear before the verdict (as in Waerzeggers’s reconstruction). An alternative reading of following lines is: mdnà-sum.na a-na la* [e-né-e a-na? x]-ri ù lugal kur.aš-šur.ki i-qab-bi [um-ma] “In order not to [change (anything)], Nabû-iddin will make a (sworn?) statement [to ...] and the king of Assyria: (...).” Cf. Deller, Fales, and Jakob-Rost, SAAB 9 no. 111: 16, 19, and Donbaz and Parpola 2001 no. 311: 2, 312: 2, 6 for the expression ana (pān) DN qabû as an Assyrian introductory oath formula.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

9

BM 108912 demonstrates that the understanding of târu as “to lose one’s case” is more accurate than “to withdraw one’s claim.”19 The plaintiff in this dispute was Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, as follows from YBC 3526, wherein he formally presented his claim. The subject of târu in BM 108912 was the defendant, Šamaš-taklāk, who had not submitted the claim and hence could not have withdrawn it. If the reconstruction proposed above is correct, the dispute between IttiŠamaš-balāṭu and Šamaš-taklāk came to an end with the drafting of BM 108912. The document does not shed light on the circumstances under which the decision regarding Šamaš-taklāk was reached. It was written before witnesses, who may have been mediators or arbitrators; only the publication of YBC 3526 will allow for the proper classification of the entire procedure. Notes A tag bearing the number “85,” glued to the left-hand edge, covers part of the text. 5 The possibility that the first sign of the patronym is a corrupt TE or AD cannot be discarded. The name could be also mte-liḫ mte-pir, or mte-ḫiš. 13 Day “6” cannot be excluded, but “16” is preferred in view of the assumed correspondence between BM 108912 and YBC 3526.

3. BM 64970

Pl. III

1882-9-18, 4951 W. 5.9 x L. 3.9 x Th. 2.0 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

[u]l ta-tar-⌈ri⌉ fši-da-t[u4] dumu.sal-⌈su⌉ šá mé.dingir-na-ṭar ⌈dam⌉ md ḫar-lugal-pab lú.⌈azlag⌉ [a-na m]⌈den-mu⌉ a-šú šá m⌈d⌉[u.gu]r-⌈ú⌉-še-zib ina ugu ⌈ú-de⌉-e šá ⌈qu-up-pu⌉ šá šu-⌈ku⌉-ut-tu4o.e. šá ⌈la-pa-ni⌉ f(o.e.) ⌈in⌉-[ṣab]-⌈tu4⌉ dam mda-nù-⌈gi⌉ ⌈na-šu-ú⌉ u ra-šu-ti-šú ma-la ba-šu-ú it-ti

19

Note also an early Neo-Babylonian dispute document, in which târu apparently appears in a literal sense: Leichty, Festschrift Reiner: 3–5: (PN and his brothers) a-na paan lú.di.ku5.meš i-ru-bu-ma di-nu id-bu-bu ár-ka-niš ul-tu pa-an lú.di.ku5.meš i-tu-runim-ma a-ḫa-meš iš-tim-mu-ma “They went before judges, and they argued the case. Later, they returned from before the judges, and they reached a settlement (lit. heard each other).” © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

10

Chapter I

l.e. 9. 10. rev. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

md

en-mu ul ta-dab-bu-ub ⌈ta-a-ri⌉ u da-ba-ba ina bi-r[it-su-nu] ia-a-nu e-lat ú-ìl-tì šá 5 gí[n kù.babbar] lú.mu-⌈kin-nu⌉ m⌈kab-ti-dingir.meš⌉ a-šú šá m [x] ⌈x x-i-ra⌉-šú lúo.e..a šip-ri šá md⌈utu-x⌉ m ⌈ a-a a-šú⌉ [šá m]⌈d⌉di.ku5-kám mdutu-su ⌈a-šú šá⌉ [mx] ⌈x⌉ lú.gal ⌈šìr-ku šá⌉ dutu [lú.umbisag] ⌈md⌉utu-na-⌈ṣir⌉ a-šú [šá mši-rik-ti] [a lú.báḫ]ar sip-⌈par.ki iti⌉.[x] [u4.x+].⌈2.kám mu⌉.2.⌈kám⌉ l[ú-damar.utu] [lugal ti]n.⌈tir.ki⌉

Translation 1–10 f Šiddā[tu], daughter of Baytil-nāṭar, the wife of the was[herman?] Bunenešarru-uṣur, will [no]t renew claims [against] Bēl-iddin, son of [Nerga]lušēzib. She will not argue with Bēl-iddin over the items (udê) from the jewelry box that had been taken from fIn[ṣab]tu, the wife of Anu-ušallim, or any of her property. 10–11 There will be no renewal of litigation betw[een them]. This is apart from the promissory note for five she[kels of silver]. 11–15 Witnesses: Kabti-ilī, son of ⌈...⌉-irāšū, the messenger of ⌈Šamaš-...⌉, Aplāya, son of Madānu-ēreš, Šamaš-erība, son of [...], the chief of oblates of Šamaš. 16–19 [Scribe]: Šamaš-nāṣir, son [of Širikti, descendant of Paḫḫ]āru. Sippar, month of [...], 2+[xth day], second year of Am[ēl-Marduk, king of Ba]bylon. Commentary Quitclaims are common in Neo-Babylonian corpus, but the criminal background behind them is seldom as explicit as it is here. The text is terse, and hence the circumstances under which the offense was committed are not entirely clear. fŠiddātu commits herself to not argue with Bēl-iddin over missing jewelry. The items were not taken from her, however, but from (lapani) another lady. fŠiddātu’s jewelry was possibly placed for safekeeping with that woman. Such practice was common—and occasionally turned troublesome. Oaths and Curses O.265 relates how two women went to court over jewelry that went missing from a deposited box (in that case, the safe-keeper was openly accused of theft). Scheil, RA 14.XXXIV records a pending verdict regarding missing jewelry allegedly deposited by a couple with a woman who refused to admit the fact. In YOS 7 93, a couple swears that they have “no property, possessions, assets, or jewelry” belonging to a temple debtor and his wife. Clearly, deposits were at least sometimes a means of hiding wealth from authorities. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

11

f

Šiddātu and Bēl-iddin must had known each other before the incident took place, as the mention of the promissory note for silver in l. 11 suggests that they may have maintained business connections. The two-tier filiation and the presence of the Ebabbar’s rab širkē raise the possibility that one of the disputants was an oblate. Provided the reconstruction of his profession in l. 3 is correct, fŠiddātu’s husband, Bunenešarru-uṣur, was a washerman (ašlāku). He may be identical with a temple weaver (išpar birmi) and cloth-mender (mukabbû) attested between the eighth year of Nabonidus and the seventh year of Cambyses.20 Neither of these two titles may be restored in l. 3, but it may be surmised that, over the years, Bunene-šarru-uṣur advanced from the position of a washerman to that of a weaver and cloth-mender.21 The other disputant, Bēl-iddin, son of Nergal-ušēzib, was in all probability the brother-in-law of Arad-Bēl, descendant of Adad-šammē, a well-known Ebabbar scribe.22 Bēl-iddin was married to Arad-Bēl’s sister fŠikkūtu (=fŠikkûa);23 a group of his tablets entered the Adad-šammē’s family archive. Apart from the same name and chronological compatibility, the link between the protagonist of BM 64970 and Arad-Bēl’s brother-in-law is supported by the presence of Šamaš-nāṣir of the Pahhāru family. The scribe of BM 64970 and Bel-iddin appear together as witnesses in Wunsch, AfO 50 no. 8. Šamaš-nāṣir also drafted an important family deed of Bēl-idin, a record of adoption of a boy by Bēl-iddin and his wife fŠikkūtu (BM 68596 + BM 68704). Bēl-iddin’s conflict with fŠiddātu was not a single such dispute in his life. One year later at the latest, two men waived their claims against Bēl-iddin and promised not to litigate with him over, among others, udê. That quitclaim (Winkler, ZA 2: 168 = Neriglissar 84), phrased similarly to BM 64970, was drafted by Bēliddin’s brother-in-law, Arad-Bēl, descendant of Adad-šammē. No adjudicating officials are named; hence, the conflict was likely solved by the means of alternative dispute resolution. The men listed as witnesses (or some of them) could have acted as mediators or arbitrators. Notes 1 For the name fŠiddātu, see Hackl 2013: 176. 2 On Baytil (Bīt-il, Bethel), see Pearce and Wunsch 2014: 13, Porten 2014, and Beaulieu 2015. This theophoric element is spelled both with and without the divine determinative (as is the case here).24 For personal names employing the Aramaic verb nāṭar “to guard,” see Zadok 1977: 84.

20

Bongenaar 1997: 324–25, add Garments II 639: 11 and BaAr 4 53: 6. For the opposite course of career—from mukabbû to ašlāku—see Bēl-ittannu (Bongenaar 1997: 322). 22 See pp. XIII and 66. 23 BM 68596 + BM 68704, BM 74932. 24 Cf. BaAr 2 48: 7, 18, 24, Landwirtschaft 24: 6’, Pearce and Wunsch 2014: 268.

21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

12

Chapter I

3

The restoration lú.túg.[kal.kal] is impossible, as it would leave no space for the preposition before Bēl-iddin’s name. 14–15 No rab širkē by the name Šamaš-erība is otherwise attested. Šamaš-aḫḫēerība held the title since at least the second year of Nabonidus, and since his predecessor Taqīš is last attested in the thirty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar II,25 the emendation Šamaš--erība and the extension of the office term of this individual are tempting. However, Šamaš-aḫḫē-erība was probably the son of Šalammānu,26 and this patronym does not conform with the traces visible in l. 15. 16 For Šamaš-nāṣir, descendant of Paḫḫāru, see Bongenaar 1997: 497.

4. BM 40788 + BM 40823

Pl. IV

1881-4-28, 333 + 1881-4-28, 370 W. 6.1 x L. 5.5 x Th. 2.8 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. rev. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 25 26

[mìr-i]a u mgab-bi-dingir.meš-l[ugal-ùru a.meš šá mdnà-pab] u ⌈md⌉gu-la-numun-dù a-šú šá me-te[l?-pi?-damar?.ut]u? ⌈i-na den dnà⌉ u a-de-e šá mdnà-i lugal tin.t[ir.k]i ⌈a⌉-na a-ḫa-meš it-te-mu-⌈ú⌉ ki-i a-di-ia mim-mu ma-la ⌈mdnà⌉-mu-še-ti--ud.⌈da⌉ a-šú šá mdenam-me-ni ⌈a lú⌉.gal.dù u ⌈m⌉mu-še-zib-den a-⌈šú šá⌉ mden-numun-dù a ⌈lú⌉.šitim [u m]⌈d⌉di.ku5-numun-dù a-šú šá ma-a a mdù-eš-dingir [lú?.š]i-bu-tu uru dumu tin.tir.⌈ki i⌉-di-an-ni-šú [di-i-n]i ni-iṣ-bat eš.bar-šú-nu ni-iš-mu-ú [a-na ugu] ú-ìl-tì.meš-šú-nu u ri-ik-su-šú-nu [x x x]-⌈ma⌉ ina ká.gal ⌈x x⌉ ṣe den u dnà [u a-de-e] ⌈šá⌉ mdnà-i l[ugal tin.tir.k]i a-na a-⌈ḫa-meš⌉ [it-te]-mu ú-ìl-t[ì šá šá]m? š[e.numun?] [šá ina šuii mx x]-e-a im-ḫur-r[u x x x x] ⌈i⌉-pu-uš-šú ul-tu ugu ⌈ḫar⌉-r[i šá dla-ga-ma-al a-di] ⌈a⌉-rat-ti šá é-lú.nagar še.nu[mun x x x x x x] ù 10 ⌈50-ú⌉ šá mdnà-mu-mu ⌈a⌉-[šú šá mdu.gur-gi kiri6] gišimmar zaq-pu šá ús.sa.du ḫ[ar-ri] ⌈šá⌉ dla-⌈ga⌉-m[a-al] u mba-šá-a a-šú šá m⌈dnà⌉-dù a.šà lìb-b[u] a.šà a-di a-⌈rit-ti⌉ šá é-msud-⌈il⌉ šá mdnà-mu-m[u a]-šú šá mdu.gur-⌈gi x⌉ [x]

Bongenaar 1997: 41. Bongenaar 1997: 52–53. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

13

20. ⌈šá⌉ iš-šu-nim-ma pa-ni mìr-⌈ia⌉ u m⌈gab⌉-bi-dingir.⌈meš⌉-lu[gal-ùru] 21. a.meš šá mdnà-pab a-na u4.meš ṣa-⌈a-ta ú⌉-šad-⌈gil⌉-l[u?] 22. ta-a-ri u da-ba-ba ina ⌈bi-rit⌉-šú-nu ia-a-[nu] –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 23. lú.mu-kin-⌈né mduraš⌉-mu-dù ⌈a⌉ [m]⌈damar.utu?-su?⌉ lú.ku4 é duraš [o o] 24. mba-ni-ia a-šú šá mìr-dnà [a mx x x-n]i? mdamar.utu-⌈mu-x⌉ 25. ⌈a-šú šá⌉ md⌈di⌉.ku5-šeš-mu a mden-[x x x m]⌈ddi.ku5-x⌉[x] 26. [a-šú š]á ma-a a mden-e-ṭè-r[u lù.umbisag mx x x] u.e. 27. [a] mi-ra-šú-a-na-é.sag.í[l dil?-bat?.ki iti.x u4.x.kám] 28. [mu.(x+)].1.kám dnà-i lugal tin.tir.k[i (x x x x)] 29. [x]-⌈x⌉-e-ti šá fre-eʾ-in-d[u x x x x] 30. [i-na p]a-ni mìr-ia u mgab-b[i-dingir.meš-lugal-ùru] Translation 1–8 [Ard]ia and Gabbi-ilāni-š[arru-uṣur, sons of Nabû-nāṣir], and Gula-zēruibni, son of Et[el?-pī?-Mardu]k?, have sworn to each other by Bēl, Nabû, and the majesty of Nabonidus, king of Babylon: “(We swear) that whatever Nabû-mušēti-uddê, son of Bēl-ammēni, descendant of Rab-banê, and Mušēzib-Bēl, son of Bēl-zēru-ibni, descendant of Itinnu, [and] Madānuzēru-ibni, son of Aplāya, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, city [e]lders, the Babylonians, decree us!, we will! accept [the decisi]on and we will! hear their verdict out.” 9–12a [Regarding] their promissory notes and their contracts [...] in the gate [... swo]re to each other Bēl and Nabû, [and the majesty] of Nabonidus, k[ing of Babylo]n. 12b–21 The promissory note [for the pric]e? of the l[and? that ... had] bought [from ...]ea [...] made [...]—(the land that stretches) from the [Lāgāmal] Can[al up to] the branch canal at Bīt-Naggāri, the la[nd ...] and ten fifties of Nabûšumu-iddin, son [of Nergal-ušallim], the date [grove] adjacent to the Lāgam[āl]-C[anal] and (the plot of) Iqīšāya, son of Nabû-ibni, the field (that) is part of the (same) field, (streching) up to the branch canal at Bīt-Raši-il, which Nabû-šumu-id[din, son] of Nergal-ušallim [...]—(this promissory note) that he (Gula-zēru-ibni) had taken, they (the arbiters) transferred in perpetuity to Ardia and Gabbi-ilāni-š[arru-uṣur], sons of Nabû-uṣur. 22 There will be no renewed litigation among them. 23–26a Witnesses: Uraš-šumu-ibni, descendent of Marduk?-erība?, enterer of the temple of Uraš , Bānia, son of Arad-Nabû, [descendant of ...n]i?, Marduk-šumu-⌈...⌉, son of Madānu-aḫu-iddin, descendant of Bēl-[...], Madānu-[..., son o]f Aplāya, descendant of Bēl-eṭēru. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

14 26b–27a 27b–28 29–30

Chapter I

[Scribe: ..., descendant of] Irâš-ana-Esagil. [Dilbat?, month of ..., xth day], first? year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. [...] ... of fRēʾindu [... is wi]th Ardia and Gabb[i-ilāni-šarru-uṣur].

Commentary The presence of the enterer of the temple of Uraš (l. 23) and landscape characteristics (ll. 14, 17) suggest Dilbat as the place of issue. The Lāgāmal Canal mentioned in ll. 14 and 17 is known from several real estate sale contracts from Dilbat.27 At the end of the Assyrian period, part of the date groves in this area were in the hands of the Šangû-Dilbat, Basia, and Egibi families.28 The Dilbat branch of the Egibis, at least, had strong ties to the capital, where some of the transactions pertaining to their Dilbat properties were concluded.29 The archival setting of BM 40788 + BM 40823 is difficult to define, as the family names of litigants are not given (in accordance with a practice known from earlier Dilbat documents).30 No secure prosopographical connection may be established between the individuals mentioned in the text and any known Dilbat archive-holding family (Dābibi, Ea-qarrād-ilī, Egibi, Šangû-Dilbat, and Upāqu).31 On the other hand, traces of several individuals who appear in BM 40788 + BM 40823 lead to Babylon (see notes below). Moreover, the elders who settled the dispute are called “Babylonians” (“Bābilāya”), and the names of the litigants and most witnesses are characteristic of the onomasticon of Babylon; the family name of the scribe, Irâš-ana-Esagil, “In Esagila He Exults,” is particularly telling. The litigants and most of the individuals present must have been members of a community of immigrants from the city of Babylon who lived in Dilbat and maintained close connections with the capital.32 Several grammatical difficulties impede proper understanding of the text and the reconstruction of the events that it describes. Both the verb and the pronoun in i-dian-ni-šú in l. 7 seem corrupt. Here, one expects idiannūnâši, “they will render us.” Alternatively, the pronoun could be singular (idiannūšu) “they will render him,” but parallels (see below) speak against this interpretation. The construction of the oath poses another difficulty. The subordinator kī adīa introduces invariably positive promissory oaths.33 Thus, the two preterite forms that follow in l. 8 (kī adīa ... niṣbat ... nišmû) are difficult to account for. The possibility that there was another verb (the

27

I.a., OECT 10 391: 2, 392: 2, 393: 2, 396: 3–4, 397: 4 deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 9: 7, no. 21: 6, 14, 20, 22, 25. 28 Nielsen 2011: 112. 29 Jursa 2005: 100, Nielsen 2011: 112+393. 30 Nielsen 2011: 114–15. 31 Jursa 2005: 98–101. 32 On such communities, see Jursa 2010: 136–37 and Waerzeggers 2014: 45–49. 33 Sandowicz 2012: 29–30. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

15

verb of oath) at the broken beginning of l. 8 is faint, since nišmû in l. 7 is clearly in the subjunctive and thus must be a part of the sworn statement. The oath clause of BM 40788 + BM 40823 is contextually and syntactically parallel to sworn utterances found in two documents, VAS 6 38 and Cyr. 302. Unfortunately, the interpretation of verbal forms of these texts is difficult, chiefly because Neo-Babylonian does not render in a consistent manner the doubling of the last radicals of mediae infirmae verbs that distinguishes the durative from the preterite plural forms:34 VAS 6 38 kī mimma mala i-di-nu-na-šú dīnšunu nultanû (Pf) = idinnū (Dur) or idīnū (Pret) “(We swear) that whatever they decree(d) us, we will not change it.” Cyr. 302 kī

dīnu mala PN1–3 i-di-in-nu-na-šú adī ina libbi nizziz (Dur)35 = idinnū (Dur) “(We swear) that whatever PN1–3 decree us, we will abide by it.” BM 40788+ kī adīa mimma mala i-di-an-ni-šú = idiann (Dur)

niṣbat nišmû (Pret)

All three passages record litigants’ sworn acceptance of the decisions issued by arbitrators. Conceivably, these oaths could have been taken at the beginning of the procedure or after the decisions had been issued, and hence both the durative and the preterite in the first clause of VAS 6 38 make sense. However, since the first verbs in Cyr. 302 and BM 40788 + BM 40823 are clearly in the durative, it seems that i-di-nu-na-šú in VAS 6 38 more likely describes a future action (idinnū). While the verbs of oaths in the first two texts (nultanû, adī nizziz) refer to the future, those in BM 40788 + BM 40823 niṣbat nišmû) stand in the preterite, despite the fact they follow the future oath subordinator (kī adīa). Even if taken literally and ignoring the syntax of the Akkadian oath, these forms make the sentence illogical (“(We swear) that whatever decision they give us, we have accepted it and heard it out”). The Neo-Babylonian preterite carries occasionally a

34

Cf. Marduk-rēmanni 33, a summons to bring a defendant to trial, which provides that, upon default, the defendant (or his guarantor) will pay 14mim-ma ma-la di.⌈ku5⌉ i-di-nu, “whatever the judge decides.” 35 For nizziz as durative, see AHw: 409 (sub 4c), cf. Streck 1992: 280–82 and Weszeli 2005: 373–75. See also durative forms ni-iz-zi and ni-iz-ze-ez-zu-ú cited in Huehnergard 2002: 165. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

16

Chapter I

modal (precative) nuance, most frequently in the first person plural.36 However, this usage is attested in main clauses only.37 Moreover, it would be perplexing in a sworn statement, whose grammar is rigorous. Did the scribe use the preterite in order to express the verb’s perfective aspect? Since such a usage would be unparalleled, it is safer to assume a mistake. Oaths of this kind would have been redundant in court; they are hallmarks of arbitration. BM 40788 + BM 40823 allows for the reconstruction of the arbitration procedure: litigants chose their arbitrators and declared under oath that they would treat their decision as binding; the oath-taking and the following dispute settlement took place in the presence of witnesses; a decision was issued; and finally, a document describing the process was written, with a quitclaim among its final clauses. The particular significance of BM 40788 + BM 40823 lies in the fact that it depicts elders as arbitrators, not as judges, the role in which they are much better attested.38 The adjudicating body was likely composed of only three men (see below for an alternative understanding). All three were “Babylonians,” thus, members of a community of immigrants from the city of Babylon residing in Dilbat; Dilbatāya are notably absent. A similarly restricted composition of the adjudicating body (puḫur Bābilāya u Barsipāya) is found in another text from Dilbat, BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text no. 36).39 Notes A characteristic of the scribe’s writing style is a small ŠÁ, but only in the sequence a-šú šá; elsewhere, ŠÁ has the same size as other signs. The same peculiarity is found in a slightly earlier Dilbat tablet, BM 47475 (Text no. 16). Both tablets were written by various scribes, both of whom must have been educated in the same local school. 2 Alternative reconstructions: me-te[l o o]-⌈pi⌉ or me-te[l o o -l]u. 4 The name Bēl-ammēni, “Why, o Bēl?,” is unparalleled, but see similar “Klagerufe” names in Stamm 1939: 162–63. Cf. Ammēni-ilu, “Why, o god?,” in Hunger, BagM 5 no. 13: [2], 11, CTMMA 3 23: 8 and Lutz, UCP 10/9: 11 and Ammēni in Ólafsson and Pedersén, OrSuec 50 no. 4: 13 and Scheil, RT 17.XIII/3: 9. 5 Mušēzib-Bēl may be the father of Uraš-mukīn-apli, the first witness in BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 23–24, written in Dilbat in the sixth year of Darius I. 6 The elder Madānu-zēru-ibni seems to be identical with Madānu-zēru-ibni, son of Aplāya, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, the first witness in the Egibi text 36

Streck 1995: 127–39. I am grateful to Kristin Kleber for the suggestion to consider this possibility. 37 Streck 1995: 127–39. 38 See Dandamaev 1982, Wells 2010. 39 For an assembly of Babylonians and Dilbateans, see Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 = deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2 = Documents cunéiformes 355 = BM 29029: 5 (Dilbat, 16Ššu). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Records of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings

17

CTMMA 3 81, which was written in Babylon in the fourteenth year of Nabonidus (ll. 10–11). 7 In the broken beginning, [lú?.š]i-bu-tu has been reconstructed, but [ù š]ibu-tu remains a possibility. In the latter case, the adjudicating body would be composed of three named men and a group of elders. I find this interpretation less plausible. Litigation records indeed show elders sitting with officials (e.g., governors, high priests, judges), but the function of these three men is not identified here. Moreover, their full filiation is given, which suggests that they were not commonly known functionaries. 10 The name of a gate is expected in the lacuna, but the remaining signs cannot be connected to any known Dilbat topographical highlight (Unger 1931b: 29–30). 10–12 These lines describe another oath, one regarding a dossier of documents. 15 I take ārattu for a collateral or mistaken form of ārittu, “canal branching off at a right angle” (CAD A2: 268–69). 15, 19 Canals (or other topographic highlights) were not named after private house plots. Therefore, é lú.nagar and é msud-⌈il⌉ must be names of neighborhoods. Uraš-šumu-iddin of the Naggāru family sold land on the Lāgāmal Canal in Dilbat in the seventh year of Esarhaddon (OECT 10 395), and Bēl-ibni, descendant of Naggāru, was a governor of Dilbat under Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (BM 47480 + BM 47783 [Text no. 36]). Perhaps the Naggāru family owned land (a ḫanšû?) in this area, which, over time, came to be called Bīt-Naggāri (“House of the Carpenter”). Note a similarly constructed Dilbat toponym Bīt-Bārî, “House of the Diviner” (Nielsen, AfO 53 no. 4: 7). For Bīt-Naggāri in Borsippa, see Zadok 2006: 404 (BM 96151: 2) and 437 (BM 26504: 15’). 16 On ḫanšûs, see Peat 1983, van Driel 2002: 297–305, Nielsen 2011, passim, Janković 2013: 364–73 (Uruk), Nielsen and Waerzeggers 2016, Still 2016: 70–93 (Borsippa). See complexes of two ḫanšûs in Zadok 2006: 420 (BM 94716: 2) and possibly ten ḫanšûs in Jursa, AfO 53: 13’ (cf. the reading suggested on p. 51).40 In BM 40788 + BM 40823 and Jursa, AfO 53 (if correctly restored), these large complexes served as landmarks. 17 VAS 1 35: 16 mentions a sūqu ša dLāgāmal, but the beginning of the broken sign does not conform with the sign SILA. On the Dilbat deity Lāgāmal, son of Uraš, see Lambert 1983. 18 The neighbor Iqīšāya, son of Nabû-ibni, is possibly identical with Iqīšāya, son of Nabû-ibni, descendant of Ibnāya, the scribe of BM 47475 (Text no. 16). 18 On eqlu libbū eqli, see Sonnenschein 1925: 190–93, Steinmetzer 1933, and CAD L: 173. 40

“(Written in) the fifty of the House of Rēʾi-alpi (which is) within ten [fifties?] of the brewers” (13’50-ú šá é lú.sipa-gu4 ina lìb-bi 10 [50-ú.(meš)?] 14’šá lú.lùnga.meš). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

18

18 23 24 25

27 29

Chapter I

At the end of the line, by parallel with l. 15, one expects ārattu, but the traces do not match. Uraš-šumu-ibni was probably a priest of the local Eimbianu temple. The family name could also be [mx x x-p]ab. The witness Madānu-[...], son of Aplāya, descendant of Bēl-eṭēru, could be the son of Aplāya, son of Nergal-uballiṭ, descendant of Bēl-eṭēru, the scribe of Nbk. 172 (Babylon, 27NbkII) and a witness in Nbn. 65: 23 (Babylon, 2Nbn) and Nbn. 67: 18 (Babylon, 2Nbn). He could also be a brother of the master weaver Bēl-ēṭir, son of Aplāya, descendant of Bēl-eṭēru attested in Cyr. 64 = Pinches, BOR 1 1: 4 (Babylon, 3Cyr). For Irâš-ana-(temple name) as a family name, see VAS 6 95: 31. In the beginning, restore perhaps [ḫu-ṣ]e!-e-ti.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

II. Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus) 5. BM 63551

Pl. V

1882-9-18, 3518 W. 6.5 x L. 5.3 x Th. 2.3 format: landscape obv. 1. lú.mu-⌈kin⌉-né.me[š šá ina igi-šú-nu x x x x x] 2. lú.qí-[i]-pi šá ⌈é⌉.[babbar.ra u x x x x x] 3. lú.sanga sipo.e.-paro.e..kio.e. ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x] 4. mdnà-šeš-gál-ši ⌈a-šú⌉ [šá x x x x x x x] 5. mdnà-a-mu a-šú ⌈šá mx⌉ [x x x x x x x x] 6. [ma]š-ʾ-al-tu4 i-šá-a-l[u x x x x x x x x] 7. [a-š]ú šá mdutu-mu a lú.nagar i-[x x x x x x] 8. [mri-m]ut-den u mda-[x x x x x x x x] 9. [x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x x x x] ⌈x x x x⌉ [x x x x x] 2’. [x x] ⌈x m⌉numun-tin.tir.ki a- mina-sùḫ-⌈sur a⌉ [maš-sur] 3’. [x x] ⌈x x šá⌉ ri a-šú šá mnumun-gin [a mx x] 4’. [mdn]à-dib-ud.da a-šú šá mnumun-ía ⌈a⌉ [mba-la-ṭu] 5’. ⌈m⌉den-gi a-šú šá mdutu-zálag-i[r a mmi-ṣir-a-a?] 6’. mdu.gur-mu a!-šú šá mmu-še-z[ib(-dx) a mx x] 7’. msi-lim-den a-šú šá mba-l[aṭ-su a mx x x] 8’. mnumun-iao.e. a-šú šá md[x x x a mx x x] 9’. mba-la-ṭu a-šú šá m⌈d⌉[x x x x x] 10’. a!(t:šá) mšu!(t:su)-zu-⌈bu⌉ msum.n[a x x x x x x x] 11’. u lú.umbisag mdutu-dù-[ùru a-šú šá msu-damar.utu] u.e. 12’. ⌈a⌉ lú.sanga-dinnin-tin.t[ir.ki sip-par.ki iti.x] 13’. u4.⌈5+⌉[x.kám mu.x.kám x x x x x x] Translation 1–9 These are the witnesses [in whose presence ...], the resident of the E[babbar, and ...], the high priest of Sippar, [...] questioned Nabû-aḫu-ušabši, son [of ...] Nabû-aplu-iddin, son of [...]. [...], son of Šamaš-iddin, descendant of Naggāru, [... Rīm]ūt-Bēl and Ilēʾʾi-[...]. (large lacuna) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

20 1’–10’

11’–13’

Chapter II

[...] Zēr-Bābili, son! of Ina-ṭēšê-ēṭir, descendant of [Ēdu-ēṭir], [...]šari, son of Zēru-ukīn, [descendant of ...], [Na]bû-mušētiq-uddê, son of Zēria, descendant of [Balāṭu], Bēl-ušallim, son of Šamaš-unammi[r, descendant of Miṣrāya?], Nergal-iddin, son of Mušē[zib(-...), descendant of ...], Silim-Bēl, son of Bal[āssu, descendant of ...], Zēria, son of [..., descendant of ...], Balāṭu, son of [...], descendant! of Šūzubu, Iddin-[...], and the scribe, Šamaš-tabni-[uṣur, son of Erība-Marduk], descendant of Šangû-Ištar-Bāb[ili]. [Sippar, month of ...], 5[+x]th day, [year x of ...].

Commentary BM 63551 is styled on the formulary of depositions and testimonies given in the presence of witnesses. It differs from most transcripts of interrogations that begin with the heading mašʾaltu ša, “the interrogation of/regarding.” The first and the third witnesses whose names survive (Zēr-Bābili and Nabûmušētiq-uddê, respectively) were temple enterers. Considering the attestation dates of these two men and of the witness Bēl-ušallim, BM 63551 may be dated between the end of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II and the beginning of Nabonidus’s reign. Notes 8 The reading of the first name comes courtesy of Stefan Zawadzki. The second name in this line may also be Da[...]. 2’ The emendation is required, as Ina-tēšê-ēṭir is not a Neo-Babylonian family name.41 Zēr-Bābili, attested between the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar II and the third year of Nabonidus,42 was himself interrogated according to the mašʾaltu BM 83623 (Text no. 9). 4’ Nabû-mušētiq-uddê is known from texts written between the beginning of Amēl-Marduk’s rule and the end of Cyrus’s reign; he was possibly an ērib bīti.43 5’ The rab bani Bēl-ušallim/Šamaš-unammir(//Miṣrāya) is attested over a period of 55 years (20Nbp–5Nbn).44 Perhaps two bearers of the same name and patronym should be distinguished? 41

Cf. Wunsch 2014: 302–11 and Nielsen 2015a: 160. Bēl-rēmanni: 142–43, l. 31 (35NbkII), BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 2 (3Nbn). 43 Bongenaar 1997: 164. 44 Jursa 1995a: 72, 76, Da Riva 2002: 422, CTMMA 4 24: 6. 42

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

11’

21

The scribe is possibly Šamaš-tabni-uṣur, son of Erība-Marduk (1Ngl– 15Nbn).45 For chronological reasons, Šamaš-tabni-uṣur, son of MušēzibMarduk of the same family (15Nbn–4DarI), fits less well.46

6. BM 67595

PL. VI

1882-9-18, 7593 W. 4.8 x L. 4.5 x Th. 2.0 format: landscape? obv. 1. ma-áš-⌈ʾ⌉-al-tu4 šá ⌈m⌉[x x x x x x lú.qí-i-pi é.babbar.ra] 2. mmu-še-⌈zib⌉-damar.utu lú.s[anga sip-par.ki lú.ku4 é dutu (u)] 3. lú.⌈ki!⌉-n[a-al-t]u4 é.babb[ar.ra mìr-da-nu-ni-tu4] 4. lú.se-p[ir] lú.⌈ku4 é d⌉g[ašan a-kad.ki (u) lú.ki-na-al-tu4 šá é] 5. šá ⌈dgašan a-kad.ki a-na md⌉[x x x x x x x x x] 6. ⌈šá dgašan a⌉-[kad.ki i]-⌈ša-a-la⌉ u[m-ma x x x x x x x x] 7. ⌈lú.qal-la⌉ šá [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] 8. [x] ⌈x x x ku?⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x] 9. [x x] ⌈x x x x⌉ [x x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x] (scratches) Translation 1–6a Questioning of [...] of the Lady of [Akkad] that [..., the resident of the Ebabbar], Mušēzib-Marduk, the h[igh priest of Sippar, the enterers of the temple of Šamaš, (and)] the temple assembly of the Ebabbar, [AradAnunītu], the sep[īru], the enterers of the temple of the L[ady of Akkad, (and) the assembly of the temple] of the Lady of Akkad conducted. 6b–9 (They asked): “[...] the slave of [...] ⌈...⌉ [...] (rest broken away) Commentary BM 67595 resembles closely BM 101913 (Text no. 7), but it is uncertain whether these two texts are duplicates. Since transcripts of mašʾaltus were written during interrogations and the information recorded in them was transferred 45 46

Bongenaar 1997: 441, 498. Bongenaar 1997: 441, 498. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

22

Chapter II

shortly thereafter onto the transcripts of trials, it would be pointless to produce two copies of a document of this type. It can therefore be presumed that BM 67595 and BM 101913 were written at approximately the same time, perhaps as part of the same investigation procedure, but they record the interrogations of two different men. The reconstruction of broken fragments follows BM 101913 and gaps in both texts have been restored based on parallels with CT 57 10 and Pinches, JTVI 57. The body that conducted the questioning was composed of high officials of two Babylonian temples, the Ebabbar of Sippar (its resident, high priest, temple enterers, and temple assembly) and the Eulmaš of Akkad (its sepīru, temple enterers, and the temple assembly). The common appearance of officials from these two temples in similar contexts is not exceptional. Documents written over the period of many years attest to a long-standing cooperation between these two temples in the sphere of the administration of justice.47 An almost identical composition of the interrogating panel is found in two more transcripts, CT 57 10 and Pinches, JTVI 57: BM 67595 and BM 101913 (2–15Nbn) [Nergal-šarru-bulliṭ or Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša qīpu Ebabbar] Mušēzib-Marduk š[angû Sippar] [ērib bīt Šamaš] kin[alt]i Ebabbar [Arad-Anunītu] sep[īru] ērib bīt B[ēlet-Akkad] [kinaltu ša bīti] ša Bēlet-Akkad

CT 57 10 (coll.) (8–15Nbn) Bēl-aḫḫ[ē-iqīša qīpu Ebabbar]

Pinches, JTVI 57 (15Nbn–5Cyr) Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša qīpu Ebabbar

[Mušēzib]-Marduk* šangû Sippar ērib bīt Šamaš kinalti Ebabbar A[rad*-Anunītu sepīru] ērib* bīt* Bēlet-Akkad ki[naltu]* ša* bīt d

[Marduk-šumu-idd]in?48 šangû Sippar ērib bīt Šamaš [kinalti] Ebabbar Arad-Anunītu [sepīru] [ērib bīt] Bēlet-Akkad kinalti Eulmaš

Some time later, yet another high priest of Sippar, Bēl-uballiṭ, sat to hear trial together with the high priest of Akkad and the resident of the Eulmaš (BM 73118 + BM 84019 [Text no. 23], 7Cyr). It is noteworthy that, as BM 67595, BM 101913, CT 57 10, and Pinches, JTVI 57 indicate, the cooperation was not limited to hearing trials but also included pre-trial investigation. On account of the presence of the high priest Mušēzib-Marduk, BM 67595 may be dated between the second and the fifteenth years of Nabonidus.49 If the official listed before him was the resident Nergal-šarru-bulliṭ, this period may be 47

See Sandowicz, forthcoming, cf. BM 73118 + BM 84019 (Text no. 23) and BM 114730 (Text no. 33) below. On the relations between the Ebabbar and the Eulmaš in general, see McEwan 1982b, Frame 1993, Jursa 1996, idem 1997a, and Pirngruber 2014. 48 Cf. Sandowicz, forthcoming. 49 Bongenaar 1997: 28–29. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

23

further narrowed down to years two through six of Nabonidus.50 If it was Bēlaḫḫē-iqīša, the document was drafted between the eighth and the fifteenth years of the same king.51 The later dating seems more probable in view of the correspondences among BM 67595 and BM 101913 and two other documents. Notes Scratches on the blank reverses of tablets served to prevent additions.52 Similar markings frequently appear on transcripts of interrogations; they are found on BM 101913 (Text no. 7), BM 84059 (Text no. 8), and BM 65893 (Text no. 11), as well as on CT 57 10 and BM 68271 (possibly a mašʾaltu protocol). 3 The second sign resembles KA, not KI.

7. BM 101913

Pl. VII

1883-1-21, 3574 W. 5.2 x L. 5.7 x Th. 2.4 format: landscape? obv. 1. ma-áš-ʾ-al-tu4 šá [x x x x x x lú.qí-i-pi é.babbar.ra] 2. [m]mu-še-zib-damar.utu lú.s[anga sip-par.ki lú.ku4 é dutu (u)] 3. ⌈lú⌉.ki-na-al-⌈tu4 é⌉.[babbar.ra mìr-da-nu-ni-tu4 lú.se-pir] 4. lú.ku4 é ⌈d⌉gašan ⌈a⌉-ka[d.ki (u) lú.ki-na-al-tu4 šá é dgašan a-kad.ki] 5. a-na md⌈utu-su lú⌉.g[al x x x x x x x x x x x x] 6. i-ša-a-la ⌈um-ma x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] 7. é.kur na aṣ ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] 8. ú-še-⌈ṣi x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] 9. iq-bi ⌈um-ma ul?-tu?⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] 10. na-šá-aʾ ina ⌈muḫ⌉-ḫi šido.e.-di ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x] 11. a-ka-ku ⌈it-ti-šú? x⌉ [ x x x x x x x x] 12. mit-gur ⌈x⌉ ru ⌈x⌉ [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x] l.e. 13. iq-bi ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] rev. (too fragmentary for transliteration) Translation 1–6a Questioning of Šamaš-erība, the ch[ief of ...], that [..., the resident of the Ebabbar], Mušēzib-Marduk, the h[igh priest of Sippar, the enterers of the temple of Šamaš, (and)] the temple assembly of the E[babbar, Arad50

Bongenaar 1997: 47–48. Bongenaar 1997: 48–49. 52 Jursa in Zawadzki and Jursa 2001: 358, Sandowicz, forthcoming. 51

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

24

Chapter II

Anunītu, the sepīru], the enterers of the temple of the Lady of Akka[d, (and) the assembly of the temple of the Lady of Akkad] conducted. 6b–13 (They asked): “[...] temple? [...] took out [...].” He said: “From [...] were taken. In the area of [...] I was powerless. [...] with him? [...] consent [...].” He said [...] (reverse too fragmentary for translation) Commentary BM 101913 was likely written at approximately the same time as BM 67595 (Text no. 6) and concerns the same investigation. See pp. 21–23 for commentary on both documents. Notes The obverse is partly burned. Across the reverse, there is a deep slanted stroke.53 5 The reading lú.q[al-lu], “slave,” is also possible. 7 Read perhaps saḫ-le- aṣ-⌈x⌉-[...]. 10 Cf. šiddu (UŠ) ša bābi rabî ša Ebabbar in CT 56 573: 2, CT 56 574: 2, CT 56 578: 2, and CT 55 581: 2 (CAD Š2: 407), probably also CT 56 575: 1–2 (⌈šid⌉-[du šá é].babbar.ra). 11 It cannot be excluded that the third sign in this line is ÁŠ written over an erasure (a-ka-ášo.e.). The verbal form could then be derived from kâšu, “to be late, to tarry” (CAD K: 294–95), gâšu/kâšu A, “to go, to come” (CAD G: 58), or akāšu, “to move, to go” (CAD A1: 263–65). However, preterite forms (which would be expected in a testimony) would have a different theme vowel (akūš/ākuš). I therefore favour the reading a-ka-ku, which I take for a stative of akû/makû. Given the fragmentary nature of this text, this interpretation is speculative. 11 Alternatively, read ⌈it-ti mx⌉-[...]. 12 The third sign resembles ID. Read perhaps mit-gur ⌈eṭ⌉-ru.

8. BM 84059 1883-1-21, 1222 W. 8.7 x L. 3.0 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 53

⌈ma⌉-[áš]-šá-al-tu4 šá é šá ina muḫ-ḫi ka-a-ri zimbir.k[i šá] [mdn]à-tin-kám lú.qí-i-pi šá é.babbar.ra i-na níg.ga d[utu ki.lam] [i-p]u-uš mdu.gur-lugal-bul-⌈liṭ lú.qí-i⌉-pi šá ⌈é⌉.babbar.r[a]

For markings on the transcripts of mašʾaltus, see Sandowicz, forthcoming. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. VIII

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

25

4. [u m]kar-damar.utu lú.sanga z[imbir.ki] ⌈a⌉-na mdutu-⌈šeš⌉.-s[u] 5. [l]ú.gal šìr-ki mb[a? x x x x] ⌈x x x⌉ [(x x)] 6. [lú].⌈se⌉-pi-ri ⌈i-šá⌉-[a-la x x x x x x x x x] 7. [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. ⌈a m⌉[x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 2’. a m⌈lú⌉.azlag ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 3’. ù lú.umbisag mdutu-⌈gin⌉-[a a-šú šá] ⌈mdnà-gin⌉-[numun] 4’. a mši-gu-ú-a ⌈zimbir.ki⌉ 5’. iti.sig4 u4.4.kám mu.3.kám dnà-i 6’. lugal tin.tir.ki u.e. (markings?) Translation 1–3a Questioning regarding a house in the quay of Sippar [that Na]bû-balāṭu-ēreš, the resident of the Ebabbar, had pur[chased] with the assets of [Šamaš]. 3b–7 Nergal-šarru-bulliṭ, the resident of the Ebabbar, [and] Mušēzib-Marduk, the high priest of S[ippar, questi]oned Šamaš-aḫ-er[ība], the chief of oblates, [...] sepīru [...]. (large lacuna) 1’–2’ [...], descendant of [...], [...], descendant of Ašlāku [...], 3’–6’ and the scribe Šamaš-mukīn-[apli, son of] Nabû-mukīn-[zēri], descendant of Šigûa. Sippar, month of simānu, fourth day, third year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Commentary The Ebabbar owed numerous houses in the center of Sippar and on the quay.54 They were rented, among others, to oblates, hence, perhaps, the presence of the chief of oblates in BM 84059. The fragmentary state of the tablet does not permit the capacity in which he appeared before the interrogators to be established. Did he testify in a case involving a house that belonged to the temple, or was he accused of the misuse of such a house? Nabû-balāṭu-ēreš was the resident of the Ebabbar between the twenty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar II and the second year of Neriglissar.55 The investigation therefore concerned a purchase made at least five years earlier. 54 55

See Bongenaar 2001, Zawadzki 2018: 121. Bongenaar 1997: 47. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

26

Chapter II

Notes The signs on the reverse are larger and more slanted than those on the obverse. The markings on the upper edge appear to have been made intentionally. On the left side of the reverse, there is a vertical incision that likewise does not seem to have been accidental. 4 I take ana for nota accusativi. 4 The rab širkē Šamaš-aḫḫē-erība, son of Šalammānu, is well attested between the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II and beginning of that of Cyrus.56 Two days before the questioning (on 2.3.3Nbn), he received commodities and shovels from a temple storehouse (CT 55 373). 3’ The scribe Šamaš-mukīn-apli is known from several documents written between the second and the eleventh years of Nabonidus.57

9. BM 83623

Pl. IX

1883-1-21, 786 W. 8.2 x L. 3.4 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape Courtesy of Stefan Zawadzki obv. 1. [m]a-áš-šá-⌈al⌉-tu4 šá ⌈mmu-še⌉-zib-[d]⌈amar.utu⌉ lú.sanga zimb[ir.ki] 2. ⌈a-na⌉ m⌈numun⌉-tin.tir.ki dumu-šú šá [mina-s]ùḫ-sur a m!(t:šá)aš-sur ⌈i⌉-n[a] 3. [iti.x u4].⌈9⌉.kám mu.3.kám m⌈dnà-i⌉ lugal nun.ki i-šá-⌈al⌉-[lu-ma] 4. [iq-bi um-ma] ⌈x x x⌉ [x] zimbir.ki ù ⌈x x⌉ [x x x] 5. [x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ mim-⌈ma⌉ šá si-pi-⌈ir x⌉ [x x x x x] 6. [x x x x x x x x x x] x [x x x x x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x] 2’. [x x x x x x x] ⌈a⌉-na pa-ni dumu ⌈lugal x x⌉ [x] 3’. [x x x lú].⌈qal-la⌉ ù anše a-na mdu[tu?-x x x] 4’. [x x x m]a? šá é dingir.meš a-na pa-ni dumu lugal [x x x] 5’. [mx x]-⌈damar⌉.utu dumu-šú šá mšu-la-a i-ša-al-uʾ-ma iq-[bi um-ma] 6’. ⌈mìr⌉-den dumu-šú šá mdnà-šeš.meš-mu ⌈mdutu?-x⌉[x x x] 7’. a-šú šá mdutu-mu-si. iq-bi u[m-ma x x x x x] 8’. ⌈i⌉-ši mdutu-tin-iṭ ina igi-ia ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x] 56 57

Bongenaar 1997: 53. Bongenaar 1997: 497. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

27

u.e. 9’. ⌈ul⌉ ma-aṣ-ṣa ak-ki-i ⌈x⌉ [(x x x x)] 10’. [lú.qa]l-⌈la⌉ u anše lid-din-nu-uʾ ⌈x x x x⌉ Translation 1–3 Questioning of Zēr-Bābili, son of [Ina-t]ēšê-ēṭir, descendant! of Ēdu-ēṭir, that Mušēzib-Marduk, the high priest of Sippar, conducted i[n month ...], ⌈ninth⌉ [day], third year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. 4–6 [He said: “...] Sippar and [...] any fraud [...].” (large lacuna) 1’–4’ [...] to the crown prince [... a sl]ave and a donkey to Ša[maš?-...] of the temple to the crown prince [...].” 5’–10’ They questioned [...]-Marduk, son of Šulāya. He sa[id]: “Arad-Bēl, son of Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, Šamaš?-[...], son of Šamaš-šumu-līš, said: There is [...]. Šamaš-uballiṭ [...] before me [...] there is no [...], as [...]. They shall give [... the sl]ave and the donkey [...].” Commentary This mašʾaltu records the interrogations of two individuals: Zēr-Bābili, descendant of Ēdu-ēṭir (ll. 2ff.), and [...]-Marduk, son of Šulāya (ll. 5’ff.). Zēr-Bābili, a temple enterer of Šamaš,58 appeared as a witness at another interrogation procedure (BM 63551 [Text no. 5]: 2’). The identity of [...]-Marduk is uncertain. The lack of a family name suggests that he was not a member of the temple prebendary elite, but, if the family name was simply omitted, he could have been NāʾidMarduk, son of Šulāya, descendant of Iddin-Marduk, a (possible) College scribe and a brewer.59 This would in turn make it possible to identify Arad-Bēl, son of Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin (l. 6), as a member of the Isinnāya family, who was also a scribe and a brewer.60 Nāʾid-Marduk and Arad-Bēl appear together (the former as a witness, the latter as a scribe) in CTMMA 4 7 (ll. 12, 15), which was drafted in Sippar in the same year as BM 83623 (on 26.1.3Nbn). Due to the fragmentary state of the tablet, the subject of the interrogation can only be partly understood. The fragment comprising the question asked by the interrogating body is damaged; its only surviving part is the phrase mimma ša sipir in l. 5. Sipru is derived by dictionaries from Aramaic spr and rendered as “document in Aramaic” (CAD S: 304, sipru A) and “Dokument” (AHw: 1049, sipru II), but this meaning does not fit well in many passages. Nor does “document in Aramaic” make sense in Spar, Festschrift Jones no. 3, an interrogation transcript omitted by both CAD and AHw, in a question posed with reference to two men charged with misappropriation of temple goods: 58

Bēl-rēmanni: 142–43, l. 31. Bongenaar 1997: 93, 224. 60 Bongenaar 1997: 91, 211–12, 482; see ibidem 173, 186–87 on his prebend. 59

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

28

Chapter II

Spar, Festschrift Jones no. 3 mim-ma šá si-ip-ri ina šuii PN1 u PN2 24⌈la⌉ ni-mu-ur (...) 27(...) mim-ma bii-šú šá a-na ḫi-ṭu ù tab-li šá níg.ga dingir.meš 28ina šuii-šú-nu ul in-na-mir Ira Spar (1979: 166) read the word in question as ší-ip-ri and translated accordingly: “We have ⌈not⌉ found any of the work in the possession of PN1 and PN2. (...) (Concerning) any evil which (was committed) on account of the crime and theft, (the silver) which was the property of the gods was not found in their (i.e. PN1 and PN2) possession.”61 This interpretation is problematic, as the reading /ši/ for SI in Neo-Babylonian would be unusual. Moreover, an unattributed šipru (“work, artifact”) makes little sense in this context. The meaning suggested by dictionaries (“Aramaic document”) also does not seem to apply here. It seems that sipru here parallels bīšu, “evil” of l. 27 and could thus be close in meaning to “mishandling, fraud” or “illicit act.” Sipru appears in what is likely a similar meaning in YOS 19 113: 6

[k]i-i mam-ma giš.ḫu-ṣa-bi a-na pir-ki 7[ina lìb-bi] ⌈id-du-ku?⌉ mim-ma ša si-pir ina lìb-bi 8[(na-gi-i)? it-t]ab-šu

In a note in NABU 2009/14, I linked si-pir in l. 7 with sipru B (CAD S: 304 “(mng. uncertain),” translated in CAD Š1: 77 as “trash”), inspired by its occurrence next to ḫuṣābu, “timber,” in ABL 292: 17. However, I now find it more probable that the meaning “fraud” or “crime” better matches sipru in YOS 19 113, and the passage should thus be rendered as follows: “(I swear that) nobody shall illicitly cut timber (gišḫuṣābu) [therein]. No fraud will [take pl]ace there (or: in the [nagû]).” Also in Jursa, WZKM 94 no. 5, this meaning of sipru makes good sense: 21

ul-tu muḫ-ḫi 22šá ba-al-ṭa-ka mim-ma šá si-pi-ri 23šá PN (...) i-na pi-i šá PN2 (...) 25aš-mu-ú “(I swear that), as long as I live, never have I heard anything illicit with regard to PN from PN2.” The same meaning of sipru fits well in three more documents listed by CAD under sipru A. One of them comes from a declaration concerning the qualities of a candidate for a priestly position made by members of the Eanna temple assembly: 61

The second clause is more aptly translated by CAD (T: 29) as “any misdeed concerning a crime and theft of the gods’ property.” © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

29

AnOr 8 48 26 ni-du-ú-šú ù si-pi-ir-šú 27la ni-i-di “we know him but we do not know of any document about him” (CAD S: 304) “We know of no (incriminating) knowledge about him (nīdu) nor of the existence of a file about him (sipru).” (Waerzeggers 2008: 6–7) In the light of the reasoning presented above, this passage may now be understood as follows: “We know of neither claim against him nor (charges of) fraud against him.”62 Sipru as “mishandling, fraud, swindle” also fits better than “Aramaic document” in two guarantee clauses found in slave sale deeds: Nbk. 201: 6–10 pūt sēhû u pāqirānu u mār banûtu u si-ip-ru ša ina amēlūtu ibbaššû fPN ... našâtu

YOS 6 196: 11 pūt si-pi-ri ša PN [a]di 100 ūmē našû

CAD S: 304 f PN assumes guaranty against (suits brought by) a person acting unlawfully or a person bringing claims, or (against suits claiming that he is) a free person or (that there exists) a document in Aramaic concerning the slave.

CAD S: 304 they guarantee PN’s document up to one hundred day

In accordance with the interpretation offered above, these clauses should be rendered as follows: f

PN assumes guarantee against ... any fraud associated with the slave

for one hundred days, they guarantee against fraud associated with PN

This last stipulation clearly corresponds to the second part of Neo-Assyrian slave sale guarantee clauses, wherein sipru is paralleled by sartu, “crime, fraud”:63 62 63

For nīdu as “query, objection, claim,” see recently Jursa apud Waerzeggers 2008: 30. See CAD B: 206 for references. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

30

Chapter II

ṣibti (benni) ana 100 ūmē sartu ana kal šanāte/ūmē (PN guarantees against) an attack of epilepsy for one hundred days and (against) fraud for all years/days. Proper understanding of these contract clauses requires a comprehensive study.64 They possibly allude to knowledge of slaves’ bad records concealed by previous owners upon sale.65 The interrogation conducted by the high priest thus concerned mishandling or fraud, probably involving temple property. Later in the text, a slave, a donkey, and a delivery from the temple to the crown prince are mentioned. It is uncertain what exactly the delivered object (l. 4’ [...m]a? ša bīt ilī) was, but it could have been a part of a regular shipment of the leftover offerings delivered to the royal court from temples.66 The flow of leftovers, which is well known from both the Ebabbar and the Eanna, was managed by officials “in charge of royal rations” (ša muḫḫi kurummat šarri) and “in charge of the (royal) box” (ša muḫḫi quppi).67 In both temples, several officials held these functions simultaneously.68 During Nabonidus’s stay in Teima, the leftovers were sent not only to the king but also to the crown prince, Belshazzar, who administered the country at the time.69 YOS 19 256 records the issue of silver to three men taking offering leftovers to the crown prince in the fourth year of Nabonidus. CT 56 429, Nbn. 824, and Bongenaar, NABU 1993 mention “arranged baskets” (sillu tabnītu), rations (kurummatu), and “(royal) boxes” (quppu) being delivered to the crown prince from the Ebabbar between the fourteenth and the fifteenth years of Nabonidus. If the same operation is indeed the background of BM 83623, the deliveries of offering leftovers begun as early as in Nabonidus’s third year, the year when, according to the Verse Account, the king left for Teima. Notes On the upper edge, there is a strange cut made purposely, it seems, with a sharp instrument. Its purpose is unclear to me.70 2, 3, 9 The sign KI in ll. 2 and 3 (wherein it serves as a post-determinative in the city name) differs from KI in l. 9’. In the former case, the upper Winkelhaken is above; in the latter case, it is in front of the rest of the sign. 64

Note their diverse translations: “(against the slave’s) being stolen property (or: being a criminal)” (CAD S: 188), “criminal record” (Westbrook 2009/I: 202). 65 Stol (1993: 132–33) recalls parallel Roman law provisions that allowed for the cancellation of the sale of slaves with “bad records” (e.g., run-aways, roamers, and thieves). 66 For Sippar, see Bongenaar 1993, idem 1997: 104–5, MacGinnis 1994: 203–6, 215–6. For Uruk, see Beaulieu 1989: 157–59 and Kleber 2008: 292–310. 67 Bongenaar 1997: 104–5, MacGinnis 1994: 203–6. 68 MacGinnis 1994: 215–16, Kleber 2008: 304–5. 69 Beaulieu 1989: 157–59. 70 Cf. Sandowicz, forthcoming. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

2’ 3’

4’

31

At the end of the line, one expects šap-ru (cf. GCCI 1 355: 3, YOS 19 291: 7) or iš-šu-ú (CT 56 429: 3, YOS 19 256: 5). Among the ša muḫḫi kurummat šarri active in Sippar at the beginning of Nabonidus’s rule were Šamaš-iddin, Šamaš-ruṣūa, and Šamaš-ēṭirnapšāti.71 Perhaps Ša[maš?-...] at the end of the line is identical with one of these individuals? The use of the term é dingir(.meš) is unusual in Sippar in this period; it is rarely employed after Nebuchadnezzar II (Stefan Zawadzki, personal communication).

10. BM 67534 + BM 68568

Pl. X

1882-9-18, 7532 + 1882-9-18, 8566 W. 10.3 x L. 6.7 x Th. 2.2 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

[ma-áš-ʾ-al-tu4 šá mde]n-⌈šeš⌉.meš-ba-šá lú.qí-i-pi é.babbar.⌈ra ù⌉ [lú.ku4 é dutu ki-n]iš-tu4 é.babbar.ra a-na m⌈šeš⌉-im-me-e lú.ìr.é.⌈gal⌉ [a-šú šá mx i-šá]-⌈al⌉-lu um-ma kù.gi šá mdutu-aš-šeš lú.ìr.é.[gal] [ina š]uii-⌈ka i-mu⌉-ru ul-[t]u aʾ-i ⌈ta⌉-áš-šá-áš-šú mšeš-im-me-e i[q-bi] [u]m-ma 1 gín bit-qa lal-ṭi [k]ù.gi la-igi lú.qal-la šá lú.⌈ka x x⌉ [x x] ul-tu ḫi-iṣ-bi-šú ina a-⌈kad⌉.k[i x] ⌈x x⌉ ru ⌈x a x x x⌉[i-šá-al-lu um-ma] a-na man-na ta-ad-di-⌈is x x x⌉ [x x x x x iq-bi um-ma] ⌈4⌉-tú kù.gi (erasure) ina šuii mìr-ia lú.mu-pa-ṣu-⌈ú⌉ [ù ina šuii] [m] ⌈a-na⌉-a-mat-den-at-kal a-⌈na⌉ kù.babbar ú-še-bi!-[la x x x x] ⌈4⌉-tú bit-qa kù.⌈gi⌉ ina šuii mṣa-ṣi-ru lú.nagar a-n[a kù.babbar ú-še-bi-la x x] 11. ⌈šá lú.kù?⌉.[tim?] ⌈x ul⌉-te-bi-la kù.gi ul [x x x x x x x] 12. [x x x x x x x] ⌈mden⌉-ke-šìr lú.[x x x x x x] 13. [x x x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. mb[a? x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 2’. m⌈den?⌉-[ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 3’. m⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 4’. m[x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 5’. m[x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 6’. m[x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 7’. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x]

71

MacGinnis 1994: 215. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

32

Chapter II

8’. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 9’. [x x x x x x x x x x dumu] ⌈lú.sanga-sip-par.ki⌉ 10’. [lú.umbisag mx x x a]-šú ⌈šá⌉ [mx x x dumu] ⌈lú.sanga-sip-par⌉.[ki] ⌈sippar⌉.[ki] 11’. [iti.x u4.x.kám mu.8–17.kám mdnà]-⌈i lugal tin.tir.ki⌉ Translation 1–4a [Questioning of] Aḫ-immê, the builder, [son of ..., that B]ēl-aḫḫē-iqīša, the resident of the Ebabbar, and [the enterers of the temple of Šamaš, the temple asse]mbly of the Ebabbar conducted: “From where did you take the gold that Šamaš-nādin?-aḫi the buil[der] saw [in] your [posse]ssion?” 4b–7a Aḫ-immê s[aid]: “[...] ⁷⁄₈ of a shekel of [go]ld from the slave of ⌈...⌉, from his (gold) shavings in Akkad [...].” [They asked:] “To whom did you ⌈...⌉ [...]?” 7b–13 [He said:] “I exchanged ¼ (shekel) of gold for silver with Ardia the washerman [and with] Ana-amat-Bēl-atkal. [... I exchanged] ⅜ (shekel) of gold f[or silver] with Ṣāṣiru the carpenter. I brought [...] of the golds[mith? ...], the gold [...] Bēl-kēšir the [...] (large lacuna) 1’–8’ Iq[īša?...] B[ēl?-...] (large lacuna) 9’–11’ [..., descendant of] Šangû-Sippar. [Scribe: ..., so]n of [..., descendant of] Šangû-Sippar. Sippar, [month of ..., day x, 8–17th year of Nabo]nidus, king of Babylon. Commentary This questioning was prompted by the denunciation by a work colleague of an individual in whose hands gold—supposedly temple property—was seen. Temples often experienced difficulties with controlling their gold reserves. Gold was pilfered from offering boxes installed at temple gates and from craftsmen’s workshops. Thieves exchanged gold for silver, which was more convenient for daily use, as is made particularly clear by a dossier documenting an investigation concerning a theft of gold carried out by the Eanna authorities in Nabonidus’s twelfth and thirteenth years.72 In addition to numerous records of pending verdicts, the dossier comprises transcripts of the questioning of both goldsmiths and the individuals who bought gold from them. Some of those transcripts list in meticulous detail the amounts of gold exchanged, precisely as BM 67534 + BM 68568 does.73 Conceivably, the questioning recorded in BM 67534 + BM 68568 was a starting 72 73

Renger 1971: 500–3. See especially YOS 6 223. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

33

point for the further investigation, summoning, and interrogation of individuals who had bought gold from Aḫ-immê, as well as witnesses to his transactions. Neither the man under interrogation, the builder Aḫ-immê (l. 2, 5), nor his colleague, the denunciator Šamaš-nādin?-aḫi (l. 3), are otherwise known, but three individuals involved in the exchange of gold appear elsewhere in the Sippar corpus: Ardia the washerman (l. 8), Ṣāṣiru the carpenter (l. 10), and possibly Bēlkēšir (l. 12). A man mentioned in l. 9, Ana-amat-Bēl-atkal, has a rare name. Its best-known bearer in Sippar was the Ebabbar’s rent farmer, attested between the fourth and the sixteenth years of Nabonidus,74 but despite this chronological proximity, it is unlikely that he was the person with whom Aḫ-immê exchanged gold. Ana-amat-Bēl-atkal was an influential businessman, who had all temple date groves under his charge. He was a member of a different social group than that of the simple craftsmen involved in this affair. At least part of Aḫ-immê’s gold came from Akkad, where a slave of a man whose title is damaged (l. 5 lú.⌈ka x⌉ [x x x]) performed work. A slave working as a goldsmith in Akkad is mentioned in another interrogation transcript concerning theft or misappropriation of temple gold, CT 55 110 (9[Nbn]).75 In BM 67595 (Text no. 6) and possibly also in BM 101913 = Text no. 7 ([2–15Nbn]), slaves are questioned by a body composed of officials from Sippar and Akkad in a similar context. It cannot be excluded that all of these documents derive from the same far-flung investigation. Notes 3 The gap at the beginning of the line is too large for the verb itself, but it is rather small for the patronym of Aḫ-immê to fit in. If the patronym was there, it must have been very short. 3 Since the spelling of nadānu with AŠ is rare, the reading of Šamaš-nādinaḫi’s name is uncertain. 5 The fraction is expressed as 1 šiqil maṭi bitqa, “one shekel minus ⅛.” 5 The owner of the slave could be lú.ka-⌈ṣir⌉, “knotter.” 6 The word ḫiṣbu is hitherto attested in the meaning “wood or precious stone shavings” (CAD and AHw s.v. ḫiṣbu). Here, it must denote a by-product of metal working. 6 Restore perhaps [ma-l]a ⌈at⌉-ru-⌈šú⌉, “[as mu]ch as was left to him.” 7 The expected verbal form is taddin, “you have given.” 8 For Ardia, see Bongenaar 1997: 316 and Zawadzki 2006: 210. 10 For Ṣāṣiru, see Bongenaar 1997: 405. 10 The fraction is expressed as rebūtu bitqa, “¼ (plus) ⅛.” 74

Jursa 1995a: 87–95. Ll. 4–5: [mšad-din-n]u lú.kù.tim lú.qal-la šá mdb[u*-ne-ne-dù]. Speculatively, Šaddinnu could have been the slave from whom Aḫ-immê received gold (BM 67534 + BM 68568: 5).

75

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

34

12 11’

Chapter II

Bēl-kēšir may be identical with a jeweler of this name listed in Bongenaar 1997: 386. The date is reconstructed in accordance with the incumbency period of the resident Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša (8Nbn–5Cyr).76

11. BM 65893

Pl. XI

1882-9-18, 5885 W. 7.3 x L. 3.5 x Th. 2.4 format: landscape obv. 1. ma-[a]-šá-al-tu4 šá mdamar.utu-⌈mu⌉-m[u lú.sanga sip-par.ki] 2. ⌈ù lú⌉.ab.ba.meš uru ina ⌈ukkin⌉-š[ú-nu (ina) iti.x u4.x.kám mu.1–7.kám] 3. mkur-⌈raš lugal e⌉.ki lugal kur.⌈kur a-na⌉[mni-din-tu4?] 4. ⌈a-šú⌉ šá ⌈mri-mut⌉ a lú.sanga-di[nnin?-tin.tir.ki? i-šá-al-lu] 5. ⌈iq-bu-ú⌉ um-⌈ma⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] 6. [x] ⌈x x x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x] 7. ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. ⌈x x x⌉[ (drawing, lines, possibly a scratch) Translation 1–7 Questioning of [Nidintu?], son of Rīmūt, descendant of Šangû-I[štarBābili?], that Marduk-šumu-idd[in, the high priest of Sippar], and the city elders [conducted] in t[heir] assembly [in the month of ..., xth day, 1–7th years] of Cyrus, king of Babylon, king of lands. They said: “[...].” (rest broken away) Commentary The employment of a three-tier filiation indicates that the person being interrogated was a member of the urban elite. The reconstruction of his first name and the reading of his family name are conjectural. If the identification is correct, this is the earliest attestation of the scribe Nidintu, son of Rīmūt, descendant of ŠangûIštar-Bābili, who is otherwise known from texts written between the eighth year of Cyrus and the fifteenth year of Darius I.77 76 77

Bongenaar 1997: 48–49. Bongenaar 1997: 440, 494. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

35

The text was written during the incumbency of Marduk-šumu-iddin, son of Erība-Marduk, descendant of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili, as the high priest of Sippar, which spanned between the first and the seventh years of Cyrus.78 Provided the above reconstruction is correct, the interrogator (the high priest) and the person being interrogated belonged to the same family. Notes For markings on transcripts of mašʾaltu, see Sandowicz, forthcoming. 6 At the beginning of the line, read perhaps [x] u4.1.⌈kám⌉.

12. BM 74466 1882-9-18, A.186 Bertin 1826 W. 6.3 x L. 3.8 x Th. 2.4 format: landscape obv. 1. [ma-a-šá-a]l-tu4 šá lú.qí-i-pi ù 2. [mba-šá]-⌈d⌉amar.utu u mden-mu lú.umbisag.meš 3. [a-na mḫa]-ri-iṣ-an-ni a-šú šá mdḫar-dù 4. [lú.uš.bar ga]da? i-šá-la-aʾ mḫa-ri-iṣ-an-ni 5. [iq-bi u]m-ma 2 (pi) 3 bán zú.lum.ma 6. [x x x] ⌈ina šu⌉ii m(o.e.)mu-ra-nu ak-ta-šá-ad 7. [aq?-ta?-b]i? um-ma mi-in-de 8. [x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x x x x x⌉ (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x x x x x] ⌈ni⌉ 2’. [x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ na ka 3’. m⌈dutu-sipa⌉-ú-a (erasure) ⌈ni⌉-ta-mar ù 4’. 1 gur zú.lum.ma ina lìb-bi mdutu-sipa-ú-a 5’. a-na šuii-ia ⌈i?!⌉-ti-ru-ub um-ma 6’. mim-ma šá ugu zú.lum.ma šá ta-mu-ru 7’. ina pa-ni mam-ma la ta-qab-ba ina gub 8’. šá mta-qiš-dme.me a-šú šá mden-na-din-a 9’. mdutu-su a-šú šá mdkaskal.kur-i 10’. mlu-è-a-nao.e.-zálag a-šú šá mmu-gin

78

Bongenaar 1997: 29–30. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. XII

36

u.e. 11’. 12’. l.h.e. 13’. 14’. 15’. 16’.

Chapter II

⌈iti.sig4⌉ u4.28.kám mu.1.kám [m] kám-bu-zi-ía lugal e.ki u kur.kur [x] ⌈x⌉ il-ta-qa-ú [x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x] ⌈x⌉ ki-i a ⌈x⌉ [x] [(x x x) ] ⌈x⌉ bu ú

Translation 1–8 [Questio]ning [of Ḫa]riṣānu, son of Bunene-ibni, the li[nen weaver?], that the temple resident and [Iqīša]-Marduk and Bēl-iddin, the (College) scribes, conducted. Ḫariṣānu [said]: “I received two pānu and three sūtu of dates [...] from Murānu. [I sai]d?: Why [...].” (lacuna) 1’–10’ “[...] we have seen Šamaš-rēʾûa, and one kor of dates out of it Šamaš-rēʾûa ... to me, saying: You shall tell nobody about the dates that you have seen.” In the presence of: Taqīš-Gula, son of Bēl-nādin-apli, Šamaš-erība, son of Balīḫû, Lūṣe-ana-nūri, son of Šumu-ukīn. 11’–12’ ⌈Month of ⌈simānu, twenty-eighth day, first year of Cambyses, king of Babylon and of lands. 13’–16’ [...] have taken? [...] as? [...]. Commentary The mašʾaltu recorded in this document was conducted by the temple resident and two College scribes. This is in contrast to earlier Ebabbar interrogations that were usually managed by both the resident with the high priest, assisted occasionally by the temple enterers and the temple assembly (kiništu).79 The first College scribe was Iqīša-Marduk, son of Etel-pī-Šamaš, descendant of Šangû-Sippar, who also held the functions of a temple enterer and a brewer of Šamaš.80 His colleague Bēliddin, son of Nabû-šumu-līšir, descendant of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili, worked for the temples of Gula and Šarrat-Sippar. He is amply attested as tupšar Ebabbar until as late as the twenty-eighth year of Darius I.81

79

Sandowicz, forthcoming. Bongenaar 1997: 91, 96, 162, 217, 452. Bongenaar (ibidem 91) considers the reconstruction [Aḫḫē-iddin]-Marduk in BM 74466, but the size of the lacuna makes [Iqīša]-Marduk more probable. 81 Bongenaar 1997: 71–73, 96–97, 244–45, 435–36, add Wunsch, AfO 50 no. 3: 3’ and Marduk-rēmanni 105: 2.

80

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Interrogation Transcripts (mašʾaltus)

37

The man under interrogation, Ḫariṣānu, was possibly the temple linen weaver who appears (without patronym) in two other documents from Sippar. One of these texts, CT 56 685 (l. 2’), is a ration list from the reign of Nabonidus.82 The other, Garments II 626 (20.5.1Camb), reports Ḫariṣānu (l. 8’) receiving silver for wool less than two months after BM 74466 was written. Thus, whatever consequences followed the interrogation, they apparently did not influence Ḫariṣānu’s work routine. If correctly identified, the weaver Ḫariṣānu was the son of the well-known linen weaver and washerman Bunene-ibni and the father of two other linen weavers.83 In view of Ḫariṣānu’s presumed identity, it is reasonable to postulate that the Šamaš-rēʾûa mentioned in Ḫariṣānu’s testimony was identical with the linen weaver and washerman of this name known from texts written during the reigns of Nabonidus, Cyrus, and Cambyses.84 His latest known attestation in this capacity comes from the third year of Cambyses (BM 64007: 18).85 Hence, even if he was found guilty of the misappropriation or theft of dates reported by Ḫariṣānu, Šamaš-rēʾûa was not removed from temple service. The family names of the witnesses are not given, but they are easy to identify. The first two men came from the Šangû-Sippar family. Taqīš-Gula was the overseer of the temple bakers at the time the interrogation was conducted,86 while Šamaš-erība was a brewer and possibly a temple enterer of Šamaš.87 The function of the third witness is less easy to determine. Lūṣe-ana-nūri, son of Šumu-ukīn, descendant of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili, is found in Peek 7: 10 (22DarI), where he leases a butcher’s prebend.88 Could these three witnesses have represented three major prebendary groups in the Ebabbar? The tablet displays several formal features: it provides the date and place formula and introduces witnesses with the ina ušuzzi clause reserved for high-standing officials. Only the missing family names of witnesses reveal the provisory character typical of maš’altus. Notes 13 Perhaps an irregular form of leqû? The common clause ištēntam ilqû does not make sense here since, unlike contracts, interrogation protocols were not issued in multiple copies. 5’ The alternative reading, TAP! TI RU UB, is even more difficult to interpret.

82

Bongenaar 1997: 327. Bongenaar 1997: 323–34, 327, Zawadzki 2006: 215, 217. 84 Bongenaar 1997: 346, add CTMMA 4 41: 4 (17Nbn) and Garments II 639: 7 (4Cyr). 85 Bongenaar 1997: 346. 86 Bongenaar 1997: 179–81, 258, 458. 87 Bongenaar 1997: 225, 455–56. 88 Cf. Bongenaar 1997: 145154, Waerzeggers 2014: 57–58, 411. 83

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

III. Transcripts of Trials III.1 Transcripts of Trials: Babylon 13. BM 30155

Pls. XIII–XIV

1869-10-6,3 Bertin 2960–2961, Strassmaier II 392 W. 6.1 x L. 8.4 x Th. 2.7 format: portrait obv. 1’. 2’. 3’. 4’. 5’. 6’. 7’. 8’. 9’. 10’. 11’. 12’. 13’. 14’. 15’. 16’. 17’. 18’. 19’. 20’. 21’. 22’. rev. 23’. 24’. 25’. 26’. 27’.

[ ] ⌈x x x⌉ f [ ina-é.sag.í]l-ra-mat [ ] ⌈x⌉ ad ka f [ gu]-gu-ú-a [u fdam-qa-a dumu.sal.meš šá mníg].du [ -i]a ? [ ] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈at ta ⌉ níg.ka9 [ ] ⌈ta-leq-qí?⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ ina ⌈lìb⌉-bi [níg.ka9 šá mní]g.du i-⌈di-in a⌉-ḫa-mi-iš [im-taḫ-ṣ]u?-⌈ma?⌉ a-⌈na maḫ-ri⌉ [mde]n-r[e-m]an-ni [a lú.ma]n-di-di lú.gar umuš tin.t[ir.ki ik-šu-du-m]a [ina maḫ]-ri lú.gar umuš tin.⌈tir.ki lú⌉.[ab.ba.meš ur]u ⌈dumu.meš tin⌉.tir.ki a-ma-ti-⌈šu⌉-nu ⌈ú-šá-nu-ma⌉ di-in-šu-nu ⌈il⌉-ma-du-ma [i-n]a ⌈níg.ka9⌉ šá mníg.du 2 ma.⌈na⌉ kù.babbar ⌈ra-šu-tú⌉ šá mníg.du šá a-na i-di é ia-a-⌈nu⌉ u ḫu-bul-⌈lu4⌉ kù.babbar a-na mba-šá-a a-šú šá m⌈dnà?-x⌉ [x i]d-di-nu it-ti f⌈si⌉-lim-diš-ta[r x x x x]-šú ù mdnà-kil-la-⌈an-ni⌉ [a-me-lu-tu4 šá mníg.d]u pa-ni fgu-⌈gu-ú⌉-a u [fdam-qa-a] dumu.sal.meš šá mníg.⌈du⌉ ú-šad-⌈gi⌉-lu ⌈ri-ḫi⌉-[it níg.ka9] šá mdníg.du ⌈šá⌉ i-ba-šu-ú pa-ni m[x x x]

u lú.tuku.meš šá ugu mníg.du ú-⌈šad⌉-gi-lu l[ú.tuku.meš] šá ugu mníg.du ù mam-ma-an ⌈it⌉-ti ⌈x⌉ [x] e-li 3 a-me-lu-⌈tu4⌉ ù 2 ma.na kù.babbar šá ⌈lú.gar⌉ umuš ù lú.ab.ba.meš uru a-na fgu-gu-ú-a u fdam-qa-a dumu.sal.meš šá mníg.du id-di-nu pa-qa-ru ⌈la ba⌉-še-⌈e⌉ 28’. mden-re-man-ni lú.gar umuš tin.tir.ki tup-pa iš-ṭur-m[a ina] ⌈na4⌉.kišib-šú 29’. [ib-r]u-um-ma!(t:mu) a-na fgu-gu-ú-a u fdam-qa-a ⌈id⌉-din –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

39

30’. [ina š]a-ṭa-ru tup-pa šu-a-ti –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 31’. [mx x-n]umun-gin dumu-šú šá mzálag-e-a dumu me-gi-bi 32’. [mdamar.ut]u?-mu-ùru dumu-šú šá msi-lim-den dumu mši-gu-ú-a 33’. [mx x] ⌈x⌉ a dumu-šú šá m⌈en⌉-šú-nu dumu mka-ník-ká 34’. [mdamar.ut]u-dub-numun dumu-⌈šú šá⌉ [m]⌈d⌉nà-mu-mu dumu md30-kur⌈ba⌉-ni 35’. [mtin?-i]ṭ-d⌈amar.utu dumu⌉-šú šá mkal-ba-a dumu maš-šur-a-a 36’. [m x x x x]⌈x-ia?⌉ dumu msig15-diškur 37’. [mx x x x x]⌈x⌉-ibila-sum.na (two blank lines) 38’. [mx x dub.sar dumu-šú šá mx x tin.tir.ki? iti.x] 39’. [u4.x.kám mu.x.kám mdnà-níg.du-ùru lugal tin.tir.ki] Translation 1’–9’a [...fIna-Esagi]l-ramât [...fGu]gūa [and fDamqāya, daughters of Kudu]rru [...] “[...m]y? [...] property [...] you took. Give [...] in [the property of] Kudurru.” 9’b–14’a [They conte]nded? with each other. [They approached Bē]l-r[ēman]ni, [descendant of Ma]ndidi, the governor of Baby[lon]. [Bef]ore the governor of Babylon (and) the ci[ty elders], the Babylonians, they repeated their words. They (the governor and the elders) examined their claim. 14’b–23’a [Fro]m the property of Kudurru, they transferred to fGugūa and [fDamqāya], the daughters of Kudurru, two minas of silver, the loan of Kudurru that he had given to Iqīšāya, son of Na[bû?-...] (on the terms of there being) no house rent and interest on the silver, together with f Silim-Ištar, [...]šu, and Nabû-killanni, [slaves of Kudurr]u. The remaining [property] of Kudurru they transferred to [...] and the creditors of Kudurru. 23’b–29’ avoid any claims (by) the c[reditors] of Kudurru or anybody [...] with regard to (these) three slaves and two minas of silver that the governor and the city elders awarded to fGugūa and fDamqāya, the daughters of Kudurru, Bēl-rēmanni, the governor of Babylon, drafted (this) tablet and seal[ed (it) with] his seal. He gave (it) to fGugūa and fDamqāya. 30’ (These men were present) [at the d]rafting of this tablet: 31’–37’ [...-z]ēru-ukīn, son of Nūrēa, descendant of Egibi, [Mardu]k?-šumu-uṣur, son of Silim-Bēl, descendant of Šigûa, [...]a, son of Bēlšunu, descendant of Kānik-bābi, [Mardu]k-šāpik-zēri, son of Nabû-šumu-iddin, descendant of Sînkurbanni, [Uballi]ṭ?-Marduk, son of Kalbāya, descendant of Aššurāya, [...]ia?, descendant of Mudammiq-Adad, [...]-aplu-iddin. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

40 38’–39’

Chapter III

[Scribe: ..., son of ...]. [Babylon?, month of ..., xth day, xth year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), king of Babylon].

Commentary The lack of seals suggests that this is a copy of an original document. It features two sisters, daughters of Kudurru, standing in court against a creditor of their presumably late father. Kudurru left a considerable property, including three slaves and two minas of silver that he had lent to a certain Iqīšāya in exchange for the right to use Iqīšāya’s house. Kudurru also left outstanding debts. Upon his death, creditors sought to collect these debts by seizing Kudurru’s property, but the sisters went to court in order to exempt part of family assets from the claims of both present and future creditors. It is unclear why adjudicators approved the exemption. Perhaps the part of the assets called “the property of Kudurru” in fact belonged to the dowry of the mother of fGugūa and fDamqāya and was therefore out of creditors’ reach. The archival context of this document is difficult to establish. No information on the findspot of the tablet (which was presented to the British Museum by A. J. Lewis) is available. The transcript could have entered the archive of the sisters as potential proof of their ownership rights over three slaves. As such, the tablet could have been transferred further once one of the slaves was sold. It seems less probable that the copy belonged to one of the creditors: since the document does not specify their share in Kudurru’s estate, it would have been of little use to them. Prosopography is not helpful here, as neither daughter of Kudurru may be securely identified. At some point during Neriglissar’s rule, a certain fDamqāya went to court over a plot of land (Wunsch, AulaOr. 17/18). Another woman of this name sat as a witness at a slave sale held by her children (Nbk. 67, [2]8NbkII).89 A fGugūa is mentioned in letter SbB 1 79 (l. 14); she may have been the mother of Ṭābia, descendant of Sîn-ilī, who was already active in the former part of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign.90 At the beginning of BM 30155, the name of [fIna-Esagi]l-ramât may be reconstructed. A well-known lady of this name was the daughter of Zēria of the Nabāya family and the wife of Iddin-Marduk, descendant of Nūr-Sîn, an active businesswoman, attested over the period of sixty-four years, beginning in the thirty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar II.91 Was she one of the creditors of Kudurru or a person otherwise involved in the family issues of this man? fIna-Esagil-ramât and a certain fDamqāya are both mentioned in a letter sent by Itti-Marduk-balāṭu of the Egibi house (CT 22 6 [= SbB 1 22]: 13–15); both are courteously called “mothers” 89

For the corrected issue date, see Wunsch 1993/II: 1. Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014: 193. Cf. Jursa 2005: 69–70. 91 Wunsch 1993/I: 66–72. 90

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

41

by the sender. However, that fDamqāya was probably Itti-Marduk-balāṭu’s sister, whose full name was fTašmētu-damqat.92 Her father was thus Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, not Kudurru. Another enterprising fIna-Esagil-ramât was a daughter of Balāṭu, descendant of Egibi, the wife of Iddin-Nabû of the Nappāḫu family. Her identification with the woman who appears in BM 30155 is even less probable, since she would have been too young to have engaged in business in the first part of the sixth century (she only married around 537 BCE).93 For chronological reasons, f Ina-Esagil-ramât of BM 30155 also cannot be linked to her namesake, the daughter of Šamaš-udammiq of the Maštuku family, one of three sisters who sold land near the Uraš Gate in Babylon to the Egibis in the ninth year of Nabonidus.94 In many respects, BM 30155 is reminiscent of BaAr 2 42, a trial transcript drafted in an unknown year of Nebuchadnezzar II. Both tablets have the same format and layout (e.g., a two-line gap between the list of witnesses and the scribe, place, and date formula). They employ the same chain of dispute expressions (aḫu aḫa/aḫāmeš imtaḫṣū; ana maḫri ... ikšudū; ina maḫri ... amâta ušannû).95 Both disputes were heard by bodies comprising the governor Bēl-rēmanni and the city elders. Moreover, the second witness in BM 30155, Marduk-šumu-uṣur, son of Silim-Bēl of the Šigûa family, was present at the drafting of BaAr 2 42 (l. 4”), and he impressed his seal on it (l.e.). Both disputes were thus settled at approximately the same time and in a similar milieu. Notes 3’ At the end of the line, read perhaps ad-ka, “your father.” 9’ The imperative idin is masculine, so the person against whom the charges were brought cannot have been fIna-Esagil-ramât (l. 2’). 10’ Another possible restoration is [ig-ru]-⌈ú⌉, but mitḫuṣu is preferred, as it collocates with aḫāmeš. In a dispute context, mitḫuṣu is found in BaAr 2 42: 3 ([a]-ḫa a-ḫa im-taḫ-ṣu-ú-ma). The editor of this text seems to have taken the expression literally (“haben einander verprügelt”), but its reappearance in BM 30155—if correctly restored—increases the probability that aḫu aḫa/aḫāmeš mitḫuṣu refers to a legal battle. 10’, 28’ The governor Bēl-rēmanni of the Mandidi family is otherwise known only from BaAr 2 42 ([x]NbkII). 27’ The clause ana paqāra lā bašê is known from kudurrus (CAD P: 141). Cf. also CAD R: 202 for the more common phrase ana paqāra lā rašê. 32’ The witness Marduk-šumu-uṣur could have been the son of Silim-Bēl, son of Dābibi, the first witness in a deed drafted in Ālu-ša-Nūrēa in the vicinity 92

Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014: 132. Baker 2004: 26. 94 Wunsch 2000b/I: 123–26. 95 Cf. BaAr 2 42: 4–6. 93

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

42

33’

35’

38’

Chapter III

of Babylon in the forty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar II (VAS 5 15: 10),96 and the father of Marduk-šākin-šumi, the seller of a house plot in Babylon in the first year of Amēl-Marduk (AM 14 = Liv. 130: 1, 8). He also appears as a witness in BaAr 2 42: 4”, a transcript of trial written under Nebuchadnezzar II, presumably also in Babylon. The first name in this line may also end with [...]-apla. A brother of this man, Šāpik-zēri, son of Bēlšunu, descendant of Kānik-bābi, owed a field near the Zababa Gate in Babylon (Nbn. 116: 15, 3Nbn). Aššurāya is a rare family name, but see Nabû-zēru-ušabši, son of Aplāya, descendant of Aššurāya (Cyr. 48: 15–16), Rīmūt-Bēl, son of Marduk-nāṣir, descendant of Aššurāya (Nbn. 817: 20–21), and possibly also [Arad]-Nabû, descendant of Aššurāya (MacGinnis, Festschrift Postgate no. 1: 16’ and no. 2, side B: 10’). In view of the presence of the governor of Babylon and the group of Babylonians, Babylon is the presumed place of issue. Prosopography likewise suggests this location.

14. BM 61432

Pl. XV

1882-9-18, 1406 W. 8.7 x L. 3.7 x Th. 2.8 format: uncertain obv. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x x x x x] ⌈x x x⌉ [x x x x x x] 2’. [x x x x] ⌈x ù? 6 gi.meš 1⌉ kùš é šá ki.tim TE.⌈E⌉[.ki] 3’. [qé-reb tin.ti]r.ki šá ⌈egir⌉-su ḫi-⌈ri⌉-tu4 šá dumu mad-⌈na⌉-[a-a] 4’. [x x x x] ⌈a?⌉-na la gi.meš šu-nu-tì ia-a-nu mim-ma ina gi.m[eš (x x)] 5’. [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ mim-ma ni-i-ni ù dumu.meš-e-⌈ni ina? x⌉ [x x x] 6’. [x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x⌉-pa-a-ni šá mdamar.utu-⌈x⌉[x x x] 7’. [x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ mba-nu-nu m⌈ba?⌉-šá [x x x x x] 8’. [x x x x x x x dumu?].⌈meš šá mx-x-ia?⌉ a m⌈x⌉[x x x x x] 9’. [x x x x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x] 10’. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1”. [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x] ⌈a-šú šá m⌉[x x x a mx x x lú.di.ku5?] 2”. mden-šú-nu ⌈a⌉-šú šá mmar-⌈du⌉-[ka a mx x lú.di.ku5] 96

For the location of this town near the capital, see Zadok 1985: 18. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

43

3”. md⌈nà⌉-na-din-šeš a-⌈šú⌉ šá maḫ-ḫe-⌈e⌉-[a? a mx x] ⌈x lú⌉.[di].⌈ku5⌉ 4”. mba-šá-damar.⌈utu⌉ a-šú šá [m]⌈x⌉[x a mur-dn]anna lú.di.ku5 5”. md⌈amar⌉.utu-mu-ùru a-šú šá [m]⌈x x⌉[x a l]ú.gal-⌈60⌉-ši lú.di.ku5 6”. [m]⌈d⌉[u.gur-ina]-⌈sùḫ-sur⌉ a-šú šá mdutu-nunuz-ùru a lú.gal.dù ⌈lú.di.ku5⌉ (rest broken away) Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–10’ [...] and? a house measuring six reeds and one cubit in the T[E.E district in Ba]bylon, behind which there is the Ditch of the Son of Abunā[ya], there is no [...] without? those reeds. Whatever (part) of the reed[s ...], whatever we and our children in? [...] that Marduk-[...] Bānûnu, Iqī[ša?(-...) ... son]s? of [...]ia?, descendant of [...]. (large lacuna) 1’’–6’’ [...], son of [..., descendant of ..., judge?], Bēlšunu, son of Mardu[ka, descendant of ..., judge], Nabû-nādin-aḫi, son of Aḫḫē[a?, descendant of ...], judge, Iqīša-Marduk, son of [..., descendant of Ur-N]anna, judge, Marduk-šumu-uṣur, son of [..., descendant of] Rab-šušši, judge, [Nergal-ina]-tēšê-ēṭir, son of Šamaš-pirʾu-uṣur, descendant of Rab-banê, judge. (rest broken away) Commentary The first-person deposition (on the obverse) and the list of judges (on the reverse) suggest that this is a fragment of a trial transcript. The tablet’s date of issue is lost; it can only be speculated on. The last official on the list on the reverse may be identical with Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir, descendant of Rab-banê, a judge known from two documents written at the beginning of Neriglissar’s reign, 5R 67 1 (0Ngl) and Edinburgh 69 (1Ngl).97 In the former record, Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir acts as the second judge, while in the latter he acts as the first. If this identification is correct, BM 61432 would significantly predate these two documents, since it features Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir as the fifth (or the sixth) judge, and his promotion to the positions of the second and first judge would have taken time.98 None of the four men preceding Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir on the list can be securely identified. The third-to-last man on the list may be identical with Iqīša-Marduk, 97

Wunsch 2000a: 570. Cf. Nergal-ušallim, descendant of Šigûa, and Nergal-bānûnu, descendant of Rab-banê, who took six years to climb from the positions of judges no. 6 and no. 7 to those of judges no. 2 and no. 1, respectively (see Wunsch 2000a: 570–71 for references). 98

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

44

Chapter III

descendant of Ur-Nanna, a creditor in Strassmaier, ZA 4 no. 11: 1 (14Nbp, Babylon).99 Nabû-mukīn-zēri, son of Marduk-šumu-uṣur, descendant of Rab-šušši, a witness in an Egibi text AM 13: 14 (1AM), may have been the son of the secondto-last judge of BM 61432. The period during which his father was activite would then have likely fallen during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II. Based on these prosopograhic links, BM 61432 may be tentatively dated to the latter half of the fourth decade of Nebuchadnezzar II, perhaps even during the final years of his rule. This early dating is significant, as it allows to extend the period during which judicial panels were active; their activity is hitherto attested from the beginning of Neriglissar’s rule.100 While this dating must be treated as tentative until more evidence emerges, it is worth noting that during this period several major changes to the Babylonian administrative system took place, including the appearance of notaries, the infiltration of bēlē piqnēti into temple boards, and the introduction of the standard oath formula.101 The reorganization of the judiciary could have been part of a far-reaching reformatory plan implemented by Nebuchadnezzar II. The object of the dispute was urban property in the TE.E district, a quarter in the east of Babylon, through which the processional way Nergal-ša-hadê passed.102 The property lay on the Ditch of the Son of Abunāya (Ḫirītu-ša-mārAbunāya), which is presumably identical with the Ditch of the House of Abunāya (Ḫirītu-ša-bīt-Abunāya) mentioned in a contract for the sale of a house in TE.E concluded during the reign of Nabopolassar (BE 8 7: 4). The Egibis owed houses in this area,103 as did several other well-connected men, including a son of Gabbi-ilāni-šarru-uṣur, a sepīru of Cambyses ,104 and possibly the crown prince Belshazzar himself.105 Notes The signs on the reverse are larger than those on the obverse. 2’ The plot measured six reeds and one cubit, i.e., ca. 75 square meters. By contemporary standards, it was a small property. 106 According to Camb. 423: 1–2 and CM 3 292, rev. 4’, two house plots of a similar size (6 reeds = 73.5 sq m) were located in the TE.E district. 99

If the early dating is correct, Bēl-ittannu, son of Iqīša-Marduk, descendant of Ur-Nanna, a witness and scribe of numerous texts from the time of Darius I (Tallqvist 1902: 37), cannot be his son (Bēl-ittannu is last attested over one hundred years after the end of Nabopolassar’s reign [Dar. 498: 13, 20DarI]). 100 Wunsch 2000a: 558. 101 Sandowicz 2012: 47–49. 102 Unger 1931a: 82. 103 Nbk. 4, Nbk. 164, Camb. 423, Dar. 379: 5, 7. 104 Dar. 379: 7–8; cf. Wunsch 2000c: 103. 105 See Wunsch 2000c: 103–4, esp. n. 23 on the possible identification of one of the TE.E houses with a property neighboring on the bīt mār šarri (Nbn. 50: 6, cf. earlier Nbn. 9). 106 Cf. Baker 2014a: 19. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

2’ 3’

3”

45

The reading of the name of this quarter remains uncertain. George (1992: 26, 377) hesitates between Tê and Kasīri. See earlier Unger 1931a: 82. For the name Abunāya, see BBSt 28: 1, rev. 5, 15, 17 (interpreted as Atnāya by King [1912: 105–6] and Paulus [2014: 644–46]); SAA 18 161: 9 and SAA 18 160, rev. 9 (cf. Brinkman 1998: 18); BM 54193: 1–2 and IM 57901: 34 (mentioned in Nielsen 2011: 77241 and idem 2015a: 7); Weidner, AfO 17, rev. 2; ROMCT 2 33: 11 (interpreted as Adnāya); Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich: 878, l. 15; Ea-ilûta-bâni: 106/249–250: 3 and 39/252: 4 (interpreted as Adnāya); TCL 13 218: 16; VAS 5 140: 2. The reading of the first sign as abu rather than ad- is corroborated now by the spelling mabu-un-na-a (Wunsch 2014: 302 and Nielsen 2015a: 6). The patronym could also be maḫ-ḫe-⌈e⌉-[šá].

III.2 Transcripts of Trials: Borsippa? 15. BM 32175

Pl. XVI

1876-11-17, 1902 W. 9.5 x L. 3.5 x Th. 2.7 format: landscape obv. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x] 2’. [x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x x⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ [x x] 3’. [x x x] ⌈x x x x⌉ [x] u mdnà-[x x] 4’. [x x] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x x⌉ mden-sum.na ul ⌈x⌉ [x] 5’. ⌈fx x x x⌉ i-⌈na ma?-ḫar?⌉ lú.gar umuš bár-sipa.k[i] 6’. ⌈ni-iš den? dnà? a-de-e šá mku-ra⌉-šú lugal tin.tir.⌈ki⌉ 7’. ⌈ù⌉ m⌈ka-am⌉-bu-⌈zi-ia⌉ dumu-šú ta-az-ku-u[r ki-i (a-di)] rev. 8’. it-ti mden-⌈sum.na⌉ [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x] 9’. ù a-na áš-šu-t[u x x x x] ⌈x⌉ áš ta[k? x (x)] 10’. li-bu-ka-an-ni a-di [x] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x x⌉ mdnà-tin-su-i[q-bi] 11’. [o o] dumu-šú [o o] a-pe-et-tu-ú ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 12’. [i]-⌈na gub⌉-[zu šá mdn]à-kar-zi.meš lú.gar umuš bár-sipa.ki dumu-šú ⌈šá⌉ m⌈zálag⌉-e-[a (dumu mdingir-ia)] 13’. [mri-mut-nà?] ⌈lú.di⌉.ku5 dumu-šú šá mdnà-en-[šú-nu] 14’. [x x x x x x] x x [x x x x x x] (rest broken away) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

46

Chapter III

Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–11’ [...] and Nabû-[...] Bēl-iddin [...]. Before? the governor of Borsippa, [female name] pronounced an oath by Bēl?, Nabû?, the majesty of Cyrus, king of Babylon, and Cambyses, his son: “[(I swear) that ...] with Bēl-iddin [...] and as wife [...] may he take me [...], till I open [...] his son Nabû-balāssuiq[bi].” 12’–14’ In the pres[ence of: N]abû-ēṭir-napšāti, the governor of Borsippa, son of Nūrē[a, (descendant of Ilia)], [Rīmūt-Nabû?], judge, son of Nabû-bēl[šunu]. (rest broken away) Commentary Due to the presence of the governor and the judge, this text has been tentatively classified as a trial transcript, despite the lack of characteristic final clauses (e.g., dīnšunu dīn, “their case is settled” or amatsunu gamrat, “their dispute is finished”). The operative section of the document ends with a promissory oath taken by a woman. It could not have been a sworn acceptance of the verdict, as court decisions were binding, and parties did not have to formally accept (or reject) them. This sworn statement must have therefore concerned obligations other than sentence execution. BM 32175 extends evidence concerning governors’ cooperation with judges.107 The governor of Borsippa, Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti, was in office between the seventeenth year of Nabonidus and the second year of Cyrus.108 His incumbency might in fact have been longer, since Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti’s son and successor, Nabû-zēru-ušebši, is first documented as governor in the fourth year of Cambyses.109 Notes 6’ Nīšu is usually written with the sign NIŠ.110 The spelling ni-iš is rare; it is found otherwise only in Nbk. 164: 36–37, Jursa, WZKM 94 no. 5: 21, and BaAr 2 46: 19’. An analogous oath formula invoking Cyrus and his son (ina* den* u* dnà* a*-de*-⌈e⌉ šá lugal u* dumu lugal) is found in Lutz,

107

Governors and judges are found together in trial transcripts: Cyr. 312 (Bab), Edinburgh 69 (Bab), and BIN 2 134 (Uruk); transcripts of depositions: YOS 7 30 (Uruk); land sale contracts: 5R 67 1 (Bab); inheritance division contracts: BM 68563 + BM 68965 = Text no. 46 ([Sus]a?); and documents of uncertain nature: BM 48734 ([Dilbat?]). Cf. also VAS 6 128 (Borsippa). 108 Waerzeggers 2010a: 69. 109 Waerzeggers 2010a: 69–70. 110 Sandowicz 2012: 10 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

10’ 13’

47

UCP 9/2 38: 4–5, dated in the fifth year of Cyrus.111 A similar oath (i-n[a] 7d utu ù a-de-e.meš šá* [mkur-raš] 8lugal kur.kur u mkam-bu-zi-[ia] 9lugal tin.tir.ki) is known from Camb. 426.112 The date of issue of that text is partly damaged, but it must have been drafted in the first year of Cyrus, when Babylonian scribes titled Cyrus “king of lands” and Cambyses “king of Babylon.”113 In the lacuna, one could expect a euphemism for sexual parts: sūnu, birkū, ūru, or irtu (cf. AHw: 860). The name of the judge has been restored from VAS 4 32, which was drafted in Borsippa in the first year of Neriglissar (mri-mut-⌈dnà⌉ 10[lú.d]i.ku5 a-šú šá mdnà-en-šú-nu). Since there is a gap of at least nineteen years between VAS 4 32 and BM 32175, the reconstruction is uncertain.

III.3 Transcripts of Trials: Dilbat 16. BM 47475

Pl. XVII

1881-11-3, 180 W. 8.3 x L. 5.8 x Th. 2.8 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

[a.šà u é ina muḫ-ḫi i7ḫar-ri] ⌈šá? d⌉la-ga-ma-al [x x x x x] ⌈x ak⌉-kul-la-ta šá da še.numun [x x x x x x x u d]a ⌈a.šà⌉ [šà]-ú a.šà [u da x x x šá mḫ]a?-ad-da-a ⌈a⌉-šú šá mna-din a ma-šá-ab-⌈šú⌉ u d[a x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ a mgu-za-nu a-šú šá me-⌈tel-pi⌉ a ma-⌈šá⌉-a[b-šú mtab-né-e]-a a-šú šá mden-ba-šá a lú.é.bar-d⌈dumu⌉.sal.é md kur.⌈gal-iq⌉-[bi a-šú šá] ⌈m⌉damar.utu-⌈su⌉ ina šuii mdnà-mu-numun a-šú šá md⌈u.gur?-x-x⌉ [a m]⌈a-šá⌉-ab-šú ki.lam šá a.šà u é ip-pu-šú árkát.meš 9. [mtab]-né-e-a ⌈a⌉-šú šá md⌈en-ba-šá⌉ a lú.é.bar-d⌈dumu!(t:nin)⌉.salo.e..é u 10. [mgu]-za-nu a-šú ⌈šá⌉ me-tel-pi a ma-šá-ab-šú pa-qir.meš a-na muḫ-ḫ[i] 11. [ir-šu]-⌈ú⌉ im.⌈dub⌉ šá 5 ⌈ni-ik-kàs⌉ .meš šá mtab-né-e-- a-šú šá mden-ba-šá

111

Cf. Lutz, UCP 9/2 39: 4. Collated from photos posted at http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/ P248263.jpg and http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P248261.jpg, accessed on August 29th, 2017. 112 For collations, see Oaths and Curses O.80. 113 See Zawadzki 1996 with previous literature, Briant 2002: 71, 92–93, and Tolini 2011: 139–45. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

48

Chapter III

12. [ki?] mkal-ba-a a-šú šá mdamar.utu-sur ik-nu-⌈uk⌉- ù 5 ⌈ni!-ik!(t:kàs)kàs⌉ gi.meš 13. [šá mgu-za-nu] ⌈a⌉-šú šá me-tel-pi pa-qir.meš a-na muḫ-ḫi 14. [ir-šu-ú] ⌈lú.di.ku5.meš⌉ ina pa-ni mda-nù-lugal-ùru rev. 15. [lú.di.ku5 mIG-im-m]a-a-a lú.di.ku5 mdnà-⌈mu-gar-un lú.di⌉.[ku5] 16. [l]a ⌈in-nu-ú⌉ mdkur.gal-iq-bi a-šú šá 17. ⌈md⌉amar.utu-su ina a.šà-šú u é-šú ú-šá-zi-⌈iz-zu⌉ 18. dib-bi-šú-nu gab-bi ki ⌈a⌉-ḫa-meš ⌈ú-qa⌉-a[t-t]u 19. [m]da-nù-lugal-ùru lú.di.ku5 mIG-⌈im⌉-[ma-a lú.di.k]u5 20. ⌈m⌉[dn]à-mu-gar-un lú.di.ku5 mba-šá-⌈a⌉ [lú.umbisag] 21. a-šú šá mdnà-dù a mdù-a-a dil-bat.ki i[ti.x u4.x.ká]m 22. mu.2.kám mdu.gur-lugal-ùru lugal [tin.tir.ki] 23. ⌈im⌉.kišib mda-nù-lugal-ùru lú.di.[ku5] 24. [im].kišib mIG-im-ma-a lú.di.ku5 25. ⌈im⌉.kišib [m]dnà-mu-gar-un lú.di.ku5 Translation 1–11a [(Concerning) a plot of land and a house on the] Lāgāmal [Canal? ... (with)] clods, adjacent to the land [... and adja]cent to the plot (that) is part of the (same) plot, [and adjacent to ... of Ḫ]addāya?, son of Nādin, descendant of Ašābšu, and adja[cent to ...] ... Gūzānu, son of Etel-pî, descendant of Ašā[bšu, Tabnē]a, son of Bēl-iqīša, descendant of Šangû-Mārat-bīti, (and) Amurru-iq[bi, son of] Marduk-erība, bought (this) plot and (this) house from Nabû-nādin-zēri, son of Nergal?-[..., descendant of] Ašābšu. Later, [Tab]nēa, son of Bēl-iqīša, descendant of Šangû-Mārat!-bīti, and [Gū]zānu, son of Etelpî, descendant of Ašābšu, [lodged] claims regarding (this property). 11b–17 The judges—before Anu-šarru-uṣur the judge, [IG-imm]āya the judge and Nabû-šumu-iškun the jud[ge—did n]ot chan[ge] the tablet concerning the five (and) a half s that Tabnēa, son of Bēl-iqīša, sealed [with?] Kalbāya, son of Marduk-ēṭir, and the five (and) a half reeds [regarding which Gūzānu], son of Etel-pî, [lodged] claims. They confirmed the title of Amurru-iqbi, son of Marduk-erība, to his plot and his house. 18 They (hereby) mutually settled all their disputes. 19–20a (In the presence of): Anu-šarru-uṣur, judge, IG-im[māya, jud]ge, [Na]bû-šumu-iškun, judge. 20b–21a [Scribe]: Iqīšāya, son of Nabû-ibni, descendant of Ibnāya. 21b–22 Dilbat, mo[nth ..., x]th [day], second year of Neriglissar, king of [Babylon]. 23 seal of Anu-šarru-uṣur, judge 24 [se]al of IG-immāya, judge 25 seal of Nabû-šumu-iškun, judge © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

49

Commentary The dispute recorded in this tablet concerns a property that probably lay on the Lāgāmal Canal in Dilbat. Members of the Ašābšu family probably once owned much land in this area: both the seller of the property (Nabû-nādin-zēri) and an owner of one of the neighboring plots ([Ḫ]addāya) belonged to this family. The dispute involved three men: Gūzānu, a member of the local Ašābšu family; Tabnēa, descendant of Šangû-Mārat-bīti; and Amurru-iqbi, son of Marduk-erība. The family name of the third individual is not given in the text. He was possibly not a member of the urban elite, which used the traditional three-tiered filiation, and did not own one. The element “Amurru” in his name suggests a possible West Semitic origin. The break in l. 5 prevents a confident reconstruction of events, but it seems that all three men purchased the property together (note Pl. ip-pu-šú in l. 8). Joint ownership of land by individuals who were not members of the same family was uncommon in Babylonia. For this reason, a scenario in which the land was purchased from a single seller, perhaps even simultaneously, by three buyers acting independently may be considered. Consequently, these three buyers became owners of three individual tracts of land and three parts of the same house. The obvious difficulties that such an arrangement would have resulted in could account for problems that arose sometime after the purchase. Two owners, Gūzānu and Tabnēa, came forward with claims. One of the plaintiffs, Tabnēa, may have sold his share in the property to a Kalbāya, although the formulation of ll. 11–12, which describe this transaction, is not clear. Tabnēa is said there to have “sealed” (iknuk) a tablet regarding his five and a half reeds. An expression that would fit much better here is the hendiadys iknukma ana PN iddin/ušadgil “he gave/transferred to PN under seal” (CAD K: 140–41). While the possibility that the scribe of BM 47475 omitted the second verb by mistake cannot be excluded, it is also possible that Tabnēa sealed a tablet regarding his share in the property, but the actual transfer of the plot did not take place, because Tabnēa wanted—or was requested—to have legal obstacles removed. The judges did not void (literally, “did not change”) the transactions proceeded by Tabnēa and Gūzānu, which involved two parcels of five and a half reeds each. They also formally confirmed Amurru-iqbi’s title to (a part of) the plot and the house. Several judicial documents describe the final stage of proceedings in a manner very similar to that of ll. 14–17 of BM 47475: CT 55 194 + BM 61474 (Text no. 26) 14’ ri-ik-sa-⌈a-ta⌉-[šú] 15’⌈la⌉ i-nu-ú PN a-ki-i im.dub ki.⌈lam⌉ [i-na] 16’⌈10⌉ gi.meš-šú uš-zi-zi (The adjudicators) did not change [his] contracts. In accordance with the sale contract [...], they! confirmed the title of PN [to] his ten reeds.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

50

Chapter III

Nbn. 356 (The judges decided not to award a house to a defendant and) 34f PN 35u PN2 ina im.dub.meš-šú-nu uš-ziz-zu they confirmed the title of fPN and PN2 to (the property in accordance with) their tablets. Roth, Festschrift Oelsner no. 1 (The judges dismissed a claim for a slave.) 20’ PN (defendant) ina tup-pi ki.lam-šú ú-šu-uz PN holds title to (the property in accordance with) his sale contract. OIP 122 38 im.dub za-ku-ti 43šá PN la i-nu-ú (...) 44PN ù dumu.meš-šú 45ina im.dub ši-ir-ku-ti-šú-nu uš-zi-zu (The judges) did not change the tablet of dedication of PN. They confirmed the status of PN and his children (in accordance with) their tablet of oblate status. 42

A similar formulary is also found in records of proceedings implemented by parties who sought to receive formal confirmation of titles that were not contested or were no longer being contested: Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 6 (post-settlement arrangements) 31 ri-kis-su-nu la i-nu-ú PN 32⌈i-na⌉ tup-pi ki.lam uš-ziz-z[u] (The judges) did not change their agreement. They confirmed PN’s title to (the property in accordance with) the sale contract. BM 59582 (Text no. 43) (post-sale arrangements) 8 PN [u] PN2 (...) a-ki-i 9[i]m.dub-šú ina gi.meš-šú (...) uš-zi-zi 11[š]a-ṭa-ru šá PN3 lú.gar umuš ⌈e⌉.[ki] 12(...) 13[l]a i-nu-ú In accordance with his tablet, they! (the adjudicators) confirmed the title of PN [and] PN2 (...) to his reeds (...). They did not change the document of PN3, the governor of Bab[ylon]. The judges of BM 47475 are otherwise unknown. The lack of patronyms and family names impedes their identification. Two judges (Anu-šarru-uṣur and Nabûšumu-iškun) bear Babylonian names, while the name of the third (mIG-immāya) is difficult to classify. A syllabic reading (mig-im-ma-a) is unlikely, as it would contradict the Akkadian syllable-division rule which precludes the VC-VC pattern.114 The employment of a logogram would suggest that the name is of Akka-

114

Huehnergard 1997 §1.2b. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

51

dian origin, but the interpretation of the first sign as a logogram is also problematic. IG would render a peculiar name (Daltimmāya). GÁL is often employed in onomastics, but no parallels to Bašimmāya or Ibšimmāya are known to me. Notes 1 Another possibility is [sila] ⌈šá d⌉La-ga-ma-al, “Lāgāmal Street” (cf. VAS 1 35: 16). On the Lāgāmal Canal, see above p. 14. 3 On eqlu libbū eqli, see references on p. 17 (ad 18). 4ff. For the employment of a small ŠÁ in the sequence a-šú šá, see above p. 16. 4ff. Ašābšu is a hypocorism (cf. Enlil-ašābšu-iqbi [BE 10 126: 15, Entrepreneurs and Empire 108: 23’, Istanbul Murašû 18: 30, TMH 2/3 147: 26, 189: 23, 203: 6], Ṭāb-ašābšu and Ṭāb-ašāb-DN [Stamm 1939: 236]). In this abbreviated form, Ašābšu is found as a Dilbat family name already under Marduk-zākir-šumi (VAS 1 35: 51) and Esarhaddon (Nielsen, AfO 53 no. 2: 10, 20, 29, cf. Nielsen 2015a: 40). 6 The family name Šangû-Mārat-bīti is hitherto unattested, but the goddess Mārat-bīti was worshipped in Dilbat in the Eimbianu (cf. BM 47480 + BM 47783 [Text no. 36] below). 9 The family name must be misspelled; NIN.SAL is an unlikely spelling for mārtu. 11–12 For Neo-Babylonian nikkassu, see Powell 1984: 35–36, idem 1987–1990: 483. Baker (2011: 311–12) has demonstrated that, in contexts similar to the above, nikkassu refers to an additional half-reed rather than a unit of area. The word is usually written nik-kàs or nik-ka-as (CAD N2: 230–31); see also ník-kàs (Böhl 1936 no. 886: 7) and níg.ka9 (Zadok 2008: 79* [l. 11]). None of these spellings fit in l. 12. 11–12 If all three parcels were of the same size, the entire plot measured sixteen and a half reeds (over 200 sq m), which, by contemporary standards, would make for a rather small building parcel. See Baker 2004: 58–59 for a survey of textual evidence on Neo-Babylonian urban plots of known size and Baker 2014a: 19 for attested dwelling spaces. 11, 14 One expects paqārē ina muḫḫi ušabšû (rather than iršû), but there is not space at the beginning of l. 11 for such a long verb. 14–16 The formulation of this sentence is awkward. The scribe could have automatically added ina pani before the names of judges. 16 The expected verbal form is i-nu-ú (cf. forms in passages quoted above). 20 The scribe could be identical with Iqīšāya, son of Nabû-ibni, the owner of a field mentioned in BM 40788 + BM 40823 (Text no. 4): 20. 23–25 Note the rare spelling im.kišib (rather than na4.kišib) for kunukku. u.e. Oddly, the seal captions were not placed next to seal impressions (on the upper edge), but on the reverse. The seal (A303 in Altavilla and Walker

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

52

Chapter III

2016: 144) impressed on the right side of the upper edge depicts a worshipper standing before a group of divine standards, over which a moon crescent hovers. The remains of the second seal (to the left, in the middle of the upper edge) feature an identical crescent. It would be unusual for the same seal to be impressed twice in such a context; it is therefore safer to assume that two seals used by judges shared a similar iconographical element. The third seal was probably impressed on the (now damaged) left side of the upper edge.

III.4 Transcripts of Trials: Sippar 17. CT 55 126 (BM 57645) + BM 59757 + BM 73034

Pls. XVIII–XIX

1882-7-14, 2056 + 1882-7-4, 4167 + 1882-9-18, 13044 W. 8.9 x L. 12.8 x Th. 2.5 format: portrait, brick obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

[mdn]à-⌈gin-ibila⌉ [o] dumu-šú šá mmu-⌈gi.na⌉ dumu [mx x x a-na ma-ḫar] ⌈m⌉[mu-š]e-zib-⌈den⌉ lú.gar ⌈umuš⌉ tin.tir.ki a mugu-dingir.meš-gald a[mar.utu ik-šu-ud] u[m-m]a mdnà-gál-⌈ši ad⌉ ad-ia ⌈ka⌉-sap ṣib-tu4 [x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ lú.ra-šuo.e.-ta-nu šá e-li-šú a-na e-[ke?-mu? x x x x x] m[uḫ-ḫi]-šú-nu la ⌈uš-šu⌉-ru-uš i-na mu.2⌈4.kám⌉[dn]à-[níg.du-ùru] [lu]gal tin.tir.ki mdnà-arḫuš-šu-⌈kun⌉ fama-⌈ri?⌉-b[at?]⌈u fina⌉-gis[sué.sa.bad] a-me-lu-su i-na tup-pi iš-⌈ṭur⌉-ma p[a-ni f]⌈d⌉kurun.nam-tab-[ni] dam-šú ku-um nu-dun-né-e-šú ⌈ú⌉-šad-g[il i]-⌈na tup⌉-pi-šú ú-[še-di] um-ma u4-mu ma-la mdnà-gál-⌈ši⌉ bal-⌈ṭu⌉ a-me-lu-tu4 ta-pa[l-laḫ-šú-ma] [á]r-ki a-na šim-tu4 it-⌈tal-ku⌉ a-me-⌈lu⌉-tu4 pa-ni fdkurun.n[am-tab-ni] [t]a-ad-da-g[al x] ⌈x⌉ i ⌈nam x⌉ m⌈dnà⌉-gál-ši ad ad-ia ši[m-tu4] [ú]-⌈bil-šu⌉ ù ár-ki-šú mmu-gin ad-⌈ú⌉-a šim-tu4 ú-bil-šu-[ma] [m] d ⌈ ⌉utu-tin-⌈iṭ⌉ mba-šá ù mṣil-la-a šeš.meš ad-ía tar-den-né-⌈e⌉ [a]-⌈na?! la⌉-qe-e ⌈ḫa⌉.la-ia pa-a e-du it-ti ⌈a-ḫa⌉-meš i[š]-šak-⌈nu⌉-[ma] [f]⌈dkurun⌉.nam-tab-⌈ni⌉ ama ad-ia ú-šad-ba-bu-ma a-me-lut-⌈tu4⌉ šá md nà-gál-⌈ši⌉ [ad ad]-⌈ia⌉ la-pa-ni lú.⌈ra⌉-šu-ta-nu ⌈šá⌉ e-⌈li⌉-šú i-na ⌈tup-pi⌉ iš-ṭu-ru-⌈ma⌉ ⌈tu-šá-nu⌉-uš i-na tup-pi taš-ṭur-ma pa-ni-⌈šú-nu⌉ tu-⌈šad-gil⌉ ⌈la?⌉ [e]-ṭè-ra-ku-ma ḫi-ṭu u gíl-la-⌈tu4 la⌉ ub-la-áš-⌈ši⌉ [x x ina] lìb-bi tu-še-li-ma ḫa.la ⌈i-na⌉ lìb-bi la ta-zu-z[u] [x x x] ⌈x⌉ mur li-⌈ter-an-nu di⌉-i-nu ⌈i⌉-pu!(t:nu)-šu mmu-še-zib-⌈d⌉[en]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

53

21. ⌈lú⌉.[gar umuš tin].⌈tir.ki⌉ a-ma-⌈a⌉-tu4 mdnà-gin-⌈ibila iq-bu⌉-šú iš-mee-m[a] 22. [ú-paḫ-ḫir]-ma ši-bu-ut uru dumu.meš tin.tir.⌈ki f⌉dkurun.⌈nam⌉-tab-ni 23. [i-bu-k]u ma-ḫar-šú-nu uš-zi-zu tup-pi šá mu.⌈24⌉.kám dnà-níg.du-ùru 24. l[ugal tin].tir.ki mdnà-gál-ši iš-ṭu-ru-ma a-me-⌈lu⌉-su pa-ni 25. ⌈f⌉[dkur]un.nam-tab-ni ú-šad-gil-lu ma-ḫar-šú-nu iš-tas-su-ú 26. ⌈x dub hi⌉ ru tu4 šá mdnà-gin-ibila i-mu-ru-ma 10 ⌈mu⌉.meš-šú 27. ⌈mim-ma⌉ ḫi-ṭu u gíl-la-tu4 a-na fdkurun.nam-tab-ni ⌈ama⌉ ad-šú 28. la ⌈ma⌉-ṣe ⌈lú⌉.gar umuš tin.⌈tir⌉.ki ù ši-bu-ut uru a-na fdkurun.nam-tab-ni 29. iq-⌈bu-ú um-ma mi⌉-nam-ma i-na a-me-lut-tu4 šá mdnà-⌈gál-ši⌉ 30. ⌈mu-ti⌉-[ka? ár]-⌈ku?⌉ id-di-nu-šu a-na mdutu-tin-iṭ mba-šá ⌈ù⌉ 31. ⌈m⌉[ṣil-la-a dumu.me]š-⌈ka⌉ tar-den-né-e ta-nam-di-ni ⌈ù?⌉ 32. [mim-ma a-na mnà-gin-ibil]a dumu dumu-k[a r]a-bi-i la ta-[nam-di-ni?] 33. ⌈lú.gar⌉ [umuš tin.tir.ki] ù ši-bu-ut ⌈uru⌉ di-i-[ni a-me-lut-tu4] rev. 34. šu-a-tì i[š-ku-nu x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x mnà-gin]-⌈ibila⌉ [ù] ⌈dumu.meš⌉ 35. ṣa-⌈aḫ-ru⌉-[ti šá mdnà-gál-ši ù] f⌈dkurun⌉.[nam]-tab-⌈ni⌉ 36. ⌈ama⌉ [ad šá mdnà-gin-ibila x x] ⌈šá⌉ mdnà-gál-ši ⌈ik-nu-ku-ma⌉ 37. a-na ⌈f⌉[dkurun.nam-tab-ni i]d-di-⌈nu⌉ a-ḫi ḫ[a.l]a šá 38. mdnà-gin-[ibila dumu-šú šá mmu-gin dumu dum]u ra-ba-a ⌈šá mdnà-gál-ši⌉ 39. ⌈x x x⌉ [x x] ⌈x id?-di-nu⌉ [(x)] ⌈u4-mu⌉ [fdkurun].⌈nam-tab⌉-ni 40. bal-ṭ[a-tu4 fina-gissu-é.s]a.⌈bad⌉ mdnà-ar[ḫuš-šu-kun fama-ri?]-⌈ba-at⌉ 41. a-me-l[ut-tu4 x x] ⌈x x x⌉ [x mdnà]-⌈gin-ibila⌉ 42. ⌈f⌉dku[run.nam-t]ab-⌈ni⌉ [x x] ⌈x x x x⌉ [ x x x x] ⌈x⌉ 43. [a-m]e-⌈lut⌉-[tu4 x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x x x x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x x tu4⌉ 44. [x] ⌈x tu4⌉ [x x x šá mdnà-gál-ši] ⌈ik-nu⌉-ku-m[a] 45. [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x š]u-⌈su⌉ [ina] ⌈lìb-bi⌉ pa-aṭ-⌈rat a-ki⌉ ṣi-ba-a-t[u4] 46. [ta-na]m-[din u4-mu] ⌈ma-la fdkurun⌉.nam-tab-ni bal-ṭa-tu4 47. [a-me-lu]t-tu4 i-⌈na pa-ni-šá ár-ki a⌉-na šim-tu4 [ta]-⌈tal-ku⌉ 48. [pa-n]i mdnà-gin-ibila ⌈ù⌉ pa-⌈ni⌉ mdutu-tin-⌈iṭ m⌉ba-šá 49. [u mṣil-l]a-a šeš.meš ad-šú tar-den-⌈né-e⌉ id-da-⌈gal é? šá⌉ m⌈dnà-gál-ši⌉ 50. [šá i-na] zimbir.ki mdnà-gin-ibila dumu-⌈šú šá mmu⌉-[gin ù ár]-⌈kát⌉ 51. [i?-na? r]i-ḫi-tu4 níg.ka9 šá mdnà-gál-ši šá uru u edin [ma-la ba]-⌈šu⌉-ú 52. [a-ki] ḫa.la.meš-šú-nu i-⌈leq⌉-qu-ú di-in-šú-nu ⌈di-i⌉-[nu eš.ba]r-šú-⌈nu⌉ 53. [pa-r]i-is ma-ti-ma a-⌈na ugu⌉ a-ḫa-meš la ⌈it⌉-[tur]-ru 54. [lú.gar] umuš tin.tir.ki tup-pi iš-ṭur i-na na4.kišib-šú ⌈ib-ru-um-ma⌉ 55. [a-na mdn]à-gin-ibila id-din ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 56. [i-na ka]-⌈nak⌉ tup-⌈pa⌉ šu-a-tì ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 57. mm[u-še-zib-den lú.gar umuš tin].⌈tir⌉.[ki dum]u mugu-⌈ddingir.meš⌉-gald a[mar.utu]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

54

Chapter III

58. mx [x x x dumu-šú šá mx x x dumu mr]i-mut-dingir [(x x)] 59. mde[n-x x dumu-šú šá mx x x dumu x x]-⌈né?⌉-a 60. mx [x x dumu-šú šá mx x x dumu l]ú.sanga-sip-par.[ki] 61. mdn[à-x x dumu-šú šá mx x x du]mu lú.sanga-sip-⌈par⌉.[ki] 62. md⌈amar.utu-na-ṣir⌉ [dumu-šú šá mdnà-mu-ùru du]mu lú.sanga-d[utu] 63. mden-gi [dumu-šú šá mnumun-tú du]mu mmi-ṣ[ir-a-a] 64. mdnà-[x x lú.umbisag dumu-šú šá mx x dumu] ⌈m⌉su-ḫ[a?-a?-a?] 65. zi[mbir.ki iti.x u4.x.kám] ⌈mu.sag⌉.[lugal.la] 66. md[u.gur-lugal-ùru lugal tin].tir.k[i] l.h.e. na4.kišib / mmu-še-zib-den / lú.gar umuš ⌈e⌉.ki Translation 1–11a [Na]bû-mukīn-apli, son of Šumu-ukīn, descendant of [... approached Muš]ēzib-Bēl, the governor of Babylon, descendant of Eli-ilāni-rabiM[arduk]: “My paternal grandfather Nabû-ušabši, in order to s[alvage?] the silver subject to seizure [...] his creditors, [...] them, did not release it. In the twenty-fourth year of N[ebuchadnezzar, ki]ng of Babylon, he wrote down in a tablet (a provision regarding) his slaves Nabû-rēmu-šukun, f Ummu-⌈rībat?⌉, and fIna-ṣil[li-Esabad] and transferred them to his wife f Kurunnītu-tabni in lieu of her dowry. In the tablet, it s[aid]: as long as Nabû-ušabši lives, the slaves will ser[ve him and], after he meets (his) fate, the slaves will belong to fKurunn[ītu-tabni]. 11b–20a [...] fate took Nabû-ušabši, my paternal grandfather, and later on fate took my father, Šumu-ukīn. Šamaš-uballiṭ, Iqīšāya, and Ṣillāya, the younger brothers of my father, plotted together in order to take my share. They induced my paternal grandmother, fKurunnītu-tabni, and she changed (the provision regarding) the slaves that Nabû-ušabši, my [paternal grandfather], had written down in a tablet (in order to protect them) from his creditors. She had (the slaves) written down in a (new) tablet and transferred to them (i.e., the younger sons). I was given nothing?, although I did not commit any sin or offense against her. [... there]of she took, she did not divide. May she! give [...] back to me!” 20b–32 They judged the case. Mušēzib-Bēl, the [governor of Ba]bylon, heard the words that Nabû-mukīn-apli had said. [He brought together] the city elders, the Babylonians, and they [broug]ht fKurunnītu-tabni over and stood (her) before them. They read before them the tablet that Nabûušabši had written in the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar, k[ing of Ba]bylon, (following which) he had transferred the slaves to [fKur]unnītu-tabni. They examined the ... of Nabû-mukīn-apli, and, over his ten years, there was no sin or offense toward fKurunnītu-tabni, his paternal

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

33–49a

49b–52a

52b–53

54–55

56 57–63

64 65–67

l.h.e.

55

grandmother. The governor of Babylon and the city elders said to fKurunnītu-tabni: “Why did you award to Šamaš-uballiṭ, Iqīšāya, and [Ṣillāya, yo]ur younger [sons], some of the slaves that Nabû-ušabši, [your la]te? hu[sband?], had given, [an]d did you not aw[ard anything to Nabûmukī]n-apli, your oldest grandson?” The gove[rnor of Babylon] and the city elders d[ecided] the case of these [slaves. ... Nabû-mukīn]-a[pli and] the younger s[ons of Nabû-ušabši and] f Kurunnītu-tabni, [the grand]mother [of Nabû-mukīn-apli, ...] that Nabûušabši had given under seal to f[Kurunnītu-tabni], there is a half sh[ar]e of Nabû-mukīn-[apli, son of Šumu-ukīn], the oldest [grands]on of Nabûušabši. [...] gave?. As long as fKurunnītu-tabni liv[es, fIna-ṣilli-Esab]ad, Nabû-rē[mu-šukun, (and) Ummu-rī]bat?, the sla[ves ... Nabû]-mukīn-apli. f Ku[runnītu-t]abni [... sl]aves [... that Nabû-ušabši] sealed and ... he has no claim (to it), in accordance with the wish [she will give. As lo]ng as f Kurunnītu-tabni lives, the [sla]ves will be at her disposal. After she meets her fate, they will belong [to] Nabû-mukīn-apli and [to] Šamaš-uballiṭ, Iqīšāya, [and Ṣillā]ya, the younger brothers of his father. (As for) the ⌈house?⌉ of Nabû-ušabši [that is in] Sippar: Nabû-mukīn-apli, son of Šumu-[ukīn, and the young]er sons (of Nabû-ušabši) will take (it) [according] to their shares [in the fi]nal assessment of all Nabû-ušabši’s assets within and outside of the city. Their case is settl[ed]. Their ver[dict is iss]ued. They will never again turn against each other. The governor of Babylon issued (this) tablet, impressed his seal (on it), and gave (it) [to Na]bû-mukīn-apli. (These men were present) [at the draft]ing of this tablet: M[ušēzib-Bēl, governor of Babylo]n, [so]n of Eli-ilāni-rabi-M[arduk], [... son of ..., descendant of R]īmūt-ili, B[ēl-..., son of ..., descendant of ...]nēa?, [..., son of ..., descendant of] Šangû-Sippar, Na[bû-..., son of ...], descendant of Šangû-Sippar, Marduk-nāṣir, [son of Nabû-šumu-uṣur, desce]ndant of Šangû-[Šamaš], Bēl-ušallim, [son of Zērūtu, desce]ndant of Miṣ[rāya]. [Scribe]: Nabû-[..., son of ..., descendant of] Su[ḫāya?]. S[ippar, month of ..., xth day], the accession year of [Neriglissar, king of Bab]ylon. seal of Mušēzib-Bēl, the governor of Babylon (no seal impressed)

Commentary The case recorded in this document was brought to court by Nabû-mukīn-apli, son of Šumu-ukīn and grandson of Nabû-ušabši. His family name is unknown: it is damaged in l. 1 and does not reappear later in the text. A certain Nabû-ušabši, © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

56

Chapter III

descendant of Ṭābiḫu, appears as a witness in the Sippar text CT 55 193 (l. 9), which was drawn up in the fifteenth year of Nabopolassar (thus, forty years earlier). A link between this man and the grandfather of Nabû-mukīn-apli is chronologically plausible but at the moment not provable. The defendant was Nabû-mukīn-apli’s paternal grandmother, fKurunnītutabni. She was the wife of the late Nabû-ušabši, to whom she bore four sons: Šumu-ukīn (the father of Nabû-mukīn-apli), Šamaš-uballiṭ, Iqīšāya, and Ṣillāya. Despite her rather uncommon name, fKurunnītu-tabni cannot be linked to any of her better-known namesakes. She is certainly not identical with the daughter of Aplāya of the Ṭābiḫu family, who was the wife of Kabti-ilāni-Marduk, descendant of Dābibi (BaAr 2 10, Babylon, 7Nbp). The daughter of Bēl-upaḫḫir, descendant of Sîn-šadûnu, the wife of Šumu-ukīn, descendant of Sîn-šadûnu (Roth 1991– 1993: 14–16), is likewise another person, although she seems to have shared some character traits with Nabû-mukīn-apli’s grandmother: she too ended up in court as the result of intrigues intended to block some of her sons’ access to her dowry (Babylon, 39NbkII–10Nbn).115 For chronological reasons, it is unlikely that she is identical with either the daughter of Nadnāya, descendant of Iqīša-Marduk (Nbn. 800: 4, Babylon, 14Nbn), or the daughter of Nabû-kāṣir, descendant of Babūtu (BM 35527 = Bertin 1773: 2, Babylon, 1Camb). Nabû-ušabši ∞ fKurunnītu-tabni

Šumu-ukīn

Šamaš-uballiṭ

Iqīšāya

Ṣillāya

Nabû-mukīn-apli Family tree of Nabû-mukīn-apli

The chain of events that culminated in this court case begun twenty-one years earlier, when fKurunnītu-tabni’s husband, Nabû-ušabši, transferred to his wife the ownership of three of his slaves in exchange for a part of her dowry.116 Nabûušabši made the bequest in order to prevent his creditors from seizing his property; according to Neo-Babylonian law, a dowry, as the future inheritance of a wife’s children, was beyond creditors’ reach.117 The gift was to become effective upon the death of the donor. After her husband’s death and the apparently untimely death of her oldest son, Šumu-ukīn, at the instigation of her three younger sons, 115

Cf. Wunsch 2000b/I: 110–16. For transfers in lieu of dowry (kūm nudunnê), see Oelsner, Wells, and Wunsch 2003: 942, Wunsch 2003b: 5. 117 For a brief introduction into Neo-Babylonian inheritance and dowry law, see Roth 1991–1993, Oelsner, Wells, and Wunsch 2003: 938–44, Wunsch 2003b.

116

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials f

57

Kurunnītu-tabni had a new tablet issued, in which she appointed her three living sons the sole beneficiaries of this part of the estate. Her firstborn, Šumu-ukīn, was no longer alive, but his heir, Nabû-mukīn-apli, evidently felt overlooked and took f Kurunnītu-tabni to court. Neo-Babylonian dowry division rules were not strict; a mother could decide in favor of one or more children (for example, the one who was to take care of her in her old age).118 Still, Nabû-mukīn-apli found grounds to challenge his grandmother’s inheritance arrangements. In a lengthy address to the court, Nabû-mukīn-apli raised two issues. First, he noted that his grandfather’s gift aimed at evading creditors. This motivation, mentioned twice in the address (ll. 4–5 and 16), was apparently considered significant. By revealing it, Nabû-mukīn-apli could have sought to prove that the gift was fictitious and that the slaves were in fact a part of Nabû-ušabši’s patrimony and not fKurunnītu-tabni’s dowry. Nabû-mukīn-apli’s father—and his son after him— had the right to receive his share. The second issue raised by the plaintiff was equally crucial for the annulment of his grandmother’s disposition. Nabû-mukīnapli claimed that in no way did he fail in his duties to fKurunnītu-tabni: he committed neither sin (ḫīṭu) nor offense (gillatu). In Babylonia, honoring parents was more than a general ethical principle; it was a legal obligation whose violation entailed concrete, grave consequences. According to §§ 168 and 169 of the Laws of Hammurabi, a disobedient son could be disinherited, although in order to do so, a father needed a court’s approval. Judges examined the circumstances surrounding an act of disobedience (warkassu iparrasū) to establish if it was an arnum kabtum, “grave offense” (an obvious parallel to ḫīṭu gillatu in CT 55 126+). Even if that was the case, the son had to be pardoned at first. Judges approved a disinheritance only when an offense was repeated. Women had a similar tool at their disposal. A defiant child could be deprived of a share in his or her mother’s dowry (or a dowry equivalent). CM 20 84 and Rutten, RA 41 (= CM 20 85) furnish good examples of how obedience could be exacted: another fKurunnītu-tabni, the wife of Šumu-ukīn of the Sîn-šadûnu family, ensured that her record of kūm nudunnê transfer included a stipulation that any son who would not respect (ipallaḫu) her would be deprived of a share in her dowry.119 A certain fQudāšu allocated to her son a field that she had received in exchange for her dowry (kūm nudunnê) subject to the condition, among others, that he would respect her (kū (...) palāḫišu).120 CT 55 126+ suggests, however, that such a written stipulation was not a prerequisite. No obedience provision in either of his grandparents’ tablets is alluded to, yet Nabû-mukīn-apli had to demonstrate that over ten years— the period that had passed since the death of his grandfather and his father—he had not violated the rule of respect: there was no ḫīṭu or gillatu. 118

Oelsner, Wells, and Wunsch 2003: 941, Zadok and Zadok, NABU 2005. Roth 1991–1993: 14–16, Wunsch 2000b/I: 110–116. 120 Zadok and Zadok, NABU 2005b: 11–13.

119

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

58

Chapter III

In their verdict, the adjudicators affirmed Nabû-mukīn-apli’s title to the slaves. However, both he and his uncles were allowed to take possession of the slaves only upon fKurunnītu-tabni’s death. Moreover, the adjudicators affirmed that Nabû-mukīn-apli was to be included in the final division of the entire paternal estate, including—provided the reading of the damaged part of the tablet is correct—a house in Sippar. This clause indicates that the family estate remained undivided, notwithstanding the deaths of the paterfamilias (Nabû-ušabši) and the oldest heir (Šumu-ukīn) and despite the disagreement over the ownership of slaves. Such a postponement of patrimony division was by no means exceptional. For logistical reasons, family assets, especially immovables, often continued to be managed undivided for many years after the deaths of family heads.121 The body that heard the dispute was presided over by the governor of Babylon, Mušēzib-Bēl. He appears in the same role, assisted by judges and elders, in Edinburgh 69 (1Ngl). He is also found—again alongside judges—in a land sale contract, 5R 67 1 (0Ngl), and is mentioned in a court record, BaAr 2 46 ([xNgl]). These three documents were drafted in Babylon. Mušēzib-Bēl’s appearance as adjudicator outside of the capital is unsurprising, since the judicial power of the governor of Babylon extended over Sippar.122 He sat with “the city elders, the Babylonians” (šībūt āli mārē Bābili), a collective body known otherwise from dispute documents from Babylon and Dilbat.123 Despite the damage to the witness list, some of these men may be identified as members of the Ebabbar temple community (see notes below). Notes 3 See the similar expression in Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 20: 5ʼ: kù.babbar ṣibtu eliya [...]. 4 In parallel with l. 16, one expects in the beginning lapani rašûtānī, but signs do not conform with it, unless [la-pa-n]i . f 6 Ina-ṣilli-Esabad is a common female slave name; cf. Hackl 2013: 161. 7 For the reading of dkurun.nam as Kurunnītu, see Beaulieu 2005: 320–21. 9 The grammatical gender of amēluttu is treated here inconsistently: the verbs it governs are both feminine (tapa[llaḫ] in l. 9 and [t]addag[al] in l. 11) and masculine (iddagal in l. 49).

121

Oelsner, Wells, and Wunsch 2003: 939. See BM 59582 (Text no. 43), which mentions a document (šaṭāru) regarding a house plot in Sippar issued by a governor of Babylon, and BM 68563 + BM 68965 (Text no. 46), a record of the division of a property of a Sipparrean family written before a governor of Babylon and judges. 123 From Babylon: BaAr 2 42: 5, BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 12’–13’; from Dilbat: BM 40788 + BM 40823 (Text no. 4): 7. On the community of immigrants from Babylon in Sippar and their strong ties to the capital, see Jursa 2010: 71–72 and Waerzeggers 2014: 45–49. 122

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

59

9–11 For donations mortis causa, see San Nicolò and Ungnad 1935: 17–19, for slaves in such donations, see Dandamaev 1984: 210–12. 14 This idiom has hitherto been attested only in Š and N of šakānu (pâ ištēn/ēda šuškunu and naškunu), “to make act in unison” (CAD Š1: 141, cf. CAD E: 37). 20 In this place, the direct appeal to adjudicators to issue a verdict is expected. Cf. epšāinni dīnī, “Judge my case!” (Scheil, RA 12: 9); purussâni šuknā, “Issue our verdict!” (i.a., Nbn. 356 = Liv. 98: 28, YOS 19 101: 25, CT 55 194 + BM 61474 [Text no. 26]: 7’); purussâya šukun, “Issue my verdict!” (BM 70214 [Text no. 19]: 5’; BM 65307 [Text no. 21]: 8). It cannot therefore be excluded that i-pu!-šu in CT 55 126+ is not indicative (īpšū, “they judged”), but a mistake for the imperative (epšā, “judge!”). A similar difficulty is presented by ép-šú di-i-ni in OIP 122 38: 28. 22 The verb upaḫḫirma is restored based on the parallels with BaAr 2 48: 10– 11, Cyr. 332: 18’, and CT 55 194 + BM 61474 (Text no. 26): 8’; cf. also BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 8–9. 26 Two first signs conform with ⌈im⌉.dub, but throughout this text, tuppu is written syllabically (cf. ll. 7, 8, 16, 23, 54). The word ḫī/ērūtu may be a derivative of ḫâru “to get ready, make available” (CAD s.v. ḫâru B). 37 The mention of a “half share” (aḫi zitti) of Nabû-mukīn-apli is baffling. According to Neo-Babylonian law, the eldest son received a preferential double share of the patrimony.124 If the adjudicators treated disputed slaves as part of Nabû-ušabši’s patrimony, Šumu-ukīn (and his heir, Nabû-mukīn-apli) would be entitled to a two-fifth share, not a half. The decision to award to Nabû-mukīn-apli a half share would be justified if one of his uncles had died (without issue) by the time of the trial, but the following lines of the verdict name all three younger brothers of Šumuukīn as beneficiaries of the future division of the patrimony. Also, there is no mention of any sibling of Nabû-mukīn-apli, who would have right to inherit with him. 53 Itturū stands for iturrū. 58 Restore perhaps [mr]i-mut-dingir.[meš] or [mr]i-mut-d[DN]. Rīmūt-ili as a family name is not particularly frequent, but see Wunsch 2014: 308. 59 The alternative reading of the family name is [md]ù-a-[a] (Ibnāya). 60 The second sign could be dNÀ or dEN. 61 Na[bû-..., son of ...], descendant of Šangû-Sippar, could be the measurer Nabû-nāṣir, son of Ebabbar-šadûnu (attested in 37NbkII–1Nbn).125 He appears, among others, in BM 63817 = Bertin 1138 (37NbkII) and Neriglissar 88 (0Ngl), two documents whose scribe was Bēl-ušallim, son of Zērūtu, descendant of Miṣrāya (here in l. 63). 124 125

Oelsner, Wells, and Wunsch 2003: 938. Bongenaar 1997: 454. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

60

62

63

64

Chapter III

Marduk-nāṣir, descendant of Šangû-Šamaš, is probably identical with the son of Nabû-šumu-uṣur, a witness in Marriage Agreements 5: 32 (20NbkII).126 Bēl-ušallim, descendant of Miṣrāya, must be the son of Zērūtu, a scribe attested between Nebuchadnezzar’s mid-reign and Neriglissar’s accession year.127 This identification is made probable by Bēl-ušallim’s appearance next to Nabû-nāṣir in two more documents (see note ad l. 61). His identification with the rab bani Bēl-ušallim, son of Šamaš-unammir, descendant of Miṣrāya, seem less likely.128 According to Bongenaar 1997, no scribe of this family is known in Sippar.

18. BM 63755 1882-9-18, 3722 W. 7.2 x L. 5.6 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape obv. 1. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a-na] 2. [mden-šeš.meš-ba-šá lú.qí-i]-⌈pu⌉ [é.babbar.ra ù] 3. [mmu-še-zib-damar.ut]u ⌈lú.sanga sip-par.ki iq⌉-b[u-ú] 4. [um-ma mšu-la-a] šá it-ti lú.šu.ku6.meš šá du[tu] 5. [i-bar-r]u še-⌈e⌉-ḫu i-ṣab-bat-su a-na u[gu?] 6. [nap?-tan? dingir?] ⌈a⌉-na qé-re-bi ul ṭa-⌈a⌉-bi [o o] 7. [mden-šeš].meš-ba-šá lú.qí-i-pi é.babbar.ra ⌈ù⌉ 8. [mmu-š]e-zib-damar.utu lú.sanga sip-par.ki lú.ku4 é ⌈d⌉[utu] 9. ⌈ù⌉ lú.ki-na-al-⌈tu4⌉ é.babbar.ra ú-p[aḫ-ḫi-ru mu dingir] 10. [ina] dutu ina muḫ-ḫi-šú-nu ú-še-lu-uʾ ni[š dutu] 11. [iz-ku-r]u ki-i mim-ma šá še-e-ḫi ina šuii-šú ni-mu-r[u] 12. [ár-ki?]⌈m⌉mu-šeb-ši mden-tin-iṭ mìr-⌈d⌉me.me mna-ṣir 13. [mx x-b]a-a šá mšu-la-a ina ṭaḫ é-šú-nu [áš]-bi 14. [mu dingir] ⌈ú-še⌉-lu-ú ki-i mim-ma šá ⌈še-e⌉-ḫi l.e. 15. [ina šuii-šú ni-mu]-ru m⌈ki⌉-dutu-tin ⌈lú.pa lú.šu.ku6.meš⌉ 16. [šá dutu (x x)] ⌈x x x mu.meš ku6.ḫi.a? ina na?-áš-par?-tú?⌉ rev. (too fragmentary for transliteration) 126

Bongenaar 1997: 452. Bongenaar 1997: 485, add BM 61189, 26NbkII (cf. Da Riva 2002: 422). 128 Jursa 1995a: 76, add Da Riva 2002: 422. 127

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. XX

Transcripts of Trials

61

Translation 1–6 [...] sa[id to Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša, the resi]dent [of the Ebabbar and MušēzibMard]uk, the high priest of Sippar: “[Šulāya], who [fish]es with the fishermen of Ša[maš], has šēḫu. He is not fit to bring (anything) for [the divine? meal?].” 7–11 [Bēl-aḫḫ]ē-iqīša, the resident of the Ebabbar, and [Muš]ēzib-Marduk, the high priest of Sippar, br[ought together] the enterers of the temple of [Šamaš] and the temple assembly of the Ebabbar. They imposed upon them [an oath by] Šamaš. [They pro]nounced an oa[th by Šamaš]: “(We swear) that we did not see any šēḫu on his hands.” 12–16 [Later?] Mušēbši, Bēl-uballiṭ, Arad-Gula, Nāṣir, [(and) ...b]āya, next to whose house Šulāya [li]ves, took [an oath]: “(We swear) that [we did not se]e any šēḫu [on his hands].” Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, the overseer of the fishermen [of Šamaš ...] these [...] fish? by order? [...] (the rest too fragmentary for translation) Commentary BM 63755 is one of a few texts that provide a glimpse into how temple officials handled cases involving the infringement of cultic regulations.129 This document follows the formulary of contemporary Sippar trial records but features a different composition of the adjudicating body. Next to the high priest, who usually presided over court sittings alone, we find the resident, and, instead of the city elders (šībūt āli), the kiništu. The temple assembly (“the [other] prebendaries of a temple organization”)130 appears in the same role in the single other hitherto known trial concerning cultic matters, Geller, Festschrift Greenfield. The proceedings were prompted by a denunciation concerning the cultic impurity of Šulāya, a man who worked with temple fishermen. In response to the denunciation, the top Ebabbar officials summoned the temple enterers and the assembly. Two oaths concerning Šulāya’s alleged impurity were then sworn. The second group of oath-takers consisted of Šulāya’s neighbors, but the identities of the members of the first group are less clear. The sentence that introduces the first oath ([niš dingir ina] dutu ina muḫ-ḫi-šú-nu ú-še-lu-uʾ, “They imposed upon them [an oath by] Šamaš”), is ambiguous, as it leaves it unclear who, apart from the resident and the high priest, administered the oath and who the oath-takers were. At first glance, it seems conceivable that the latter were temple enterers and the assembly, who confirmed that—while performing their cultic duties, one imagines—they had noticed no sign of šēḫu on Šulāya. However, comparison with other 129

See also Geller, Festschrift Greenfield, YOS 6 222, Boissier, RA 23 and YOS 7 71 (cf. Beaulieu and Britton 1994). 130 Bongenaar 1997: 150–53. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

62

Chapter III

dispute texts suggests that it is much more likely that the first oath was taken by denunciators, while the temple enterers and the kiništu belonged to the judicial body that oversaw the procedure. A number of Sippar court documents are structured similarly to BM 63755. They begin with plaintiffs’ complaints quoted verbatim, followed by clauses describing the summoning of adjudicators (šangû Sippar upaḫḫirma ērib bīt Šamaš (u) šībūt āli, “The high priest of Sippar brought together the temple enterers and the city elders”) and the actions that those adjudicators implemented.131 This interpretation presents one particular difficulty: in their initial statement, the denunciators accused Šulāya of impurity, while in the sworn statement, they dismissed the accusations. Such a withdrawal of accusations once under oath may have been caused by the fear of perjury. Similar cases of volte-face are known. According to YOS 7 18, a man who had accused his colleague of lèse-majesté admitted under oath that the charges were fabricated; he invented them in order to revenge himself on a colleague who had mauled him. Following Sandowicz, Palamedes 6, a woman who had gone to court over a deposit withdrew once the date of an oath ceremony was set; she later confessed that the deposit was not her property. The accusations brought against Šulāya concerned šēḫu, a condition that made him unfit to handle fish destined for divine meals. The context in which it appears in BM 63755: 5 (šēḫu iṣabbatsu, “šēḫu holds onto him”), allows šēḫu to be linked to an illness; the verb ṣabātu is often used to describe the contracting of a disease.132 In several Neo-Assyrian slave sale contracts, šēḫu is listed among the latent defects (such as bennu, “epilepsy”) that, once discovered, could lead to the revocation of a sale.133 According to the dictionaries, this šēḫu was “wind; breath, emanation” (CAD Š2: 266a), “Wind(hauch)” (AHw: 1209), and, in reference to an illness, a condition of “being possessed by ghosts” (CAD Š2: 266b). This meaning hardly seems to apply in BM 63755. In l. 11 (and probably l. 15), the oath-takers declare that they did not see any šēḫu on (or: in) Šulāya’s hands. It is unlikely that the expression ina qātē amāru, “to see on/in hands,” would have been used to describe possession by a ghost. Instead, the investigation must have concerned šēḫu/šīḫu, “insect” (CAD Š2: 419), “eine Larve” (AHw: 1232), that here—and possibly in Neo-Assyrian slave sale contracts—could denote a skin disease, perhaps skin parasites. Such a condition could have been seen on Šulāya’s hands and would certainly have precluded him from any contact with products intended for divine meals. As was the case for most prebendaries, fishermen had to comply with the rules of cultic purity.134 Sickness, even temporary, excluded them from temple service.135 131

BaAr 2 48: 10–11, CT 55 194 + BM 61474 (Text no. 26): 8’, Cyr. 332: 18’. CAD Ṣ: 7. 133 CAD Š2: 266. 134 See YOS 6 10: 21 for the initiation (gullubu) of fishermen in the Eanna. 135 Cf. Waerzeggers 2008: 8–9. 132

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

63

The term bāʾirū primarily denoted fishermen, but it was also used in reference to hunters of small animals.136 Sources offering insight into the organization of bāʾirūtu in Sippar are scarce.137 The Ebabbar had its own prebendary fishermen, but it also employed laymen.138 As was the case for other prebendary groups, bāʾirū were headed by overseers (šāpirū). Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, mentioned in a broken context in l. 15, is certainly identical with the šāpiru of the Ebabbar fishermen known from texts drafted under Cyrus and Cambyses, the son of Nabû-mukīnapli of the Bāʾiru family. He is found with the title šāpiru in a list of allowances CT 56 746 (l. 18), next to another overseer, Kalbāya. They both appear without titles in Cyr. 175 and Camb. 240, promissory notes for silver, the “price of water,” that covered, among others, fishing rights;139 the context makes it clear that they represented all Ebabbar fishermen.140 BM 63755 provides the earliest attestation of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu as overseer and extends the period during which he was in office to at least fifteen (maximum: twenty-two) years, unaffected by the regime change. The presence of the resident Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša and the high priest MušēzibMarduk allows the period during which BM 63755 was written to be narrowed down to years 8–15 of Nabonidus. Notes 5 Lit. “šēḫu holds on to him.” 10, 14 The subject of the expression nīša šūlû (“to take an oath”) is usually an oath-taker, who self-imposes the oath.141 Here, however, oath-takers are introduced by ina muḫḫišunu, so the subject of šūlû must be oath administrators. The choice of the oath formula is odd: in a juridical oath nīša zakāru/šuzkuru is expected, while šum ili šūlû is typically found in summonses to take oaths.142 13 The name in the beginning may also end with [...m]a-a.

136

Bongenaar and Jursa 1993: 35. Bongenaar and Jursa 1993, esp. 36–38. For Neo-Babylonian fishermen in general, see lately Kleber 2004, on fishing methods in Mesopotamia see Potts 2012. 138 Bongenaar and Jursa 1993: 37. 139 See Jursa 1995a: 145 for collations. For the “price of water,” see Joannès 2002: 592– 97 and Kleber 2004: 162. 140 “Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, son of Nabû-mukīn-apli, descendant of Bāʾiru, Kalbāya, son of Bauēreš, descendant of Bāʾiru, (Mušēzib-Bēl, son of Nabû-zēru-ušabši, descendant of Bāʾiru), and all the fishermen of Šamaš.” 141 Sandowicz 2012: 16. 142 Sandowicz 2012: 20–21.

137

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

64

Chapter III

19. BM 70214

Pl. XXI

1882-9-18, 10215 W. 6.2 x L. 2.7 x Th. 2.5 format: uncertain obv. (beginning broken away) 1’. ⌈x x x x ki x x⌉ [ 2’. šá mdkur-tin!-su!-e a-na ugu 4 ⌈gi⌉.me[š 3’. ⌈a⌉-na ugu-ia tal-⌈lik⌉-ki mdnà-kar-z[i.meš 4’. [a-n]a kù.babbar a-na mkar-den ad-ka ul ⌈x⌉ [ 5’. [it-ti] mdnà-kar-zi.meš eš.⌈bar⌉-a š[u-kun (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1”. [x x x] x x [ 2”. [x x] ⌈x x x⌉ [ 3”. [x m]kar-den ad ⌈šá m⌉dutu-⌈a?⌉-[x 4”. [lú.a]b.ba.⌈meš uru x x⌉ [ 5”. [mdama]r.⌈utu-mu⌉-mu lú.gar ⌈umuš⌉ e.⌈ki x⌉ [ (rest broken away) Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–5’ [...] of Rammān-balāssu!-iqbi, you (fem.) came to me [...] for four reeds [...]. Nabû-ēṭir-nap[šāti ... f]or silver to Mušēzib-Bēl, your father [...]. Re[nder] my verdict [against] Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti! (large lacuna) 1”–5” [...] Mušēzib-Bēl, the father of Šamaš-aplu?-[...], the city elders [...] Marduk-zākir-šumi, the governor of Babylon [...] (rest broken away) Commentary Taken together, the archival setting, the formulary, and the reference to šībūt āli in the dispute context make Sippar a possible place of issue. L. 5” mentions Marduk-zākir-šumi, the governor of Babylon under Nabonidus, Cyrus, and Cambyses,143 but it is uncertain if he was a member of the adjudicating body. It is possible that an earlier decision of this governor was only referred to in the course of a procedure conducted before a local court, as in BM 59582 (Text no. 43). 143

See BM 59582 (Text no. 43) for references. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

65

Notes 3’ I take tal-⌈lik⌉-ki for a 2nd fem. form of alāku. An alternative reading is tal⌈leq⌉-qí for /talleqqi/ or /taleqqi/, “she will be taken/will take (on my behalf),” but the durative is less expected here, as plaintiffs’ statements usually describe past events.

20. BM 64626

Pl. XXII

1882-9-18, 4606 W. 6.7 x L. 5.2 x Th. 2. 6 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. l.e. 13. 14. 15. rev. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

[ú-ìl-t]ì šá ½ ma.na kù.babbar šá mdutu-ba-šá ⌈a⌉-šú šá m⌈en⌉-šú-nu šá ⌈ina! ugu m⌉dnà-⌈numun⌉-mu a-šú šá md kur.gal-⌈lugal-ùru u f⌉sar-[r]a-a ama-šú šá mdnà-di-⌈i-ni⌉-e-pu-uš lú.qal-la-šú-nu maš-ka-nu ṣab-ta šá ⌈a⌉-na ugu mdnà-numun-⌈mu x ri? iʾ?⌉ md nà-numun-mu gaba.ri ú-ìl-⌈tì⌉ ina ma-ḫar md amar.utu-mu-mu lú.sa[nga sip-pa]r.[ki l]ú.⌈ku4⌉ é dutu u ukkin lú.ab.ba.meš uru i[š-ta-a]s-⌈si-ma⌉ mdutu-ba-šá a-ḫi-šú id-di-ma ⌈iḫ-liq?⌉ mda[mar.utu.m]u-⌈mu⌉ lú.sanga sip-par.ki lú.ku4 ⌈é⌉ dutu u ⌈ukkin lú.ab.ba⌉.meš uru md utu-ba-šá ugu m⌈dnà⌉-numun-mu la ú-šar-šú-ú ú-ìl-tì u ra-šu-tu ma-la ba-šu-ú šá mdutu-ba-šá šá ina ugu mdnà-numun-mu u fsar-ra-a ama-šú šá ina é mdutu-ba-šá il-la-aʾ šá mdnà-numun-mu u fsar-ra-a ama-šú šu-ú lú.mu-kin-nu mden-a-mu a-šú šá mdkaskal.kur-ú a lú.sanga-sip-par.ki mmu-d⌈amar.utu⌉ a-šú šá mkal-ba-a a mdù-eš-dingir mta-qiš-dgu-la a-šú šá md nà-dù-uš a mur-dnanna mdutu-a-ùru a-šú šá mni-qu-⌈du⌉ a lú.sipa-anše.kur.ra lú.umbisag mìr-den a-šú ⌈šá mden⌉-gi a mdiškur-šam-me-e sip-par.⌈ki⌉ iti.ne u4.⌈25.kám⌉ mu.⌈6⌉.kám mkur-raš lugal e.⌈ki⌉ lugal [kur].kur (erasure)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

66

Chapter III

Translation 1–5 [(Concerning) the promisso]ry note for half a mina of silver, the property of Šamaš-iqīša, son of Bēlšunu, that is due from Nabû-zēru-iddin, son of Amurru-⌈šarru-uṣur⌉, and his mother, fSarrāya, for which their slave Nabûdīni-epuš was taken as pledge, about which Nabû-zēru-iddin ⌈...⌉. 6–9a Nabû-zēru-iddin re[ad] a copy of the promissory note before Marduk-šumu-iddin, the high pri[est of Sippar, the ent]erers of the temple of Šamaš, and the assembly of city elders. Šamaš-iqīša did not respond, but r[an away?]. 9b–15 M[arduk-šu]mu-iddin, the high priest of Sippar, the enterers of the [temple] of Šamaš, and the assembly of city elders did not award to Šamaš-iqīša (anything) against Nabû-zēru-iddin. Any promissory note or any (other) property of Šamaš-iqīša that is in the possession of Nabû-zēru-iddin and his mother, fSarrāya, (or) that will turn up in the house of Šamaš-iqīša belongs to Nabû-zēru-iddin and his mother, fSarrāya. 16–20 Witnesses: Bēl-aplu-iddin, son of Balīḫû, descendant of Šangû-Sippar, Iddin-Marduk, son of Kalbāya, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, Taqīš-Gula, son of Nabû-ēpuš, descendant of Ur-Nanna, Šamaš-aplu-uṣur, son of Niqūdu, descendant of Rēʾi-sisê. 21 Scribe: Arad-Bēl, son of Bēl-ušallim, descendant of Adad-šammē. 22–23 Sippar, month of abu, twenty-⌈fifth⌉ day, ⌈sixth⌉ year of Cyrus, king of Babylon, king of lands. Commentary BM 64626 was drafted by Arad-Bēl, descendant of Adad-šammē, the scribe of numerous Sippar trial transcripts.144 However, its formulary is distinct from most documents of this category that came from his hand, which usually include parties’ complaints quoted verbatim.145 In addition, the formula introducing adjudicators (ina purussê dīni šuāti or ina maḫār/ušuzzi ... šaṭāru šaṭir) is missing.146 It is uncertain why BM 64626 was phrased differently, but perhaps the fact that only

144 See Bongenaar 1997: 481–482, add BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 25, BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 29, BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 8’, BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 9’, BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 19. 145 E.g., BM 65307 (Text no. 21), BM 101541 (Text no. 24), Cyr. 301, Cyr. 332, Mardukrēmanni 8 + BM 65172 (Text no. 22), Oaths and Curses O.265, Sandowicz, Palamedes 6. 146 Arad-Bēl used both these formulae. For ina maḫār ... šaṭāru šaṭir in his tablets, see BaAr 2 48: [27–29], BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 3’–4’, CT 57 573: 16’–17’, Oaths and Curses O.265: 18’–19’; for ina ušuzzi ... šaṭāru šaṭir, see CT 55 133: 7’–9’. For ina purussê dīni šuāti in his tablets, see Marduk-rēmanni 8 + BM 65172 (Text no. 22): 35, BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 15, BM 73118 + BM 84019 (Text no. 23): 26, Cyr. 301: 2’, Cyr. 332: 27, BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 5’.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

67

one party actively participated in the legal proceedings is not irrelevant. The behavior of Šamaš-iqīša was probably considered out of ordinary, hence the document’s uncommon formulary and phraseology (e.g., aḫišu iddi). The identity of the plaintiffs—Nabû-zēru-iddin and his mother, fSarrāya— cannot be established. The defendant was possibly the temple sack-mender Šamaš-iqīša, son of Bēlšunu, who is attested in the Ebabbar files between the tenth year of Nabonidus and the sixth year of Cambyses.147 Šamaš-iqīša was not a simple craftsman, as follows from his appearance in a witness list next to the treasurer of the Ebabbar (Bongenaar 1997: 102–3, Pl. III: 14). This higher status fits the picture of Šamaš-iqīša, the defendant in BM 64626, a well-off man, with free assets of half a mina of silver to lend. Notes 3, 13, 15 For the name fSarrāya, see also TMH 2/3 41: 5. The spelling fsa-ra-a-a (Tallqvist 1902: 180, Kessler 2002: 1090) favors the reading fSarrāya over f Šarrāya. 5 For forms of pledge in this period, see Petschow 1956 and Jursa 2004b. 5 At the end of the line, one expects, for example, paqāra ušabši or idbubu. The first sign is perhaps TU or GIŠ. 6 Alternatively, ú-ìl-⌈tì⌉ gaba.ri ú-⌈ìl-⌈tì⌉ may be interpreted as “a promissory note (and) a copy of the promissory note,” but it would be illogical that Nabû-zēru-iddin would read in court two copies of the same document. 9 The expression aḫa nadû means lit. “let one’s arm drop down”; cf. CDA: 230 (“to be idle”), Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014: 358 (“untätig sein”). 9 The broken verb could also be iḫ-ṭ[u], “he was (found) guilty,” but iḫṭi would be expected. On escapes from court sittings, see p. 109 below. 16 For Bēl-aplu-iddin, a temple enterer and a College scribe, see Bongenaar 1997: 69–70. 17 For Iddin-Marduk, see Bongenaar 1997: 366–67 and 387, add Mardukrēmanni 8 + BM 65172 (Text no. 22): 36 and BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 18. Iddin-Marduk’s function in the Ebabbar is unknown. According to A. C. V. M. Bongenaar (1997: 387), he could have been a goldsmith. 18 The function of Taqīš-Gula also cannot be ascertained. He appears (as Taqīš) next to the temple enterer Bēl-aplu-iddin and a sepīru of the house of the crown prince in a transcript of deposition Cyr. 199 (l. 12, 5Cyr), and also among mār banê in a transcript of legal proceedings Cyr. 271 (l. 15, 7Cyr). He is probably different from Taqīš-Gula, the overseer of bakers, who is attested with filiation only once in Cyr. 285: 4 as “a mdnà-[...].” Bongenaar (1997: 179–80) suggests emending this patronym to Bēl!-[aplu-

147

Bongenaar 1997: 344. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

68

19

Chapter III

iddin] and identifying Taqīš-Gula with a member of the Šangû-Sippar branch, who owed a baker’s prebend, a son of a previous overseer. For Šamaš-aplu-uṣur, ša muḫḫi ešrî (“tithe lease holder”), see Bongenaar 1997: 432 and Jursa 1998: 55–57.

21. BM 65307

Pl. XXIII

1882-9-18, 5292 W. 6.7 x L. 4.8 x Th. 2.6 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. l.e. 12. rev. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. u.e. 24. 25. 26.

[mdkur.gal-lugal-ùr]u ⌈lú⌉.qal-la šá mdbu-ne-[ne-x x] [md]a[mar.utu-mu]-⌈mu⌉ lú.sanga sip-par.ki im-ḫur u[m-ma] [ina m]u.4.kám [mkur-ra]š [lugal] ⌈e.ki lugal kur.meš⌉ ⌈mab⌉-du-diš-šar ⌈a-šú šá mdnà⌉-ú-⌈nam⌉-m[ir] u mba-bi-ia dumu-šú ⌈ul-tu⌉ lú.pa- sip-par.ki ⌈x⌉ [x x] giš.má-a ina ši-gi-il-tu4 ki-i i-di-pu [x x] ina gi-iš-ri šá uru.ká-íd-dutu ina é ma-⌈ṣar⌉-t[i-šú-nu] t[a]-ṣa-bat a-na ma-ḫar-ka ⌈al⌉-li-ki eš.bar-a-⌈a⌉ [šu-kun] md amar.utu-mu-[m]u lú.sanga sip-par.ki ú-paḫ-ir-ma ⌈lú.ku4⌉ é dutu lú.ab.ba.meš uru mab-du-diš-⌈šar⌉ u mba-bi-ia dumu-šú ú-bil-lam-⌈ma ma-ḫar⌉-šú-nu ⌈uš-zi⌉-zi ⌈iš-ta-al⌉-šú-nu-tu-ma m

ba-⌈bi⌉-ia ⌈ina gub?-zu?⌉ [šá ma]b-⌈du⌉-diš-š[ar ina ugu] giš.má ugu ⌈ram⌉--⌈ú⌉-šú ⌈ú-kin⌉ mdnà-⌈al-si⌉-[ka-ap-pul] lú.sag lugal šá ugu ⌈gi-iš-ru šá uru.ká⌉-[íd-dutu] ina ukkin ki-⌈i an-na-aʾ⌉ ú-⌈kin?⌉ [giš.má šá] ina ma-⌈ṣar⌉-tu4 šá mab-⌈du-d⌉iš-⌈šar⌉ [u mba-bi-ia] ina ⌈gi⌉-iš-⌈ru ṣab?-ta?-ta?⌉ [x x x x] [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x] [x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x] [x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x] [x x x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ id-d[in x x] [ina gub-zu mdamar.utu]-⌈mu⌉-mu [lú.sanga sip-par.ki] [mden-a-mu a-šú šá mkaskal-kur-ú] ⌈a⌉ lú.sanga-s[ip-par.ki x x x] [x x x x x x x x x x] ⌈m⌉ìr-den lú.um[bisag a-šú šá mden-gi] [a mdiškur-šam-me-e sip-par.ki] iti.⌈gan⌉ u4.⌈4+x.kám⌉ mu.6.k[ám] © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

l.h.e. 27.

⌈m⌉

69

kur-raš lugal e.ki l[ugal kur.meš]

Translation 1–8 [Amurru-šarru-uṣu]r, the slave of Bune[ne-...], addressed M[arduk-šumu]iddin, the high priest of Sippar: [“In the] fourth year of [Cyru]s, [king] of Babylon, king of lands, [A]bdu-Iššar, son of Nabû-unamm[ir], and his son Bābia, after [they had ...] the polic of Sippar, as they fraudulently pushed my boat out [...], it is (now) moored at the bridge at Bāb-Nār-Šamaš at [their] guard post. I have come before you: [issue] my verdict!” 9–22 Marduk-šumu-[idd]in, the high priest of Sippar, brought together the enterers of the temple of Šamaš (and) the city elders. He had Abdu-Iššar and his son Bābia brought over, stood (them) before them, and he questioned them. Bābia, ⌈in the presence?⌉ [of Ab]du-Išš[ar], confessed his guilt [regarding] the boat. Nabû-al[sīka-appul], the royal courtier in charge of the bridge at Bā[b-Nār-Šamaš], testified in the assembly as follows: “[The boat that] is wharfed? at the guard post of Abdu-Iššar [and Bābia] at the bridge [...].” [...] ga[ve ...]. 23–25a [(This document was written) in the presence of: Marduk]-šumu-iddin, [the high priest of Sippar], [Bēl-aplu-iddin, son of Balīḫû], descendant of Šangû-S[ippar], [...]. 25b–27 Sc[ribe]: Arad-Bēl, [son of Bēl-ušallim, descendant of Adad-šammē]. [Sippar], month of kislīmu, 4+[x]th day, sixth year of Cyrus, king of Babylon, k[ing of lands]. Commentary In the period under study, bridges, crucial crossing points in the watery landscape of southern Mesopotamia, were under the control of royal functionaries. In Borsippa, the official who supervised the bridge infrastructure was called rab gišri (UET 4 133: 6, rev. 3). BM 65307 and Cyr. 243 (for which see below) indicate that the rab gišri’s counterpart in Sippar was ša muḫḫi gišri.148 Bridges, at least the major ones, were also taxing points in Babylonia.149 The collection of toll was leased out to private individuals.150 Some bridges were guarded and their watchmen had a share in the toll.151

148

For the interchange between rab and ša muḫḫi, see, e.g., rab/ša muḫḫi quppi in the Ebabbar (Bongenaar 1997: 104–5). 149 CAD G: 108, van Driel 2002: 279–81, Joannès 2002: 599–609, Weszeli apud Jursa 2010: 142–52. 150 Jursa 2010: 253. 151 Cf. TCL 13 196 = Peek 18 (Business and Politics 142). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

70

Chapter III

The defendants in the case recorded in BM 65307 were two such watchmen, and the object of the dispute was a boat that had gone missing two years earlier. According to the plaintiff’s statement, Abdu-Iššar, a man bearing a West Semitic name, and his son Bābia stole the boat by pushing it away from the place where it had been docked. At that point in time, the plaintiff presumably had no proof of the involvement of Abdu-Iššar and his son in the theft. However, he subsequently discovered that the boat was wharfed at a bridge in Bāb-Nār-Šamaš near Sippar, at a watch post of Abdu-Iššar. The plaintiff, Amurru-šarru-uṣur, was a slave. The name of his master is partly broken, but since it comprised the name of a local god worshipped in the Ebabbar, Bune[ne-...] could have been a Sipparean. There is no place for this man’s patronym at the end of l.1, and since filiation was often omitted in the case of commonly known people, Amurru-šarru-uṣur’s master could have been a public figure or a high official. Slaves are often found in dispute documents as objects of litigation or witnesses, but their appearance in the role of plaintiffs is rare.152 It is noteworthy that Amurrušarru-uṣur brought his case before a body comprising temple officials, even though there is no indication that either he or his adversaries were linked to the Ebabbar. Moreover, the offense took place outside Sippar. BM 65307 is thus yet another piece of evidence confirming that the jurisdiction of the body headed by the high priest of Sippar extended over people who were not members of the temple household and included cases that did not concern temple property or cultic issues.153 The adjudicating body was small: it comprised the high priest, the temple enterer, and only one additional man. A group of similar (perhaps the same?) composition features in BM 59582 (Text no. 43), where, next to the šangû Mardukšumu-iddin and the ērib bīti Bēl-aplu-iddin, we find only Iddin-Marduk, son of Kalbāya, descendant of Eppēš-ilī. The extant part of BM 65307 records five stages of court proceedings: 1. bringing of a complaint by the plaintiff and his plea to have his case decided (ll. 1–8a); 2. assembling of an adjudicating body by the high priest (ll. 9–10); 3. summoning of defendants and their interrogation (ll. 11–12); 4. confession of one of the defendants (ll. 13–14); 5. testimony of an official in charge of the bridge at which the boat was wharfed (14bff.). On the broken part of the reverse, the sentence was probably recorded.

152 153

Cf. YOS 19 101, Nbn. 1113 (a slave impersonating a free man). Against Bongenaar 1997: 22–23, Magdalene 2007: 62, Holtz 2009: 267, idem 2014: 7. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

71

As usual, the transcript’s narrative creates an impression of a coherent procedure that took place during one court sitting.154 Detailed court files, however, make us aware of the illusory nature of such narratives. The fact that the proceedings recorded in BM 65307 likewise took place over a longer period of time is corroborated by Cyr. 243, in which the testimonies of the courtier Nabû-alsīkaappul, Bābia (here as Bābāya), and Abdu-Iššar (nos 4 and 5 above) were recorded: Cyr. 243 (BM 75066), coll. 1. [mdnà-a]l*-si-ka-ap-pul lú.sag l[ugal] 2. [šá ugu g]i-iš-ru* šá uru.ká-íd-⌈d⌉[utu] 3. [ki-i an-n]a?*-aʾ ina ma-ḫar mdamar.utu-mu-[mu] 4. [lú.sanga si]p-par.ki lú.ku4 é.babbar.ra ù [o] 5. [lú.ab.ba].meš uru iq-bi um-ma giš.má 6. [šá mdkur].gal-lugal-ùru šá ina mu.4.kám mkur-raš 7. [lugal e.k]i lugal* kur*.meš* iʾ*-di-pi ti* ⌈x⌉ 8. [ina ma-ṣar]-tu4 šá mba-ba-ia a-šú šá mab-du*-iš⌉*-šar* 9. [ina gi]-iš*-ru ⌈ṣab*-ta*-ta*⌉ mba-ba-ia 10. [ina gub-z]u* šá* ⌈m*⌉[ab-du-iš-šar ad?]-⌈šú*⌉ ina* ug[u* giš.má] 11. [ugu] ⌈ram*-ni*⌉-[šú ú-kin x x x] ⌈x⌉* rev. 12. [ma]b*-du-iš-šar ina ⌈ukkin?⌉ iq-bi 13. [um-m]a en giš.má ⅔ ma.na kù.babbar 14. [x x] ⌈x x x x x x na⌉ (two lines erased)* 15. [iti.gan] u4.6.kám mu.6.kám mkur-raš 16. [lugal] ⌈e⌉.ki lugal kur.meš [Nabû-al]sīka-appul, the r[oyal] courtier [in charge of] the bridge at Bāb-Nār-[Šamaš] said [as follo]ws before Marduk-šumu-[iddin, the high priest of Si]ppar, the temple enterers of the Ebabbar, and the city [elde]rs: “The boat [of Amur]ru-šarru-uṣur, which ... pushed out in the fourth year of Cyrus, [king of Babyl]on, king of lands, is (now) wharfed [at the gua]rd (post) of Bābāya, son of Abdu-Iššar, [at the br]idge.” Bābāya [confessed his] guilt regarding [the boat in the presen]ce of his [father? Abdu-Iššar. ... A]bdu-Iššar said in ⌈the assembly?⌉: “The owner of the boat [...] ⅔ mina of silver [...] ... Sippar ...” (two lines erased) [Month of kislīmu], sixth day, sixth year of Cyrus, [king] of Babylon, king of lands. 154

On narrative of court documents, see Wunsch 2012. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

72

Chapter III

The month of issue is lost, but it stands to reason that Cyr. 243 was drafted shortly before BM 65307, hence in kislīmu. Both documents are written in the same hand and on similar clay, and both employ a rather uncommon phrase kī annî. It is thus possible that also Cyr. 243 was also written by Arad-Bēl, descendant of Adadšammē. Notes 5 The title “šāpiru (ugula) of GN” has, to my knowledge, no parallel in the Chaldean and Persian material, wherein šāpiru chiefly refers to the supervisor of a prebendary group,155 hence the reconstruction lú.pa-. In the Late Achaemenid Nippur, the title paqdu was occasionally abbreviated to lú.PA (Stolper: 1988: 1298). It cannot be excluded that such an abbreviation was also used here, but, as assumed parallels are distant both chronologically and geographically, a scribal mistake is safer to assume. For paqūdu as “policeman,” see lately Pirngruber 2013: 70–74 and Sandowicz 2018a: 236–38. Cf. also the commentary on BM 47423 (Text no. 45) below. 5 At the end of the line, šu ⌈x⌉ [x] or qa[l x] seem possible. 7 The meaning “prison” suggested by CAD M1: 340 for bīt maṣṣarti clearly does not apply here. The term must have also denoted a place where guards were posted.156 18 Boats docked (ṣa-ab-ta-aʾ) at a bridge are mentioned also in Cyr. 23: 1–4. 26 The day of issue of BM 65307 cannot be later than the testimony of Nabûalsīka-appul; it must have been written after Cyr. 243, on the sixth of kislīmu or later.

22. Marduk-rēmanni 8 (BM 67336) + BM 65172

Pls. XXIV–XXV

1882-9-18, 7332 + 1882-9-18, 5154 W. 9.6 x L. 6.1 x Th. 2.9 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3.

md

utu-dù a-šú šá mdnà-pab a lú.ì.sur-sat-tuk mdamar.utu-mu-m[u] ⌈lú.sanga⌉ sip-par.ki im-ḫur um-ma ina iti.šu mu.6.kám mkur-raš lugal e.ki u kur.k[ur] md utu-dù lú.ḫa-za-nu sip-par.ki a-šú šá mdnà-ú-ṣal-la ú-ìl-tì šá 15 ma.na kù.[babbar]

155

For šāpirus of prebendaries in Sippar, see Bongenaar 1997: 142. Cf. maṣṣartu as “garrison” (CAD M1: 335–36) and ša maṣṣarti, “guard, watchman” (CAD M1: 341).

156

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

73

[su]-⌈ú⌉*-qu ⌈ina* ugu*-ia*⌉ u ina ⌈ugu⌉ mdutu-a-pab ⌈a-šú⌉ šá mdù-ia a lú.báḫ[ar] [x x x x x] ⌈lú*.ḫa*-za*-nu* a-na é⌉ šá lú.sanga ina gub*-⌈zu⌉* šá mdnàú-ṣal-la [ad-šú ú-ìl-tì] maḫ-⌈re-e-tú x x x x šá x x x a-di ú-ìl⌉-[tì] [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ ri-iḫ-tú ú-ìl-tì šá 15 ma.na kù.babbar šá ina muḫ-ḫi-ia u ina ug[u] [mri-mut a-šú šá m]ìr-dnà a mšá-na-ši-šú u mdutu-a-pab a-šú šá mdù-⌈ia a lú.⌈báḫar⌉ [u a-di ú-ì]l-tì šá 1 ma.na kù.babbar u 1 udu.níta šá ina ugu mden-numun -dù a-šú šá mdn[à]-pab [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ ti ina gub-zu šá mdnà-ú-ṣal-la ad-šú ú-ìl-tì šá 15 ma.⌈na kù⌉.babbar [ú-ìl-tì šá x ma].na 2 gín kù.babbar šá a-na mḫa-⌈ba⌉-ṣi-⌈ru⌉ a-šú šá m lib-luṭ ⌈a⌉ mdan-né-e-a [nad?-nu? u ú-ì]l-tì šá 1 ma.na kù.babbar u udu.níta šá ina ugu mdennumun-dù [x x mden]-mu a-šú šá mden-ni-ip-šá-ru a mìr-⌈d⌉gìr.kù ir-ru-bu kù.babbaraʾ 1 ma.⌈na⌉ u ⌈udu⌉ [ina šuii mde]n-⌈tin-iṭ⌉ a-šú šá mba-šá-a a lú.ì.sur-sat-tuk ana ugu-i-ni a⌈na⌉ mdutu-⌈dù⌉ [eṭ-ru-ma ú-ìl-t]ì ⌈su⌉-ú-qu la id-din-nu šuii mgu-bar-ru lú.nam e.⌈ki⌉ u ebir ⌈íd⌉ [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ a-na pa:ni m⌈d⌉utu-dù u a-na pa-⌈ni⌉ mdnà-ú-ṣal-la a-na ugu ⌈kù.babbar⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a-na m]a-ḫar mdamar.utu-m[u-mu] [lú.sanga sip-par.ki x x x x x x x x x x mdnà]-⌈ú⌉-ṣal-l[a x x x]

l.e. 19. 20. 21. rev. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

[x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x] [(x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x)] [(x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x)] [mden-tin-iṭ a-šú šá mdba-šá-a m]⌈ḫa⌉-[ba]-⌈ṣi⌉-ru a-šú šá mlib-luṭ [mden-mu a-šú šá mde]n-⌈ni-ip-šá-ru u mdnà-ú-ṣal⌉-[la ad] ⌈šá⌉ m⌈d⌉utu-dù ú-bil-lam-ma [i-na ma-ḫar mda]mar.utu-mu-⌈mu⌉ lú.sanga s[ip-par.ki] ⌈lú.ku4⌉ é dutu lú.ab.ba.meš uru [uš-ziz-ma a-na muḫ]-ḫi ú-ìl-tì mden-mu ina ukkin niš dutu iz-kur-ru-ma [u a-na muḫ-hi ú-ì]l-tì šá ina ⌈ugu⌉ mden-numun-dù mdnà-ú-ṣal-la ad šá md ⌈utu⌉-dù [lú.ḫa-za-nu? sip?]-⌈par?.ki?⌉ u mden-tin-⌈iṭ⌉ ina ukkin niš dutu iz-kur-ruú-⌈ma⌉ © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

74

Chapter III

28. [u a-na muḫ-ḫi ri-iḫ-tú ú]-⌈ìl-tì⌉ šá 15 ⌈ma.na⌉ kù.babbar u ú-ìl-tì 29. [šá x ma.na 2 gín kù.babbar mdnà-ú-ṣal-la niš dut]u ⌈iz-kur-ru⌉ mḫa-⌈ba⌉ṣi-ru ⌈a⌉-[na] 30. [muḫ-ḫi ú-ìl-tì šá mdnà-ú-ṣal-la a]d [šá] ⌈md⌉utu-dù ⌈lú.ḫa⌉-[za]- ⌈nu la id-din-nu⌉ 31. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x]⌈a-ḫa-meš? x x x x x⌉ [x x] 32. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x x x x⌉ 33. [a-na mdutu-dù a-šú šá mdnà-pab ugu (mden-mu u) m]⌈nà*-ú-ṣal-la* úšar*⌉-šu-ú-šú-nu-⌈tu⌉ 34. [x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x x⌉ i-na-áš-⌈am-ma⌉ a-na mdutu-dù 35. [a-šú šá mdnà-pa]b* ⌈i⌉-nam-din ina eš.bar ⌈di⌉.ku5 ⌈mu⌉.meš mdamar.utumu-mu lú.sanga sip-par.ki 36. [mde]n-⌈a⌉-mu lú.ku4 é dutu a lú.sanga-sip-par.ki m⌈mu-damar.utu⌉ a-šú šá mkal-ba-a m⌈dù⌉-e[š-dingir] 37. m⌈numun⌉-tú a-šú [šá] m⌈en⌉-šú-nu ⌈a⌉ mal-la-⌈nu⌉ mìr-den ⌈lú.umbisag ašú šá⌉ mden-gi ⌈a⌉ md⌈iškur-šam⌉-me-[e] 38. sip-⌈par⌉.ki ⌈iti⌉.[x] ⌈u4⌉.4.kám ⌈mu.6⌉[+x].⌈kám m⌉kur-raš ⌈lugal e⌉.ki lugal kur.kur 1–5a

5b–10a

10b–15a

15b–17a

Šamaš-ibni, son of Nabû-nāṣir, descendant of Ṣāḫit-sattukki, addressed Marduk-šumu-id[din], the high priest of Sippar: “In the month of duʾūzu of the sixth year of Cyrus, king of Babylon and la[nds], Šamaš-ibni, the mayor of Sippar, son of Nabû-uṣalla, [...] a promissory note for fifteen minas of sil[ver] (in) outstanding assets to my account and to the account of Šamaš-aplu-uṣur, son of Bānia, descendant of Paḫḫāru. [...] the mayor, to the house of the high priest, in the presence of [his father] Nabû-uṣalla, [...] earlier [promissory notes], together with the promissory note [...], the rest of the promissory note for fifteen minas of silver due from me and from [Rīmūt, son of] Arad-Nabû, descendant of Ša-nāšišu, and Šamaš-aplu-uṣur, son of Bānia, descendant of Paḫḫāru, [and together with the pro]missory note for one mina of silver and one sheep due from Bēlzēru-ibni, son of Na[bû]-nāṣir [...]. In the presence of his father, Nabû-uṣalla, the promissory note for fifteen minas, [the promissory note for x min]a(s) and two shekels of silver that [had been given?] to Ḫabaṣīru, son of Libluṭ, descendant of Dannēa, [and the promi]ssory note for one mina of silver and a sheep due from Bēl-zēru-ibni, entered [... Bēl]-iddin, son of Bēl-nipšaru, descendant of Arad-Nergal. The said one mina of silver and the sheep [were paid] on our behalf to Šamaš-ibni [by Bē]l-uballiṭ, son of Iqīšāya, descendant of Ṣāḫitsattukki, [but] they did not give (us) the outstanding [promissory not]es. To? Gūbaru, the governor of Babylon and Across-the-River, [...] to Šamašibni and to Nabû-uṣalla with regard to ⌈the silver⌉ [...]. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

75

17b–21

[Be]fore Marduk-šumu-[iddin, the high priest of Sippar ... Nabû]-uṣalla [...] (large lacuna) 22–31a [...] had [Bēl-uballiṭ, son of Iqīšāya], Ḫ[aba]ṣēru, son of Libluṭ, [Bēl-iddin, son of] ⌈Bēl-nipšaru⌉, and Nabû-uṣalla, [fath]er of Šamaš-ibni, brought over [and stood (them) before M]arduk-šumu-iddin, the high priest of S[ippar], the enterers of the temple of Šamaš, (and) the city elders. [Regard]ing promissory notes, Bēl-iddin pronounced an oath by Šamaš in the assembly. [And regarding the pro]missory note due from Bēl-zēru-ibni, Nabû-uṣalla, the father of Šamaš-ibni, [the mayor? of Sipp]ar? and Bēl-uballiṭ pronounced an oath by Šamaš in the assembly. [And regarding the rest of the promiss]ory note for fifteen minas of silver and the promissory note [for x mina(s) and two shekels of silver, Nabû-uṣalla] pro[nounced an oath by Šam]aš. Ḫabaṣīru, so[n of Libluṭ, regarding the promissory note that Nabû-uṣalla, the father of the m[ayo]r Šamaš-ibni, did not give [...] together? [...]. 33–35a [...] awarded them [to Šamaš-ibni, son of Nabû-nāṣir, against (Bēl-iddin and?)] Nabû-uṣalla. [...] will bring [...] and give (them) to Šamaš-ibni, [descendant of Nabû-nāṣi]r. 35b–37 (These men were present) at the resolution of this case: Marduk-šumu-iddin, the high priest of Sippar, [Bē]l-aplu-iddin, enterer of the temple of Šamaš, descendant of Šangû-Sippar, Iddin-Marduk, son of Kalbāya, of Eppē[š-ilī], Zērūtu, son [of] Bēlšunu, descendant of Allānu, Scribe: Arad-Bēl, son of Bēl-ušallim, descendant of Adad-šammē. 38 Sippar, month of [...], fourth day, 6+[x]th year of Cyrus, king of Babylon, king of lands. Commentary The plaintiff in this case was Šamaš-ibni, son of Nabû-nāṣir, descendant of Ṣāḫitsattukki (Ṣāḫit-ginê), a relative (a first cousin once removed) of a well-known Sippar businessman and prebendary Marduk-rēmanni.157 The defendant was Nabûuṣalla, the father of another Šamaš-ibni, the mayor of Sippar, and perhaps also a certain Bēl-iddin, son of Bēl-nipšaru. The objects of dispute were promissory notes for silver and sheep that had been drafted against Šamaš-ibni and his business partners. The tablet’s condition hampers the reconstruction of the entire picture, but it seems that the mayor acted as creditor and that the mayor’s father was involved in the formalities at some point. Some of the debts were settled, yet the debtors did not receive their promissory notes back. This is what sparked the dispute. Due to the tablet’s condition, the number of disputed promissory notes is uncertain, but it seems that three documents were at stake: 157

Waerzeggers 2014. See ibidem p. 415 for the Ṣāḫit-ginê family tree. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

76

Chapter III

1. A debt note for fifteen minas of silver ((ša) sūqi, “of outstanding assets”) due from Šamaš-ibni/Nabû-nāṣir and Šamaš-aplu-uṣur/Bānia// Pahhāru (l. 4). Ll. 7–8 speak of the “rest of the promissory note for fifteen minas” (riḫtu uʾilti ša 15 mana), this time naming three debtors (Šamaš-ibni/Nabû-nāṣir, [Rīmūt]/Arad-Nabû//Ša-nāšišu, and Šamašaplu-uṣur/Bānia//Pahhāru). I assume this is the same debt, which was perhaps restructured at some point. 2. A debt note for one mina and two shekels of silver, transferred? to Ḫabaṣīru/Libluṭ//Dannēa (l. 11). 3. A debt note for one mina of silver and one sheep, due from Bēl-zēruibni/Nabû-nāṣir (Šamaš-ibni’s brother) (l. 9), paid by Bēl-uballiṭ/ Iqīšāya//Ṣāḫit-sattukki (Šamaš-ibni’s cousin) (ll. 13–14). Some of the men involved in the case are well known from the Sippar material, especially from Marduk-rēmanni’s archive. Bēl-uballiṭ, the man who settled debt no. 3 (which was contracted by Šamaš-ibni’s brother, Bēl-zēru-ibni), was the father of Marduk-rēmanni (and the first cousin of Šamaš-ibni and Bēl-zēru-ibni).158 His exact role in the transaction is unclear; he could have joined in as yet another business partner, or he may have merely offered a helping hand in a situation involving financial distress. Šamaš-ibni’s first co-debtor, Šamaš-aplu-iddin, descendant of Paḫḫāru, was a member of a family with which the Ṣāḫit-sattukkis would continue to cooperate within years to come: Šamaš-aplu-iddin’s son, Sînmukīn-apli, was the agent of the plaintiff’s cousin Marduk-rēmanni.159 The most noteworthy partner of Šamaš-ibni is the third co-debtor, the son of Arad-Nabû, descendant of Ša-nāšišu. His name is damaged in l. 5. Two brothers Ša-nāšišu were active in Sippar at the time: Nabû-šumu-ukīn and Rīmūt(-Bēl).160 For reasons of space, the latter’s name is more likely to be reconstructed in the lacuna. Marduk-rēmanni 81, in which he appears as a witness in the twelfth year of Darius I (l. 15), corroborates the fact that Rīmūt-Bēl had contact with the Ṣāḫitsattukkis. The Ša-nāšišus were an influential family, members of which who would rise to power under Darius I and occupy the highest administrative posts in Sippar and Babylon. Nabû-šumu-ukīn was to become the governor of Babylon, while his sons, Ina-Esagil-lilbur, Gūzānu, and Nabû-balāssu-iqbi became high priests of Sippar (all three of them) and governors of Babylon (the first two).161 The success of the younger generation of the Ṣāḫit-sattukkis was partly built on their connections to the Ša-nāšišus. Marduk-rēmanni, for example, entered the echelon of the Ebabbar temple when Ina-Esagil-lilbur became its high priest, and 158

Cf. Waerzeggers 2014, esp. 53–56, 76–77. Waerzeggers 2014: 79. 160 Bongenaar 1997: 472–74. 161 Waerzeggers 2014, esp. 19–22, 46–48, 72–74. 159

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

77

became the messenger of Ina-Esagil-lilbur when this man occupied the post of governor of Babylon.162 At least two partners (the Ṣāḫit-sattukki and the Ša-nāšišu) were members of Babylonian families who had moved to Sippar in search of business opportunities during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II at the latest.163 Following generations of these immigrant families retained strong social and business ties. Mardukrēmanni 8+ demonstrates that the close cooperation between the Ṣāḫit-sattukkis and the Ša-nāšišus predated the latters’ rise to power. It further reveals that close contacts between the Babylonians of Sippar and the top Persian authorities had begun quite early on. Already under Cyrus, the Ṣāḫit-sattukkis were well-connected enough to reach Gūbaru, the Persian governor of Babylon and Across-theRiver. Interpretation of ll. 15–16, in which the name of Gūbaru appears, poses difficulties (see notes below). The governor could have had an interest, for private or state reasons, in the financial dealings of Šamaš-ibni and his partners. It seems more likely, however, that he was addressed by the Babylonians of Sippar on account of his judicial authority.164 Provided that this interpretation is correct, the legal path that the plaintiff chose—turning first to the Persian governor of Babylonia rather than to a local court—was out of the ordinary. However, it is not unparalleled. Two other cases that were brought before high officials and referred to lower judicial instances are known. BIN 2 134, written a few years before Marduk-rēmanni 8+, describes a claim submitted to a country (or: Sealand) governor (šakin māti) who sent litigants to a body comprising a city governor (šākin ṭēmi) and the judges of the šakin māti.165 A similar transfer of a case may be found in the much later Istanbul Murašû 105, which was written in the accession year of Darius II. A plaintiff, who addressed a body comprising an Iranian noble ([mār] bīti), a satrap (aḫšadarpanu), and four more individuals, was sent before a collegium of clearly lower standing, in which an ustarbarru, a šaknu, and four other men sat together. Šamašibni’s motivation to secure Gūbaru’s attention is understandable: a case redirected from the governor’s office had a better chance of success than a case brought directly before members of the local elite. After all, Šamaš-ibni was in conflict with the family of the local mayor. The Sippar court that heard the case had a composition that is known from numerous contemporary trial transcripts. It comprised the high priest, the temple enterer Bēl-aplu-iddin, both of whom are well attested as adjudicators, and two city elders, Iddin-Marduk and Zērūtu. The adjudicators summoned at least four men to court: the mayor’s father, Nabû-uṣalla; the plaintiff’s cousin, Bēl-uballiṭ; and 162

Waerzeggers 2014: 118. Waerzeggers 2014: 28–29, 46. 164 On Gūbaru’s involvement in the administration of justice, see Sandowicz 2018b. 165 For the title šakin māti, see Kleber 2008: 311–26. 163

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

78

Chapter III

two businessmen involved in the case, Ḫabaṣīru and Bēl-iddin. These men gave at least three sworn statements: 1. an oath regarding (all) promissory notes taken by Bēl-iddin, 2. an oath regarding promissory note no. 3 taken by Nabû-uṣalla and Bēluballiṭ, 3. an oath regarding promissory notes no. 1 and no. 2 taken by [Nabûuṣalla?]. It is possible that an additional oath taken by Ḫabaṣīru is recorded in l. 31. Typically of Sippar in this period, the addressee of the oaths was Šamaš.166 The extensive use of oaths as an evidentiary method is striking, as is the detailed descriptions of the sworn statements, even though the document does not provide their exact wording. The subjects of the sworn statements must have varied: Bēl-iddin probably had to confirm that the tablets were in his hands, while and Nabû-uṣalla and Bēl-uballiṭ likely had to swear that debt no. 3 was settled. The final part of the document’s operative section is badly damaged, but the verdict seems to have been in favor of Šamaš-ibni of the Ṣāḫit-sattukki family. Notes 3 For ḫazannu in the Neo-Babylonian period, see Tarasewicz 2012. 4 The beginning of the line is restored based on the parallel with l. 15. One expects ša sūqi, but there is not enough space for it in the lacuna. It is also unlikely that the scribe wrote ša at the end of the preceding line (where there is hardly any space left). An alternative restoration is [ša s]u-qu, but NeoBabylonian occurrences of sūqu show a consistent long vowel in the middle of the word (su-ú-qu).167 Note the parallel expression uʾilti sūqi in l. 15. 4–5 Ll. 7–8 link the uʾiltu for fifteen minas with three men: Šamaš-ibni, [Rīmūt], and Šamaš-aplu-iddin. Here, these men could have been listed in different order, with Rīmūt mentioned last, but there is not enough space in l. 5 for his name, patronymic, and family name. Also, traces do not conform with any element of his name chain. 5 In the beginning, restore perhaps [i-iʾ-il], “he drafted.” 6 In the beginning, restore perhaps [ú-ìl-tì.meš], “promissory notes.” 8 See the commentary above for arguments in favor of the reconstruction of the name of Rīmūt in this place. 11 Any link between Ḫabaṣīru and his namesake, the son of Libluṭ, who appears in an Egibi tablet from the fourth year of Cambyses (Camb. 257: 4, 11), is uncertain. 166 167

Sandowicz 2012: 55–56. CAD S: 406. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

79

In the beginning, restore perhaps [a-na (šuii)], [a-na é], or alike. Bēl-iddin’s name is reconstructed based on the assumption that he is identical with the man mentioned later in l. 25. Bēl-iddin, son of Bēl-nipšaru, descendant of Arad-Nergal, belonged to another family of Babylonian immigrants in Sippar. The following generation of the Arad-Nergals also cooperated with the Ṣāḫit-sattukkis.168 13 I take ir-ru-bu for īrubu. 15 I interpret ú-ìl-tì here (and in l. 25) as plural, a summary of the three promissory notes enumerated previously. A correct plural form is uʾilātu, but scribes rarely employed it, writing instead a pseudo-logogram, ú-ìl-tì.meš. 15 It is unclear who the subject of id-di-nu is. Perhaps Šamaš-ibni and Bēl-ibni? Perhaps here, as in l. 25, the form should also be understood as singular? 15–16 The signs before the name Gūbaru are clear, but either the expression used by the scribe is uncommon or an emendation is necessary. One may think of šuii mgu-bar-ru (...) 16[a-ma-tu4 pa-aq-da-a]t, “[the matter was hande]d over to Gūbaru,” but the phrase ina qātē paqādu is uncommon in Neo-Babylonian legal parlance. 169 Another possible reading is katii, “afterwards.” 25 The interpretation of this line presents difficulties. At first glance, the verb (iz-kur-ru-ma) stands in plural, and the (implied) subject is the men summoned to court (ll. 22–23). However, the plural of the same verb is rendered in l. 27 with an unusually long final vowel (iz-kur-ru-ú-ma). Moreover, the expected form of the object in l. 25 would be ú-ìl-tì mden-mu. Finally, if all of the men summoned to court were to take one oath regarding (all) promissory notes, the following list regarding the oaths taken by specific individuals would be superfluous. I therefore take the form iz-kurru-ma as singular and Bēl-iddin as the subject of the clause. According to ll. 10–13, three promissory notes reached Bēl-iddin; thus, ú-ìl-tì must be a plural form (see also the note to l. 15 above). 36 On the temple enterer Bēl-aplu-iddin, see Bongenaar 1997: 69–70. IddinMarduk was possibly a goldsmith. His exact function in the temple structure is unknown, but his position must have been high given the fact that he is listed in several legal texts immediately after Bēl-aplu-iddin.170 37 Zērūtu, son of Bēlšunu, descendant of Allānu, is little attested. He appears as a witness in BM 68495, rev. 1’ (6Cyr) and Bēl-rēmanni: 211, l. 12 and probably features among the city elders in Sandowicz, Palamedes 6: 24’– 25’ ([...]//Allānu).

13

168

Waerzeggers 2014: 48+49. See CAD P: 120 for ina qātē (or: qātu + locative) paqādu in literary and magical texts and royal inscriptions. 170 Bongenaar 1997: 387, add BM 64626 (Text no. 20).

169

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

80

Chapter III

According to the closing formula, Marduk-rēmanni 8+ was written by Arad-Bēl of the Adad-šammē family, a man known as the scribe of over fifty legal documents from Sippar.171 Strangely, the handwriting in Marduk-rēmanni 8+ significantly differs from that found in all of the other tablets signed by Arad-Bēl; in particular, ŠÁ is written in a characteristic way (two upper wedges are moved quite far right). The tablet’s format also differs from those of Arad-Bēl’s other tablets. While it cannot be excluded that the format influenced the scribe’s way of holding the tablet and consequently his handwriting, it seems more likely that Marduk-rēmanni 8+ is a copy of an Arad-Bēl document prepared by a different scribe, who did not replace the name of the original scribe with his own. In the case of legal documents, where scribes could have been transaction witnesses at the same time, the practice of reproducing the names of original scribes (instead of substituting them with the names of the copyists) could have been a common practice or even a norm.

37

23. BM 73118 + BM 84019

Pl. XXVI

1882-9-18, 13128 + 1883-1-21, 1182 W. 8.2 x L. 6.2 x Th. 2.4 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. l.e. 14. 15.

171

⌈m⌉ri-mut-⌈d⌉ká a-š[ú šá mx x x x x x x] a-na m⌈den⌉-tin-iṭ lú.sanga [sip-par.ki mmu-dnà lú.sanga a-kad.ki] m ki-lugal-[igi]-⌈ia⌉ lú.qí-[i-pi é.ul.maš iq-bi um-ma] m ⌈ìr⌉-da-nu-ni- a-šú šá m⌈x⌉[x x x x x x x x] ri-⌈ik⌉-sa-a ina šu ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x é] pu-ṭu-⌈ruo.e.⌉-ia šá ina ⌈šà⌉ [uru? x x x x x x] ṭe-er-du ina é mba?-[x x x x áš-ta-kan?] ⌈a⌉-na ⌈šá⌉-ni-i u4-mu [x x x x x x x] ⌈x x il?⌉ a ⌈na?⌉ [x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x] [x x x] ⌈eš.bar⌉-[a-a] šu-⌈kun⌉ mden-t[in-iṭ] [mmu-dnà] u mki-lugal-igi-⌈ia⌉ mìr-da-⌈nu-ni⌉-[tu4] [ú-bil-l]u-ma mì[r]-da-⌈nu⌉-ni-tu4 ⌈x x⌉ sa-ri-ri [ugu ra]m-⌈ni⌉-šú ú-kin 10 gín ri-ḫi-tú ri-kis [šá] [mri-mut-dká] ki-⌈tu⌉-ú (erasure) a-na 4 gín ⌈kù⌉.babbar [ši-ri]-⌈a⌉-am šu-pa-lu-i-tu4 a-na 1⌈½⌉ gín kù.⌈babbar⌉ šá

See pp. XIII and 66 above. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

rev. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. l.e. 30.

81

[mìr-da-nu-n]i-tu4 ta kù.babbar šá! m!ri-mut-dká šá šu ⌈rib?⌉ tu4 [x x x m]u? ú im-ḫur-ri?! šuii ṣi--tu4 iš-šá-am-ma [a-na mde]n-tin-iṭ mmu-dnà u mki-lugal-igi-ia ⌈ú⌉-[kal-lim] [mde]n-⌈tin-iṭ mmu-dnà⌉ u mki-lugal-igi-ia kù.babbar-aʾ [⅔ ma.na] a-⌈di⌉ 3-šú 2 ma.na ⌈kù.babbar ugu mìr-da⌉-[nu]-⌈ni⌉-[tu4 ip-ru-su-ma] a-na mri-⌈mut⌉-dká id-din-n[u mri-mut-dká x x x x x ina šuii] m d ìr- a-nu-⌈ni-tu4⌉ -ḫur-ma at-r[i? x x x x x x ina] níg.ka9!-šú la ⌈ib⌉-šú u mri-m[ut-dká x x x x x x x] ⁵⁄₆ ma.⌈na kù.babbar⌉ ina sag.du-šú ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x] ina eš.⌈bar di.ku5⌉ [mu.meš] md en-tin-⌈iṭ lú⌉.sanga sip-par.[ki mmu-dnà lú.sanga a-kad.ki] m ⌈ki⌉-lugal-igi-⌈ia lú⌉.qí-⌈i⌉-[pi é.ul.maš x x x x x] ⌈lú? x x a⌉ a ⌈ù? lú?.umbisag?⌉ [mìr-den a-šú šá mden-gi] [a mdiškur-ša]m-me-e sip-par.[ki iti.x u4.x.kám] [mu].⌈7?.kám m⌉kur-raš lugal [tin.tir.ki u kur.kur]

Translation 1–10a Rīmūt-Bau, son o[f ..., said] to Bēl-uballiṭ, the high priest of [Sippar, IddinNabû, the high priest of Akkad], (and) Itti-šarri-[īnī]ya, the resi[dent of the Eulmaš]: “Arad-Anunī, son of [...] my pouch from [...] my lodging that is in the [city? c]enter. [I lodged?] a protest in the house of [...]. On the following day [...] ... [...]. Issue [my] verdict!” 10b–18 Bēl-ub[alliṭ, Iddin-Nabû], and Itti-šarri-īnīya [had] Arad-Anunītu [brought ov]er. Arad-Anunītu admitted the criminal [...]. He brought the stolen goods and s[howed to Bē]l-uballiṭ, Iddin-Nabû, and Itti-šarri-īnīya: ten shekels, the reminder of the pouch [of Rīmūt-Bau], a linen garment worth four shekels of silver, (and) an undergarment worth a shekel and a half of silver, that [Arad-Anun]ītu had bought using the silver of Rīmūt-Bau that ... [...]. 19–24 [Bē]l-uballiṭ, Iddin-Nabû, and Itti-šarri-īnīya [sentenced] Arad-A[nunītu] (to pay) threefold the said [forty shekels] of silver, (to the amount of) two minas of silver, and awarded (them) to Rīmūt-Bau. [Rīmūt-Bau] ived [from] Arad-Anunītu [...]. There was no [...] le[ft? ... in] his possessions, and Rīm[ūt-Bau ...] fifty shekels of silver from his capital assets [...]. 25–28a (These men were present) at the resolution of [this] case: Bēl-uballiṭ, the high priest of Sippar, [Iddin-Nabû, the high priest of Akkad], Itti-šarri-īnīya, the resi[dent of the Eulmaš], [(...)] ..., © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

82 28b–30

Chapter III

and the scribe: [Arad-Bēl, son of Bēl-ušallim, descendant of Adad-ša]mmē. Sippar, [month of ..., xth day], seventh? year of Cyrus, king [of Babylon and lands].

Commentary Regrettably, the complaint recorded at the beginning of this transcript is fragmentarily preserved. It describes the theft, possibly the robbery, of a riksu. This term has many meanings, including “contract” and “ritual arrangement.”172 Here, the meaning “package, bundle” (CAD R: 349) has been chosen in consideration of ll. 14–18, according to which the riksu served to store or to carry around silver. The plaintiff, Rīmūt-Bau, claimed to have protested when the theft took place or when it was discovered, but his protest apparently proved ineffective, since, as follows from ll. 14–18, part of his silver was spent—the thief went shopping for clothes.173 The case was brought before a court in Sippar. The adjudicators had the pouch brought over, but only ten shekels were left inside. In addition, the defendant Arad-Anunītu delivered to the court two garments that he had purchased with the stolen silver; their total value was five and a half shekels. In sum, out of forty shekels stolen from Rīmūt-Bau, only fifteen and a half were recovered. However, Arad-Anunītu was to pay Rīmūt-Bau more than this: the adjudicators imposed upon the thief a threefold penalty, which, in this case, amounted to as much as two minas of silver. It seems that Arad-Anunītu was unable to put the full sum on the table: ll. 23–25 describe, it seems, a partial payment and some further arrangements. Multiple damages are commonly found in Neo-Babylonian sentences and contractual clauses, but a threefold payment is rare. According to § 7 of the Neo-Babylonian Laws, a witch performing sorcery against a man’s property was to compensate him threefold for losses caused.174 Cyr. 349 stipulates the threefold penalty for default in delivery of silver and movables,175 while Cyr. 332— perhaps—imposes the same for groundless allegations.176 A close parallel to BM 73118 + BM 84019 is provided by a Neo-Assyrian trial document, SAA 6 133, according to which a group of men charged with burglary and robbery were to pay three times the value of goods with which they were cought red-handed. Both cases are comparable not only with regard to penalties imposed but also offenses. The patronyms of both contestants are damaged, so their identities may be only tentatively reconstructed. Arad-Anunītu bears a rather uncommon name. He is a 172

CAD R s.v. riksu. See Jursa 2000 for ṭerdu as “Protestgeschrei” or “Protest,” also in the sense of “a formal act of complaint” (p. 505). 174 Roth 1997: 145–46. 175 See Oaths and Curses O.83 for the collation of l. 16. 176 1 ma.na 50 gín kù.babbar 25⌈a-di 3?-šú? 5?⌉ ½ ma.na kù.babbar ugu fa-a-ár-tu4 ip-ru-suma “They sentenced fPN (to pay) threefold? one mina and fifty shekels of silver (to the amount of) five? and a half minas of silver.” 173

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

83

namesake of a chief archer (rab qašti) active in Sippar at the time,177 but the presence of two Akkad officials among the adjudicators makes his identification with a sepīru of the temple of the Lady of Akkad, who can be found in several documents written under Nabonidus and Cyrus, more probable.178 According to A. C. V. M. Bongenaar (1997: 501), Arad-Anunītu could have been the son of Šāpikzēri, descendant of Šangû-Akkad; a man with such a filiation and family name appears in VAS 6 169: 6 ([x]DarI). Arad-Anunītu’s patronym in l. 4 of BM 73118 + BM 84019 is damaged, but the reading md[ub-numun] cannot be excluded. If this identification is correct, BM 73118 + BM 84019 depicts one of the highest officials of the Eulmaš in a negative light: a person of such a standing committed the disgraceful act of stealing from a man who was, it seems, his colleague and thus had to be brought to justice.179 Who was Rīmūt-Bau, the man who took Arad-Anunītu to court? His patronym in l. 1 is damaged. The fact that he stayed in a [bīt] puṭṭuri (ll. 5–6), a lodging used by travelers, suggests that he was not a Sipparean, and the composition of the court makes it possible that he too came from Akkad. He may be identical with a son of Taqīš(-Gula), a mār banê and a member of the kiništu of the Eulmaš, known from texts drafted under Nabonidus and Cyrus.180 In one of them, BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 13, Rīmūt-Bau appears among the Eulmaš officials briefed by the high priest and the resident of the Ebabbar on the course of events in which the sepīru Arad-Anunītu was involved. The composition of the adjudicating body (the high priest of Sippar, the high priest of Akkad, and the temple resident of the Eulmaš of Akkad) is exceptional. It differs from the composition of contemporary Sippar temple court bodies, which almost invariably comprised the high priest of Sippar, the enterers of the Ebabbar, and the city elders. This extraordinary composition may be linked to the fact that a party to this trial was a high functionary of the Eulmaš temple. Notes 2–3 The high priest of Akkad and the resident of the Eulmaš are listed here (as well as in ll. 11–12, 19) in an opposite order than in all other documents in which they are found together (BM 59015: 2–3, BM 62534: 3–5, BM 65339 + BM 68761: 4–5, Jursa, WZKM 86: 7–8, and Stigers, JCS 28 no. 6: 1–2). 177

Bongenaar 1997: 132. For a list of his attestations, see Bongenaar 1997: 501 and Jursa 1996: 204; add BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [3], BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [3], and BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 18. 179 Another text depicting high officials facing serious charges and their consequences is YOS 19 66, which records the release from prison of Ištar-mukīn-apli, son of Innin-zērušubši of the Dāʾiqu family, a future member of the College of the Eanna scribes. 180 BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 13 ([8–15Nbn]), CT 57 10: 13 ([15Nbn–5Cyr]), Stigers, JCS 28 no. 6: 12 (4Cyr). According to this last text, his family name was Ittiya (mki-ia). 178

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

84

Chapter III

Read perhaps ina šu-i[a], “from m[e].” For bīt puṭ(ṭ)uri as “lodging,” see Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers 2003/2004: 261 (ad l. 17). For theft from bīt puṭ(ṭ)uri, see YOS 7 192. 9 In the beginning, read perhaps ⌈ú-ki-il⌉ “he held.” 9–10 Restore perhaps a-n[a ma-ḫar-ku-nu al-li-ki], by parallel with BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 8. 10 One expect šuknā (Pl) rather than šukun. 12 Alternatively, restore [iš-ta-l]u-ma or [iš-aʾ-l]u “they questioned.” After the name Arad-Anunītu, read perhaps ⌈ki-i⌉ sa-ri-ri “(Arad-Anunītu admitted) that he was the thief.” 15 On širʾam, see Oppenheim 1950: 192–95 and Janković 2008: 453. A širʾam šupalitu is mentioned, for example, in Nbk. 12: 3. 16 The word at the end of the line may be a derivative of erēbu, similar in meaning to šūrubtu “receivables.” It may be read alternatively as šu-⌈k/qit⌉tu4, šu-⌈b/pit⌉-tu4, šu-⌈uš/nit⌉-tu4, or perhaps even šu-⌈bit⌉-tu4. 22 Atru is literally “additional (payment).” 27 There is enough space for one more name at the end of the line, but it is unclear whose name it could be. 28 The traces in the beginning could belong to ⌈lú.a-kad.ki-a-a⌉. For ù before Arad-Bēl’s title, see BaAr 2 9: 18.

5 5–6

24. BM 101541 1883-1-21, 3202 W. 3.1 x L. 3.9 x Th. 2.1 format: uncertain obv. 1. fd⌈nin⌉.ga[l x x x x x x dumu.sal?-su šá] 2. mil-te-[x x x a-na mden-tin-iṭ lú.sanga sip-par.ki taq-bi] 3. um-ma ina? [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 4. ⌈é? x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 5. ⌈a-na⌉ ½ m[a.na kù.babbar x x x x x x x x x x x x] 6. ⌈x x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 7. [x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 2’. [r]i-ik-sa-t[e x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 3’. u f⌈dnin⌉.ga[l-x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] 4’. la ú-šar-šu-ú [(x x x x x x x x x x x x x x)] –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. XXVII

Transcripts of Trials

85

5’. i-na eš.bar di-[i-ni šu-a-ti] ––––––––––––––––––––– 6’. m⌈d⌉en-tin-iṭ ⌈lú⌉.[sanga sip-par.ki] 7’. mri-mut-den lúo.e..u[mbisag? x x x x x x] 8’. mdnà-numun-mu lú.šu-šá-n[u lú.umbisag mìr-den a-šú šá mden-gi] 9’. a mdiškur-šam-me-e sip-[par.ki iti.x u4.x.kám mu.7–9.kám] u.e. 10’. mkur-raš lugal e.ki l[ugal kur.kur] l.h.e. 1’. é 2 šú ⌈x⌉ [x x x] 2’. ár-ki [x x x] Translation 1–7 f Ning[al-..., daughter? of] Ilte[... said] as follows [to Bēl-uballiṭ, the high priest of Sippar]: “In? [...] a house? [...] for ½ m[ina of silver ...]. (large lacuna) 1’–4’ [...] contracts [...] and fNinga[l-...] did not award [...]. 5’ (These men were present) at the resolution of [this ca]se: 6’ Bēl-uballiṭ, [the high priest of Sippar], 7’ Rīmūt-Bēl, s[cribe? ...], 8’–10’ Nabû-zēru-iddin, šušān[u (...)]. [Scribe: Arad-Bēl, son of Bēl-ušallim], descendant of Adad-šammē. Sip[par, month of ..., xth day, 7–9th year] of Cyrus, king of Babylon, k[ing of lands]. l.h.e. The house ... [...] later [...] Commentary BM 101541 was written between the seventh and the ninth years of Cyrus, when Bēl-uballiṭ held the function of the high priest of Sippar.181 It is a fragment of a transcript of a trial concerning a house. The dispute possibly concerned difficulties that arose following the purchase of the house (note ll. 4–5). The case was brought before the high priest by a woman, whose name begins with the uncommon theophoric element Ningal. Only two or three women bearing names beginning in this way are known from contemporary Sippar. One is f Ningal-ilī, whom Bongenaar (1997: 467, 469) considered to be the daughter of Nabû-nipšaru, descendant of Balīḫû. I have argued for her identification with the sister of Adad-nadnu, who brought a claim regarding a deposit before the previous high priest of Sippar, Marduk-šumu-iddin (16Nbn–7Cyr); her father’s name is

181

Bongenaar 1997: 30–31. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

86

Chapter III

uncertain, but it might start with Šamaš-[...].182 Another candidate is fNin[...], daughter of Lâbâši, to whom her own husband sold slaves in the fifth year of Nabonidus’s reign (Nbn. 212 = Marduk-rēmanni 2). The composition of the adjudicating body that heard fNing[al-...]’s case is unusual. Apart from the high priest, it included Rīmūt-Bēl, a scribe (lú.u[mbisag]), if the restoration suggested above is correct. No man of this name is attested with the title tupšar Ebabbar “College scribe of the Ebabbar,” but Rīmūt-Bēl’s high place on the list suggests that he was not a simple scribe. More surprisingly, the adjudicating body also included a šušānu. In the period under study, the title šušānu was borne by individuals who took care of horses and donkeys, as well as dependent workers of semi-free status.183 However, it was also used by men associated with temple officials (e.g., šušānu ša šatammi) and the king himself (šušān šarri) in contexts, which suggest that the function of šušānūs differed from or at least extended far beyond horse tending. 184 Several legal documents from Uruk list them among witnesses next to the top local officials.185 The position of Nabû-zēru-iddin must have been closer to such šušānū than to temple horse grooms who, as Weszeli (2009a: 414–15) has demonstrated, were oblates. Notes 1 Alternatively, reconstruct fd⌈nin⌉.g[al x x x x dam], “Ning[al-... the wife of].” 2 Read perhaps mil-te-[ri-x]. 7’ Three scribes of this name are known to have been active in Sippar around this time: the son of Arrabi (10Dar); the son of Bēl-uballiṭ, descendant of Isinnāya (29Nbk–8Nbn); and the son of Šarra-[...], descendant of Uballissu-[...] ([3]Ngl).186 None of them is attested with the title tupšar Ebabbar. 8’ Perhaps lú.šu-šá-n[u šá lugal], “šušān[u of the king].” L.h.e. In the beginning, read perhaps é .2 “north-facing wing.”

182

Sandowicz 2011: 26–27. CAD Š3: 379, Stolper 1985: 79–82, Bloch 2017, Kleber 2018: 446–48. For šušānus in Sippar, see MacGinnis 2012: 13–15 and Weszeli 2009a: 414–16. 184 CAD Š3: 379 (sub 1b). 185 Cf. Šumu-ukīn/Abu-likūn, šušān šarri, listed after the šatammu of Kisikku in the document recording a transfer to prison YOS 7 106: 2; Nabû-zēru-iddin/Bēlšunu, šušān šarri, preceded by a rab kissati and a šatammu of the Eanna, followed by a sepīr šarri in the record of settlement reached after an illegal sale of an oblate by the chief of oblates of the Eanna YOS 7 114: 14; [...]/Šumu?-ukīn, šušān šarri, among witnesses in the bail protocol Kleber and Frahm, JCS 58: 26. 186 Bongenaar 1997: 533. 183

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

25. BM 67747

87

Pl. XXVIII

1882-9-18, 7745 W. 5.0 x L. 4.1 x Th. 2.6 format: landscape (obverse illegible) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x] ⌈x x x ru⌉ [x x x x x x] 2’. [x x x x u]gu mqí-di-da-nu ip-ru-su-m[a] 3’. [ina im.dub š]aṭ-ra ina ma-ḫar mden-tin-i[ṭ] 4’. [lú.sanga sip-par.ki š]a-ṭa-ru šá-ṭi-ir-ru 5’. [lú.mu-kin-nu mde]n-⌈a⌉-mu a-šú šá mkaskal.kur-ú a lú.⌈sanga⌉-s[ip-par] 6’. [mdnà-šeš.meš-g]i a-šú šá mkar-⌈d⌉amar.utu a lú.sanga-⌈d⌉[innin-tin.tir.ki] 7’. [mden-mu a-šú šá m]dnà-mu-si.sá a lú.⌈sanga-dinnin⌉-[tin.tir.ki] 8’. [mdub-numun a-šú šá m]⌈dutu⌉-šeš-mu šá ug[u gi]š.[ban šá dutu] 9’. [lú.umbisag mìr-den a-šú] ⌈šá⌉ mden-gi a ⌈md⌉[iškur-šam-me-e] 10’. [sip-par.ki iti.x u4].⌈30.kám mu⌉.[x.kám mx x (x x)] 11’. [lugal tin.tir.ki lugal kur.kur] Translation (beginning broken away) 2’–4’ [...] they sentenced Qididānu (to pay) [...], and [(the verdict) was wr]itten [in a tablet]. The document has been drafted before Bēl-uballiṭ, [the high priest of Sippar]. 5’–8’ [Witnesses: B]ēl-aplu-iddin, son of Balīḫû, descendant of Šangû-S[ippar], [Nabû-aḫḫē-šul]lim, son of Mušēzib-Marduk, descendant of Šangû-Iš[tar-Bābili], [Bēl-iddin], son of Nabû-šumu-līšir, descendant of ŠangûIš[tar-Bābili], [Šāpik-zēri, son of Šam]aš-aḫu-iddin, the official in charge of the re[nt of Šamaš]. 9’ [Scribe: Arad-Bēl, son] of Bēl-ušallim, descendant of [Adadšammē]. 10’–11’ [Sippar, month of ...,] thirtieth [day, xth] year of [..., king of Babylon, king of lands]. Commentary The trial, of which almost nothing is known due to the tablet’s damaged condition, took place between the seventh year of Cyrus and the first year of Cambyses, when Bēl-uballiṭ held the post of the high priest and Šāpik-zēri that of rent farmer.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

88

Chapter III

All of the individuals who sat with the high priest can be identified as members of the Ebabbar echelon. Bēl-aplu-iddin was a temple enterer and a College scribe; he appeared next to the high priest in numerous court cases.187 Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim served as a College scribe of the Ebabbar between the sixth year of Cambyses and the eighteenth year of Darius I.188 Bēl-iddin held the same function between the third year of Cyrus and the twenty-eighth year of Darius I.189 Šāpik-zēri is attested as ša muḫḫi sūti between the seventh year of Cyrus and the first year of Cambyses.190 Notes 2’ The name possibly derives from qadādu, “to bow.”

26. CT 55 194 (BM 58214) + BM 61474

Pl. XXIX

1882-7-14, 2623 + AH 1882-9-18, 1448 W. 6.6 x L. 3.6 x Th. 2 format: landscape obv. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x] 2’. 2 im.dub.m[eš] ⌈i-na šuii mdi⌉-ḫ[u-ú-a im-ḫu-ru] 3’. ⌈ár⌉-ki ina mu.5.⌈kám⌉ mkur-raš ⌈lugal e.ki lugal kur⌉.kur 4’. mdamar-ú-ṣur a-⌈šú šá⌉ me-muq-⌈qu? x x⌉ u f⌉[ra-ḫi-im] 5’. ama-⌈šú⌉ a-na pa-⌈qa⌉-ru 4 ⌈gi.meš⌉ u 5 ma.n[a kù.babbar] 6’. ⌈a⌉-na muḫ-ḫi-ia [u]p-pi-šú taš-ku-nu ⌈a-na maḫ-ri⌉-k[a] 7’. ni-tal-ka eš.⌈bar-sa?⌉-nu ⌈šu-kun⌉ mdšú-⌈mu-mu⌉ 8’. ⌈ú-paḫ⌉-ḫi-⌈ir⌉-ma ⌈lú⌉.ku4 é d!utu lú.ab.⌈ba.meš⌉ u[ru] 9’. [im.du]b.meš šá ki.⌈lam⌉ gi.⌈meš⌉ šá mdutu-⌈su x⌉ [x x x] 10’. [šá mu].⌈x⌉.kám na-⌈ad-nu⌉ u ⌈im.dub⌉ šá da[mar-ùru] l.e. 11’. [u fr]a-ḫi-im ⌈ama-šú šá mu.10?.kám⌉ [x x x] 12’. [x x x (u) i]m.⌈dub.meš šá mdutu-su⌉ i[k?-nu?-ku?] rev. 13’. [šá? mdamar]-⌈ùru ina šu⌉ii mdi-⌈ḫu⌉-ú-a i[m?-ḫu?-ru?] 14’. [ina ma-ḫa]r-⌈šú-nu iš-ta⌉-as-su ri-ik-⌈sa-a-ta⌉-[šú] 187

Bongenaar 1997: 69–70. Bongenaar 1997: 84–85, 97. 189 For his appearance among Sippar elders, see BM 64627: 8’, Sandowicz, Palamedes 6: 23’, Tempelzehnt 7: 24’, and Cyr. 332: 29. 190 Jursa 1995a: 96–99, Bongenaar 1997: 428. 188

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

89

15’. [l]a i-nu-ú mdutu-su a-ki-i im.dub ki.⌈lam⌉ [i-na] 16’. ⌈10⌉ gi.meš-šú uš-⌈zi⌉-zi u mdamar-ùru u f⌈ra⌉-ḫi-⌈im⌉ 17’. [a]ma-šú a-na ⌈é⌉ m⌈di⌉-ḫu-ú-a na-di-na-nu gi.meš 18’. ⌈ut⌉-ter-ri md⌈amar⌉-ùru ri-ḫi gi.meš-šú ta é mdi-ḫu-ú-a 19’. i-šal-lim di.ku5-⌈šú⌉-nu di-i-ni eš.bar-šú-nu šá-kin 20’. [in]a eš.bar ⌈di.ku5 mu⌉.meš md⌈amar⌉.utu-mu-mu lú.sanga! sip-par.ki 21’. [mden-a-mu a]-⌈šú šá⌉ mdkaskal.kur-⌈ú⌉ a lú.sanga-d[utu] 22’. [x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ [x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x] (rest broken away) Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–7’a [...received] two tablets from Diḫ[ūa]. Later, in the fifth year of Cyrus, king of Babylon, king of lands, Būru-uṣur, son of Emūqu, [...] and his mother, fR[aḫīm], conspired against me in order to claim four ⌈reeds⌉ and five min[as of silver]. We have come before yo[u]: issue our verdict!” 7’b–14’a Marduk-šumu-iddin brought together the enterers of the temple of Šamaš (and) the ci[ty] elders. They read [befo]re them the [contrac]ts for the sale of the reeds of Šamaš-erī[ba ... that] were given [in the x]th [year] and the tablet of B[ūru-uṣur and] his mother, fRaḫīm, that [...] in the ⌈tenth?⌉ year, [(and) the t]ablets that Šamaš-erība had s[ealed? that? Būru]-nāṣir [had receiv]ed? from Diḫūa. 14’b–18’a They (the adjudicators) did not change [his] contracts. In accordance with the sale contract, they! confirmed the title of Šamaš-erība [to] his ten reeds and referred Būru-uṣur and his mother fRaḫīm to the household of Diḫūa, the seller of the reeds. 18’b–19’a Būru-uṣur will receive compensation for the rest of his reeds from the household of Diḫūa. 19’b The[ir case] is settled. Their verdict is issued. 20’–22’ (These men were present) at the resolution of this case: Marduk-šumu-iddin, the high priest of Sippar, [Bēl-aplu-iddin, son] of Balīḫû, descendant of Šangû-[Šamaš], [...]. (rest broken away) Commentary This document may be dated between the fifth and seventh years of Cyrus; the former year is mentioned in l. 3’, while the latter was the last year of Mardukšumu-iddin’s tenure as the high priest of Sippar.191 The text records a dispute over a property, including a house plot and silver. The disputants were Būru-uṣur and 191

Bongenaar 1997: 30. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

90

Chapter III

his mother, fRaḫīm, on one side and Šamaš-erība on the other. Both the son and his mother bear West Semitic names and are therefore unlikely to have been members of the Ebabbar prebendary elite. Since neither patronym nor the family name of Šamaš-erība survive in the extant part of the tablet, his identity remains unknown. The case was submitted to court by Šamaš-erība, who proved his title with a contract for the purchase of the reeds. Evidence brought by his opponents included tablets that they had acquired from a certain Diḫūa, a man who is called in l. 17’ the “seller of the reeds,” perhaps the former owner of a property purchased by Šamaš-erība. The adjudicating body comprised, as was usual in Sippar in this period, the high priest, the temple enterer Bēl-aplu-iddin, and the city elders, whose number this time is unknown due to the tablet’s condition. The court dismissed the claims of Būru-uṣur and his mother and confirmed Šamaš-erība’s title.192 The adjudicators did not, however, find the claims unfounded, since they referred Būru-uṣur and his mother to the “house of Diḫūa,” where the claimants were to seek compensation. The meaning of the expression “house of Diḫūa” is elusive in this context, but it more likely refers to Diḫūa’s family rather than to his urban property.193 Notes The handwriting and the external characteristics of the tablet suggest that CT 55 194 + BM 61474 could have been written by Arad-Bēl of the Adad-šammē family.194 2’ff. The name Diḫūa is perhaps related to mda-aḫ-ḫu-ú-a (Waerzeggers, AfO 46/47 no. 5: 13); its etymology is unclear to me. 3’ff. For fRaḫīma, “Beloved,” see Zadok 1977b: 124. A woman of this name (l. 3’ [fr]a-ḫi-im, l. 5’ [f]ra-ḫi-im), the wife of Aplāya, is found in CT 57 635: 3’, 5’. 4’ Traces fit me-muq-⌈qu-d 15⌉, but, after the name, a verb is expected; otherwise, the feminine form taškun(u) in l. 6’ would be difficult to account for. 6’ There is little space between -ia and -pi; UP is one of few signs that fit. I link this expression with upīšu/ū (“magical machinations” [CAD U: 179], “Machenschaften, Behexungen” [AHw: 1423]), but I do not believe that the plaintiff insinuated that the defendant had used magic against him, as such an action would entail graver consequences than the sentence imposed 192

On the dismissal of claims, see more in the commentary on BM 47475 (Text no. 16). Cf. CAD B s.v. bītu 6, “household, family, royal house,” with Neo- and Late Babylonian references on pp. 294–95. 194 On this scribe, see above pp. XIII and 66 above.

193

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

91

on fRaḫīm. A tempting emendation is geštu taš-ku-nu “she set her mind.” 15’ For the expression “they did not change (lā īnû) (an earlier document)” in similar contexts, see BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 16, BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 13, Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 6: 31. Cf. also the commentary on BM 47475 (Text no. 16) on pp. 49–50 above. 16’ Only faint traces remain of the sign U (10). It was still visible when Pinches copied it (CT 55 194: 15). 16’ On šuzuzzu in similar contexts, see commentary on BM 47475 (Text no. 16) on pp. 49–50 above. 16’, 18’ The forms ušzizi and uterri are in singular even though the subject is plural (the high priest, the temple enterers, and the city elders). The same mistake in the form of šuzuzzu is found in BM 59582 (Text no. 43), which was probably written by the same scribe. 20’ The sign ŠID has only three vertical wedges. Arad-Bēl sometimed writes this sign with four vertical wedges (see l. 21’ in this text and other tablets drafted by this scribe in this volume). l.h.e. Minute traces of what could be a seal impression are visible on the lefthand edge. If a seal was indeed impressed here, it would be odd: few extant documents of the Sippar judicial panel are sealed.

27. BM 68991 1882-9-18, 8990 W. 5.7 x L. 4.0 x Th. 2.4 format: unknown obv. (beginning broken away) 1’. ]xx[ 2’. a]d-šú u fdu10.ga-t[u4 3’. šim?-t]u4 ú-⌈bil⌉-li-ma f[ 4’. ]-i-na-nu áš-ba ⌈ip-ri⌉ p[iš-šá-tu4 u lu-bu-uš-tu4] m 5’. kal-b]i-dká a-šú šá md⌈a-nù⌉-lugal-pab ⌈šeš?⌉[ 6’. u]l-tu níg.ka9 šá md⌈kaskal⌉.kur-⌈a šá? x⌉[ m 7’. ka]l-bi-⌈d⌉ba.ú la im-ḫ[u-ru? 8’. pu-ru-s]a-an-na šu-⌈kun⌉ m⌈dnà-x⌉-[ 9’. ] ⌈x ki?⌉ mmu-⌈še⌉-zib [ 10’ ] ⌈ù?⌉ [ (rest broken away) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. XXX

92

Chapter III

rev. (beginning broken away) 1”. ]xx[ 2”. ] ⌈u⌉ a-me-lu-ut-⌈tu4-aʾ 4⌉-ta [ 3”. r]i? u fdu10.ga-tu4 i-nam-din-ma ⌈x⌉ [ 4”. n]a? uš-⌈šá⌉-bu-uʾ di.ku5-ši-na d[i-in 5”. i-n]a eš.⌈bar⌉ di.ku5 mu.[meš –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 6”. (erasure) (rest broken away) Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–8’a [...] his/her [fa]ther and fṬābat[u ...] passed a[way?...] reside, food and o[il rations, as well as clothing ... Kalb]i-Bau, son of Anu-šarru-uṣur, the bro[ther? ... f]rom the property of Balīḫû that [... Ka]lbi-Bau did not rec[eive? ...]. Issue our? [ver]dict?!” 8’b–10’ Nabû-[...] ... Mušēzib [...] and? [...] (large lacuna) 1”–4” [...] and the said four slaves [...] and fṬābatu [...] will give. [...] will reside. Their (fem.) case is set[tled.] 5” (These officials were present) at the resolution of this case: 6” [...] (rest broken away) Commentary This fragment provides yet another piece of evidence on women’s involvement in disputes. The female possessive suffix in l. 4” (dīnšina d[īn]) reveals that both parties were ladies. Due to the fragmentary condition of the tablet, the subject of their dispute is uncertain. The obverse possibly describes the situation of women who lived (l. 4’ ašbā) with somebody and were provided with—or denied, if the verb stands in the negative—basic sustenance. The expression ipru piššatu u lubuštu in l. 4’ brings to mind clauses in adoption contracts and deeds of gifts that stipulated that caretakers were to provide their adopting parents and donors with “food, oil rations, and clothing.” Lines 6’–7’ may mention a disinherited person or people: [mim-ma u]l-tu níg.ka9 (...) la im-ḫ[u-ru?], “(s)he/they did not rece[ive anything fr]om the property of (...).” Slaves were part of the disputed property (l. 2”). The date and place of issue of BM 68991 are unknown. The tablet belongs to a collection that largely comes from Sippar and its physical features are likewise characteristic of this city. Paleography suggests that the tablet was written in the Persian period. One of the two Sippar ladies is potentially identical with the woman mentioned in ll. 2’ and 3”. The first is fṬābatu, the daughter of Arad-Gula © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

93

of the Ša-nāšišu family, to whom her brother, Šamaš-ibni, together with his wife, Murānatu, awarded a slave in the twenty-fifth year of Darius I (BM 74523 = Bertin 2564 / BM 55785 = Bertin 2565).195 The other lady is fṬābātu, the daughter of Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin, descendant of Šangû-Šamaš, who, in the eighth year of Darius I, sent her slave to learn the baker’s profession (Revillout and Revillout, BOR 2: 119 = Hackl, AfO 52 no. 7) and gave another slave in antichresis to a woman called fBuʾītu (Revillout and Revillout, PSBA 9: 179).196 f

Notes 4’ For the expression ipru piššatu u lubuštu, see Cyr. 339: 5, Nbn. 697: 7, 11, VAS 5 21: 7, 15, 21, Peiser, OLZ 7: 8 (cf. CAD I: 168 and CAD P: 432), BaAr 2 20: 5’, Wunsch, AfO 50 no. 16: 4. 8’ For -na as a Neo-Babylonian 1Pl possessive suffix, see GAG § 42 j. The reconstruction [pu-ru-s]a-an-na it tentative. Both the syllabic spelling of purussû (instead of the usual eš.bar) and the rare suffix -na (instead of -nu) are disturbing. 9’ Reconstruct perhaps [(...) lú.sanga sip]-⌈par.ki⌉. 4” There is enough space for a longer final clause (e.g., di.ku5-ši-na d[i-in amat-si-na gam-rat]), but more elaborate closing clauses are characteristic of early transcripts (through the reign of Neriglissar); see p. 101 below. If the late dating is correct, this line most likely ended with di.ku5-ši-na d[i-in].

28. BM 67225

Pl. XXXI

1882-9-18, 7221 W. 5.3 x L. 3.5 x Th. 2.9 format: landscape? obv. 1. mdnà-⌈lugal-ú-ṣur⌉ a-šú šá m⌈é?⌉.s[ag?.íl-x x mx x x a-šú] 2. šá mta-ad-di-na di-i-nu ig-⌈re-e⌉ k[i?-a?-am? um-ma (x x x)] 3. m⌈it?⌉-ti-⌈riš⌉-tu4-dnà qal-la-a ina mu.1[0+x.kám x x x x] 4. ⌈a-na kas-pi⌉ i-bu-ku mi-⌈nam-ma⌉ ina ⌈pa⌉-n[i-ka x x x x x x] 5. ⌈iq⌉-bi um-⌈ma⌉ fa-a-ḫa-aʾ a-ḫat-k[a x x x x x x] 6. mmu-gi.na lú.⌈gal⌉ nap-ḫa-ri mba-ni-i[a x x x x x x] 7. a-šú šá mmu-gin a msig15-diškur ik-šu-[du-ma x x x x x x x] 8. ⌈mdnà⌉-lugal-ú-ṣur tal ka ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x] 9. [x mdnà]-⌈lugal?⌉-[ú-ṣur x x x x x x x x x x x x] (rest broken away) 195 196

Bongenaar 1997: 473. Cf. Bongenaar 1997: 458, Jursa 2005: 129985. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

94

Chapter III

rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x] 2’. mdnumun-⌈gin? x x⌉ [x x x x x x x] 3’. ⌈lú?⌉ [x x x x x x x x x] 4’. ⌈mdx x x⌉ [x x x x x x] 5’. ⌈iti.bár u4.8?.kám mu⌉.4[+x].⌈kám mdnà?⌉-[x (x x)] 6’. [lugal tin.ti]r.k[i] u.e. na4.⌈kišib⌉ / mdnà-⌈x⌉ / lú.gar [umu]š / tin.tir.k[i] Translation 1–3 Nabû-šarru-uṣur, son of Esa[gil?-...] brought the f[ollowing?] claim [against ..., son] of Taddina: “[...] bought my slave Itti?-rīštu-Nabû in the te[nth+x] year [...]. Why [...] in [your] possession?” 4–9 [...] said: “Y[our] sister fAyya-aḫâʾ [...] Šumu-ukīn, the rab napḫari, Bāni[a ...” They] appro[ached ...], son of Šumu-ukīn, descendant of MudammiqAdad. [...] Nabû-šarru-uṣur [... Nabû]-ša[rru-uṣur? ...] (large lacuna) 1’–6’ [...] Zēru-ukīn? ... [...] [...], ⌈month of nisannu, eighth? day⌉, 4[+x]th year of Nabû?-[..., king of Bab]yl[on]. u.e. seal of Nabû-⌈...⌉, the governor of Babylon Commentary The date formula in this text is badly damaged; as a result, both the year and the name of the king are uncertain. Nabonidus (mdnà-i) is preferred in view of the size of the lacuna at the end of l. 5’, although, admittedly, the royal name could have been partly written on the edge. If the tablet was indeed drafted under Nabonidus, the governor of Babylon, whose seal is impressed on the upper edge, could be Nabû-iddin, the šākin ṭēmi who was in office at the beginning of Nabonidus’s reign.197 This interpretation poses one difficulty: the formulary and the sealing system are unusual of a court document from the reign of Nabonidus. The expression dīna gerû is characteristic of early Neo-Babylonian records. The latest text employing this formula known to me comes from the first year of Neriglissar (Edinburgh 69: 3). Furthermore, the placement of the seal and caption is not congruent with the sealing system known from a fairly large body of trial transcripts from Nabonidus’s (and Nerigilissar’s) times. 198 In these texts, the left and right edges were consistently stamped first.

197 198

Cf. Bongenaar 1997: 9, add Wunsch, AulaOr. 15 no. 12: 5. See especially Baker and Wunsch 2001. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

95

A sealing pattern similar to BM 67225 may be found on Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 3, a tablet from the forty-first year of Nebuchadnezzar II, whereupon notation regarding seals appears on the upper edge. This analogy makes the dating of the tablet to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II plausible. One of the governors under this king was Nabû-ēreš, son of Ina-qībi-Bēl, whose name could fit in the damaged caption of BM 67225. This governor (šākin ṭēmi) is mentioned in VAS 6 43 (l. 13), which was written in Babylon in the thirty-sixth year of Nebuchadnezzar II. Although his geographic affiliation is missing, Nabûēreš was most probably the governor of Babylon (šākin ṭēm Bābili), as VAS 6 43 was issued in this city and belongs to the archive of Ṭābia, descendant of Sîn-ilī, whose businesses were centered around the capital.199 Progopography does not shed light on the chronological setting of the text. The names appear to be north Babylonian, but the only identifiable person is— perhaps—the son of Šumu-ukīn, descendant of Mudammiq-Adad (ll. 6–7). He may be identical with Iqīšāya, son of Šumu-ukīn, descendant of MudammiqAdad, a man in whose name a field in Babylon was purchased in the thirty-eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nbn. 293 = Liv. 87: 6) and a creditor from Bīt-šar-Bābili in the sixteenth year of Nabonidus (Nbn. 1005: 1). Notes 2 The name Taddina is uncommon, but cf. mta-din (NBDMich 56: 5), mtaad-din (TMH 2/3 35: 22), mta-din-nu (NBDMich 24: 9), mtad-din-ni (UET 4 103: 13), mtad-din-nu (Entrepreneurs and Empire 22: 1, Stolper, JCS 53 no. 11: 19), mta-ad-din-nu (Stigers, JCS 28 no. 28: 2), and mta-ad-din-nuuʾ (OECT 10 241: 4’). 2 One expects igre to be followed by -ma or immediately by umma, but the traces before the lacuna seem to belong to a Winkelhaken. The reconstruction k[i?-a?-am?] is uncertain: gerû is usually not followed by kīam. 3 The reading of the name Itti-rīštu-Nabû (“Joyful sign, o Nabû” or “With joy (comes) Nabû”) is conjectural. An alternative restoration is m⌈kab⌉-ti⌈reš⌉-tu4-dnà, Kabtu-rēštû-Nabû, “Nabû is foremost (and) venerable.” 4 The sign INA is written quite high, but I cannot think of any alternative reading. 5 For the West Semitic name fAyya-aḫāʾ, “Where is the brother?,” see Zadok 1977b: 55. 6 To my knowledge, the title rab napḫari has no parallel. 6–7 If the governor Nabû-ēreš was indeed the adjudicator in this case, these lines may hardly describe the bringing of the case to court. Nabû-ēreš was the son of Ina-qībi-Bēl, and the official approached was the son of Šumu-ukīn. u.e. Only slim traces of the seal impression are visible. Their interpretation is hampered by a BM number that overwrites it. 199

Wunsch 1988, Jursa 2005: 69–71, Jursa 2010: 389–91. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

96

Chapter III

III.5 Transcripts of Trials: Uruk and Surroundings 29. BM 114577

Pl. XXXII

1920-6-15, 173 W. 6.5 x L. 5.4 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. rev. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

m

ri-mut-dingir a-šú šá m[šu-la-a ki mden-šeš.meš-su] a-šú š[á m]ap-la-a di-i-⌈ni i x x meš⌉ um-ma mi-na-a udu.níta pu-ḫal šá kak-⌈kab⌉-tu4 šá dgašan šá ⌈unug⌉.ki ina ṣe-ni-ka ár-ka-niš m ri-mut-dingir u md⌈en-šeš⌉.meš-su a-na pa-an md ⌈en⌉-lugal-ùru a-šú ⌈šá m⌈ri⌉-mut lú.2-ú šá pi-qu-du šá muḫ-ḫi íd.idi[gna ù] ⌈íd-lugal⌉ mgi-dšú a-šú šá mden-sur ma[p-la]-a a-šú šá mnumun-tin.tir.ki a mdiškur-mu-kám m⌈x⌉-la-a-a a-šú šá mza-bi-⌈da⌉-a md nà-numun-ba-šá a-šú šá mḫe-pí mdnà-numun-ba-šá a-šú šá mḫaš-di-ia ra-man-šú-nu ú-bil-lu-ni-im- ina igi lú.2-ú u lú.ab.ba.meš di-i-ni id-dab-bu-ub-ma lú.2-ú u lú.ab.ba.meš di-i-ni-šú-nu ú-ma-su-i-ma ku-mu udu.⌈níta pu-ḫal ši-in⌉-du šá kak-kab-t[u4 šá dgaš]an ⌈šá⌉ unug.ki ul-tu qa-bu-⌈tú šá mri-mut-dingir⌉ šá ⌈ina⌉ ṣe-e-nu šá m⌈den-šeš.meš-su ik-šu-du⌉ u ⌈mden⌉-šeš.meš-su a-na ⌈ḫa⌉-ba-⌈il?!⌉ ik-ki-su 5 udu.níta pu-ḫal 2-ta ṣe-⌈e-nu mden-šeš.meš⌉-su [ana š]uii mri-mut-dingir ⌈i-tur⌉-ru di-i-ni-šú-nu [di]-⌈i⌉-ni a-mat-su-nu gam-rat ⌈eš⌉.-⌈su-šú-nu⌉ [šá-ki]n lú.umbisag mšá-du-nu a-šú šá mdnà-⌈ki-mir⌉ [uru]-šá-⌈i-qí-iʾ-dingir⌉.me iti.⌈zíz⌉ [u4.x+]10.kám ⌈mu⌉.3.⌈kám m⌉du.gur-⌈lugal⌉-ù[ru] lugal tin.tir.ki

Translation 1–4a Rīmūt-ili, son of [Šulāya] ... a claim [against Bēl-aḫḫē-erība], son of Aplāya: “Why is a ram (marked) with the star of the Lady of Uruk in your flock?” 4b–21a Later, Rīmūt-ili and Bēl-aḫḫē-erība brought each other before Bēl-šarruuṣur, son of Rīmūt, the deputy governor of Piqūdu on the Tig[ris and] the © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

21b–23a 23b 24–26

97

Royal Canal; Mušallim-Marduk, son of Bēl-ēṭir; A[pl]āya, son of ZērBābili, descendant of Adad-šumu-ēreš; [...]lāya, son of Zabidāya; Nabûzēru-iqīša, son of (damaged); (and) Nabû-zēru-iqīša, son of Ḫašdia. They argued their case before the deputy governor and the elders. The deputy governor and the elders investigated their case. For the ram marked with the sta[r of the Lad]y of Uruk from the fold of Rīmūt-ili that he (Rīmūt-ili) had approached in the flock of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, and Bēl-aḫḫē-erība unlawfully?! slaughtered (it), five two(-year-old) rams, the flock of Bēl-aḫḫēerība, will be turned over [t]o Rīmūt-ili. Their case is settled. Their dispute is finished. Their verdict? [is giv]en. Scribe: Šadûnu, son of Nabû-kimir. [Ālu]-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī, month of šabaṭu, 10+[x]th day, third year of Neriglissar, king of Babylon.

Commentary This document is mentioned in Jursa 2010: 100, Kleber 2010: 6132, and Kozuh 2014: 135, 140, 192. It is important for the insight into the administrative structure of southern Babylonia that it offers, but it also provides precious information concerning the administration of justice in Uruk’s hinterland. The transcript was written in Ālu-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī, a little-attested town probably located in the vicinity of Uruk.200 Only two more documents issued in this locality are known, YOS 6 184 and YOS 6 240.201 The protagonist of all three texts from Ālu-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī is Rīmūt-ili, a man who was active in the Eanna’s animal husbandry sector.202 Since he had a fold (qabuttu) under his responsibility (l. 17), he must have been a herdsman (nāqidu), an entrepreneur working for the temple, rather than a simple shepherd (rēʾû).203 In BM 114577 we find him handling sheep, but YOS 6 184 and YOS 6 240 bear witness to his involvement in the oxen business, either concurrently or subsequently. Three documents from Ālu-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī demonstrate that Rīmūt-ili was apparently quite inefficient at guarding his animals—or very persistent in searching for his thieves and seeking justice. According to BM 114577, a sheep under Rīmūt-ili’s care that had been marked with the symbol of the Eanna, went missing. Rīmūt-ili discovered the sheep in the fold of a certain Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, probably another herdsman, but Bēl-aḫḫē-erība slaughtered it, and the case was brought before the authorities. Similar stories abound

200

Zadok 1985: 13. Spelled uru-šá-mi-qí!(t:di)-dingir (YOS 6 184: 17) and uru-šá-mia-a-qi-iʾ-dingir (YOS 6 240: 30). 202 On the animal husbandry of the Eanna, see San Nicolò 1948, 1949, 1951a, 1954, 1956, Kümmel 1979: 48–91, Gehlken 1990: 19–23, van Driel 1993, Kozuh 2014. 203 Cf. Kozuh 2014: 73–74. 201

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

98

Chapter III

in the Eanna files. A number of texts relate how, similarly to BM 114577, temple herdsmen discovered animals from their folds in other herdsmen’s folds and initiated legal procedures.204 The dispute between Rīmūt-ili and Bēl-aḫḫē-erība was heard locally. Crimes against the Eanna’s property were usually tried in Uruk,205 but lawsuits were also heard in provincial towns of Uruk’s hinterland. A theft of the Eanna’s animals was once tried by a local court in Dūr-Ugūmu (YOS 19 90, 1Nbn) and battery and assault involving an Eanna’s shepherd by a court at Nāru-eššu (YOS 7 189, 6Camb), although the defendant was given the option to appeal to the royal judges in Uruk. These two disputes, like the one between Rīmūt-ili and Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, were presumably settled outside of Uruk due to the territorial jurisdiction: the offenses must have been committed in the vicinity of those towns.206 The case of Rīmūt-ili’s sheep was handled by a court of otherwise unattested composition. It was chaired by Bēl-šarru-uṣur, the deputy governor of the Puqūdean district, which stretched along the Tigris and the Royal Canal.207 This is the single attestation of Bēl-šarru-uṣur in the Eanna files,208 but the appearance of a tribal leader among the members of a judicial body is not unparalleled. A governor of Bīt-Amukāni (mār Ukānu) was among the men who heard a deposition regarding donkeys confiscated together with oxen of the Eanna (YOS 7 30, Uruk, 3Cyr), and a deputy governor of Tupliaš heard a complaint regarding a house together with Uruk officials (ROMCT 2 6, Uruk, 15Nbn). A group of five elders assisted the deputy governor Bēl-šarru-uṣur. Since they sat alongside the Puqūdean deputy governor and in a town that was probably located in Puqūdean territory, these men may at first be taken for a local Puqūdean self-governing body. Such an institution is known from a letter sent by a šībūtu ša Āl-Piqūdu to the Eanna officials (Documents cunéiformes 475).209 However, a closer examination of the list of elders in BM 114577 warrants caution. Beyond one patronym (Zabidāya), none of the names suggest West Semitic origin. By itself, this would not be necessarily troublesome, as Arameans bore Babylonian 204

YOS 6 123, YOS 6 169 = YOS 6 231, YOS 7 132, YOS 7 140. Cf. YOS 7 7, YOS 6 169 = YOS 6 231, see also pending verdicts TCL 12 77, YOS 6 123, FLP 1584 (Dillard 1975: 142–46, 264), YOS 6 208. 206 On jurisdictions in the Neo-Babylonian legal system, see Lafont 2000: 22 and Magdalene 2007: 59–65. For a critique of Magdalene’s method, see Kozuh 2014: 140–43. 207 On the Aramean tribe Puqūdu, see Lipiński 2000: 429–37; on the Puqūdu in the Chaldean period in particular, see Jursa 2010: 100–3 and Beaulieu 2013: 45–47, Zadok 2013 (esp. 284–85), Streck 2014: 313. 208 Other deputy governors of the Puqūdu known by name were Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim (31NbkII, NBC 4842 [mentioned in Beaulieu 2013: 45]) and Bēl-šūzibanni (14Nbn, AnOr 8 33: 13). 209 Cf. also Wunsch, CDLB 2004/1: 9–10 for mār banê [ša kur.Pi]qūdu. 205

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

99

names as early as in the period of Assyrian domination.210 More intriguingly, one of the elders (Aplāya, son of Zēr-Bābili, descendant of Adad-šumu-ēreš) is identified with a three-tier filiation characteristic of Babylonian urban elites. This implies that the composition of the body presided over by the deputy governor Bēl-šarru-uṣur could have been more complex and included Urukeans, who may have been either visitors from that city or local residents. Similarly ambiguous are the backgrounds of the witnesses to two documents drafted in Ālu-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī twelve years later: BM 114577 10+[x].11.3Ngl šībūtu Mušallim-Marduk/Bēl-ēṭir Aplāya/Zēr-Bābili //Adad-šumu-ēreš ...lāya/Zabidāya Nabû-zēru-iqīša/(damaged) Nabû-zēru-iqīša/Ḫašdia scribe Šadûnu/Nabû-kimir

YOS 6 184 29.9.11Nbn mukinnū Nabû-zēruiqīša/Aplāya Ḫūdāya/⌈Bau?⌉-ēreš

Zēria/Šūzubu scribe Šamaš-iddin/Rīmūt-ili

YOS 6 240 [x].11.11Nbn mukinnū Nabû-zēruiqīša/Aplāya Mušēzib-Bēl/Bēl-[...] Ṣillāya/Aplāya Zēria/Šūzubu//Kurî Eanna-ibni/Lâbâši-ili scribe Ištar-mukīn-apli /Gimillu

No certain correspondence between the elders of BM 114577 and the witnesses of YOS 6 184 and YOS 6 240 can be established, although it cannot be excluded that Nabû-zēru-iqīša, son of Aplāya, the first witness in YOS 6 184 and YOS 6 240, was identical with the Nabû-zēru-iqīša whose patronym is damaged in BM 114577 (l. 10 a-šú šá mḫe-pí) or that he was a son of Aplāya, son of Zēr-Bābili (BM 114577: 8). Again noteworthy is the lack of any West Semitic names among members of these two groups. Moreover, one witness bears a typical Urukean name (Eanna-ibni), and another (Zēria, son of Šūzubu) belonged to an influential Urukean family Kurî; the fact that his family name is not provided in YOS 6 184 raises the possibility that other witnesses likewise had family names. The picture does not become any clearer when the identities of the scribes of these three documents are investigated. None of them can be safely connected to any scribe of the Eanna. Kümmel (1979: 115) considered Ištar-mukīn-apli, son of Gimillu (YOS 6 240), to be identical with the Eanna’s baker known from YOS 6 93: 20 (now also AUWE 8 41: 4, 53: 6, 54: 4, 82L: 3’), but this association is far from certain.

210

Fales 2011: 97, Zadok 2013: 263. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

100

Chapter III

The court decided in favor of Rīmūt-ili, awarding him five animals in place of the stolen one. Multiplies of two,211 three,212 four,213 and ten214 are known from pending verdicts and transcripts of trials concerning private property. Whenever temple property was at stake, however, thirtyfold restitution was almost invariably decreed;215 twofold payment was an exception in such a situation.216 Besides BM 114577, fivefold restitution is found only in Walker and Kramer, Iraq 44 no. 5 (Sippar, 10.4.3DarI), a text produced in the course of an investigation into the theft of royal flour conducted by the Ebabbar authorities. The defender in that case admitted under oath to having only one kor of flour in his possession, and he was set a deadline to repay it fivefold. In the event that more flour was discovered in his possession, he was to return it thirtyfold. It might be presumed that some mitigating factor warranted the first, more lenient sentence. One such factor could be the defendant’s admission of guilt. Confessions were likely behind the partial exemptions from thirtyfold penalties found in a few Uruk conditional verdicts. AnOr 8 39 imposes a pending thirtyfold payment upon the thief of temple barley 10 e-lat 18 gur še.bar šá PN 11e-li ra-ma-ni-šú ú-kin-nu, “apart for 18 kors of barley, about which PN testified against himself (i.e., admitted himself)”; similar clauses are found in YNER 1 2: 7, Payne, RA 102: 31–32, and BM 114627: 3–4. Of course, such penalty exemptions would apply only in cases of confessions obtained prior to evidentiary proceedings.217 Another mitigating factor could be lack of mens rea. The verdict of BM 114577 does not explicitly state that the defendant had taken the temple ram fraudulently (e.g., ina sarti ībuk). The formulary of BM 114577 features a number of peculiarities. While most Eanna court documents are divided into operative sections and witness lists (placed either at the beginning or at the end of documents),218 the witness list in BM 114577 is missing, and the names of elders are already introduced in the main body of the document. Unusually, details of the accusations are split between the complaint clause (ll. 3–4) and the sentence clause (ll. 15–21). Consequently, the 211

Scheil, RA 12, CDCPP 79, Nbk. 361. BM 73118 + BM 84019 (Text no. 23), Cyr. 349. Cf. Neo-Babylonian Laws § 7 (Roth 1997: 145–46). 213 Kleber 2010. 214 Nbn. 720 = TCL 13 219, VAS 6 99. 215 It is attested mainly in pending verdicts (e.g., BIN 1 112, TCL 12 106, YOS 6 179), but see trial transcripts (Figulla, Iraq 13, YOS 7 7, YOS 6 169 = YOS 6 231) and post-trial documents regarding handling of the thirtyfold penalty (YOS 7 35, YOS 7 161). On the thirtyfold penalty in general, see San Nicolò 1932. 216 BM 49382, payment pending upon the failure to deliver sheep to the temple. Cf. Nbk. 436, which imposes 240% payment upon the failure to deliver dates to the Ebabbar. 217 In contrast, in YOS 7 7 Gimillu confessed his guilt after witnesses had testified against him and received a thirtyfold penalty. Cf. also Figulla, Iraq 13 and YOS 7 35. 218 On the formulary of the Eanna trial transcripts, see Holtz 2009: 47–62.

212

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

101

CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26)

YOS 6 92

BM 114577

Scheil, RA 12

Edinb. 69

Oaths and Curses O.262 CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17)

sentence clause is longer and more detailed than usual. The final clause (ll. 22– 23) is characteristic of early trial transcripts. Most known parallels come from the reign of Neriglissar and combine up to two expressions announcing the passing of the judgement: dīnšunu dīn, “their case is settled,” and either amatsunu gamrat, “their dispute is finished,” or purussêšunu paris/šakin, “their verdict is issued.” BM 114577 is the single transcript in which all three expressions appear:

[Esh– 0[Ngl] 1Ngl 2Ngl 3Ngl 7Nbn [5–7 NbkII] Cyr] Bab Sippar Bab Uruk Ālu-ša- Uruk [Sippar] Iaqiʾ-ilī dīnšunu dīn219 x x x x x x x amatsunu gamrat x x x purussêšunu paris/šakin x x x x matima ana muḫḫi aḫāmeš lā iturrū x (ana lā enê) tuppi išṭur(ū) ina x x x kunukki ibruk(ū)ma ana PN iddin(ū)

Despite these peculiarities, the tablet has the extrinsic features (clay, format, size, and ductus) of a standard Eanna tablet. It is remarkable that it found its way into the Eanna archive, despite the fact that no temple official was present at the trial and that, as it seems, the scribe was not an Eanna functionary. The tablet was clearly copied (note ḫe-pí in l. 10) in Uruk. The temple apparently wanted to keep full track of its property, including the track of disputes concerning its holdings. The conflict between Rīmūt-ili and Bēl-aḫḫē-erība did not end with the trial recorded in BM 114577. Twelve years later, in the eleventh year of Nabonidus, Bēl-aḫḫē-erība again stole and slaughtered an animal under Rīmūt-ili’s care. The circumstances of the theft were reported by a man who not only saw Rīmūt-ili’s ox in the house of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība but even ate part of its meat (YOS 6 240). His testimony was to be corroborated by three more men, supposedly witnesses to the feast during which the meat of the ox was served. Three other men vouched that those witnesses would testify. Among the guarantors were the brothers (N)uridimmu-iluya and Nanāya-useppi, sons of Šamaš-erība. Two months earlier, those brothers were given six days to pay silver to Rīmūt-ili “for the theft of an ox of Rīmūt-ili, son of Šulāya, that Uridimmu-iluya and Nanāya-useppi, sons of

219

Cf. exceptional dīnu šuātu akī dātu ša šarri dīn in Jursa, WZKM 87 no. 1: 21–22 (14Dar, Akkad). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

102

Chapter III

Šamaš-erība, had fraudulently slaughtered.”220 A note added at the end of the text informs that the silver was due “for their complicity (lit. “hand”) in the (case of) the ox that they had fraudulently slaughtered with (other) men.”221 Both YOS 6 240 and YOS 6 184 were written in Ālu-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī and probably concern the same theft. Quite possibly, these men turned to crime under dire circumstances: in the eleventh year of Nabonidus, Babylonia suffered a famine so severe that mothers gave up their children to temples.222 In years in which such drastic shortages of food ocurred, temple food staples were generally difficult to control, and cases of theft were ubiquitous.223 Notes Part of the reverse’s surface is covered with a salt crust. 1 The patronym of Rīmūt-ili is restored based on YOS 6 184: 2, 4 and YOS 6 240: 2. 2 The traces do not fit any common complaint-introducing phrase (e.g., dīna gerû, dīna dabābu, or kullu). The reconstruction ⌈i-na-am-miš⌉ is unlikely, as the expression dīna namāšu/nummušu, “to bring a lawsuit” is attested in Ugarit only and the verb belongs to the u/u-class (CAD N1: 222–23). An alternative restoration, ⌈i-ta-am-miš⌉, derived from amû A, “argue” (CAD s.v. amû), is equally unsatisfactory: it is unattested in the first millennium outside literary and historical texts, and it does not collocate with dīnu. 6 Michael Jursa (2010: 100) reads the name of the šanû as Nabû-šarru-uṣur rather then Bēl-šarru-uṣur. The beginning of the name is partly damaged, but the reading dEN seems more probable to me. 9 The first sign of the second name looks like ḪIR/ŠÌR, but no known name can be formed from it. 10 The remark ḫepi, “damaged,” indicates that BM 114577 is a copy of the original document. 11 The expression ana pan... abālu, “to bring before (an authority),” is commonly used to describe the bringing of adversaries to court, but its modification with ramanšunu is peculiar. Perhaps the scribe added it to convey the information that both parties had claims and that both were involved in bringing the case to court. 20 One expects 2-ú or 2-i, but perhaps 2-ta was intended to render the correct plural form, šunuʾûtu (cf. BIN 1 134: 12 for udu.níta.meš šu-un-ú-tú).

220

YOS 6 184: 1–4: ku-mu sa-ar-tu4 šá gu4 šá mri-mut-⌈dingir a⌉-šú šá mšu-la-a šá mur.dimdingir-ú-a u mna-na-a-sízkur a.meš mdutu-su ina sa-ar-tu4 ik-ki-su. 221 YOS 6 184: 10–12: pu-ut šuii-šú-nu ša ina gu4 šá ina sa-ar-tu4 it-ti lú.érin.meš ik-ki-su-ʾ. 222 Cf. YOS 6 154. 223 Cf. Kleber 2012, Tarasewicz 2017. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

103

I take the rams for the subject of iturrū (lit. “they will go back”). Alternatively, the subject could be the defendant Bēl-aḫḫē-erība (“Bēl-ahhē-erība will compensate”),224 but the verbal form (iturru instead of itâr) would then be inexplicable and ṣēnu in l. 20 redundant. The element -ki-mir in the scribe’s patronym is, to my knowledge, unparalleled. It possibly derives from kamāru, “to heap up” (CAD s.v. kamāru).

21

23

30. BM 114550

Pl. XXXIII

1920-6-15, 146 W. 6.4 x L. 4.9 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape obv. 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. l.e. 11. 12. rev. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 224

ši-ip-ṭì? ⌈ ⌉ku-ut-ta-a fza-ki-ti frig7-ti šá dgašan šá unug.ki šá taqo.e.-buo.e.-ú um-⌈ma ul-tu igi⌉ mdnà-a-ùru ⌈lugal⌉ tin.tir.ki fšar-⌈ḫa⌉-a be-⌈el⌉-ta-a [d]am mdnà-sig15 lú.2-ú šá uru.é-ma-⌈muk⌉-a-nu ⌈a⌉-na dgašan šá unug.ki ⌈tu⌉-zak-⌈kan⌉-ni u ma-ḫu-lap-d15 a-šú šá mìr-din-nin [iq]-⌈bu⌉-ú um-ma fqal-lat-a ši-i [x] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x x x lú⌉.di.ku5.meš a-na igi [mdnà-lugal-ùru lú.sag lu]gal lú.en pi-qit-tú é.an.na [u x x x x lú.sa]g lugal f

[iš-pu-ru-šú-nu-ti]-ma ina ukkin [mddi.ku5-lugal-ùr]u lú.2-ú šá kur.⌈tam-tì⌉ [mṭa-bi-ia lú.gar um]uš unug.ki u ukkin lú.tin.tir.⌈ki.meš⌉ [u lú.unug.ki.meš?] ú-šá-az-ziz u šá-ṭa-ri šá ⌈ugu⌉ ⌈rit⌉-ti-šú il-su-ú šá fšar-ḫa-a be-let-su a-⌈na dgašan šá⌉ unug.ki tu-zak-ku-šú u ma-ḫu-lap-d15 ⌈ul-tu⌉ [k]á ⌈gal⌉-ú šá ⌈é⌉.an.na ta ukkin iḫ-li-qu [ina gu]b-zu šá mddi.ku5-lugal-⌈ùru⌉ lú.2-ú šá kur.tam-tìo.e. m [ṭa-b]i-ia lú.gar umuš unug.ki a-šú šá mdnà-na-din-mu a ⌈mḫu⌉-un-zu-ú lú.mu-kin-nu mden-dù a-šú šá mbul-luṭ ⌈a⌉ lú.šu.ku6 mpir-ʾu a-šú šá mtab-né-e-a a lú.šu.ku6 ⌈m⌉ki-na-a a-šú šá mna-di-nu a mda-bi-bi m ṣil-la-a a-šú šá m⌈tin⌉-su a mdnà-sur

Cf. CAD T: 262 for târu 7, “(in NB) to pay compensation, to take back(?).” © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

104

Chapter III

24. lú.umbisag mna-din a-šú šá mden-šeš.⌈meš⌉-ba-šá a me-gì-bi 25. unug.ki iti.kin u4.24.kám mu.10.kám dnà-ní.tuku u.e. 26. lugal tin.tir.ki Translation 0 Verdict? 1–7 (Concerning) fKuttāya, the zakītu, the oblate of the Lady of Uruk, who said: “Still in the time of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, my lady fŠarḫāya, the [wi]fe of Nabû-udammiq, the deputy governor of Bīt-Amukāni, dedicated me to the Lady of Uruk.” And Aḫulap-Ištar, son of Arad-Innin, said: “She is my slave.” 8–17 [...] judges [sent them] to [Nabû-šarru-uṣur, the ro]yal supervisor of the Eanna, [and ...] royal co[urtier]. They stood (them) in the assembly of [Madānu-šarru-uṣ]ur, the deputy governor of the Sealand, [Ṭābia, the gover]nor of Uruk, and the assembly of Babylonians [and Urukeans?]. They read an inscription on her hand (attesting to the fact) that her lady f Šarḫāya had dedicated her to the Lady of Uruk. Then Aḫulap-Ištar ran away from the Great [Ga]te of the Eanna, from the assembly. 18–20a [(This document was written) in the presen]ce of Madānu-šarru-uṣur, the deputy governor of the Sealand, (and) [Ṭāb]ia, the governor of Uruk, son of Nabû-nādin-šumi, descendant of Ḫunzû. 20b–23 Witnesses: Bēl-ibni, son of Bulluṭu, descendant of Bāʾiru, Pirʾu, son of Tabnēa, descendant of Bāʾiru, Kināya, son of Nādin, descendant of Dābibi, Ṣillāya, son of Balāssu, descendant of Nabû-ēṭir. 24 Scribe: Nādin, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša, descendant of Egibi. 25–26 Uruk, month of ulūlu, twenty-fourth day, tenth year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Commentary Despite its terseness, this trial transcript is particularly instructive: it provides unique information concerning a number of aspects of the Chaldean court structure and legal procedure. It is mentioned in Kleber 2008: 240, 316, 329 and Jursa 2010: 91, 104, 425. The subject matter of the dispute was the status of fKuttāya, who maintained that she had been dedicated by her owner to the Lady of Uruk. This status was contested by Aḫulap-Ištar, son of Arad-Innin—an Urukean, judging by his name and patronym—who claimed that fKuttāya was his slave. It is uncertain who initiated the procedure. Was it fKuttāya, perhaps to clarify her status;225 the temple 225

For oblates bringing up the issue of their status to court, see OIP 122 38, YOS 7 66, and Czechowicz, RAI 47. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

105

she had been dedicated to, driven by the same motivation; or Aḫulap-Ištar, who sought to take possession of fKuttāya? Disputes of this kind are amply attested. Slaves donated to temples were commonly subject to paramonē. They continued serving their owners during the latters’ lifetime, and only after the owners’ death were they transferred to temples. Children born after their slave-mothers had been dedicated were considered temple property.226 Often many years passed between a dedication and an owner’s death, and over time the enthusiasm of donors’ families to give slaves up faded. Frequently, donors’ heirs attempted to delay or obstruct the transfers of slaves. On occasion, donated slaves or their children, which were de jure inalienable temple property, were illegally sold. Consequently, proceedings had to be initiated in order to get hold of the donated slaves, from either donors’ heirs or the buyers of such slaves.227 Texts documenting various stages of such proceedings survive: records featuring temple officials preparing for court sittings (by collecting material evidence, especially the testimonies of individuals who could confirm that the dedication had taken place and when it occurred),228 summonses to bring donated oblates,229 receipts of oblates awarded to temples by judges,230 and trial transcripts.231 BM 114550 belongs to the last category. In the opening of BM 114550, fKuttāya is identified as zakītu širkatu, “zakītu (and) oblate.” This designation is baffling. Neo-Babylonian has two terms for a temple oblate: širku (fem. širkatu) and zakû (fem. zakītu).232 According to a widely held opinion, both were used interchangeably.233 Their concurrent use in reference to fKuttāya calls for a revision of this view. In fact, the distribution of both designations in temple documents also strongly suggests that they were distinct. The word širku/širkatu comes from the verb šarāku, “to give”; it is a blanket term for any oblate. In contrast, the application of zakû/zakītu is much more restricted. It is derived from zakû, “to be free (of obligations),” and zukkû, “to free (from obligations) = to dedicate”,234 hence its frequent appearance in records of donations of slaves,235 wherein, however, širku/širkatu is likewise attested.236 The 226

For relevant examples, see Wunsch 2006: 46738, for the practice in general, Westbrook 2004. E.g., Czechowicz, RAI 47 and YOS 7 66 (heirs); OIP 122 38, TBER 60/61 (= Arnaud, RA 67), Lutz, UCP 9/2 36, YOS 19 91 (buyers). 228 E.g., YOS 6 57, YOS 6 79 = YOS 6 80, YOS 6 129. 229 AUWE 11 229? 230 AnOr 8 74. 231 Czechowicz, RAI 47, OIP 122 38, TBER 60/61 (= Arnaud, RA 67), YOS 7 66, YOS 19 91. 232 For recent studies on Neo-Babylonian oblates, see Ragen 2006 and Kleber 2011. 233 Ebeling 1949: 95, San Nicolò 1933: 2903, Dandamaev 1984: 469 and Joannès 2008: 4665. 234 See lately Jursa 2005: 15, Wunsch 2006: 467, Ragen 2006: 50–54, Kleber 2011: 101. 235 TCL 12 36. 236 YOS 7 17, YOS 6 154, cf. YOS 6 56. 227

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

106

Chapter III

word is also found in documents concerning disputes between temples and private people over the ownership of slave,237 wherein širku/širkatu is seldom used;238 all of these disputes concerned either slaves who had been donated or children thereof who had been born outside temple precincts. Finally, zakītu is frequently found in matronyms. Whenever, upon her owner’s death, a donated female slave was transferred to a temple together with her son (born outside the temple, but after the donation), the child was registered as her son only, without any reference to his father; he would be referred to as mār (fPN) zakīti, “the son of (fPN,) a zakītu.”239 Such appellatives are common, and it is always zakītu, never širkatu, that is used to describe the status of such mothers. Even more telling is the scarcity of the term zakû/zakītu elsewhere in temple documents. It never appears, for example, in the headings of lists of workers or disbursement lists, wherein širku is consistently used. The sole use of the term zakû in reference to a group of oblates occurs in letter CT 22 174, whose sender asked the addressee to send him a group of ṣābu zakûti, “zakû-workers” (l. 45). The context of the letter is not clear, but it is quite possible that a group of newly donated oblates was meant. In sum, in temple documents, the term zakû/zakītu is used in reference to people born as private slaves and donated to a temple’s god.240 The designation alludes to the process (and possibly the associated ceremony) of manumission from the status of a private slave (zukkû, lit. “cleansing”).241 Why are these partly overlapping terms used concurrently in BM 114550? It is possible that the scribe sought to describe in this way the transition stage in which fKuttāya found herself. She had been dedicated by her lady in the past (at which point she became a zakītu), but, by the time the dispute started, she had presumably already entered the Eanna household. Unlike many zakītus misappropriated by donors’ relatives or purchased illegally, she was probably not in the hands of her claimant but under the authority of temple officials. The chronological framework of fKuttāya’s story is confusing. According to her own declaration, fKuttāya had been dedicated to the Lady of Uruk ultu pani

237

Pretrial documents: BM 113414, YOS 6 129; trial transcripts: OIP 122 38, TBER 60/61 (= Arnaud, RA 67), YOS 19 91. Cf. Pirngruber, RA 111. 238 Pretrial documents: BM 114526, YOS 7 91. In YOS 6 224, officials of the Eanna detained a certain Šamaš-šumu-iddin on the charge of being a son of fSilim-Ištar, daughter of fHaršinana, a širkatu. An investigation revealed that his grandmother had been marked as an oblate before giving birth to his mother. In this document, the word širkatu might refer to the mother (fSilim-Ištar) and not to the grandmother. 239 E.g., YOS 6 137: 7–8, YOS 19 115: 4. 240 See already Jursa 2005: 15, Wunsch and Magdalene 2014: 341 (“first-generation širkus”). 241 The term is also used in reference to unconditionally manumitted slaves, who had the right to freely dispose of themselves. On the manumission of slaves in general, see Wunsch and Magdalene 2014. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

107

Nabû-aplu-iddin. Even if the dedication took place in the last year of Nabopolassar (605/604 BCE) and even if she was a newborn at the time of the dedication, f Kuttāya must have been around sixty years old when the dispute over her status took place (546 BCE). By contemporary standards, she would have been more than an elderly lady and, sadly but truly, hardly a property worth fighting for in court.242 One solution to this conundrum is to assume that the donation during the reign of Nabopolassar did not concern fKuttāya but instead her mother, who did not live long enough to enter the temple household; the same act of donation would determine fKuttāya’s status. However, apart from assuming a shortcut in f Kuttāya’s statement, this scenario involves two difficulties. First, the donor, who was already a married woman at the point of the donation, would have died long time before the present trial, and, upon her death, the donated property would have been transferred to the temple. Second, even if fKuttāya’s mother was a child at the time of dedication, fKuttāya’s age would have been advanced at the time when BM 114550 was written. A simpler explanation is therefore to assume that the scribe of BM 114550 made a mistake and put down the name of Nabopolassar (mdnà-a-ùru) instead of Nebuchadnezzar (mdnà-níg.du-ùru). In such a case, f Kuttāya would have been reasonably younger at the time of the trial (even as young as sixteen years old). A point of particular interest in BM 114550 lies in the fact that it describes three consecutive stages of the legal path that adversaries pursued. At first, litigants approached a collegium of judges, perhaps headed by a high official (see below for a possible reconstruction of l. 8). The litigants were next referred to the Eanna authorities, who directed them to another body, comprising the deputy governor of the Sealand, the governor of Uruk, and a group of Babylonians. This decision is particularly noteworthy: even though they were certainly qualified to settle disputes of this kind, the judges seem to have refused to handle the case. The reason for referring litigants to another instance is not given, but apparently another judicial body was considered more appropriate at that point. This remittal is in fact in accord with a rule stated in letter CT 22 231, which quotes a royal order (amat šarri), according to which litigants were to address local authorities 242

Average life expectancy for men in this period has been estimated at around forty years, but much longer lifespans are attested (Dandamaev 1980, Jursa 2005: 56, Gehlken 2005); longer expectancy is also found in a Neo-Assyrian commentary, STT 400 (cf. Weinfeld 1992, van Buylaere 2012: 859–61 with earlier references). Van Driel (1998b: 165) and Joannès (2013) have noted that slaves were often handed over to temples years after their donations and thus in advanced age. However, it should be noted that some of these elderly oblates would come to temples together with all of their children born after their donations, so they did represent good value. Dispute documents frequently mention the fact that the children of zakītus had been born (BM 114526: 7) or even specify the number of such children (OIP 122 38: 21, YOS 19 91: 29) and/or their names (BM 113414: 16, BM 114548: 10– 11, TBER 60/61 [= Arnaud, RA 67]: 5, YOS 6 129: 4, 5, YOS 7 66: 7–8, YOS 19 91: 18). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

108

Chapter III

before turning to royal judges: “[whoever ag]ainst his adversary in court would speak to us, [should sp]eak (first) to the high priest of (his) city.”243 A judge in Babylon who sent parties to a simmagir many years later (Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 1, 25DarI) was possibly adhering to the same rule. Interestingly, in the case recorded in BM 114550, the judges sent the litigants to the temple authorities: the supervisor, who was the top temple official at the time, and yet another royal functionary. Nothing is known of the involvement of these two officials in the organization of the trial apart from the fact that they brought litigants to court. It is also unclear why the case was not directly referred to the governor of Uruk. Two reasons seem possible: either the judges wished to notify the temple that an issue regarding its property was subject to a dispute, or they considered the Eanna authorities optional adjudicators. According to Kristin Kleber (2008: 329), the second judicial body, headed by the deputy governor of the Sealand and the governor of Uruk, was summoned because an impartial court had to decide a case in which the Eanna was a party. However, cases regarding status were sometimes settled by temple authorities. In Czechowicz, RAI 47, a woman “marked with a star” came before a temple administrator (šatammu) and a supervisor (bēl piqitti) of the Eanna to report that she had been dedicated to the local goddess over thirty years earlier. The officials questioned both her and a free woman related to the donor and issued a pending verdict. In YOS 7 66, a dedicated woman who after her donor’s death found herself in the house of the donor’s brother rather than in the temple, addressed a temple resident, an administrator, a supervisor, and the Eanna scribes, who decided that after the brother’s death, she and her three children would belong to the Lady of Uruk. It seems that only more complicated disputes, including cases involving illegal sales of dedicated slaves, were settled by judicial bodies comprising judges and/or the governor of Uruk.244 While the appearance of the governor of Uruk among the adjudicators in BM 114550 is well paralleled, the presence of the deputy governor of the Sealand, his senior in rank, is more unusual. His presence may hardly be linked to the fact that, many years earlier, the donor was the wife of a high official of Bīt-Amukāni; rather, the involvement of the deputy should be understood in the wider context of the cooperation between the Sealand and the Eanna in the field of justice administration.245

243 5

mam-ma 6[šá a]-na ugu en di-i-ni-šú 7[i]-qab-ba-an-na-a-šú 8[a-n]a lú.é.[ba]r šá uru [li-i]q-[bi] (the reconstruction follows Ebeling 1949 no. 231; cf. Bongenaar 1997: 2349 and Jursa 1996: 202+11). 244 E.g., Kessler, Philippika 24, OIP 122 38, TBER 60/61 (= Arnaud, RA 67), YOS 19 91, cf. AnOr 8 74 (sartennu and ḫazannu). 245 See Kleber 2008: 329, to which one may add Nbk. 109 (Kleber 2008: 319–20), wherein the governor of Uruk appears as judge next to the governor of the Sealand, his resident,

9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

109

The motivations that drove Aḫulap-Ištar are unclear. Did he have some material evidence, perhaps forged or fragmentary, to support his claim? Or, in the event that his claim was unsubstantiated, did he have another ace in the hole? One may think of a dozen such speculative scenarios. Aḫulap-Ištar could have been the former owner of fKuttāya, perhaps with some knowledge of the circumstances in which she was donated. Perhaps fKuttāya was not marked with a star, and AḫulapIštar was aware of this and wished to take advantage of his knowledge? His emotional reaction in court suggests that he did not have much to prove his case in the end. Aḫulap-Ištar’s escape from the court sitting may appear humorous, but however unreasonable and futile means such a flight may seem, there is evidence that it was occasionally resorted to. The infamous oblate Gimillu run away from a formal sitting when officials handed him an account of his arrears and then stubbornly refused to return.246 A defendant’s escape from a court sitting is possibly mentioned in a damaged fragment of BM 64626 (Text no. 20). Yet another defendant ran away when a sepīru came to bring him before the judges.247 Litigants were sometimes so apprehensive of court proceedings and their consequences that this fact was noted in court documents; some disputants were too afraid to appear for trial, while others withdrew accusations during trials out of fear.248 Thanks to the precise account of Aḫulap-Ištar’s escape, we learn that this court sitting took place at the Great Gate of the Eanna. This is the same location in which, according to TCL 12 117, a man attempted to kill a temple supervisor in the presence of a group of mār banê, including a ša muḫḫi quppi and a sepīru.249 The combined presence of the supervisor and the mār banê suggests that the incident likewise took place during a sitting of an assembly, that time comprising members of the Eanna household. The Great Gate is also mentioned in BM 114552 = BM 114555 (edited in Payne 2007: 147–48), among other gates and his deputy, as well as other officials, and YOS 6 213, a bail protocol involving Urukeans, in which a rab qašti of the Sealand serves as the first witness. This evidence would become even richer if the identification of šakin Tâmti with šakin māti (Kleber 2008: 311–26) were to be corroborated. 246 Jursa, WZKM 94 no. 4. 247 YOS 7 159: 7–8. 248 Dar. 260: 5–7: mdu.gur-šeš-mu di-i-ni i-dur8-ma it-ti mka-re-e-a u fnu-up-ta-a ama-šú a-na da-ba-ba di-i-ni la il-lik, “Nergal-aḫu-iddin became scared of litigation and did not come to argue the case with Karēa and his mother, fNuptāya”; Bēl-rēmanni: 129–130, ll. 31–32: mdutu-šeš.meš- [ana u]gu ram-ni-šú / ú*-kin*-nu*-˹ʾ*˺ [di-i-n]i idur-ru-ma giš.šub.ba mu-tì ina igi md utu-na-ṣir ú-maš-š[ìr] “Šamaš-aḫḫē- admitted (it), got scared of [litigat]ion, and released the prebend to Šamaš-nāṣir.” For fear of legal proceedings in the Old Babylonian period, see Dombradi 1996/I: 340–41 (§ 449– 50). 249 According to Kristin Kleber (2008: 67183), bāb dīni is also mentioned in PTS 2195. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

110

Chapter III

whose doors were to be repaired.250 Gates as seats of judges and assemblies are well attested in Babylonia in earlier periods and elsewhere in the ancient Near East.251 Here, it is noteworthy that it was the temple and not the city gate that served as the location of a civil court. BM 114550 extends evidence on the use of the Eanna’s infrastructure by civil authorities in various spheres of justice administration; apart from the Eanna’s gate area, the temple’s prison was also placed at their disposal.252 Notes The signs on the obverse are slightly larger and more densely written than those on the reverse. Above the first line of the obverse, the scribe left a superscription that is clearly distinct from the rest of the text. Its location brings to mind pious notations found on scholarly and legal tablets from Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Uruk, Babylon, and perhaps Borsippa.253 Such superscriptions comprise usually a short appeal, ina amat DN(s) lišlim, “By the command of DNs, may it be successful” (with few variants). These notations are, however, chronologically distinct from BM 114550. Moreover, they are usually written with smaller signs than those used in the main body of the text. The superscription in BM 114550 could have served as an archival note. Such notes are well attested in contemporary legal and administrative texts, but they are usually written in Aramaic; moreover, they are extremely rare on tablets produced in the course of disputes (the only ones known to me are TBER 59 and Entrepreneurs and Empire 106).254 Other archival notations are made with single signs, such as archaic characters.255 The reading of the superscription suggested above (ši-ip-ṭì) is by no means certain. First, the value ṭì for TI is not standard in Neo-Babylonian orthography. Second, in contemporary Babylonian legal documents, the term “verdict” is usually rendered with purussû or dīnu rather than šipṭu. An alternative interpretation is ši-ib-ti, “old woman” (suggestion courtesy of I. L. Finkel). Neither šiptu (“incantation”) nor šēpītu (“lower end”) make good sense here. 250

Payne 2007: 147, l. 2: ká ⌈gal-i ká* di⌉-i-nu ká silim.ma. Kristin Kleber (2008: 67183) has suggested that the Great Gate may be identical with the Gate of Judgement (bāb dīni), but this would only be possible if the three names in BM 114552 = BM 114555: 2 are understood as synonyms. GCCI 2 65: 5 adds to the complication: it mentions a gatekeeper of ká.gal di-i-ni. 251 Dombradi 1996/I: 321–25, Otto 2008, Ambos 2014: 157–58, May 2014: 95–100. 252 Kleber and Frahm, JCS 58 (zazakku and two rab qanâtes of the king), YOS 7 106 (šanû of the Sealand), YOS 7 137 (šāpir ekurrāte and paqūdu of Uruk), BM 114449 (šakin māti). 253 Roth 1988b. 254 On Aramaic epigraphs on Neo-Babylonian tablets in general, see lately Zadok 2003: 558–78 and Oelsner 2006. 255 Zawadzki and Jursa 2001: 349–51, Baker 2004: 16, Zadok 2005/2006: 151–52. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Trials

111

For the name fKuttāya, “Cuthean”, cf. YOS 7 155: 7, BRM 1 73: 13, 23, and Hackl 2013: 164 with further references. 2 The preposition ultu pani (“since”) seems to be improperly used here, perhaps under the influence of the expression ultu pani RN common in NeoBabylonian royal inscriptions (see CAD I: 287 for examples). One expects instead ina pani or ina tarṣi. 8 Reconstruct perhaps [x] ⌈x⌉ [lú].⌈sar-te-nu u⌉. 9–10 Nabû-šarru-uṣur was the supervisor of the Eanna between the first and the thirteenth years of Nabonidus.256 He was the highest-ranking functionary in the temple at the time (the office of administrator was abolished by Nabonidus at the beginning of his reign).257 The two next-in-rank officials were then the resident and the ša rēš šarri ša muḫḫi quppi.258 Three men of the latter title are attested in the period in which BM 114550 was written: Libluṭ, Ayyigaššu, and Marduk-bulliṭanni.259 The name of one of these individuals could figure in the broken part of l. 11; for reasons of space, Marduk-bulliṭanni seems the least likely candidate. If the reconstruction suggested above is correct, there would be no place for the rest of the title (ša muḫḫi quppi) in l. 12, but both Libluṭ and Ayyigaššu are attested with such abbreviated titles.260 12, 18 Madānu-šarru-uṣur, the šanû of the Sealand, is also found in YOS 7 106 (1Camb), wherein he delivers a slave to a prison of the Eanna. On the Sealand and its connections with Uruk and the Eanna, see Beaulieu 2002, Kleber 2008: 311–31, and Jursa 2010: 91–95. 13, 19 Ṭābia/Nabû-nādin-šumi//Ḫunzû was the governor of Uruk between the sixth and the thirteenth years of Nabonidus.261 14 One expects ušazzizzū (plural) instead of ušazziz (singular). 17 Note that, in the same line, the same word ultu is once spelled out (ul-tu) and once written ideographically (ta). 17 The expected verbal form is iḫliq, not iḫliqu/ū. 20 The first witness, Bēl-ibni/Bulluṭu//Bāʾiru, is not listed in Kümmel 1979, but numerous Eanna documents depict him in contexts suggesting that he held a high position in the temple hierarchy. He appears as a witness in trial transcripts,262 depositions,263 bail protocols,264 and records of other

1

256

Kümmel 1979: 144, Frame 1991: 66–79, Kleber 2008: 36. Beaulieu 1989: 124–27 and Kleber 2008: 13–14 with earlier references. 258 Kleber 2008: 12–13, 26–30. 259 Kümmel 1979: 145–46, Kleber 2008: 28, 37. 260 Kümmel 1979: 145–46. 261 Kümmel 1979: 140, Kleber 2008: 39. 262 YOS 19 91: 5 (2Nbn), YOS 6 92: 58 (7Nbn). 263 YOS 6 57: 2 (4Nbn), YOS 19 92: 8 (13Nbn), Kessler, BagM 37: 19 (16Nbn). 264 Jursa, Iraq 59 no. 8: 18 (12Nbn), YOS 6 213: 15 (14Nbn), Sandowicz, Iraq 76 no. 1 (BM 114574): 3 (14Nbn). 257

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

112

21 22 23

24 u.e.

Chapter III

legal proceedings.265 YOS 6 143 (10Nbn), an inheritance division contract written four months after BM 114550, even bears a caption of his seal next to the caption of the supervisor of the Eanna; this fact is noteworthy, since, during the Chaldean period, witnesses, even prominent ones, seldom sealed contracts recording the transactions concluded in their presence. Bēl-ibni’s function in the temple is unknown, but he could have been engaged in the Eanna’s animal husbandry. In YOS 6 58, he receives silver for the purchase of sheep and cows on behalf of several men, including himself, and, in several other documents, he witnesses transactions regarding sheep, donkeys, and wool.266 In AUWE 8 10 (4Nbn), Bēl-ibni grants a loan of silver, probably in his capacity as the temple’s representative. 267 He was a scribe (hitherto attested in a single land sale contract, YOS 19 2: 43). Pirʾu/Tabnēa//Bāʾiru is found as a scribe and a mār banê in several Uruk documents.268 Kināya (= Nabû-mukīn-apli)/Nādin//Dābibi was the future administrator of the Eanna from the sixth year of Cyrus to the sixth year of Cambyses.269 Ṣillāya/Balāssu//Nabû-ēṭir appears as a witness in a record of a sworn guarantee to guard a temple nagû (YOS 19 113: 14, 1Nbn) and a promissory note for emmer (BM 114454: 11, 8Nbn). He is also listed in a document recording the issue of emmer for a maššartu (YOS 6 37: 8, 4Nbn) and thus must have been a purveying prebendary. Nādin/Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša//Egibi was a tupšar Eanna (12Nbn–4Camb) and one of Uruk’s best- and longest-attested scribes (0Ngl–0Bard).270 The strokes in the right-hand corner look like a marking, but they could be simple cracks.

265

YOS 6 225: 32 (12Nbn), a record of investigation into a failure to deliver sesame for an offering, BM 114619: 15 (6Nbn), a record of an oath. 266 GCCI 1 65: 12 (36NbkII), Tempel und Palast 9: 15 (43NbkII), GCCI 1 394: 8 (5Nbn). 267 Cf. Kessler 1991: 119. 268 Kümmel 1979: 123. 269 Kümmel 1979: 143, Kleber 2008: 34. 270 Kümmel 1979: 122, 129, Dandamaev 1983: 101–21, Kleber 2008: 35. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

IV. Memoranda of Legal Proceedings 31. BM 114591

Pl. XXXIV

1920-6-15, 187 W. 5.7 x L. 4.1 x Th. 1.4 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. l.e. 12. rev. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

md

nà-mu-gi.na dumu bár-sipa.ki nà-sig5-iq dumu bár-sipa.ki m tab-né-e-a dumu bár-sipa.ki an-nu-tu lú. bár-sipa.kio.e..meo.e. lú.a.kin.me šá lugal šá il-li-ku-im-ma ina muḫ-ḫi ta-mir-ti šá bàd mugu-mu iz-zi-zu ⌈m⌉ba-la-ṭu dumu-šú šá mza-bi-da-a u men-šeš.me-⌈mu a⌉-šú ⌈šá men⌉-šú-nu di-i-nu it-ti uru.bàd mú-gu-⌈mu⌉-a-a a-na muḫ-ḫi qaq-qar šá dgašan šá unug.ki ⌈id⌉-bu-⌈bu-ú⌉-ma ina šuii-šú-nu i-tur-ru-ni lú.bàd mugu-⌈mu⌉-a-[a] a-na lú.bár-sipa.ki.meš ⌈iq⌉-bu-ú ⌈um-ma⌉

md

a-ḫi ḫa.la šá dgašan šá unug.ki ina lìb-bi ⌈ta-mir-ti⌉ m

⌈dùo.e.-túo.e.-šú a-šú šá⌉ [m]⌈x x x-d15⌉ a mdnà-kal x [x x x x x x x x m]dnà-mu-gin m d [ nà-sig5-iq u tab-né-e-a lú.bàd mug]u-mu-a-a [x x x x x x x x i]-tur-ru-ni [x x x x x x x x x] ⌈mdnà?-kal?⌉ a lú.šu.ku6 [x x x x x x x a mé.sa]g.gil-la-a-a [x x x x x x x x x]-⌈x⌉-dù [x x x x x x x x x] e [x x x x x a mši-g]u-ú-a [x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ i nao.e. m ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x iti].⌈x⌉ u4.18.kám mu.5.[kám x x x (x)] ⌈x⌉ lugal tin.tir.ki md

Translation 1–6a Nabû-šumu-ukīn the Borsippean, Nabû-udammiq the Borsippean, (and) Tabnēa the Borsippean—these are the Borsippeans, messengers of the king, who came and oversaw (the case of) the district of Dūr-Ugūmu. 6b–12 Balāṭu, son of Zabidāya, and Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin, son of Bēlšunu, argued the case of the land of the Lady of Uruk against the Dūr-Ugūmeans, and they © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

114

13–16

17–23a

23b–24

Chapter IV

lost their case against them. The Dūr-Ugūmeans said to the Borsippeans: “There is a half-share of the Lady of Uruk in this district.” Banītušu, son of ⌈...-Ištar⌉, descendant of Nabû-dān, [...] Nabû-šumu-ukīn, [Nabû-udammiq, and Tabnēa ... the Dūr-Ug]ūmeans [...lo]st their case. [...] Nabû?-dān?, descendant of Bāʾiru, [..., descendant of Esa]gilāya, [...]ibni, [..., descendant of Šig]ûa [...] ... [...]. [..., month of ...], eighteenth day, fifth year of [...], king of Babylon.

Commentary The poor state of preservation of the reverse impedes confident classification of this text, but since the resolution of the dispute is mentioned already in l. 10, it seems unlikely that BM 114591 is a trial transcript. The absence of details essential in a formal document, such as patronyms, family names, and the functions of central characters, speaks in favor of the informal character of BM 114591. The formulary resembles transcripts of proceedings or depositions, which employ the stock phrase mukinnū/mār banê ša ina panišunu. Trial transcripts are occasionally phrased in this way,271 but the use of the heading annûtu (mukinnū, mār banê, etc.) in such documents is extremely rare. This heading, however, characteristic of memoranda, usually brief notes recording depositions, statements, or less frequently more complex legal proceedings.272 Apart from the phrase annûtu mukinnū (mār banê, etc.), these memoranda share other characteristics. They often skip a scribe’s name and the place of a tablet’s issue. Some of them are tagged with taḫsistu lā mašê, “memorandum: not to be forgotten.”273 A large number of such memoranda of legal proceedings come from the earlier Chaldean period (the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II). A thorough study is needed in order to establish the place of these texts in the bureaucratic practice, but presumably some of them were preliminaries to final drafts, while others were likely excerpts from longer formal documents. A few trial transcripts employ the same memorandum formula. One is Hunger, BagM 5 no. 29 ([Uruk, x]Nbp), which begins with the heading annûtu mukinnē ša ina panišunu ... idbudbū izkâ; Hunger, BagM 5 nos 30, 31, and 32 likewise 271

Holtz (2009, esp. 53–55 and 62) calls them ‘“Eanna Style B” decision records’. For this group of documents, see provisionally Holtz 2009: 74–79. 273 Memoranda of legal proceedings with a taḫsistu-note: annûtu mukinnē: BIN 1 142, BM 48758, Nbk. 342, TCL 13 212; annūtu mār banê: GCCI 2 195; annûtu šībūtu: BE 8 29; annû[tu mukinnē/mar banê]: BM 58762. Memoranda of legal proceedings without a taḫsistu-note: annûtu mukinnē: BE 8 42, BM 47377, BM 65513, BM 103660, BM 108912 (Text no. 2), BM 113340, CT 55 124, Hunger, BagM 5 29 and 30, Nbk. 124, 344, and 439, Tempel und Palast 24, VAS 6 55, 82, and 253, YNER 1 5, YOS 17 320, perhaps also Hunger, BagM 5 32 and YOS 19 90; annûtu mār banê: BM 31670, BM 82775, CT 55 113; annûtu dayyānē: BM 103505 (Text no. 32), Nbk. 109. 272

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Memoranda of Legal Proceedings

115

possibly belong here, but their fragmentary condition does not permit a certain classification. Other texts are Nbk. 109 (17NbkII), a record of a trial heard by a group of top officials of southern Babylonia ([annûtu] dayyānē [ša ina panišunu]... [dī]ni ... idbubū),274 and BM 103505 (Text no. 32) edited below. Yet another formulaically close text is BE 8 29 ([Nippur, x]NbkII), which is notably tagged with a taḫsistu-note (a[nnû]tu šībūtu ša Nippur ša ina pānišunu ...[dīn]i ...[idbubū]). The employment of the same stock phrase encourages both the classification of BM 114591 as a memorandum and its early dating. One party to the dispute recorded in BM 114591 was a group of inhabitants of Dūr-Ugūmu, a town located on the Takkīru Canal, south of Uruk.275 Dūr-Ugūmu features in an Eanna’s cadaster of temple land (AnOr 9 19: 1) and in several texts left by the temple’s agricultural section.276 Dates and fruit grown in this area were brought to the Eanna by the general farmers Šumu-ukīn, Ardia, and Gimillu.277 There are minor differences in the spelling of the toponym in the Eanna documents: Text

Spelling m

Walker, AfO 24 no. 17: 1 YOS 21 214: 2

uru.bàd ú-gu-mu

YOS 21 203: 13 BM 114591: 8 YOS 19 90: 19

[u]ru.bàd mú-gu-mu uru.bàd mú-gu-mu-⌈a⌉-a uru.bàd ú-gu-mu

YOS 17 295: 2

uru.bàd ú-gu-um

YOS 6 35: 46 AnOr 9 19: 1 TCL 13 183: 9 BM 114591: 6 BM 114591: 10 BM 114591: 15

[u]ru.m:bàd ú-gu-mu

Issue place

Issue date

Bitqa-šaBēl-ēṭir Bitqa-šaBēl-ēṭir Dūr-Ugūmu [x] Dūr-Ugūmu

Camb NbkIV DarI [Chaldean] Nbn

bàd mú-gu-um bàd ú-gu-um

Bitqa-šaBēl-ēṭir – –

NbkIV Nbn (Nbn?)278

uru.bàd ugu-mu bàd mugu-mu lú.bàd mugu-mu-⌈a⌉-[a] [lú.bád mug]u-mu-a-a

– [x] [x] [x]

DarI [Chaldean] [Chaldean] [Chaldean]

Its name suggests that Dūr-Ugūmu was a tribal settlement: the component dūru was frequently combined with Aramean, Chaldean, and Arabic personal names.279 According to Ran Zadok (1984: 43), the eponymous ancestor Ugūmu was Arabian. 274

See Kleber 2008: 319–20 for a recent edition. YOS 6 35: 46–47, cf. Janković 2013: 328–29. 276 On AnOr 9 19, see Cocquerillat 1968: 20–23, 105–6, Janković 2013: 343–45. 277 Šumu-ukīn: YOS 6 35; Ardia: Walker, AfO 24 no. 17; Gimillu: TCL 13 183, YOS 17 295, YOS 21 214. 278 Janković 2013: 344. 279 Ephʿal 1974: 114, Zadok 2006: 448, idem 2013: 269–71, 303–4. 275

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

116

Chapter IV

The appearance of a community as a party to a trial is unprecedented in the corpus of Neo-Babylonian judicial texts. The Dūr-Ugūmeans were presumably represented by a civic body (e.g., its elders).280 The other litigants were two men. Neither their functions nor family names have been given, hence the difficulty in their identification. Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin, son of Bēlšunu, may be identical with one of the witnesses in whose presence the resident and scribes of the Eanna consulted the temple registers of oblates at the end of Nebuchadnezzar II’s rule (Tempel und Palast 24: 9). In contrast to most of the witnesses identified in that document, Bēlaḫḫē-iddin’s family name is not given; it is likely he did not have one. The identity of his colleague Balāṭu is even more obscure. His namesake is Balāṭu, son of Zabidāya, one of the brothers mentioned in a register from Uruk, AUWE 11 206 iii 4 (possibly a list of archers and/or agricultural workers),281 but the link between them is uncertain. BM 114591 does not permit the role of Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin and Balāṭu to be established, but, since they litigated with the Dūr-Ugūmeans over the land of the Lady of Uruk, they must have represented the Eanna. It is incomprehensible why they, little-known individuals, were sent to Dūr-Ugūmu, and not members of the temple echelon. The procedure described in BM 114591 is out of the ordinary. First, disputes between the Eanna and outsiders were often settled by bodies comprising local authorities (e.g., the governor of Uruk) and judges.282 Second, against contemporary practice, the adjudicators came to the contesting parties and not the other way around. The scribe, who seems to have had difficulties defining the role of the three royal messengers, did not characterize their capacity (e.g., “judges”) but only their city of origin (“Borsippeans”) and the authority whom they represented (“messengers of the king”). Since these three men are described as messengers who “came,” they were in all likelihood from the city of Borsippa rather than from the Borsippean community living in Uruk.283 The absence of patronyms and family names does not allow them to be identified but does suggest that they were easily recognizable men, presumably of high standing. None of them can be positively linked to any known official from Borsippa. Nabûšumu-ukīn is a namesake of the short-term temple administrator of the Ezida (the son of the governor of Borsippa Širikti-Marduk of the Arkāt-ilāni-damqā family), the man who married the daughter of Neriglissar in the first year of this king’s rule and was removed from office just a few months later.284 Nabûudammiq of the same family was the father of a Borsippean judge, Mušēzib-Bēl 280

Cf. Lutz, UCP 9/2 38 = Lutz, UCP 9/2 39 and BE 8 80, wherein groups of elders take oaths on behalf of their villages. 281 Gehlken 1996: 45. 282 Cf. BIN 2 134, TBER 60/61 (= Arnaud, RA 67), YOS 19 91. 283 On the cooperation between Borsippa and Uruk, see Jursa 2010: 87–88; cf. also MacGinnis 2006. 284 Cf. Zadok and Zadok 2005a: 642, 649–50, Waerzeggers 2010a: 72. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Memoranda of Legal Proceedings

117

(Jursa, Paszkowiak, Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 2: 1, 16Nbn). Another Nabûšumu-ukīn was a judge in Borsippa some time later (Böhl 1936 no. 874: 21, 10Nbn). Any link between these men and the messengers from BM 114591 is pure conjecture. The phraseology of BM 114591 is likewise not typical of Neo-Babylonian dispute documents. One uncommon expression is ina muḫḫi ... uzuzzu, “to supervise” according to CAD U: 385 (sub 11). This phrase does not appear in legal documents from Uruk but features in letters from the same city and could therefore have belonged to the Babylonian vernacular of the Uruk area.285 Another rare expression is ina qātē târu. In the sense “to lose a case,” târu alone is found in only few legal documents (see the discussion on pp. 7–9); one of them is YOS 19 90 drafted in the first year of Nabonidus in Dūr-Ugūmu. In none of these texts, however, does târu collocate with ina qātē; consequently, the translation offered above is merely guesswork. The terse syntax of the clause in which it appears obstructs proper understanding of this expression. The clause has an implied subject, but, since it is linked to the preceding one with -ma, both clauses should probably be understood together: Balāṭu (...) u Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin (...) dīnu (...) idbubūma ina qātēšunu itūrū. If this interpretation is correct, the Eanna lost the case against the Dūr-Ugūmeans. Notes 5 For tamirtu as a “rural district based on a common hydrological feature,” see van Driel 1988: 143, followed by Michael Jursa (2010: 3211864, 360– 61) and Bojana Janković 2013: 283. Ran Zadok 2006: 413 argues for “inundated area.” 8–9 The expected syntax is *dīna ša (or: dīn) qaqqari ša Bēlet-Uruk idbubū. 10 The context suggests that i-tur-ru-ni is itūrū (preterite) rather than iturrū (durative). 13 For the name Banītušu, see, for example, AUWE 8 89: 3, CTMMA 3 7: 4’–6’, CDCPP 61: 2. As noted by Spar and von Dassow (2000: 21), it is characteristic of Uruk. 13 Neither Nabû-dān(KAL) nor Nabû-dāmiq/udammiq(SIG15) are attested as family names according to Wunsch 2014. Here and in l. 17, I chose the former reading since in l. 2 Nabû-udammiq’s name is spelled with a phonetic complement (mdnà-sig15-iq). 22–23 Traces hardly allow a space for the name of the scribe and the place of issue. It would not be surprising of a memorandum to omit either of them. 285

See CAD U: 385 and Ebeling 1953: 255 for examples. Note especially ana muḫḫi dulli (...) izziz/ušuzzū/ušuzzāni, “he/they/we has/have been put in charge of the work” (YOS 3 17: 7, YOS 3 133: 25–26, BIN 1 56: 8–9), ina muḫḫi naṣrapāta (...) ušuzzāta, “you have been put in charge of dying vats” (BIN 1 9: 21, cf. CAD N2: 51). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

118

24

Chapter IV

Uruk and Babylon are the locations where a dispute involving two institutions would be expected to have been heard, but the absence of officials and judges and the explicit mention of “coming” of the adjudicators make a provincial location more probable. It could be either Dūr-Ugūmu itself or Bitqa-ša-Bēl-ēṭir, where three documents concerning Dūr-Ugūmu were written and which was probably a local administrative center. The external features of the tablet (its size, format, and ductus) suggest that it was written (or copied) by a scribe of the Eanna. Only the end of the last sign of the king’s name is visible. The titulature is Chaldean, and the traces could belong to [PA]B (Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, or Neriglissar) or [NÍ.TUK]U (Nabonidus). For reasons of space, Neriglissar seems the least likely.

32. BM 103505 1911-4-8, 195 W. 5.6 x L. 4.4 x Th. 2.2 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. l.e. 8. 9. rev. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. u.e. 18. 19.

⌈mx⌉-di-[x a-šú šá mx-gá]l?⌉-š[i?] [m] ⌈x x šá?⌉ [a-šú šá m]⌈x x⌉-nu [m] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ mu ⌈a-šú šá m⌉dutu-⌈x⌉ [m] ⌈x x x a⌉-šú šá mmu-mu an-⌈nu-tu⌉ ⌈lú⌉.[di.k]u5.meš ⌈šá⌉ ina igi-šú-⌈nu⌉ [ina gub]-⌈zu⌉ [šá] mdnà-kib-su-lugal-ùru ⌈lú.qí-i-pi⌉ šá é.babbar.ra ⌈di⌉-i-ni mnumun-ia a-šú šá md nà-gál-ši a mba-si-⌈ia⌉ u m⌈ki⌉-dutu-tin a-šú šá mla-⌈ba⌉-ši [ina] ⌈muḫ-ḫi mšak-na-nu a⌉-šú ⌈šá⌉ m⌈da-rik?!⌉-dingir ⌈id-bu⌉-ba ⌈di⌉-in-šú-nu ⌈ú⌉-mas-sú-ú ½ ⌈ma⌉.na ⌈kù.babbar x⌉ [x] ⌈x x⌉ ème u man-⌈da⌉-at-ti-šú šá ⌈m!šak-na⌉-nu ú-⌈šáḫ⌉-li-qu ina muḫ-ḫ[i] m šak-na-⌈nu ip-ru⌉-u[s-su] ⌈u⌉ lú.umbisag mden-šeš.me-ba-š[á a-šú šá] [mdn]à-kib-⌈su⌉-lugal-ùru ud.un[ug.ki] [iti.bá]r? u4.2+[x].⌈kám mu.20⌉[+14.kám] © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. XXXV

Memoranda of Legal Proceedings

119

l.h.e. 20. ⌈dnà⌉-[níg].⌈du-ùru⌉ 21. [lugal tin.tir].⌈ki⌉ Translation 1–12a [...]di[..., son of ...-uš]abš[i?, ...]ša, [son of ...]nu, [...]-iddin?, son of Šamaš[..., ...], son of Šumu-iddin—these are the [jud]ges before whom, [in the prese]nce [of] Nabû-kibsu-šarri-uṣur, the resident of the Ebabbar, Zēria, son of Nabû-ušabši, descendant of Basia, and Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, son of Lâbâši, argued (their) case [agai]nst Šaknānu, son of Darik?-ili. 12b–16 They (the resident and the judges) investigated their case. They sentenced Šaknānu (to pay) half a mina of silver [...] the she-ass and its rent that Šaknānu had let disappear. 17–21 And the scribe (was) Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīš[a, son of Na]bû-kibsu-šarri-uṣur. Lar[sa, month of nisann]u?, 2+[x]th day, thir[ty-fourth] year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), [king of Babylo]n. Commentary This tablet belongs to the archive of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu of Larsa.286 Judging by the description offered by Paul-Alain Beaulieu (2000b: 66, ad no. 11), BM 103505 is a duplicate of an unpublished document, NCBT 517.287 The issue year in l. 19 above has been reconstructed based on the Yale text. This date is important: BM 103505 recounts one of the earliest hitherto known trials held before NeoBabylonian judges. BM 61432 (Text no. 14), which was written in the presence of six or more judges, was possibly likewise written around this time or shortly later. Despite the missing stock phrase taḫsistu lā mašê, “memorandum: not to be forgotten,” and the inclusion of the name of the scribe, BM 103505 has been classified as a memorandum. The text employs a formulary characteristic of early records of this kind.288 The phraseology of BM 103505, especially the expression dīna mussû, “to investigate a case,” is characteristic of dispute documents composed in the Assyrian and the early Chaldean periods.289 Two-tier genealogy (comprising a private name and a patronym) is common in private documents from Larsa in general, but, according to Paul H. Wright

286

See p. 6 above. “Record of legal decision by judges in civil suit.” 288 See pp. 114–15 above. 289 Cf. TCL 12 4: 5 (eighth year of Esarhaddon), Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 5: 6 (14Ššu), ROMCT 2 38: 4 (5[x]), BE 8 29: 12 ([x]NbkII). Later texts are Scheil, RA 12: 12 (2Ngl) and BM 114577 = Text no. 29: 14 (3Ngl). 287

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

120

Chapter IV

(1994: 176), “texts drafted at Larsa in which an institution was involved characteristically do include ancestor names.” The naming pattern of the judges in BM 103505 is thus striking, even more so because, during the Chaldean period, judges, who were public and hence easily recognizable individuals, were usually identified either by their private names only or by both private and family names.290 The two-tier genealogy to refer to judges became more common only during the reign of Darius I, especially toward its later part, and ubiquitous under the later Achaemenids.291 While the omission of family names may be characteristic of the memorandum style, it is worth noting that such naming pattern is also found in three texts slightly later than BM 103505. The first of these documents is Ngl. 13 (Babylon, 1 Ngl), a marriage contract of the king’s daughter, which features one or two judges who are identified by patronyms alone ([...]ri, son of Nabû-šarra-uṣur and possibly [...], son of Nabû-šumu-līšir).292 The second, the memorandum VAS 4 32 (Borsippa, 1Ngl), mentions a body comprising a ḫazannu of Borsippa and three judges (Nabû-ušallim, son of Šamaš-udammiq, [descendant of] Ṣāḫit-ginê; Rīmūt-⌈Nabû⌉, son of Nabû-bēlšunu; and Bēl-šumu-iškun, son of Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ). Lastly, in Scheil, RA 12 (Uruk, 2Ngl), we find the resident of the Eanna, two judges ([Nabû-balās]su-iqbi, son of Marduk-nāṣir and [Nabû]-eṭirnapšāti, son of Ša-Nabû-šū), a College scribe, and several other Eanna functionaries. The similarity between BM 103505 and these two last texts is especially noteworthy, since all three share yet another feature: they depict local officials acting together with judges. Such a composition of judicial bodies becomes rare in subsequent decades; consequently, the picture that emerges from BM 103505, VAS 4 32, and Scheil, RA 12 may be characteristic of an early Chaldean court system. Oddly, the case was brought to court by two apparently unrelated plaintiffs. One of them was Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, in whose archive BM 103505 survived. The other was Zēria, son of Nabû-ušabši of the Basia family. The nature of the relationship between these two men is not specified in the text, but the fact that the lawsuit concerned a she-ass makes it possible that Zēria and Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu were involved in a common trade venture. Trade was one of the businesses in which Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu engaged eagerly, especially early in his career.293 Zēria is identified by means of the three-tier filiation characteristic of Babylonian urban elites and listed before Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, which suggests that his position

290

See Sandowicz and Tarasewicz 2014: 81 for the former and Wunsch 2000a for the latter practice. 291 E.g., TCL 13 193, Marduk-rēmanni 162, and VAS 6 171 (DarI); BE 9 75, ROMCT 2 35, and Istanbul Murašû 70 (Artx). 292 Cf. collations in Neriglissar 13. 293 Beaulieu 1991: 69–74, idem 2000b: 45–46, Jursa 2005: 109. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Memoranda of Legal Proceedings

121

was higher than that of his co-plaintiff. If both men were indeed business partners, Zēria could have been a prominent investor in a company run by IttiŠamaš-balāṭu. In his career, Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu came across several such personages, including two deputy governors of the Sealand province.294 The relationship between Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu and Zēria was durable: a son of Zēria, Bēlšunu, appeared in the fifteenth year of Nabonidus as a witness in a receipt for barley destined for Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu’s son, Arad-Šamaš (YOS 19 59: 10). Notes The surface of the tablet, especially its obverse and left-hand edge, is flaking and riddled with cracks.295 1 The second sign looks like an aleph. The name ⌈miʾ⌉-di-[dingir] fits the traces, but Idi-ilu (Tallqvist 1902: 75; see also Adiʾ/Iadiʾ-ilu, Tallqvist 1902: 3) is West Semitic, while judges in this period consistently bear Babylonian names. 3 The name of the third judge could also be written syllabically ([...]-mu). 4 The patronym of the fourth judge could be Nādin-šumi. 6 On the resident Nabû-kibsu-šarri-uṣur, see Beaulieu 1991: 75–78, idem 2000b: 57–58; on residents of the Ebabbar of Larsa in general, see Wright 1994: 106–9. 8–12 The syntax of these lines is odd: one expects Zēria (...) u Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu (...) dīni (itti) Šaknānu idbubā. 11 The patronym of Šaknānu is partly damaged. In NCBT 517, it is Darik-ili (Beaulieu 2000b: 66), but, while the traces of ⌈da⌉- are clear in BM 103505, the reading of the following sign (or signs) as -rik- (or -ri-ik-) is problematic. 13 Read perhaps ⌈kù.babbar babbar⌉-[ú] ⌈ki?-ma?⌉, “white silver for.” 15 Šaknānu was likely found guilty of negligence rather than theft, which would have been described as (ina sarti) abāku, šarāqu, or alike. Oppenheim (1936: 40) notes that ḫalāqu in similar contexts refers to a loss incurred through no fault of the renter of a property. Such losses were usually compensated by the guilty party paying the equivalent value of the lost property (ibidem). The price of she-asses in the Neo-Babylonian period did not exceed thirty shekels.296 13–15 This passage should probably be understood as “the she-ass that Šaknānu had let disappear and its rent.” 17 The scribe was likely a son of the resident. 294

Beaulieu 2000b: 55–57. See Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s remarks on the poor quality of tablets from this archive (Beaulieu 1991: 65–66). 296 Weszeli 1996: 470, 477.

295

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

122

Chapter IV

33. BM 114730

Pl. XXXVI

1920-12-13, 22 W. 7.3 x L. 5.7 x Th. 2.6 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. l.e. 12. 13. rev. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

[mdx-k]a-⌈ṣir⌉ a-šú šá mnà-mu a-na (erasure) [mden-še]š.meš-ba-šá ⌈lú⌉.qí-i-pi é.babbar.ra ⌈mkar⌉-[dama]r.utu lú.sanga sip-par.⌈ki⌉ iq-⌈bu⌉-ú um-ma mu.6.k[ám m]⌈dnà-i lugal tin.tir⌉.ki síg.ḫi.a ina mu-ši ina ⌈a?⌉-[mat? mur]u-⌈lu-mur⌉ u msi-⌈lim-den?⌉ ⌈ul⌉-[tu? é? dg]a[šan?.a-ka]d?.ki ul-te-l[i] u md⌈nà⌉-dib-⌈ud⌉.da lú.sanga a-⌈kad⌉.ki ki-i-[am?] aq-ta-bio.e. mden-šeš.meš-ba-šá ⌈lú⌉.qí-i-pi é.babbar. u mmu-še-zib-damar.utu lú.sanga sip-⌈par.ki⌉ a-na m e-tel-pi a-šú šá mdamar.⌈utu⌉-sur m⌈ba-la-ṭu⌉ a-šú šá mdnà-idim-⌈šeš.meš-šú⌉ map-la-a a- m⌈ìr⌉-[dm]e.me md m

a-nu-ni-tu4-lugal-⌈ùru⌉ a-šú šá md⌈nà-mu⌉-ùru ri-mut-ká a-šú šá m[ta-qiš] msum.na-a a- ⌈md⌉[šú?-mu?-p]ab?

⌈iq-bu-ú um⌉-ma mdnà-dib-ud.da lú.sanga a-⌈kad.ki⌉ ⌈il x x x⌉ gab-bi ki-i iš-šá-a a-na é.kur ⌈it-ta⌉-din muru-lu-mur an.bar.si-me-re-e.[meš i]d-du-uʾ a-na m d ìr- ⌈a-nu-ni-tu4 lú⌉.[a.b]a é dgašan ⌈a-kad.ki ip-te⌉-qid

Translation 1–8a [...-k]āṣir, son of Nabû-iddin, said to [Bēl-aḫ]ḫē-iqīša, the resident of the Ebabbar, (and) Mušēzib-[Mar]duk, the high priest of Sippar: “In the sixth year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, (one) night, I took wool from the [temple? of the L]a[dy of Akka]d? on the o[rder? of Āl]u-⌈lūmur⌉ and ⌈Silim-Bēl?⌉. And I told s[o?] Nabû-mušētiq-uddê, the high priest of Akkad.” 8b–18 Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša, the resident of the Ebabbar, and Mušēzib-Marduk, the high priest of Sippar, said to Etel-pî, son of Marduk-ēṭir, Balāṭu, son of Nabûbēl-aḫ[ḫēš]u, Aplāya, son! of Arad-[Gu]la, Anunītu-šarru-uṣur, son of Nabû-šumu-uṣur, Rīmūt-Bau, son of [Taqīš], (and) Iddināya, son! of [Marduk-šumu-u]ṣur?: “After Nabû-mušētiq-uddê, the high priest of Akkad, had taken all ..., he gave (them) to the temple. He put Ālu-lūmur in iron fetter[s] and placed him under the custody of Arad-Anunītu, the [sepī]ru of the temple of the Lady of Akkad.” © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Memoranda of Legal Proceedings

123

Commentary Part of this tablet has been published previously by Eugène and Victor Revillout in PSBA 9: 272–76. The text is undated, but the presence of the resident and the high priest of the Ebabbar allows the period when it was written to be narrowed down to between years eight and fifteen of Nabonidus.297 The document extends the evidence on the cooperation between the Ebabbar temple of Sippar and the Eulmaš of Akkad.298 It begins with a deposition made by a man who at least two years earlier, in the sixth year of Nabonidus, took wool from the temple of the Lady of Akkad, on the orders of two men, and then reported the fact to the high priest of the Eulmaš. BM 114730 then records a statement made by the two highest Ebabbar officials, in which they informed about (or: reminded of) the steps that the high priest of the Eulmaš had taken: he arrested Ālulūmur, one of the men behind the alleged misappropriation of temple goods, and had him chained and entrusted to a functionary of his temple. Whatever consequences befell Ālu-lūmur, they could not have been severe, as he continued working with divine garments. This follows from a text drafted in the twelfth year of Nabonidus:299 BM 63845 (= Bertin 1493) obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. l.e. 8. rev. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

i-na túg.KUR.RA.meš níg.ga d innin a-kad.ki šá ina šuii mki-i-den a-na é.babbar.ra sum.na i-na lìb-bi 10 túg.KUR.RA.meš ina šuii m uru-lu-mur mìr-da-nu-ni-tu4 ma-ḫir ù 21 túg.KUR.RA.meš [ina š]u⌈ii⌉? mmu-še-zib-damar.utu a-šú [šá mx]-ía mdnà-dib-ud.da lú.sanga ma-ḫir pab 31 túg.KUR.RA.meš m d ìr- a-nu-ni-tu4 ù md nà-dib-ud.da lú.sanga a-kad.ki a-na é.gur7 ma-ḫir-uʾ iti.zíz u4.24.kám mu.12.kám md nà-i lugal tin.tir.ki

297

Cf. Bongenaar 1997: 558. See above p. 22. 299 Nbn. 662, written seventeen days earlier, records the issue of the garments that are the subject of BM 63845. 298

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

124

Chapter IV

Among KUR.RA-garments, property of Ištar of Akkad that were given to the Ebabbar by Kī-Bēl: among them, Arad-Anunītu received ten KUR.RA-garments from Ālu-lūmur and Nabû-mušētiq-uddê, the high priest (of Akkad), received twenty-one KUR.RA-garments from MušēzibMarduk, son [of ...]ia. Altogether thirty-one KUR.RA-garments Arad-Anunītu and Nabûmušētiq-uddê, the high priest of Akkad, delivered to the storehouse. Twenty-fourth day of šabaṭu, twelfth year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. This note was written six years after the suspected embezzlement of the Eulmaš wool described in BM 114730 and the arrest of Ālu-lūmur that must have followed shortly. Ālu-lūmur was either cleared of the charge or redeemed his fault and then resumed his duties. BM 63845 depicts him cooperating closely with the officials who had been involved in his arrest, the high priest Nabû-mušētiq-uddê and the sepīru Arad-Anunītu. The six men addressed by the resident and the high priest of Sippar in BM 114730 are not labelled in any way, but they may be easily identified as members of the Eulmaš kiništu. They all appear in CT 57 10, a transcript of interrogation conducted by the joined Ebabbar and Eulmaš temple assemblies concerning the Eulmaš gold. Like BM 114730, CT 57 10 is undated. Both documents must have been drafted around the same time, as they list officials in the same order: BM 114730 Etel-pî/Marduk-ēṭir (l. 10) Balāṭu/Nabû-bēl-⌈aḫḫēšu⌉ (l. 10–11) Aplāya/Arad-Gula (l. 11) Anunītu-šarru-uṣur/Nabû-šumu-uṣ[ur] (l. 12)

Rīmūt-Bau/[Taqīš] (l. 13) Idinnāya/[Marduk-šumu-u]ṣur (l. 13)

CT 57 10 Etel-pî/Marduk-[ēṭir]//Šangû-Akkad, ērib bīti (l. 7) Balāṭu/Nabû-bēl-aḫ[ḫēš]u300//Šangû-Akkad (l. 8) Aplāya/Arad-⌈Gula⌉301//Šangû-Akkad (l. 9) Anunītu-šarru-uṣur/Nabû-šumu-uṣur302//ŠangûAkkad (l. 10) Lâbâši/Rīmūt//Šangû-Akkad (l. 11) (Nergal)-ina-tēšê-ēṭir/Rīmūt-(Gula)//Ša[ngûAkkad] (l. 12) [Rīmūt]-Bau/Taqīš-Gul[a] (l. 13) [Iddināy]a/Marduk-šumu-uṣur (l. 14) [.../Š]ulāya?//Rēʾi-[...] (l. 15)

The typological classification of BM 114730 is uncertain. Its terse and unorderly formulary, the missing place and date of issue, and the name of the scribe suggest that it could be a memorandum of legal proceedings. The procedure behind it could have been prompted by the kiništu of the Eulmaš who directed questions concerning the wool and garments that went missing to the officials of the Ebabbar.

300

Coll. mdnà-idim-š[eš.meš-š]ú*. Coll. mìr-⌈dgu*-la⌉. 302 Coll. mdnà-⌈mu-ùru*⌉.

301

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Memoranda of Legal Proceedings

125

Notes 6 At the end of the line, the brothers Revillout (1887b: 273) read ul-te-el. 7 An alternative reading at the end of the line is ki-i-[ni], “(I told) the tru[th].” Kīnu is an adjective, but note its substantive use in kīna dabābu (CAD K: 390, sub 1b). 7, 14 The high priest of Akkad, Nabû-mušetiq-uddê, is otherwise attested in BM 63845 (Bertin 1493): 8, 11. Michael Jursa (1996: 204) suggests that he could have been a member of the Šangû-Akkad family. 12 Anunītu-šarru-uṣur was to become the aḫu rabû of the Eulmaš within a few years;303 he is earliest attested with this title in the seventh year of Cyrus (Jursa, WZKM 86: 10). His low position on the list here suggests that he had not yet been promoted to this post. 13 Rīmūt-Bau (l. 13) is possibly identical with the man who took the sepīru Arad-Anunītu to court in the seventh year of Cyrus (BM 73118 + BM 84019 [Text no. 23]). 18 For lú.a.ba = sepīru, see Pearce 1999. On Arad-Anunītu, see the commentary on BM 73118 + BM 84019 (Text no. 23).

34. BM 64105

Pl. XXXVII

AH 1882-9-18, 4074 Bertin 3091 W. 5.1 x L. 3.1 x Th. 1.8 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. rev. 7. 8.

m

nu-úr-ri-ia a mi ⌈x x⌉ ma? gab-ri-ia a mdingir-še-zib m d ⌈ ⌉ 30-šeš-mu ⌈a⌉ m⌈il-te⌉-ri-⌈da⌉-la-aʾ m sum.na-⌈a a⌉ mdnà-šeš.meš-gi md za-ri-⌈qu⌉-numun-dù a mdingiro.e. x ia ⌈ia⌉ lú.ab.ba.meš a-šib ká.meš-šú m

ina ukkin niš dutu iz-kur-ru-ma an-ni-ti ú-kinin

Translation 1–5 Nūria, son of I[...]ma?, Gabria, son of Ilu-šēzib, Sîn-aḫu-iddin, son of Ilteri-dalāʾ, 303

Cf. Jursa 1996: 204. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

126

Chapter IV

Iddināya, son of Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim, Zāriqu-zēru-ibni, son of Il...iaia? 6 —these are the elders sitting in his gates. 7–8 In the assembly, they pronounced an oath by Šamaš, and he testified as follows: (unfinished) Commentary The museum context and the oath addressee (Šamaš) suggest Sippar as this tablet’s place of origin. The note is unfinished, and several scribal mistakes corroborate its provisional character. The expected (plural) form in l. 6 is āšibūt or āšibū, not āšib.304 The verbal forms on the reverse are inconsistent: the first is plural, while the second is singular. The scribe may have intended to continue with úkinin-nu, “they testified,” but it is more likely that he noticed his mistakes and gave up writing, aware that he would have to rewrite the tablet regardless. The note lists five people labelled šībūtu, “elders.” They are identified with private names and appellations that, even though they are introduced with aplu rather than the expected apilšu ša, I interpret as patronyms in view of the fact that they are unattested as Neo-Babylonian family names. Some of the names and patronyms are West Semitic (Gabria, Ilteri-dalāʾ, and possibly also Nūria). The character (or the role) of this group is puzzling. The beginning of the oath formula on the tablet’s reverse makes it unlikely that the note should be interpreted as a list of elderly men living at the entrance to some man’s house. Lists of residents, known chiefly from the Egibi archive, are formulated in another way: they usually give the names, numbers, and ages of occupants of particular houses and locations.305 The šībūtu in this text are rather a civic body. Its composition is, however, clearly different from the known šībūt āli of Sippar, an organ that comprised functionaries and entrepreneurs closely linked with the temple.306 The šībūtu of BM 64105 could have been elders of a local minority group, like the assembly of Egyptian elders, mentioned in Camb. 85,307 or an ad hoc summoned body, similar to the three “city elders, the Babylonians” in BM 40788 + BM 40823 (Text no. 4). Since a sworn utterance was supposed to have been recorded on the tablet’s reverse, a possible reason for their gathering was witnessing (or perhaps even officiating at) an oath ceremony.

304

CAD A2: 429. Cf. Wunsch 2000c: 113. 306 E.g., Cyr. 281, Cyr. 332, Camb. 412. 307 L. 3: ukkin lú.ši-bu!-tu šá lú.mi-ṣir-a-a. For Neo-Babylonian elders in general, see Dandamaev 1982 and Wells 2010. 305

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Memoranda of Legal Proceedings

127

The group is said to sit in “his gates” (l. 6). Gates were common meeting places where assemblies and courts gathered,308 but the apposition -šú, “his,” in this context is unclear to me. Although unusual, the expression āšib bābi finds a parallel in BM 26651 (Text no. 44), wherein dīnu ša bīti āšib bābi, “sentence of the house sitting at the gate,” is mentioned. Notes On the obverse, there is a clear impression of a cloth. The strokes on the reverse may be remnants of the erasure, and the dot on the upper edge may have been made intentionally (a marking?). 1 For a name spelled in the same way, see CT 57 743: 5; cf. Zadok 1977b: 143. 2 For the name Gabria, see Zadok 1977b: 113. 3 For the name Ilteri-dalāʾ, see Zadok 1977b: 42 and 85.

308

See n. 251 for references. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

V. Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings 35. BM 77907

Pls. XXXVIII–XXXIX

1885-4-30, 100 Bertin 1017 W. 3.5 x L. 5.7 x Th. 1.9 format: portrait obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l.e. 16. 17. rev. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

⌈m⌉du. gur-⌈sum⌉.na ⌈di⌉-i-⌈ni⌉ m d ⌈ nà⌉-pab u mšu-ma-[a] ig-re-e-ma um-ma giš.má-a a-na da-na-na ina pa-ni mú-bar ki-i ta-bu-ku ina ukkin lú.tin.tir.ki.meš ma-du-ti di-ni i-dab-bu-ub-ma di-in-šú-nu ú-mas-su-ú ½ ma.na 5 gín kù.babbar ina muḫ-ḫi md nà-pab u mšu-ma-a ip-ru-su mdnà-pab u mšu-ma-a ḫu-ud lìb-bi-šú-nu i-ḫi-ṭu-ma ½ ma.na 5 gín kù.babbar ana mdu.gur-sum.na id-din-nu ⌈ù m⌉du.gur-mu [ina] ⌈ḫu⌉-ud lìb-bi-[šú] [im].⌈dub⌉ la ta-⌈ri⌉ [u la] da-ba-ba ik-nu-⌈uk⌉-ma a-⌈na⌉ u4-mu ṣa-a-ta a-na mdnà-pab u mmu-a id-din ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– i-na ka-nak na4.kišib mu.meš ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– igi mden-ba-šá a mšul-lum-ma-nu m ra-šil a me-gi-bi m mu-sum.na a mé.máš.da.ri-dù md en-sum.na ⌈dumu⌉ mmi-ṣir-a-a md amar.utu-lugal-ùru lú.qal-la šá lú.gal sag md nà-sum.na a mkaskal.kur-ú lú.umbisag šá-ṭir na4.kišib © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

31. 32. u.e. 33. 34. l.h.e. 35. 36.

129

md

nà-numun-sum.na a lú.⌈simug⌉ tin.tir.ki iti.bár u[4.x.kám] mu.1.kám dgiš.nu11-⌈mu⌉-[gi.na] [lug]al tin.tir.ki igi mdamar.utu-kar-ir dumu md en-e-ṭè-ri

Translation 1–11a Nergal-iddin brought a claim against Nabû-nāṣir and Šumāya: “(I accuse you) that you took my boat by force in Ubār’s presence.” They! argued! the case before an assembly of many Babylonians. They (the assembly) investigated their case (and) sentenced Nabû-nāṣir and Šumāya (to pay) thirtyfive shekels of silver. 11b–21 Nabû-nāṣir and Šumāya, the joy of their hearts, weighed out thirtyfive shekels of silver and gave (them) to Nergal-iddin, and Nergal-iddin, [in] the joy of [his] heart, sealed a no-return [and no]-contest tablet and gave it to Nabû-nāṣir and Šumāya in perpetuity. 22 (These men were present) at the sealing of this tablet: 23–29 Before: Bēl-iqīša, descendant of Šullumānu, Rāši-il, descendant of Egibi, Šumu-iddin, descendant of Emašdari-ibni, Bēl-iddin, descendant of Miṣirāya, Marduk-šarru-uṣur, slave of the chief courtier, Nabû-iddin, descendant of Balīḫû. 30–31 The scribe who wrote (this) tablet: Nabû-zēru-iddin, descendant of Nappāḫu. 32–34 Babylon, month of nisannu, [xth] day, first year of Šamaš-šumu-[ukīn, ki]ng of Babylon. 35–36 Before: Marduk-ēṭir, descendant of Bēl-eṭēri. Commentary This document is referred to in Brinkman and Kennedy 1983: 25 (K.1), Frame 1992: 231116, and Nielsen 2011: 63194. Its formulary is typical of a group of early Neo-Babylonian deeds that I consider records of post-trial proceedings. Most of these documents, including BM 77907, record the transfer of silver awarded by the court to defendants and the issue of no-contest tablets.309 Despite the geo-

309

Apart from BM 77907, ten texts belong here: BaAr 5 20, BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text no. 36), BM 33905 (Text no. 37), BM 77945 (Text no. 38), BM 49511 (Text no. 39), Hunger, BagM 5 no. 15, ROMCT 2 38, Strassmaier, 8. Congress no. 4, UET 4 200 and © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

130

Chapter V

graphical distance between their places of origin, the formulary and the phraseology employed by these tablets are consistent: they begin with terse descriptions of trials; they employ the characteristic terms dīna gerû and mussû; to describe payments in silver, they use the expression ḫâṭu nadānu, “to weigh out (and) to pay”; as many legal documents of this period do, they often omit the patronyms and family names of litigants.310 At first glance, these documents may appear to be trial transcripts, but in fact the brief descriptions of trials in their opening are only recapitulation clauses. This is made clear by the formulae introducing witnesses: with the exception of UET 4 200 and 201 (whose formularies are exceptional in many respects), no authorities are named in these witness lists. The fact that these witnesses cannot have been members of adjudicating bodies is made particularly clearly by BM 77907, which features among the listed witnesses a slave, a member of a group banned from judicial functions and participation in civic assemblies. Some of these documents (BaAr 5 20, Hunger, BagM 5 no. 15, and BM 49511 [Text no. 39]) use the common term mukinnū, “witnesses,” rather than more solemn introductory clauses. 311 It is further noteworthy that one of the documents belonging to this group, BM 33905 (Text no. 37), is described in the body of the text as uʾiltu (l. 11 ina kanāk uʾiltu šuāti) rather than tuppu or kangu, which usually denote judicial documents. As other documents of this group, BM 77907 is thus an elaborate receipt. It resembles other texts with regard to its formulary and wording, although its portrait-shaped format is rare.312 The object of the dispute recapitulated in the first part of the document was a boat that had been seized by the defendant. Following the court’s decision, the defendant had to pay to the plaintiff thirty-five shekels of silver. It is difficult to ascertain if this sum corresponded to the value of the vessel, as boats’ prices varied significantly.313 The defendants paid the silver ina ḫūd libbišunu (lit. “in the joy of their heart”). In return, the plaintiff gave them a nocontest tablet, again, ina ḫūd libbi.

201. Cf. also the formulaically close Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 5 (a transcript of a mid-trial settlement), Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 = deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2 = Documents cunéiformes 355 = BM 29029 (a transcript of mid-trial arrangements), and TCL 12 4 (a note on a trial and a quitclaim). 310 Cf. Leichty, Festschrift Reiner, Leichty, AnSt 33, ROMCT 2 38, Strassmaier, 8. Congress no. 4 (plaintiffs only), Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 5, TCL 12 4, UET 4 200 and 201. Cf. Ezida 220. 311 On the Neo-Babylonian formulae introducing witnesses, see von Dassow 1999. 312 Two other portrait-shaped tablets from this group are BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text no. 36) and possibly Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 5 = BM 92999 (non vidi, of portrait format according to http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1337173&partId=1&searchText=92999&page=1 (accessed 1.6.2017). 313 Prices between six and 450 shekels are attested in the period under study (Weszeli 2009b: 167). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

131

The phrase “in the joy of (one’s) heart” belongs to the standard Neo-Babylonian legal lexicon. It is found chiefly in contracts314 but also in several dispute documents, in which it appears in clauses describing plaintiffs sealing no-contest tablets and then delivering them to defendants upon the receipt of goods awarded by court,315 as well as in transcripts of negotiations describing the actions of (usually) both parties.316 The phrase is commonly interpreted as a clause of volition,317 but this interpretation is hard to sustain in BM 77907. Here, both the payment of silver by the defendant and the issuing of the no-contest tablet by the plaintiff are described as done ina ḫūd libbi. The payment by the defendant was, however, a consequence of the assembly’s decision and hence may hardly have been voluntary, as court decisions were binding and enforceable.318 There is one more dispute document in which ina ḫūd libbi appears in the same context—and poses the same problem: BM 77945 (Text no. 38) PN 9’[ina ḫu-u]d ⌈lìb⌉-bi-šú ⅓ gín kù.babbar i-ḫi-iṭ-ma 10’[a-na P]N2 u PN3 ⌈id⌉-din u PN2 11’[u PN3 in]a ḫu-ud lìb-bi-šú-nu na4.kišib la ta-ri 12’[la daba-bi ik-n]u-uk--ma a-na u4-mu ṣa-a-ta 13’[a-na PN id-di-n]u PN (defendant), [in the jo]y of his heart, weighted out ⅓ mina of silver and gave (it) [to P]N2 and PN3 (plaintiffs), and PN2 [and PN3, i]n the joy of their hearts, [seal]ed a no-return and [no-contest] tablet and ga[ve it to PN] in perpetuity. As in BM 77907, here the post-verdict actions of both parties, including the defendant’s payment of silver, are also described as acts done ina ḫūd libbi. The function of the legal metaphor “in the joy of heart” could thus not have been restricted to volition. This phase must have served to describe, in a broader manner,

314

According to Muffs (2003: 128), in “deeds recording the sale of mobilia and in most dialogue documents,” but see also (objectively formulated) contracts for exchange (TMH 2/3 23) and dowry conversion (CTMMA 3 133). In the Seleucid and Arsacid periods, this phrase became ubiquitous (Muffs 1975: 6). 315 E.g., BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text no. 36): 17, BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 8’, UET 4 200: 10, UET 4 201: 10. 316 E.g., BE 8 2: 15, Ezida 135: 12, Leichty, Festschrift Reiner: 7, 10, OECT 10 396: 7, 9, TCL 12 32: 23. 317 Cf. CAD Ḫ: 224 (“of (one’s) free will”), Oelsner, Wells, and Wunsch 2003: 945 (“of his own free will”), AHw: 353 (“aus freier Entscheidung”), Krückmann 1931: 28+4 (“aus eigenem freiem Entschluß”), Muffs 1975: 5–6 (“free and uncoerced willingness”). See San Nicolò 1931: 181–82, Muffs 2003: 128–29, Levine apud Muffs 2003: xxii–xxiii. 318 See Dombradi (1996/I §§ 485–91, eadem 2007: 269–70), Westbrook (2003: 372), and Démare-Lafont 2005: 70, who refuted the assumption articulated by Lautner (1922: 35– 67) that the character of Old Babylonian court decisions was non-binding. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

132

Chapter V

a party’s satisfaction (with an offer, terms of an agreement, or a court’s decision) or even, as Mariano San Nicolò (1931: 182) has put it, it introduced “die Willenserklärung oder die Parteitätigkeit.” This wider semantic field of ina ḫūd libbi is also discernible in the transcript of negotiations BM 38248 (Text no. 1), wherein a plaintiff accepts “in the joy of his heart” a sum smaller than the one he had previously requested. The body that heard the case is notably called puḫur Bābilāya mādūti, “the assembly of numerous Babylonians” (l. 6).319 This designation suggests the possibility that the composition of local assemblies could be more varied than would appear to have been the case from the hitherto available material. One expects “the assembly of numerous Babylonians” to be a more prominent gathering than the common “assembly of Babylonians.” Not much more can be said about its composition, but it is worth noting that the case described in BM 77907 is one of the few that were heard by an assembly acting without a governor.320 Perhaps the absence of a governor was balanced by the greater grandeur of a puḫru (e.g., one comprising more members or more senior members of the local community)? Notes The tablet’s ductus is specific (note especially the signs DI [ll. 1, 7, 8], KI [ll. 5, 6, 32], and NAK [l. 22]), but it has parallels with some early texts.321 4 One expects ina danāni, but cf. ana danāni ašlula (CAD D: 82) and ana danāni ina qātēya ittašû (AUWE 5 136: 6’–rev. 1). 7 The form idabbub is corrupt: the preterite (not durative) and plural (not singular) are expected here. 25 I read the family name as Emašdari-ibni, with Thissen 2017: 133, against Nielsen 2015a: 96 (Bīt-irbi-ibnû “The ‘bīt-irbi’ storehouse which he built”). Emašdari-ibni may be a hyporisticon of a longer name (e.g., InaEmašdari-šumu-ibni) or a construction in which a theophoric element is substituted by a temple name.322 Emašdari (é.máš/maš.da.ri) was the name of a temple of the Lady of Akkad in Babylon and a chapel in the Esagila of Babylon.323 319

On the Neo-Babylonian puḫru, see Barjamovic 2004, Pirngruber 2015: 210, Jursa 2017: 47+14. Earlier surveys by Muhammad Dandamaev (1982, 1988, 1997) should be treated with caution, as part of his findings have been challenged by later studies. 320 The other cases are BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text no. 36), wherein the governor himself appears as defendant, ROMCT 2 38, Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 = deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2 = Documents cunéiformes 355 = BM 29029, and Strassmaier, 8. Congress no. 4. 321 E.g., those written by the Sippar scribe Erība-Marduk, son of Marduk-zēru-ibni of the Šangû-Ištar-Bābili family (cf. glyphs from CT 22 35, CT 22 36, and BM 114803 at https://labasi.acdh.oeaw.ac.at, accessed 1.6.2017). 322 Cf. Stamm 1939: 84–85. 323 George 1993: 122. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

133

The fifth witness was a slave of a chief courtier (rab ša rēši). Slaves seldom appeared in the role of witnesses.324 Most of those who did were—as is the case here—the slaves of men of high standing: the king-to-be Neriglissar (Nbk. 31: 10–12); Tattannu, the governor of Across-the-River (VAS 4 152: 24–25); Lâbâši, a rab umma (Kish 3, pl. 16 [W 1929.142]: 9–10);325 Nabûbalāṭu-ēreš, possibly the high priest of Sippar (Nbk. 438: 13–14);326 and Nabû-šarru-uṣur, a royal courtier (GCCI 2 84: 14). 35–36 Marduk-ēṭir was an additional witness.

27

36. BM 47480 + BM 47783

Pls. XL–XLI

D 1881-11-3, 185 + D 1881-11-3, 488 W. 5.3 x L. 9.6 x Th. 2.8 format: portrait obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

[mka-ṣir-ru a-šú šá mx x x di-i-ni] [mden-ib-ni dumu lú.nagar lú.gar umuš] [dil-bat.ki ig-re-e] ⌈um-ma⌉ [o] [x x x] ina ⌈ugu m⌉den-ib-ni ina ⌈ugu⌉ [x x x] ⌈giš.šub⌉.ba šá pa-paḫ duraš ⌈ù d⌉nin é.gal u giš.šub.bao.e. [pa-pa]ḫ ⌈ddumu⌉.sal é ⌈da-nù⌉ ⌈ki⌉-i 4 ma.na kù.babbar ki-i na4.⌈kišib⌉ a-pil-tú ⌈it-tan⌉-nu 7 ma.na ⌈kù⌉.babbar a-re-e-ḫi ina ukkin lú.tin.tir.ki.meš lú.bar-sip.ki.meš u mmu-⌈mu⌉ lú.gal uru.meš ⌈šá gal lú x x⌉ ⌈id⌉-bu-bu-ú-⌈ma di⌉-in-š[ú-nu ú-mas-su] 1½ ma.na kù.babbar ⌈ip-ru⌉-su ⌈mden⌉-[ib-ni] ⌈dumu lú.nagar⌉ lú.⌈gar⌉ umuš dil-bat.ki 1½ ma.n[a kù.babbar] [i-ḫi-iṭ-ma a-n]a mka-ṣir-ru i[d-din] [mka-ṣir-ru ina] ⌈ḫu⌉-ud ⌈lìb⌉-bi-šú ⌈ú⌉-[ìl-t]i [šá 7 ma.na kù.babbar šá ina u]gu mden-ib-[ni] [iḫ?-pi?-ma na4.kišib la ta-r]i u la da-ba-ba [a-na ugu giš.šub.b]a šá pa-paḫ duraš [u dnin é.gal u gi]š.šub.ba ddumu.sal é [u mim-ma šá u]ru uo.e. edin

324

Dandamaev 1984: 398–400, Jursa 2005: 11–12. For the identification of Lâbâši, see Jursa 2005: 106. 326 For the possible identification of Nabû-balāṭu-ēreš, see Bongenaar 1997: 47. 325

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

134

23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Chapter V

[x x x x ma-la] ba-šú-ú! [ik-nu-uk-ma a-na] ⌈u4⌉-mu ṣa-a-ta [a-na mden-ib-ni i]d-din [šá dib-bi an-nu]-⌈ú⌉ in-nu-ú [dx u dx] ⌈záḫ⌉-šú liq!(t:ṭu)-bu-ú ––––––––––––––––––––––––––

rev. –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 28. [ina ka-nak kan-g]i šu-a-ti –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 29. [x x x m]⌈diškur⌉-mu-uru4-eš 30. [x x x x]⌈a⌉ lú.sanga-dil-bat.ki 31. [x x x x m]⌈di⌉-pa-ru 32. [x x x x x] ⌈a⌉-šú ⌈šá⌉ mdutu-su 33. [x x x x x] ⌈m⌉zálag-d30 34. [x x x x x] mib-na-a 35. [x x x x x] ⌈a m⌉ur-d!⌈nanna⌉ 36. [x x x x x] ⌈a⌉ mdù-eš-dingir 37. [x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ a lú.qí-i-ni 38. [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x] a-šú ⌈šá m⌉dutu-su 39. ⌈ù lú⌉.dub.⌈sar šá-ṭir⌉ kan-gi 40. mdnà-šeš.meš-bul-liṭ a ⌈mki-din-d30⌉ 41. dil-bat.ki iti.šu u4.23+[x.kám] 42. mu.2.kám ⌈d⌉giš.nu11-m[u-gi.na] 43. lugal tin.⌈tir⌉.ki –––––––––––––––––––––––––– Translation 1–14a [Kāṣiru, son of ..., brought a claim against Bēl-ibni, descendant of Naggāru, the governor of Dilbat]: “Bēl-ibni owed [...] for [...]. In accordance with the “tablet of satisfaction,” he has given a prebend in the cella of Uraš and Bēletekalli and a prebend [in the cell]a of Mārat-bīt-Anu for four minas of silver. (But) I was owed seven minas of silver!” They argued in the assembly of Babylonians, Borsippeans, and Šumu-iddin, rab ālāni of .... They (the adjudicators) [examined the]ir case (and) awarded one and a half mina of silver. 14b–25 Bē[l-ibni], descendant of Naggāru, the governor of Dilbat, [weighed out and] g[ave t]o Kāṣiru one and a half mina [of silver. Kāṣiru, in the] joy of his heart, [invalidated? the pro]missory n[ote for seven minas of silver due fr]om Bēl-ib[ni and sealed a no-retu]rn and no-contest [tablet regarding the prebe]nd in the cella of Uraš [and Bēlet-ekalli and the pr]ebend of Māratbīti, [as well as every]thing [in the ci]ty and in the steppe [...], and he ga[ve (it) to Bēl-ibni in] perpetuity. 26–27 Whoever changes th[ese arrangements], may [DN and DN2] pronounce his destruction. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings 28 29–38

39–40

41–43

135

[(These men were present) at the sealing of] this [tabl]et: [...] Adad-šumu-ēreš, [...], descendant of Šangû-Dilbat, [...] Dipāru, [...], son of Šamaš-erība, [...] Nūr-Sîn, [...] Ibnāya, [...], descendant of Ur-Nanna, [...], descendant of Eppēš-ilī, [...], descendant of Qīni, [...], son of Šamaš-erība, and the scribe who wrote (this) document: Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ, descendant of Kidin-Sîn. Dilbat, month of duʾūzu, twenty-third+[x] day, second year of Šamaššu[mu-ukīn], king of Babylon.

Commentary This tablet is mentioned in Brinkman and Kennedy 1983: 26 (K.9), Frame 1992: 231117, 28287, Nielsen 2011, passim, idem 2015a, passim, idem 2015b: 9623. For the interpretation of texts of this type as post-trial records rather than trial transcripts, see the commentary on BM 77907 (Text no. 35) on pp. 129–30 above. The litigants in the lawsuit that BM 47480 + BM 47783 recapitulates were Kāṣiru (the plaintiff) and Bēl-ibni (the defendant). If my interpretation of the damaged lines is correct, the defendant was the governor of Dilbat. This interpretation accounts for two peculiarities of the document. First, the governor is not listed among the adjudicators in ll. 10–12. Second, in ll. 14–16, the governor pays silver to the plaintiff. This is striking, since in early Neo-Babylonian formulary it is always the losing parties, never the adjudicators, who transfer the silver awarded by the court. The picture that emerges may appear confusing—a case involving a šākin ṭēmi, the top local official who usually chairs assembly meetings in trials, is judged by a puḫru—but it is worth recalling that fourteen years later, in the same city, an assembly settled a dispute to which a šatammu, the highest functionary of the local temple Eimbianu, was a party (Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 = deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2 = Documents cunéiformes 355 = BM 29029).327 The identity of Kāṣiru, the man who took the governor to court, remains unknown. The object of litigation was a major debt that the debtor covered in part by transferring the ownership of his prebends to his creditor. Typically of such a sit-

327

For the identity of the plaintiff Bēl-ēṭir as the temple administrator, see Nielsen 2011: 106–8. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

136

Chapter V

uation, the transfer was recorded in a tuppi (here: kunukki) apilti, “tablet of satisfaction (of a creditor).”328 Nonetheless, Bēl-ibni was brought to court, as the transfer covered only part of the liability: the value of the prebends corresponded to four minas of silver, while the debt amounted to seven minas. The plaintiff Kāṣiru wished to recover the outstanding three minas, but, surprisingly, the court decided that he would only receive half of the sum that he had requested. The details of the lawsuit—and the reasons why Kāṣiru was awarded so little and why he accepted this decision—are unknown. The adjudicating body who heard the case comprised an assembly of Bābilāya (u) Barsipāya, members of communities of immigrants from two major north Babylonian cities.329 Dilbateans are strikingly missing. Perhaps, as John P. Nielsen (2011: 110) has suggested, the composition of the assembly should be linked to the fact that the litigants came from these two cities. Perhaps they belonged to the Babylonian and Borsippean families who had settled in Dilbat. This possibility would be particularly interesting with regard to the background of the šākin ṭēmi. City governors were seldom outsiders; they usually came from local prebendary families.330 The presence of a rab ālāni alongside the assembly is striking. In Assyria, rab ālānis were overseers of groups of villages and estates belonging to the royal family and high officials.331 In Neo-Babylonian sources, these officials have been hitherto attested only in Sippar and its surroundings and Kish, under Kandalānu and Sîn-šar-iškun.332 Some of them are more closely identified as subordinates of a šākin māti (rab ālāni ša šakin māti) and one as an official of an enigmatic kiṣru eššu. It is conceivable that the rab ālāni Šumu-iddin joined in because the place conventionally filled by a top member of the administration (a šākin ṭēmi) remained empty (since the šākin ṭēmi was himself a party to the dispute). The unconventional order of listing (the rab ālāni follows the assembly) hints at the unusually low position of the functionary sitting with the puḫru; in similar contexts (with the sole exception of BaAr 5 20: 11), officials precede collective bodies. Notes 5–6 The papāḫu of Uraš and his consort Bēlet-ekalli (“the Lady of the Temple”) must have been the central cella of the Eimbianu, the temple of Uraš in Dilbat.333 Numerous texts confirm that Uraš and Bēlet-ekalli were worshipped there together (cf. VAS 5 21: 9. 17, 74: 2–3, 83: 2–3). Another center of Bēlet-ekalli’s cult in Dilbat was the Esapar.334 328

Wunsch 2003a: 166–71, Westbrook 2006: 138–42. Jursa 2010: 136–37, Waerzeggers 2014: 45–49. 330 Jursa 2015b: 603–4. 331 CAD A1: 390. 332 For rab ālāni in Sippar, see Da Riva 2002: 389–94, in Kish, see CTMMA 4 136: 11. 333 Cf. Unger 1935: 222–23. 334 George 1993: 19, l. 483. 329

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

137

7, 21 The name Mārat-bīti (“the Daughter of the House”) was borne by several goddesses.335 In l. 7, the goddess is called more specifically Mārat-bīt-Anu (“Daughter of the House of Anu”); this name possibly alludes to the name of the Eimbianu (“The House Called [into Being] by Anu”). If this is the case, both prebends were based at the same temple. 11 Grant Frame (1992: 282) and John P. Nielsen (2015a: 404) read the name of the rab ālāni as Zēru-iddin, but there is a clear fifth wedge over the horizontal one in the first sign of the name (part of MU, missing in NUMUN). 12 Speculatively, the title could be rab ālāni šá!(t:diš) ⌈lú⌉:gal.⌈sag.meš⌉ (rab ālāni ša rab ša rēši), “rab ālāni of the chief eunuch.” John P. Nielsen (2011: 110) sees here two titles belonging to the same man: rab ālāni rab bani, presumably reading ⌈lú⌉:gal.⌈dù⌉. This interpretation poses two difficulties. First, such two-tier titles are rare. Second, holders of offices associated with the royal administration (such as rab ālāni) usually belonged to a different milieu than that of prebendaries (such as rab banê); a combination of these two functions in the hands of one man would be unusual. 14 According to John P. Nielsen (2015a: 123), the name of the governor begins before the lacuna at the end of l. 14’ (l. 12’ according to Nielsen) and should be read msu-[...]. 23 Restore perhaps: [ur-bu u te-lit ma-la] ba-šú-ú!, “al[l the income and revenue]” (cf. VAS 1 35: 4), [mim-ma šu-rub-ti ma-la] ba-šú-ú!, “al[l the income]” (see CAD Š3: 371 for references), or [šá ik-kaš-ši-du ma-la] ba-šúú!, “[every]thing [that runs (with it)]” (cf. TMH 2/3 211: 26). For suburban beneficia attached to the Eimbianu prebends, see VAS 5 21: 8–10: giš.šub.ba lú.man-di-di-ú-tu ina é-im-bí-da-nim pa-pa-ḫu duraš u dnin-é.gal ù ina edin, “the measurer’s prebend in Eimbianu, (in) the cella of Uraš and Bēlet-ekalli and in the steppe.” Note also the difficult kiṣru ša ṣēri in several documents regarding Eimbianu prebends (VAS 5 74: 5 = 75: 4, 76: 4, 161: 5). 27 Uraš and Mārat-bīti or Bēlet-ekalli are expected to appear in the curse formula (cf. OECT 10 392: 25), but there is insufficient space to restore their names. Nabû and Marduk are an alternative (cf. OECT 10 396: 12– 13). 31 On the Dipāru family, see Nielsen 2015b: 96. 37 The determinative LÚ indicates that the name is not a derivative of kīnu. Perhaps it is to be linked to qinnu, “kinsman” (CAD s.v. qinnu A)?

335

Lambert 1987–1990. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

138

Chapter V

37. BM 33905

Pl. XLII

Sp. 1 W. 6.1 x L. 4.1 x Th. 2.0 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

m

ḫu-za-lu a-n[a mmun-na-bit-ti] ki-a-am i[q-bi um-ma še.numun šá i]na muḫ-ḫ[i] ⌈íd⌉.pi-⌈x⌉-[x (x) šá a-na] ⌈m⌉e!-ṭè-r[u] ù m⌈numun⌉-[tin?.ti]r?.[ki?] ⌈ta-ad⌉-di-nu a-ḫi ḫa.la-⌈a i⌉-na lìb-bi [ina] pa-an ma-šá-re-du lú.gar umuš gú.du8.a.ki ⌈ù⌉ lú.gú.du8.a.ki.meš di-nam id-bu-bu-ma a-ḫa-a-ti ip-ru-su a-ḫi giš.kiri6 ù a.šà tap-tu-ú pa-an mḫu-za-lu ú-šad-gil u a-ḫi pa-an mmun-na-bit-ti –––––––––––––––––––––––––––

rev. 11. ina ka-nak ú-ìl-tì šu-a-ti ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 12. ina gub šá mdnà-šeš.meš-šul-lim dumu md⌈é⌉.a-pat-⌈tan⌉-ni 13. mdu.gur-ùru-ir dumu m⌈sag⌉-gil-a-a 14. mnumun-ia [dum]u mnu-ú-(erasure)-bu 15. mden-⌈ú-šal-lim dumu⌉ m.sanga-dutu 16. mden-⌈dù-ibila dumu⌉ mdù-eš-dingir –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 17. ù lú.umbisag m⌈la-qí-pi⌉ gú.du8.a.ki 18. iti.⌈bár⌉ u4.28.kám mu.12.⌈kám⌉ 19. dgiš.nu11-mu-gi.na lugal tin.tir.k[i] Translation 1–7 Ḫuzālu sa[id] t[o Munnabitu] as follows: [“The land] on the Pi[...] Canal [that] you gave [to] Eṭēr[u] and Zē[r-B]ā[bili?] —half of my share is there.” They argued the case before Ašarēdu, the governor of Cutha, and the Cutheans, and they (Ašarēdu and the Cutheans) awarded (to them) halfand-half. 8–10 He (Munnabitu) transferred half of the grove and a (freshly) broken plot of land to Ḫuzālu, while half (belongs) to Munnabitu. 11 (The following men were present) at the sealing of this tablet. 12–16 In the presence of: Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim, descendant of Ea-pattannī, Nergal-nāṣir, descendant of Saggilāya, © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

17 18–19

139

Zēria, [descend]ant of Nūbu, Bēl-ušallim, descendant of Šangû-Šamaš, Bēl-⌈bāni-apli⌉, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, and the scribe: Lā-qīpi. Cutha, month of nisannu, twenty-eighth day, twelfth year of Šamaš-šumuukīn, king of Babylon.

Commentary BM 33905 belongs to a group of early post-trial deeds, on which see more above (pp. 129–30). In contrast to other post-trial texts from this group, BM 33905 lacks either a mention of a waiver of suit or a curse. This document has been mentioned by several authors.336 It has attracted scholarly attention due to the occurrence of the adjudicator Ašarēdu, considered identical with the governor of Cutha, known otherwise from three letters (SAA 10 163 and 164, and SAA 18 131) sent from Cutha to Nineveh by the astrologer Nabû-iqbi, in which Nabû-iqbi complained about the governor’s scandalous behavior. Melville (1999: 68–69) has proposed further identifying him with the astrologer Ašarēdu the Elder (panû), who is attested in contemporary letters from Cutha.337 Possibly the same Ašarēdu sent a report on Cutha (ABL 254) to the king’s mother.338 He is probably also identical with Nergal-ašarēdu of the Sîn-karabī-išme family, the “gove[rnor]” (šākin [ṭēmi]), who, in the ninth year of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, appeared as a witness in the grant reconfirmation BBSt 10, rev. 49.339 Characteristically of early Neo-Babylonian legal documents, the filiations of litigants are missing; consequently, their identities cannot be established. The fact that Huzālu and Munabbitu received equal shares in the disputed land permits the conjecture that they were related. Notes 2 One expects the complaint to be introduced with dīna gerû, but this expression does not usually collocate with kīam (for a sole—and uncertain—parallel, see BM 67225 [Text no. 28]: 2). For qabû introducing a complaint, see BaAr 5 20: 3. 3 The canal could be the Pītu (⌈íd⌉.pi-⌈i⌉-[ti]), a watercourse located between Cutha and Kish, a known date-growing area (SAA 18 56, rev. 7). An alternative is the Nār-Piqūdu (⌈íd⌉-pi-q[u-du]). This canal is known to have

336

Brinkman and Kennedy 1983: 29 (K.51), Frame 1992: 231115.116, 27330, Luppert-Barnard 1998: 141, Melville 1999: 69, and Nielsen 2011: 15197, 265162. 337 Dietrich (1970: 532), Luppert-Barnard (1998: 140–41), and Nielsen (2011: 15299) argue for distinguishing between these two namesakes. 338 Dietrich 1970: 52–54, Frame 1992: 27330, Melville 1999: 67–68. 339 Frame 1992: 233125, 273. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

140

4 5

9

11

12

Chapter V

flowed through farming centers south of Babylon. According to Ran Zadok (1985: 379–80), it started near Babylon and flowed southwards, where it was better known as the Ḫarri-Piqūdu (ibidem: 351). This reconstruction of the Nār-Piqūdu’s course makes the restoration problematic if one assumes that the disputed land was located in the vicinity of Cutha. However, Michael Jursa has recently proposed moving the northern Puqūdu region “downstream from Opis on the Tigris” (2010: 102–3); if the Nār-Piqūdu flowed through this region, it could have passed near Cutha. Taddinu, “you gave” is probably implied ana kaspi taddinu, “you sold.” The phrasing of the clause aḫi zittiya ina libbi is imprecise. The verdict states that half of the disputed field belonged to the plaintiff and not that the field or part thereof constituted half of the plaintiff’s share. One expects *aḫi zitti ina libbi attua šū or alike. The subject of ušadgil is either the defendant or the adjudicators. I opt for the former (Munnabitu), as otherwise the verbal form would be incorrect (ušadgilū is expected). One could assume a tangled construction “(Ašarēdu and the Cutheans) awarded ... and (Ašarēdu) transferred,” but in contrast to later trial transcripts, early Neo-Babylonian formulary depicts losing parties—not judges—as those who transfer assets awarded by the court. The clause introducing witnesses refers to this document as uʾiltu rather than the expected tuppu, “tablet” or kunukku/kangu, “(sealed) document.”340 The term uʾiltu was occasionally used in reference to documents other than promissory notes but not to transcripts of legal proceedings.341 It may be employed here in the older meaning of “excerpt tablet,” which is known from Neo-Assyrian usage.342 Yet another deed in which the term uʾiltu appears in a similar context is the portrait-oriented record of a midor post-trial settlement from the second year of Tiglath-Pileser III, involving transfers of land and silver (Leichty, Festschrift Reiner).343 I read the family name of the first witness as Ea-pattannī, “Ea Is the One Who Strengthens Me,” against John P. Nielsen (2011: 15193), who proposes Ea-ēṭir-danni. The fifth sign of the name is certainly PAD, not SUR. For pattānu/pattannu in Neo-Babylonian onomasticon, see CAD P: 284 and Tallqvist 1902: 56.

340

For both introductory expressions (ina kanāk and ina ušuzzi ša), see von Dassow 1999: 8–9, 12–16. 341 Cf. Baker 2003: 255+65. 342 AHw: 1405 (sub 1), CDA: 419 (sub 2), Streck 2010: 647, 654. 343 L. 27. ina ka-nak ú-ìl-ti šu-a-tu4, “(Following men were present) at the sealing of this uʾiltu.” © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

38. BM 77945

141

Pl. XLIII

1885-4-30, 138 L. 6.0 x W. 4.8 x Th. 2.2 format: landscape obv. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x x x x x x x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x] 2’. [x x x x x x x x níg?].ka9 šá m⌈x⌉[x x] 3’. [x x x x x x x x x] ši lu di-i-[ni] 4’. [ig-ru-ú um-ma x] ⌈x ki i ib⌉-ba-šu-ú kù.[babbar] 5’. [x x x x x]-⌈ú-nu⌉ i-te-ṭir ár-ka-niš ina pa-ni 6’. [mx x x]⌈x⌉-ni dumu ⌈m⌉dkaskal.kur-⌈i lú⌉.gar umuš tin.tir.ki 7’. [di-i-n]i id-bu-bu-ma di-in-šú-nu ⌈ú⌉-mas-si-ma 8’. [⅓ gín] kù.babbar ina ugu m⌈d⌉utu-mu ip-⌈ru⌉-si-ma mdutu-mu 9’. [ina ḫu-u]d ⌈lìb⌉-bi-šú ⅓ gín kù.babbar i-ḫi-iṭ-ma 10’. [a-na mnumun-ti]n.tir.ki u mnumun-gi.na ⌈id⌉-din u mnumun-tin.tir.ki 11’. [u mnumun-gi.na in]a ḫu-ud lìb-bi-šú-nu na4.kišib la ta-ri 12’. [(u) la da-ba-bi ik-n]u-uk--ma a-na u4-mu ṣa-a-ta 13’. [a-na mdutu-mu id-di-n]u pu-ut di-i-ni šá m⌈mar⌉-duk 14’. [x x x x x x x x x mdu]tu-mu ma-la ba-šu-ú l.e. 15’. [x x x x x x x x x] na-šu-ú šá da-ba-ba 16’. [an-na-a in-nu-ú damar.utu u dzar]-pa-ni-tu4 záḫ-šú liq-bu-u –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– rev. 17’. [mx x] ⌈x⌉ da dumu lú.gal.dù 18’. [mx x]-⌈a?-ni?⌉ dumu mad-nu-zu m ? 19’. [ x]-⌈numun ⌉ dumu md30-šá-⌈du⌉-nu md 20’. [ ]nà-šeš.meš-šul-lim dumu mzálag-dingir-šú dumu lú.gír.lá-ka-a-ri 21’. ⌈m⌉didim-mu 22’. ⌈m⌉zálag-e-a ⌈dumu⌉ mdù-eš-dingir m 23’. ⌈ ibila⌉-a ⌈dumu lú⌉.àr.⌈àr⌉ 24’. ⌈m⌉šu-la-a [dumu] ⌈lú⌉.sanga-tin.tir.ki m 25’. ⌈ ⌉en-šú-nu ⌈dumu⌉ lú.azlag 26’. [lú.umbisag] mina-qí-bi-⌈den⌉ dumu maš-sur 27’. [e?.ki iti.x] ⌈u4.23+x.kám⌉ [mu].⌈1⌉9.kám 28’. [dgiš.nu11-mu-gi.na lugal] e.ki Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–8’a [... prop]erty? of [... they brought a cl]aim [...]: “There is? [...] . Sil[ver...] paid.” Later, they argued the [case] before [...]ni, descendant of Balīḫû, the © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

142

Chapter V

governor of Babylon, and he investigated their case and sentenced Šamašiddin (to pay) [⅓ mina of] silver. 8’b–15’a Šamaš-iddin, [in the jo]y of his heart, weighted out ⅓ mina of silver and gave (it) [to Zēr-Bāb]ili and Zēru-ukīn, and Zēr-Bābili [and Zēru-ukīn, i]n the joy of their hearts, [seal]ed a no-return and [no-contest] tablet and ga[ve it to Šamaš-iddin] in perpetuity. They guarantee that in case Marduk-[...] a dispute [...] any [...Ša]maš-iddin [...]. 15’b–16’ Whoever [changes this] agreement, may [Marduk and Zar]panītu pronounce his destruction. 17’–25’ (Witnesses): [...]da (or: ileʾʾi), descendant of Rab-banê, [...]ani?, descendant of Abī-ul-īdi, [...]-zēri?, descendant of Sîn-šadûnu, Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim, descendant of Nūr-ilišu, Ea-iddin, descendant of Ṭābiḫ-kāri, Nūrēa, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, Aplāya, descendant of Ararru, Šulāya, descendant of Šangû-Bābili, Bēlšunu, descendant of Ašlāku. 26’ [Scribe]: Ina-qībi-Bēl, descendant of Edu-ēṭir. 27’–28’ [Babylon?, month of ...], twenty-third[+x] day, nine[teen]th year of [Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, king] of Babylon. Commentary The broken parts of this text are reconstructed based on parallels with other early post-trial documents.344 For its classification as a post-trial document, see the commentary on BM 77907 (Text no. 35) above. Not much may be said about the object of dispute; it was probably silver (l. 4). The case was heard by a governor of Babylon. Only one more dispute document from Babylon from the period of the Assyrian rule depicts the šākin ṭēm Bābili acting as judge without the assistance of an assembly (Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 5). Lawsuits were otherwise heard by governors acting jointly with an assembly (BaAr 5 20) or even an assembly alone (Strassmaier, 8. Congress no. 4, BM 77907 [Text no. 35]).345 What led to this choice of a particular court composition is intriguing, but 344

Cf. in particular BM 77907 (Text. 35), BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text. 36), ROMCT 2 38, Strassmaier, 8. Congress no. 4, Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 5, TCL 12 4. 345 Similar court compositions may be found in other Babylonian cities in this period: Cutha: a governor and Cutheans (BM 33905 [Text no. 37]); Dilbat: a governor and Dilbateans (TCL 12 4); the assembly of Babylonians and Borsippeans, and a rab ālāni (BM 47480 + BM 47783 [Text no. 36]); the assembly of Babylonians and Dilbateans (Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 = deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2 = Documents cunéiformes 355 = BM 29029); [Nippur]: the assembly of Nippureans (ROMCT 2 38); © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

143

dispute documents from this early period are too few and too tersely formulated to allow even speculation on this matter. It is even conceivable that the texts named governors as single adjudicators even when the assemblies were present, but that their presence was not noted because it was considered obvious. The place of issue is lost, but the presence of the governor of Babylon, the names of the plaintiffs and witnesses, and the curse formula suggest Babylon. Moreover, several individuals from the witness list may be identified in documents drafted in Babylon at the end of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn’s reign. Nūrēa of the Eppēš-ilī family (witness no. 6) appears as a witness in BM 78980, a tablet concerning plots in Babylon, drafted in the capital in the nineteenth year of Šamaššumu-ukīn. The first two witnesses in that document ([... descendant of] Rab-banê and [...descendant of A]bī-ul-īdi) are possibly identical with two first witnesses of BM 77945. Šulāya of the Šangû-Bābili family (witness no. 8 in BM 77945) is also found in Budge, PSBA 10 (= BR 8/7 19): 51, a sale contract for a palm grove, written in Babylon in the eighteenth year of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn. Šulāya was probably the father of Kalbāya (/Šulāya//Šangu-Bābili), who appears as a witness in Nbn. 26: 15 (Babylon, 1Nbn). Notes 4’ Read perhaps: x] ⌈x ki-i⌉ ib-ba-šu-ú, “when [...] occurred.” 6’ This governor is otherwise unknown.346 Five years earlier, the post was held by Bēl-lēʾi(-kullati), descendant of Esagilāya (Nielsen 2011: 32), and, four years earlier, an unnamed governor is mentioned in BaAr 5 20: 11. On the Balīḫû family in Babylon under Assyrian rule, see Nielsen 2011: 40– 41. 8’–9’ For ⅓ gín as ⅓ mina (not shekel), see Lorenz 2005/2006. 15’–16’ This curse formula is exceedingly popular; it is attested in no fewer than forty documents, chiefly from Babylon and other north Babylonian cities.347 23’ For the rare family Ararru, see Astola 2017: 38–40. 24’ It is tempting to take Šangû-Bābili as a mistake for the common name Šangû-Ištar-Bābili. Knut Tallqvist (1902: 197) lists only three occurrences of the former form, one of which is erroneous;348 John P. Nielsen (2015a: 355) adds two more. However, Šulāya appears in Budge, PSBA 10 (= BR 8/7 19): 51 (Babylon, 18Ššu), again as the descendant of Šangû-Bābili. His

[Sippar?]: a provincial governor (šakin māti) and a sukkallu (BM 49511 [Text no. 39]); Ur: Babylonians, Borsippeans, and citizens of Ur (UET 4 200). 346 Cf. Frame 1992: 271, Nielsen 2011: 31–34. 347 Sandowicz 2012: 123. 348 Ilēʾʾi-Marduk in Nbn. 855: 11–12 and Cyr. 347: 12–13 was a descendant of ŠangûIštar-Bābili, not Šangû-Bābili. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

144

28’

Chapter V

(assumed) son Kalbāya is called a-šú šá mšu-la-a a lú.sanga-tin.tir.ki in Nbn. 26: 15–16 (Babylon, 1Nbn). Since it is unlikely that three such scribal mistakes were made, a family called Šangû-Bābili, distinct from Šangû-Ištar-Bābili, must have existed. The peculiar writing in Nbn. 26 indicates that the name was perceived as rare: the scribe had begun writing the more common form “Šangû-Ištar-Bābili,” then noticed his mistake and skipped the goddess’s name but forgot to erase the DINGIR sign. The document is assigned to the reign of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn based on prosopographic grounds (see above for details).

39. BM 49511

Pl. XLIV

1882-3-23, 502 W. 5.3 x L. 3.0 x Th. 2.0 format: landscape obv. (two or three lines missing) 1’. [dumu].⌈sal-su šá mx x a šá⌉ [x x x] ⌈x lú.sanga?⌉ [x x x] 2’. [mdn]à-šu-zib-an-ni ki-a-am iq-⌈ba⌉-áš-šú ⌈um-ma⌉ a-n[a kù.babbar?] 3’. an-da-ḫar ina pa-⌈an⌉ m(o.e.)dutu-di-na-an-ni lú.gar kur.uri.ki mdan.šár-da lú.⌈sukkal⌉ 4’. di-i-ni id-bu-bu-ma ⅓ 6 ⌈gín⌉ kù.babbar ina ugu (erasure) 5’. mdutu-ra-aʾ-im-⌈lugal lú⌉.til.⌈la.gíd⌉.da ip-ru-su 6’. mdutu-ra-aʾ-im-⌈lugal⌉ ⅓ ⌈6⌉ gín kù.babbar šá dutu ⌈i⌉-ḫi-iṭ-ma 7’. [ina] ⌈šám⌉ fina-é.kur-⌈šar-rat a-na⌉ mdnà-⌈šu⌉-[zib]-an-⌈ni id-din⌉ 8’. [u mdn]à-⌈šu⌉-zib-an-ni ina ḫu-ud lì[b-bi]-šú l.e. 9’. ⌈im⌉.dub la ta-ri u la da-ba-⌈ba iko.e.⌉-nu-[uk-ma] 10’. ⌈a-na⌉ m⌈d⌉utu-ra-aʾ-im-lugal .⌈til.la.gíd.da!⌉ id-[din] ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– rev. 11’. ⌈lú.mu⌉-kin-nu mman-nu-a-[ki-x dum]u [mg]i-⌈ḫi-il⌉-[lu] 12’. [x x x] ⌈x dumu⌉ mda-bi-bi 13’. m⌈x x x⌉ [du]mu m⌈e-tel-lu⌉ 14’. m⌈sum.na-šeš dumu⌉ mir-a-⌈ni!⌉ 15’. m⌈a-na-den-ú-pa-qu a⌉ lú.⌈šu⌉.ku6 16’. [m]⌈x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x nam?⌉ m(o.e.)gi-ḫi-il-l[u] 17’. [lú].⌈umbisag⌉ mden-⌈sur⌉ d[umu lú.sipa-a]nše.kur.ra 18’. [x] ⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x] (rest broken away) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

145

Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–5’ [... dau]ghter of [...] Šangû?-[... Na]bû-šūzibanni said to him as follows: “I had b[ou]ght? (her).” They argued before Šamaš-dīnanni, the governor of Akkad, (and) Aššur-lēʾi the sukkallu. They sentenced the temple resident Šamaš-rāʾim-šarri (to pay) twenty-six shekels of silver. 6’–10’ Šamaš-rāʾim-šarri weighed out twenty-six shekels of silver of Šamaš and gave (it) to Nabû-šū[zib]anni [as] the price of fIna-Ekur-šarrat. [Then Na]bû-šūzibanni, in the joy of his he[art], sealed a no-return and no-contest tablet and ga[ve] (it) to the temple resident Šamaš-rāʾim-šarri. 11’–16’ Witnesses: Mannu-a[kī-..., descenda]nt of [Gi]ḫil[u]. [...], descendant of Dābibi, [...], descendant of Etellu, Nādin-aḫi, descendant of Irʾanni, Ana-Bēl-upaqqu, descendant of Bāʾiru, [...] Giḫil[u]. 17’ Scribe: Bēl-ēṭir, d[escendant of Rēʾi-s]isê. (rest broken away) Commentary For the classification of BM 49511 as a post-trial record, see above (pp. 129–30). The identity of Nabû-šūzibanni, the plaintiff in the dispute recapitulated in this text, is unknown. The defendant was the resident of the Ebabbar temple of Sippar, Šamaš-rāʾim-šarri. His tenure lasted at least between the sixth and the ninth years of Kandalānu; it did not extend beyond the thirteenth year of this king, when a new qīpu was already in office.349 The terminus ante quem of BM 49511 is thus the thirteenth year of Kandalānu (635 BCE). As far as the laconic formulary and the fragmentary condition of the tablet allow the facts to be established, the object of the dispute was a female slave. The plaintiff argued that he had acquired her (perhaps by purchase), and the adjudicators acknowledged his claim and awarded him damages in silver. The resident Šamaš-rāʾim-šarri paid out to Nabû-šūzibanni the “silver of Šamaš” (l. 6’). This expression implies that Šamaš-rāʾim-šarri appeared at the trial in his official, rather than private, capacity. It is probable that the non-private character of the dispute determined the composition of the court. Its members were high state officials, in contrast to private disputes that, even involving high Babylonian local and temple officials as parties, were settled at the time by local assemblies.350 One of two adjudicators in 349

Bongenaar 1997: 47, Da Riva 2002: 57. BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text no. 36), wherein a šākin ṭēmi appears as defendant, and Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 = deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2 = Documents cunéiformes 355 = BM 29029, wherein a šatammu appears as plaintiff (cf. Nielsen 2011: 106–8).

350

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

146

Chapter V

BM 49511 was the governor of the province of Babylon (lit. “governor of Akkad,” also attested elsewhere with the title pāḫat Bābili), known as Šamaš-dīnanni in Babylonian and Šamaš-dāʾʾinanni in Assyrian sources, an eponym of the year 645 BCE.351 He himself was a litigant in the famous dispute over a group of the Eanna’s oblates of Puqudean origin (BIN 2 132), with the governor of Uruk Kudurru as his adversary.352 The presence of the other adjudicator, the sukkallu Aššur-lēʾi, raises several important issues. The sukkallu was a top state functionary, well attested in Assyrian and Babylonian administrative systems.353 Apart from Aššur-lēʾi, only one more official with this title is found in the extant Babylonian sources of the NeoAssyrian period. The sukkallu Adad-dān appears in two kudurrus written under Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, BBSt 10 and Steinmetzer, Festschrift Deimel; the place of issue of the former is damaged, while the latter comes from Sippar. Interestingly, later—at some point during Assurbanipal’s reign—the same man held the function of a sartennu. Opinions regarding his background vary. According to Raija Mattilla (2000: 63), he was a Babylonian, who was assigned a new post and land in Assyria after the revolt of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn. According to Melanie Groß (forthcoming), it is more likely that he was an Assyrian by origin, who was installed in Babylon. Both authors agree that Adad-dān was a member of the court of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn. The background of Aššur-lēʾi, the sukkallu mentioned in BM 49511, is less obscure. First, his name suggests Assyrian origin. Second, his judicial activity is known from Assyria. He appears as a judge in two transcripts of trials held in Assur in the years 633 and 624 BCE,354 thus three or more years after BM 49511 had been written (i.e., 636 BCE at the latest). These occurrences, in the same capacity, strongly suggest that Aššur-lēʾi was an Assyrian official. The course of Aššur-lēʾi’s career is less obvious. SAA 18 181, rev. 11–12, a letter from a Babylonian sender to Assurbanipal, recalls that the king “appointed a sukkallu and a sartennu in the country (ina māti),” probably alluding to the rearrangement of the political scene in Babylonia in the aftermath of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn’s revolt.355 Aššur-lēʾi could have been either the sukkallu to whom the sender of this letter referred or his successor. His career could have started in the south; as a reward for his service, he could have been later assigned the post of the sukkallu in Assyria. Another, less likely, possibility may be considered. The sukkallu was an itinerant judge who travelled 351

Ambos 2011: 1195–96, ad no. 2, cf. Zawadzki 1988: 61–62. Grant Frame (1992: 271) opts for the year 643/642. 352 Frymer-Kensky 1977: 405–410, Frame 1992: 201+48, Naʾaman 1991: 252–54, Ragen 2006: 17–22, 596–99. 353 For Assyria, see Mattila 2000: 91–106, 164–65 and Radner 2005: 48–57, 65, for Babylonia, see Sandowicz and Tarasewicz 2014: 78–79. 354 Cf. Fuchs 1998: 193 (ad no. 16). 355 Frame 1992: 217+18, 235133. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

147

throughout the empire and participated in judicial proceedings in various cities.356 Is it possible that Aššur-lēʾi was a sukkallu from Assyria, visiting Babylonia during his tour of duty?357 This scenario would have vital implications, as it would imply that Babylonia did not have its own sukkallu and, consequently, that the Babylonian system of justice administration did not operate independently of Assyria. Bearing the sukkallu’s eminent standing in mind, the listing sequence in BM 49511: 3’ appears puzzling. As one of the highest state functionaries, the sukkallu is expected to have been named first.358 In Babylonian kudurrus from the times of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, the sukkallu Adad-dān tops the list of witnesses; a governor of an unknown province, high-ranking court officials, and other provincial functionaries follow him.359 In BM 49511, contrary to expectations, the governor precedes the sukkallu. This order is confusing. It could be perhaps justified if Aššur-lēʾi was a sukkallu šaniu, a deputy sukkallu, but, in a document from Assur from 624 BCE, he is listed as the first official of this title (followed by Nergal-šarru-uṣur, a sukkallu also known from 636 BCE). BM 49511 was written shortly after the revolt; the sequence could have reflected the scribe’s confusion with regard to the newly developing hierarchy. It seems more probable, however, that naming Šamaš-dīnanni before Aššur-lēʾi should not be taken as a sign of disrespect for the latter but as a sign of esteem toward the former: Šamaš-dīnanni could have been honored on account of his eponym status.360 The issue date of BM 49511 is damaged. Based on prosopographic grounds (the incumbency of the temple resident, the attestation dates of the governor of Akkad and the sukkallu), it may be dated to the reign of Kandalānu, before the king’s thirteenth year, when the tenure of the next resident, Šarru-lū-dāri, begun.361 The place of issue could have been Sippar, since not only the temple resident but also one of witnesses are known from the contemporary Sippar material. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the trial that preceded the drafting of BM 49511 took place elsewhere, for example in Babylon. 356

Mattila 2000: 164–65, Sandowicz and Tarasewicz 2014. The arguments in favor of Adad-dān being a sukkallu of Babylonia are much stronger: he appears in the company of court functionaries whose activity in Babylonia is attested elsewhere (cf. Frame 1992: 282–83). 358 Remarkably, up to the ninth century BCE, kudurrus listed provincial governors (šakin mātis) before sukkallus (cf. Paulus 2014: 107–8). 359 Cf. Frame 1992: 232–36 for a discussion on the officials listed in these documents. According to Susane Paulus (2014: 729, 731, ad II17), the governor’s title in Steinmetzer, Festschrift Deimel should be read šākin ṭ[ēmi], not šakin mā[ti]. 360 Concerning the prestige of eponyms’ status, see Zawadzki 1997: 383–84. If his eponym’s status was indeed the reason for listing the governor first, BM 49511 was written in the third year of Kandalānu (645 BCE) or in the fifth/sixth year of this king (643/642 BCE), depending on the choice of the chronology of post-canonical eponyms. 361 Cf. Da Riva 2002: 57. 357

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

148

Chapter V

Notes The signs on the reverse are slightly larger than those on the obverse. Prosopographical entries from this text are found in Da Riva 2002: 57, 427, 444, 448, 457, 459. 11’, 16’ For Giḫilu, see Zadok 1977b: 130–31. 14’ Nādin-aḫi, descendant of Irʾanni, was the scribe of two tablets from the end of Kandalānu’s reign: BM 49166 (19Kand) and BM 79158 (20Kand), cf. Bongenaar 1997: 486 (who prefers the reading Iddin-aḫi) and Da Riva 2002: 371, 447. He possibly also wrote deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 16 (Babylon).

40. BM 62918 AH 1882-9-18, 2887 W. 5.3 x L. 4.2 x Th. 2.3 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. l.e. 8. rev. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. u.e. 18. 19.

[x] ⌈x⌉ [x]⌈x⌉ šá mdnà-kád u lú.⌈ki-na-ta-šú⌉ lú.di.ku5.meš a-na (erasure) m gu-[za-nu lú.sanga zim]bir.⌈ki md⌉en-mu m tin-s[u-dgu-la dub.s]ar.meš iq-bu-ú um-[ma x x x] ⌈x 1 en?⌉ 30 ⌈mu⌉ [x x x x x x x] e [x x x x x x x] ⌈ú?⌉ ⌈1 en? 30?⌉ [x x x x] ⌈id-din⌉ pu-⌈ut m⌉[x x x x] utu-kád ad-šú na-ši kù.babbar-a4 3 ma.na 15 gín kù.babbar babbar-ú mdutu-kád ad-šú a-na níg.ga dutu i-nam-din ina gub-zu šá mdamar.utu-mu-⌈dù⌉ a-šú ⌈šá⌉ m⌈kar⌉-dšú md utu-pab a-šú ⌈šá⌉ mmu-šeb-ši-dšú mìr-den a-šú šá m⌈d⌉en-sur mdnà-kád a- mdub-n[umun] md nà-mu-⌈ùru⌉ a- mdamar.utu-mu-m[u] u ⌈lú.umbisag m⌉[x] ⌈a mìr?⌉-d[x] iti.⌈x⌉ md

[u4].30?.⌈kám⌉ mu.20.[+x.kám md]a-ri-i[a-muš] ⌈lugal kur⌉.[kur].meš

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. XLV

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

149

Translation 1–9a [...] about whom? Nabû-kāṣir and his colleagues the judges said to Gū[zānu, the high priest of Sip]par, Bēl-iddin, (and) Uballiss[u-Gula, (College) scr]ibes: “[...] thirtyfold? [...] thirtyfold? [...].” [...] gave. 9b–12 Šamaš-kāṣir, his father, assumes guarantee for [...]. Šamaš-kāṣir will give to the treasury of Šamaš the said three minas and fifteen shekels of white silver. 13–16 In the presence of: Marduk-šumu-ibni, son of Mušēzib-Marduk, Šamaš-nāṣir, son of Mušebši-Marduk, Arad-Bēl, son of Bēl-ēṭir, Nabû-kāṣir, son! of Šāpik-z[ēri], Nabû-šumu-uṣur, son! of Marduk-šumu-id[din], 17a and the scribe: [...], descendant of ⌈Arad?⌉-[...]. 17b–19 , month of [...], ⌈thirtieth?⌉ day, twenty+[xth] year of Darius (I), king of lands. Commentary In this guarantee agreement, Šamaš-kāṣir, standing for his son, undertakes to pay to the temple a substantial sum of silver. The involvement of judges (mentioned in l. 2) suggests a dispute background. If the reading of ll. 5 and 8 is correct, the silver was a thirtyfold payment, the standard penalty for theft of temple property. Šamaš-kāṣir’s son would then be a thief who appropriated six and a half shekels of silver or its equivalent. Two legal bodies were involved in the proceedings. The first one comprised judges and a certain Nabû-kāṣir, a man of unknown identity. The fact that his family name is not given hampers his identification, but at the same time it suggests that he was a known and easily recognizable person. Neither Nabû-kāṣir’s function nor his profession are identified in BM 62918, but some idea of his position emerges when one juxtaposes the expressions PN u kinattēšu dayyānē found in BM 62918 and several contemporary texts: Bagaʾundu u kinattēšu dayyānē ša bīt Undaparnāʾ Itti-Nabû-balāṭu u kinattēšu dayyānē Itti-Nabû-balāṭu u kinattēšu dayyānē Nabû-kāṣir u kinattēšu dayyānē simmagir u dayyānē kinattēšu Balāṭu mašennu [u] kinattēšu dayyānē ša šarri

MacGinnis, JCS 60: 1–2 ([Sippar?], 7DarI) Dar. 410: 5 (Babylon, 15DarI) BM 30957: 8–9 (Babylon, [x]DarI) BM 62918: 2 (, 20+[x]DarI) Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 1: 14 (Borsippa, 25DarI) Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich: 885–86, ll. 30–31 ([x, 28+xDarI])

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

150

Chapter V

In contrast to the first four texts, the last two do disclose the identity of the “colleagues” of judges. In Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 1, it is a simmagir and in Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich: 885–86, a mašennu. By the same token, Nabû-kāṣir (as well as Bagaʾundu and Itti-Nabû-balāṭu) could have been a high-ranking official of the state administration rather than one of the judges, their primus inter pares. The members of the second body are well known from Sippar archives. The high priest of Sippar Gūzānu (son of Nabû-šumu-ukīn of the Ša-nāšišu family) was in office between the thirteenth and the twenty-fourth years of Darius I.362 Bēl-iddin (son of Nabû-šumu-līšir) and Uballissu-Gula (son of Aḫḫē-iddinMarduk), both of the Šangû-Ištar-Bābili family, were active as College scribes of the Ebabbar under Cyrus and Darius I;363 they appear together in numerous documents.364 These Ebabbar authorities presumably received the order regarding Šamaš-kāṣir’s son from Nabû-kāṣir and the judges and responded to it by making the father responsible for a payment in silver. The name of the son possibly appeared at the beginning of the first line, but the name of an object (e.g., an item or items due from Šamaš-kāṣir’s son) or an abstract noun (e.g., ṭēmu, “decision” or šipirtu, “message”) could also be expected there. A formulaically similar text, MacGinnis, JCS 60, begins: šipirtu ša Bagaʾundu u kinatt[ašu] dayyānē (...) iššûnu [ina libbi] šaṭra umma (...), “The letter that Bagaʾundu and his colleagues the judges brought (...) and [in which] it was written as follows: (...).” However, the two documents are not phrased identically. Even though the size of the lacuna and the traces of the last sign at the beginning of BM 62918 allow the restoration [ši-pir-t]u4, the word šipirtu does not collocate with qabû, and the emendation šipirtu ša ... iqbû seems excessive. MacGinnis, JCS 60 recounts how “Bagaʾundu and his colleagues the judges” delivered a royal decision (ṭēmu) concerning a Persian man’s silver to a high priest of Sippar, the College scribes, temple enterers of the Ebabbar, and several other officials. A damaged part of that document could have recorded the actions that the Sippar authorities undertook in response to the king’s order. If that was the case, MacGinnis, JCS 60 and BM 62918 would be similar not only with regard to their formularies but also to their functions, as they would have been intended to record decisions delivered by judges and the responses of local authorities. Notes 13–16 The family names of the witnesses are missing, which is unexpected in such a formal document (note the solemn introductory clause ina ušuzzi).

362

Bongenaar 1997: 32. For Bēl-iddin (tupšar Ebabbar in year 3Cyr–28DarI), see Bongenaar 1997: 71–73. For Uballissu-Gula (tupšar Ebabbar in years 0–36DarI), see Bongenaar 1997: 87–90. 364 Bongenaar 1997: 97. 363

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

13

14 14 15 16 17

18

151

Marduk-šumu-ibni, son of Mušēzib-Marduk of the Šangû-Ištar-Bābili family, was a temple enterer of Šamaš, a brewer of the Gula sanctuary, an oil presser, and a scribe.365 Šamaš-nāṣir, son of Mušebši-Marduk of the Šangû-Sippar family, was a temple enterer, a baker of Šamaš, and a priest of the Anunītu temple.366 I am unable to trace Arad-Bēl, son of Bēl-ēṭir, in Sippar documents. Nabû-kāṣir, son of Šāpik-zēri, descendant of Šangû-Šamaš, was a temple enterer of Šamaš.367 Nabû-šumu-uṣur, son of Marduk-šumu-id[din] of the Šangû-Ištar-Bābili family, was a brewer of Šamaš and a priest of the Gula temple.368 There is little space left for the name and the family name of the scribe. Only a short name such as Aplāya ([ma-a]) or Balāṭu ([mtin]) could fit in the space available. It cannot be excluded that the first visible wedge belongs to the sign UD and that the following numeral is 20, not 30 ([u]4.20.[kám]).

41. BM 43881

Pl. XLVI

1881-7-1, 1642 W. 4.3 x L. 7.0 x Th. 2.9 format: portrait obv. 1. m⌈ḫa⌉-ri-ṣa-nu dumu šá mmu-d⌈amar.utu⌉ [(x x)] 2. [x x] ⌈x pi?-ḫa?⌉-[at? x x x x x] 3. a-di [x] ⌈x⌉ [x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x] 4. a.gàr é-⌈ú-NE-mu x⌉ [x x] 5. uš an.t[a i]m.si.⌈sá da⌉ 6. mden-a-na-m[e-r]e-eḫ-tu4 dumu šá m⌈x⌉ [x] 7. uš ki.t[a] im.⌈u17⌉.lu d[a] 8. mdnà-bul-li[ṭ-s]u dumu šá ⌈mdnà-šeš⌉[x x] 9. dumu m⌈dùo.e.⌉-eš-[ding]ir.[meš sa]g ⌈an⌉.[ta] 10. da fiš-[x x x x x sag ki.ta] 11. [i]m.mar.tu [da x x x x x x x] 12. ⌈dumu šá⌉ mdnà-šeš[x x x x x x] (rest broken away)

365

Bongenaar 1997: 163, 250, 286–87, 438, 489. Bongenaar 1997: 165, 198, 257, and 457. 367 Bongenaar 1997: 163–164, 454, 491, Jursa 1999: 53. 368 Bongenaar 1997: 223, 253, 440. 366

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

152

Chapter V

rev. 1’. [i]-⌈na igi md⌉n[à-dib-ud.da] 2’. lú.di.ku5 dumu š[á map-la-a] 3’. mdnà-it-ta[n-nu lú.di.ku5] 4’. dumu šá mri-m[ut] 5’. ⌈u⌉ mden-⌈su-pe⌉-[mu-ḫur] 6’. [lú.di.ku5 dumu šá mdnà-na-a-a] 7’. [x x x x x x x x x] 8’. ⌈md?⌉[x x x x x dum]u ⌈šá⌉ m⌈ši? x⌉ [x x] 9’. dumu l[ú.sanga]-dutu ⌈x⌉ [x x] 10’. mdnà-m[u-x dumu š]á m⌈ki-dnà⌉-tin 11’. mdnà-ùru-[šú? dumu] šá mla-a-ba-ši 12’. mre-ḫ[e-tu dumu mx]-⌈x⌉-gi-i lú.u[mbisag] 13’. msum.⌈na-x⌉[x] ⌈x dumu šá⌉ mlib-[luṭ] 14’. bár-sip.ki it[i.x] ⌈u4⌉.[x.kám] 15’. mu.36.kám md[a-ri-ia-muš] 16’. lugal tin.tir.k[i u kur.kur] l.h.e. na4.k[išib] / mdnà-⌈dib-ud.da⌉ / lú.di.ku5 Translation 1–4 Ḫariṣānu, son of Iddin-⌈Marduk⌉ [...] dis[trict? ...] till [...] the plain of Bītú-NE-mu [...]: 5–6 the longer upper northern side bordering on (the property of) Bēl-an[amēr]eḫti, son of [...]; 7–9a the longer lower southern side bord[ering] on (the property of) Nabûbull[iss]u, son of Nabû-aḫ[...], descendant of Eppē[š-ilī]; 9b–10a the short[er upp]er side bordering on (the property of) fIš[...]; 10b–12 [the shorter lower] western side [bordering on (the property of) ...], son of Nabû-aḫ[...] (large lacuna) 1’–6’ [Be]fore: Na[bû-mušētiq-uddê], judge, son of [Aplāya], Nabû-itta[nnu, judge], son of Rīm[ūt], and Bēl-supê-[muḫur, judge, son of Nabûnnāya]. 7’–10’ [...] [...], son of Ši?[...], descendant of [Šangû]-Šamaš [...], Nabû-nā[din?-..., son] of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu, Nabû-uṣur[šu?, son of] Lâbâši, Reḫ[ētu, son of ...]gî. 11’–12’ S[cribe]: Iddin-[...], son of Lib[luṭ]. 14’–16’ Borsippa, month of [..., xth] day, thirty-sixth year of D[arius (I)], king of Babylon [and lands]. l.h.e. seal of Nabû-mušētiq-uddê, judge © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

153

Commentary Damage does not permit a secure classification of BM 43881, but it could be a postlitigation document or a contract for the transfer or conversion of a property. Its format, sealing system, and the layout of the witness list (three judges followed by witnesses), as well as chronological proximity, bring to mind Roth, JAOS 111: 32 = Wunsch, AfO 42/43 no. 10, a contract for dowry conversion from the Egibi archive (Babylon, 32DarI), which provides a detailed description of a field’s location. The protagonist Ḫariṣānu, son of Iddin-Marduk, is no doubt identical with the descendant of Bēl-aplu-uṣur, whose documents came down to us in one lot with the archive of the Šangû-Ninurta family.369 These two families from Babylon probably intermarried more than once.370 The link between BM 43881 and other Šangû-Ninurta tablets is corroborated by their common museum context and the mention of Bīt-ú-NE-mu (l. 4), a locality attested so far only in the Šangû-Ninurta archive. Plots in Bīt-ú-NE-mu, located probably south of Babylon, on the Euphrates, were acquired by Ḫariṣānu’s nephew Itti-Nabû-balāṭu in the second decade of Darius’s reign.371 The three judges who were present at the drafting of BM 43881 were not local Borsippean officials. They are attested in several documents from the end of Darius I’s rule as members of a judicial panel from the city of Babylon. Two of these judges—Nabû-mušētiq-uddê and Nabû-ittannu—are found in a land sale contract written two years earlier in Babylon (Zadok, NABU 1997 no. 2). The latter may be identical with the judge Nabû-ittannu mentioned in a document drafted in the sixteenth year of Darius I in Susa (Abraham, OLP 28 no. 4 = BM 33936), but the twenty-year gap between both attestations warrants caution. The third judge, Bēlsupê-muḫur, appears in a post-litigation promissory note, Nappāḫu 15 (34DarI), and in BM 31800 (Text no. 48), another uʾiltu written around the same time. These three judges were in all probability based in the capital. Their appearance in Borsippa in the same capacity and the same hierarchical order as in Babylon is noteworthy, as it demonstrates that the jurisdiction of Babylon judges was not restricted to the capital. Still, it is unclear why Borsippa was the place where a judicial body from Babylon handled the matter of the field located, as it seems, in the vicinity of Babylon, even more so in view of the fact that the protagonist Ḫariṣānu likewise came from the capital. Notes 11–12 The neighbor to the west was perhaps Nabû-bullissu, son of Nabû-aḫ[...], descendant of Eppēš-ilī, the person who owned the plot to the south (ll. 8– 9). 369

Wunsch 2005, Jursa 2005: 71–72. Wunsch 2005: 367–68. 371 Wunsch 2005: 374–75. 370

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

154

4 7’ 10’ l.h.e.

Chapter V

Read perhaps Bīt-uṭemu (Wunsch 2005: 374). Restore perhaps [lú.mu-kin-nu]. Or: Nabû-šu[mu-...]. According to the caption, this is the seal of the judge Nabû-mušētiq-uddê (P108 in Altavilla and Walker 2016: 242). Only a pedestal is visible (according to Altavilla and Walker 2016: 242, there may be a crescent above it). Two peculiar shallow holes (and part of a third one) are found on the right side of the same edge. Since their shapes and sizes are quite regular, they could have been made on purpose.

42. BM 63339

Pl. XLVII

AH 1882-9-18, 3307 W. 8.8 x L. 2.1 x Th. 2.5 format: uncertain obv. (beginning broken away) 1’. [x] ⌈x x x⌉ [x x x x x x] ⌈x mki-d⌉[utu-tin] 2’. a-šú šá mḫu-ut-⌈ni-ia ku-um x x x šá?⌉ m⌈dnà-mu-gar-un⌉ a-⌈šú šá⌉ 3’. mdnà-⌈re-e⌉-su ⌈šá⌉ md⌈en-kám ad šá⌉ m⌈šu⌉-dutu iš šu ⌈x⌉ 4’. [m]im-ma ina lìb-b[i] a-na mdnà-mu-gar-un ⌈la⌉ id-din u lú.di.ku5.meš l.e. 5’. mdnà-mu-gar-un e-li mšu-dutu ú-šar-šu-ú-⌈šú?⌉ 6’. mki-dutu-tin u mḫu-ut-⌈ni⌉-ía ad-šú kurum.ḫi.a u mu-ṣib-tu4 a-na 7’. mdnà-mu-gar-un id-din-nu uo.e. mden-tin-iṭ a-šú šá mba-šá-a šá-ṭar rev. 8’. a-na muḫ-ḫi ⌈x⌉ mden-kám u mšu-dutu a-⌈na⌉ mki-dutu-tin i-ṭir-ru 9’. ina ⌈lìb-bi⌉ šaṭ-ru mden-tin-iṭ lú.sanga zimbir.ki mšu-dutu [u?] ⌈mden-kám⌉ 10’. [iš]-⌈al⌉-ma um-ma mi-nam-ma ra-šu-tú šá mden-tin-[i]ṭ ⌈a⌉-[šú šá] 11’. [mba-šá-a x x] ⌈x x x x x x x⌉ [x x] (rest broken away) Translation (beginning broken away) 1’–5’ [...] Itti-[Šamaš-balāṭu], son of Ḫutnia, ... Nabû-šumu-iddin, son of Nabûrēssu, that Bēl-ēreš, the father of Gimil-Šamaš for .... He gave nothing thereof to Nabû-šumu-iškun, but judges awarded ⌈it?⌉ to Nabû-šumu-iškun against Gimil-Šamaš. 6’–11’ Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu and his father Ḫutnia gave food rations and a garment to Nabû-šumu-iškun. And Bēl-uballiṭ, son of Iqīšāya, delivered to Itti© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Transcripts of Post-trial Proceedings

155

Šamaš-balāṭu a document concerning ... Bēl-ēreš and Gimil-Šamaš. It was written in it: Bēl-uballiṭ, the high priest of Sippar, questioned GimilŠamaš [and? ] ⌈Bēl-ēreš⌉: “Why is the property of Bēl-uballiṭ, son [of Iqīšāya ...?].” (rest broken away) Commentary This tablet is linked to the Zazannu dossier, which is in turn part of the archive of Marduk-rēmanni of the Ṣāḫit-ginê family.372 It is probably a duplicate of (also fragmentary) Marduk-rēmanni 185 (BM 64342), in which the names of Ḫutnia, Nabû-šumu-iškun, Bēl-ēreš, and Gimil-Šamaš appear in a broken context. Bēluballiṭ, son of Iqīšāya, who is mentioned in ll. 7’ and 11’, was the father of Marduk-rēmanni, the archive’s protagonist. Both the father and the son engaged in rent farming of royal land in Zazannu, south of Sippar. They sublet land to farmers, some of whom encountered difficulties in meeting their tenants’ obligations. Strassmaier, ZA 4 no. 7 (Zazannu, 1Barz),373 one of documents attesting to these difficulties, records a sworn promise by a certain Nādin that he would deliver to Marduk-rēmanni barley, part of the loan of Itti-Bēl-lummir and his brother Gimil-Šamaš, sons of Bēl-ēreš; this Gimil-Šamaš appears in BM 63339 as Bēl-uballiṭ’s adversary. Both brothers, Itti-Bēl-lummir and GimilŠamaš, are further mentioned in a promissory note for the copious amount of 1,000 kors of agricultural products written in Zazannu twelve years later (Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 4 = Marduk-rēmanni 80, 12DarI). A note added under that document states that nothing has been paid on behalf of (ana muḫḫi) Itti-Bēl-lummir and Gimil-Šamaš. According to Caroline Waerzeggers (2014: 15831), the brothers were linked to the household of Bēlšunu, who was possibly a high official of the Persian administration and the owner of a large estate in Zazannu. BM 63339 indicates that Bēl-uballiṭ’s problems with the family of Bēl-ēreš had a long history, an episode of which took place in court. The dispute, the details of which are unknown due to the fragmentary state of the document, was heard by the high priest of Sippar at some point between the seventh year of Cyrus and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar IV, when the high priest Bēl-uballiṭ was still in office.374 Typological classification of BM 63339 is impossible due to the tablet’s condition. It could conceivably be a post-litigation record or a transcript of proceedings that took place before the Sippar assembly some time after the lawsuit.

372

Zawadzki 2000, Waerzeggers 2014: 157–59. Republished as Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 2 and Marduk-rēmanni 12. 374 Bongenaar 1997: 30–31, Zawadzki 1994: 137. 373

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

156

Chapter V

Notes 3’ The sign at the end looks like TU. Read perhaps iš-šu--ma, “they/he took, but.” 4’ Note the rare occurrence of judges in the Sippar material. 8’ Read a-na muḫ-ḫi-iṣ for ana muḫḫuṣ “in order to pressure (Bēl-ēreš and Gimil-Šamaš)”? 8’ I take i-ṭir-ru from eṭēru, but note that this verb normally has silver or dates as object (CAD s.v. eṭēru B). Also the form (i-ṭir-ru instead of the expected i-ṭir) is problematic. 11’ Reconstruct perhaps ⌈x mšu-dutu an-ni-tam? iq-bi?⌉ [um-ma], “Gimil-Šamaš said as follows.”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

VI. Other Dispute-related Texts 43. BM 59582

Pl. XLVIII

AH 1882-7-14, 3992 W. 6.6 x L. 4.8 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. rev. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

[(x) gi.meš šá igi t]i-⌈tur-ru⌉ šá sip-par.ki [šá mḫa-ba-ṣi-ru] ⌈a-šú⌉ šá mdutu-mu u mú-bar ⌈dumu-šú ina šuii mnà-kád⌉ a-šú šá mdub-numun a lú.sanga-sip-par.ki ki.lam i-pu-uš-šú im.dub ki.lam-šú ina ma-ḫar mdamar.utu-mu-mu lú.sanga sip-par.ki ⌈lú⌉.ku4 é dutu ù lú.ab.ba.meš ⌈uru⌉ iš-ta-as-si-ma m ḫa-ba!(t:bar)-ṣi-ru [u] mú-bar dumu-šú a-ki-i im.dub-šú ina gi.meš-šú a-⌈di gú íd⌉-dutu ⌈ma-la⌉ sag.⌈ki⌉ é-šú uš-zi-zi [š]a-ṭa-ru šá m⌈d⌉amar.utu-mu-mu lú.gar umuš ⌈e⌉.[ki] ⌈a⌉-na ugu bi-ri-tu4 u mu-ṣu-ú uru [l]a i-nu-ú bi-ri-tu4 u mu-ṣu-ú uru ina ⌈gi.meš-šú⌉-nu ⌈ú-še⌉-ṣu-ú i-na eš.bar [di-i-ni mu.m]eš md amar.utu-mu-mu lú.é.[bar] ⌈zimbir.ki⌉ md en-a-mu lú.ku4 é dutu a lú.⌈sanga⌉-[sip-par.k]i [mmu-damar.utu a]-⌈šú šá m⌉kal-ba-a a m⌈dù⌉-[eš-dingir] [lú.umbisag mìr-den a-šú šá m]⌈den-gi⌉ a md[iškur-šam-me-e] [sip-par iti.x u4.x.kám mu.x.kám mx x x lugal e.ki (u kur.kur)]

Translation 1–4 [(Concerning) x/the reeds at the br]idge of Sippar [that Ḫabaṣīru], son of Šamaš-iddin, and his son Ubār bought from Nabû-kāṣir, son of Šāpik-zēri, descendant of Šangû-Sippar. 5–10 They! read his sale record before Marduk-šumu-iddin, the high priest of Sippar, the enterers of the temple of Šamaš, and the city elders, and, in accordance with his (Ḫabaṣīru’s) tablet, they! confirmed the title of Ḫabaṣīru [and] his son Ubār to his reeds (stretching) as far as the bank of the Šamaš Canal, all the way along the short side of his house (plot). 11–14 They did not change the document of Marduk-zākir-šumi, the governor of Bab[ylon], regarding an alley and a city exit-street. They marked out an alley and a city exit-street through their reeds. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

158 15

Chapter VI

(These men were present) at the resolution [of this case]: Marduk-šumu-iddin, the high [priest of Sip]par, Bēl-aplu-iddin, enterer of the temple of Šamaš, descendant of Šang[û-Sippa]r, [Iddin-Marduk, son] of Kalbāya, descendant of Ep[pēš-ilī]. [Scribe: Arad-Bēl, son of] ⌈Bēl-ušallim⌉, descendant of [Adad-šammē]. [Sippar, month of ..., xth day, xth year of ..., king of Babylon (and lands)].

16–18

19 20

Commentary This text was written between the fifteenth year of Nabonidus and the seventh year of Cyrus, the period of incumbency of the high priest of Sippar Mardukšumu-iddin. Consequently, BM 59582 provides the earliest attestation of Mardukzākir-šumi as the governor of Babylon. His predecessor, Kiribti-Marduk, son of Šumu-ukīn, descendant of Bāʾiru, last appears in the fifteenth year of Nabonidus (FLP 1599 mentioned in Jursa 2007: 80). Apart from BM 59582, Marduk-zākiršumi is found in documents written between the end of Cyrus’s reign (Cyr. 312, 8Cyr) and the middle of Cambyses’s rule (Camb. 276, BM 30229 = Bertin 933, CDCPP 82, all from 5Camb).375 The object of the proceedings described in BM 59582 was a building plot located near a bridge in the proximity of—or simply on—the Šamaš Canal (NārŠamaš), a tributary of the Euphrates that flowed south of Sippar, in an area where numerous prebendary gardens of rab banê were located.376 The seller of the reeds, Nabû-kāṣir, son of Šāpik-zēri, descendant of Šangû-Šamaš, was a temple enterer of Šamaš and a scribe; he was also a grandson of the former high priest, Ebabbaršadûnu.377 Apart from the building plot that he sold to Ḫabaṣīru, Nabû-kāṣir owned a date grove in Tīl-Gubbi.378 In the first decades of Darius I’s reign, Nabûkāṣir contracted several debts, probably in order to pay taxes (his creditor was Marduk-rēmanni of the Ṣāḫit-ginê-family).379 Apart from BM 59582, Nabûkāṣir’s activity is documented between the end of Cambyses’s reign and the twenty-first year of Darius I;380 he thus must have been a rather young man when he sold the plot to Ḫabaṣīru and his son Ubār. Neither the plaintiff nor the reason for the claim have been named, and thus, despite the fact that its formulary is similar to that of some trial transcripts, BM 59582 is not a record of a dispute. Sippar authorities do not appear here in the 375

See also possibly MacGinnis, Mesopotamia 31 no. 14 Jursa 1995a: 69–70, Da Riva 2002: 139–40, Jursa 2010: 323–24. 377 Bongenaar 1997: 462. 378 Jursa 1995a: 233, Bongenaar 1997: 156, 163–64. 379 Waerzeggers 2014: 71. 380 Bongenaar 1997: 163–64, 454, 491, add Bēl-rēmanni: 144–45, l. 1 ([xDarI]), 147, l. 8 (5Camb), 153, l. 18 [(xRN]), CTMMA 3 92: 19 (21DarI), Marduk-rēmanni 37: 8 (4DarI), 38: 6 (4DarI), 102: 4 (17[DarI]), 105: 19 (20DarI). 376

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

159

role of adjudicators. Their function resembles the function of judges in Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 6, wherein a brother- and a sister-in-law, having independently settled a dispute over silver from the sale of a slave belonging to the estate of their late brother and husband, approached the judges, who approved their settlement, confirmed the title of the buyer of the slave, and issued to the buyer a formal sealed document. As Cornelia Wunsch (1997/1998: 68) writes, “Aufgabe der Richter war es in diesem Fall nicht, ein Urteil zu finden und zu sprechen, sondern die Rechtswirksamkeit einer außergerichtlichen Einigung der Parteien zu bestätigen und damit den Käufer gegen künftige Rechtsstreitigkeiten abzusichern.” Similarly, the protagonists of BM 59582 did not seek to have their dispute settled but rather to receive a formal confirmation of their title to a new estate. The objective of the proceedings in Sippar was thus to corroborate the status of Ḫabaṣīru’s land, not to re-examine the case. No investigation was undertaken; the only documents examined by the high priest and his assistants were Ḫabaṣīru’s sale contract and, it may be deduced, a šaṭāru of the governor. The mention of the šaṭāru indicates that the issue brought before the Sippar authorities had been previously under the scrutiny of the governor of Babylon. Following the governor’s decision recorded in the šaṭāru, an alley (birītu) and a right-of-way (mūṣû) were to be marked out.381 The status of such passages sometimes remained undefined upon the sale or division of a property.382 Occasionally, contract provisions prohibited land owners from barring access to passages to their neighbors,383 but sporadic disagreements were inevitable.384 It is possible that Ḫabaṣīru, as the new owner of the house, engaged in such a conflict and was brought before the governor of Babylon in order to settle the issue. BM 59582 does not provide any additional information regarding this stage of Habaṣīru’s case. The text does not even give the name of his opponent, perhaps because it was not essential at the time BM 59582 was written. Another Neo-Babylonian document mentions a similar two-stage procedure. BaAr 2 48 + BM 68942 recounts a dispute settled in the seventh year of Cyrus before temple officials in Sippar and an earlier lawsuit between the same parties that had taken place before a simmagir. According to the editor of the text, Cornelia Wunsch, the first proceedings had ended with the decision on the part of the simmagir that the case would be submitted to Sippar authorities in three years; the final procedure in Sippar, which would involve the drafting of a document, was 381

For mūṣû, see CAD M2: 247–48 (“a strip of land to be used as the exit from a house across land held by another person”). On the street network of Neo-Babylonian cities, see Baker 2009: 95–96; on the access to houses through streets and alleys, see Baker 2014b: 180–82. 382 Cf. Camb. 233, Cyr. 128. 383 E.g., TMH 2/3 2: 20–21: mu-ṣu-ú ù mu-ṣ[u-ú?] a-na a-ḫa-meš ul i-ki-le-e, “they! will not restrict to each other (the access to) the right-of-wa[ys]” (the restoration follows San Nicolò 1947: 136). 384 See Nbn. 53, in which two men are forbidden to use a mūṣû behind another’s house. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

160

Chapter VI

postponed, in Wunsch’s opinion, until the time when one of the protagonists came of age.385 The reconstruction of the broken fragments that allows such an understanding of the text is, however, conjectural. An alternative reading allows for an interpretation according to which the unusual adjournment of the trial did not take place:386 5

[a-n]a ma-ḫar mdnà-lugal-ùru lú.uskar!.še.ga 6ik-šu-du-ma [mdnà-lugal]⌈ùru⌉ [lú.usk]ar!.še.ga é ú-ter-ri-ma 7a-⌈na⌉ m⌈é.dingir⌉-[ia-a]-ḫio.e.-ru [dumu-šú šá] mdé.dingir-ḫa-na-nu! id-din-nu-ma 8[šá?]-⌈ṭár?⌉-[šú? la?] išṭur-r[u ár-k]i* ina* iti.bár mu.7.kám 9[mku-ra-áš lugal e.ki] kur.kur a-na [ma-ḫar] mdamar.utu-mu-mu lú.sanga sip-par.ki 10[ik-šu-du] They approached Nabû-šarru-uṣur, the simmagir. [Nabû-šarru]-uṣur, [the sim]magir, gave the house back to Baytil-[i]aḫiru, [son of] Baytil-ḫanānu, but he [did not?] issue [his? document?. Lat]er, in nisannu of the seventh year of [Cyrus, king of Babylon, king] of lands, [they approached] Marduk-šumu-iddin, the high priest of Sippar.

Cornelia Wunsch (2003a: 176) labelled BaAr 2 48 a “Beurkundung des Ergebnisses eines Rechtsstreits.” However, it seems that the procedure in Sippar was aimed not only at producing a formal document but also—perhaps even chiefly—at settling of additional issues, such as the maintenance of the plaintiff’s grandmother and the ownership of the grandmother’s slaves (ll. 19–26). Ḫabaṣīru appeared in Sippar before a body composed of the high priest, the temple enterer Bēl-aplu-iddin, and Iddin-Marduk of the Eppēš-ilī family. This modest court composition may be linked to the character of the proceedings; lawsuits were usually heard by bodies comprising more members. The fact that Ḫabaṣīru addressed the Sippar authorities at all may seem puzzling. After all, a document already existed in which the decision of the governor regarding Ḫabaṣīru’s estate had been recorded. Two interpretations of Ḫabaṣīru’s motivations may be suggested. First, lines 11–12—taken literally—state that the governor’s šaṭāru concerned an alley and an exit street, not the entire house. Ḫabaṣīru may have been concerned that news about a dispute over part of his new land would fuel speculations regarding his ownership of the entire estate. He thus implemented a procedure whose aim was to receive a formal confirmation that the land belonging to him and his son was clear of claims. Second, a question regarding the nature of the governor’s šaṭāru may be posed. In this period, formal legal documents written in cuneiform were usually labelled tuppu. It cannot be excluded that the šaṭāru issued by the office of 385

Wunsch 2003a: 179. BaAr 2 48 has now been joined to BM 68942 (December 2018); I am grateful to Stefan Zawadzki for putting the tablets together, as well as for his photographic assistance and collations. Readings that differ from those proposed by Cornelia Wunsch are underlined. 386

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

161

the governor (perhaps a new official installed upon the regime change) had a form that differed from that of the conventional (cuneiform) document. If that was the case, Ḫabaṣīru’s motivation may have been to ensure that his proof of title document had a traditional and commonly accepted form. Notes 7 Although it cannot be excluded that Ḫabaṣīru himself read the sale contract, ištassi, “he read,” is more likely an error for ištassû (Pl); note a similar mistake in l. 10 (ušzizi for ušzizzū). 8 The name Ḫabarṣiru is unparalleled, but it may hardly be considered in isolation from the popular Babylonian name Ḫabaṣīru (“Mouse”). This word appears in many forms, including Ḫumṣīru, Ḫabaṣṣiru, Ḫumsīru, Ḫumunsiru, and Ḫumuṣṣiru (see CAD Ḫ: 236 and AHw: 355). Since in the Neo-Babylonian onomasticon it is always Ḫabaṣē/īru (Tallqvist 1902: 65– 66), Ḫabarṣiru was most probably a scribal mistake. 10 Ušzizi, “he confirmed the title,” stands for ušzizzū (Pl). The same form is found in CT 55 194 + BM 61474 (Text no. 26): 16’, which was probably written by the same scribe. Cf. correct forms in this collocation in Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 6: 32 (uš-ziz-z[u]) and Nbn. 356: 35 (uš-ziz-zu). 11 Michael Jursa (2007: 80+17) reads the governor’s name as Marduk-šumuuṣur, but the last sign seems to me much closer to MU than to ÙRU. 13 For the expression “they did not change (lā īnû) (an earlier document),” see BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 16, CT 55 194 + BM 61474 (Text no. 26): 15’, Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 6: 31. Cf. also commentary on BM 47475 (Text no. 16) on pp. 49–50 above. 15 Note that the decision of the high priest and his assistants is called a purussê dīni, “resolution of a case.” Similar use of lawsuit terminology outside trial transcripts is found in Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 6 and in transcripts of negotiations. 17 For Bēl-aplu-iddin, see Bongenaar 1997: 69–70. 18 For Iddin-Marduk, see Bongenaar 1997: 366–67 and 387.

44. BM 26651

Pl. XLIX

1898-5-14, 469 W. 5.2 x L. 4.3 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3.

[a-di u4].⌈x⌉.kám šá iti.ab ⌈mdnà?⌉-[pab.me]š-mu a-šú šá mdu10.ga-ia a mnik-ka-a-a mka-ṣir © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

162

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Chapter VI

a-šú šá mdutu-tin a lú.šitim ib-bak-kám-ma a-na mden-ke-šìr a-šú šá md nà-numun-ba-šá a mman-nu-ge-ru-šú ina bar-sip.ki i-nam-din ki-i la -tab-kám-ma la it-tan-nu a-ki-i di.ku5 šá é a-šib ⌈ká⌉ šá it-ti

l.e. 10. 11. 12. rev. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. u.e. 21. 22. l.h.e. 23. 24.

⌈mden⌉-ke-šìr i-dab-bu-ub [mdn]à?-pab.⌈meš⌉-mu ú-šal-lam [dù-uš níg].ka9-šú-n[u] (erasure) qa-⌈at-tu⌉-ú [lú].⌈mu-kin-nu⌉ mkal-ba-a a-šú šá md ⌈nà-bu-un-šu⌉-tur a mdi.ku5-dpap.sukkal m d ⌈ ⌉ nà-⌈it?-tan?⌉-[nu] ⌈a⌉-šú ⌈šá mdnà-gin-a⌉ a mdù-⌈a-a⌉ md⌈en⌉-gi a-šú šá md nà-⌈na⌉-din a mmu-⌈líb⌉-ši [l]ú.umbisag mden-ba-⌈šá a⌉-šú šá md⌈nà-gin-a⌉ [a] ⌈mdù⌉-a-a uru.⌈ḫur-sag⌉-kalam-ma [it]i.ab u4.21.kám mu.6.kám [mka]m-bu-⌈zi⌉-ía lugal e.ki [lug]al kur.kur.meš ⌈x x⌉ [x] ⌈x x⌉ [x x] md en-ke-šìr ši-[i]

Translation 1–7a [By the] ⌈xth⌉ [day] of the month of ṭebētu ⌈Nabû?⌉-[aḫḫ]ē-iddin, son of Ṭābia, descendant of Nikkāya, will bring Kāṣir, son of Šamaš-uballiṭ, descendant of Itinnu, and he will hand (him) over in Borsippa to Bēl-kēšir, son of Nabû-zēru-iqīša, descendant of Mannu-gērûšu. 7b–11 Should he not bring and hand (him) over, [Nab]û?-⌈aḫḫē⌉-iddin will pay in accorance with the sentence that will be passed by the legal body (lit. house) sitting at the gate (when) he litigates with Bēl-kēšir. 12 Th[eir acc]ounts are settled. 13–17 Witnesses: Kalbāya, son of ⌈Nabû⌉-būnu-šūtur, descendant of Iddin! (t:Dīn)-Papsukkal, Nabû-⌈ittannu?⌉, son of Nabû-mukīn-apli, descendant of Ibnāya, Bēl-ušallim, son of Nabû-nādin, descendant of Šumu-libši. 18–19a Scribe: Bēl-iqīša, son of Nabû-mukīn-apli, [descendant of Ib]nāya. 19b–22 Ḫursagkalamma, [mo]nth of ṭebētu, twenty-first day, sixth year of [Ca]mbyses, king of Babylon, [kin]g of lands. 23–24 [...] belongs to Bēl-kēšir. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

163

Commentary BM 26651 is listed in Ran Zadok’s catalogue of Borsippa documents as a tablet from the Mannu-gērûšu archive (Zadok 2009b: 150, sub 469). Nabû?-aḫḫē-iddin, a man of a little-known family Nikkāya, pledges here to deliver from Ḫursagkalamma to Borsippa a certain Kāṣir, descendant of Itinnu, and to hand him over to Bēl-kēšir of the Mannu-gērûšu family. At least one of these three men, Bēl-kēšir, was a Borsippean. He was probably the brother of Nabû-šumu-uṣur (or: Nabû-nādin-aḫi), son of Nabû-zēru-iqīša, descendant of Mannu-gērûšu, a witness in VAS 5 52: 17, written in Borsippa in the fifth year of Cambyses. The other two parties may have come from the same city, where both the Nikkāyas and the Itinnus are attested. Moreover, the scribe and at least one additional witness came from the city of Nabû.387 The contract was drafted on the twenty-first day of ṭebētu, and the delivery deadline was an unknown day of the same month. 388 Nabû?-aḫḫē-iddin therefore had no more than nine days to bring Kāṣir to Borsippa. In the event that he failed to do so, he was to pay to Bēl-kēšir according to a sentence that he would receive. The background of the dispute is not described in the text. According to Ran Zadok (2009b: 150), Bēl-kēšir could be the creditor, Kāṣir the debtor, and Nabû?-aḫḫē-iddin the guarantor. Such an interpretation cannot be excluded, but the reference to the settlement of accounts (l. 12) suggests that Nabû?-aḫḫē-iddin and Bēl-kēšir could be business partners. In such a case, Kāṣir could be Nabû?aḫḫē-iddin’s witness. In either case, Nabû?-aḫḫē-iddin was to face trial against Bēl-kēšir and to submit to judgement should he fail to deliver Kāṣir to Borsippa.389 The pending sentence is described as dīnu ša bīti āšib bābi. Essentially, this expression could specify the object of litigation (“lawsuit over a house”), but the location of a building is unlikely to be described by the verb ašābu. I therefore take bītu āšib bābi as a designation of a legal body that officiated at a gate. Material from earlier periods often shows gates as places of the execution of justice (i.a., court sittings and oath-taking ceremonies).390 In the Neo-Babylonian period, one of the gates of the Eanna was called bāb dīni, “Gate of Judgement,” or abul dīni, “City Gate of Judgement.”391 In Dilbat, settlements were reached and penalties imposed at a bāb tamīti, “Gate of Oath” (OECT 10 396: 5), and oaths were taken at a city gate (BM 40788 + BM 40823 [Text no. 4]: 10). Witnesses were 387

See Zadok 2009b: 150 for the scribe Bēl-iqīša/Nabû-mukīn-apli//Ibnāya and his brother Nabû-ittannu? (the second witness). They could be brothers of Nabû-aplu-iddin/Nabûmukīn-apli//Ibnāya (C) (Ezida 127). 388 The reading of Zadok 2009b: 150 (“[2]2.X”) cannot be confirmed at present. 389 According to Ran Zadok (2009b: 150), ll. 8–10 describe past events (“the creditor spoke with the judge of the gate”), but the form of dabābu is clearly imperfect. 390 See n. 251 for references. 391 See n. 250 for references. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

164

Chapter VI

summoned to a gate in Babylon in order to testify (Nbn. 26: 4). Texts also mention judges “of” gates (dayyānu ša bāb ekalli in VAS 6 128: 5–6, dayyānu ša bābi in Stolper, RA 85 no. 2: 18).392 One crucial problem remains unsolved, however: What does bītu in this expression stand for? Bītu is used to denote institutions (e.g., bīt abi, “household” or bīt ili, “temple”), yet it seldom appears in such a sense in an unattributed form. Speculatively, one could take bītu in BM 26651 for an abbreviated form of bīt dīni (employed, for example, in order to avoid the clumsy phrase dīnu ša bīt dīni), but, first, such abbreviations are otherwise unknown and, second, bīt dīni is unattested outside Babylon. An expression strikingly similar to bītu āšib bābi is šībūtu āšib bābīšu, “elders sitting in his gates,” in BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 6. In both phrases, “sitting” must be a metaphor for exercising a function.393 Notes 2, 11 Bēl (rather than Nabû)-aḫḫē-iddin cannot be ruled out. 12 Traces of UL are visible under the erasure. 14 The name Dīn-Papsukkal (or: Dayyān-Papsukkal) is unknown. Dīn(di.ku5)- is supposedly a hearing mistake for Iddin-. Iddin-Papsukkal is a well known Borsippean family name.394

45. BM 47423

Pl. L

1881-11-3, 128 W. 6.0 x L. 5.1 x Th. 2.1 format: landscape Courtesy of Radosław Tarasewicz obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

lú.dumu.dù.meš šá ina igi-šú-nu mú-bar a-šú šá m bu-na-nu lú.ši-rik! damar.utu ši-pir-tu4 šá mba-ag-pao.e.-nu a-na pa-ni mkar-damar.utu lú.šà.tam é-im-bi-an.na iš-šá-a um-ma md en-sum.na dumu šá mú-bar šá ina igi mdamar.utu-mu-ùru a-šú šá mduraš-⌈numun⌉-dù a mdidim-dù-eš-dingir

392

The titles dayyānu ša bābi ša Gūbaru, “judge of the gate of Gūbaru,” and dayyānū ša bābi ša Pūrušāti, “judge of the gate of Parysatis,” possibly do not specify the places where these judges officiated but metaphorically describe their affiliation with the courts of the Persian nobles (Jursa and Stolper 2007: 261–62). 393 Cf. CAD A2: 390–93 and 405. 394 Zadok 1998: 275–76, Waerzeggers 2005: 354, Jursa 2005: 84–85, Nielsen 2011: 85, 88. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

165

7. ina mu.3.kám ⌈mda-ri-ia⌉-muš lugal e.⌈ki⌉ u kur.kur 8. fku-ut-ta-a ⌈ama⌉-šú šá ina ⌈gi.meš⌉ šá md⌈nà⌉-numun-ba-šá 9. a-šú šá mgin-numun ⌈tu⌉-ši-bu-ú tu-maš-⌈šìr⌉-šú u ta-ḫal-liq 10. ár-ki mduraš-kád lú.gar umuš dil-bat.⌈ki⌉ mni-qu-du lú.2-i 11. mkal-bi-dba.ú lú.en qa-an-na-a-⌈tú⌉ l.e. 12. 13. rev. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. u.e. 27. 28. 29. l.h.e. 30. 31. 32. 33.

m

na-dino.e. pa-qu-du ina igi mdamar.utu-m[u-ùru] ⌈ip⌉-qí-du-šú mdamar.utu-mu-⌈ùru liš?-šìr?⌉-[šú?] lú.dumu.dù.meš šá dil-bat.ki im-tal-ku-ma mdamar.utu-mu-ùru md en-mu šáo.e. ina igi-šú paq-du ú-ter-ri a-na mú-bar a-šú šá mbu-na-nu lú.dumu šip-ri šá mba-ag-apo.e.-nuo.e. id-din uo.e. f(o.e.)⌈in⌉-qa-a ⌈dumu.sal⌉ šá mri-mut-den taq-bu-ú um-ma md en-mu šá ina igi mdamar.utu-mu-⌈ùru⌉ paq-du dumu šá mú-bar f u ku-ut-ta-a šu-ú den u dnà u mda-a-ra-ia-šú lugal ⌈e.ki⌉ lugal kur.kur it-te-ú ki-i a-na muḫ-ḫi a-ḫa-meš ni-it-te-⌈eḫ⌉-su lú.mu-kin-nu mduraš-gin-⌈ibila⌉ a-šú šá mkar-den a lú.šitim mdnà-bu-ul-liṭ-su a-šú šá md nà-tin-su-iq-bi a lú.šu.ku6 mduraš-mu a-šú šá md nà-kar-zi.meš a lú.en.⌈nun-ká⌉.gal mdnà-⌈šeš.meš⌉-[x] a-šú šá mdamar.utu-mu-ùru a mdiškur-mu-⌈ùru⌉ m ni-din-tu4-den a-šú šá mden-šeš.meš-su a lú.šu.ku6 [m] d ⌈ nà⌉-mu-⌈ùru⌉ a-šú [šá] m⌈gi⌉-mil-⌈lu⌉ a m⌈da⌉-bi-⌈bi⌉ ⌈m⌉an-da-ḫar a-šú ⌈šá⌉ mdnà-sur u lú.umbisag [m]d amar.utu-mu-mu a-šú šá mšá-du-nu a md30-šá-⌈du⌉-[nu] dil-bat.ki iti.⌈bár⌉ u4.7.kám ⌈mu.6.kám⌉ m da-a-⌈ri-ia⌉-šú lugal e.⌈ki⌉ lugal kur.kur

Translation 1–13 These are mār banê before whom Ubār, son of Būnānu, an oblate of Marduk, delivered a letter of Baga-pānu to Mušēzib-Marduk, the administrator of the Eimbianu temple. (The letter) said: “(Concerning) Bēl-iddin, son of Ubār, who is in the custody (ina pani) of Marduk-šumu-uṣur, son of Uraš-⌈zēru⌉-ibni, descendant of Ea-eppēš-ilī: in the third year of Darius, king of Babylon and lands, his ⌈mother⌉, fKuttāya, who lived in the plot of Nabû-zēru-iqīša, son of Mukīn-zēri, set him free and helped (him) escape. Later, Uraš-kāṣir, the governor of Dilbat, Niqūdu, the deputy governor, Kalbi-Bau, the bēl qanâte, (and) Nādin, the policeman, put him in the custody of Marduk-šu[mu-uṣur]. May Marduk-šumu-uṣur [set him fr]ee?!” © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

166 14–18

19–21a

21b–23a

23b–30a

30b–31

32–33

Chapter VI

The mār banê of Dilbat deliberated. Marduk-šumu-uṣur gave back Bēl-iddin, who had been put in his custody, to Ubār, son of Būnānu , the messenger of Baga-pānu. And fInqāya, the daughter of Rīmūt-Bēl, said: “Bēl-iddin, who was in the custody of Marduk-šumu-uṣur, is the son of Ubār and fKuttāya.” They swore Bēl, Nabû, and Darius, king of Babylon, king of lands: “(We swear) that we will not turn against each other.” Witnesses: Uraš-mukīn-apli, son of Mušēzib-Bēl, descendant of Itinnu, Nabû-bullissu, son of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi, descendant of Bāʾiru, Uraš-iddin, son of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti, descendant of Maṣṣarabulli, Nabû-⌈aḫḫē⌉-[...], son of Marduk-šumu-uṣur, descendant of Adad-šumu-uṣur, Nidinti-Bēl, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, descendant of Bāʾiru, Nabû-šumu-uṣur, son of Gimillu, descendant of Dābibi, Andaḫar, son of Nabû-ēṭir, and the scribe Marduk-šumu-iddin, son of Šadûnu, descendant of Sînšad[ûnu]. Dilbat, month of nisannu, seventh day, sixth year of Darius (I), king of Babylon, king of lands.

Commentary BM 47423 is a transcript of proceedings initiated by an oblate of Marduk, Ubār, who appeared before the authorities of the Dilbat Eimbianu temple with a writ requesting the release of his own son, Bēl-iddin. The transcript allows Bēl-iddin’s story to be reconstructed and opens the door to speculations about his family background and the legal actions undertaken by his father prior to his appearance in Dilbat. Bēl-iddin and his mother, fKuttāya, lived in the property (“reeds”) of a certain Nabû-zēru-ukīn, presumably in Dilbat. It seems that they did not reside there voluntarily, as, in the third year of Darius I, Bēl-iddin escaped from there with his mother’s help. He was caught, and a group of Dilbat officials put him in the custody of a Marduk-šumu-uṣur of the Ea-eppēš-ilī family, a man other than the individual in whose household Bēl-iddin had previously lived. The reasons for this custody and the legal grounds for placing Bēl-iddin under it are unclear. Seeking to secure his son’s release, Bēl-iddin’s father managed to persuade a Persian official to issue an order to have Bēl-iddin set free. This order was presented to a body of mār banê presided by the administrator of the Eimbianu who, after deliberation, handed Bēl-iddin over to his father. The status of the protagonists is not immediately clear. Ubār is referred to as a širku of Marduk. A temple of this god is unattested in Dilbat; it is thus conceivable that Ubār could have belonged to a sanctuary of Marduk in another city, possibly © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

167

the Esagila of Babylon itself. The status of Bēl-iddin and his mother, fKuttāya, is specified nowhere in the text. Since Ubār requested the release of Bēl-iddin only, the statuses of the mother and the son could have differed. They both lived in a property of Nabû-zēru-iqīša, but the nature of their relationship with this man is unknown. fKuttāya could have been his slave or a free woman detained by Nabûzēru-iqīša, perhaps for debts that she had to work off. Bēl-iddin was clearly not his slave, since, after his escape and subsequent capture, he was not returned to Nabûzēru-iqīša but placed in the custody of another person. A son of an oblate and a private slave—where would he belong? Numerous disputes over children born to women dedicated to temples are known.395 They usually focus on establishing the point when these children were delivered: those born before the dedication of their mothers remained private slaves, while those born after the dedication became members of temple households. Did the status of oblate-fathers determine that of their children in a similar manner? Common sense suggests otherwise: since paternity is usually more difficult to prove than maternity, temples would have encountered problems when claiming their property. More importantly, any evidence concerning investigation into the identities of oblate-fathers is conspicuously lacking. One more argument against Bēl-iddin’s oblate status may be advanced: if he was a širku, one would expect a temple representative, not Ubār, to appear before the Dilbat officials and to request the release of Bēl-iddin. In this light, two scenarios may be considered. According to the first, Bēl-iddin inherited the status of his mother—he was either a slave or a free minor. Alternatively, Bēl-iddin inherited the status of his father, Ubār, who, however, had fathered him before being dedicated to Marduk. In such a case, Bēl-iddin would be, again, either a slave or a free man, depending on Ubār’s status before the dedication. Several aspects of the procedures described in BM 47423 are noteworthy. The fact that a širku took legal steps in order to enforce his claim is by itself unsurprising; oblates appeared occasionally in courts against free persons.396 More intriguing is the involvement of the Persian authorities. In l. 18, Ubār is called a messenger (mār šipri) of Baga-pānu. Conceivably, this title did not refer to his usual function in the service of Baga-pānu, but to the ad hoc appointment of bringing a message to Dilbat. Even if he was not a member of Baga-pānu’s entourage, Ubār must have been a well-connected man, capable of gaining the attention of the Persian authorities for his private claim and persuading them to take legal actions on his behalf. In this respect, he resembles another influential oblate active in Babylonia around the same time, Gimillu of the Eanna temple, who for many years maneuvered skillfully between his temple authorities and the Persian court, securing for himself lucrative posts and escaping responsibilities.397 395

E.g., Cyr. 332, YOS 7 66, YOS 19 91. Nbn. 102, Scheil, RA 12, OIP 122 38, cf. TCL 13 170. 397 See recently Jursa 2004 and Kozuh 2014: 159–76 (with earlier literature). 396

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

168

Chapter VI

Two Dilbatean bodies handled the case of Ubār and his son. The first group, comprising a governor of Dilbat, his deputy, a bēl qanâte, and a policeman (paqūdu), gathered after Bēl-iddin’s escape and his subsequent capture. The governor and the deputy joined the group as the highest representatives of the local city authorities. The other two men were presumably involved in the arrest of Bēliddin. Paqūdus’ duties as law enforcement officers are amply documented in the Chaldean period. Their responsibilities included, amongst others, searching for and arresting suspects.398 The title bēl qanâte is to my knowledge unattested, but it is undoubtedly a collateral form of the well-known rab qanâte.399 Like paqūdūs, rab qanâtes were responsible for keeping law and order. They collected and enforced fines, guarded detained criminals, and assisted during interrogation procedures.400 At least some of them were royal officials.401 Rab qanâtes of various jurisdictions are known, including a rab qanâte of the Sealand and one who had the Eanna oblates under his authority.402 Most of the evidence concerning their activity comes from the times of Nebuchadnezzar II; the latest hitherto known attestations were from the reign of Nabonidus.403 In BM 47423, both law enforcement functionaries, the rab qanâte and paqūdu, are found together for the first time. The division of their responsibilities is unknown, but, since the rab qanâte is listed first, his position was presumably higher. This high position is corroborated by the appearance of other rab qanâtes alongside high officials and by their competences (e.g., the power to release prisoners on bail),404 as well as indirectly by the name of the estate Bīt-rab-qanâte, shaped like the names of properties of high officials (e.g., Bīt-mukīl-appāti, Bīt-rab-mungi, and Bīt-tupšar-ekalli).405 It is noteworthy that both offices were still part of the administrative structure under Darius I, apparently unaffected by any reforms of the system carried out by the first Achaemenids. 398

Pirngruber 2013: 70–74. Cf. Jursa 1995a: 85 for the concurrent use of the titles bēl sūti, rab sūti, and ša muḫḫi sūti and Bēl-rēmanni: 251–52, l. 9 for bēl ḫanšê instead of common rab ḫanšê. 400 Kleber and Frahm 2006: 116, Sandowicz 2018a. 401 Cf. rab qanâtes of the king in Kleber and Frahm, JCS 58: 4. 402 l[ú.ga]l qa-an-na-a-ta šá kur.tam-tì (Nbk. 116: 14), lú.gal qa-an-na-a-ti šá lú.ši-ra-ku šá dgašan šá unug.ki (YOS 19 93: 12–13). 403 MacGinnis, Iraq 60 no. 9? ([18Nbp–4NbkII]), YOS 17 320 (10NbkII), YOS 17 359 (15NbkII), Nbk. 116 (18NbkII), Kleber and Frahm, JCS 58 (34NbkII), Nbk. 421 ([x]NbkII), SbB 1 77 (NbkII), BM 113414 (9Nbn), BM 114459 ([1–13Nbn]), YOS 19 93 (15Nbn). Cf. the estate of Bīt-rab-qanâte in 5Cyr (Cyr. 158, coll. Jursa 1998: 45). 404 Cf. rab qanâtes cooperating with a zazakku (Kleber and Frahm, JCS 58) and one who follows a resident in a witness list (BM 114459). For bail release granted by a rab qanâte, see YOS 17 359. 405 Jursa 1998: 67–69, Jursa and Payne 2005: 122.

399

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

169

The second administrative body that handled Bēl-iddin’s case comprised a group of seven mār banê and a administrator of the local temple Eimbianu.406 It is to them whom Ubār brought the order of Bāga-pānu requesting Bēl-iddin’s release. By addressing the administrator and not the civic authorities who had decided upon the custody of his son three years earlier, Ubār seems to be bypassing the local governor, but one may think of a number of reasons underlying this course of action. According to one, the governor could have been notified, but he referred the messenger to the temple authorities (e.g., because Mardukšumu-uṣur, in whose custody Ubār’s son was placed, was a member of the Eimbianu household). The operative part of the document ends with a sworn waiver of suit (ll. 21– 23). Regrettably, the scribe did not provide information concerning the identities of the oath takers. Were they Ubār and Marduk-šumu-uṣur, the man in whose custody Bēl-iddin was kept, and perhaps also Nabû-zēru-iqīša, from whose house Bēl-iddin had previously escaped with the help of his mother? These questions remain unanswered, but it is worth noting that, by asking for this sworn declaration, the temple authorities went a step beyond merely following Baga-pānu’s order; they ensured that Bēl-iddin’s release was valid and difficult to challenge. Perhaps fInqāya’s testimony confirming that Ubār and fKuttāya were Bēl-iddin’s parents was likewise part of a supplementary procedure implemented by the temple administrator and his entourage. Several officials influenced the courses of the lives of members of Ubār’s family. The most important one among them was Baga-pānu (Iranian “Having Baga as Protection”).407 His title is not identified in the text, but the fact that he overruled a decision issued by the governor of Dilbat strongly suggest that his position was very high. At the time BM 47423 was written, a man of this name (Elam. Bakabana) was a satrap of Bactria,408 but it seems unlikely that the connections of an oblate of Marduk reached that far. For chronological reasons, Baga-pānu of BM 47423 also cannot be linked to Bakabana, who appears much later (504–494 BCE) in Persepolis tablets and who was presumably the satrap of Elam at the time.409 Cuneiform evidence features a few men of this name. A year after BM 47423 was written, an assistant (tašlīšu) of Baga-pānu appeared as a member of a body that formally accepted a royal order brought by Persian judges (MacGinnis, JCS 60: 5).410 The tašlīšu’s master may be identical with the order-giver of BM 47423, but also this time his function was not identified. The same is true of Baga-pānu, whose unit (kiṣru) received allowances in the sixth year of Cambyses according to Camb. 316:

406

For mār banê, see Dandamaev 1988: 66–68, idem 1997, Barjamović 2004: 66–84. Tavernier 2007: 137, cf. Zadok 2009a: 135, 138. 408 Briant 2002: 392. 409 Briant 2013: 14–17. 410 m ba-ga-aʾ-pa-na. 407

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

170

Chapter VI

7.411 Two much later documents mention a man who fits our picture well. Stigers, JCS 28 no. 22 (19DarI) features a slave of Baga-pānu, the governor (pāḫāt) of Babylon(ia), and Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich: 885–86 (28+[x]DarI) alludes to testimony before Baga-pānu, the governor of Babylon(ia).412 The same Baga-pānu could be the owner of properties in Babylon mentioned in documents from the second and third decades of Darius I’s rule.413 He could further be identical with Megapanos, the “guardian” (epitropos) of Babylon(ia) mentioned by Herodotus, but only if we disregard Herodotus’ chronology (according to which Megapanos became the epitropos after the second Greek-Persian war in 480 BCE).414 The association of the sender of the order regarding Ubār’s son with the man who was—or was to become—the governor of Babylon(ia) could account for the high judicial and administrative prerogatives he enjoyed. This identification would make Baga-pānu’s activity span long, but not impossibly so. The archival affiliation of BM 47423 is uncertain. A prosopographic link (see below) to the Dābibi archive allows for the possibility that it was a tablet from the Eimbianu archive that entered a private archive of Nabû-aḫu-ittannu, descendant of Dābibi, a scribe of the Eimbianu.415 However, BM 47423 is not black-burned as most Dābibi tablets are. It therefore seems possible that, together with a few fragmentary tablets from Dilbat, BM 47423 belonged to the archive of a local branch of the Ea-eppēš-ilī family, a member of which was Marduk-šumu-uṣur (ll. 5–6), the second custodian of Bēl-iddin. Marduk-šumu-uṣur’s father is probably identical with Uraš-zēru-[ibni], son of Marduk-erība, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, who appears in the broken dispute document, BM 48767 ([xNb]n). The wife of his presumed grandfather would then be fBurašu, who is mentioned in a fragmentary record of deposition BM 48758 ([x]+3NbkII). Yet another tablet that possibly belonged to this archive is BM 47729, in which an Eppēš-ilī is mentioned in a fragmented context. Notes The number of erasures and mistakes is striking, especially considering the high quality of the clay and the scribe’s handwriting. 2 There is a redundant slanting wedge in the sign ŠIM (rik). 2 For šipirtu as a means of delivering instructions issued by the Persian administration (including royal decisions), see MacGinnis, JCS 60; for the 411 m

ba-ga-a-pa-na. ba-ga-a-pa-a-ʾ lú.pa-ḫa nun.ki (Stigers, JCS 28 no. 22: 7, cf. 14), mba-ga-pi-an-nu lú.nam tin.tir.ki (Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich: 885–86, l. 30). 413 m ba-ga-⌈pa⌉-nu-u (CTMMA 3 117 rev. 3), mba-ga-pa[n-nu] (Field Plans 6 obv., see von Dassow and Spar 2000: 238 for an improved reading). 414 Histories VII 62, cf. Zadok 1977a: 96–97 and Dandamaev 1992: 58–59. Matthew W. Stolper (1987: 619) objects to this identification. 415 Jursa 2005: 98–99.

412 m

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

earlier period, see SAKFl 155: 12 (with collations in Janković 2013: 205– 6). Cf. also CT 22 73 (= SbB 1 45), which describes efforts to have a šipirtu issued by an official. The temple administrator Mušēzib-Marduk must be identical with Mušēzib-Marduk, son of Ezida-mukīn-apli, descendant of Maṣṣār-abulli, the first witness in a contract for the sale of the mandidūtu prebend in the Eimbianu temple (VAS 5 161: 15, 11DarI), a retroact from the Dābibi archive.416 Mušēzib-Marduk’s title is omitted in VAS 5 161, but high temple offficials often top witness lists of prebend sale deeds. On the Eimbianu (E-ibbi-Anu) temple in Dilbat, see George 1993: 102. Lit. “in the reeds of Nabû-zēru-iqīša.” Cf. GCCI 2 395: 13. Taḫalliq is a mistake for tuḫalliq. The clause breaks in the middle of the word paqdu. This is probably where the scribe noticed his mistake. For the name fInqāya, see Reynolds 2000, cf. OIP 122 36: 2’, 6’, 11’, 14’. The fifth mār banê, Nidinti-Bēl, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, descendant of Bāʾiru, occurs as a witness in Roth, AfO 36/37 no. 16: 35 (33DarI).

3

4 8 9 15 19 28

46. BM 68563 + BM 68965 1882-9-18, 8561 + 1882-9-18, 8964 W. 7.2 x L. 6.4 x Th. 3.5 format: portrait? obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 416

171

[im.dub ḫa.la šá mm]u-den mtab-⌈né⌉-e-⌈a⌉ [mamar.utu-gin-a m]da-an-qí-ia dumu.meš šá mba-šá-damar.utu [o] ⌈a lú.sanga-d⌉[utu it]-ti a-ḫa-meš i-zu-zu 3 sìla ninda.ḫi.a 3 sìla kaš.ḫi.a giš.šub.ba ina pa-pa-ḫi dutu 6 gur še.numun zaq-pi ù pi-i ⌈šul⌉-pu ul-tu gú íd a-di-i kaskalii lugal ina du6-gub-bu ⌈pi⌉-ḫat zimbir.ki 20 gi.meš ina é šá zimbir.ki ḫa.la-ta-šú [šá] mmu-den il-te!-qu 3 sìla ninda.ḫi.a 3 sìla kaš.ḫi.a giš.⌈šub⌉.ba ina p[a]-pa-ḫi dutu 4 gur ⌈še.numun⌉ zaq-pi ⌈ù⌉ pi-i šul-⌈pu⌉ ul-tu gú íd a-di-i kaskalii ⌈lugal⌉ ⌈šá⌉ ina ⌈du6⌉-gub-⌈bu⌉ pi-ḫat zimbir.ki 60+20o.e. gi.meš [ina é] ⌈šá zimbir⌉.ki ḫa.la-šú mtab-⌈né-e⌉-a il-[te-qu] 12 gur ⌈še!.numun⌉ zaq-pi ⌈ù pi⌉-i ⌈šul⌉-p[u ul-tu] ⌈gú⌉ íd a-⌈di-i kaskalii lugal šá ina du6⌉-[gub-bu pi-ḫat]

Jursa 2005: 99714. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. LI

172

Chapter VI

14. [z]imbir.k[i 15. ú-ìl-tì šá [ 16. ad-šú-nu šá ⌈x⌉[ 17. ⌈x⌉[ (rest broken away) rev. (beginning broken away) 1’. [ ] m 2’. ⌈ ⌉[ ] 3’. m[ ] 4’. m[x x x a-š]ú ⌈šá⌉ m⌈bul-lu⌉-ṭ[u (x x x)] 5’. m[x x x a]-šú šá mni-⌈qu⌉-du [(x x x)] 6’. mn[i-x x x a]-šú šá mden-numun-⌈ib?-ni?⌉ 7’. mdn[à-x x a]-šú šá mdu-umo.e.-mu-qu 8’. mb[a? x x] lú.umbisag a-šú šá mla-ba-a-ši 9’. ur[u.šu-šá-a]n? iti.zíz u4.12.kam mu.17.kám 10’. m[da-ri]-muš lugal tin.⌈tir⌉.ki lugal.kur.kur.meš

] ] ] ]

____________________________________________________________

l.h.e. na4.kišib / m⌈ina-é⌉.sag.gil- / ⌈lil-bur⌉ lú.⌈gar umuš⌉ / tin.tir.⌈ki⌉ ____________________________________________________________

na4.kišib m⌈ḫa-ba-ṣir⌉ / lú.di.⌈ku5⌉ ____________________________________________________________

na4.⌈kišib⌉ mla-ba-⌈ši⌉ /-⌈amar.utu?!⌉/ lú.di.ku5 ____________________________________________________________

Translation 1–3a [Contract for the property division that Id]din-Bēl, Tabnēa, [Mardukmukīn-apli, (and)] Damqia, sons of Iqīša-Marduk, descendant of Šangû[Šamaš], made among themselves: 3b–7a three liters of bread (and) three liters of beer, the prebend in the cella of Šamaš; six kors of date grove and arable land, from the river bank up to the royal road, in Tīl-Gubbi (in) the Sippar district; twenty reeds in the house (plot) in Sippar: (this is) the share [that] Iddin-Bēl has taken; 7b–11 three liters of bread (and) three liters of beer, the prebend in the cella of Šamaš; four kors of date grove and arable land, from the river bank up to the royal road that is in Tīl-Gubbi (in) the Sippar district; eighty reeds [in the house (plot)] in Sippar: (this is) the share Tabnēa has t[aken]; 12–17 twelve kors of date grove and arable land [from] the river bank up to the royal road that is in Tīl-[Gubbi] (in) the Sippar [district. ...] promissory note(s) of [...] their father that [...] (large lacuna) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts 1’–7’

8’ 9’–10’

l.h.e.

173

[Witnesses:

...], [..., son] of Bulluṭ[u (...)], [..., son] of Niqūdu [(...)], N[i..., son] of Bēl-zēru-⌈ibni?⌉, Na[bû-..., son] of Dummuqu. Scribe: Iq[īša-(...)?], son of Lâbâši. [Sus]a?, month of šabaṭu, twelfth day, seventeenth year of [Dar]ius (I), king of Babylon, king of lands. seal of Ina-Esagil-lilbur, the governor of Babylon (no seal impression) seal of Ḫabaṣīru, judge (no seal impression) seal of Lâbâši-⌈Marduk?!⌉, judge (no seal impression)

Commentary The reading of the town’s name in l. 10’—which is crucial for the understanding of the circumstances in which this document was produced—is uncertain. The toponym begins with URU and ends with a sign that is tentatively read here as AN, although the end of the horizontal wedge is written quite high. However, in view of the timing, Susa seems to be a place where the paths of the Sippareans, the governor of Babylon, and judges from Babylon could have crossed. Most visits of Babylonian officials and priests to the Persian capital took place at the end of the year (usually in the months of šabaṭu and addaru).417 Moreover, one of the protagonists of BM 68563 + BM 68965, Tabnēa, is known to have been in Susa in the seventeenth year. He is listed as a witness in Marduk-rēmanni 102 ([x.x].17DarI), a record of the loan of forty-one shekels contracted in the Persian capital by his distant relative Nabû-kāṣir, son of Šāpik-zēri, descendant of ŠangûŠamaš. The issue day and month of Marduk-rēmanni 102 are damaged, but it seems reasonable to assume that BM 68563 + BM 68965 and Marduk-rēmanni 102 were drafted in the same part of the year. The loan contracted by Nabû-kāṣir in Susa was to be repaid in addaru, presumably in Sippar, since similar debt notes from Susa provide for repayment in home cities.418 The transaction was probably concluded not earlier than two months before the repayment deadline: most promissory notes from Susa required that the debt be satisfied within the following month or within two months.419 Since the creditor of Marduk-rēmanni 102 was in Sippar in šabaṭu of the seventeenth year (Marduk-rēmanni 101, [x].11.17DarI), 417

Waerzeggers 2010b: 80192. Cf. Waerzeggers 2010b, Table 1. Repayment in Babylon: Abraham, OLP 28 no. 3 (BM 30878), Abraham, OLP 28 no. 4 = Liv. 25, Biggs, Festschrift De Meyer, Dar. 437, Dar. 497, Marduk-rēmanni 118, OECT 10 152, TCL 13 193; repayment in Sippar: Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 8 (= BM 74542 = Marduk-rēmanni 120). 419 Cf. Waerzeggers 2010b, Table 1. Ca. one month: Marduk-rēmanni 118, VAS 6 155; ca. two months: Dar. 417, Dar. 497, Biggs, Festschrift De Meyer, Abraham, OLP 28 no. 3 (BM 30878), OECT 10 152. 418

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

174

Chapter VI

Marduk-rēmanni 102 could have been written in Susa either at the very beginning or at the very end of šabāṭu. Branch B of the Šangû-Šamaš (Šangû-Sippar) family, to which the four brothers dividing their estate belonged,420 held a high position in the Ebabbar temple and, as follows from BM 68563 + BM 68965, possessed significant wealth. The father of the brothers, Iqīša-Marduk, owed temple enterer’s and brewer’s prebends in the temple of Šamaš and probably served as the Ebabbar’s College scribe (tupšar bīti).421 At the beginning of Darius I’s reign, he held the function of the Ebabbar’s house rent collector (ša muḫḫi bītāti). He was forced to step down from this office in the eighth year after his arrears had exceeded twenty-three minas of silver.422 Iqīša-Marduk is last attested in the twelfth year of Darius.423 At the time BM 68563 + BM 68965 was written and his possessions divided among his sons, he must no longer have been alive. The property of branch B of the Šangû-Šamaš family was considerable. It included land in Tīl-Gubbi, which was held by the family since at least the eighth year of Cyrus.424 This land was a subsistence parcel, inherent in Iqīša-Marduk’s temple enterer’s prebends. Located on the Euphrates and the Mašennu Canal, possibly near Āl-Šamaš, Tīl-Gubbi was the major date-growing center in the area of Sippar.425 The royal road, mentioned in ll. 5, 9, 13, is known to have passed through this town from other texts.426 The size of the family’s agricultural land in Tīl-Gubbi was astonishing: it measured at least twenty-two kors (nearly 30 ha).427 Their urban property was likewise of substantial size, measuring 100 reeds (1225 sq m) at least. Neo-Babylonian material features only one larger house plot: a parcel of over 456 reeds purchased by a distant relative of Iqīša-Marduk, Mušebši-Marduk of the Šangû-Šamaš family in the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar II (Bēl-rēmanni: 142–43).428 Considering its size, it is not surprising that no topographical description of Iddin-Bēl’s and Tabnēa’s property is provided.

420

Cf. Jursa 2005: 128–29. Bongenaar 1997: 91, 452. 422 MacGinnis, JEOL 40 no. 1. For Iqīša-Marduk’s career as ša muḫḫi bītāti and the history of his insolvency, see comprehensively Zawadzki 2018: 115–18. 423 Bongenaar 1997: 452. 424 CT 56 519: 18. 425 Jursa 1995a: 230–34, idem 1999: 90–95, idem 2010: 338–40. 426 E.g., Bēl-rēmanni: 213–14, l. 4, Jursa, ArOr 63 no. 2 (BM 63884): 4–5 and Jursa, ArOr 63 no. 3 (BM 74453): 2–3. 427 CT 57 365 + CT 56 534 ([NbkII or Ngl]) lists eighteen plots in Tīl-Gubbi, whose total surface was ca. twenty-two kors (cf. Jursa 1995a: 155, Jursa 2010: 338–39). Bēl-rēmanni: 203–5, l. 10 (20+[x]DarI) mentions a field of temple enterers that measured only three kors in this area; it is possibly the same field that is rented out in Bēl-rēmanni: 213–14, 24DarI (Jursa 1999: 91). 428 For a survey of Neo-Babylonian building plots, see Baker 2004: 58–59. 421

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

175

Their bītu ša Sippar, “house (plot) of Sippar,” must have been easily recognizable as one of largest parcels in town. The listing order of Neo-Babylonian legal texts usually reflects seniority. Iddin-Bēl is thus expected to be the oldest brother, Tabnēa the second oldest, and so forth. If the brothers are indeed listed according to seniority, the family estate was not divided in accordance with the contemporary practice, following which the oldest brother was entitled to a preferential double share.429 Prebend Iddin-Bēl Tabnēa Marduk-mukīn-apli Damqia

3 l. bread 3 l. beer 3 l. bread 3 l. beer – [x]

Agricultural land 6 kors

Urban property

Other

20 reeds

–

4 kors

80 reeds

–

12 kors

[x]

[x]

[x]

promissory notes [x]

Equal shares of the prebend went to two first brothers. Iddin-Bēl received a larger part of the field, while Tabnēa received a larger part of the house. The third brother, Marduk-mukīn-apli, obtained no share in the prebend, but his share in the field was twice the size of that of Iddin-Bēl and three times that of Tabnēa; he also received outstanding assets in debt notes. Although the picture is not complete, it seems that the shares—at least those of the first three brothers—were roughly proportional. Even more striking than its details are the settings in which the division took place. Why was this important act carried out away from Sippar and why in the presence of the governor and judges? These circumstances suggest duress. Conceivably, the four brothers urgently needed money and decided to divide their family estate in order to subsequently alienate a part thereof. Several peculiar sales transactions and loans secured against properties in Babylonia were contracted in Susa;430 some of them were recorded in the presence of judges and high officials. Some of these loans were to secure the payment of outstanding taxes.431 Similar context may be also assumed in the case of BM 68563 + BM 68965. As early as the fourth year of Darius I, Iqīša-Marduk, together with other Ebabbar temple enterers, contracted a loan of 320 kors of dates, which was probably tax-related.432

429

Cf. Oelsner, Wells, and Wunsch 2003: 938–39. Cf. Waerzeggers 2010b, Table 1. Sale contracts: Dar. 435, BM 102293; debt notes: TCL 13 193, Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 10 (= Marduk-rēmanni 155), Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 11 (= Marduk-rēmanni 158), Marduk-rēmanni 159. 431 Waerzeggers 2010b: 808–9. 432 Waerzeggers 2014: 70–72.

430

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

176

Chapter VI

Four years later, he was dismissed him from the function of ša muḫḫi bītāti. Certainly, however, the temple authorities did not absolve Iqīša-Marduk of the arrears of over twenty-three minas of silver that he had failed to pay. After the death of their father, the sons were probably called to account, and the final episode in their family insolvency took place in Susa. The division of the estate was carried out before Ina-Esagil-lilbur, son of Šanāšišu. At the time, this individual was the governor of Babylon, but, nine years before, he had held the function of high priest of Sippar. In this capacity, he deprived Iqīša-Marduk of his function as the collector of house rents. He must have known not only the story of Iqīša-Marduk’s insolvency but also the assets that had passed to Iqīša-Marduk’s sons.433 The judges who assisted the governor are known from other legal documents written in Susa and Babylon during the second part of Darius I’s reign. LâbâšiMarduk, son of Rab-šušši, was one of officials before whom a loan for the large sum of twenty-three minas of silver was contracted in the Persian capital one year earlier (Abraham, OLP 28 no. 4 = BM 33936, [16]DarI). The judge Ḫabaṣīru, descendant of Ea-eppēš-ilī, appears in a document written in Babylon fourteen years later (Business and Politics 66, 31DarI). Both judges were present at a transaction that took place in Babylon in the thirty-second year of Darius I (Roth, JAOS 111: 32). Lâbâši-Marduk and Ḫabaṣīru belonged to a panel known chiefly from Babylon and presumably based there. BM 68563 + BM 68965 demonstrates that the authority of judges from Babylon was acknowledged not only far from their own city but, more remarkably, out of their own milieu—in this case among the travelers who arrived from Sippar. BM 68563 + BM 68965 is a copy; only seal captions were put down, while no seals were impressed. The name of the individual who drafted the document could be Iqīšāya (mb[a-šá-a]) or Balāṭu (mb[a-la-ṭu]), but no such son of Lâbâši is attested as a scribe in the published Sippar documents. The scribe was possibly not a highly skilled professional, as the signs on the reverse are larger than those on the obverse and the writing is rather inelegant. Notes 5, 9, 13 ÍD seems to refer to the Euphrates and not a local canal; cf. Bēl-rēmanni: 203–5, l. 10, which describes the localization of a plot in Tīl-Gubbi as ⌈ultu⌉ gú ⌈íd⌉.zimbir.ki, “from the Euphrates’s bank.”

433

He must have been the same governor of Babylon who, in the seventeenth year, imposed on the Sippareans the costs of the work on a canal linking Babylonia and Elam (Bēlrēmanni: 151–52). On the presence of Babylonian governors in Susa in general, see Tolini 2011: 261–63. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

177

N[i...] is presumably identical with Nidintu, son of Bēl-zēru-ibni, descendant of Egibi, a witness in a document written in Susa in the twenty-third year of Darius I, Abraham, OLP 28 no. 1 (BM 41440): 8. l.h.e. The last sign in the name of the second judge is unclear to me. The reading

amar.utu?! is based on the assumption that the judge is identical with Lâbâši-Marduk, descendant of Rab-šušši, who appears in Roth, JAOS 111: 32: 18 and l.e. edge and in Abraham, OLP 28 no. 4 = Liv. 25: 13 as Lâbâši, descendant of Rab-šušši. 6’

47. BM 31355 1876-11-17, 1082 Bertin 2725 W. 6.0 x L. 4.6 x Th. 1.9 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. l.e. 11. 12. rev. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. u.e. 21.

⌈10 gín kù⌉.[babbar i-di é] ù šu-gar-ru-⌈ú šá é⌉ [x x x] šá ul-tu .gu4 mu.33.kám a-di qí-[it] iti.bár mu.34.kám mda-a-ri-mu[š] lugal šá mden-su dumu šá mdamar.utu-numun-dù dumu mda-bi-bi ù en.⌈meš⌉ ḫa.la-šú [(x x)] md en-su ina šuii mni-din-tu4-den dumu šá mdamar.utu-pab-a dumu me-gì-bi ma-ḫi-ir e-lat ú-[de-e é] šá ina šá-ṭa-ru šá i-d[i? é? (x x)] u rug-bu rak-su [x x x x] šá ina igi mdama[r.utu-pab-a ad] šá mni-din-tu4-den [x x x] ú-⌈de⌉-e u rug-bu [x x x] šú-nu 1-en-ta-àm t[i-ú] ina maḫ-ri mni-[din-ti di.ku5] a mur-dn[anna mki-damar.utu-tin] di.ku5 a ms[u-ḫa-a-a mdnà-na-din-šeš] up-pa-d[e-tu4 a me-ṭè-ru] m ⌈ni⌉-[din-tu4-den dub.sar] [a mdù-a-šá-dingir-ia tin.tir.ki]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Pl. LII

178

Chapter VI

22. [iti.x u4.x.kám mu.30+x.kám] 23. [mda-a-ri-muš lugal kur.kur] l.h.e. ⌈na4.kišib⌉ / mni-din-ti / di.ku5 (no seal impressed) Translation 1–9a (Concerning) ten shekels sil[ver, house rent] and additional payment for the [...] house from the month of ayyaru of the thirty-third year till the en[d] of the month of nisannu of the thirty-fourth year of Darius the king, owed to Bēl-erība, son of Marduk-zēru-ibni, descendant of Dābibi, and his partners. Bēl-erība received (them) from Nidinti-Bēl, son of Marduk-nāṣir-apli, descendant of Egibi. 9b–15a (This is) apart from [household] go[ods] that [...] in the contract for the rent[al of a house] and a fixed loft [...] put at the disposal of Mard[uk-nāṣirapli, the father] of Nidinti-Bēl. [...] the goods and the loft belong to [...]. 15b Each ha[s tak]en (a copy of this document). 16–19 (Written) before: Ni[dinti, judge], descendant of Ur-Na[nna], [Itti-Marduk-balāṭu], judge, descendant of S[uḫāya], [Nabû-nādin-aḫi], uppad[ētu, descendant of Eṭēru]. 20–21a [Scribe]: Ni[dinti-Bēl, descendant of Banâ-ša-iliya]. 21b–23 [Babylon, month of ..., xth day, thirty+xth year of Darius (I), king of Babylon, king of lands]. l.h.e. seal of Nidinti, judge (no seal impression) Commentary The presence of judges (and an uppadētu) at a transaction of this kind is peculiar, hence the suspition that the payment followed a dispute. Members of this judicial body, as well as the scribe, are found in several documents written at the end of Darius I’s rule.434 The debtor, Nidinti-Bēl, is the last known representative of the main branch of the Babylon Egibi family, last attested in the accession year of Šamaš-erība (Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 16). Nidinti-Bēl’s commercial activity included house renting.435 He usually rented properties out, but both BM 31355 and BM 31824 =

434

Nidintu//Ur-Nanna (judge): Roth, JAOS 111: 33–34 (33DarI), Roth, JAOS 111: 32–33 (33DarI), and BM 31800 = Text no. 48 ([30+x]DarI); Itti-Marduk-balāṭu//Suḫāya (judge): JAOS 111: 32–33 (33DarI); Nabû-nādin-aḫi//Eṭēru (uppadētu): Roth, JAOS 111: 33–34 (33DarI), Roth, JAOS 111: 32–33 (33DarI), Nappāḫu 15 (34DarI); Nidinti-Bēl//Banâ-ša-iliya (scribe): Roth, JAOS 111: 32 (32DarI), Roth, JAOS 111: 33– 34 (33DarI), BM 31800 = Text no. 48 ([30+x]DarI), Wunsch, AfO 42/43 no. 13 (1Xrx). 435 See Abraham 2004: 14, n. 21, Wunsch 2003/2004: 239, Zawadzki 2018, passim. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

179

Bertin 2555 demonstrate that his businesses were more complex: he also rented buildings and parts thereof, possibly in order to sublet them.436 The other protagonist, Bēl-erība, is to my knowledge unattested in the published material from this period. Some three years after BM 31355 was written, Nidinti-Bēl paid the rent for a bīt kāri u rugbu, “a harbor house and a loft,” to a certain Nidintu, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība (Business and Politics 86), who could have been the son of the landlord mentioned in BM 31355 (whose name would have to be then emended to Bēl--erība). An alternative possibility is that Bēl-erība was the son of Marduk-zēru-ibni, son of Bēl-iddin, descendant of Dābibi, who appears as a witness in a promissory note concerning Nidinti-Bēl’s father, Marduk-nāṣir-apli (Dar. 351: 19, 13DarI). The link between members of the older generation of the families is in fact suggested by BM 31355: provided that the end of l. 12 is properly restored, the house of Bēl-erība was initially rented by Marduknāṣir-apli himself. The original rental contract must have included unusual stipulations. If the suggested reconstruction is correct, the house was rented with household udê. This term usually denotes household utensils but, in this context, it could refer to furniture.437 Rugbu, “loft, upper room,” (CAD R s.v.) may here denote a light structure (note raksu used in similar contexts in reference to portable house elements, e.g., door-jumbs or roofs).438 Notes 2 For šugarrû in Neo-Babylonian house rentals, see Baker 2004: 55. 14 Perhaps to be restored [a-ḫa-ta], “[belong to them in equal shares],” or [šá md en-su], “[belong to Bēl-erība].” 19 For uppadētu (“supervisor, inspector”), see Zadok 1999/2000: 211–12 and Tavernier 2007: 432.

48. BM 31800

Pl. LIII

1876-11-17, 1527 W. 5.5 x L. 4.8 x Th. 2.0 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3.

⌈⅔ ma.na⌉ [3 gí]n kù.babbar šá ina 1 gín b[it-qa n]u-⌈uḫ⌉-ḫu-tu šá mmu-⌈še-zib⌉-[d]⌈amar.utu⌉ a-šú šá ⌈mx x x⌉

436

As did his father; cf., e.g., BM 31273 = Bertin 2749, BM 31363 = Bertin 2772. Cf. CAD U: 24. 438 CAD R: 109. 437

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

180

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. rev. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. l.h.e.

Chapter VI

dumu mdù-⌈eš-dingir⌉ ina muḫ-ḫi m ⌈ni⌉-din-tu4-⌈den⌉ dumu šá m⌈d⌉[amar.ut]u-na-ṣiro.e.-⌈eduru⌉ dumu m⌈e⌉-gi-bi ina u4!.1.⌈kám⌉ ⌈kù.babbar⌉-a4 ⅔ ⌈ma.na⌉ 3 gín ⌈ i-nam-din⌉ ki-i (erasure) [u4.1.kám la i]t-tan-nu ulo.e.-tu [iti.x ur5.r]a ina muḫ-⌈ḫi⌉-šú i-rab-bi [i-na ma]ḫ-ri mni-din-ti ⌈di.ku5⌉ [dumu mur]-d⌈nanna⌉ mden-⌈su-pe-e⌉-mu-⌈ḫur⌉ [di.ku5 dumu] mdnà-na-a-a [mni-din-tu4]-d⌈en⌉ dub.sar a mdù-a-šá-dingir-ía [mx x x] a me-gì-b[i] [e.ki iti.x u4.20].⌈1⌉.lá.kam [mu.30+x.kam mda-r]i-ía-muš [lugal e.ki u kur.kur] [na4.kišib mni-din-ti / di.k]u5 (seal impression)

r.h.e. na4.kišib / mden-su-pe-e-mu-⌈ḫur⌉ / di.ku5 (seal impression) u.e. [na4.kišib mni-din-tu4]-⌈den⌉ / ⌈dub⌉.sar (seal impression) Translation 1–6a Forty-[three shek]els of silver with ⅛ alloy, of nuḫḫutu quality, property of Mušēzib-[Mardu]k, son of ⌈...⌉, descendant of Eppēš-ilī, are due from Nidinti-Bēl, son of [Mardu]k-nāṣir-apli, descendant of Egibi. 6b–10 On the first day (of the month), he will pay the said forty-three shekels of silver. Should he [not] pay [on the first day], from [month of ... on, inter]est will accrue against him. 11–13 [(Written) befo]re: Nidintu, judge, [descendant of Ur]-Nanna, Bēl-supê-muḫur, [judge, descendant of] Nabûnnāya. 14 Scribe: [Nidinti]-Bēl, descendant of Banâ-ša-iliya. 15 (Additional witness): [...], descendant of Egib[i]. 16–18 [Babylon, month of ..., ni]neteenth [day, thirty+xth year of Dar]ius (I), [king of Babylon and lands]. l.h.e. r.h.e. u.e.

[seal of Nidintu, ju]dge (seal impression) seal of Bēl-supê-muḫur, judge (seal impression) [seal of Nidinti]-Bēl, scribe (seal impression)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

181

Commentary Based on prosopographical data, BM 31800 may be dated to the fourth decade of the reign of Darius I. Both the judges and the scribe are known from several documents written in Babylon and Borsippa between the thirty-second year of Darius I and the beginning of Xerxes’s rule. 439 The seals impressed on BM 31800 were also used to seal those documents. On the left-hand edge, one can find the impression of A174 (Altavilla and Walker 2016: 137), the seal of the judge Nidintu. It depicts a bold worshipper facing right. Altavilla and Walker (2016: 137) cautiously considered it distinct from A168, the seal that the judge Nidintu impressed on BM 33933 = Roth, JAOS 111: 33–34 = Wunsch, AfO 42/42 no. 12), but in fact the images appear quite similar, and the possibility that the figure before the worshipper in BM 31800 represents a merman (as on BM 33933) cannot be discarded. The right-hand edge shows A172 (Altavilla and Walker 2016: 137), the seal of the judge Bēl-supê-muḫur, featuring a man standing before the symbols of a lightning fork and a dog. The scribe Nidinti-Bēl impressed his seal (A175 in Altavilla and Walker 2016: 137) on the upper edge. It portrays a bearded worshipper facing right, standing before three symbols: a crescent, a lightning fork (thus Altavilla and Walker 2016: 137), or a ram-headed mace, and a star. This is one of two seals of the scribe Nidinti-Bēl. The other, A167 = GSM 103 (Altavilla and Walker 2016: 136), shows a bearded worshipper facing a scorpion man. Since the nature of Nidinti-Bēl’s debts toward a member of the Eppēš-ilī family is uncertain, the judges’ presence at the transaction is difficult to account for. Members of the same judicial panel appear in several documents involving the dowries of Nidinti-Bēl’s wife, fŠušannu, and his sister, fErištu.440 Perhaps BM 31800 was written when the dowries of Nidinti-Bēl’s other sisters, fReʾindu and fBēletu, were being arranged?441 Notes The sign ŠÁ in the filiation clause dumu/a-šú šá (ll. 3, 5) is written differently than in the name Banâ-ša-iliya (l. 14) and elsewhere (ll. 2, 3). Two dots on the lower edge could have been made intentionally. The patronym at the end of the line could be m⌈mu-líb-ši⌉. 3 5 For Nidinti-Bēl, see pp. 178–79 above.

439

For the judge Nidintu//Ur-Nanna and the scribe Nidinti-Bēl//Banâ-ša-iliya, see n. 434 on p. 178 above. The judge Bēl-supê-muḫur is found in Nappāḫu 15 (34DarI) and BM 43881 = Text no. 41 (36DarI, drafted in Borsippa). 440 Cf. Roth 1991: 29–34, Wunsch 1995/1996: 43–44. 441 Cf. Wunsch 1995/1996: 43–44. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

182

Chapter VI

49. BM 64271

Pl. LIV

1882-9-18, 4247 W. 5.3 x L. 6.1 x Th. 2.2 format: landscape? obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. l.e. 13. 14. rev. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. l.h.e.

1½ ma.na kù.babbar ⌈x x⌉ [x x x x x x x x] šá mni-din-tu4 dumu ⌈šá⌉ [mx x x x x x x u] ⌈mden⌉-ad-⌈ùru dumu?-šú?⌉ [x x x x x x x] ina ⌈muḫ⌉-ḫi m⌈den-šú-nu dumu⌉ [šá mdnà-tin-su-iq-bi] dumu m⌈dkaskal.kur-i ⌈é-su x x⌉ [x x x x x] šá da é md⌈en⌉-tin-iṭ ⌈ši-rik d⌉[x u da é šá] md ! en -nigin-ir dumuo.e. ⌈šá m(o.e.)⌉na-d[i-nu maš-ka-nu] šá mni-din-tu4 u md⌈en⌉-ad-[ùru dumu-šú? i-di é] ia-a-nu u ḫu-bul-⌈li kù⌉.ba[bbar-a4 1½ ma.na] ia-a-nu lú.tuku-ú šá-⌈nam⌉-m[a a-na muḫ-ḫi] ul i-šal-laṭ a-⌈di⌉ ugu šá m[ni-din-tu4 u mden-ad-ùru] [k]ù.babbar-a4 1½ ma.na [i-šal-li-mu] ul-tu u4.15.kám šá iti.š[u] é ina igi-šú-nu lú.mu-kin-nu mni-q[u-du dumu šá mdub-numun] dumu mi-te-nu mdnà-m[u-ùru dumu šá mdamar.utu-mu-mu] dumu mlú.sanga--tin.tir.ki mna-d[i-nu dumu šá mda-nu-ni-tu4lugal-ùru?] dumu mlú.sanga-⌈ak⌉-ka- mki-⌈d⌉[nà-tin? dumu šá mdu.gur-ina-sùḫ-sur?] dumu mlú.sanga-ak-ka-du mden-⌈a⌉-[su-a dumu šá mdidim-mu] dumu mman-di-di mba-la-ṭu [dumu šá mkar-damar.utu] dumu mlú.uš.bar lú.dub.s[ar mden-tin-iṭ] dumu šá md⌈en⌉-mu dumu mba-l[a-ṭu sip-par.ki] iti.šu u4.⌈9?.kám mu⌉.[x kám mda-ri-ia-muš] lugal tin.tir.ki [u kur.kur] na4.kišib / mden-ad-ùru / di.ku5 (seal impression)

Translation 1–12 One and a half minas of silver [...] of Nidintu, son of [..., ... and] Bēl-abu⌈uṣur, his son?⌉ [...], is due from ⌈Bēlšunu⌉, son of [Nabû-balāssu-iqbi], descendant of Balīḫû. His house [...], adjacent to the house of Bēl-uballiṭ, the oblate of [... and adjacent to the house of] Bēl!-upaḫḫir, son of Nā[din, is

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

13–14 15–21a

21b–22a 22b–24

l.h.e.

183

the pledge] of Nidintu and [his son?] Bēl-abu-[uṣur]. There will be no [house rent] and no interest on the [said one and a half minas of silv]er. No other creditor will dispose [of (the house)] until [Nidintu and Bēl-abu-uṣur receive in full] the said one and a half minas of silver. From the fifteenth of duʾ[ūzu] on, the house will be at their disposal. Witnesses: Niq[ūdu, son of Šāpik-zēri], descendant! of Itinnu, Nabû-šu[mu-uṣur, son of Marduk-šumu-iddin], descendant of Šangû--Bābili, Nād[in, son of Anunītu-šarru-uṣur?], descendant of Šangû-Akka, Itti-[Nabû-balāṭu?, son of Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir?], descendant of Šangû-Akkad, Bēl-a[sûa, son of Ea-iddin], descendant of Mandidi, Bal[āṭu, son of Mušēzib-Marduk], descendant of Išpāru. Scribe: [Bēl-uballiṭ], son of Bēl-iddin, descendant of Bal[āṭu]. [Sippar], month of duʾūzu, ⌈ninth?⌉ day, [xth year of Darius (I)], king of Babylon [and lands]. seal of Bēl-abu-uṣur, judge (seal impression)

Commentary This document records an antichretic loan whose creditors were two men: Nidintu and Bēl-abu-uṣur. A caption on the left-hand edge identifies the seal impressed there as belonging to the judge Bēl-abu-uṣur. Since no judge is mentioned in the witness list, the conclusion that both namesakes—the creditor and the judge— were the same man seems inevitable. His use of the judicial title in a clearly private context is unusual for Babylonian bureaucratic practice.442 It is striking that, in ll. 2–3 and 8, the judge Bēl-abu-uṣur is not listed first but follows Nidintu. The status of judges in Babylonia was high; as a result, in various enumerations, dayyānū were usually preceded only by top state officials, such as governors, sukkallu, and sartennu. The reading of l. 3 suggested above attempts to solve this difficulty: the order in which both men are listed becomes acceptable if Bēl-abu-uṣur was the son of Nidintu. He could be identical with Bēl-abu-uṣur, son of Nidintu, a guarantor in a promissory note for dates drafted in Sippar in the thirty-fourth year of Darius I (Marduk-rēmanni 166: 7). The business partner of Nidintu and Bēl-abu-uṣur is well known. (Marduk)bēlšunu, son of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi, descendant of Balīḫû, attested between the twentieth year of Darius I and the second year of Xerxes, was possibly a temple brewer and perhaps also a goldsmith and a temple enterer.443 A small archive depicts him lending silver and commodities to priests and members of their families; 442 443

See possibly Nbn. 608, Nbn. 776, BM 34518. Bongenaar 2000: 83, idem 1997: 215, 466. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

184

Chapter VI

parts of these loans were secured on prebends.444 A house of Marduk-bēlšunu is mentioned (as a delivery place) in BM 74518 (= Bertin 2430, ⌈20+x⌉DarI), but it is uncertain if this was the same property as that in BM 64271, which bordered on the properties of Bēl-uballiṭ and Bēl-upaḫḫir. The scribe and most witnesses of BM 64271 belonged to a circle of Mardukbēlšunu’s close colleagues and business partners. The scribe Bēl-uballiṭ drafted two more documents that feature Marduk-bēlšunu as a party, BM 74593 (= Bertin 2475, 22DarI) and BM 74550 (= Bertin 2720–1, 33DarI). According to the former text, Bēl-uballiṭ borrowed silver from Marduk-bēlšunu. The first witness to this transaction was Bēl-asûa, son of Ea-iddin of the Mandidi family,445 who appears in the same capacity in another debt note of Marduk-bēlšunu (BM 74518 = Bertin 2430: 6, ⌈20+x⌉DarI), and again in the thirtieth year of Darius I next to Mardukbēlšunu, Nabû-šumu-uṣur, descendant of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili,446 and Niqūdu, descendant of Itinnu (BM 55784 = Bertin 2692–3, rev. 14’). In the twenty-fourth year of Darius I, Marduk-bēlšunu received silver on behalf of Bēl-asûa (BM 74522 = Bertin 2531). Apart from BM 55784, Niqūdu witnessed BM 74559 (= Bertin 2718: 10, 33DarI), wherein Marduk-bēlšunu appears as party. Niqūdu also acted as a witness together with Bēl-asûa in Roth, AfO 36/37 no. 7: 5’ (30DarI). The last witness, Balāṭu of the Išpāru family, was present at a dispute involving one of Marduk-bēlšunu’s business partners (Bēl-rēmanni: 247–48, l. 14, 29DarI). The two bearers of the family name Šangû-Akkad are tentatively identified here with a witness and a scribe found in Jursa, WZKM 87 no. 1 (Akkad, 14DarI): Nādin, son of Anunītu-šarru-uṣur (l. 27), and Itti-Nabû-balāṭu, son of Nergal-inatēšê-ēṭir (l. 32). Links between the circle of Marduk-bēlšunu and men from Akkad are traceable elsewhere: Marduk-bēlšunu bought a slave from a man bearing a characteristic Akkad-name, Bēl-uballiṭ, son of Nabû-nāṣir, descendant of ŠangûAkkad (BM 74610 = Bertin 2738, 34DarI), and one of witnesses to this transaction, Mannu-iqabbu, son of Arad-Nergal (l. 16), was the scribe of a document written in Akkad, CT 4 41b (l. 13, 29DarI). Notes 16 Note the rare syllabic spelling of the name Itinnu. 18–19 Both AK signs in the family name Šangû-Akkad have additional small horizontal wedges. Rather than being characteristic of the scribe’s style, these wedges are probably the remains of incompletely erased signs. 22–23 Sippar as place of issue and Darius I’s reign are assumed on prosopographic grounds. 444

Bongenaar 2000: 83–84. A temple measurer attested in 22–34DarI (Bongenaar 1997: 290, add Bēl-rēmanni: 148–49, l. 27). 446 A brewer and an owner of a prebend in the Gula temple, attested between 1Camb– 30DarI (Bongenaar 1997: 440).

445

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

50. BM 50657

185

Pl. LV

D 1882-3-23, 1648 W. 4.1 x L. 3.3 x Th. 2.3 format: uncertain obv. (beginning broken away) 1. še.numu]n zaq-pi u pi-i ⌈šul-pu⌉ [ 2. u]l-tu ugu la-ri-i a-⌈di⌉ ugu [ 3. du]mu-šú šá mdub-numun dumu md30-šá-du-[nu 4. dum]u-šú šá mṣil-la-a dumu lú.gal.d[ù m d 5. ]⌈ ⌉amar.utu-mu-ùru mmu-še-zib [ 6. ] ⌈x x⌉ [ (rest broken away) (rev. broken away) u.e. [na4.kišib ...] / ⌈lú.di⌉.[ku5] (seal impression) na4.ki[šib] / mden-š[eš...] ⌈lú⌉.d[i.ku5 (seal impression)] Translation (beginning broken away) 1–6 [...] date grove and arable la[nd ...] from ... to [...s]on of Šāpik-zēri, descendant of Sîn-šadû[nu, ... s]on of Ṣillāya, descendant of Rab-ba[nê...], Marduk-šumu-uṣur, Mušēzib [...] (rest broken away) u.e. [seal of PN], ju[dge] se[al] of Bēl-aḫ[...], ju[dge] Commentary This is possibly a fragment of a real estate sale contract, a type of document that was frequently witnessed by judges.447 At least part of such transactions concluded in judges’ presence followed disputes.448 The 1882-3-23 collection is inconsistent with regard to the provenance of its objects; it includes tablets from Dilbat, Sippar, Borsippa, and Babylon.449 The tablet’s siglum (D) makes Dilbat a possible city of origin for BM 50657, but other

447

Cf. BM 92717, HSM 1895.1.1 (mentioned in Zadok and Zadok 2005a: 649–50), Jursa, RA 97: 79, Nbk. 374, VAS 5 105, Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 29, Zadok, NABU 1997 no. 2, perhaps also BM 43881 (Text no. 41) and Dar. 435. 448 E.g., 5R 67 1, CM 20 111. Cf. Wunsch 2000a: 561–62. 449 Reade in Leichty 1986: xxxiii. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

186

Chapter VI

locations cannot be excluded.450 If the place of issue was Babylon, the son of Šāpik-zēri, descendant of Sîn-šadû[nu], mentioned in l. 3 could be a son of Šāpikzēri, one of five brothers, sons of fKurunnītu-tabni and Nabû-šumu-ukīn of the Sîn-šadûnu family. Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin of the Egibi family bought from them land on the Ḫazuzu Canal, and several tablets documenting the estate’s history entered the Egibi archive.451 The man mentioned in l. 4 can be tentatively identified as (Nergal-)Bānûnu, son of Ṣillāya of the Rab-banê family, a judge and a business partner of Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin.452 Furthermore, the judge whose name is partly preserved in the caption on the upper edge could be identical with Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin, descendant of Nūr-Sîn. The upper edge is the place where judges lowest in the hierarchy impressed their seals;453 thus, the tablet would come from the time before Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin’s promotion to the position of the second judge in the thirteenth year of Nabonidus (Nbn. 720 = TCL 13 19).454 The seal impressed to the left of Bēl-aḫ[...]’s caption (A184 in Altavilla and Walker 2016: 138) shows a bold worshipper facing right. In this place on the tablet, the impression of a seal belonging to a judge who stood in the hierarchy above Bēl-aḫ[...] is expected to be found. If the judges were indeed members of the panel known from Babylon under Nabonidus, the owner of this seal could be Nabûšumu-ukīn, descendant of Irʾanni (Wunsch 2000a: 582, A130 in Altavilla and Walker 2016: 129). Less probable is the identification of the seal with one belonging to Nergal-bānûnu, descendant of Rab-banê (Wunsch 2000a: 583, A119 in Altavilla and Walker 2016: 126), which depicts a similar worshipper, but the execution of his ear and the back of his head differs. Since the Babylon origin of BM 50657 is far from certain, it cannot be excluded that the damaged name in the caption belongs to another judge. One possible candidate is Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, son of Zēria, judge no. 4 in VAS 6 171 (l. 20), written in Dilbat during Darius I’s reign; another is Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, son of Kudurru, descendant of Adad-šammē, judge no. 4 in TBER 58 = TBER 59, written in Tapsuḫu in the second year of Nabonidus. Notes 2 Larû, “branch, fork” (CAD L: 103–4), may denote a tree branch or a part of exta but, to my knowledge, not a river branch (which could serve as a topographic highlight here). Its meaning in this context is obscure.

450

Cf. BM 49686 (D 1882-3-23, 677), BM 49700 (D 1882-3-23, 691) and BM 49743 (D 1882-3-23, 734) issued in Babylon. 451 Wunsch 2000b/I: 110–21. 452 Wunsch 2000a: 584, Wunsch 2000b/I: 82–93. 453 Wunsch 2000a: 564. 454 Wunsch 2000a: 571. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

51. BM 72743 1882-9-18, 12751 W. 6.6 x L. 4.8 x Th. 2.8 format: landscape obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. l.e. 15. 16. 17. rev. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. u.e. 31. 32. 33.

a-na lú.di.ku5.meš ⌈en.meš-ú⌉-a ⌈ìr⌉-ku-nu m níg.du a-šú šá me-tel-lu d⌈nà⌉ u damar.utu a-na en.⌈meš⌉-ú-a lik-⌈ru⌉:bu mdamar.utu-dub-numun ⌈a⌉-šú šá m⌈a-qar⌉-a ina ⌈muḫ⌉-ḫi m⌈su-pe⌉-e-⌈den⌉ ⌈šeš⌉-šú šá m⌈si⌉-lim-dingir.meš ra-ši ù a.šà-šú [maš-k]a-nu ṣa-⌈bit⌉ zú.⌈lum.ma šá⌉ msu-pe-e-⌈d⌉[en] md amar.utu-dub-numun mu.11.kám a-na i-mit-tú a-na ⌈x⌉ i-te--da-an-⌈ni⌉ ù kù.babbar ina pa-ni-⌈ía⌉ ip te ⌈x x⌉ ⌈lú.tuku?⌉-ú.meš up-taq-⌈qir⌉-ru-šú um-ma ⌈ṭa⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ ⌈ni-šal-lim a-na⌉-ku ⌈it-ti⌉-šú-nu ⌈ra-šá-a⌉-ku md amar.utu-dub-numun ú-ìl-tì šá ⌈ni-ik⌉-il a-na ṣi-bu-tu šá ⌈dumu lú.sanga⌉ šá al la ⌈ki⌉ ina muḫ-ḫi-ía i-te-⌈li x lú.di⌉.ku5.meš ⌈šá šu? ú?⌉ ⌈at?⌉-bu-⌈ú⌉ il-⌈ta-ṭa⌉-ar di-i-ni ⌈i ni-id⌉-bu-ub ⌈x x x ul? qa?-tu?⌉ ([x]) ⌈x tì šá di-i-ni x x x⌉ zak ⌈(x) x x ni x⌉ [x x] ⌈muḫ?-ḫi?⌉ ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x] ⌈a-na⌉ muḫ-ḫi ⌈x⌉ [x x x x] ⌈x x šu⌉ ⌈x⌉ [x x x x]⌈x⌉ [ina] ⌈pa-ni lú.di.ku5.meš⌉ šá lugal ⌈x⌉ [x x x x]⌈x⌉-ir ina pa-ni-ku-[nu] ⌈x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x⌉-nu-ú ina pa-⌈ni⌉ [x x ki]-⌈i ina pa-ni⌉-ku-nu maḫ-ra [x]-⌈ku?-nu? ta-šap⌉-par-ra-ni [u di]-⌈i⌉-ni-šú-nu ⌈lu-du-bu⌉-ub [x] gur zú.lum.ma i-mit-tú a.[šà-šú-n]u [ina] ⌈ugu?⌉ mu-qut-⌈tu⌉-ú šá 3 me ⌈60⌉ g[ur] [a]-⌈di i-mi⌉-dao.e. ni?-kil? šá i-⌈mi⌉-du-in-⌈ni⌉ ⌈bal⌉-ṭu-uʾ en.meš li-iš-me ⌈x x⌉ [(x)] ki-i gu4.meš-⌈ía maḫ-ru⌉ la ⌈ṣa-ab-tu⌉ [(x)] ⌈x x x x id? x x x x⌉ [x x] ⌈a-di u4?⌉.[x].⌈kám? x x i x su x x⌉ ⌈ri-ik-su en⌉.meš-⌈ía ir⌉-tak-⌈su⌉-n[i]m?-ma © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

187

Pl. LVI

188

Chapter VI

l.h.e. 34. ⌈x x x x di ik⌉ ka > 35. u še.⌈bar?-a⌉ na-šá-a-tú Translation 1–3a To the judges my lords, this is your servant Kudurru, son of Etellu. May Nabû and Marduk bless my lords. 3b–16 Suppê-Bēl, [son] of Silim-ilī, has an outstanding debt with Marduk-šāpikzēri, the ⌈brother⌉ of Aqarāya, and his field was taken as [ple]dge. In the eleventh year, Marduk-šāpik-zēri imposed upon me the dates of Suppê[Bēl] as rent [...] and he ... me silver. Creditors? raise claims against him, saying: “We should receive [...].” I am a creditor alongside them. Mardukšāpik-zēri drafted a false promissory note against my account at the request of the son of the high priest ... . I came forward? [...] judges. He wrote: “Let us argue the case.” [...] is not finished. [...] of the dispute [...] cleared. 17–30 [...] about [...] about [...be]fore royal judges [...] before you [...] before [...]. If it pleases you, you will send me your? [... and] I will argue [the ca]se against them. [...] kors of dates is the rent of th[eir fie]ld (and yet) they live on the claimed 360 k[ors, incl]uding the fraudulent? imposition which they imposed onto me. May he hear the lords [...] that my oxen were delivered, not seized [...] 31–35 [...] by the [x]th? day? [...], my lords issue(d) me the document [...] and my barley is delivered. Commentary Letters exchanged between judges are well known, but BM 72743 is the single hitherto known missive addressed by a disputant to judges. It is important in that it indicates that claims could be submitted to judges by means of letters. The chronological and geographical contextualization of BM 72743 is difficult. Paleography suggests that the tablet is Chaldean (or even earlier),455 and this issue period may be further narrowed down. First, the mention of the “eleventh year” in l. 7 makes it possible to exclude shorter reigns (i.e., those of AmēlMarduk, Lâbâši-Marduk, and Neriglissar). Second, since royal judges are unattested before the middle of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign, the tablet is unlikely to date to Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, Kandalānu, Assurbanipal, or Nabopolassar. This makes dating to late Nebuchadnezzar II—less likely Nabonid—most plausible. The collection from which BM 72743 origins includes chiefly tablets from Sippar, Babylon, and Dilbat.456 455

See especially the sign DI: both Winkelhaken are in front of the first vertical wedge (cf. Jursa 2015c: 190–91 for KI written in such a way by scribes of the seventh and early sixth century). 456 Reade in Leichty 1986: xxxiii. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Other Dispute-related Texts

189

Prosopography does not allow for the pursuit of these conjectures. The protagonists cannot be safely identified despite the fact that the sender introduced himself by giving his patronym (Etellu) in addition to his name (Kudurru). He identified two other people involved in his case in a similar manner (Marduk-šāpik-zēri, as the brother of Aqarāya, and Suppê-Bēl, as the son of Silim-ili). The use of filiation in letters is rare, but senders and addressees were usually better acquainted than the corespondents of BM 72743. Notably, the sender did not specify what his city of origin was. This information was apparently obvious to the receipients of the letter. Notes The format of BM 72743 is rare; letters were usually written on portrait-format tablets.457 1–3 This address format and greeting formula are common in the Neo-Babylonian official letters addressed to receipients of higher hierarchical standing.458 Bēl/Marduk and Nabû are the gods most frequently invoked in the blessing formulae of contemporary epistolary texts.459 5 Traces at the beginning of the line conform with šeš, but the reading [a]o.e. cannot be entirely dismissed. Note, however, that the gap is much larger than the space taken by a(-šú šá) in the preceding line. Even if the latter reading is accepted, no safe connection could be established between Kudurru’s adversary and Marduk-šāpik-zēri, son of Aqarāya, found in the administrative document BM 49461: 10–11 from Sippar from 8[NbkII] (Da Riva 2002: 435). 7 At the end, read perhaps a-na u[gu] or a-na-⌈ku⌉ (suggestion courtesy of Michael Jursa), as casus pendens preceding ītemidanni (cf. Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014: 363 for parallels in contemporary epistolary material). 8 At the end of the line, read perhaps ip-te-⌈ri-ik⌉ or ip-te-⌈er-ka⌉, “he obstructs (my access to silver).” 9 At the end of the line, restore perhaps ⌈ṭa⌉-[a/aʾ]-⌈at⌉, “gift, payment.” 13 Read perhaps i-te-li . 16 Read perhaps ina ⌈pa-ni az⌉-zak, “I got previously cleared,” or an-ni-i zak, “(...) this (case) is cleared.” 24 The reading of the verb comes courtesy of Michael Jursa. 25 Dīnšunu may also refer to “the case over them.” 27–29 For a similar expression (ina libbi balṭū), see Bēl-ibni’s letters ABL 281 and ABL 1000 (quoted in CAD B: 57–58). 457

Levavi 2018: 84. For the introductory formulae of Neo-Babylonian letters, see Frahm and Jursa 2011: 6– 9, Schmidl in Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014: 7–16 and Levavi 2018: 38–51. 459 Frahm and Jursa 2011: 8–9, Levavi 2018: 44–46.

458

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

190

29 32 33

Chapter VI

I translate lišme as singular and take bēlē as the object, but a scribal mistake for bēlē lišmū, “may the lords hear (me out),” is certainly possible. Alternatively, ready ⌈a-di u4-mu⌉ (suggestion of Michael Jursa). For the use of indirect phrasing as politeness strategy (here: bēlē lā irtaksu instead of tartaksā), see Schmidl in Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014: 25– 29 and eadem 2017.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliographical Abbreviations 5R = Rawlinson 1909 ABL = Harper 1892–1914 Abraham, OLP 28 = Abraham 1997 AHw = Akkadisches Handwörterbuch AM = Evetts 1892 Amēl-Marduk = Sack 1972 AnOr 8–9 = Pohl 1933/1934 Arnaud, RA 67 = Arnaud 1973 AUWE 5 = Gehlken 1990 AUWE 8 = Kessler 1991 AUWE 11 = Gehlken 1996 BaAr 2 = Wunsch 2003a BaAr 4 = MacGinnis 2012 BaAr 5 = Frame 2013 BBSt = King 1912 BE 8 = Clay 1908 BE 9 = Hilprecht and Clay 1898 BE 10 = Clay 1904 Bēl-rēmanni = Jursa 1999 Bertin = unpublished copies of British Museum tablets by G. Bertin Biggs, Festschrift De Meyer = Biggs 1994 BIN 1 = Keiser 1918 BIN 2 = Nies and Keiser 1920 Boissier, RA 23 = Boissier 1926 Bongenaar, NABU 1993 = Bongenaar 1993 BR 8/7 = San Nicolò 1951b BRM 1 = Clay 1912 Budge, PSBA 10 = Budge 1888 Business and Politics = Abraham 2004 CAD = Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Camb. = Strassmaier 1890b CDA = Black, George, and Postgate 2000 CDCPP = Sack 1994b CM 3 = Wunsch 1993 CM 20 = Wunsch 2000b/II CT 4 = Pinches 1898 CT 22 = Campbell-Thompson 1906 CT 55 = Pinches 1982 CT 56 = Pinches 1982 CT 57 = Pinches 1982 CTMMA 3 = Spar and von Dassow 2000 CTMMA 4 = Spar and Jursa 2014

Cyr. = Strassmaier 1890a Czechowicz, RAI 47 = Czechowicz 2002 Dar. = Strassmaier 1892–1897 deJong Ellis, JCS 36 = deJong Ellis 1984 Deller, Fales, and Jakob-Rost, SAAB 9 = Deller, Fales, and Jakob-Rost 1995 Documents cunéiformes = Durand 1982 Ea-ilûta-bâni = Joannès 1989 Edinburgh = Dalley 1979 Entrepreneurs and Empire = Stolper 1985 Ezida = Waerzeggers 2010a Field Plans = Nemet-Nejat 1982 Figulla, Iraq 13 = Figulla 1951 GAG = von Soden 1995 Garments II = Zawadzki 2013 GCCI 1 = Dougherty 1923 GCCI 2 = Dougherty 1933 Geller, Festschrift Greenfield = Geller 1995 Hackl, AfO 52 = Hackl 2011 Hunger, BagM 5 = Hunger 1970 Istanbul Murašû = Donbaz and Stolper 1997 Jursa, AfO 53 = Jursa 2015a Jursa, ArOr 63 = Jursa 1995b Jursa, Iraq 59 = Jursa 1997b Jursa, RA 97 = Jursa 2003 Jursa, WZKM 86 = Jursa 1996 Jursa, WZKM 87 = Jursa 1997a Jursa, WZKM 94 = Jursa 2004a Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers, AfO 50 = Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers 2003/2004 Kessler, BagM 37 = Kessler 2006 Kessler, Philippika 24 = Kessler 2008 Kish 3 = Watelin and Langdon 1925–1927 Kleber and Frahm, JCS 58 = Kleber and Frahm 2006 Landwirtschaft = Jursa 1995a Leichty, AnSt 33 = Leichty 1983 Leichty, Festschrift Reiner = Leichty 1987 Liv. = Strassmaier 1885 Lutz, UCP 9/2 = Lutz 1927

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

192

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Lutz, UCP 10 = Lutz 1940 MacGinnis, Festschrift Postgate = MacGinnis 2017 MacGinnis, Iraq 60 = MacGinnis 1998 MacGinnis, JCS 60 = MacGinnis 2008 MacGinnis, JEOL 40 = MacGinnis 2006/2007 MacGinnis, Mesopotamia 31 = MacGinnis 1996 MacGinnis, WZKM 85 = MacGinnis 1995 Marduk-rēmanni= Waerzeggers 2014 Marriage Agreements = Roth 1989 Nappāḫu = Baker 2004 NBDMich = Moore 1939 Nbk. = Strassmaier 1889b Nbn. = Strassmaier 1889a Neriglissar = Sack 1994a Ngl. = Evetts 1892 Nielsen, AfO 53 = Nielsen 2015b Oaths and Curses = Sandowicz 2012 OECT 10 = McEwan 1984 OIP 114 = Cole 1996 OIP 122 = Weisberg 2003 Ólafsson and Pedersén, OrSuec 50 = Ólafsson and Pedersén 2001 Payne, RA 102 = Payne 2008 Peek = Pinches 1888 Peiser, OLZ 7 = Peiser 1904 Pinches, BOR 1 = Pinches 1887 Pinches, JTVI 57 = Pinches 1925 Pirngruber, RA 111 = Pirngruber 2017 Revillout and Revillout, BOR 2 = Revillout and Revillout 1887c Revillout and Revillout, PSBA 9 = Revillout and Revillout 1887a–b ROMCT 2 = McEwan 1982a Roth, AfO 36/37 = Roth 1989/1990 Roth, Festschrift Oelsner = Roth 2000 Roth, JAOS 111 = Roth 1991 Rutten, RA 41 = Rutten 1947 SAA 6 = Kwasman and Parpola 1991 SAA 10 = Parpola 1993 SAA 18 = Reynolds 2003 SAKFl = Oberhuber 1960 Sandowicz, Iraq 76 = Sandowicz 2014

Sandowicz, Palamedes 6 = Sandowicz 2011 SbB 1 = Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014 Scheil, RA 12 = Scheil 1915 Scheil, RA 14.XXXIV = Scheil 1917 Scheil, RA 18 = Scheil 1921 Scheil, RT 17.XIII = Scheil 1895 Spar, Festschrift Jones = Spar 1979 Steinmetzer, Festschrift Deimel = Steinmetzer 1935 Stigers, JCS 28 = Stigers 1976 Stolper, JCS 53 = Stolper 2001 Stolper, RA 85 = Stolper 1991 Strassmaier = unpublished copies of British Museum tablets by J. Strassmaier Strassmaier, 8. Congress = Strassmaier 1893 Strassmaier, ZA 3 = Strassmaier 1888a–b Strassmaier, ZA 4 = Strassmaier 1889c STT = Gurney and Hulin 1964 TBER = Durand 1981 TCL 12 = Contenau 1927 TCL 13 = Contenau 1929 Tempel und Palast = Kleber 2008 Tempelzehnt = Jursa 1998 TMH 2/3 = Krückmann 1933 UET 4 = Figulla 1949 VAS 1 = Messerschmidt and Ungnad 1907 VAS 4–6 = Ungnad 1907–1908 Waerzeggers, AfO 46/47 = Waerzeggers 1999/2000 Walker, AfO 24 = Walker 1973 Walker and Kramer, Iraq 44 = Walker and Kramer 1982 Weidner, AfO 16 = Weidner 1952/1953 Weidner, AfO 17 = Weidner 1954–1956 Wunsch, AfO 42/43 = Wunsch 1995/1996 Wunsch, AfO 44/45 = Wunsch 1997/1998 Wunsch, AfO 50 = Wunsch 2003/2004 Wunsch, AulaOr. 15 = Wunsch 1997a Wunsch, AulaOr. 17/18 = Wunsch 1999/2000 Wunsch, CDLB 2004/1 = Wunsch 2004 YNER 1 = Weisberg 1967 YOS 3 = Clay 1919

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliographical Abbreviations YOS 6 = Dougherty 1920 YOS 7 = Tremayne 1925 YOS 17 = Weisberg 1980 YOS 19 = Beaulieu 2000a YOS 21 = Frahm and Jursa 2011 Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich = Zadok 2002

193

Zadok, NABU 1997 = Zadok 1997 Zadok and Zadok, NABU 2005 = Zadok and Zadok 2005b Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer = Zawadzki 2000

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography Abbreviations for periodicals, book series, and lexicons follow The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Abraham, K. 1997 Šušan in the Egibi Texts from the Time of Marduk-nāṣir-apli. OLP 28: 55– 82. 2004 Business and Politics under the Persian Empire. The Financial Dealings of Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the House of Egibi (521–487 B.C.E.). Bethesda, Maryland. Altavilla, S., and C. B. F. Walker 2016 Late Babylonian Seal Impressions on Tablets in the British Museum. Part 2: Babylon and its vicinity. Nisaba 28. Messina. Ambos, C. 2011 2014

Šamaš-daʾʾinanni, in: H. D. Baker (ed.), The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrian Empire. Volume 3, Part II: Š–Z. Helsinki: 1195–96. Tür und Tor. RLA 14: 156–59.

Arnaud, D. 1973

Un document juridique concernant les oblats. RA 67: 147–56.

Astola, T. 2017

Judean Merchants in Babylonia and Their Participation in Long-Distance Trade. WO 47: 25–51.

Baker, H. D. 2003 Record-Keeping Practices as Revealed by the Neo-Babylonian Private Archival Documents, in: M. Brosius (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-Keeping in the Ancient World. Oxford: 241– 63. 2004 The Archive of the Nappāḫu Family. AfO Beiheft 30. Wien. 2009 A Waste of Space? Unbuilt Land in the Babylonian Cities of the First Millennium BC. Iraq 71: 89–98. 2011 Babylonian Land Survey in Socio-Political Context, in: G. J. Selz and K. Wagensonner (eds.), The Empirical Dimension of Ancient Near Eastern Studies / Die empirische Dimension altorientalischer Forschungen. Wiener Offene Orientalistik 6. Wien: 293–323. 2014a House Size and Household Structure, in: H. D. Baker and M. Jursa (eds.), Documentary Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman Economic History: Methodology and Practice. Oxford and Philadelphia: 7–23. 2014b The Babylonian Cities: Investigating Urban Morphology Using Texts and Archaeology, in: May and Steinert (eds.) 2014: 171–88. Baker, H. D., and M. Jursa (eds.) 2005 Approaching the Babylonian Economy. Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 2004. Veröffentlichungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2. AOAT 330. Münster.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

196

Bibliography

Baker, H. D., and C. Wunsch 2001 Neo-Babylonian Notaries and Their Use of Seals, in: W. W. Hallo and I. J. Winter (eds.), Seals and Seal Impressions. CRRAI 45/2. Bethesda, Maryland: 197–213. Barjamovic, G. 2004 Civic Institutions and Self-Government in Southern Mesopotamia in the Mid-First Millennium BC, in: J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: 47– 98. Beaulieu, P.-A. 1989 The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. YNER 10. New Haven and London. 1991 Neo-Babylonian Larsa: A Preliminary Study. OrNS 60: 58–81. 2000a Legal and Administrative Texts from the Reign of Nabonidus. YOS 19. New Haven and London. 2000b A Finger in Every Pie: the Institutional Connections of a Family of Entrepreneurs in Neo-Babylonian Larsa, in: Bongenaar (ed.) 2000: 43–72. 2002 Ea-dayān, Governor of the Sealand, and Other Dignitaries of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. JCS 54: 99–123. 2013 Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources from the Late Babylonian Period, in: Berlejung and Streck (eds.) 2013: 31–55. 2015 An Aramean (or Israelite) in the Service of the Crown Prince AmēlMarduk. NABU 2015/105. Beaulieu, P.-A., and J. P. Britton 1994 Rituals for an Eclipse Possibility in the 8th Year of Cyrus. JCS 46: 73–86. Berlejung, A., and M. P. Streck (eds.) 2013 Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 3. Leipzig. Biggs, R. D. 1994 Šušan in Babylonia, in: H. Gasche, M. Tanret, C. Janssen, and A. Degraeve (eds.), Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien offertes en hommage à Léon De Meyer. Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 2. Leuven: 299–304. Black, J., A. George, and N. Postgate (eds.) 2000 A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd edition. SANTAG 5. Wiesbaden. Bloch, Y. 2017 From Horse Trainers to Dependent Workers: the Šušānu Class in the Late Babylonian Period, with Special Focus on Āl-Yāḫūdu Tablets. Kaskal 17: 91–118. Boissier, A. 1926 Extrait de la chronique locale d’Uruk. RA 23: 13–17. Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1993 The regency of Belšazzar. NABU 1993/41. 1997 The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography. PIHANS 80. Leiden. 2000 Private Archives in Neo-Babylonian Sippar and Their Institutional Connections, in: Bongenaar (ed.) 2000: 73–94. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography 2001

197

Houses as Institutional Property of the Neo-Babylonian Temples, in: W. H. van Soldt, J. G. Dercksen, N. J. C. Kouwenberg, and Th. J. H. Krispijn (eds.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. PIHANS 89. Leiden: 9– 12. Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. (ed.) 2000 Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs. MOS Studies 2. PIHANS 87. Leiden. Bongenaar, A. C. V. M., and M. Jursa 1993 Ein babylonischer Mäusefänger. WZKM 83: 31–38. Böhl, M. Th. 1936 Mededeelingen uit de Leidische verzameling van spijkerschrift-inscripties. Vol 3. Assyrische en nieuw-babylonische oorkonden (1100–91 v. Chr.). Amsterdam. Briant, P. 2002 From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Transl. by P. T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Indiana. 2013 Susa and Elam in the Achaemenid Empire, in: J. Perrot (ed.), The Palace of Darius at Susa. The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid Persia. Transl. by G. Collon. London and New York: 3–25. Briant, P., W. Henkelman, and M. Stolper (eds.) 2008 L’archive des Fortifications de Persépolis. État des questions et perspectives de recherches. Persika 12. Paris. Brinkman, J. A. 1998 Abunāia, in: Radner (ed.) 1999: 18. Brinkman, J. A., and D. A. Kennedy 1983 Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A Survey of Dated Babylonian Economic Texts, 721–626 B.C. JCS 35: 1–90. Budge, E. A. 1888 Sale of a Garden (From the 18th Year of Šamaš-šum-ukîn). PSBA 10, Pls IV–VI. Campbell-Thompson, R. 1906 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, & C., in the British Museum. Vol. 22. London. Clay, A. T. 1904 Business Documents of Murashû Sons of Nippur Dated in the Reign of Darius II (424–404 B.C.). BE 10. Philadelphia. 1908 Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods, Chiefly from Nippur. BE 8. Philadelphia. 1912 Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. New York. 1919 Neo-Babylonian Letters from Erech. YOS 3. New Haven and London. Cocquerillat, D. 1968 Palmeraies et cultures de l’Eanna dʼUruk (559–520). ADFU 8. Berlin. Cole, S. W. 1996 Nippur IV. The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114. Chicago. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

198

Bibliography

Contenau, G. 1927 Contrats néo-babyloniens I. De Téglath-phalasar III à Nabonide. TCL 12. Paris. 1929 Contrats néo-babyloniens II. Achéménides et Séleucides. TCL 13. Paris. Czechowicz, N. 2002 Zwei Frauengeschichten aus den späten Jahren von Nebukadnezar II. Probleme der Interpretation, in: S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001, Helsinki: 113–16. Da Riva, R. 2002 Der Ebabbar-Tempel von Sippar in frühneubabylonischer Zeit (640–580 v. Chr.). AOAT 291. Münster. Dalley, S. 1979

A Catalogue of the Akkadian Cuneiform Tablets in the Collections of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, with Copies of the Texts. Edinburgh.

Dandamaev, M. A. 1980 About life expectancy in Babylonia in the first millennium B.C., in: B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Papers read at the XXVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Copenhagen: 183–86. 1982 The Neo-Babylonian Elders, in: M. A. Dandamaev, I. Gerschevitch, H. Klengel, G. Komoróczy, M. T. Larsen, and J. N. Postgate (eds.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff. Warminster: 38–41. 1983 Vavilonskie pistsy. Moscow. 1984 Slavery in Babylonia from Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 BC). DeKalb, Illinois. 1988 The Neo-Babylonian Popular Assembly, in: Vavroušek and Souček (eds.) 1988: 63–71. 1992 Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia. Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies 6. Costa Mesa, California and New York. 1997 The Composition of the Citizens in First Millennium Babylonia. AoF 24: 135–47. deJong Ellis, M. 1984 Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection. JCS 36: 1–63. Deller, K., F. M. Fales, and L. Jakob-Rost 1995 Neo-Assyrian Texts from Assur: Private Archives in the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin. Part 2. SAAB 9: 3–137. (Démare-)Lafont, S. 2000 Considérations sur la pratique judiciaire en Mésopotamie, in: F. Joannès (ed.), Rendre la justice en Mésopotamie. Archives judiciaires du ProcheOrient ancien (IIIe–Ier millénaires avant J.-C.). Saint-Denis: 15–34. 2005 Second-Millennium Arbitration. Maarav 12: 69–81. Dietrich, M. 1970 Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700–648). AOAT 7. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

199

Dillard, R. B. 1975 Neo-Babylonian Texts from the John Frederick Lewis Collection of the Free Library of Philadelphia. PhD dissertation, Dropsie University. Dombradi, E. 1996 Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden. 2 vols. FAOS 20. Stuttgart. 2007 Das altbabylonische Urteil: Mediation oder res iudicata? Zur Stellung des Keilschriftrechts zwischen Rechtsanthropologie und Rechtsgeschichte, in: J. Hazenboos, A. Zgoll, and C. Wilcke (eds.), Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient: Sprache, Religion, Kultur und Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: 245–79. Donbaz, V., and S. Parpola 2001 Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul. Studien zu den Assur-Texten 2. Saarbrücken. Donbaz, V., and M. W. Stolper 1997 Istanbul Murašû Texts. PIHANS 79. Leiden. Dougherty, R. P. 1920 Records from Erech. Time of Nabonidus (555–538 B. C.). YOS 6. New Haven and London. 1923 Archives from Erech. Time of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus. GCCI 1. New Haven and London. 1933 Archives from Erech. Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. GCCI 2. New Haven and London. Durand, J.-M. 1981 Textes babyloniens dʼépoque récente. Paris. 1982 Documents cunéiformes de la IVe Section de lʼEcole pratique des Hautes Etudes. Tome I. Catalogue et copies cunéiformes. Genève and Paris. Ebeling, E. 1949 Neubabylonische Briefe. ABAW 30. München. 1953 Glossar zu den neubabylonischen Briefen. München. Eph‛al, I. 1974 “Arabs” in Babylonia in the 8th Century B.C. JAOS 94: 108–15. Evetts, B. T. A. 1892 Inscriptions of the Reigns of Evil-Merodach (B.C. 562–559), Neriglissar (B.C. 559–555) and Laborosoarchod (B.C. 555). BT 6b. Leipzig. Faist, B. 2011 Zum Gerichtsverfahren in der neuassyrischen Zeit, in: J. Renger (ed.), Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land. 5. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 18.–21. Februar 2004 in Berlin. CDOG 5. Wiesbaden: 251–66. 2014 The Ordeal in the Neo-Assyrian Procedure, in: S. Gaspa, A. Greco, D. Morandi Bonacossi, S. Ponchia, and R. Rollinger (eds.), From Source to History. Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014. AOAT 412. Münster: 189–200.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

200

Bibliography

Fales, F. M. 2011 Moving around Babylon: On the Aramean and Chaldean Presence in Southern Mesopotamia, in: E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, M. van Ess, and J. Marzahn (eds.), Babylon. Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident / Science Culture Between Orient and Occident. Topoi: Berlin Studies for the Ancient World 1. Berlin and Boston: 91–111. Figulla, H. H. 1949 Business Documents of the New-Babylonian Period. UET 4. London. 1951 Lawsuit Concerning a Sacrilegious Theft at Erech. Iraq 13: 95–101. Frahm, E., and M. Jursa 2011 Neo-Babylonian Letters and Contracts from the Eanna Archive. YOS 21. New Haven and London. Frame, G. 1991 Nabonidus, Nabû-šarra-uṣur, and the Eanna Temple. ZA 81: 37–86. 1992 Babylonia 689–627 B.C. A Political History. PIHANS 69. Leiden. 1993 Nabonidus and the History of the Eulmaš Temple at Akkad. Mesopotamia 28: 21–50. 2013 The Archive of Mušēzib-Marduk, Son of Kiribtu and Descendant of Sînnāṣir: A Landowner and Property Developer at Uruk in the Seventh Century BC. Babylonische Archive 5. Dresden. Frymer-Kensky, T. 1977 The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East. PhD dissertation, Yale University. 1981 Suprarational Legal Procedures in Elam and Nuzi, in: M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen (eds.), Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. In Honor Of Ernest R. Lacheman on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 29, 1981. Winona Lake, Indiana: 115–31. Fuchs, A. 1998 Aššūr-lēʾi, in: Radner (ed.) 1998: 193–94. Gehlken, E. 1990 Uruk: Spätbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus dem Eanna-Archiv. Teil I: Texte verschiedenen Inhalts. AUWE 5. Mainz am Rhein. 1996 Uruk: Spätbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus dem Eanna-Archiv. Teil II: Texte verschiedenen Inhalts. AUWE 11. Mainz am Rhein. 2005 Childhood and youth, work and old age in Babylonia – a statistical analysis, in: Baker and Jursa (eds.) 2005: 89–120. Geller, M. J. 1995 An Eanna Tablet from Uruk in Cleveland, in: Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Winona Lake, Indiana: 531–42. George, A. R. 1992 Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40. Leuven. 1993 House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civilizations 5. Winona Lake, Indiana. Groß, M. forthcoming The Babylonian Court during the Neo-Assyrian Period (posted at http:// academia.edu, accessed on April 20th, 2018). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

201

Gurney, O. R. 1983 Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. Oxford. Gurney, O. R., and P. Hulin 1964 The Sultantepe Tablets II. London. Gzella, H. 2014 Language and Script, in: Niehr (ed.) 2014: 71–107. Hackl, J. 2011 Neue spätbabylonische Lehrverträge aus dem British Museum und der Yale Babylonian Collection. AfO 52: 77–97. 2013 Frau Weintraube, Frau Heuschrecke und Frau Gut – Untersuchungen zu den babylonischen Namen von Sklavinnen in neubabylonischer und persischer Zeit. WZKM 103: 121–87. Hackl, J., M. Jursa, and M. Schmidl (with a contribution of K. Wagensonner) 2014 Spätbabylonische Privatbriefe. Spätbabylonische Briefe 1. AOAT 414/1. Münster. Harper, R. F. 1892–1914 Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. London and Chicago. Hilprecht, H. V., and A. T. Clay 1898 Business Documents of Murashû Sons of Nippur Dated in the Reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424 B. C.). BE 9. Philadelphia. Holtz, Sh. E. 2009 Neo-Babylonian Court Procedure. Cuneiform Monographs 38. Leiden and Boston. 2014 Neo-Babylonian Trial Records. Writings from the Ancient World 35. Atlanta. Huehnergard, J. 1997 A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Atlanta. 2002 izzuzum and itūlum, in: Tz. Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Winona Lake, Indiana: 161–85. Hunger, H. 1970 Das Archiv des Nabû-ušallim. BagM 5: 193–304. Janković, B. 2008 Travel provisions in Babylonia in the first millennium BC, in: Briant, Henkelman, and Stolper (eds.) 2008: 429–64. 2013 Aspects of Urukean Agriculture in the First Millennium BC. PhD dissertation, University of Vienna. Joannès, F. 1989 Archives de Borsippa : la famille Ea-ilûta-bâni. Étude dʼun lot dʼarchives familiales en Babylonie du VIIIe au Ve siècle av. J.-C. Genève. 2002 Les droits sur l’eau en Babylonie récente. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 57: 577–609. 2008 Place et rôle des femmes dans le personnel des grands organismes néobabyloniens, in: Briant, Henkelman, and Stolper (eds.) 2008: 465–80. 2013 The Economic Role of Women in Neo-Babylonian Temples (posted at https://refema.hypotheses.org/745, accessed on January 17th, 2018). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

202

Bibliography

Jursa, M. 1995a 1995b 1996 1997a 1997b

Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit. AfO Beiheft 25. Wien. Von Vermessungen und Straßen. ArOr 63: 153–58. Akkad, das Eulmaš und Gubāru. WZKM 86: 197–211. Nochmal Akkad. WZKM 87: 101–10. Neu- und spätbabylonische Texte aus den Sammlungen der Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery. Iraq 59: 97–174. 1998 Der Tempelzehnt in Babylonien von siebenten bis zum dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr. AOAT 254. Münster. 1999 Das Archiv des Bēl-rēmanni. PIHANS 86. Leiden. 2000 ṭerdu. Von Entführung in Babylon und Majestätsbeleidigung in Larsa, in: S. Graziani, M. C. Casaburi, and G. Lacerenza (eds.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Napoli: 497–514. 2003 Spätachämenidische Texte aus Kutha. RA 97: 43–140. 2004a Auftragsmord, Veruntreuung und Falschaussagen: Neues von Gimillu. WZKM 94: 109–32. 2004b Pfand. G. Neu- und Spätbabylonisch. RLA 10: 451–54. 2005 Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents. Typology, Contents and Archives. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1. Münster. 2007 The Transition of Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaemenid Rule. Proceedings of the British Academy 136: 73–94. 2010 Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC: Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth (with contributions by J. Hackl, B. Janković, K. Kleber, E. E. Payne, C. Waerzeggers, and M. Weszeli). AOAT 377. Münster. 2015a Sumerian and Akkadian Texts from the Josef Zappetzauer Collection in Bad Ischl, Austria II: Eine frühneubabylonische Landkaufurkunde aus Borsippa. AfO 53: 49–51. 2015b Families, Officialdom, and Families of Royal Officials in Chaldean and Achaemenid Babylonia, in: A. Archi (ed.), Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome, 4–8 July 2011. Winona Lake, Indiana: 597–606. 2015c Late Babylonian Epigraphy: a Case Study, in: E. Devecchi, G. G. W. Müller, and J. Mynářová (eds.), Current Research in Cuneiform Paleography. Proceedings of the Workshop organised at the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Warsaw 2014. Gladbeck: 187–98. 2017 The State and Its Subjects under the Neo-Babylonian Empire, in: R. de Boer and J. G. Dercksen (eds.), Private and State in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 58th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Leiden, 16–20 July 2012. Winona Lake, Indiana: 43–67. Jursa, M., J. Paszkowiak, and C. Waerzeggers 2003/2004 Three Court Records. AfO 50: 255–68. Jursa, M., and E. E. Payne 2005 Cuneiform Tablets in the Bristol Public Library. JCS 57: 113–25. Jursa, M., and M. W. Stolper 2007 From the Tattannu Archive Fragment. WZKM 97: 243–81. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

203

Keiser, C. E. 1918 Letters and Contracts from Erech Written in the Neo-Babylonian Period. BIN 1. New Haven and London. Kessler, K. 1991 Uruk: Urkunden aus Privathäusern. Die Wohnhäuser westlich des EannaTempelbereichs. Teil I. Die Archive der Söhne des Bēl-ušallim, des Nabûušallim und des Bēl-supê-muḫur. AUWE 8. Mainz am Rhein. 2002 Sāraia, in: H. D. Baker (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Volume 3, Part I: P–Ṣ. Helsinki: 1092. 2006 Das traurige Ende eines Hundewelpen in Uruk/Warka. BagM 37: 239–47. 2008 Gott―König―Tempel. Menschliches Recht und göttliche Gerechtigkeit in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit, in: R. Rollinger, H. Barta, and M. Lang (eds.), Recht und Religion. Menschliche und göttliche Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen in den antiken Welten. Philippika 24. Wiesbaden: 73–92. King, L. W. 1912 Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum. London. Kleber, K. 2004 Die Fischerei in der spätbabylonischen Zeit. WZKM 94: 133–65. 2008 Tempel und Palast. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem EannaTempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk. AOAT 358. Münster. 2010 dātu ša šarri: Gesetzgebung in Babylonian unter den Achämeniden (with a contribution by J. Hackl). ZABR 16: 49–75. 2011 Neither Slave not Truly Free: The Status of the Dependents of Babylonian Temple Households, in: L. Culbertson (ed.), Slaves and Households in the Near East. Oriental Institute Seminars 7. Chicago: 101–11. 2012 Famine in Babylonia. A microhistorical approach to an agricultural crisis in 528–526 BC. ZA 102: 219–44. 2018 Dependent Labor and Status in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods, in: A. Garcia-Ventura, What’s in a Name? Terminology related to the Work Force and Job Categories in the Ancient Near-East. AOAT 440. Münster: 442–65. Kleber, K., and E. Frahm 2006 A Not-So-Great Escape: Crime and Punishment According to a Document from Neo-Babylonian Uruk. JCS 58: 109–22. Kozuh, M. 2014 The Sacrificial Economy: Assessors, Contractors, and Thieves in the Management of Sacrificial Sheep at the Eanna Temple of Uruk (ca. 625–520 B.C.). Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations 2. Winona Lake, Indiana. Krückmann, O. 1931 Babylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungs- Urkunden aus der Zeit der Alexanders und der Diadochen. Leipzig. 1933 Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte. TMH 2/3. Leipzig. Kümmel, H. M. 1979 Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabylonischen Uruk. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zu Berufsgruppen des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Uruk. ADOG 20. Berlin. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

204

Bibliography

Kwasman, T., and S. Parpola 1991 Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon. SAA 6. Helsinki. Lafont, S., see (Démare-)Lafont Lambert, W. G. 1983 Lāgāmal. RLA 6: 418–19. 1987–1990 Mārat-bīti (dDUMU.MUNUS.É) “Daughter of the house/temple.” RLA 7: 355. Lautner, J. G. 1922 Die richterliche Entscheidung und die Streitbeendigung im altbabylonischen Prozessrechte. Leipzig. Leichty, E. 1983 Bel-epuš and Tammaritu. AnSt 33: 153–55. 1986 Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Volume VI: Tablets from Sippar 1. London. 1987 A Legal Text from the Reign of Tiglath-Pileser III, in: F. Rochberg-Halton (ed.), Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. AOS 67. New Haven, Connecticut: 227–29. Levavi, Y. 2018 Administrative Epistolography in the Formative Phase of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Spätbabylonische Briefe 2. Dubsar 3. Münster. Lipiński, E. 2000 The Arameans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. OLA 100. Leuven, Paris, and Sterling, Virginia. Lorenz, J. 2005/2006 20, 30, 40 Schekel. AfO 51: 248–51. Luppert-Barnard, S. M. 1998 Ašarēdu, in: Radner (ed.) 1998: 140–41. Lutz, H. F. 1927 Neo-Babylonian Administrative Documents from Erech, Parts I and II. UCP 9/1–2: 1–115. 1940 A Neo-Babylonian Debenture. UCP 10/9: 251–53. MacGinnis, J. 1994 The Royal Establishment at Sippar in the 6th Century BC. ZA 84: 198–219. 1996 Letters from the Neo-Babylonian Ebabbara. Mesopotamia 31: 99–159. 1998 Ordering of the House of Šamaš: Texts from the Management of the NeoBabylonian Ebabbara. Iraq 60: 207–17. 2006 Further evidence for intercity co-operation among Neo-Babylonian temples. JRAS 16: 127–32. 2006/2007 Fields of Endeavour – Leasing and Releasing the Land of Šamaš. JEOL 40: 91–101. 2008 A Judgement of Darius the King. JCS 60: 87–99. 2012 Arrows of the Sun. Armed Forces in Sippar in the First Millennium BC. Babylonische Archive 4. Dresden. 2017 Assyrians after the Fall: Evidence from the Ebabbara of Sippar, in: Y. Heffron, A. Stone, and M. Worthington (eds.), At the Dawn of History. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J. N. Postgate. Vol. 2. Winona Lake, Indiana: 781–96. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

205

Magdalene, F. R. 2007 On the Scales of Righteousness: Neo-Babylonian Trial Law and the Book of Job. Brown Judaic Studies 348. Providence, Rhode Island. Marzahn, J., and H. Neumann (eds.) 2000 Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997. AOAT 252. Münster. Mattila, R. 2000 The King’s Magnates. A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. SAAS 11. Helsinki. May, N. N. 2014 Gates and Their Functions in Mesopotamia and Ancient Israel, in: May and Steinert (eds.) 2014: 77–121. May, N. N., and U. Steinert (eds.) 2014 The Fabric of Cities. Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography and Society in Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 68. Leiden and Boston. McEwan, G. J. P. 1982a The Late Babylonian Tablets in the Royal Ontario Museum. ROMCT 2. Toronto. 1982b Agade after the Gutian Destruction: the Afterlife of a Mesopotamian City, in: H. Hirsch and H. Hunger (eds.), Vorträge gehalten auf der 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien 6.–10. Juli 1981. AfO Beiheft 19. Horn: 8–15. 1984 Late Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. OECT 10. Oxford. Melville, S. C. 1999 The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics. SAAS 9. Helsinki. Messerschmidt, L., and A. Ungnad 1907 Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Vol. 1. Leipzig. Moore, E. W. 1939 Neo-Babylonian Documents in the University of Michigan Collection. Ann Arbor. Muffs, Y. 1975 Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants, in: J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Graeco-Roman Cults. Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Vol. 3: Judaism Before 70. Leiden: 1–36. 2003 Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, with Prolegomenon by Baruch A. Levine. HdO 66. Leiden and Boston. Naʾaman, N. 1991 Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire (631–619 B.C.). ZA 81: 243–67. Nemet-Nejat, K. R. 1982 Late Babylonian Field Plans in the British Museum. Rome. Niehr, H. (ed.) 2014 The Arameans in Ancient Syria. HdO 106. Leiden and Boston. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

206

Bibliography

Nielsen, J. P. 2011 Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Named in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 BC. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 43. Leiden and Boston. 2015a Personal Names in Early Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Tablets, 747–626 B.C.E. Winona Lake, Indiana. 2015b Taking Refuge in Borsippa: The Archive of Lâbâši, Son of Nādinu. AfO 53: 93–109. Nielsen, J. P., and C. Waerzeggers 2016 Interactions between temple, king and local elites: the ḫanšû land schemes in Babylonia (8th–6th centuries BC), in: J. C. Moreno García (ed.), Dynamics of Production in the Ancient Near East, 1300–500 BC. Oxford and Philadelphia: 331–44. Nies, J. B., and C. E. Keiser 1920 Historical, Religious and Economic Texts and Antiquities. BIN 2. New Haven and London. Oberhuber, K. 1960 Sumerische und akkadische Keilschriftdenkmäler des Archäologischen Museums zu Florenz. Innsbruck. Oelsner, J. 2006 Aramäische Beischriften auf neu- und spätbabylonischen Tontafeln. WO 36: 27–71. Oelsner, J., B. Wells, and C. Wunsch 2003 Neo-Babylonian Period, in: Westbrook (ed.) 2003: 911–74. Ólafsson, S., and O. Pedersén 2001 Cuneiform Texts from Neo-Babylonian Sippar in the Gothenburg City Museum. OrSuec 50: 75–130. Oppenheim, (A.) L. 1936 Untersuchungen zum babylonischen Mietrecht. WZKM Beiheft 2. Wien. 1950 Review of UET 4. JCS 4: 188–95. Otto, E. 2008 Zivile Funktionen des Stadttores in Palästina und Mesopotamien, in: Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte. Gesammelte Studien. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 8. Wiesbaden: 519–30. Parpola, S. 1993 Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. SAA 10. Helsinki. Paulus, S. 2014 Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. AOAT 51. Münster. Payne, E. E. 2007 The Craftsmen of the Neo-Babylonian Period: A Study of the Textile and Metal Workers of the Eanna Temple. PhD dissertation, Yale University. 2008 New Evidence for the ‘Craftsmen’s Charter’. RA 102: 99–114.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

207

Pearce, L. E. 1999 Sepīru and lúA.BA: Scribes of the Late First Millennium, in: K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm. Proceedings of the 42th RAI. OLA 96. Leuven: 355–68. Pearce, L. E., and C. Wunsch 2014 Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer. CUSAS 28. Bethesda, Maryland. Peat, J. A. 1983 Hanšû Land and the Rab Hanšî. Iraq 45: 124–27. Peiser, F. E. 1904 Aus Rom. OLZ 7: 37–46. Petschow, H. 1956 Neubabylonisches Pfandrecht. ASAW 48. Berlin. Pinches, Th. G. 1887 Tablets Referring to the Apprenticeship of Slaves in Babylon. BOR 1: 81–85. 1888 Inscribed Babylonian Tablets in the Possession of Sir Henry Peek, Bart. London. 1898 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, & c., in the British Museum. Vol. 4. London. 1925 The Worship of Idols in Assyrian History in Relation to Bible References. JTVI 57: 10–29. 1982 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Vols. 55– 57. Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Economic Texts. London. Pirngruber, R. 2013 (with a contribution by Sven Tost) Police Forces in First Millennium BC Babylonia and Beyond. Kaskal 10: 69–87. 2014 Die Stadt Akkad in den babylonischen Quellen des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr., in: N. Ziegler and E. Cancik-Kirschbaum (eds.), Entre les fleuves II. D’Aššur à Mari et au-delà. BBVO 24. Gladbeck: 211–15. 2015 Review of A. Heller, Das Babylonien der Spätzeit. AfO 53: 208–13. 2017 A Curious Document from the Yale Babylonian Collection. RA 111: 133–40. Pohl, P. A. 1933/1934 Neubabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus den Berliner Staatlichen Museen. AnOr 8–9. Roma. Porten, B. 2014 A Comprehensive Table of Bethel Names in Ancient Inscriptions, in: Y. Levin and B. Kotlerman (eds.), “And Inscribe the Name of Aaron”: Studies in Bible, Epigraphy, Literacy and History Presented to Aaron Demsky. Maarav 21. Rolling Hills, California: 223–34. Potts, D. T. 2012 Fish and Fishing, in: D. T. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Chichester, West Sussex: 220–35. Powell, M. A. 1984 Late Babylonian Surface Mensuration: A Contribution to the History of Babylonian Agriculture and Arithmetic. AfO 31: 30–66. 1987–1990 Maße und Gewichte. RLA 7: 457–517. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

208

Bibliography

Radner, K. 2005

The Reciprocal Relationship between Judge and Society in the NeoAssyrian Period. Maarav 12: 41–68. Radner, K. (ed.) 1998 The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Volume 1, Part I: A. Helsinki. Ragen, A. 2006 The Neo-Babylonian širku: A Social History. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Rawlinson, H. C. 1909 The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. Vol. 5. A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia. London. Renger, J. 1971 Notes on the Goldsmiths, Jewelers and Carpenters of Neobabylonian Eanna. JAOS 91: 494–503. Revillout, E., and V. Revillout 1887a L’antichrèse non immobilière dans l’Égypte et dans la Chaldée. PSBA 9: 178–79. 1887b Les dépôts et les confiements en droit égyptien et en droit babylonien. PSBA 9: 267–310. 1887c A Contract for Apprenticeship from Sippara. BOR 2: 119–25. Reynolds, F. S. 2000 Inqâ, Inqāia, in: H. D. Baker (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Volume 2, Part I: Ḫ–K. Helsinki: 544. 2003 The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Assurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from Northern and Central Babylonia. SAA 18. Helsinki. Roth, M. T. 1988a Women in Transition and the bīt mār banî. RA 82: 131–38. 1988b ina amat DN1 u DN2 lišlim. JSS 33: 1–9. 1989 Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th–3rd Centuries B.C. AOAT 222. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. 1989/1990 The Material Composition of the Neo-Babylonian Dowry. AfO 36/37: 1– 55. 1991 The Dowries of the Women of the Itti-Marduk-balāṭu Family. JAOS 111: 19–37. 1991–1993 The Neo-Babylonian Widow. JCS 43–45: 1–26. 1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. Writings from the Ancient World 6. Atlanta. f 2000 Tašmētu-damqat and Daughters, in: Marzahn and Neumann (eds.) 2000: 387–400. Rutten, M. 1947 Contestation au suject d’une donation d’une mère à ses fils. RA 41: 99–103. Sack, R. H. 1972 Amēl-Marduk: 562–560 B.C. A Study based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. AOAT 4. Kevelaer and NeukirchenVluyn. 1994a Neriglissar – King of Babylon. AOAT 236. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

209

Cuneiform Documents from the Chaldean and Persian Periods. Selinsgrove, London, and Toronto. San Nicolò, M. 1931 Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte im Bereich der keilschriftlichen Rechtsquellen. Oslo. 1932 Parerga Babylonica VII. Der § 8 des Gesetzbuches Ḫammurapis in den neubabylonischen Urkunden. ArOr 4: 327–44. 1933 Parerga Babylonica XI. Die mašʾaltu-Urkunden im neubabylonischen Strafverfahren ArOr 5: 287–302. 1947 Due atti matrimoniali neobabilonesi. Aegyptus 27: 118–43. 1948 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln I. OrNS 17: 273–93. 1949 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln II. OrNS 18: 288–306. 1951a Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln III. OrNS 20: 129–50. 1951b Babylonische Rechtsurkunden des ausgehenden 8. und des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. ABAW 34. München. 1954 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln IV. OrNS 23: 351–82. 1956 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln V. OrNS 25: 24–38. San Nicolò, M., and A. Ungnad 1935 Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden. Vol 1. Leipzig. Sandowicz, M. 2009 Neo-Babylonian nagû. NABU 2009/14. 2011 ‘Fear the Oath!’ Stepping Back from Oath Taking in First Millennium B.C. Babylonia. Palamedes 6: 17–36. 2012 Oaths and Curses: A Study in Neo- and Late Babylonian Legal Formulary. AOAT 398. Münster. 2014 Nabonidus and Forty Thieves of Uruk: Criminal Investigation in Neo-Babylonian Eanna. Iraq 76: 245–61. 2018a The Neo-Babylonian Law Enforcement Official rab qanâte. WZKM 108: 229–39. 2018b Before Xerxes: The Role of the Governor of Babylonia in the Administration of Justice under the First Achaemenids, in: C. Waerzeggers and M. Seire (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence. OLA 277. Leuven, Paris, Bristol, CT: 35–62. forthcoming Interrogation Protocols (mašʾaltus): Formats, Markings, and Tablet Trails. Sandowicz, M., and R. Tarasewicz 2014 Court of Assize at Neo-Babylonian Apšu. RA 108: 71–92. Scheil, (Fr.-)V. 1895 Notes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie assyriennes. RT 17: 27–41. 1915 La libération judiciaire d’un fils donné en gage sous Neriglissor en 558 av. J.-C. RA 12: 1–13. 1917 Notules. XXXIV. Une affaire de dépôt. RA 14: 156–59. 1921 Collection Eugène Tisserant. RA 18: 1–33. 1994b

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

210

Bibliography

Schmidl, M. 2017 Some Remarks on Language Usage in Late Babylonian Letters. Open Linguistics 2017/3: 378–95. Sonnenschein, E. 1925 Beiträge zu den neubabylonischen Urkunden über Kauf. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 3: 180–215. Spar, I. 1979 Three Neo-Babylonian Trial Depositions from Uruk, in: M. A. Powel and R. H. Sack (eds.), Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones. AOAT 203. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: 157–72. Spar, I., and M. Jursa 2014 The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to the First Millennium B.C. CTMMA 4. New York and Winona Lake, Indiana. Spar, I., and E. von Dassow 2000 Private Archive Texts from the First Millennium B.C. CTMMA 3. New York. Stamm, J. J. 1939 Die akkadische Namengebung. Leipzig. Steinmetzer, F. X. 1933 Eqlu libbû eqli. ArOr 6: 203–6. 1935 Die Bestallungsurkunde des Königs Šamaš-šum-ukîn von Babylon, in: Miscellanea orientalia dedicata Antonio Deimel annos LXX complenti. AnOr 12. Rome: 302–6. Stigers, H. G. 1976 Neo- and Late Babylonian Business Documents from the John Frederick Lewis Collection. JCS 28: 3–59. Still, B. 2016 The Social World of the Babylonian Priest. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Stol, M. 1993 Epilepsy in Babylonia. Cuneiform Monographs 2. Groningen. Stolper, M. W. 1985 Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia. PIHANS 54. Leiden. 1988 The šaknu of Nippur. JCS 40: 127–55. 1991 A Property in Bīt Pāniya. RA 85: 49–62. 2001 Fifth Century Nippur: Texts of the Murašûs and from Their Surroundings. JCS 53: 83–132. Strassmaier, J. N. 1885 Die babylonischen Inschriften im Museum zu Liverpool nebst anderen aus der Zeit von Nebuchadnezzar bis Darius. Actes du sixième congrès international des orientalistes tenu en 1883 à Leide. Leide: 569–624, plates 1–176. 1888a Arsaciden-Inschriften. ZA 3: 129–58. 1888b apud Budge, On Some Recently Acquired Babylonian Tablets. ZA 3: 211– 30. 1889a Inschriften von Nabonidus, König von Babylon (555–538 v. Chr.). BT 1–4. Leipzig. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography 1889b 1889c 1890a 1890b 1892–1897 1893

211

Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, König von Babylon (604–561 v. Chr.). BT 5–6. Leipzig. Inschriften von Nabopolassar und Smerdis. ZA 4: 106–52. Inschriften von Cyrus, König von Babylon (538–529 v. Chr.). BT 7. Leipzig. Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon (529–521 v. Chr.). BT 8–9. Leipzig. Inschriften von Darius, König von Babylon (521–485 v. Chr.). BT 10–12. Leipzig. Einige kleinere babylonische Keilschrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum. Actes du 8e Congrès International des Orientalistes, tenu à Stockholm et à Christiana. Vol. 2. Leiden: 281–83, plates 1–35.

Streck, M. P. 1992 Review of AUWE 8. ZA 83: 274–82. 1995 Zahl und Zeit. Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonichen. Cuneiform Monographs 5. Groningen. 2009 Review of CAD Vols. 18 and 19. ZA 99: 135–40. 2010 Innovations in the Neo-Babylonian Lexicon, in: L. E. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tischenko (eds.), Language in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, Indiana: 647–60. 2014 Outlook: Arameans outside Syria. 2. Babylonia, in: Niehr (ed.) 2014: 297– 318. Tallqvist, K. L. 1902 Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Šamaššumukîn bis Xerxes. Helsinki. Tarasewicz, R. 2012 On the Ḫazannu in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. Palamedes 7: 25–42. 2017 More about the Crisis in Uruk, in: O. Drewnowska and M. Sandowicz (eds.), Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Warsaw, 21–25 July 2014. Winona Lake, Indiana: 347–55. Tavernier, J. 2007 Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C). OLA 158. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA. Thissen, C. 2017 Review of J. P. Nielsen, Personal Names in Early Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts. BiOr 74: 129–40. Tolini, G. 2011 La Babylonie et l’Iran: les relations d’une province avec le coeur de l’empire achéménide (539–331 avant notre ère). PhD dissertation, Université Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne. Tremayne, A. 1925 Records from Erech. Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (538–521 B.C.). YOS 7. New Haven and London. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

212

Bibliography

Unger, E. 1931a 1931b 1935 Ungnad, A. 1907–1908

Babylon. Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier. Berlin and Leipzig. Topographie der Stadt Dilbat. ArOr 2: 21–48. Dilbat. RLA 2: 218–25.

Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Vol. 4–6. Leipzig. Van Buylaere, G. 2012 The Secret Lore of Scholars, in: G. B. Lanfranchi, D. M. Bonacossi, C. Pappi, and S. Ponchia (eds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 2. Wiesbaden: 853–63. van Driel, G. 1985/1986 The Rise of the House Egibi: Nabû-aḫḫē-iddina. JEOL 29: 50–67. 1988 Neo-Babylonian Agriculture. BSA 4: 121–59. 1993 Neo-Babylonian Sheep and Goats. BSA 7: 219–58. 1998a The “Eanna Archive.” BiOr 55: 59–79. 1998b Care of the Elderly: The Neo-Babylonian Period, in: M. Stol and S. P. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East. SHCANE 14. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: 161–97. 2002 Elusive Silver. In Search of a Role for a Market in an Agrarian Environment. Aspects of Mesopotamia’s Society. PIHANS 95. Leiden. Vavroušek, P., and V. Souček (eds.) 1988 ŠULMU: Papers on the Ancient Near East Presented at International Conference of Socialist Countries (Prague, Sept. 30–Oct. 3, 1986). Prague. von Dassow, E. 1999 Introducing the Witness in Neo-Babylonian Documents, in: R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Winona Lake, Indiana: 3–22. von Soden, W. 1995 Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. AnOr 33. Roma. Waerzeggers, C. 1999/2000 The Records of Inṣabtu from the Naggāru Family. AfO 46/47: 183–200. 2005 The dispersal history of the Borsippa archives, in: Baker and Jursa (eds.) 2005: 343–63. 2008 On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests (with the contribution by M. Jursa). ZABR 14: 1–38. 2010a The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives. Achaemenid History 15. Leiden. 2010b Babylonians in Susa. The Travels of Babylonian Businessmen to Susa Reconsidered, in: B. Jacobs and R. Rollinger (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof / The Achaemenid Court. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema »Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen«, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007. Wiesbaden: 777–813. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

213

Marduk-rēmanni: Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia. OLA 233. Leuven, Paris, and Walpole, Massachusetts. Walker, C. B. F. 1973 Cuneiform Tablets in the County Museum and Art Gallery, Truro, Cornwall. AfO 24: 122–27, plates XXII–XXIV. Walker, C. B. F., and S. N. Kramer 1982 Cuneiform Tablets in the Collection of Lord Binning. Iraq 44: 70–86. Watelin, L. Ch., and S. Langdon 1925–1927 Excavations at Kish:The Herbert Weld (for the University of Oxford) and Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) Expedition to Mesopotamia. Vol. 3. Paris. Weidner, E. 1952/1953 Keilschrifttexte nach Kopien von T. G. Pinches. Aus dem Nachlass veröffentlicht und bearbeitet. 1. Babylonische Privaturkunden aus dem 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. AfO 16: 35–46. 1954–1956 Hochverrat gegen Nebuchadnezar II. AfO 17: 1–9. Weinfeld, M. 1992 The Phases of Human Life in Mesopotamian and Jewish Sources, in: E. Urlich, J. W. Wright, R. P. Carroll, and Ph. R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes. Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp. JSOT Supplement Series 149. Sheffield: 182–89. Weisberg, D. B. 1967 Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia. YNER 1. New Haven and London. 1980 Texts from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar. YOS 17. New Haven and London. 2003 Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Oriental Institute Collection. OIP 122. Chicago. Wells, B. 2010 Complementing or Complementary? Judges and Elders in Biblical and Neo-Babylonian Law. ZABR 16: 77–104. Westbrook, R. 2003 Old Babylonian Period in: Westbrook (ed.) 2003: 361–430. 2004 The Quality of Freedom in Neo-Babylonian Manumissions. RA 98: 101–8. 2006 Reflections on Neo-Babylonian Law. NIN 4: 133–46. 2009 Law from the Tigris to the Tiber. The Writings of Raymond Westbrook. Ed. by B. Wells and F. R. Magdalene. 2 vols. Winona Lake, Indiana. Westbrook, R. (ed.) 2003 A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. HdO 72. Leiden and Boston. Weszeli, M. 1996 Eseleien. WZKM 86: 461–78. 2005 Zu Buchführung in Babylonien oder erneurt zu ušazzaz(ma) ... inamdin. WZKM 95: 347–85. 2009a Die Stallungen des Ebabbar von Sippar in der neubabylonischen Zeit, in: W. Arnold, M. Jursa, W. W. Müller, and S. Procházka (eds.), Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra. Analecta Semitica In Memoriam Alexander Sima. Wiesbaden: 411–45. 2014

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

214 2009b

Bibliography Schiff und Boot. B. In mesopotamischen Quellen des 2. und 1. Jahrtausend. RLA 12: 160–71.

Wright, P. H. 1994 The city of Larsa in the Babylonian and Achaemenid periods: A study of urban and intercity relations in antiquity. PhD dissertation, Hebrew Union College. Wunsch, C. 1988 Zur Entwicklung und Nutzung privaten Großgrundbesitzes in Babylonien während des 6. Jh. v. u. Z. nach dem Archiv des Ṭābija, in: Vavroušek and Souček (eds.) 1988: 361–85. 1993 Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-Marduk. Zum Handel mit Naturalien im 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. 2 vols. Cuneiform Monographs 3. Groningen. 1995/1996 Die Frauen der Familie Egibi. AfO 42/43: 33–63. 1997 Neu- und spätbabylonische Urkunden aus dem Museum von Monserrat. AulaOr. 15: 139–94. 1997/1998 Und die Richter berieten ... Streitfälle in Babylon aus der Zeit Neriglissars und Nabonids. AfO 44/45: 59–100. 1999/2000 Eine Richterurkunde aus der Zeit Neriglissars. AulaOr. 17/18: 241–54. 2000a Die Richter des Nabonid, in: Marzahn and Neumann (eds.) 2000: 557–97. 2000b Das Egibi-Archiv I. Die Felder und Gärten. 2 vols. Cuneiform Monographs 20. Groningen. 2000c Neubabylonische Geschäftsleute und ihre Beziehungen zu Palast- und Tempelverwaltungen: das Beispiel der Familie Egibi, in: Bongenaar (ed.) 2000: 95–118. 2003a Urkunden zum Ehe-, Vermögens- und Erbrecht aus verschiedenen neubabylonischen Archiven. Babylonische Archive 2. Dresden. 2003b Women’s Property and the Law of Inheritance in the Neo-Babylonian Period (posted at https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/1219, accessed on March 20th, 2018). 2003/2004 Findelkinder und Adoption nach neubabylonischen Quellen. AfO 50: 174– 244. 2004 An Early Achaemenid Administrative Text from Uruk. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2004/1. 2005 The Šangû-Ninurta archive, in: Baker and Jursa (eds.) 2005: 365–79. 2006 Metronymika in Babylonien. Frauen als Ahnherrin der Familie, in: G. del Olmo Lete, L. Feliu, and A. Millet (eds.), Šapal tibnim mû illakū. Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on his 65th Birthday. AulaOr. Suppl. 22. Barcelona: 459–69. 2012 Legal Narrative in Neo-Babylonian Trial Documents: Text Reconstruction, Interpretation, and Assyriological Method, in: K.-P. Adam, F. Avemarie, and N. Wazana (eds.), Law and Narrative in the Bible and in Neighbouring Ancient Cultures. Tübingen: 3–34. 2014 Babylonische Familiennamen, in: M. Krebernik and H. Neumann (eds.), Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstags von Joachim Oelsner, Jena, 2. und 3. März 2007. AOAT 369. Münster: 289–314. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Bibliography

215

Wunsch, C., and F. R. Magdalene 2014 Freedom and Dependency: Neo-Babylonian Manumission Documents with Oblation and Service Obligation, in: M. Kozuh, W. F. M. Henkelman, Ch. E. Jones, and Ch. Woods (eds.), Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper. SAOC 68. Chicago: 337–46. Zadok, R. 1977a Iranians and Individuals Bearing Iranian Names in Achaemenian Babylonia. IOS 7: 89–138. 1977b West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods: An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem. 1984 Assyro-Babylonian Lexical and Onomastic Notes. BiOr 41: 33–46. 1985 Geographical Names According to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts. RGTC 8. Wiesbaden. 1997 Two N/LB documents from the British Museum. NABU 1997/11. 1999/2000 Geographical, onomastic, and lexical notes. AfO 46/47: 208–12. 2002 Contributions to Babylonian Geography, Prosopography and Documentation (with copies by T. Zadok), in: O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler, and H. Schaudig (eds.), Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfred Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. AOAT 281. Münster: 871–97. 2003 The Representation of Foreigners in Neo- and Late-Babylonian Legal Documents (Eighth through Second Centuries B.C.E.), in: O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake, Indiana: 471–589. 2005/2006 The Text Group of Nabû-ēṭer. AfO 51: 147–97. 2006 The Geography of the Borsippa Region, in: Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits (eds.), Esseys on Ancient Israel in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman. Winona Lake, Indiana: 389–453. 2008 The Quarters of Borsippa, in: Sh. Bar (ed.), In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12, 8). Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh HillCountry Survey. Jerusalem: 75*–98*. 2009a Iranische Personennamen in der neu- und spätbabylonischen Nebenüberlieferung. Iranisches Personennamenbuch 7/1B. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte 777. Wien. 2009b Catalogue of Documents from Borsippa or Related to Borsippa in the British Museum I. Nisaba 21. Messina. 2013 The Onomastics of the Chaldean, Aramean, and Arabian Tribes in Babylonia during the First Millennium, in: Berlejung and Streck (eds.) 2013: 261– 336. Zadok, R., and T. Zadok 2005a Contributions to Neo/Late-Babylonian Documentation, in: Y. Sefati, P. Artzi, C. Cohen, B. L. Eichler, and V. A. Hurowitz (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, Maryland: 624–69. 2005b On the Esaggil-mansum Clan. NABU 2005/25. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

216

Bibliography

Zawadzki, S. 1988 The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle. Poznań and Delft. 1994 Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun Inscription and Babylonian Sources. AMI 27: 127–45. 1996 Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency. RA 90: 171–83. 1997 The Question of the King’s Eponymate in the latter Half of the 8th Century and the 7th Century BC, in: S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995. Helsinki: 383–89. 2000 Zazannu and Šušan in the Babylonian texts from the archive of the Ṣāḫit ginê family, in: R. Dittmann et al. (eds.), Variatio Delectat. Iran und der Westen. Gedenkschrift für P. Calmeyer. AOAT 272. Münster: 723–44. 2006 Garments of the Gods: Studies on the Textile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar according to the Texts from the Ebabbar Archive. OBO 218. Fribourg and Göttingen. 2013 Garments of the Gods. Vol. 2. Texts. OBO 260. Fribourg and Göttingen. 2018 The Rental of Houses in the Neo-Babylonian Period (VI–V Centuries BC). Warszawa. Zawadzki, S., and M. Jursa 2001 Šamaš-tirri-kuṣur, a smith manufacturing weapons in the Ebabbar temple at Sippar. WZKM 91: 347–63. Electronic resources https://labasi.acdh.oeaw.ac.at http://cdli.ucla.edu

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Indices Personal Names in Text Editions A Abdu-Iššar (mab-du-diš-šar)  s. of Nabû-unamm[ir], f. of Bābia BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 4, 10, 13, 17; Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 8, [10], 12 Abī-ul-īdi (mad-nu-zu)  anc. of [...]ani? BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 18’ Abunāya (mad-na-a-a)  BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 3’ Adad-šammē (mdiškur-šam-me-e)  anc. of Arad-Bēl BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 21; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): [26]; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37; BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 30; BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 9’; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [9’]; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): [19]  anc. of Bēl-ušallim BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 21; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): [26]; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37; BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 30; BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 9’; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [9’]; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): [19] Adad-šumu-ēreš (mdiškur-mu-uru4 -eš, md iškur-mu-kám)  anc. of Aplāya BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 9  anc. of Zēr-Bābili BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 9  BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 29 Adad-šumu-uṣur (mdiškur-mu-ùru)  anc. of Nabû-⌈aḫḫē⌉-[...] (Text no. 45): 27  anc. of Marduk-šumu-uṣur BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 27 Aḫḫēa (maḫ-ḫe-e-a]  f. of Nabû-nādin-aḫi, [d. of ...] BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 3”?

Aḫ-immê (mšeš-im-me-e)  [s. of ...], arad ekalli BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 2, 4 Aḫulap-Ištar (ma-ḫu-lap-d15)  s. of Arad-Innin BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 6, 16 Allānu (mal-la-nu)  anc. of Bēlšunu Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37  anc. of Zērūtu, Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37 Ālu-lūmur (muru-lu-mur)  BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 5, 16; BM 63845 (p. 123): 5 Amēl-Marduk (lú-damar.utu)  BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 18 Amurru-iqbi (mdkur.gal-iq-bi)  s. of Marduk-erība BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 7, 16 Amurru-šarru-uṣur (mdkur.gal-lugal-ùru)  qallu BM 65307 (Text no. 21): [1]; Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 6  f. of Nabû-zēru-iddin BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 3 Ana-amat-Bēl-atkal (ma-na-a-mat-denat-kal)  BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 9 Ana-Bēl-upaqqu (a-na-den-ú-pa-qu)  d. of Bāʾiru BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 15’ Andaḫar (man-da-ḫar)  s. of Nabû-ēṭir BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 30 Anunītu-šarru-uṣur (mda-nu-ni-tu4-lugalùru)  s. of Nabû-šumu-uṣur BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 12  [f. of] Nād[in], d. of Šangû-Akka BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [17]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

218

Indices

Anu-šarru-uṣur (mda-nù-lugal-ùru, mda-nùlugal-pab)  dayyānu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 14, 19, 23  f. of Kalbi-Bau BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 5’ Anu-ušallim (mda-nù-⌈gi⌉)  h. of fIn[ṣab]tu BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 6 Aplāya (ma-a, map-la-a, mibila-a)  s.! of Arad-[Gu]la BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 11  s. of Madānu-ēreš BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 14  s. of Zēr-Bābili, d. of Adad-šumuēreš BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 8  f. of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 2  f. of Madānu-zēru-ibni, d. of Eppēšilī BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 6  f. of Madānu-[...], d. of Bēl-eṭēru BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 26  f. of Na[bû-mušētiq-uddē] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): [2’]  d. of Ararru BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 23’  d. of Paḫḫāru BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 21 Aqarāya (ma-qar-a)  ⌈b.⌉ of Marduk-šāpik-zēri BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 4  d. of Eppēš-ilī BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 20 Arad-Anunītu (mìr-da-nu-ni-tu4)  sepīru of the Eulmaš of Akkad BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [3]; BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [3]; BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 18; BM 63845 (p. 123): 5, 10 = Arad-Anunītu, s. of [...]?  s. of [...] BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 4, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23 = Arad-Anunītu, sepīru of the Eulmaš of Akkad? Arad-Bēl (mìr-den)  s. of Bēl-ēṭir BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 14



s. of Bēl-ušallim, d. of Adad-šammē, tupšarru BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 21; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 25; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37; BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [29]; BM 101541 (Text no. 24): [8’]; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [9’]; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): [19]  s. of Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 6’ Arad-Gula (mìr-dme.me)  f.! of Aplāya BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 11  BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 12 Arad-Innin (mìr-din-nin)  f. of Aḫulap-Ištar BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 6 Arad-Nabû (mìr-dnà)  f. of Bānia, [d. of ...n]i? BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 24  [f. of Rīmūt], d. of Ša-nāšišu Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 8 Arad-Nergal (mìr-dgìr.kù)  anc. of Bēl-iddin Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 13  anc. of Bēl-nipšaru Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 13 Arad?-⌈...⌉ (mìr?-⌈x-x-x⌉)  f. of Šamaš-zēru-iddin BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 16 ⌈Arad?⌉-[...] (⌈mìr?⌉-d[x])  anc. of [...] BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 17 Ardia (mìr-ia)  mupaṣṣû BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 8  s. of Nabû-nāṣir, b. of Gabbi-ilānišarru-uṣur BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 1, 20, 30 Ararru (lú.àr.àr)  anc. of Aplāya BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 23’ Ašābšu (ma-šá-ab-šú)  anc. of Etel-pî BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 6, 10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names 

anc. of Gūzānu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 6, 10  anc. of [Ḫ]addāya? BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 4  [anc. of] Nabû-nādin-zēri BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 8  anc. of Nādin BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 4  [anc. of] Nergal?-[...] BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 8 Ašarēdu (ma-šá-re-du)  šākin ṭēmi of Cutha BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 5 Ašlāku (lú.azlag)  anc. of Bēlšunu BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 25’  anc. of [...] BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 2’ Aššurāya (maš-šur-a-a)  anc. of Kalbāya BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 35’  anc. of [Uballi]ṭ?-Marduk BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 35’ Aššur-lēʾi (mdan.šár-da)  sukkallu BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 3’ f Ayya-aḫāʾ (fa-a-ḫa-aʾ)  BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 5 B Bāʾiru (lú.šu.ku6)  anc. of Ana-Bēl-upaqqu BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 15’  anc. of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 28  anc. of Bēl-ibni BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 21  anc. of Bulluṭu BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 21  anc. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 25  anc. of Nabû-bullissu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 25  anc. of Nabû?-dān? BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 17



219

anc. of Nidinti-Bēl BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 28  anc. of Pirʾu BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 21  anc. of Tabnēa BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 21 Bābāya. See Bābia Bābia (mba-bi-ia), Bābāya (mba-ba-ia)  s. of Abdu-Iššar BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 5, 11, 13, [17]; Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 8, 9 Baga-pānu (mba-ag-pa-nu, mba-ag-apnu)  BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 3, 18 Balāssu (mba-laṭ-su, mtin-su)  f. of Silim-Bēl, [d. of ...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 7’  f. of Ṣillāya, d. of Nabû-ēṭir BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 23 Balāṭu (mba-la-ṭu)  [s. of Mušēzib-Marduk], d. of Išpāru BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 20  s. of Nabû-bēl-⌈aḫḫēšu⌉ BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 10  s. of Zabidāya BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 6  s. of [...], d.! of Šūzubu BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 9’  anc. of Bēl-iddin BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 22  anc. of Bēl-uballiṭ BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 22  anc. of [Na]bû-mušētiq-uddê BM 63551 (Text no. 5): [4’]  anc. of Zēria BM 63551 (Text no. 5): [4’] Balīḫû (mdkaskal.kur-ú, mdkaskal. kur-i, md kaskal.kur-a)  f. of Bēl-aplu-iddin, d. of Šangû-Sippar BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 16; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): [24]; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 5’; CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 21’  f. of Šamaš-erība BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 9’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

220 

Indices

anc. of Bēlšunu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 5  anc. of [Nabû-balāssu-iqbi] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 5  anc. of Nabû-iddin BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 29  anc. of [...]ni BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 6’  BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 6’ Banâ-ša-iliya (mdù-a-šá-dingir-ia, mdù-ašá-dingir-ía)  anc. of Nidinti-Bēl BM 31355 (Text no. 47): [20]; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 14 Bānia (mba-ni-ia, mdù-ia)  s. of Arad-Nabû, [d. of ...n]i? BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 24  f. of Šamaš-aplu-uṣur, d. of Paḫḫāru Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 4, 8  BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 6 Banītušu (mdù-tú-šú)  s. of ⌈...-Ištar⌉, d. of Nabû-dān BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 13 Bānûnu (mba-nu-nu)  BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 7’ Basia (mba-si-ia)  anc. of Nabû-ušabši BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 9  anc. of Zēria BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 9 Baytil-nāṭar (mé.dingir-na-ṭar)  f. of fŠiddā[tu] (w. of Bunene-šarruuṣur) BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 2 Ba?[...] (mba?-[...])  BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 7 Bēl-abu-uṣur (mden-ad-ùru)  dayyānu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): l.h.e. = Bēl-abu-uṣur, s.? of Nidintu?  s.? of Nidintu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 3, 8, [11] = Bēl-abu-uṣur, dayyānu? Bēl-aḫḫē-erība (mden-šeš.meš-su)  s. of Aplāya BM 114577 (Text no. 29): [1], 5, 18, 20

 

f. of Nidinti-Bēl, d. of Bāʾiru BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 28 f. of ... BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 10

Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin (men-šeš.me-mu)  s. of Bēlšunu BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 7 Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša (mden-šeš.meš-ba-šá)  qīpu of the Ebabbar BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 1; BM 63755 (Text no. 18): [2], 7; BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 2, 8  [s. of Na]bû-kibsu-šarri-uṣur, tupšarru BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 17  f. of Nādin, d. of Egibi BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 24 Bēl-aḫ[...] (mden-š[eš...])  day[yānu] BM 50657 (Text no. 50): u.e. Bēl-ammēni (mden-am-me-ni)  f. of Nabû-mušēti-uddê, d. of Rab-banê BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 4 Bēl-ana-mēreḫti (mden-a-na-me-re-eḫ-tu4)  s. of [...] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 6 Bēl-aplu-iddin (mden-a-mu)  s. of Balīḫû, d. of Šangû-Sippar BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 16; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): [24]; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 5’; CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): [21’] = Bēl-aplu-iddin, d. of Šangû-Sippar, ērib bīt Šamaš  d. of Šangû-Sippar, ērib bīt Šamaš Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 36; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 17 = Bēl-aplu-iddin, s. of Balīḫû, d. of Šangû-Sippar Bēl-asûa (mden-a-su-a)  [s. of Ea-iddin], d. of Mandidu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 19 Bēl-bāni-apli (mden-dù-ibila)  d. of Eppēš-ilī BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 16 Bēl-ēreš (mden-kám)  f. of Gimil-Šamaš BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 3’, 8’, 9’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Bēl-erība (mden-su)  s. of Marduk-zēru-ibni, d. of Dābibi BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 5, 7 Bēl-eṭēru (mden-e-ṭè-ru, mden-e-ṭè-ri)  anc. of Aplāya BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 26  anc. of Bēl-uballiṭ BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 22  anc. of Madānu-[...] BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 26  anc. of Marduk-ēṭir BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 36 Bēl-ēṭir (mden-kar, mden-sur)  f. of Arad-Bēl BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 15  f. of Bēl-⌈...⌉ BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 1!  f. of Mušallim-Marduk BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 8  d. of Rēʾi-sisê, tupšarru BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 17’ Bēl-ibni (mden-ib-ni, mden-dù)  s. of Bulluṭu, d. of Bāʾiru BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 20  d. of Naggāru, šākin ṭēmi of Dilbat BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [2], 4, 14, 18, [25] Bēl-iddin (mden-mu, mden-sum.na)  tupšar (Ebabbar) BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 2; BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 3  s. of Bēl-nipšaru, d. of Arad-Nergal Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 13, [23], 25, [33?]  s. of Nabû-rēssu BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 2’?  [s. of] Nabû-šumu-līšir, d. of ŠangûIš[tar-Bābili] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [7’]  s. of [Nerga]l-ušēzib BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 3, 9  s. of Ubār and fKuttāya BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 5, 15, 16, 20  f. of Bēl-uballiṭ, d. of Bal[āṭu] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 22  d. of Miṣirāya BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 26  BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 4’, 8’

221

Bēl-iqīša (mden-ba-šá)  s. of Nabû-mukīn-apli, [d. of Ib]nāya, tupšarru BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 18  f. of Tabnēa, d. of Šangû-Mārat-bīti BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 6, 9, 11  d. of Šullumānu BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 23 Bēl-kēšir (mden-ke-šìr)  s. of Nabû-zēru-iqīša, d. of Mannugērûšu BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 5, 10, 24  BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 12 Bēl-nādin-apli (mden-na-din-a)  f. of Taqīš-Gula BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 8’ Bēl-nipšaru (mden-ni-ip-šá-ru)  f. Bēl-iddin, d. of Arad-Nergal Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 13, 23 Bēl-rēmanni (mden-re-man-ni)  d. of Mandidi, šākin ṭēmi of Babylon BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 10’, 28’ Bēl-supê-muḫur (mden-su-pe-mu-ḫur, md en-su-pe-e-mu-ḫur)  s. of Nabûnnāya, dayyānu BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 5’; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 12, r.h.e. Bēl-šarru-uṣur (mden-lugal-ùru)  s. of Rīmūt, šanû of Puqūdu on the Tig[ris and] the Royal Canal BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 6 Bēlšunu (men-šú-nu)  s. of Mardu[ka, d. of ..., dayyānu] BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 2”  s. of [Nabû-balāssu-iqbi], d. of Balīḫû BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 4  f. Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 7  f. of Šamaš-iqīša BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 2  f. of Zērūtu, d. of Allānu Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37  f. of [...]a, d. of Kānik-bābi BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 33’  d. of Ašlāku BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 25’  d. of Irʾanni, b. of Šumu-iddin BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 18

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

222

Indices

Bēl-uballiṭ (mden-tin-iṭ)  šangû of Sippar BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 2, 11, 19–20, 27; BM 101541 (Text no. 24): [2], 6’; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 3’; BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 9’  širik [...] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 6  s. of Bēl-iddin, d. of Bal[āṭu], tupšarru BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [21]  s. of Iqīšāya, d. of Ṣāḫit-sattukki Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 14, [22], 27 = Bēl-uballiṭ, s. of Iqīšāya  s. of Iqīšāya BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 7’, 10’ = Bēl-uballiṭ, s. of Iqīšāya, d. of Ṣāḫit-sattukki  d. of Bēl-eṭēru, h. of fBunnānītu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 22  BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 12 Bēl-upaḫḫir (mden-nigin-ir)  s. of Na[din] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 7! Bēl-ušallim (mden-gi, mden-ú-šal-lim)  s. of Nabû-nādin, d. of Šumu-libši BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 16  s. of Šamaš-unammir, [d. of Miṣrāya?] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 5’  [s. of Zērūtu], d. of Miṣ[rāya] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 63  f. of Arad-Bēl, d. of Adad-šammē BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 21; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): [25]; Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37; BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [29]; BM 101541 (Text no. 24): [8’]; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 9’; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 19  d. of Šangû-Šamaš BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 15 Bēl-zēru-ibni (mden-numun-dù, mdennumun-ib-ni)  s. of Nabû-nāṣir Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 9, 12, 26  f. of Mušēzib-Bēl, d. of Itinnu BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 5  f. of N[i...] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 6’?

Bēl-[...] (mden-[x x x])  anc. of Madānu-aḫu-iddin BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 25  anc. of Marduk-šumu?-⌈...⌉ BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 25 Bēl-⌈...⌉ (mden-⌈x-x⌉)  s. of Bēl-ēṭir! BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 1 B[ēl?-...] (m⌈den?⌉-[...])  BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 2’ B[ēl-...] (mde[n-x x])  [s. of ..., d. of ...]nēa CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 59 Bulluṭu (mbul-luṭ, mbul-lu-ṭu)  f. of Bēl-ibni, d. of Bāʾiru BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 20  [f.] of [...] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 4’ Būnānu (mbu-na-nu)  f. of Ubār BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 2, 17 Bunene-ibni (mdḫar-dù)  f. of Ḫariṣānu ([išpar ki]tê?) BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 3 Bunene-šarru-uṣur (mdḫar-lugal-pab)  h. of fŠiddā[tu] (d. of Baytil-nāṭar), aš[laku?] BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 3 Bune[ne-...]  owner of Amurru-šarru-uṣur BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 1 f Bunnānītu (fbu-na-ni-ti)  w. of Bēl-uballiṭ (d. of Bēl-eṭēru), m. of Marduk-eṭēru-ilēʾʾi BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 22 Būru-uṣur (mdamar-ùru)  s. of Emūqu and fRaḫīm CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 4’, 10’, 13’ 16’, 18’ C Cambyses (mkám-bu-zi-ía, mka-am-buzi-ia, mkam-bu-zi-ía)  BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 12’; BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 7’; BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Cyrus (mkur-raš, mku-ra-šú)  BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 3, BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 6’; BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 22; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): [3], 27; Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 15; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 2, 38; BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 31; BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 10’; CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 3’ D Dābibi (mda-bi-bi)  anc. of Bēl-erība BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 6  anc. of Gimillu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 29  anc. of Kināya BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 22  anc. of Marduk-zēru-ibni BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 6  anc. of Nabû-šumu-uṣur (Text no. 45): 29  anc. of Nādin BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 22  anc. of [...] BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 12’ f Damqāya (fdam-qa-a)  dau. of Kudurru, sis. of fDamqāya BM 30155 (Text no. 13): [5’, 20’], 27’, 29’ Damqia (mda-an-qí-ia)  s. of Iqīša-Marduk, d. of Šangû[Šamaš], b. of Iddin-Bēl, Tabnēa, and [Marduk-mukīn-apli] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 2 Dannēa (mdan-né-e-a)  anc. of Libluṭ Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 11  anc. of Ḫabaṣīru Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 11 Darik-ili (mda-rik-dingir)  f. of Šaknānu BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 11?!

223

Darius (mda-ri-ia-muš, mda-ri-ía-muš, m da-a-ri-muš, mda-a-ra-ia-šú, mdaa-ri-ia-šú)  BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 18; BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 15’; BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 10’; BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 4, [23]; BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 7, 21, 33; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 17; BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [23] Diḫūa (mdi-ḫu-ú-a)  CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 2’, 13’, 17’, 18’ Dipāru (mdi-pa-ru)  BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 31 Dummuqu (mdu-um-mu-qu)  [f.] of Na[bû-...] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 7’ E Ea-eppēš-ilī (mdidim-dù-eš-dingir). See also Eppēš-ilī  anc. of Marduk-šumu-uṣur BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 6  anc. of Uraš-⌈zēru⌉-ibni BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 6 Ea-iddin (mdidim-mu)  [f. of] Bēl-a[sûa], d. of Mandidu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [19]  d. of Ṭābiḫ-kāri BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 21’ Ea-pattannī (mdé.a-pat-tan-ni)  anc. of Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 12 Ēdu-ēṭir (maš-sur)  anc. of Ina-qībi-Bēl BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 26’  anc. of Ina-ṭēšê-ēṭir BM 63551 (Text no. 5): [2’]; BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 2  anc. of Zēr-Bābili BM 63551 (Text no. 5): [2’]; BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

224

Indices

Egibi (me-gi-bi, me-gì-bi)  anc. of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 24  anc. of Marduk-nāṣir-apli BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 8; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 6  anc. of Nādin BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 24  anc. of Nidinti-Bēl BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 8; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 6  anc. of Nūrēa BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 31’  anc. of Rāši-ili of BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 24  anc. of [...]-zēru-ukīn BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 31’  anc. of [...] BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 15 Eli-ilāni-rabi-Marduk (mugu-dingir.mešgal-damar.utu)  f. of Mušēzib-Bēl (governor of Babylon) CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 2, 57 Emašdari-ibni (mé.máš.da.ri-dù)  anc. of Šumu-iddin BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 25 Emūqu (me-muq-qu)  f. of Būru-uṣur CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 4’ Eppēš-ilī (mdù-eš-dingir, mdù-ešdingir.meš). See also Ea-eppēš-ilī  anc. of Aplāya BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 6  anc. of Aqarāya BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 20  anc. of Bēl-⌈bāni-apli⌉ BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 16  anc. of Iddin-Marduk BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 18; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 36; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 18  anc. of Kalbāya BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 18; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 36; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 18  anc. of Madānu-zēru-ibni BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 6



anc. of Mušēzib-[Mardu]k BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 4  anc. of Nabû-aḫ[...] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 9  anc. of Nabû-bull[iss]u BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 9  anc. of Nūrēa BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 22’  anc. of ⌈...⌉ BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 4  anc. of [...] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 36 Erība-Marduk (msu-damar.utu)  f. of Šamaš-tabni-[uṣur], d. of ŠangûIštar-Bāb[ili] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): [11’] Esagilāya (mé.sag.gil-la-a-a)  anc. of [...] BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 18 Esa[gil?-...] (m⌈é?⌉.s[ag?.íl-x x])  f. of Nabû-šarru-uṣur BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 1 Etellu (me-tel-lu)  f. of Kudurru BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 2  anc. of [...] BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 13’ Etel-pî (me-tel-pi)  s. of Marduk-ēṭir BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 10  f. of Gūzānu, d. of Ašābšu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 5, 10, 13 Etel-pī-Marduk (me-tel-pi-d amar.utu)  f. of Gula-zēru-ibni BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 2? Eṭēru (me-ṭè-ru)  [anc. of Nabû-nādin-aḫi] BM 31355 (Text no. 47): [19]  BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 3! G Gabbi-ilāni-šarru-uṣur (mgab-bidingir.meš-lugal-ùru)  s. of Nabû-nāṣir, b. of Ardia BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 1, 20, 30

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Gabria (mgab-ri-ia)  s. of Ilu-šēzib BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 2 Giḫilu (mgi-ḫi-il-lu)  d. of Mannu-a[kī ...] BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 11’  [...] BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 16’ Gimillu (mgi-mil-lu)  f. of Nabû-šumu-uṣur, d. of Dābibi BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 29 Gimil-Šamaš (mšu-dutu)  s. of Bēl-ēreš BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 3’, 8’, 9’ Gūbaru (mgu-bar-ru)  pāḫāt Bābili u Ebir Nāri Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 15 f Gugūa (fgu-gu-ú-a)  dau. of Kudurru, sis. of fDamqāya BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 4’, 20’, 26’, 29’ Gula-zēru-ibni (mdgu-la-numun-dù)  s. of Et[el?-pī?-Mardu]k? BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 2 Gūzānu (mgu-za-nu)  šangû of Sippar BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 3  s. of Etel-pî, d. of Ašābšu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 5, 10, [13] Ḫ Ḫabaṣīru (mḫa-ba-ṣi-ru, mḫa-ba-ṣir)  dayyānu BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): l.h.e.  s. of Libluṭ, d. of Dannēa Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 11, 22, 29  s. of Šamaš-iddin, f. of Ubār BM 59582 (Text no. 43): [2], 8! Ḫaddāya (mḫa-ad-da-a)  s. of Nādin, d. of Ašābšu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 4? Ḫariṣānu (mḫa-ri-iṣ-an-ni, mḫa-ri-ṣa-nu)  s. of Bunene-ibni, [išpar ki]tê? BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 3, 4

225



s. of Iddin-Marduk BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 1 Ḫašdia (mḫaš-di-ia)  f. of Nabû-zēru-iqīša BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 11 Ḫunzû (mḫu-un-zu-ú)  anc. of Nabû-nādin-šumi BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 20  anc. of Ṭābia BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 20 Ḫutnia (mḫu-ut-ni-ia)  f. of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 2’, 6’ Ḫuzālu (mḫu-za-lu)  BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 1, 9 I Iaqiʾ-ilī (i-qí-iʾ-dingir.me)  BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 24 Ibnāya (mib-na-a, mdù-a-a)  [anc. of] Bēl-iqīša BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 19  anc. of Iqīšāya BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 21  anc. of Nabû-ibni BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 21  anc. of Nabû-⌈ittannu?⌉ BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 16  [anc. of] Nabû-mukīn-apli BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 16, 19  BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 34 Iddināya (msum.na-a)  s. of Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 4  s!. of [Marduk-šumu-u]ṣur? BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 13 Iddin-Bēl (mmu-den)  s. of Iqīša-Marduk, d. of Šangû[Šamaš], b. of Tabnēa, [Mardukmukīn-apli], and Damqia BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 1, 7 Iddin-Marduk (mmu-damar.utu)  s. of Kalbāya, d. of Eppēš-ilī BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 17; Marduk-

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

226

Indices

rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 36; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): [18]  f. of Ḫariṣānu BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 1 Iddin-Nabû (mmu-dnà)  šangû of Akkad BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [2, 11], 19, 20, [27] Iddin-Papsukkal (mdi.ku5-dpap.sukkal)  anc. of Kalbāya BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 14!  anc. of ⌈Nabû⌉-būnu-šūtur BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 14! Iddinūnu (msum-nu-nu)  s. of Šumu-iddin, d. of Irʾanni BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 19 Iddin-[...] (msum.n[a-...], msum.⌈na⌉-[...])  s. of Lib[luṭ], tupšarru BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 13’  BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 10’ IG-immāya (mIG-im-ma-a, mIG-im-maa-a)  dayyānu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 15, 19, 24 Ilēʾʾi-[...] (mda-[...])  BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 8 Ilia (mdingir-ia)  [anc. of N]abû-ēṭir-napšāti BM 32175 (Text no. 15): [12’]  [anc. of] Nūrēa BM 32175 (Text no. 15): [12’] Ilteri-dalāʾ (mil-te-ri-da-la-aʾ)  f. of Sîn-aḫu-iddin BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 3 Ilte[...] (mil-te-[...])  [f.? of fNing[al-...] BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 2 Ilu-šēzib (mdingir-še-zib)  f. of Gabria BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 2 Il...iaia? (mdingiro.e. x ia ⌈ia⌉)  f. of Zāriqu-zēru-ibni BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 5 f

Ina-Ekur-šarrat (fina-é.kur-šar-rat)  BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 7’

Ina-Esagil-lilbur (m⌈ina-é.sag.gil-lil-bur)  šākin ṭēmi of Babylon BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): l.h.e. f Ina-Esagil-ramât (fina-é.sag.íl-ra-mat)  BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 2 Ina-qībi-Bēl (mina-qí-bi-⌈den⌉)  d. of Edu-ēṭir, [tupšarru] BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 26’ f Ina-ṣilli-Esabad (fina-gissu-é.sa.bad)  amēluttu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 6, 40 Ina-ṭēšê-ēṭir (mina-sùḫ-sur)  f. of Zēr-Bābili, d. of Ēdu-ēṭir BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 2’; BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 2 f Inqāya (fin-qa-a)  dau. of Rīmūt-Bēl BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 19 f Inṣabtu (fin-ṣab-tu4)  w. of Anu-ušallim BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 6 Iqbiya (miq-bi-a)  of Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 4 Iqīša-Marduk (mba-šá-damar.utu)  tupšar (Ebabbar) BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 2  s. of [..., d. of Ur-N]anna, dayyānu BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 4”  f. Iddin-Bēl, Tabnēa, [Marduk-mukīnapli], and Damqia, d. of Šangû[Šamaš] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 2 Iqīšāya (mba-šá-a, mba-šá)  s. of Nabû-ibni, d. of Ibnāya, [tupšarru] BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 20 = Iqīšāya, s. of s. of Nabû-ibni?  s. of Nabû-ibni BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 18 = Iqīšāya, s. of Nabû-ibni, d. of Ibnāya, [tupšarru]?  s. of Nabû-ušabši and fKurunnītutabni, b. of Šumu-ukīn, Šamašuballiṭ, and Ṣillāya CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 13, 30, 48  s. of Na[bû?-...] BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 17’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names 

f. of Bēl-uballiṭ, d. of Ṣāḫit-sattukki Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 14, [22] = Iqīšāya, f. of Bēl-uballiṭ  f. of Bēl-uballiṭ BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 7’, [11’] = Iqīšāya, f. of Bēl-uballiṭ, d. of Ṣāḫit-sattukki Iq[īša?...] (m⌈ba?⌉-šá-[...], mb[a?...])  s. of Lâbâši, tupšarru BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 8’  BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 1’  BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 7’ Irʾanni (mir-a-ni, mir-an-nu)  anc. of Bēlšunu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 18  anc. of Iddinūnu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 4, 19  anc. of Kudurru BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 21  anc. of Nabû-mukīn-apli BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 21  anc. of Nādin-aḫi BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 14’  anc. of Šumu-iddin BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 4, 19 Irâš-ana-Esagil (mi-ra-šú-a-na-é.sag.íl)  [anc. of ...] BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 27 Išpāru (mlú.uš.bar)  anc. of Balāṭu, anc. of [MušēzibMarduk] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 21 f Iš[...] (fiš-[...])  BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 10 Itti?-rēštu-Nabû (m⌈it?⌉-ti-⌈reš⌉-tu4-dnà)  qallu BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 3 Itinnu (lú.šitim, mi-te-nu)  anc. of Bēl-zēru-ibni BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 5  anc. of Kāṣir BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 4  anc.! of Niq[ūdu] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 16  anc. of Mušēzib-Bēl (1) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 5 = Mušēzib-Bēl (2)?  anc. of Mušēzib-Bēl (2) BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 24 = Mušēzib-Bēl (1)?

227



anc. of Šamaš-uballiṭ BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 4  anc.! of [Šāpik-zēri] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 16  anc. of Uraš-mukīn-apli (Text no. 45): 24 Itti-Marduk-balāṭu (mki-damar.utu-tin)  s. of [...]a?, tupšarru BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 11  d. of S[uḫāya], dayyānu BM 31355 (Text no. 47): [17] Itti-Nabû-balāṭu (mki-dnà-tin)  [s. of Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir?], d. of Šangû-Akkad BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 18?  [f.] of Nabû-nā[din?-...] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 10’ Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu (mki-dutu-tin)  šāpir bāʾirē [ša Šamaš] BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 15  s. of Ḫutnia BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 1’, 6’, 8’  s. of Lâbâši BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 10  BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 8 = IttiŠamaš-balāṭu s. of Lâbâši Itti-šarri-īnīya (mki-lugal-igi-ia)  qīpu of the Eulmaš BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 3, 12, 19, 20, 28 I[...]ma? (mi ⌈x x⌉ ma?)  f. of Nūria BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 1 K Kabti-ilī (mkab-ti-dingir.meš)  s. of ⌈...⌉-irāšū, mār šipri of ⌈Šamaš...⌉ BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 12 Kabtu?-rēštû-Nabû (m⌈kab?⌉-ti-⌈riš⌉tu4 -d nà)  qallu BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 3 Kalbāya (mkal-ba-a)  s. of Marduk-ēṭir BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 12  s. of ⌈Nabû⌉-būnu-šutur, d. of Iddin!Papsukkal BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

228 

Indices

f. of Iddin-Marduk, d. of Eppēš-ilī BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 17; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 36; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 18  f. of [Uballi]ṭ?-Marduk, d. of Aššurāya BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 35’ Kalbi-Bau (mkal-bi-dká, mkal-bi-dba.ú)  bēl qanâte BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 11  s. of Anu-šarru-uṣur BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 5’, 7’ Kandalānu (kan-da-la-nu)  BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 26 Kānik-bābi (mka-ník-ká)  anc. of Bēlšunu BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 33’  anc. of [...]a BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 33’ Kāṣir(u) (mka-ṣir, mka-ṣir-ru)  s. of Šamaš-uballiṭ, d. of Itinnu BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 3  BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [1], 16, [17] Kī-Bēl (mki-i-den)  BM 63845 (p. 123): 2 Kidin-Sîn (mki-din-d30)  anc. of Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 40 Kināya (mki-na-a)  s. of Nādin, d. of Dābibi BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 22 Kudurru (mníg.du)  s. of Etellu BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 2  f. of fGugūa and fDamqāya BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 5’, 9’, 15’, 19’, 21’–24’, 27’  f. of Nabû-mukīn-apli, d. of Irʾanni BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 21 f Kurunnītu-tabni (fdkurun.nam-tab-ni)  w. of Nabû-ušabši, m. of Šumu-ukīn, Šamaš-uballiṭ, Iqīšāya, and Ṣillāya, gm. of Nabû-mukīn-apli CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 7, 10, 15, 22, 25, 27– 28, 35, [37], 39, 42, 46

f

Kuttāya (fku-ut-ta-a)  zakītu, širkatu of the Lady of Uruk BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 1  m. of Bēl-iddin BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 8, 21 L Lâbâši (mla-ba-ši, mla-a-ba-ši, mla-ba-a-ši)  f. of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 10  [f. of] Nabû-uṣur[šu?] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 11’  f. of Iq[īša...?] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 8’  f. of Silim-ili BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 5? Lâbâši-Marduk (mla-ba-ši-damar.utu)  dayyānu BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): l.h.e.?! Lā-qīpi (mla-qí-pi)  tupšarru BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 17 Libluṭ (mlib-luṭ)  f. of Ḫabaṣīru, d. of Dannēa Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 11, 22, [30]  f. of Iddin-[...] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 13’ Lūṣe-ana-nūri (mlu-è-a-na-zálag)  s. of Šumu-ukīn BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 10’ M Madānu-aḫu-iddin (mddi.ku5-šeš-mu)  f. of Marduk-šumu?-⌈...⌉, d. of Bēl[...] BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 25 Madānu-ēreš (mddi.ku5-kám)  f. of Aplāya BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 14 Madānu-šarru-uṣur (mddi.ku5-lugal-ùru)  šanû ša Tâmti BM 114550 (Text no. 30): [12], 18

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Madānu-zēru-ibni (mddi.ku5-numun-dù)  s. of Aplāya, d. of Eppēš-ilī BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 6 Madānu-[...] ([m]⌈ddi.ku5-x⌉[x])  s. of Aplāya, d. of Bēl-eṭēru BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 25 Mandidi (mman-di-di, lú.man-di-di)  anc. of Bēl-a[sûa] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 20  anc. of Bēl-rēmanni (šākin ṭēmi of Babylon) BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 11’  anc. of [Ea-iddin] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 20 Mannu-a[kī ...] (mman-nu-a-[ki-...])  d. of [Gi]ḫil[u] BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 11’ Mannu-gērûšu (mman-nu-ge-ru-šú)  anc. of Bēl-kēšir BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 6  anc. of Nabû-zēru-iqīša BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 6 Marduk (mmar-duk)  BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 13’ Marduka (mmar-du-ka)  f. of Bēlšunu, [d. of ...] BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 2” Marduk-erība (mdamar.utu-su)  f. of Amurru-iqbi BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 7, 17  anc. of Uraš-šumu-ibni (ērib bīti of Uraš) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 23? Marduk-eṭēru-ilēʾʾi (mdamar.utu-kar-da)  s. of fBunnānītu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 23 Marduk-ēṭir (mdamar.utu-sur, mdamar. utukar-ir)  f. of Etel-pî BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 10  f. of Kalbāya BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 12  d. of Bēl-eṭēri BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 35 Marduk-mukīn-apli  s. of Iqīša-Marduk, d. of Šangû[Šamaš], b. of Iddin-Bēl, Tabnēa,

229

and Damqia BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): [2] Marduk-nāṣir (mdamar.utu-na-ṣir)  [s. of Nabû-šumu-uṣur], d. of Šangû[Šamaš] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 62 Marduk-nāṣir-apli (mdamar.utu-pab-a, md amar.utu-na-ṣir-eduru)  f. of Nidinti-Bēl, d. of Egibi BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 8, 12?; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 5 (Marduk)-šākin-šumi (mdamar.utu-garmu, mgar-mu)  d. of Šumu-libši BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 2, 8, 13 Marduk-šāpik-zēri (mdamar.utu-dubnumun)  ⌈b.⌉ of Aqarāya BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 3, 7, 11  s. of Nabû-šumu-iddin, d. of Sînkurbanni BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 34’ Marduk-šarru-uṣur (mdamar.utu-lugal-ùru)  qallu ša rab ša rēši BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 27 Marduk-šumu-ibni (mdamar.utu-mu-dù)  s. of Mušēzib-Marduk BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 13 Marduk-šumu-iddin (mdamar.utu-mumu, mdšú-mu-mu)  šangû of Sippar BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 1; BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 7, 9; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 2, 9, 23; Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 3; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 1, 17, 24, 35; CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 7’, 20’; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 5, 16  s. of Šadûnu, d. of Sîn-šad[ûnu], tupšarru BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 31  f!. of Nabû-šumu-uṣur BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 16 = Marduk-šumuiddin, [f. of] Nabû-šu[mu-uṣur], d. of Šangû--Bābili  [f. of] Nabû-šu[mu-uṣur], d. of Šangû--Bābili BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [16] = Marduk-šumuiddin, f!. of Nabû-šumu-uṣur

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

230

Indices

Marduk-šumu-uṣur (mdamar.utu-mu-ùru, md šú-mu-pab)  s. of Silim-Bēl, d. of Šigûa BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 32’  s. of Uraš-⌈zēru⌉-ibni, d. of Ea-eppēšilī BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 5, 12, 13, 15, 20  s. of [..., d. of] Rab-šušši, dayyānu BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 5”  f. of Nabû-⌈aḫḫē⌉-[...], d. of Adadšumu-uṣur BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 27  f!. of Iddināya BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 13?  BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 5 Marduk-⌈šumu-...⌉ (mdamar.utu-⌈mu-x⌉)  s. of Madānu-aḫu-iddin, d. of Bēl[...] BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 24 Marduk-zākir-šumi (mdamar.utu-mu-mu)  šākin ṭēmi of Babylon BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 5”; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 11 Marduk-zēru-ibni (mdamar.utu-numun-dù)  f. of Bēl-erība, d. of Dābibi BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 5 Marduk-[...] (mdamar.utu-⌈x⌉-[...])  BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 6’ Maṣṣar-abulli (lú.en.nun-ká.gal)  anc. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāte BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 26  anc. of Uraš-iddin BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 26 Miṣrāya (mmi-ṣir-a-a)  anc. of Bēl-iddin BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 26  [anc. of] Bēl-ušallim BM 63551 (Text no. 5): [5’]; CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 63  [anc. of] Šamaš-unammir BM 63551 (Text no. 5): [5’]  anc. of [Zērūtu] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 63 Mudammiq-Adad (msig15-diškur)  anc. of Šumu-ukīn BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 7

anc. of [...]ia? BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 36’  anc. of [...] BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 7 Mukīn-zēri (mgin-numun)  f. of Nabû-zēru-iqīša BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 9 Munnabitu (mmun-na-bit-ti)  BM 33905 (Text no. 37): [2], 10 Murānu (mmu-ra-nu)  BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 6 Mušallim-Marduk (mgi-dšú)  s. of Bēl-ēṭir BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 7 Mušēbši (mmu-šeb-ši)  BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 12 Mušebši-Marduk (mmu-šeb-ši-dšú)  f. Šamaš-nāṣir BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 14 Mušēzib (mmu-še-zib)  BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 9’  BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 5 Mušēzib-Bēl (mmu-še-zib-den, mkar-den)  s. of Bēl-zēru-ibni, d. of Itinnu BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 5  s. of Eli-ilāni-rabi-Marduk, šākin ṭēmi of Babylon CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 2, 20, 57, l.h.e.  f. of Šamaš-aplu?-[...] BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 4’, 3”  f. of Uraš-mukīn-apli, d. of Itinnu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 24 Mušēzib-Marduk (mmu-še-zib-damar.utu, m kar-damar.utu, mkar-dšú)  šangû of Sippar BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 2; BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 2; BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 4; BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 1; BM 63755 (Text no. 18): [3], 8; BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 3, 9  šatammu of the Eimbianu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 3  s. [of ...]ia BM 63845 (p. 123): 7  s. of ⌈...⌉, d. of Eppēš-ilī BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 3  [f. of] Balāṭu, d. of Išpāru BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [20] 

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names 

f. of Marduk-šumu-ibni BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 13  f. of [Nabû-aḫḫē-šul]lim, d. of Šangû-[Ištar-Bābili] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 6’ Mušē[zib(-...)] (mmu-še-z[ib(-dx)])  f. of Nergal-iddin, [d. of ...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 6’ N Nabonidus (dnà-i, mdnà-i, dnà-ní.tuku)  BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 3, 11, 28; BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 5’; BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 3; BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 11’; BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 25; BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 4; BM 63845 (p. 123): 14 Nabopolassar (mdnà-a-ùru)  BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 2 Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ (mdnà-šeš.meš-bul-liṭ)  d. of Kidin-Sîn, tupšarru BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 40 Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin (mdnà-šeš.meš-mu, mdnàpab.meš-mu)  s. of Ṭābia, d. of Nikkāya BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 2?, 11?  f. of Arad-Bēl BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 6’ Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim (mdnà-šeš.meš-gi, md nà-šeš.meš-šul-lim)  of Iqbiya BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 4  s. of Mušēzib-Marduk, d. of Šangû[Ištar-Bābili] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [6’]  f. of Iddināya BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 4  d. of Ea-pattannī BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 12  d. of Nūr-ilišu BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 20’ Nabû-aḫḫē-[...] (mdnà-šeš.meš-[x])  s. of Marduk-šumu-uṣur, d. of Adadšumu-uṣur BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 26

231

Nabû-aḫu-ušabši (mdnà-šeš-gál-ši)  s. [of ...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 4 Nabû-aḫ[...] (mdnà-šeš[...])  f. of Nabû-bull[iss]u, d. of Eppē[šilī] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 8  f. of [...] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 12 Nabû-alsīka-appul (mdnà-al-si-ka-ap-pul)  ša rēš šarri ša muḫḫi gišri of BābNār-Šamaš BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 14; Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 1 Nabû-aplu-iddin (mdnà-a-mu)  s. of [...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 5 Nabû-balāssu-ikṣur (mdnà-tin-su-ik-ṣur)  BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 10’? Nabû-balāssu-iqbi (mdnà-tin-su-iq-bi)  f. of Bēlšunu, d. of Balīḫû BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [4]  f. of Nabû-bullissu, d. of Bāʾiru BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 25  BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 10’? Nabû-balāṭu-ēreš (mdnà-tin-kám)  qīpu of the Ebabbar BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 2 Nabû-bēl-aḫḫēšu (mdnà-idim-šeš.meš-šú)  f. of Balāṭu BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 11 Nabû-bēlšunu (mdnà-en-šú-nu)  f. of [Rīmūt-Nabû?] BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 13’ Nabû-bullissu (mdnà-bul-liṭ-su, mdnà-buul-liṭ-su)  s. of Nabû-aḫ[...], d. of Eppē[š-ilī] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 8  s. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi, d. of Bāʾiru BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 24 Nabû-būnu-šūtur (mdnà-bu-un-šu-tur)  f. of Kalbāya, d. of Iddin!-Papsukkal BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 14 Nabû-dān (mdnà-kal)  d. of Bāʾiru BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 17?  anc. of Banītušu BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 13  anc. of ⌈...-Ištar⌉ BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

232

Indices

Nabû-dīni-epuš (mdnà-di-i-ni-e-pu-uš)  qallu BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 4 Nabû-ēpuš (mdnà-dù-uš)  f. of Taqīš-Gula, d. of Ur-Nanna BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 19 Nabû-ēṭir (mdnà-sur)  f. of Andaḫar BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 30  anc. of Balāssu BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 23  anc. of Ṣillāya BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 23 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (mdnà-kar-zi.meš)  s. of Nūrēa, [(d. of Ilia)], šākin ṭēmi of Borsippa BM 32175 (Text no. 156): 12’  f. of Uraš-iddin, d. of Maṣṣar-abulli BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 26  BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 3’, 5’ Nabû-ibni (mdnà-dù)  f. of Iqīšaya BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 18 = Nabû-ibni, f. of Iqīšāya, d. of Ibnāya?  f. of Iqīšāya, d. of Ibnāya BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 21 = Nabû-ibni, f. of Iqīšāya? Nabû-iddin (mnà-mu, mdnà-sum.na)  f. of [...-k]āṣir BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 1  d. of Balīḫû BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 29 Nabû-ittannu (mdnà-it-tan-nu)  s. of Nabû-mukīn-apli, d. of Ibnāya BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 15?  s. of Rīm[ūt, dayyānu] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 3’ Nabû-kāṣir (mdnà-kád)  s. of Šāpik-zēri BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 15 = Nabû-kāṣir, d. of ŠangûSippar  d. of Šangû-Sippar BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 3 = Nabû-kāṣir, s. of Šāpikzēri  BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 1

Nabû-kibsu-šarri-uṣur (mdnà-kib-su-lugalùru)  qīpu of the Ebabbar BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 6 = Nabû-kibsu-šarriuṣur, f. of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša?  f. of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 18 = Nabû-kibsušarri-uṣur, qīpu of the Ebabbar? Nabû-killanni (mdnà-kil-la-an-ni)  [amēluttu] BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 19’ Nabû-kimir (mdnà-ki-mir)  f. of Šadûnu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 23 Nabû-mukīn-apli (mdnà-gin-ibila, mdnàgin-a)  s. of Kudurru, d. of Irʾanni BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 20  s. of Šumu-ukīn, gs. of Nabû-ušabši and fKurunnītu-tabni, d. of [...] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 1, 21, 26, 32, [34, 36], 38, 41, 48, 50, 55  f. of Bēl-iqīša, [d. of Ib]nāya BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 18 = Nabûmukīn-apli, f. of Nabû-⌈ittannu?⌉, d. of Ibnāya  f. of Nabû-⌈ittannu?⌉, d. of Ibnāya BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 15 = Nabûmukīn-apli, f. of Bēl-iqīša, [d. of Ib]nāya Nabû-mukīn-zēri (mdnà-gin-numun)  f. of Šamaš-mukīn-[apli], d. of Šigûa BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 3’ Nabû-mušētiq-uddê (mdnà-mu-še-ti-iqud.da, mdnà-dib-ud.da)  šangû of Akkad BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 7, 14; BM 63845 (p. 123): 8, 11  s. of [Aplāya], dayyānu BM 43881 (Text no. 41): [1’], l.h.e.  s. of Bēl-ammēni, d. of Rab-banê BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 4  s. of Zēria, d. of [Balāṭu] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 4’ Nabû-nādin (mdnà-na-din)  f. of Bēl-ušallim, d. of Šumu-libši BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Nabû-nādin-aḫi (mdnà-na-din-šeš)  s. of Aḫḫē[a?, d. of ...], dayyānu BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 3”  [d. of Eṭēru], uppad[ētu] BM 31355 (Text no. 47): [18] Nabû-nādin-šumi (mdnà-na-din-mu)  f. of Ṭābia, d. of Ḫunzû BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 19 Nabû-nādin-zēri (mdnà-mu-numun)  s. of Nergal?-[..., d. of] Ašābšu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 7 Nabû-nā[din?-...] (mdnà-m[u-x])  [s.] of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 10’ Nabû-nāṣir (mdnà-pab)  f. of Ardia and Gabbi-ilāni-šarru-uṣur BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): [1], 21  f. of Bēl-zēru-ibni Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 9  f. of Šamaš-ibni, d. of Ṣāḫit-sattukki Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 1, [33], 35  BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 2, 10–11, 20 Nabûnnāya (mdnà-na-a-a)  anc. of Bēl-supê-muḫur BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 6’; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 13 Nabû-rēmu-šukun (mdnà-arḫuš-šu-kun)  amēluttu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 6, 40 Nabû-rēssu (mdnà-re-e-su)  f. of Bēl?-iddin BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 3’ Nabû-šarru-uṣur (mdnà-lugal-ú-ṣur, mdnàlugal-ùru)  ša rēš šarri bēl piqitti of the Eanna BM 114550 (Text no. 30): [9]  s. of Esa[gil?-...] BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 1, 8, 9? Nabû-šumu-iddin (mdnà-mu-mu)  s. of Nergal-ušallim BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 16, 19  s. of Sîn-bēl-aḫḫēšu BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 2



233

f. of [Mardu]k-šāpik-zēri, d. of Sînkurbanni BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 34’ Nabû-šumu-iškun (mdnà-mu-gar-un)  dayyānu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 15, 20, 25  BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 4’, 5’, 7’ Nabû-šumu-līšir (mdnà-mu-si.sá)  [f. of Bēl-iddin], d. of Šangû-Iš[tarBābili] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 7’ Nabû-šumu-ukīn (mdnà-mu-gi.na, mdnàmu-gin)  Barsipāya, mār šipri ša šarri BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 1, 14 Nabû-šumu-uṣur (mdnà-mu-ùru)  s. of Gimillu, d. of Dābibi BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 29  s!. of Marduk-šumu-iddin BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 16 = Nabû-šumuuṣur, [s. of Marduk-šumu-iddin], d. of Šangû--Bābili  [s. of Marduk-šumu-iddin], d. of Šangû--Bābili BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 16? = Nabû-šumu-uṣur, s!. of Marduk-šumu-iddin  f. of Anunītu-šarru-uṣur BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 12  [f. of] Marduk-nāṣir, d. of Šangû[Šamaš] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): [62] Nabû-šūzibanni (mdnà-šu-zib-an-ni)  BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 2’, 7’, 8’ Nabû-udammiq (mdnà-sig15, mdnà-sig5-iq)  Barsipāya, mār šipri ša šarri BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 2, [15]  h. of fŠarḫāya, šanû of Bīt-Amukāni BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 4 Nabû-unammir (mdnà-ú-nam-mir)  f. of Abdu-Iššar BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 4? Nabû-uṣalla (mdnà-ú-ṣal-la)  f. of Šamaš-ibni Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 23, 26, [29], 33

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

234

Indices

Nabû-uṣuršu (mdnà-ùru-šú)  [s. of] Lâbâši BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 11’? Nabû-ušabši (mdnà-gál-ši)  f. of Šumu-ukīn, Šamaš-uballiṭ, Iqīšāya, and Ṣillāya, gf. of Nabûmukīn-apli, h. of fKurunnītu-tabni CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 3, 9, 11, 15, 24, 29, [35, 36, 38, [44], 49–51  f. of Zēria, d. of Basia BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 9 Nabû-zēru-ibni (mdnà-numun-ib-ni, mdnànumun-dù)  d. of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 1, 11, 15 Nabû-zēru-iddin (mdnà-numun-mu, mdnànumun-sum.na)  šušān[u (...)] BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 8’  s. of Amurru-šarru-uṣur and fSarrāya BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 2, 5–6, 11, 13–14  d. of Nappāḫu, tupšarru BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 31 Nabû-zēru-iqīša (mdnà-numun-ba-šá)  s. of Ḫašdia BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 10  s. of Mukīn-zēri BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 8  s. of (damaged) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 10  f. of Bēl-kēšir, d. of Mannu-gērûšu BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 6 Nabû-[...] (mdnà-[x x])  s. of [..., d. of] Su[ḫāya?, tupšarru] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 64  BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 3’  BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 8’ Nabû?-[...] (⌈mdnà?⌉-[x (x x)])  king of Babylon BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 5’ Nabû-⌈...⌉ (mdnà-⌈x⌉)  šākin ṭēmi of Babylon BM 67225 (Text no. 28): u.e. Na[bû-...] (mdn[à-x x], m⌈dnà?-x⌉[x])  [s.] of Dummuqu BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 7’



[s. of ...], d. of Šangû-Sippar CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 61  f. of Iqīšāya BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 17’ Nādin (mna-din, mna-di-nu)  paqūdu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 12  [s. of Anunītu-šarru-uṣur?], d. of Šangû-Akka BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 17  s. of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša, d. of Egibi, tupšarru BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 24  f. of Bēl!-upaḫḫir BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 7  f. of [Ḫ]addāya?, d. of Ašābšu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 4  f. of Kināya, d. of Dābibi BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 22 Nādin-aḫi (msum.na-šeš)  d. of Irʾanni BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 14’ Naggāru (lú.nagar)  anc. of Bēl-ibni BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 15  anc. of Šamaš-iddin BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 7  anc. of [...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 7  BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 15 Nappāḫu (lú.simug)  anc. of Nabû-zēru-iddin BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 31 Nāṣir (mna-ṣir)  BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 12 Nebuchadnezzar (mdnà-níg.du-ùru, dnàníg.du-ùru)  BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 13; BM 30155 (Text no. 13): [39’]; CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 5, 23; BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 20 Nergal-iddin (md u.gur-mu, md u.gursum.na)  s. of Mušē[zib-(...), d. of ...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 6’  BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 1, 14, 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir (mdu.gur-ina-sùḫ-sur)  s. of Šamaš-pirʾu-uṣur, d. of Rabbanê, dayyānu BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 6”  [f. of] Itti-[Nabû-balāṭu?], d. of ŠangûAkkad BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [18?] Nergal-iqbi? (mdu.gur-e?!)  f. Šamaš-tabni-uṣur BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 3 Nergal-nāṣir (mdu.gur-ùru-ir)  d. of Saggilāya BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 13 Nergal-šarru-bulliṭ (mdu.gur-lugal-bul-liṭ)  qīpu of the Ebabbar BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 3 Nergal-ušēzib (mdu.gur-ú-še-zib)  f. of Bēl-iddin BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 4 Nergal-ušallim (mdu.gur-gi)  f. of Nabû-šumu-iddin BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): [16], 19 Nergal?-[...] (md⌈u.gur?-x-x⌉)  f. of Nabû-nādin-zēri, [d. of] Ašābšu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 8 Neriglissar (mdu.gur-lugal-ùru)  BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 22; CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): [66]; BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 25 Nidinti-Bēl (mni-din-tu4-den, mni-din-tid en)  s. of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, d. of Bāʾiru BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 28  s. of Marduk-nāṣir-apli, d. of Egibi BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 7, 13; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 5  d. of Banâ-ša-iliya, tupšarru BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 20; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 14, u.e. Nidintu (mni-din-tu4, mni-din-ti)  s. of Rīmūt, d. of Šangû-I[štarBābili?] BM 65893 (Text no. 11): [3?]  s. of [...], f.? of Bēl-abu-uṣur BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 2, 8, [11]  d. of Ur-Nanna, dayyānu BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 16, l.h.e.; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 11, [l.h.e.]

235

Nikkāya (mnik-ka-a-a)  anc. of ⌈Nabû?⌉-[aḫḫ]ē-iddin, anc. of Ṭābia BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 3 f Ning[al-...] (fdnin.ga[l-...])  [dau.? of] Ilte[...] BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 1, 3’ Niqūdu (mni-qu-du)  šanû BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 10  [s. of Šāpik-zēri], d.! of Itinnu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 15  f. of Šamaš-aplu-uṣur, d. of Rēʾi-sisê BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 20  [f.] of [...] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 5’ N[i...] (mn[i-x x x])  [s.] of Bēl-zēru-⌈ibni?⌉ BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 6’ Nūbu (mnu-ú-bu)  anc. of Zēria BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 14 Nummuru (mnu-um-mu-ru)  d. of Šigûa, tupšarru BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 24 Nūrēa (mzálag-e-a)  d. of Eppēš-ilī BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 22’ Nūrēa (mzálag-e-a)  f. of [N]abû-ēṭir-napšāti, [(d. of Ilia)] BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 12’  f. of [...]-zēru-ukīn, d. of Egibi BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 31’ Nūria (mnu-úr-ri-ia)  s. of I[...]ma? BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 1 Nūr-ilišu (mzálag-dingir-šú)  anc. of Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 20’ Nūr-Sîn (mzálag-d30)  BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 33 P Paḫḫāru (lú.báḫar)  anc. of Aplāya BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 21  anc. of Bānia Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 4, 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

236

Indices

anc. of Šamaš-aplu-uṣur Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 4, 8  anc. of Šamaš-nāṣir BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 17  anc. of [Širikti] BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 17 Pirʾu (mpir-ʾu)  s. of Tabnēa, d. of Bāʾiru BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 21 

Q Qididānu (mqí-di-da-nu)  BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 2’ Qīni (lú.qí-i-ni)  anc. of [...] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 37 R Rab-banê (lú.gal.dù)  anc. of Bēl-ammēni BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 5  anc. of Nabû-mušēti-uddê BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 5  anc. of [Nergal-ina]-tēšê-ēṭir BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 6”  anc. of Ṣillāya BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 4  anc. of Šamaš-pirʾu-uṣur BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 6”  anc. of [...]da BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 17’  anc. of [...] BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 4 Rab-šušši (lú.gal-60-ši)  [anc. of] Marduk-šumu-uṣur BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 5”  [anc. of ...] BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 5” f Raḫīm (fra-ḫi-im)  m. of Būru-uṣur CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): [4’], 11’, 16’ Rammān-balāssu-iqbi (mdkur-tin-su-e)  BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 2’!

Raši-il (mra-šil, msud-⌈il⌉)  d. of Egibi BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 24  BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 19 f Rēʾindu (fre-eʾ-in-du)  BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 29 Rēʾi-sisê (lú.sipa anše.kur.ra)  anc. of Bēl-ēṭir BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 17’  anc. of Niqūdu BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 20  anc. of Šamaš-aplu-uṣur BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 20 Reḫētu (mre-ḫe-tu)  [s. of ...]gî BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 12’ Rīmūt (mri-mut)  [s. of] Arad-Nabû, d. of Ša-nāšišu Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): [8]  f. of Bēl-šarru-uṣur BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 6  f. of Nabû-itta[nnu] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 4’  f. of [Nidintu?], d. of Šangû-I[štarBābili?] BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 4 Rīmūt-Bau (mri-mut-dká)  s. of [Taqīš] BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 13  s. of [ ... ] BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 1, [15], 17, 22, 24 Rīmūt-Bēl (mri-mut-den)  t[upšar? (...)] BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 7’  f. of fInqāya BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 19  BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 8 Rīmūt-ili (mri-mut-dingir)  s. of [Šulāya] BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 1, 5, 17, 21  anc. of [...] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 58? Rīmūt-Nabû (mri-mut-nà)  s. of Nabû-bēl[šunu], dayyānu BM 32175 (Text no. 15): [13’]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names S Saggilāya (msag-gil-a-a)  anc. of Nergal-nāṣir BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 13 f Sarrāya (fsar-ra-a)  m. of Nabû-zēru-iddin BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 3, 13, 15 Silim-Bēl (msi-lim-den)  s. of Bal[āssu, d. of ...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 7’  f. of [Mardu]k-šumu-uṣur, d. of Šigûa BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 32’  BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 5 Silim-ili (msi-lim-dingir)  s. of mLâbâši? BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 5 Silim-ilī (msi-lim-dingir.meš)  f. of Suppê-Bēl BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 5 f Silim-Ištar (fsi-lim-diš-tar)  [amēluttu] BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 18’ Sîn-aḫu-iddin (md30-šeš-mu)  s. of Ilteri-dalāʾ BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 3 Sîn-bēl-aḫḫēšu (md30-en-šeš.meš-šú)  f. of Nabû-šumu-iddin BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 2 Sîn-kurbanni (md30-kur-ba-ni)  anc. of [Mardu]k-šāpik-zēri BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 34’  anc. of Nabû-šumu-iddin BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 34’ Sîn-šadûnu (md30-šá-du-nu)  anc. of Marduk-šumu-iddin BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 31  anc. of Šadûnu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 31  anc. of Šāpik-zēri BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 3  anc. of [...]-zēri? BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 19’  anc. of [...] BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 3

237

Suḫāya (msu-ḫa-a-a)  anc. of Itti-Marduk-balāṭu BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 18  anc. of Nabû-[...] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 64? Suppê-Bēl (msu-pe-e-den)  s. of Silim-ilī BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 4, 6 Ṣ Ṣāḫit-sattukki (lú.ì.sur-sat-tuk)  anc. of Bēl-uballiṭ Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 14  anc. of Iqīšāya Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 14  anc. of Nabû-nāṣir Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 1  anc. of Šamaš-ibni Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 1 Ṣāsiru (mṣa-ṣi-ru)  naggāru BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 10 Ṣillāya (mṣil-la-a)  s. of Balāssu, d. of Nabû-ēṭir BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 23  s. of Nabû-ušabši and fKurunnītutabni, b. of Šumu-ukīn, Šamašuballiṭ, and Iqīšāya CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 13, [31], 49  f. of [... ], d. of Rab-b[anê] BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 4  BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 4, 6, 9, 14, 17 Š Šadûnu (mšá-du-nu)  s. of Nabû-kimir, tupšarru BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 23  f. of Marduk-šumu-iddin, d. of Sînšadûnu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 31 Šākin-šumi. See Marduk-šākin-šumi Šaknānu (mšak-na-nu)  s. of Darik?-ili BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 11, 14, 16

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

238

Indices

Šamaš-aḫḫē-erība (mdutu-šeš.meš-su)  rab širkī BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 4 Šamaš-aḫu-iddin (mdutu-šeš-mu)  [f. of Šāpik-zēri] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 8’ Šamaš-aplu-uṣur (md utu-a-ùru, mdutua-pab)  s. of Bānia, d. of Paḫḫāru Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 4, 8  s. of Niqūdu, d. of Rē’i-sisê BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 19 Šamaš-aplu?-[...] (⌈m⌉dutu-⌈a?⌉-[...])  s. of Mušēzib-Bēl BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 3” Šamaš-dīnanni (mdutu-di-na-an-ni)  šakin Māt Akkadî BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 3’ Šamaš-erība (mdutu-su)  r[ab ...] BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 5  s. of Balīḫû BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 9’  s. of [...], rab širkē ša Šamaš BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 14  f. of [...] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 32  f. of [...] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 38  CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 9’, 12’, 15’ Šamaš-ibni (mdutu-dù)  s. of Nabû-nāṣir, d. of Ṣāḫit-sattukki Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 1, [33], 34  s. of Nabû-uṣalla, ḫazannu of Sippar Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 3, 14, 16, 23, 26, 30 Šamaš-iddin (mdutu-mu)  f. of Ḫabaṣīru, gf. of Ubār BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 2  f. of [...], d. of Naggāru BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 7  BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 8’, [13’], 14’ Šamaš-iqīša (mdutu-ba-šá)  s. of Bēlšunu BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 1, 8, 11, 12, 14 Šamaš-kāṣir (mdutu-kád)  f. of [...] BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 10, 11

Šamaš-mukīn-apli (mdutu-gin-a)  [s. of] Nabû-mukīn-[zēri], d. of Šigûa, tupšarru BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 3’ Šamaš-nādin-aḫi (mdutu-aš-šeš)  arad ekalli BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 3 Šamaš-nāṣir (mdutu-na-ṣir, mdutu-pab)  s. of Mušebši-Marduk BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 14  s. [of Širikti, d. of Paḫḫ]āru, [tupšarru] BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 16 Šamaš-pirʾu-uṣur (mdutu-nunuz-ùru)  f. of [Nergal-ina]-tēšê-ēṭir, d. of Rab-banê BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 6” Šamaš-rāʾm-šarri (mdutu-ra-aʾ-im-lugal)  qīpu (of the Ebabbar) BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 5’, 6’, 10’ Šamaš-rēʾûa (mdutu-sipa-ú-a)  BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 3’, 4’ Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (dgiš.nu11-mu-gi.na)  BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 33; BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 42; BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 19; BM 77945 (Text no. 38): [28’] Šamaš-šumu-līšir (mdutu-mu-si.sá)  f. of Šamaš?-[...] BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 7’ Šamaš-tabni-uṣur (mdutu-dù-ùru)  [s. of Erība-Marduk], d. of ŠangûIštar-Bāb[ili], tupšarru BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 11’  s. of Nergal-iqbi? BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 3 Šamaš-taklāk (mdutu-tak-lak)  BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 7 Šamaš-uballiṭ (mdutu-tin-iṭ, mdutu-tin)  s. of Nabû-ušabši and fKurunnītutabni, b. of Šumu-ukīn, Iqīšāya, and Ṣillāya CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 13, 30, 48  f. of Kāṣir, d. of Itinnu BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 4  BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 8’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Šamaš-unammir (mdutu-zálag-ir)  f. of Bēl-ušallim, [d. of Miṣrāya?] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 5’ Šamaš-zēru-iddin (mdutu-numun-mu)  s. of Arad-⌈...⌉ BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 15 Šamaš-[...]ša (mdutu-⌈x⌉-[x]-šá)  s. of Šumāya BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 17 ⌈Šamaš-...⌉ (md⌈utu-x⌉)  BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 13 Šamaš-[...] (⌈m⌉dutu-⌈x⌉)  f. of [...]-iddin? BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 3 Šamaš?-[...] (⌈mdutu?-x⌉[x x x])  s. of Šamaš-šumu-līš BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 6’ Ša[maš?-...] (mdu[tu?-x x x])  BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 3’ Ša-nāšišu (mšá-na-ši-šú)  anc. of Arad-Nabû Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 8  anc. of [Rīmūt] Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 8 Šangû-Akkad (mlú.sanga-ak-ka-du)  anc. of [Anunītu-šarru-uṣur?] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 18!  anc. of Itti-[Nabû-balāṭu?] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 19  anc. of Nād[in] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 18!  anc. of [Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir?] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 19 Šangû-Bābili (lú.sanga-tin.tir.ki)  anc. of Šulāya BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 24’ Šangû-Dilbat (lú.sanga-dil-bat.ki)  anc. of [...] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 30 Šangû-Ištar-Bābili (mlú.sanga-dinnintin.tir.ki, lú.sanga-dinnin-tin.tir.ki, lú.é.bar-dinnin-tin.tir.ki)  anc. of [Bēl-iddin] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 7’  anc. of [Erība-Marduk] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 12’



239

anc. of [Marduk-šumu-iddin] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 17!  anc. of Mušēzib-Marduk BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 6’  anc. of [Nabû-aḫḫē-šul]lim BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 6’  anc. of Nabû-šumu-līšir BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 7’  anc. of Nabû-šu[mu-uṣur] BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 17!  anc. of Nabû-zēru-ibni BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 1  anc. of [Nidintu?] BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 4?  anc. of Rīmūt BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 4?  anc. of Šamaš-tabni-[uṣur] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 12’ Šangû-Mārat-bīti (lú.é.bar-ddumu.sal.é)  anc. of Bēl-iqīša BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 6, 9  anc. of Tabnēa BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 6, 9 Šangû-Sippar (lú.sanga-sip-par.ki)  anc. of Balīḫû BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 17; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 24; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 36; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 5’; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 17  anc. of Bēl-aplu-iddin BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 17; BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 24; Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 36; BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 5’; BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 17  anc. of Nabû-kāṣir BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 4  anc. of Na[bû-...] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 61  anc. of Šāpik-zēri BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 4  anc. of [...] BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 9’, 10’; CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 60, 61 Šangû-Šamaš (lú.sanga-dutu)  anc. of Balīḫû CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 21’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

240 

Indices

anc. of [Bēl-aplu-iddin] CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 21’  anc. of Bēl-ušallim BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 15  anc. of Damqia BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 3  anc. of Iddin-Bēl BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 3  anc. of Iqīša-Marduk BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 3  anc. of [Marduk-mukīn-apli] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 3  anc. of Marduk-nāṣir CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 62  anc. of [Nabû-šumu-uṣur] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 62  anc. of Ši?[...] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 9’  anc. of Tabnēa BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 3  anc. of [...] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 9’ Šangû?-[...] (⌈lú.sanga?⌉-[...])  BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 1’ Šāpik-zēri (mdub-numun)  [s. of] Šamaš-aḫu-iddin, ša muḫḫi sūti ša [Šamaš] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [8’]  f. of Nabû-kāṣir BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 15; d. of Šangû-Sippar BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 3  [f. of] Niq[ūdu], d.! of Itinnu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 15  f. of [...], d. of Sîn-šadû[nu] BM 50657 (Text no. 50): 3 f Šarḫāya (fšar-ḫa-a)  w. of Nabû-udammiq BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 3, 15 m šá rit mu  BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 15 f Šiddātu (fši-da-tu4)  dau. of Baytil-nāṭar, w. of Bunenešarru-uṣur BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 1 Šigûa (mši-gu-ú-a)  anc. of [Mardu]k-šumu-uṣur BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 32’



anc. of Nabû-mukīn-[zēri] BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 4’  anc. of Nummuru BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 24  anc. of Silim-Bēl BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 32’  anc. of Šamaš-mukīn-[apli] BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 4’  anc. of [...] BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 21 Širikti (mši-rik-ti)  f. of Šamaš-nāṣir, [d. of Paḫḫ]āru BM 64970 (Text no. 3): [16] Ši?[...] (mši? x [x x])  f. of [...], d. of [Šangû]-Šamaš BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 8’ Šulāya (mšu-la-a)  f. of Rīmūt-ili BM 114577 (Text no. 29): [1]  f. of [...]-Marduk BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 5’  d. of Šangû-Bābili BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 24’  BM 63755 (Text no. 18): [4], 13 Šullumānu (mšul-lum-ma-nu)  anc. of Bēl-iqīša BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 23 Šumāya (mšu-ma-a-aʾ, mšu-ma-a, mmu-a)  f. of Šamaš-[...]ša BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 18  BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 2, 10, 12, 20 Šumu-iddin (mmu-sum.na, mmu-mu)  rab ālāni of [...] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 11  f. of Iddinūnu, d. of Irʾanni, b. of. Bēlšunu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 4, 5, 18, 19  f. of [...] BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 4  d. of of Emašdari-ibni BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 25 Šumu-libši (mmu-líb-ši)  anc. of Bēl-ušallim BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 17  anc. of Nabû-nādin BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 17  anc. of Marduk-šākin-šumi BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names Šumu-ukīn (mmu-gi.na, mmu-gin)  rab napḫari BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 6  s. of Nabû-ušabši and fKurunnītutabni, f. of Nabû-mukīn-apli, b. of Šamaš-uballiṭ, Iqīšāya, and Ṣillāya CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 1, 12, [38], 50  f. of Lūṣe-ana-nūri BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 10’  f. of [...], d. of Mudammiq-Adad BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 7 Šūzubu (mšu-zu-bu)  anc. of Balāṭu, anc. of [...]BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 10’ T Tabnēa (mtab-né-e-a)  Barsipāya, mār šipri ša šarri BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 3, [15]  s. of Bēl-iqīša, d. of Šangû-Mārat-bīti BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 6, 9, 11  s. of Iqīša-Marduk, d. of Šangû[Šamaš], b. of Iddin-Bēl, [Mardukmukīn-apli], and Damqia BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 2, 11  f. of Pirʾu, d. of Bāʾiru BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 21 Taddina (mta-ad-di-na)  [f.] of [...] BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 2 Taqīš (mta-qiš)  s. of Rīmūt-Bau BM 114730 (Text no. 33): [13] Taqīš-Gula (mta-qiš-dme.me, mta-qiš-dgula)  s. of Bēl-nādin-apli BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 8’  s. of Nabû-ēpuš, d. of Ur-Nanna BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 18 Ṭ f

Ṭābatu (fdu10.ga-tu4)  BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 2’, 3”

241

Ṭābia (mṭa-bi-ia, mdu10.ga-ia)  s. of Nabû-nādin-šumi, d. of Ḫunzû, šākin ṭēmi of Uruk BM 114550 (Text no. 30): [13], 19  f. of ⌈Nabû?⌉-[aḫḫ]ē-iddin, d. of Nikkāya BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 2 Ṭābiḫ-kāri (lú.gír.lá-ka-a-ri)  anc. of Ea-iddin BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 21’ U [Uballi]ṭ?-Marduk ([mtin?-i]ṭ-d⌈amar.utu⌉)  s. of Kalbāya, d. of Aššurāya BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 35’ Uballissu-Gula (mtin-su-dgu-la)  tupšar (Ebabbar) BM 62918 (Text. no. 40): 4 Ubār (mú-bar)  s. of Būnānu, f. of Bēl-iddin, širku of Marduk, mār šipri of Baga-pānu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 1, 5, 17, 20  s. of Ḫabaṣīru, gs. of Šamaš-iddin BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 2, 8  BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 5 Ugūmu (mugu-mu)  BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 6, 8, 10, 15 f Ummu-rībat (fama-ri-bat, fama-ri-ba-at)  amēluttu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 6?, 40? Uraš-iddin (mduraš-mu)  s. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāte, d. of Maṣṣarabulli BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 25 Uraš-kāṣir (mduraš-kád)  šākin ṭēmi of Dilbat BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 10 Uraš-mukīn-apli (mduraš-gin-ibila)  s. of Mušēzib-Bēl, d. of Itinnu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 23 Uraš-šumu-ibni (mduraš-mu-dù)  d. of Marduk?-erība?, ērib bīti of Uraš BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 23 Uraš-zēru-ibni (mduraš-numun-dù)  f. of Marduk-šumu-uṣur, d. of Eaeppēš-ilī BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 6

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

242

Indices

Ur-Nanna (mur-dnanna)  [anc. of] Iqīša-Marduk BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 4”  anc. of Nabû-ēpuš BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 19  anc. of Nidinti BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 17; BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 12  anc. Taqīš-Gula BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 19  [anc. of ...] BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 4”  anc. of [...] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 35 Z Zabidāya (mza-bi-da-a)  f. Balāṭu BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 7  f. of [...]lāya BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 9 Zāriqu-zēru-ibni (mdza-ri-qu-numun-dù)  s. of Il...iaia? BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 5 Zēr-Bābili (mnumun-tin.tir.ki)  s. of Ina-ṭēšê-ēṭir, d. of Ēdu-ēṭir BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 2’; BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 2  f. of Aplāya, d. of Adad-šumu-ēreš BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 8  BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 4?  BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 10’ Zēria (mnumun-ia, mnumun-ía)  s. of Nabû-ušabši, d. of Basia BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 8  s. of [...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 8’  f. of [Na]bû-mušētiq-uddê, d. of [Balāṭu] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 4’  d. of Nūbu BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 14 Zēru-ukīn (mnumun-gin, mnumun-gi.na)  f. of [...]šari, [d. of ...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 3’  BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 2’  BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 10’, [11’]

Zērūtu (mnumun-tú)  s. of Bēlšunu, d. of Allānu Mardukrēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 37  [f. of] Bēl-ušallim, d. of Miṣ[rāya] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): [63] [...] [...]a? ([mx x]⌈x⌉ a)  s. of Bēlšunu, d. of Kānik-bābi BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 33’ [...]a? (m[x]⌈x⌉ a)  f. of Itti-Marduk-balāṭu BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 12 [...]ani? ([mx x]-⌈a?-ni?⌉)  d. of Abī-ul-īdi BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 18’ [...]-aplu-iddin ([m...]⌈x⌉-ibila-sum.na)  BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 37’ [ ...b]āya ([mx x-b]a-a)  BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 13 [...]da ([mx x] ⌈x⌉ da)  d. of Rab-banê BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 17’ [...]di[...] (⌈mx⌉-di-[x])  [s. of ...-uš]abš[i?], dayyānu BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 1 [...]ea ([mx x]-e-a)  BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 13 [...]gî ([mx]-⌈x⌉-gi-i)  [f. of ] Reḫ[ētu] BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 12’ [...]ia ([mx]-ía)  f. of s. [of ...]ia BM 63845 (p. 123): 8 [...]ia? ([mx x x x]⌈x-ia?⌉, ⌈mx-x-ia?⌉)  d. of Mudammiq-Adad BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 36’  d. of [...] BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 8’ [...]-ibni ([...]-dù)  BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 19 [...]-iddin? ([m]⌈x⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉ mu)  f. of Šamaš-[...], dayyānu BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 3 [...]-irāšū (m[x] ⌈x x-i-ra⌉-šú)  f. of Kabti-ilī (mār šipri of Šamaš⌈...⌉) BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names ⌈...-Ištar⌉ ([m]⌈x x x-d15⌉)  f. of Banītušu, d. of Nabû-dān BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 13 [...-k]āṣir ([mdx-k]a-⌈ṣir⌉)  s. of Nabû-iddin BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 1 [...]lāya (m⌈x⌉-la-a-a)  s. of Zabidāya BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 9 [...]-Marduk ([mx x]-⌈damar⌉.utu)  s. of Šulāya BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 5’ [...]nēa? ([x x]-⌈né?⌉-a)  anc. of B[ēl-...] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 59  anc. of [...] CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 59 [...n]i? ([mx x x-n]i?)  anc. of Arad-Nabû BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 24  anc. of Bānia BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 24 [...]ni ([mx x x]⌈x⌉-ni)

243

d. of Balīḫû, šākin ṭēmi of Babylon BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 6’ [...]nu ([m]⌈x x⌉-nu)  [f. of ...]ša? BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 2 [...]šari ([...]⌈x šá⌉ ri)  s. of Zēru-ukīn, [d. of ...] BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 3’ [...]ša ([m]⌈x x šá?⌉)  [s. of ...]nu, dayyānu BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 2 [...]šu ([x x x]-šú)  slave BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 18’ [...-uš]abš[i?] ([mx-gá]l?⌉-š[i?])  [f. of ...]di[...] BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 1 [...]-zēri? ([mx]-⌈numun?⌉)  d. of Sîn-šadûnu BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 19’ [...-z]ēru-ukīn ([mx x-n]umun-gin)  s. of Nūrēa, d. of Egibi BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 31’



Personal Names in Commentaries and Notes See also the Index of Personal Names in Text Editions Abunāya, 44–45 Adad-dān, sukkallu, 146–47 Adiʾ-ilu, 121 Adnāya. See Abunāya Ammēni(-ilu), 16 Ana-amat-Bēl-atkal, ša muḫḫi sūti, 33 Aplāya/Nergal-uballiṭ//Bēl-eṭēru, 18 Arad-Anunītu/Šāpik-zēri// Šangû-Akkad, 83 Arad-Anunītu, 22, 82–84, 124–25 Arad-Bēl/Bēl-ušallim//Adad-šammē, XIII, 11, 80, 90 [Arad]-Nabû//Aššurāya, 42 Arad-Šamaš/Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, 121 Ararru, 143 Ardia, ša muḫḫi sūti, 115 Ašābšu, 51 Aššurāya, 42 Atnāya. See Abunāya

Ayyigaššu, ša muḫḫi quppi, 111 Bakabana, satrap, 169 Balīḫû, 143 Bānûnu. See (Nergal-)Bānûnu Basia, 14 Baytil-iaḫiru[/]Baytil-ḫanānu, 160 Bēl-aḫḫē-erība/Kudurru//Adad-šammē, 186 Bēl-aḫḫē-erība/Zēria, 186 Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin//Nūr-Sîn, 186 Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša, qīpu Ebabbar, 22–23 Bēl-erība/Marduk-zēru-ibni/Bēl-iddin// Dābibi, 179 Bēl-ēṭir/Aplāya//Bēl-eṭēru, 18 Bēl-ibni//Naggāru, 17 Bēl-ittannu, ašlāku, mukabbû, 11 Bēl-ittannu/Iqīša-Marduk//Ur-Nanna, 44 Bēl-lēʾi(-kullati)//Esagilāya, šākin ṭēm Bābili, 143

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

244

Indices

Bēl-šumu-iškun/Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ, 120 Bēlšunu, official, 155 Bēlšunu/Zēria//Basia, 121 Bēl-uballiṭ/Nabû-nāṣir//Šangû-Akkad, 184 Bēl-ušallim//Irʾanni, 4 f Bēletu//Egibi, 181 Belshazzar, crown prince, 30, 44 f Buʾītu, 93 f Burašu, 170 Dābibi, 14, 170–71 Daḫḫūa, 90 f Damqāya, 40. See also fTašmētudamqat Dipāru, 137 Ea-eppēš-ilī, 170 Ea-qarrād-ilī, 14 Eanna-ibni/Lâbâši-ili, 99 Egibi, 14, 153 Enlil-ašābšu-iqbi, 51 Erība-Marduk/Marduk-zēru-ibni// Šangû-Ištar-Bābili, 132 f Erištu//Egibi, 181 Etellu, 16 Etel-pî, 16 Gabbi-ilāni-šarru-uṣur, 44 Gimillu, širku, ša muḫḫi sūti, 100, 109, 115, 167 f Gugūa, m. of Ṭābia//Sîn-ili, 40 Gūzānu//Ša-nāšišu, 76 Ḫabarṣiru. See Ḫabaṣīru Ḫabaṣīru//Ea-eppēš-ilī, dayyānu, 176 Ḫabaṣīru/Libluṭ, 78 Ḫūdāya/⌈Bau?⌉-ēreš, 99 Iadiʾ-ilu, 121 Iddin-Marduk//Nūr-Sîn, 40 Iddin-Nabû//Nappāḫu, 41 Idi-ilu, 121 Ina-Esagil-lilbur//Ša-nāšišu, 76–77 f Ina-Esagil-ramât/Balāṭu//Egibi, 41 f Ina-Esagil-ramât/Šamaš-udammiq// Maštuku, 41 f Ina-Esagil-ramât/Zēria//Nabāya, 40 Iqīša-Marduk//Ur-Nanna, 43 Iqīšāya/Nabû-ibni//Ibnāya, 17 Iqīšāya/Nabû-ibni, 51 Iqīšāya/Šumu-ukīn//Mudammiq-Adad, 95

Irâš-ana-(temple name), 18 Ištar-mukīn-apli/Gimillu, tupšarru, 99 Ištar-mukīn-apli/Innin-zēru-šubši// Dāʾiqu, 83 Itti-Bēl-lummir/Bēl-ēreš, 155 Itti-Marduk-balāṭu//Egibi, 40 Itti-Marduk-balāṭu//Suḫāya, dayyānu, 178 Itti-Nabû-balāṭu/Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir, 184 Kabti-ilāni-Marduk//Dābibi, 56 Kalbāya, šāpir bāʾirē, 63 Kalbāya/Šulāya//Šangu-Bābili, 143–44 Kiribti-Marduk/Šumu-ukīn//Bāʾiru, šākin ṭēm Bābili, 158 Kudurru/Bēl-ušallim//Irʾanni, 4 Kudurru, šākin ṭēm Uruk, 146 f Kurunnītu-tabni/Aplāya//Ṭābiḫu, 56 f Kurunnītu-tabni/Bēl-upaḫḫir//Sînšadûnu, 56 f Kurunnītu-tabni/Nabû-kāṣir//Bābūtu, 56 f Kurunnītu-tabni/Nadnāya//IqīšaMarduk, 56 f Kurunnītu-tabni/Šumu-ukīn//Sînšadûnu, 57 Lâbâši, rab umma, 133 Lâbâši/Rīmūt//Šangû-Akkad, 124 Lâbâši(-Marduk)//Rab-šušši, dayyānu, 176, 177 Libluṭ, ša muḫḫi quppi, 111 Madānu-zēru-ibni/Aplāya//Eppēš-ilī, 16 Mannu-gērûšu, 163 Mannu-iqabbu/Arad-Nergal, 184 Marduk-bulliṭanni, ša muḫḫi quppi, 111 Marduk-nāṣir/Nabû-šumu-uṣur// Šangû-Šamaš, 60 Marduk-nāṣir-apli//Egibi, 179 Marduk-rēmanni//Ṣāḫit-ginê, 75–76, 155, 158 Marduk-šumu-uṣur/Silim-Bēl//Dābibi, 41 Megapanos, epitropos, 170 f Murānatu, w. of Šamaš-ibni/AradGula//Ša-nāšišu, 93 Mušebši-Marduk//Šangû-Šamaš, 174 Mušēzib-Bēl/Bēl-[...], 99 Mušēzib-Bēl, dayyānu, 116 Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin//Egibi, dayyānu, 186 Nabû-aḫu-ittannu//Dābibi, 170

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Personal Names [Nabû-balās]su-iqbi/Marduk-nāṣir, dayyānu, 120 Nabû-balāssu-iqbi//Ša-nāšišu, 76 Nabû-balāṭu-ēreš, šangû Sippar?, 133 [Nabû]-eṭir-napšāti/Ša-Nabû-šū, dayyānu, 120 Nabû-iqbi, astrologer, 139 Nabû-kāṣir/Šāpik-zēri//Šangû-Šamaš, 173 Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Marduk-šumu-uṣur// Rab-šušši, 44 Nabû-nādin-aḫi//Eṭēru, uppadētu, 178 Nabû-nāṣir/Ebabbar-šadûnu//ŠangûŠamaš, mandidu, 59 Nabû-šarru-uṣur, ša rēš šarri, 133 Nabû-šumu-ukīn//Irʾanni, 186 Nabû-šumu-ukīn/Širikti-Marduk// Arkāt-ilāni-damqā, 116 Nabû-šumu-uṣur/Nabû-zēru-iqīša// Mannu-gērûšu, 163 Nabû-ušabši//Ṭābiḫu, 55 Nabû-ušallim/Šamaš-udammiq// Ṣāḫit-ginê, 120 Nabû-zēru-iddin/Bēlšunu, šušān šarri, 86 Nabû-zēru-iqīša/Aplāya, 99 Nabû-zēru-ušabši/Aplāya//Aššurāya, 42 Nādin/Anunītu-šarru-uṣur, 184 Nādin-aḫi/Bēl-ušallim//Irʾanni, 4 Naggāru, 17 Nergal-ašarēdu//Sîn-karabī-išme, šākin [ṭēmi], 139 (Nergal-)Bānûnu/Ṣillāya//Rab-banê, 186 Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir//Rab-banê, dayyānu, 43 (Nergal)-ina-tēšê-ēṭir/Rīmūt-(Gula)// Šangû-Akkad, 124 Nergal-šarru-bulliṭ, qīpu Ebabbar, 22 Nergal-šarru-uṣur, sukkallu, 147 Nergal-ušallim//Šigûa, dayyānu, 43 Nidintu/Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, 179 Nidintu/Bēl-zēru-ibni//Egibi, 177 f Ningal-ilī/Nabû-nipšaru//Balīḫû, 85 f Ningal-ilī, sis. of Adad-nadnu, 85 f Nin[...]/Lâbâši, 86 f Qudāšu, 57 f Reʾindu//Egibi, 181 Rīmūt-Bēl/Arrabi, 86 Rīmūt-Bēl/Bēl-uballiṭ//Isinnāya, 86

245

Rīmūt-Bēl/Marduk-nāṣir//Aššurāya, 42 Rīmūt-Bēl/Šarru-[...]//Uballiṭsu-[...], 86 Rīmūt-⌈Nabû⌉/Nabû-bēlšunu, 120 f Silim-Ištar/fHaršinana, širkatu, 106 Sîn-mukīn-apli/Šamaš-aplu-iddin// Paḫḫāru, 76 Ṣillāya/Aplāya, 99 Ṣillāya/Balāssu//Nabû-ēṭir, 112 Šamaš-aḫḫē-erība/Šalammānu, rab širkē, 12 Šamaš-ēṭir-napšāti, ša muḫḫi kurummat šarri, 31 Šamaš-ibni/Arad-Gula//Ša-nāšišu, 93 Šamaš-iddin/Rīmūt-ili, tupšarru, 99 Šamaš-iddin, ša muḫḫi kurummat šarri, 31 Šamaš-ruṣūa, ša muḫḫi kurummat šarri, 31 Šamaš-šumu-iddin/fSilim-Ištar, 106 Šamaš-tabni-uṣur/Mušēzib-Marduk, 21 Šangû-Akkad, 125 Šangû-Bābili, 143–44 Šangû-Dilbat, 14 Šangû-Ištar-Bābili, 143–44 Šangû-Ninurta, 153 Šāpik-zēri/Bēlšunu//Kānik-bābi, 42 Šāpik-zēri/Nabû-šumu-ukīn// Sîn-šadûnu, 186 Šarru-lū-dāri, qīpu Ebabbar, 147 f Šikkûa. See fŠikkūtu f Šikkūtu (=fŠikkûa)//Adad-šammē, 11 Šumu-ukīn/Abu-likūn, šušān šarri, 86 Šumu-ukīn//Sîn-šadûnu, 56 Šumu-ukīn, ša muḫḫi sūti, 115 f Šušannu, w. of Nidinti-Bēl//Egibi, 181 Taqīš, rab širkē, 12 Taqīš-Gula//Šangû-Sippar, 68 Taqīš-Gula, šāpir nuḫatimmē, 67 f Tašmētu-damqat//Egibi (=fDamqāya), 41 Tattannu, pāḫāt Ēbir Nāri, 133 Ṭāb-ašāb-DN, 51 Ṭāb-ašābšu, 51 f Ṭābatu/Arad-Gula//Ša-nāšišu, 92–93 f Ṭābātu/Bēl-aḫḫē-iddin//Šangû-Šamaš, 93 Ṭābia//Sîn-ilī, 40, 95 Upāqu, 14 Uraš-šumu-iddin//Naggāru, 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

246

Indices

Uraš-zēru-[ibni]/Marduk-erība// Eppēš-ilī, 170 Zēria/Šūzubu//Kurî, 99 Zēru-iddin, rab ālāni, 137 [...//A]bī-ul-idi, 143

[...]ri/Nabû-šarru-uṣur, 120 [...]/Nabû-šumu-līšir, 120 [...//]Rab-banê, 143 [.../Š]ulāya?//Rēʾi-[...], 124 [...]/Šumu?-ukīn, šušān šarri, 86

Geographic Names in Text Editions Akkad (a-kad.ki) BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [4], 5, 6 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 4 BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 6 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [2, 26] BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 6?, 7, 14, 18 BM 63845 (p. 123): 2, 11 (and passim in personal names) Akkadû (kur.uri.ki) BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 3’ Ālu-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī (uru-šá-i-qí-iʾ-dingir) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 24 Bāb-Nār-Šamaš (uru.ká-íd-dutu) BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 7, 15 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 2 Babylon (tin.tir.ki, e.ki, nun.ki) BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 25 BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 11’, 28’, [38’?] BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 3’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 2, 21, 28, [33], 54, 57 BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 5” Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 15 BM 67225 (Text no. 28): u.e. BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 32 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 6’, [27?] BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 11 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): l.h.e. BM 31355 (Text no. 47): [21] BM 31800 (Text no. 48): [16] (and passim in personal names and in the title šar Bābili) Babylon, citizens of (dumu tin.tir.ki, lú.tin.tir.ki) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 7 BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 13’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 22

BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 13 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 6 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 10 Bīt-Amukāni (uru.é-ma-muk-a-nu) BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 4 Bīt-Naggāri (é-lú.nagar) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 15 Bīt-Raši-il (é-msud-il) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 19 Bīt-ú-NE-mu (é-ú-NE-mu) BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 4 Borsippa (bár-sipa.ki, bár-sip.ki, barsip.ki) BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 5’, 12’ BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 14’ BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 7 Borsippa, citizens of (dumu bár-sipa.ki, lú.bar-sip.ki) BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 1–4, 11 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 11 Cutha (gú.du8.a.ki) BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 6, 17 Cutha, citizens of (lú.gú.du8.a.ki) BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 6 Dilbat (dil-bat.ki) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): [27?] BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 21 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [3], 15, 41 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 10, 14, 32 (and passim in personal names) Dūr-Ugūmu (bàd mugu-mu) BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 6 Dūr-Ugūmu, citizens of (uru.bàd múgu-mu-a-a, lú.bàd mugu-mu-a-a) BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 8, 10, 15 Ēbir-Nāri Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Geographic Names ḫarrān šarri (kaskalii lugal) BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 5, 9, 13 Ḫarru-ša-Lāgāmal (ḫar-ri šá mla-gama-al) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 14, 17 BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 1? Ḫirītu-ša-mār-Abunāya (ḫi-ri-tu4 šá dumu mad-na-a-a) BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 3’ Ḫursagkalamma (uru.ḫur-sag-kalam-ma) BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 19 Idiqlat (íd.idigna) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 7 Larsa (ud.unug.ki) BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 12 BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 18 Māt Akkadî (kur.uri.ki) BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 3’ Nār-Šamaš (íd-dutu) BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 9 Nār-šarri (íd-lugal) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 7 Piqūdu (pi-qu-du) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 6 Pi[...] (íd.pi-⌈x⌉-[x (x)] BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 3 Sippar (zimbir.ki, sip-par.ki) BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 17 BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 3, [12’] BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [2] BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [2] BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 1, 4, 4’ BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 1, 4 BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 10’ BM 65893 (Text no. 11): [1]

247

CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 50, 65 BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 3, 8 BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 7, 9, 10, 22 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 2, 5, 9, [23, 26] Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 2, 3, [18], 24, 27?, 35, 38 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [2], 26, 29 BM 101541 (Text no. 24): [2, 6’], 9’ BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [4’, 10’] CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 20’ BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 3, 9 BM 62918 (Text no. 40): 3, BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 9’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 1, 6, 16, [20] BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 6, 10, 11, [14] Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 4 (and passim in personal names) Susa (uru.šu-šá-an) BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 9’? Tâmtu (kur.tam-tì) BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 12, 18 TE.E (TE.E.ki) BM 61432 (Text no. 14): 2’ Tīl-Gubbi (du6-gub-bu) BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 6, 10, 13 Uruk (unug.ki) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 4 BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 2, 5, 13, 16, 19, 25 BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 9, 12 Uruk, citizens of (lú.unug.ki) BM 114550 (Text no. 30): [14?]

Geographic Names in Commentaries and Notes Across-the-River, 77, 133 Akkad (city), 22, 33, 83, 101, 123, 125, 132, 184 Akkad (province), 146–47 Āl-Piqūdu, 98 Āl-Šamaš, 174 Ālu-ša-Iaqiʾ-ilī, 97, 99, 101–2 Ālu-ša-Nūrēa, 41

Assur, 146–47 Bāb-Nār-Šamaš, 70 Babylon, 4, 14, 16, 18, 38, 41–42, 44, 46, 56, 58, 64, 76–77, 94–95, 108, 110, 118, 120, 132, 140, 142–44, 146–49, 153, 158–59, 164, 167, 170, 173, 176, 178, 181, 183, 185–86, 188; passim in the title “king of Babylon”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

248

Indices

Babylonians, 14, 16, 42, 58, 77, 107, 126, 132, 136, 142–43 Bactria, 169 Bīt-Amukāni, 98, 108 Bīt-Bārî, 17 Bīt-mukīl-appāti, 168 Bīt-Naggāri, 17 Bīt-rab-mungi, 168 Bīt-rab-qanâte, 168 Bīt-šar-Bābili, 95 Bīt-tupšar-ekalli, 168 Bīt-ú-NE-mu, 153 Bitqa-ša-Bēl-ēṭir, 115, 118 Borsippa, 4, 17, 45–47, 69, 110, 116– 17, 120, 149, 153, 163–64, 181, 185 Borsippeans, 16, 116, 136, 142–43 Cutha, 139–40, 142 Cutheans, 140, 142 Dilbat, 14, 16–17, 46–47, 49, 58, 135– 36, 142, 163, 166–71, 185–86, 188 Dilbateans, 16, 136, 142 Ditch of the House of Abunāya, 44 Ditch of the Son of Abunāya, 44 Dūr-Ugūmu, 98, 115–18 citizens of, 115–17 Elam, 169, 176 Euphrates, 4, 153, 158, 174, 176 Ḫazuzu Canal, 186 Ḫursagkalamma, 163 Kasīri (district in Babylon), 45 Kish, 136, 139 Kisikku, 86 Lāgāmal Canal, 14, 17, 49, 51

Larsa, 6, 119–21 Mašennu Canal, 174 Nāru-eššu, 98 Nineveh, 139 Opis, 140 Piqūdu. See Puqūdu Piqūdu Canal, 139–40 Pītu, 139 Pi[...], 139 Puqūdu, 98, 140, 146 Royal Canal, 98 Sealand, 77, 107–11, 121, 168 Sippar, 22, 25, 27, 30–31, 33, 35, 37, 52, 58, 60–64, 66, 69–72, 74–80, 82–83, 86, 88–92, 100–1, 123–24, 126, 132– 33, 136, 143, 145–47, 149–51, 155– 56, 158–60, 173–76, 183–85, 188–89 Susa, 153, 173–77 Šamaš Canal, 158 Takkīru Canal, 115 Tapsuḫu, 186 Tê (district in Babylon), 45 TE.E (district in Babylon), 44–45 Teima, 30 Tigris, 98, 140 Tīl-Gubbi, 158, 174, 176 Tupliaš, 98 Ur, citizens of, 143 Uruk, 17, 30, 46, 86, 97–101, 104, 106–8, 110–12, 114–18, 120, 146 Urukeans, 99, 104, 109 Zazannu, 155

Divine Names in Text Editions Bēl (den) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 2, 10 BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 6’? BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 21 Bēlet-Akkad (dgašan a-kad.ki) BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 4, 5, 6 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 4 BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 6?, 18 Bēlet-ekalli (nin-é.gal) BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 6, [21]

Bēltu-ša-Uruk (gašan šá unug.ki) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 4, 16 BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 2, 5, 16 BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 9, 12 Ištar-Akkad (dinnin unug.ki) BM 63845 (p. 123): 2 Lāgāmal (dla-ga-ma-al) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): [14], 17 BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Divine Names Mārat-Bīt(-Anu) (ddumu.sal é da-nù, d dumu.sal é) BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 7, 21 Marduk (damar.utu) BM 77945 (Text no. 38): [16’] BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 2 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 2 Nabû (dnà) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 2, 10 BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 6’? BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 21 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 2 Šamaš (dutu) BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [2] BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [2] BM 84059 (Text no. 8): [2] BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): [2]

249

BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 4, [8], 10, [16] BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 7, 10 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 7, 10 Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 24, 25, 27, 29, 36 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 8’ BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 7 BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 6, 17 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 4, 8 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 2 Uraš (duraš) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 23 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 5, 20 Zarpanitu (dzar-pa-ni-tu4) BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 16’

Divine Names in Commentaries and Notes Amurru, 49 Anu, 137 Anunītu, 151 Baytil, 11 Bēl, 16, 46, 189 Bēlet-Akkad (Lady of Akkad), 22, 83, 123, 132 Bēlet-ekalli, 136–37 Bēltu-ša-Uruk (Lady of Uruk), 104, 106, 108, 116–17, 168 Bethel. See Baytil Bīt-il. See Baytil Gula, 36, 151, 184

Kurunnītu, 58 Lāgāmal, 14, 17, 49, 51 Mārat-bīt-Anu, 137 Mārat-bīti, 51, 137 Marduk, 137, 166–67, 169, 189 Nabû, 46, 137, 189 Ningal, 85 Šamaš, 22, 36–37, 61–63, 70, 78, 126, 145, 151, 158 Šarrat-Sippar, 36 Uraš, 14, 17, 41, 136–37 Zababa, 42

Temple Names in Text Editions bīt Uraš BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 23 Eanna BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 9, 17 Ebabbar (of Larsa) BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 7 Ebabbar/bīt Šamaš (of Sippar) BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 2 BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [1, 2], 3 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [1, 2], 3

BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 2, 3 BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 1, 2 BM 63755 (Text no. 18): [2], 7, 8, 9 BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 7, 10 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 10 Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 24, 36 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 8’ BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 2, 8 BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 6, 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

250

Indices

Ebabbar (continued) Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 4 BM 63845 (p. 123): 3 Eimbianu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 4

Eulmaš/bīt Bēlet-Akkad BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 4–5 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 4 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [3, 27] BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 6?, 18

Temple Names in Commentaries and Notes Eanna, 28, 30, 32, 62, 83, 86, 97–101, 106–12, 114–18, 120, 146, 163, 167–68 Ebabbar/bīt Šamaš of Larsa, 121 of Sippar, 11, 22, 24–25, 30, 33, 36–37, 58, 61, 63, 67, 70, 76, 83,

86, 88, 90, 100, 123–24, 145, 147, 150, 174–75 Eimbianu, 18, 51, 135–37, 166, 169–71 Emašdari, 132 Esagila, 14, 132, 167 Esapar, 136 Eulmaš/bīt Bēlet-Akkad, 22, 83, 123–25

Selected Akkadian Words and Phrases in Text Editions abāku CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 23 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 5 BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 4, 7 ana kaspi a. BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 4 abālu BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 11 Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 23 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [12] ramani a. BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 11 adê BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 3, [11] BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 6’ aḫu, in a. nadû BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 9 alāku ana maḫar ... a. BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 8 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 7’ See also ana šimti a. amāru CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 26 BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 11, 15 amatu a. šemû CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 21

a. šunnû BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 13’ a.-sunu gamrat BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 22 amēluttu BM 30155 (Text no. 13): [19’], 25’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 7, 9–10, 15, 24, 29, [33], 41, 43, 47 BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 2” apiltu. See kunukku arad ekalli BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 2, 3 ārattu BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 15 ārittu BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 18 arkatu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 50 āšibu, in a. bābi/ī BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 6 BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 9 bā’iru BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 4, 15 bābu BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 17 BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 6 BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Akkadian Words and Phrases balāṭu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 9, 40, 46 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 29 bēlu b. piqitti Eanna BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 9 b. qanâte BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 11 birītu BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 12, 13 bītu b. āšib bābi BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 9 b. ilī BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 4’ b. karê BM 63845 (p. 123): 12 b. maṣṣarti BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 7 b. puṭ(ṭ)uri BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 6 dabābu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 17 BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 9 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 13 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 15’ BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 10 (Š) CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 15 See also dīnu; târu dagālu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 11, 49 (Š) BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 21 BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 21’, 23’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 8, 17, 25 BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 9 danānu BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 4 dânu BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 7 See also dīnu dayyānu BM 61432 (Text no. 14): [1”?, 2”], 3”, 4”, 5”, 6” BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 13’ BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25

251

BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 8 BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 5 BM 62918 (Text no. 40): 2 BM 43881 (Text no. 41): 2’, [3’, 6’] BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 4’ BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): l.h.e. BM 31355 (Text no. 47): [16], 18, l.h.e. BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 11, [13], l.h.e., r.h.e. BM 64271 (Text no. 49): l.h.e. BM 50657 (Text no. 50): u.e. BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 1, 13 d. ša šarri BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 20 dibba quttû BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 18 dīnu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 2 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 13’ BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 8 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 16 d. dabābu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 12 BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 8 BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 8 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 7 BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 7 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 7’ BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 4’ BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 14, 25 d. epēšu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 20 d. gerû BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 2 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 1 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [1] BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 3’ d. lamādu BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 14’ d. mussû BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 14 BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 12 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 8 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 13 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 7’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

252

Indices

dīnu (continued) d. ṣabātu BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 8 d. šakānu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 33 d.-šunu/šina dīn CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 52 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 19’ BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 4” BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 21 See also purussû ekurru BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 16 elû BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 14 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 13 emēdu BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 8, 28 enû BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 16 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 15’ BM 77945 (Text no. 38): [16] BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 13 eqlu, in e. libbū e. BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 18 BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 3 ērib bīti Uraš BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 23 Šamaš BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [2] BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [2] BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): [2] BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 8 BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 7, 10 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 10 Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 24, 36 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 8’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 6, 17 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 4 Bēlet-Akkad BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 4 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 4 eṭēru BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 8’

gabarû BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 6 gerû. See dīnu gillatu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 18, 27 gišru BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 7, 15, 18 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 2, 9 ḫabālu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 19? ḫalāqu BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 9? BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 17 ḫ. qabû BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 27 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 16’ (D) BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 9 (Š) BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 15 ḫanšû BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 16 ḫâṭu ... nadānu BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 13–14 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [16] BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 9’–10’ BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 6’–7’ ḫazannu Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 3, 5, [27?], 30 ḫī/ērūtu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 26? ḫiṣbu BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 6 ḫīṭu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 18, 27 ḫubullu BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 16’ BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 9 ḫ. rabû BM 31800 (Text no. 48): 10 ḫūdu, in ina ḫ. libbi BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 11 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 12, 16 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 17 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 9’, 11’ BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 8’ imittu BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 7, 26

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Akkadian Words and Phrases ipru BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 4’ isqu BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 5, 6, 20 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 4, 8 išparu BM 74466 (Text 12): 4? izuzzu ina muḫḫi ... i. BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 6 (Š) BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 15 PN ina ... izuzzu (Š) BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 17 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 16’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 10 PN maḫar/ina maḫri ... izuzzu (Š) CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 23 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 12 Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): [25] kakkabtu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 3, 16 kalāmu (D) BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 18 kanāku CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 36, 44 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [24] BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 9’ See also kangu; kunukku; tuppu; uʾiltu kangu šāṭir k. BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 39 ina kanāk k. šuāti BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 28 kânu (D) BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 16 BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 8 eli ramni k. BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 14 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 13 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): [11] kašādu BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 7 BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 18 ana maḫri ... k. BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 11’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): [2]

kī annî BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 16 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 3 kinattu BM 62918 (Text no. 40): 2 kiništu (kinaltu) Ebabbar BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 3 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 3 BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 2 BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 9 bīt Bēlet-Akkad BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [4] BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [4] kitû BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 14 kunukku BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 23–25 CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): l.h.e BM 67225 (Text no. 28): u.e. BM 43881 (Text no. 41): l.h.e. BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): l.h.e. BM 31355 (Text no. 47): l.h.e. BM 31800 (Text no. 48): l.h.e., r.h.e., u.e. BM 64271 (Text no. 49): l.h.e. BM 50657 (Text no. 50): u.e. k. apilti BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 8 k. lā târi (u) lā dabābi BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [19] BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 11’ k. kanāku BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [19] BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 11’ šāṭir k. BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 30 ina k. barāmu BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 28’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 54 BM 67225 (Text no. 28): u.e. ina kanāk k. šuāti BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 22 kutimmu BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 11? kurummatu BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 6’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

253

254

Indices

leqû CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 52 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 7, 11 BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 15 lubuštu BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 4’ maḫāru BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 2 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 30 maḫāṣu (Gt), in aḫāmeš m. BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 10’ maḫīru, in m. epēšu BM 84059 (Text no. 8): [2] BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 8 BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 4 See also tuppi maḫīri makkūru BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 2 BM 62918 (Text no. 40): 12 BM 63845 (p. 123): 1 malāku (Gt) BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 14 māru m. bani BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 1, 14 m. šarri BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 4’ m. šipri BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 13 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 18 m.šipri ša šarri BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 4 maṣṣartu BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 17 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 8 See also bīt maṣṣarti maṣû BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 9’? CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 28 mašʾaltu BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 6 BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 1 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 1 BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 1 BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 1 BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): [1]

BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 1 BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 1 maškānu, in m. ṣabātu BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 5 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 6 maṭû BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 9, 10 BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 5 mupaṣṣû BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 8 muquttû BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 27 mussû. See dīnu muṣibtu BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 6’ mūṣû BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 12, 13 nādinānu CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 17’ naggāru BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 10 naḫāsu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 23 nakāsu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 19 nāru BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 5, 9, 13 našpartu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 5 BM 63755 (Text no. 18):16? našû, in pūt ... n. BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 15’ BM 62918 (Text no. 40): 10 nikkasu BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 7’, [9’], 14’, [21’] BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 11, 12 CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 51 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 23 BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 6’ BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 2’? BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 12 niklu BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 11, 28 nīšu, in n. ... zakāru BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 6’ BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Akkadian Words and Phrases Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 25, 27, [29] BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 7 nudunnû CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 8 paḫāru (D) CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): [22] BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 9 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 9 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 8’ paḫātu, in p. Bābili u Ēbir Nāri Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 15 palāḫu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 9 papāḫu BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 5, 7, 20 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 4, 8 paqādu BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 18 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 13, 15, 16, 20 paqāru BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 10, 13 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 5’ ana p. lā bašê BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 27’ (D) BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 9 paqūdu BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 5 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 12 parāsu BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [20] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 2’ BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 16 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 11 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 14 BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 7 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 8’ BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 5’ paṭāru, in q. paṭāru CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 45 piššatu BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 4’ puḫru BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 2 BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 7, 10 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 16

255

Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 25, 27 BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 11, 13, 17 BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 7 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 12? p. Bābilāya (u) Barsipāya BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 10 p. Bābilāya mādūti BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 6 purussû p. šakānu BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 5’ BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 8 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 10 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 7’ BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 8’ p. šemû BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 8 p.-šunu paris CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 52 p.-šunu šakin CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 19’ BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 22 ina p. dīni šuāti Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 35 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 25 BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 5’ CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 20’ BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 5” BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 15 puṭṭuru. See bīt puṭ(ṭ)uri qabuttu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 17 qallatu BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 7 qallu BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 7 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 5? BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 3’, 10’ BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 5 BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 4 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 1 BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 3 BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 27 qaqqadu BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 24

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

256

Indices

qīpu BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 1 BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 5’, 10’ q. Ebabbar (of Larsa) BM 103505 (Text no. 32): 7 q. Ebabbar (of Sippar) BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 2 BM 67595 (Text no. 6): [1] BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [1] BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 2, 3 BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 1 BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 2, 7 BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 2, 8 q. Eulmaš BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 3, 27 quppu BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 5 rabû r. ālāni BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 12 r. napḫari BM 67225 (Text no. 28): 6 r. ša rēši BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 27 r. širkē BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 15 BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 5 r. [...] BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 5? rašû BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 5, 10 (Š) BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 11 Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 33 BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 4’ BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 5’ rāšû BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 23’ BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 10 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 9 rašûtānu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 8, 10 CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 4, 16 rašûtu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 14, 16 BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 7 BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 15’

BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 12 BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 10’ rêḫu BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 10 riksu BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 9 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 5, 13 BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 2’ CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 14’ r. rakāsu BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 33 rugbu BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 11, 14 sarru BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 12 semeru BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 17 sepīru s. bīt Bēlet-Akkad BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 4 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): [3] BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 6 BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 18 sipru BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 5 sukkallu BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 3’ sūqu Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 4, 15 ṣibâtu, in akī ṣ. CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 45 ṣibittu, in qāt ṣ. BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 17 ṣibtu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 3 ṣibûtu, in ana ṣ. BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 12 ša muḫḫi sūti BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 8’ ša rēš šarri BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 10 š.r.š. ša muḫḫi gišri BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 15 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 1 š.r.š. bēl piqitti Eanna BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Akkadian Words and Phrases šaʾālu BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 6 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 6 BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 6 BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 3, 5’ BM 67534+ (Text no. 10): 3, [6] BM 65893 (Text no. 11): [4] BM 74466 (Text no. 12): 4 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 12 BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 10’ šakānu, in pâ ēda š. CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 14 šākin ṭēmi š.ṭ. Bābili BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 11’, 12’, 25’, 28’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 2, 21, 28, 33, 54, [57] BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 5” BM 67225 (Text no. 28): u.e. BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 6’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 11 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): l.h.e. š.ṭ. Barsip BM 32175 (Text no. 15): 5’, 12’ š.ṭ. Dilbat BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): [2], 15 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 10 š.ṭ. Kūtê BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 6 š.ṭ. Uruk BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 13, 19 šaknu, in š. Māt Akkadî BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 3’ šalāmu CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 19’ BM 64271 (Text no. 49): [12] BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 10 (D) BM 26651 (Text no. 44): 11 šalāṭu BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 11 šangû Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 5 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 12 BM 63845 (p. 123): 9 š. Akkad BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): [2, 26]

257

BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 7, 14 BM 63845 (p. 123): 11 š. Sippar BM 63551 (Text no. 5): 3 BM 67595 (Text no. 6): 2 BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 2 BM 84059 (Text no. 8): 4 BM 83623 (Text no. 9): 1 BM 65893 (Text no. 11): [1] BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 3, 8 BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 7, 9, 10 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 2, 9, [23] Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 2, [18], 24, 35 BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 2, 26 BM 101541 (Text no. 24): [2, 6’] BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [4’] CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 20’ BM 114730 (Text no. 33): 3, 9 BM 62918 (Text no. 40): [3] BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 9’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 6, 16 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): [4] šanû (verb, D) CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 17 See also amatu šanû (noun) BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 12, 13 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 10 š. ša bīt Amukāni BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 4 š. ša Piqūdu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 6 š. ša Tâmti BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 12, 18 šapāru BM 77907 (Text no. 35): [11] BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 24 šāpiru BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 15 šarru. See mār šarri; mār šipri ša šarri; passim in the title šar Bābili šasû. See šaṭāru; tuppu; uʾiltu šatammu, in š. Eimbianu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 4 šaṭāru (verb) BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 7’

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

258

Indices

šaṭāru (verb, continued) BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 14 See also kangu; kunukku; šaṭāru (noun); tuppu šaṭāru (noun) BM 63339 (Text no. 42): 7’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 11 BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 10 š. šasû BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 14 š. šaṭir BM 67747 (Text no. 25): 4’ šēḫu BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 5, 11, 14 šemû BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 11 BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 8 CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 21 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 29 šībūtu BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 12, 13 BM 64105 (Text no. 34): 6 š. āli BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 7 BM 65893 (Text no. 11): 2 BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 12’, 26’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 22, 28, 33 BM 70214 (Text no. 19): 4” BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 8, 10 BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 10 Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 24 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 8’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 7 Cyr. 243 (p. 71): 5 šiddu BM 101913 (Text no. 7): 10 šigiltu BM 65307 (Text no. 21): 6 šimtu š. abālu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 11, 12 BM 68991 (Text no. 27): 3’? ana š. alāku CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 10, 47 šīmu BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 7’

šipirtu BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 2 širʾam BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 15 širkatu BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 1 širku BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 2 BM 64271 (Text no. 49): 6 šugarrû BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 2 šukuttu BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 5 šum ili BM 63755 (Text no. 18): [9, 14] šūrubtu BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 16? šušānu BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 8’ tamirtu BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 5, 12 tamû BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 3, 12 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 22 târu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 15 BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 1 BM 114577 (Text no. 29): 21 BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 16 ana aḫāmeš t. CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 53 ina qātē t. BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 10 itti PN t. BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 8 t. u dabābu ... iānu BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 10–11 BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 22 (D) CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 20 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 18’ BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 16, 17 See also tuppu/kunukku lā t. u lā dabābi titurru BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Akkadian Words and Phrases tuppu BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 11 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 2’, 10’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 9 t. maḫīri CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 9’, 15’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 5 t. lā târi u lā dabābi BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 17–18 BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 9’ t. zitti BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): [1] t. barāmu BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 28’ t. kanāku BM 47475 (Text no. 16): 11 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 12’? BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 17 BM 49511 (Text no. 39): 9’ t. šasû CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 23 CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 12’ BM 59582 (Text no. 43): 5 t. šaṭāru BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 28’ CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 23, 54 ina t. edû (Š) CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 8 ina t. šaṭāru CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 7, 16, 17 BM 67747 (Text no. 25): [3’] ina kanāk t. šuāti CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 56 ina šaṭāri t. šuati BM 30155 (Text no. 13): 30’ tupšar (bīti) BM 74466 (Text 12): 2 BM 101541 (Text no. 24): 7’? BM 62918 (Text no. 40): 4 ṭâbu BM 63755 (Text no. 18): 6 ṭerdu BM 73118+ (Text no. 23): 7 uʾiltu BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 11 BM 40788+ (Text no. 4): 9, 12 BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 1, 6, 12

259

Marduk-rēmanni 8+ (Text no. 22): 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, [11], 12, 15, 25, 26, 28, [30] BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 17 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 15 BM 72743 (Text no. 51): 11 u. eʾēlu BM 38248 (Text no. 1): 3, 6 u. šasû BM 64626 (Text no. 20): 6 ina kanāk u. šuāti BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 11 udê BM 64970 (Text no. 3): 4 BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 9, 14 ultu pāni BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 2 ūmu, in ana ū. ṣâti BM 77907 (Text no. 35): 19 BM 47480+ (Text no. 36): 24 BM 77945 (Text no. 38): 12’ upīšu/ū CT 55 194+ (Text no. 26): 6’ uppadētu BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 19 uššu BM 108912 (Text no. 2): 9 uššuru CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 5 BM 47423 (Text no. 45): 9, 13? zakītu BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 1 zakû (D) BM 114550 (Text no. 30): 5, 16 zittu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 37, 52 BM 114591 (Text no. 31): 12 BM 33905 (Text no. 37): 5 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): 1, 7, 11 bēl z. BM 31355 (Text no. 47): 6 z. leqû CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 14 z. zâzu CT 55 126+ (Text no. 17): 19 BM 68563+ (Text no. 46): [1]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

260

Indices

Selected Akkadian Words and Phrases in Commentaries and Notes Cross-references lead to the General Index. aḫa nadû, 67 aḫšadarpanu, 77 aḫu rabû, 125 amat šarri. See royal orders arnum kabtum, 57 bāʾiru. See fishermen bēl ḫanšê, 168 bēl piqitti. See temple supervisors bēl qanâte, 168 bēl sūti. See rent farmers bēlē piqnēti, 44 bennu, 62 birītu, 159 bīšu, 28 bīt abi, 164 bīt āšib bābi, 164 bīt dīni. See courthouse bīt ili/ī, 31, 164 bīt kāri u rugbu, 179 bīt mār šarri, 44 bīt maṣṣarti, 72 bīt puṭ(ṭ)uri, 83, 84 bītu āšib bābi, 127, 163–64 danānu, 132 dayyānu. See judges dīnu, 66, 161, 164 enû, in lā īnû, 49, 50, 91, 161 ērib bīti. See temple enterers gerû, 94, 102, 130, 139 gillatu, 57 ḫanšû, 17 ḫazannu. See mayors ḫiṣbu, 33 ḫītu, 57 ḫūd libbi, 4, 130–32, 142, 145 ina tarṣi, 111 izuzzu ina muḫḫi ... i., 117 i. (Š), 50, 91, 161 kangu, 130, 140 kāṣiru, 33 kinattu, 149 kiništu. See temple assemblies kīnu, 125

kiṣru, 136, 169 kiṣru ša ṣēri, 137 kudurru, 41, 146–47 kullu, 84, 102 kūm nudunnê, 56–57 kunukku, 51, 101, 136, 140 larû, 186 leqû, in ištēntam leqû, 37 mandidu, 137, 171 mār bani, 29, 67, 83, 98, 109, 112, 114, 165, 169, 171 mār bīti, 77 mār šipri. See messengers mār zakīti, 106 maṣṣartu, 72 mašʾaltu, 19–21, 23–24, 27, 35–36 mašennu, 149–50 mukabbû. See cloth-menders mussû, 119, 130 mūṣû, 159 nāqidu, 97 nīdu, 29 nikkassu, 51 nīšu, 46, 61, 63 pâ ištēn/ēda šakānu, 59 pāḫātu. See governors palāḫu, 57 paqāru, 41, 51, 67 paqdu, 72 paqūdu. See policemen parāsu, 57 puḫru. See assemblies purussû, 66, 161 qabû, 139 qabuttu, 97 qāt ṣibitti, 84 qinnu, 137 qīpu. See residents quppu, 30 rab ālāni, 136–37, 142 rab bani, 20, 60, 137, 158 rab gišri, 69 rab ḫanšê, 168 rab kissati, 86

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

General Index rab napḫari, 95 rab qanâte, 110, 168 rab qašti. See chief archers rab quppi. See ša muḫḫi quppi rab sūti. See rent farmers rab ša rēši. See chief courtiers rab širkē. See chiefs of oblates rab umma, 133 rēʾû, 97 riksu, 82 sartennu, 108, 111, 146, 183 sarru, 84 sartu, 29, 100, 121 sepīru, 22, 44, 67, 83, 86, 109, 124–25 sillu tabnītu, 30 sipru, 27–29 sūqu, 17, 76, 78 simmagir, 108, 149–50, 159–60 sukkallu, 143, 145–47, 183 ša maṣṣarti, 72 ša muḫḫi bītāti. See house rent collectors ša muḫḫi ešrî. See tithe collectors ša muḫḫi gišri. See royal courtiers ša muḫḫi kurummat šarri, 30–31 ša muḫḫi quppi, 30, 69, 109, 111 ša muḫḫi sūti. See rent farmers ša rēš šarri. See royal courtiers šākin ṭēmi. See governors šaknu, 77 šakin māti. See country governors šangû. See high priests šanû. See deputy governors

261

šāpiru. See overseers šarāku, 105 šatammu. See temple administrators šaṭāru, 2, 58, 66, 159–60 šēḫu, 62–63 šībūtu. See elders šiddu, 24 šipirtu, 150, 170–71 širʾam, 84 širkatu. See oblates širku. See oblates šum ili, 63 šūrubtu, 137 šušānu, 86 taḫsistu, 114–15, 119 târu, 7–9, 103, 117 ina qātē t., 117 tašlīšu, 169 tuppu, 101, 130, 136, 140, 160 t. apilti, 136 tupšarru. See College scribes ṭēmu, 150 uʾiltu. See promissory notes udê, 11, 179 ultu pani, 111 uppadētu, 178–79 urbu u tēlītu, 137 ustarbarru, 77 zakītu. See oblates zakû. See oblates zakû (verb), 7, 105, 114 zazakku, 110, 168

General Index A accusations, 10, 25, 41, 61–62, 100, 129 of burglary, 83 dismissal of, 62 groundless, 82 of fraud, 29 fraudulent, 9, 62 of misappropriation, 28 withdrawal of, 62, 109 adjudicators, assembling of, 54, 61–62, 69–70, 75, 89, 108, 126

agency, 2–3, 76 agricultural land, 4, 13, 17, 40–42, 46, 48–49, 57–58, 95, 112–13, 115– 16, 138–40, 146, 152–53, 155, 174, 186 disputes over. See disputes, subject matter of, agricultural land division of, 172, 175 farming, 6, 155 royal, 155 sale? of, 185 as security, 188

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

262

Indices

alternative dispute resolution, 1–18 arbitration, 9, 11, 15–16 mediation, 9, 11 negotiation, 1–3, 131–32, 161 animal husbandry, 6, 97–98, 112 antichresis, 39, 93, 183 Aramaic, 4, 11, 27–29, 110, 115. See also West Semitic arbitration. See alternative dispute resolution assemblies (puḫru), 16, 34, 66, 69, 71, 75, 104, 109–10, 126, 129–132, 134–36, 142–43, 155. See also temple assemblies (kiništu) B bail protocols, 86, 109, 111 release, 168 bakers, 37, 67–68, 93, 99, 151 boats, 69–72, 129–30 brewers, 17, 27, 36–37, 151, 174, 183–84 bridges, 69–72, 157–58 builders, 32–33 burglary, 82 business ventures, 6, 120, 163 C carpenters, 17, 32, 33 capture in the act, 82 cattle, 97, 101–2, 112, 188 charges. See accusations cloth-menders (mukabbû), 11 chief archers (rab qašti), 83 of the Sealand, 109 chief courtiers (rab ša rēši), 129, 133, 137 chiefs of oblates (rab širkē) of the Eanna, 86 of the Ebabbar, 10–12, 25–26 chi[ef? of ...], 23 claims, 3, 9, 29, 39–40, 109, 145, 158, 160, 167 dismissal of, 50, 55, 90 examination of, 39 renewal of, 10

submittal of, 48–49, 77, 85, 89, 94, 96, 102, 129, 134, 188 withdrawal of, 9, 11 clauses, 59 complaint, 62, 102 final, 16, 46, 66, 92–93, 101 quitclaim, 8, 16, 130 College scribes (tupšarru) of the Eanna, 83, 112, 116, 120 of the Ebabbar, 27, 36, 67, 85–86, 88, 120, 149–50, 174 confessions, 62, 69–71, 81, 84, 100, 109 courthouse, 164 country governors (šakin māti), 77, 109–10, 136, 143, 147 of Akkad, 145–46 of the Sealand, 77, 108–9 creditors, 2–3, 39–40, 45, 54, 56–57, 75, 95, 135–36, 158, 163, 173, 183, 188 crown prince, 27, 30, 44, 67 cultic purity, 61–62 curses, 134, 137, 139, 142–43 D debts, partial cancellation of, 2–4 dedication. See oblates defiant children, 57 denunciation, 61–62 deposits, 10, 62, 85 deputy governors (šanû) of Bīt-Amukānu, 104 of Dilbat, 165, 168 of Puqūdu, 87, 96, 98–99, 102 of the Sealand, 104, 107–8, 110–11, 121 of Tupliaš, 98 disputes, subject matter of agricultural land, 13, 40, 48–49, 113, 116, 138–39, 152 alleys and exit streets, 157, 159–60 boats, 69–71, 129–30 houses and urban plots, 2–3, 5–7, 25, 43, 48–50, 55, 58, 64, 85, 89–90, 98, 157–60, 163 jewelry, 10 sheep, 74–76

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

General Index disputes, subject matter of (continued) silver, 1–3, 39–40, 66, 74–76, 81– 82, 89, 135–36, 141–42, 159 slaves. See slaves, as objects of disputes donations. See gifts donkeys, 27, 30, 86, 98, 112, 119 dowries, 40, 54, 56–57, 131, 153 E elders (šībūtu), 97–100, 114–16, 126, 164 city (šībūt āli), 8, 13–14, 16–17, 34, 39, 41, 54–55, 58, 61–62, 64, 66, 69, 71, 75, 77, 79, 83, 88–91, 126, 157 epitropos, 170 escapes from the court, 66–67, 104, 109, 165, 167, 168 F family disputes brothers-in-law vs sisters-in-law, 159 brothers vs brothers, 9 mothers vs sons, 56 grandmothers vs grandchildren, 54–58 family members as co-litigants brothers, 13 fathers and sons, 69–71, 157–61 mothers and sons, 66–67, 89–90 sisters, 38–40 fear of court, 109 fishermen, 61–63 fraud, 8, 27–30, 69, 100, 102, 108, 188 G garments, 81–82, 84, 123–24 gates, 13, 17, 32, 110, 126–27, 162–64 Gate of Judgement, 109–10, 163 Gate of Oath, 163 Great Gate of the Eanna, 104, 109–10 Great Gate of the Ebabbar, 24 palace, 164 Uraš Gate, Babylon, 41 Zababa Gate, Babylon, 42

263

gifts, 56–57, 59, 69, 92, 105–7 gold, 32–33, 124 goldsmiths, 32–33, 67, 79, 183 governors (pāḫātu) of Babylon(ia), 146, 170 of Babylon and Across-the-River, 74, 77 of Across-the-River, 133 governors (šākin ṭēmi), 17, 46, 95, 132, 136, 142–43, 147, 183 of Babylon, 39, 41–42, 50, 54–55, 58, 64, 74, 76–77, 94–95, 132, 141–43, 158–61, 173, 175–76 of Bīt-Amukāni, 98, 104 of Borsippa, 46, 116 of Cutha, 138–39, 142 of Dilbat, 17, 134–37, 142, 165, 168–69 of Uruk, 104, 107–8, 111, 116, 146 guarantees, 29–30, 112, 142, 149 H ḫanšû, 13 herdsmen, 97–98 high priests (šangû), 17, 108, 188 of Akkad, 22, 81, 83, 122–25 of Sippar, 19, 21–23, 25, 27, 30, 34–36, 61–63, 66, 69–71, 74– 77, 81, 83, 85–91, 93, 122–24, 133, 149–50, 155, 158, 160, 176 house rent collectors (ša muḫḫi bītāti), 174, 176 houses and urban plots disputes over. See disputes, subject matter of, houses division of, 172, 174–75 in antichresis, 39–40 joint ownership of, 49 private, 2–3, 5–7, 17, 39–40, 42–44, 48–50, 55, 58, 61?, 64, 66, 74, 81?, 85, 89–90, 98, 126, 157–60, 163, 165–66, 169, 172, 174–76, 178–79, 182–84 rental of, 178–79, 182–83 size of, 44, 51, 174–75 temple, 25, 61?

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

264

Indices I

immigrants, 14, 16–17, 58, 77, 79, 136 inheritance, 3, 40 division of, 46, 54–59, 112, 172, 174–76 interrogation, 18–37, 69–70, 124, 168 J jeweler, 34 jewelry, 10 “joy of heart,” 2, 4, 129–32, 134, 142, 145 judges (dayyānu), 9, 15, 17, 43–44, 46– 52, 57–58, 98, 104–5, 107–10, 114– 21, 149–50, 152–54, 156, 159, 173, 175–78, 180–81, 183, 185–86, 188 of Gūbaru’s gate, 164 of Pūrušātu’s gate, 164 of the gate, 163–64 of the king, 108, 149, 188 of the palace gate, 164 of the šakin māti, 77 jurisdictions territorial, 98 of Babylon judges, 153, 176 of governors of Babylon, 58, 176 of Gūbaru, 77 of high priests, XII, 70 of rab qanâte, 168 K king’s daughter, 120 kudurrus, 41, 146–47 L Lāgāmal Street (Dilbat), 17, 51 Laws of Hammurabi, 57 lèse-majesté, 62 litigants communities, 116 family members. See family disputes; family members as colitigants oblates, 10–11, 165–67, 169

slaves, 69–70 West Semites, 89–90 women. See women as litigants M mayors (ḫazannu), 108 of Borsippa, 120 of Sippar, 74–75, 77–78 measurers, 59, 137, 171, 184 mediation. See Alternative Dispute Resolution memoranda, 113–27 mens rea, 100 messengers, 7, 10, 165, 167, 169 of the high priest, 77 of the king, 113, 116–17 misappropriation, 28, 30, 32–33 37, 106, 123–24 N negligance, 121 negotiations. See Alternative Dispute Resolution Neo-Babylonian Laws, 82, 100 Nergal-ša-hadê, 44 notaries, 44 O oaths, 7, 8, 14–16, 44, 61–63, 78–79, 100, 112, 116, 126, 155, 163, 169 by Bēl, Nabû, and adê of Cyrus and Cambyses, 46–47 by Bēl, Nabû, and adê of Nabonidus, 13 by Bēl, Nabû, and Darius, 163, 166 by Šamaš, 61, 75, 78, 126 See also perjury obedience to parents, 57 oblates, 25, 50, 86, 109, 116, 166, 168, 182 dedication of, 104–7, 167 as litigants, 11, 104, 165–67, 167, 169 misappropriation of, 86, 105–6 as objects of disputes, 104–7, 146 See also chiefs of oblates

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

General Index oil pressers, 151 offerings’ leftovers, 30 ordeal, 7, 8 overseers (šāpiru), 63, 72 of bakers (Ebabbar), 37, 67–68 of fishermen (Ebabbar), 61, 63 šāpir ekurrāte, 10 P paramonē, 105 penalties threefold, 81–82, 100, 149 fivefold, 97, 100 multiply, 100 pending verdicts, 10, 32, 98, 100, 108, 163 perjury, 62 pledge, 66–67, 183–84, 188 policemen (paqūdu), 69, 72, 110, 165, 168 prebends, 27, 37, 68, 109, 134–37, 171–75, 184 prebendaries, 27, 37, 61–63, 72, 75, 90, 112, 136–37, 158 price of water, 63 prison, 72, 83, 86, 110–11, 168 promissory notes (uʾiltu), 1–2, 10–11, 13, 63, 66–67, 74–76, 78–79, 112, 130, 134, 140, 153, 155, 172–73, 175, 179, 183–84, 188 protesting, 81–82 Q quay of Sippar, 25 quitclaim clauses, 8, 16, 130 tablets, 10–11 R rent farmers (bēl sūti, rab sūti, ša muḫḫi sūti), 33, 87–88, 155, 168 rental of donkeys, 119, 121 of land, 155, 174, 188 of houses, 39, 176, 178–79, 183 See also rent farmers

265

residents (qīpu) of the Eanna, 108, 111, 116, 120, 168 of the Ebabbar of Larsa, 119, 121 of the Ebabbar of Sippar, 19, 21– 23, 25, 32, 34, 36, 61, 63, 83, 122–24, 145, 147 of the Eulmaš, 81, 83 of the Sealand, 108 robbery, 82 royal courtiers (ša rēš šarri), 71, 104, 111 in charge of the bridge (ša muḫḫi gišri), 69–71 royal orders (amat šarri), 107 royal roads (ḫarrān šarri), 172, 174 S sack menders, 67 seals and sealing, 39–41, 48, 49, 51– 52, 55, 91, 94–95, 112, 129, 131, 134–35, 138, 140, 142, 145, 152, 154, 173, 176, 178, 180–81, 183, 185–86 sheep, 8, 74– 76, 97–98, 100, 112 silver, 54, 64, 67, 71, 121, 156 in antichresis, 39–40, 182–83 arrears, 174, 176 as damages, 101–2, 119, 129–31, 134–36, 140, 142, 145, 149–50 deposits, 85 disputes over. See disputes over silver exchanged for gold, 32 loans, 112, 173, 175–76, 183–84. See also silver, promissory notes for as payment instrument, 37, 82, 112 promissory notes for, 1–3, 10–11, 63, 66, 74–76, 180 as provisions, 30 receipts of, 178 as rent, 174, 176, 178 theft of. See theft of silver value of garments in, 81 slaves, 27, 167, 170 bad records of, 30 bequest of, 93, 105–8 claimed to be oblates, 104–8, 167

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

266

Indices

slaves (continued) as litigants, 69–70 as objects of disputes, 39–40, 50, 54–58, 92, 94, 104–8, 145, 160 sale of, 29–30, 62, 86, 159, 184 as security, 66, 93 as suspects and criminals, 21, 24, 32–33, 111 as witnesses, 129–30, 133 summoning of parties to trials, 15, 33, 54, 70, 75, 77, 79, 81 of witnesses, 75, 163–64 of oath-takers, 63 superscriptions, 110 T tablets, 89–90 copying of, 80 markings on, 23–27, 30, 34, 112, 127 of no return and no contest (tuppi lā târi u lā dabābi), 129, 131, 134, 139, 142, 145 of satisfaction (kunukki/tuppi apilti), 134, 136 temple administrators (šatammu) of the Eanna, 86, 108, 111–12 of the Eimbianu, 135, 145, 165–66, 169, 171 of the Ezida, 116 of Kisikku, 86 temple assemblies (kiništu) of the Eanna, 28 of the Ebabbar, 21–23, 32, 36, 61– 62, 124 of the Eulmaš, 21–22, 24, 83, 124 temple enterers (ērib bīti) of the Ebabbar, 20–23, 27, 32, 36– 37, 61–62, 66–67, 69–71, 75, 77, 79, 83, 88–91, 145, 150–51, 157–58, 160, 174–75, 183

of the Eulmaš, 21–22, 24, 124 of the temple of Uraš, 13–14 temple property 25, 70, 100, 105, 145 theft of, 28, 32–33, 37, 98, 101–2, 149 misappropriation of, 30, 37 temple scribes. See College scribes temple supervisors (bēl piqitti) of the Eanna, 104, 108–9, 111–12 testimonies, 37, 61, 69–71, 101, 105, 166, 169 theft of animals, 8, 98, 101–2, 121 of boats, 70 of dates, 37 of flour, 100 of gold, 32, 33 of jewelry, 10 of silver, 28, 82–84, 149 tithe collectors (ša muḫḫi ešrî), 68 title confirmation, 49–50, 89, 91, 157, 159–61 trustees, 2–3 W waivers of suits clauses, 166, 169 tablets, 129, 131, 134, 139, 142, 145 washermen, 10–11, 32–33, 37 weavers, 11, 18, 36–37 West Semitic, 11, 49, 70, 90, 95, 98– 99, 121, 126 West Semites, 49, 98. See also West Semitic wool, 122 women as litigants, 10–11, 39–41, 46, 54– 58, 62, 65, 66–67, 85–86, 89– 90, 92–93, 104–5?, 108 as witnesses, 2, 4, 40

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Texts Cited

267

Texts Cited 5R 67 1 .......................... 43, 46, 58, 185 ABL 254.......................................... 139 ABL 292............................................ 28 Abraham, OLP 28 no. 1................... 177 Abraham, OLP 28 no. 3................... 173 Abraham, OLP 28 no. 4 = Liv. 25.... 153, 173, 177 Abraham, OLP 28 no. 5................... 176 AM 13 ............................................... 44 AM 14 = Liv. 130 .............................. 42 AM 16 ................................................. 3 AM 19 ................................................. 3 Amēl-Marduk 7 = Amēl-Marduk 8 ...... 3 AnOr 8 33.......................................... 98 AnOr 8 39........................................ 100 AnOr 8 48.......................................... 29 AnOr 8 74................................ 105, 108 AnOr 9 19........................................ 115 AUWE 5 136................................... 132 AUWE 8 10..................................... 112 AUWE 8 41....................................... 99 AUWE 8 53....................................... 99 AUWE 8 54....................................... 99 AUWE 8 82L .................................... 99 AUWE 8 89..................................... 117 AUWE 11 206 ................................. 116 AUWE 11 229 ................................. 105 BaAr 2 9 ............................................ 84 BaAr 2 10 .......................................... 56 BaAr 2 20 .......................................... 93 BaAr 2 42 .............................. 41–42, 58 BaAr 2 46 .................................... 46, 58 BaAr 2 48 .......... 11, 59, 62, 66, 159–60 BaAr 4 53 .......................................... 11 BaAr 5 20 .... 129–30, 136, 139, 142–43 BBSt 10 ................................... 139, 146 BBSt 28 ............................................. 45 BE 8 2.............................................. 131 BE 8 29.............................. 114–15, 119 BE 8 42............................................ 114 BE 8 80............................................ 116 BE 9 75............................................ 120 BE 10 126.......................................... 51 Bēl-rēmanni: 129–130 ..................... 109 Bēl-rēmanni: 142–43 ........... 20, 27, 174 Bēl-rēmanni: 144–45 ....................... 158 Bēl-rēmanni: 147............................. 158 Bēl-rēmanni: 148–49 ....................... 184 Bēl-rēmanni: 151–52 ....................... 176

Bēl-rēmanni: 153 ............................ 158 Bēl-rēmanni: 203–5 ................ 174, 176 Bēl-rēmanni: 211 .............................. 79 Bēl-rēmanni: 213–14....................... 174 Bēl-rēmanni: 247–48....................... 184 Bēl-rēmanni: 251–52....................... 168 Bertin 933. See BM 30229 Bertin 1138. See BM 63817 Bertin 1493. See BM 63845 Bertin 2430. See BM 74518 Bertin 2475. See BM 74593 Bertin 2531. See BM 74522 Bertin 2555. See BM 31824 Bertin 2564. See BM 74523 Bertin 2565. See BM 55785 Bertin 2692–3. See BM 55784 Bertin 2718. See BM 74559 Bertin 2720–1. See BM 74550 Bertin 2738. See BM 74610 Bertin 2749. See BM 31273 Bertin 2772. See BM 31363 Biggs, Festschrift de Meyer ............ 173 BIN 1 9 ........................................... 117 BIN 1 56.......................................... 117 BIN 1 112........................................ 100 BIN 1 134........................................ 102 BIN 1 142........................................ 114 BIN 2 132........................................ 146 BIN 2 134............................ 46, 77, 116 BM 26504 ......................................... 17 BM 26651 (Text no. 44) ................. 127 BM 29029. See Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 BM 30229 = Bertin 933 .................. 158 BM 30957 ....................................... 149 BM 31273 = Bertin 2749 ................ 179 BM 31363 = Bertin 2772 ................ 179 BM 31670 ....................................... 114 BM 31800 (Text no. 48) ......... 153, 178 BM 31824 = Bertin 2555 ................ 178 BM 33905 (Text no. 37)...129–30, 142 BM 34518 ....................................... 183 BM 35527 ......................................... 56 BM 38248 (Text no. 1) ................... 132 BM 40788 + BM 40823 (Text no. 4)...58, 126, 163 BM 40823. See BM 40788 BM 43881 (Text no. 41) ......... 181, 185 BM 47377 ....................................... 114 BM 47423 (Text no. 45) ................... 72

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

268

Indices

BM 47475 (Text no. 16)...16–17, 90– 91, 161 BM 47480 + BM 47783 (Text no. 36) ..........16–17, 51, 129–132, 142, 145 BM 47729 ....................................... 170 BM 47783. See BM 47480+ BM 48734 ......................................... 46 BM 48758 ............................... 114, 170 BM 49166 ....................................... 148 BM 49382 ....................................... 100 BM 49461 ....................................... 189 BM 49511 (Text no. 39) ... 129–31, 143 BM 49686 ....................................... 186 BM 49700 ....................................... 186 BM 49743 ....................................... 186 BM 54193 ......................................... 45 BM 55784 = Bertin 2692–3 ............ 184 BM 55785 = Bertin 2565 .................. 93 BM 58762 ....................................... 114 BM 59015 ......................................... 83 BM 59757. See CT 55 126+ BM 59582 (Text no. 43).......50, 58, 64, 66–67, 70, 91 BM 61189 ......................................... 60 BM 61474. See CT 55 194+ BM 62534 ......................................... 83 BM 63551 (Text no. 5) ..................... 27 BM 63755 (Text no. 18) ................... 59 BM 63817 = Bertin 1138 .................. 59 BM 63845 =Bertin 1493 ........... 123–25 BM 64007 ......................................... 37 BM 64105 (Text no. 34) ................. 164 BM 64626 (Text no. 20) ........... 79, 109 BM 64627 ......................................... 88 BM 65172. See Marduk-rēmanni 8 BM 65307 (Text no. 21) ............. 59, 66 BM 65339 + BM 68761 .................... 83 BM 65513 ....................................... 114 BM 65893 (Text no. 11) ................... 23 BM 67225 (Text no. 28) ................. 139 BM 67595 (Text no. 6) ............... 24, 83 BM 67747 (Text no. 25) ................... 66 BM 68271 ......................................... 23 BM 68495 ......................................... 79 BM 68563 + BM 68965 (Text no. 46) ............................................... 46, 58 BM 68596 + BM 68704 .................... 11 BM 68761. See BM 65339+ BM 68942 ................................. 159–60 BM 68965. See BM 68563+ BM 70214 (Text no. 19) ................... 59

BM 73034. See CT 55 126+ BM 73118 + BM 84019 (Text no. 23) ................................22, 66, 100, 125 BM 74518 = Bertin 2430 ................ 184 BM 74522 = Bertin 2531 ................ 184 BM 74523 = Bertin 2564 .................. 93 BM 74550 = Bertin 2720–1 ............ 184 BM 74559 = Bertin 2718 ................ 184 BM 74593 = Bertin 2475 ................ 184 BM 74610 = Bertin 2738 ................ 184 BM 74932 ......................................... 11 BM 77907 (Text no. 35) ......... 135, 142 BM 77945 (Text no. 38) ......... 129, 131 BM 78980 ....................................... 143 BM 79158 ....................................... 148 BM 82775 ....................................... 114 BM 83623 (Text no. 9) ..................... 20 BM 84019. See BM 73118+ BM 84059 (Text no. 8) ..................... 23 BM 92717 ....................................... 185 BM 94716 ......................................... 17 BM 96151 ......................................... 17 BM 101541 (Text no. 24) ................. 66 BM 101913 (Text no. 7) ...21–23, 33, 83 BM 102293 ..................................... 175 BM 103505 (Text no. 32) ......... 114–15 BM 103660 ..................................... 114 BM 108912 (Text no. 2) ................. 114 BM 113340 ..................................... 114 BM 113414 ..........................106–7, 168 BM 114449 ..................................... 110 BM 114454 ..................................... 112 BM 114459 ..................................... 168 BM 114526 ................................. 106–7 BM 114548 ..................................... 107 BM 114552 = BM 114555........ 109–10 BM 114577 (Text no. 29) ............... 119 BM 114619 ..................................... 112 BM 114627 ..................................... 100 BM 114730 (Text no. 33) ........... 22, 83 BM 114803 ..................................... 132 Böhl 1936 no. 874 .......................... 117 Böhl 1936 no. 886 ............................ 51 Boissier, RA 23................................. 61 Bongenaar 1997: 102–3 .................... 67 Bongenaar, NABU 1993................... 30 BRM 1 73 ....................................... 111 Budge, PSBA 10............................. 143 Business and Politics 66 ................. 176 Business and Politics 86 ................. 179 Camb. 85......................................... 126

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Texts Cited Camb. 233 ....................................... 159 Camb. 240 ......................................... 63 Camb. 257 ......................................... 78 Camb. 276 ....................................... 158 Camb. 316 ....................................... 169 Camb. 412 ....................................... 126 Camb. 423 ......................................... 44 Camb. 426 ......................................... 47 CDCPP 61 ....................................... 117 CDCPP 79 ....................................... 100 CDCPP 82 ....................................... 158 CM 3 292 .......................................... 44 CM 20 84 .......................................... 57 CM 20 111....................................... 185 CT 4 41b.......................................... 184 CT 22 6.............................................. 40 CT 22 35.......................................... 132 CT 22 36.......................................... 132 CT 22 73.......................................... 171 CT 22 174........................................ 106 CT 22 231........................................ 107 CT 55 110.......................................... 33 CT 55 113........................................ 114 CT 55 124........................................ 114 CT 55 126 + BM 59757+ BM 73034 (Text no. 17)............................... 101 CT 55 133.......................................... 66 CT 55 193.......................................... 56 CT 55 194 + BM 61474 (Text no. 26) .......................... 49, 59, 62, 101, 161 CT 55 373.......................................... 26 CT 55 581.......................................... 24 CT 56 429.................................... 30–31 CT 56 519........................................ 174 CT 56 573.......................................... 24 CT 56 574.......................................... 24 CT 56 575.......................................... 24 CT 56 578.......................................... 24 CT 56 685.......................................... 37 CT 56 746.......................................... 63 CT 57 10 ....................... 22–23, 83, 124 CT 57 365 + CT 56 534 .................. 174 CT 57 573.......................................... 66 CT 57 635.......................................... 90 CT 57 743........................................ 127 CTMMA 3 7.................................... 117 CTMMA 3 23.................................... 16 CTMMA 3 81.................................... 17 CTMMA 3 92.................................. 158 CTMMA 3 117................................ 170 CTMMA 3 133................................ 131

269

CTMMA 4 7 ..................................... 27 CTMMA 4 24 ................................... 20 CTMMA 4 41 ................................... 37 CTMMA 4 136 ............................... 136 Cyr. 23 .............................................. 72 Cyr. 48 .............................................. 42 Cyr. 64 .............................................. 18 Cyr. 128 .......................................... 159 Cyr. 158 .......................................... 168 Cyr. 175 ............................................ 63 Cyr. 199 ............................................ 67 Cyr. 243 ................................ 69, 71–72 Cyr. 271 ............................................ 67 Cyr. 281 .......................................... 126 Cyr. 285 ............................................ 67 Cyr. 301 ............................................ 66 Cyr. 302 ............................................ 15 Cyr. 312 .................................... 46, 158 Cyr. 332 .....59, 62, 66, 82, 88, 126, 167 Cyr. 339 ............................................ 93 Cyr. 347 .......................................... 143 Cyr. 349..................................... 82, 100 Czechowicz, RAI 47 ........... 104–5, 108 Dar. 260 .......................................... 109 Dar. 351 .......................................... 179 Dar. 379 ............................................ 44 Dar. 410 .......................................... 149 Dar. 417 .......................................... 173 Dar. 435 .................................. 175, 185 Dar. 437 .......................................... 173 Dar. 497 .......................................... 173 Dar. 498 ............................................ 44 deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2. See Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 9................. 14 deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 16......... 4, 148 deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 21............... 14 Deller, Fales, and Jakob-Rost, SAAB 9 no. 111 ........................................... 8 Documentes cunéiformes 355. See Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 Documentes cunéiformes 475 ........... 98 Ea-ilûta-bâni: 39/252 ........................ 45 Ea-ilûta-bâni: 106/249–250 .............. 45 Edinburgh 69 .......... 43, 46, 58, 94, 101 Entrepreneurs and Empire 22 ........... 95 Entrepreneurs and Empire 106 ....... 110 Entrepreneurs and Empire 108 ......... 51 Ezida 127 ........................................ 163 Ezida 135 ........................................ 131 Ezida 220 .................................... 8, 130

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

270

Indices

Field Plans 6 ................................... 170 Figulla, Iraq 13................................ 100 FLP 1584........................................... 98 FLP 1599......................................... 158 Garments II 626 ................................ 37 Garments II 639 ................................ 11 GCCI 1 65 ....................................... 112 GCCI 1 355 ....................................... 31 GCCI 1 394 ..................................... 112 GCCI 2 65 ....................................... 110 GCCI 2 84 ....................................... 133 GCCI 2 195 ..................................... 114 GCCI 2 395 ..................................... 171 Geller, Festschrift Greenfield............ 61 HSM 1895.1.1 ................................. 185 Hunger, BaM 5 no. 13....................... 16 Hunger, BaM 5 no. 15............... 129–30 Hunger, BaM 5 no. 29..................... 114 Hunger, BaM 5 no. 30..................... 114 Hunger, BaM 5 no. 31..................... 114 Hunger, BaM 5 no. 32..................... 114 IM 57901........................................... 45 Istanbul Murašû 18 ........................... 51 Istanbul Murašû 70 ......................... 120 Istanbul Murašû 105 ......................... 77 Jursa, AfO 53 ............................ 17, 191 Jursa, ArOr 63 no. 2 ........................ 174 Jursa, ArOr 63 no. 3 ........................ 174 Jursa, Iraq 59 no. 8 .......................... 111 Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 1 ................ 108, 149–50 Jursa, Paszkowiak, Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 2 ...................................... 117 Jursa, Paszkowiak, and Waerzeggers, AfO 50 no. 3 ................................ 95 Jursa, RA 97.................................... 185 Jursa, WZKM 86....................... 83, 125 Jursa, WZKM 87 no. 1............ 101, 184 Jursa, WZKM 94 no. 4.................... 109 Jursa, WZKM 94 no. 5................ 28, 46 Kessler, BaM 37.............................. 111 Kessler, Philippika 24 ..................... 108 Kish 3, pl. 16 [W 1929.142] ............ 133 Kleber and Frahm, JCS 58 ... 86, 110, 168 Landwirtschaft 24 ............................. 11 Leichty, AnSt 33 ............................. 130 Leichty, Festschrift Reiner... 9, 130–31, 140 Liv. 25. See Abraham, OLP 28 no. 4 Liv. 87. See Nbn. 293 Liv. 98. See Nbn. 356

Liv. 130. See AM 14 Lutz, UCP 9/2 36 ............................ 105 Lutz, UCP 9/2 38 ...................... 47, 116 Lutz, UCP 9/2 39 ...................... 47, 116 Lutz, UCP 10/9 ................................. 16 MacGinnis, Festschrift Postgate no. 1 .. 42 MacGinnis, Festschrift Postgate no. 2 .. 42 MacGinnis, Iraq 60 no. 9 ................ 168 MacGinnis, JCS 60 ......149–50, 169–70 MacGinnis, JEOL 40 no. 1 ............. 174 Marduk-rēmanni 2 ............................ 86 Marduk-rēmanni 8 + BM 65172 (Text no. 22).................................... 66–67 Marduk-rēmanni 12 ................ 155, 173 Marduk-rēmanni 33 .......................... 15 Marduk-rēmanni 37 ........................ 158 Marduk-rēmanni 38 ........................ 158 Marduk-rēmanni 81 .......................... 76 Marduk-rēmanni 101 ...................... 173 Marduk-rēmanni 102 .........158, 173–74 Marduk-rēmanni 105 ................ 36, 158 Marduk-rēmanni 118 ...................... 173 Marduk-rēmanni 162 ...................... 120 Marduk-rēmanni 166 ...................... 183 Marduk-rēmanni 185 ...................... 155 Marriage Agreements 5 .................... 60 Nappāḫu 15......................153, 178, 181 NBC 4842 ......................................... 98 NBDMich 24 .................................... 95 NBDMich 56 .................................... 95 Nbk. 4................................................ 44 Nbk. 12.............................................. 84 Nbk. 31............................................ 133 Nbk. 67.............................................. 40 Nbk. 109.............................108, 114–15 Nbk. 116.......................................... 168 Nbk. 124.......................................... 114 Nbk. 164...................................... 44, 46 Nbk. 172............................................ 18 Nbk. 201............................................ 29 Nbk. 342.......................................... 114 Nbk. 344.......................................... 114 Nbk. 361.......................................... 100 Nbk. 374.......................................... 185 Nbk. 421.......................................... 168 Nbk. 436.......................................... 100 Nbk. 438.......................................... 133 Nbk. 439.......................................... 114 Nbn. 9 ............................................... 44 Nbn. 26 ..............................143–44, 164 Nbn. 50 ............................................. 44

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Texts Cited Nbn. 53 ............................................ 159 Nbn. 65 .............................................. 18 Nbn. 67 .............................................. 18 Nbn. 102 .......................................... 167 Nbn. 116 ............................................ 42 Nbn. 212 ............................................ 86 Nbn. 293 = Liv. 87 ............................. 95 Nbn. 356 = Liv. 98 ............... 50, 59, 161 Nbn. 608 .......................................... 183 Nbn. 662 .......................................... 123 Nbn. 697 ............................................ 93 Nbn. 720 = TCL 13 219 .......... 100, 186 Nbn. 776 .......................................... 183 Nbn. 817 ............................................ 42 Nbn. 824 ............................................ 30 Nbn. 855 .......................................... 143 Nbn. 1005 .......................................... 95 Nbn. 1113 .......................................... 70 NCBT 517 ............................... 119, 121 Neriglissar 88.................................... 59 Nielsen, AfO 53 no. 2........................ 51 Oaths and Curses O.80 ..................... 47 Oaths and Curses O.83 ..................... 82 Oaths and Curses O.205 ..................... 2 Oaths and Curses O.262 ................. 101 Oaths and Curses O.265 ............. 10, 66 OECT 10 152 .................................. 173 OECT 10 241 .................................... 95 OECT 10 391 .................................... 14 OECT 10 392 ............................ 14, 137 OECT 10 393 .................................... 14 OECT 10 395 .................................... 17 OECT 10 396 ............ 14, 131, 137, 163 OECT 10 397 .................................... 14 OIP 114 23 .......................................... 7 OIP 114 110 ........................................ 8 OIP 122 38 .............. 50, 59, 104–8, 167 Payne, RA 102 ................................ 100 Pedersén, OrSuec 50 no. 4................. 16 Peek 7 ................................................ 37 Peek 18 .............................................. 69 Peiser, OLZ 7 .................................... 93 Pinches, BOR 1 1 .............................. 18 Pinches, JTVI 57 ............................... 22 Pirngruber, RA 111 ......................... 106 PTS 2195 ......................................... 109 Revillout and Revillout, BOR 2: 119 ... 93 Revillout and Revillout, PSBA 9...... 93, 123 ROMCT 2 6....................................... 98 ROMCT 2 33..................................... 45

271

ROMCT 2 35 .................................. 120 ROMCT 2 38 .... 119, 129–30, 132, 142 Roth, AfO 36/37 no. 7..................... 184 Roth, Festschrift Oelsner no. 1 ......... 50 Roth, JAOS 111: 32 .......... 153, 176–78 Roth, JAOS 111: 32–33 .................. 178 Roth, JAOS 111: 33–34 .......... 178, 181 Rutten, RA 41 ............................... 8, 57 SAA 6 133 ........................................ 82 SAA 10 163 .................................... 139 SAA 10 164 .................................... 139 SAA 18 56 ...................................... 139 SAA 18 131 .................................... 139 SAA 18 160 ...................................... 45 SAA 18 161 ...................................... 45 SAA 18 181 .................................... 146 SAKFl 155....................................... 171 Sandowicz, Iraq 76 no. 1................. 111 Sandowicz, NABU 2009/14.............. 28 Sandowicz, Palamedes 6....62, 66, 79, 88 SbB 1 77 .......................................... 168 SbB 1 79 ............................................ 40 Scheil, RA 12 ..... 59, 100–101, 119–20, 167 Scheil, RA 14.XXXIV ...................... 10 Scheil, RA 18 no. 35 = deJong Ellis, JCS 36 no. 2 = Documents cunéiformes 355 = BM 29029..... 16, 130, 132, 135, 142, 145 Scheil, RT 17.XIII/3..........................16 Spar, Festschrift Jones 3 ............. 27–28 Steinmetzer, Festschrift Deimel.... 146–47 Stigers, JCS 28 no. 6 ......................... 83 Stigers, JCS 28 no. 22 ..................... 170 Stigers, JCS 28 no. 28 ....................... 95 Stolper, RA 85 no. 2 ....................... 164 Strassmaier, 8. Congress no. 4....129, 132, 142 Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 5... 119, 130, 142 Strassmaier, ZA 3 no. 16................. 178 Strassmaier, ZA 4 no. 7................... 155 Strassmaier, ZA 4 no. 11................... 44 STT 400 .......................................... 107 TBER 58 = TBER 59 .............. 110, 186 TBER 60/61 ........................ 105–8, 116 TCL 12 4 ......................... 119, 130, 142 TCL 12 32 ....................................... 131 TCL 12 36 ....................................... 105 TCL 12 77 ......................................... 98 TCL 12 106 ..................................... 100 TCL 12 117 ..................................... 109

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

272

Indices

TCL 13 170 ..................................... 167 TCL 13 183 ..................................... 115 TCL 13 193 ..................... 120, 173, 175 TCL 13 196 ....................................... 69 TCL 13 212 ..................................... 114 TCL 13 218 ....................................... 45 TCL 13 219, see Nbn. 720 Tempel und Palast 9........................ 112 Tempel und Palast 24.............. 114, 116 Tempelzehnt 7 ................................... 88 TMH 2/3 2 ...................................... 159 TMH 2/3 23 .................................... 131 TMH 2/3 35 ...................................... 95 TMH 2/3 41 ...................................... 67 TMH 2/3 147 .................................... 51 TMH 2/3 211 .................................. 137 UET 4 103......................................... 95 UET 4 133......................................... 69 UET 4 200....................... 129–131, 143 UET 4 201................................. 130–31 VAS 1 35 ............................ 17, 51, 137 VAS 4 3 .............................................. 4 VAS 4 32 .................................. 47, 120 VAS 4 152 ...................................... 133 VAS 5 15 .......................................... 42 VAS 5 21 ............................ 93, 136–37 VAS 5 52 ........................................ 163 VAS 5 74 = VAS 5 75 .............. 136–37 VAS 5 76 ........................................ 137 VAS 5 83 ........................................ 136 VAS 5 105 ...................................... 185 VAS 5 140 ........................................ 45 VAS 5 161 .............................. 137, 171 VAS 6 38 .......................................... 15 VAS 6 43 .......................................... 95 VAS 6 55 ........................................ 114 VAS 6 82 ........................................ 114 VAS 6 95 .......................................... 18 VAS 6 99 ........................................ 100 VAS 6 128 ................................ 46, 164 VAS 6 155 ...................................... 173 VAS 6 169 ........................................ 83 VAS 6 171 .............................. 120, 186 VAS 6 253 ...................................... 114 Verse Account ................................... 30 Waerzeggers, AfO 46/47 no. 5.......... 90 Walker, AfO 24 no. 17.................... 115 Walker and Kramer, Iraq 44 no. 5... 100 Weidner, AfO 16 no. 5........................ 4 Weidner, AfO 17............................... 45 Winkler, ZA 2: 168 ........................... 11

Wunsch, AfO 42/43 no. 13 ............. 178 Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 6 .. 50, 91, 159, 161 Wunsch, AfO 44/45 no. 29 ............. 185 Wunsch, AfO 50 no. 3 ...................... 36 Wunsch, AfO 50 no. 8 ...................... 11 Wunsch, AfO 50 no. 16 .................... 93 Wunsch, AulaOr. 17/18 .................... 40 Wunsch, AulaOr. 15 no. 12 .............. 94 Wunsch, CDLB 2004/1 ............ 98, 193 YBC 3526 ................................... 6–7, 9 YNER 1 2 ....................................... 100 YNER 1 5 ....................................... 114 YOS 3 17 ........................................ 117 YOS 3 133 ...................................... 117 YOS 6 10 .......................................... 62 YOS 6 35 ........................................ 115 YOS 6 37 ........................................ 112 YOS 6 56 ........................................ 105 YOS 6 57 ................................ 105, 111 YOS 6 58 ........................................ 112 YOS 6 79 = YOS 6 80 .................... 105 YOS 6 92................................. 101, 111 YOS 6 93 .......................................... 99 YOS 6 123 ........................................ 98 YOS 6 129 .................................. 105–7 YOS 6 137 ...................................... 106 YOS 6 143 ...................................... 112 YOS 6 154 .............................. 102, 105 YOS 6 169 = YOS 6 231 .......... 98, 100 YOS 6 179 ...................................... 100 YOS 6 184 ...........................97, 99, 102 YOS 6 196 ........................................ 29 YOS 6 208 ........................................ 98 YOS 6 213 .............................. 109, 111 YOS 6 222 ........................................ 61 YOS 6 223 ........................................ 32 YOS 6 224 ...................................... 106 YOS 6 225 ...................................... 112 YOS 6 240 .......................97, 99, 101–2 YOS 7 7 .................................... 98, 100 YOS 7 17 ........................................ 105 YOS 7 18 .......................................... 62 YOS 7 30 .................................... 46, 98 YOS 7 31 .......................................... 98 YOS 7 35 ........................................ 100 YOS 7 66 .................104–5, 107–8, 167 YOS 7 71 .......................................... 61 YOS 7 91 ........................................ 106 YOS 7 93 .......................................... 10 YOS 7 106 ...........................86, 110–11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Texts Cited YOS 7 114......................................... 86 YOS 7 132......................................... 98 YOS 7 137....................................... 110 YOS 7 140......................................... 98 YOS 7 155....................................... 111 YOS 7 159....................................... 109 YOS 7 189......................................... 98 YOS 7 192......................................... 84 YOS 17 295..................................... 115 YOS 17 320............................. 114, 168 YOS 17 359..................................... 168 YOS 19 2......................................... 112 YOS 19 59....................................... 121 YOS 19 66......................................... 83 YOS 19 90............... 8, 98, 114–15, 117 YOS 19 91........... 105–8, 111, 116, 167 YOS 19 92....................................... 111 YOS 19 93....................................... 168 YOS 19 101................................. 59, 70 YOS 19 113............................... 28, 112

273

YOS 19 115 .................................... 106 YOS 19 256 ................................ 30–31 YOS 19 291 ...................................... 31 YOS 21 203 .................................... 115 YOS 21 214 .................................... 115 Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich: 878 ....... 45 Zadok, Festschrift Dietrich: 885–86 ..................................... 149–50, 170 Zadok, NABU 1997 no. 2 ....... 153, 185 Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 2 ................................................... 155 Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 4 ................................................... 155 Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 10 ................................................... 175 Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 11 ................................................... 175 Zawadzki, Festschrift Calmeyer no. 8 ................................................... 173

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Copies

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate I

1

5

10

15

20

25

Text no. 1. BM 38248

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate II

1

5

10

15

Text 2. BM 108912

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate III

1

5

10

15

Text no. 3. BM 64970

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate IV

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text no. 4. BM 40788 + BM 40823

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate V

1

5

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 5. BM 63551

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate VI

1

5

1’

Text no. 6. BM 67595

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate VII

1

5

10

15

Text no. 7. BM 101913

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate VIII

1

5

1’

5’

Text no. 8. BM 84059

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate IX

1

5

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 9. BM 83623

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate X

1

5

10

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 10. BM 67534 + BM 68568

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XI

1

5

1’

Text no. 11. BM 65893

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XII

1

5

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 12. BM 74466

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XIII

1’

5’

10’

15’

20’

Text no. 13. BM 30155 Obverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XIV

25’

30’

35’

Text no. 13. BM 30155 Reverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XV

1’

5’

1’’

5’’

Text no. 14. BM 61432

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XVI

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 15. BM 32175

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XVII

1

5

10

15

20

25

Text no. 16. BM 47475

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XVIII

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text no. 17. CT 55 126 (BM 57645) + BM 59757 + BM 73034 Obverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XIX

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Text no. 17. CT 55 126 (BM 57645) + BM 59757 + BM 73034 Reverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XX

5

10

15

Text no. 18. BM 63755

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXI

1’

5’

1’’

5’’

Text no. 19. BM 70214

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXII

1

5

10

15

20

Text no. 20. BM 64626

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXIII

1

5

10

15

20

25

Text no. 21. BM 65307

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

15

10

5

1

Text no. 22. Marduk-rēmanni 8 + BM 65172, Obverse

Plate XXIV

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Text no. 22. Marduk-rēmanni 8 + B M 65172, Reverse

35

30

25

Plate XXV

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXVI

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text no. 23. BM 73118+ BM 84019

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXVII

1

5

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 24. BM 101541

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXVIII

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 25. BM 67747

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXIX

1’

5’

10’

15’

20’

Text no. 26. CT 55 194 (BM 58214) + BM 61474

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXX

1’

5’

10’

1’’

5’’

Text no. 27. BM 68991

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXI

1

5

1’

5’

Text no. 28. BM 67225

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXII

1

5

10

15

20

25

Text no. 29. BM 114577

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXIII

1

5

10

15

20

25

Text no. 30. BM 114550

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXIV

1

5

10

15

20

Text no. 31. BM 114591

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXV

1

5

10

15

Text no. 32. BM 103505

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXVI

1

5

10

15

Text no. 33. BM 114730

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXVII

1

5

Text no. 34. BM 64105

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXVIII

1

5

10

15

Text no. 35. BM 77907 Obverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XXXIX

20

25

30

Text no. 35. BM 77907 Reverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XL

5

10

15

20

25

Text no. 36. BM 47480 + BM 47783 Obverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLI

30

35

40

Text no. 36. BM 47480 + BM 47783 Reverse

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLII

1

5

10

15

Text no. 37. BM 33905

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLIII

1’

5’

10’

15’

20’

25’

Text no. 38. BM 77945

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLIV

1’

5’

10’

15’

Text no. 39. BM 49511

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLV

1

5

10

15

Text no. 40. BM 62918

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLVI

1

5

10

1’

5’

10’

15’

Text no. 41. BM 43881

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLVII

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 42. BM 63339

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLVIII

1

5

10

15

Text no. 43. BM 59582

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate XLIX

1

5

10

15

20

Text no. 44. BM 26651

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate L

1

5

10

15

20

25

Text no. 45. BM 47423

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate LI

1

5

10

15

1’

5’

10’

Text no. 46. BM 68563 + BM 68965

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate LII

1

5

10

15

20 Text no. 47. BM 31355

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate LIII

1

5

10

15

Text no. 48. BM 31800

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate LIV

1

5

10

15

20

Text no. 49. BM 64271

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate LV

1

5

Text no. 50 BM 50657

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)

Plate LVI

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text no. 51. BM 72743

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-072-7 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-073-4 (E-Book)