New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia, Qumran, Egypt and Idumea 9783161598944, 9783161598951

Citation preview

Orientalische Religionen in der Antike Ägypten, Israel, Alter Orient

Oriental Religions in Antiquity Egypt, Israel, Ancient Near East

(ORA) Herausgegeben von / Edited by Angelika Berlejung (Leipzig) Nils P. Heeßel (Marburg) Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg) Beirat / Advisory Board Uri Gabbay (Jerusalem) Michael Blömer (Aarhus) Christopher Rollston (Washington, D.C.) Rita Lucarelli (Berkeley)

40

New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia, Qumran, Egypt, and Idumea Proceedings of the Joint RIAB Minerva Center and the Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center of Jewish History Conference Research on Israel and Aram in Biblical Times II

Edited by

Aren M. Maeir, Angelika Berlejung, Esther Eshel, and Takayoshi M. Oshima

Mohr Siebeck

Aren M. Maeir is a full professor of archaeology at the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Angelika Berlejung is a professor for Old Testament Studies at the University of Leipzig, Germany, and professor extraordinaire for Ancient Near Eastern Studies at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Esther Eshel is an associate professor of Bible and Epigraphy at the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology and the Department of Bible, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Takayoshi M. Oshima is a privatdozent at the Altorientalisches Institut, the Faculty of History, Art, and Area Stuides, of the University of Leipzig, Germany.

ISBN 978-3-16-159894-4 / eISBN 978-3-16-159895-1 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159895-1 ISSN 1869-0513 / eISSN 2568-7492 (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents ANGELIKA BERLEJUNG and AREN MAEIR Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

I. New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia, Qumran, and Egypt ............................................................

3

FREDERICK MARIO FALES Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria: New Data and Old Issues ...................................... 5 YUVAL LEVAVI The Interaction Between Eanna and the Sealand in the Neo-Babylonian Period ....... 17 RAN ZADOK On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia from the Period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire down to the End of the Sasanian Period .................. 34 DANIEL MACHIELA The Aramaic Qumran Literature in Its Socio-Historical Setting ............................... 70 TAWNY L. HOLM Nanay(a) Among the Arameans: New Light from Papyrus Amherst 63..................... 92 BEZALEL PORTEN Papyrus Amherst 63: Rumination ............................................................................ 117

II. Idumean Ostraca

............................................................................................ 137

ANDRÉ LEMAIRE The Fourth-Century BCE Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea: Problems and Tentative Solutions .................................................................................................................. 139 ANDREW D. GROSS Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca: Alexander III or Alexander IV? ...................... 165 RAN ZADOK On the Documentary Framework, Terminology, and Onomasticon of the Ostraca from Idumea ............................................................................................................ 179

VI

Table of Contents

Index of Quoted Ancient Texts ............................................................................... 315 Index of Personal Names ......................................................................................... 317 Index of Divine Names ............................................................................................ 332 Index of Geographical Names ................................................................................. 333 Subject Index ........................................................................................................... 336 Index of Ancient Terms ........................................................................................... 341 Index of Modern Scholars ....................................................................................... 344

Introduction Angelika Berlejung and Aren M. Maeir The volume presented here is the second in the series, “Research on Israel and Aram in Biblical Times” (RIAB), in which research, conferences, and other activities of the “Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times” (aramisrael.org) are published. As in all activities of the RIAB Center, an attempt is made to focus on research and perspectives that provide insights on understanding the relations between the cultures of ancient Israel and Aram, and in particular, the question of the interdependence and/or autonomy of these two important cultures. No less significant are the ramifications of this for a broader view of the interactions and influences between various cultures in the ancient Near East, above and beyond those of Israel and Aram. In each of our conferences and workshops, we try to highlight a particular aspect of the topic. Since our historical research depends mainly on written sources, we organized two events in 2017 and 2018, which were dedicated to the special character of epigraphic sources that bear witness to the Arameans or to the Aramaic language and/or scripts. It is generally known that these sources are very diverse in terms of their temporal and spatial location as well as their social setting. For this reason, our first event, in Israel, was primarily concerned with taking this diversity into account and exploring it. It quickly became clear that the Aramaic texts known from Idumaea are so special and so extensive, that they required a separate workshop, which was then held in Leipzig the following year. Thus, the current volume includes papers presented at these two different events. The first event was a joint conference of the “Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times” and the “Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center for Jewish History,” of Bar-Ilan University (then directed by E. Eshel), which was held at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, and the Israel Institute of Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, on March 1–3, 2017. Among the papers delivered at this joint conference, six are published in the first section of this volume. The paper by Frederick Mario Fales discusses the fascinating issue of Aramaic inscriptions from Iron Age Assyria, most importantly including new, recently published material. The second contribution, by Yuval Levavi, concentrates on the complex relationship, official and personal, between officials of the Bīt-Yakīn tribes of the “Sealand” region of southern Babylonia, and officials of the Temple of Eanna in Uruk. Ran Zadok’s paper in this section (he has a second contribution in the second section of this volume) discusses and provides extensive name lists of the Aramean and indigenous populations, shedding light on their ongoing relations from the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in the late Iron Age until the end of the Sasanian Empire in late Antiquity. Daniel

2

Angelika Berlejung and Aren M. Maeir

Machiela discusses the socio-historical settings of the Aramaic literature from Qumran and places these Aramaic texts within the context of the use of Aramaic in general in the region, more specifically in Jewish communities during the “Second Temple Period.” The important Mesopotamian deity Nanāy(a) is discussed by Tawny L. Holm. She attempts to define this goddess, who appears in Papyrus Amherst 63 from Egypt, in an unusual linguistic as well as socio-historical context. The final paper in this section, by Bezalel Porten, discusses various aspects of this enigmatic Papyrus Amherst 63, including the history of its research, and whether or not the deity Bethel was venerated by the Jews of Elephantine. The last three articles of the volume include papers delivered at the workshop in Leipzig, organized by Bezalel Porten, on the hundreds of unprovenanced Aramaic ostraca from Idumea (southern Judah), dating to the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods. This workshop was held on May 14, 2018 at the Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, right before the beginning of the Third Annual Conference of the “Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times” that was also held in Leipzig. In the first paper, André Lemaire discusses various introductory issues relating to these ostraca. Andrew D. Gross’ paper focuses on a very special problem: identifying which King Alexander is mentioned in the ostraca, whether Alexander III or Alexander IV. The final paper, by Ran Zadok, provides an in-depth discussion of various terms and the onomastics of the Idumean ostraca. All told, the papers in this volume are a first attempt to provide a survey on the epigraphical dimensions covered by the research and activities of the “Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times.” Finally, we would like to thank our two co-editors for the contributions. Esther Eshel and the “Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center for Jewish History” generously assisted in the funding of the joint meeting in Ramat-Gan and Jerusalem in 2017, and for the costs of editing the volume. Takayoshi Oshima expertly edited the complex papers in this volume, turning it into the attractive book that it is. We would also like to thank our respective assistants, who helped in the organization of the meetings, including Amit Dagan, Shira Albaz, Maria Eunikhina, and Vanessa Workman for RamatGan/Jerusalem (2017), and Laura Gonnermann, Felix Hagemeyer, Thomas Hackl, and Meike Müller for Leipzig (2018), and finally, thanks to Bezalel Porten for suggesting and inviting the participants of the workshop on the Idumean Ostraca held in Leipzig. We are aware that this volume barely touches upon even an outline of the many aspects of Aramaic epigraphy, and we plan to explore this topic further in the years to come. It is the editors’ hope that the present volume offers a survey of the diversity of the sources – and of the continuous tension – between the unity and diversity of the manifestations of Aramaic language over time and space, and that it will inspire the reader to conduct further research.

I. New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia, Qumran, and Egypt The Joint Annual Conference of the Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times and the Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center for Jewish History Held on March 1–3, 2017 at the Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria New Data and Old Issues* Frederick Mario Fales I. Discoveries of Aramaic Texts on Neo-Assyrian Clay Tablets in Syria and Elsewhere Recent years have seen, in almost all of Syria and Iraq, the dramatic interruption of activities centered on international cultural cooperation – among which archaeological excavations stand at the fore – due to conditions of outright warfare or of hostile occupation of the territory. This dire contingency has of course forced many researchers customarily bound to a yearly routine of some months “in the field” to stick to their university libraries. It has resulted, however, on the positive side, in the publication of the tail-end of a set of Aramaic alphabetic texts written on clay tablets of the NeoAssyrian period, deriving from official excavations or from illicit digging activities, which had first appeared on the research scene in the 1990s. This newly attained state of the art thus provides the occasion for updating a set of conclusions on “multilingualism and multiple media in the Neo-Assyrian period,” which I published in 2007.1 On the other hand, as the title of this paper implies, the addition of newer and more complete data has, once all is said and done, brought only sporadic novelties to the basically flimsy methodological and factual fabric that forms “Assyro-Aramaic” research – even though one should not discount the altogether felicitous fact that its few frequent participants now display a more sophisticated and realistic approach to this subject-matter. Let us start by reviewing the evidence itself: I am obviously forced here to negotiate very rapidly and deftly among the essentials. In the first place, as is well known, the Neo-Assyrian period has left us some 6,000 documents on clay tablets of so-called “everyday” character/scope, from legal texts to administrative lists to letters, etc.2 Secondly, this corpus, made out in the cuneiform script of Neo-Assyrian date/type, also comprises some evidence of Aramaic epigraphy in alphabetic script (and specifically, in an ad hoc “argillary” alphabetic ductus, which constituted a transition from * The preliminary version of this paper was sent to the 2017 RIAB meeting, where it was read to the audience by a colleague. I am very glad to be contributing here to the publication of the proceedings, with many thanks to Aren Maeir and Angelika Berlejung for their friendly support. 1 FALES 2007. 2 For a history of Assyria viewed essentially from the perspective of the “everyday” documents of the NA period, see FALES 2001.

6

Frederick Mario Fales

monumental to cursive sign-shapes).3 These instances of Aramaic are attested on tablets mainly of the seventh century BCE from both public and private archaeological contexts, both in the heartland of Assyria and in the outlying provinces. Thirdly and finally, this alphabetically-written evidence may be typologically subdivided between (a) so-called “endorsements,” i.e., texts of 1–2 lines on the margins of cuneiform legal deeds, summarizing their contents, and (b) longer monolingual Aramaic “dockets,” 4 most frequently of a triangular shape but also in other formats, also prevalently of legal content. Only a bare minimum of tablets presents a bilingual Assyrian/Aramaic text in the two writing systems.5 How many Aramaic texts on clay tablets of the Neo-Assyrian period are at present available? The last three decades have shown this sub-corpus to be in a constant state of growth. In 2007, I reckoned the total to amount to some 200 texts: in this, I had already doubled my previous count (FALES 1986) of barely a hundred exemplars, which comprised the oldest-known texts from Nineveh, plus a smattering of evidence from the other Assyrian capitals (and most notably M. Lidzbarski’s texts from Assur), and – from the western part of the Assyrian Empire – the Tell Halaf Aramaic documents published by WEIDNER et alii in 1940.6 The 2007 count added a further number of limited but interesting archives in Aramaic script from the western areas of the empire, which had come to light during salvage excavations on the Upper Syrian Euphrates during the nineties, from Til Barsip/Tell Aḥmar (published by Bordreuil and Briquel-Chatonnet in 1996–97),7 and Burmarina/Tell Shiukh Fawqani (discovered by myself and published in 2005)8 – together with the ever-present quota of random tablets deriving from the antiquities market, assembled for publication by A. Lemaire.9 Already in the first decade of this millennium, however, a part of the finds in alphabetic script from the Berlin excavations at Dūr-Katlimmu/Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad on the Lower Ḫabur had been made available by W. Röllig – viz. the 61 “endorsements” appended to the Neo-Assyrian tablets published by K. Radner in 2002.10 And by that same time, through introductory articles by E. Lipiński, a certain cognizance had already been reached of the 24 monolingual Aramaic tablets of Neo-Assyrian date from an unidentified site called Maʼlanâ or Mallanate in antiquity, presumably from the Upper Ḫabur region, which – despite their illicit origin – had been acquired en bloc by the Royal Museums of Brussels. The last few years have thus merely brought these two activities of publication to their completion. In 2010, Lipiński presented the complete edition of his 24 Brussels documents, together with a rich commentary, as the concluding volume of his trilogy 3

See LIEBERMAN 1968. It may be recalled that, in British English usage, “docket” is a very broad term for “a document listing the contents of a consignment or package” thus having as its (modern technical) synonyms “coupon,” “voucher,” “certificate,” “receipt,” “label,” “tag,” etc. 5 See already FALES 2000; RÖLLIG 2000. 6 See FALES 1986. 7 BORDREUIL/BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1996–97. 8 See nos. 45–63 in FALES et al. 2005, II, 652–67. 9 LEMAIRE 2001. 10 See RÖLLIG apud RADNER 2002, 23–24 (list) and passim (transliterations). 4

Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria

7

of Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics,11 and in 2014, Röllig gave his complete edition of 220 texts and fragments (also comprising some ostraca) in alphabetic script from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad.12 Thus, the total of Aramaic texts on clay tablets of Neo-Assyrian date amounts at present to almost 500 documents, which is certainly not a negligible sum in itself (since it represents almost 10% of all the “everyday” documentation from this period), and one on which a more extended discussion than was possible before may be based.

II. Theoretical Issues of Language Definition: Post-Old Aramaic, (Pre-)imperial Aramaic, or Neither of the Two? The first issue to be tackled is one of historical-linguistic classification. These “Assyrian Aramaic” documents on clay tablets, prevalently of legal character, may be dated by and large after the fall of the independent Aramaic states in the Levant in the late eighth century BCE and reflect homogeneously the use of written Aramaic for everyday business purposes within areas of subsequent Assyrian political dominance – especially since they are consistently found alongside contemporaneous and partially related “deeds and documents” couched entirely in Neo-Assyrian cuneiform signs.13 They are thus, from the combined viewpoint of (a) the writing media employed, (b) the inter-textual relationships to which they give rise, and (c) the overall historical-cultural context of their production, to be viewed as distinct from the corpus of texts which may be assigned to the historical-linguistic bracket of “Old Aramaic.” This is based on how Old Aramaic is generally defined – even in its broadest acceptation, which includes ninth/eighth-century evidence from the entire area of the Jazirah under (partial or initial) Assyrian rule, such as the Tell Halaf “altar,” the Tell Fekheriye bilingual inscription, and the trilingual inscription from Raqqa.14 That said, however, the issue of whether our “Assyrian Aramaic” evidence should be regarded as an offshoot of Old Aramaic itself, or as a forerunner of an Imperial Aramaic bracket, or actually as neither of the two, still leaves scholars somehow divided. As was clarified by Margarete Folmer, the view that the official language of the Achaemenid period stemmed ultimately from a variety originating in NW Mesopotamia, around the Baliḫ and Ḫabur rivers was first suggested by Stephen Kaufman15. Somewhat similarly, Jonas Greenfield observed that what he called “Mesopotamian Aramaic” was at least one of the sources of later Imperial Aramaic.16 Counter to this approach, both Lipiński (2000) and Röllig (2000) invoke the influence of Old Aramaic 11

LIPIŃSKI 2010; see the critical comments on this work by FALES 2013b. RÖLLIG 2014. 13 This applies also to the texts from Mallanate, where a parallel Assyrian archive, also kept in Brussels, has only very recently been made available: cf. fn. 30, below. 14 I refer to the most recent treatise on the matter, viz. the grammar and anthology by FALES/ GRASSI 2016. 15 FOLMER 1995, 6; KAUFMAN 1974, 9. 16 GREENFIELD 1978. 12

8

Frederick Mario Fales

on subsequent developments in “Assyrian Aramaic” texts, mainly due to the fixed notion that “Imperial Aramaic” was not formed before the Achaemenid Empire, or at least not prior to the Neo-/Late Babylonian period. On the other hand, a number of phonological and orthographic developments in our corpus do, arguably, indicate avenues that will later be developed in Imperial Aramaic. If, however, we abandon the stiff grid of West Semitic historical-linguistic classification and take an approach from the wider sphere of (historical) sociolinguistics, we may attain a more flexible view of “Assyrian Aramaic,” bringing to the fore what its actual function might have been: viz. the particular form of Aramaic that came to be used as a sort of secondary or parallel vernacular within the late Assyrian Empire.17 In other words, the available textual evidence in Aramaic script on clay tablets should have been merely “the tip of the iceberg” of a relatively diffuse utilization of Aramaic as a written vehicle for “everyday” purposes within the social and economic mechanisms of the Assyrian Empire – with a corresponding, and possibly much more diffuse, spoken utilization of the West Semitic language acting as a wider theoretical backdrop. At the end of the day, then, the most adequate definition of “Assyrian Aramaic” might be exactly what this specific variety appears to have been: not necessarily the manifestation of a lingua franca – in the sense of a progressively spreading language among different peoples within a vast and multilingual geographical context, as might have been the case in the later Achaemenid Empire – but rather as a more “rough-and-ready” practical jargon, i.e. as a secondary and familiar variety which was employed alongside the Neo-Assyrian dialect for certain day-to-day, utilitarian communicational purposes. The questions that this theoretical position opens up in its turn are of three distinct orders. Firstly, should we understand these documents in Aramaic on clay tablets to have the same legal worth as their counterparts in cuneiform script? Despite some reservations on the matter expressed on formal grounds by Röllig (incomplete datings by eponyms, reduced legal formulary, etc.), I would say that the ever-growing quantity of the Aramaic evidence – which, e.g., in the case of Dūr-Katlimmu now more or less matches, between “endorsements” and “dockets,” that of the Neo-Assyrian texts from the same site – speaks in favor of a positive opinion on the matter, such as I have long held. I would also add that we have absolutely no knowledge of the possible existence of a local or regional (not to say, imperial) “notary bureau” that might have provided the ultimate judgment on what was a legitimate private transaction or not – and that it is thus entirely possible that the mere fact of giving rise to a written outcome would have made these transactions in Aramaic legitimate and binding enough for all parties concerned in view of their immediate business aims. Moreover, as already long known – but at present with the addition of new data – we are informed of the fact that Assyrian officialdom was aware already in the late eighth century of a double standard of writing techniques (in Akkadian cuneiform signs and Aramaic alphabetic script) in economic and juridical matters within the empire, and thus proceeded to issue bronze weights with bilingual (Assyrian and Arama-

17

On the concept of vernacular languages in the Late Assyrian Empire, cf. BEAULIEU 2006.

Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria

9

ic) inscriptions to certify the official weight-standards already in use. 18 This fact should, in itself, constitute sufficient evidence that the possibility of registering transactions both in Assyrian cuneiform signs and Aramaic alphabetic script seems to have been recognized, albeit perhaps not altogether enthusiastically, by the Assyrian Crown for its last century of existence or more. In addition to this, a number of occurrences of a parallel presence of “scribes” dubbed as Aramayyu or Aššurayyu as registrars and witnesses of the legal documents in cuneiform script has long been singled out as pointing to the two scripts in commonly accepted use at the same time. And a further number of indirect attestations in Neo-Assyrian correspondence also indicate cases of bi-graphemical registrations, whether dictated by custom or even demanded outright by the Imperial authorities. To be sure, it was the joint activity of these two linguistically distinct scribal figures that gave rise to the few remaining exemplars of fully bilingual legal documents on the tablets described above. This could equally have been behind a much larger number of double versions on variety of media, of which only the exemplars made on clay have come down to us. More on this below.

III. The Partial Nature of the Evidence The second question is wider and more complex: How should this – by now significant – evidence for Aramaic script on Neo-Assyrian clay tablets be viewed vis-à-vis the theoretical diffusion of Aramaic, as well as of other languages, within the later phase of the Assyrian Empire? This point was tackled in my study on “multilingualism and multiple media” of 2007,19 and not much has changed from the point of view of philologically-based breakthroughs, although some new insights of a historical nature may now be brought forth. In general, texts written on various media and in different languages/scripts, such as may be presumed to have formed the full gamut of “everyday” documentation in the Assyrian Empire, have come down to us only in very small measure, although their existence, on indirect grounds, is beyond all doubt. Beside the commonly employed clay “tablet” (ṭuppu, nibzu, etc.) and other durable media (stone, metal) for ceremonial purposes – as well as the apparently widespread use of wax-covered writing boards in wood or ivory (called lēʾu), which were used prevalently for cuneiform script – we are aware of niāru,“papyrus” (even in “rolls”, kirku), and of magallatu, “parchment,” as regularly employed media for other writing systems.20 In sum, a mere glance at the lexical record is sufficient to demonstrate the fact that writing surfaces of different physical characteristics were employed by the Assyrian administration. Now, back to the question raised above, albeit in modified terms: To what extent should we grieve over the complete loss of the more perishable media (wax, papyrus, 18

See essentially FALES 1995; IDEM 2016; ZACCAGNINI 1999; READE 2018. FALES 2007. 20 For the particular use of the terms dnt and ʾgrt in the Dūr-Katlimmu texts, cf. FALES et al. 2005, 611–12. 19

10

Frederick Mario Fales

and parchment) among the flames of Nineveh, not only per se but also by contrast to the survival of the fair-sized cuneiform corpus of 6,000 texts from the Assyrian Empire? Should we consider, as some have done, that a complete layer of Neo-Assyrian textuality was entrusted to these non-durable media and that its loss thus represents the main explanation for some acute gaps in our chain of evidence? Or should we consider, to the contrary, that the overall record, which has come down to us on clay hardened by the very same flames, still reflects – in a surely very diminished form but adequately from the point of view of its inner proportions – the “pros” and “cons” of an Assyrian imperial administration which surely recorded events abundantly on a day-to-day basis, but on the other hand would seem to have kept its recordings in “archival” storage for only limited periods of time? This question must remain for the moment unanswered, but it hovers “in the air” over Neo-Assyrian studies, since even the most wellexcavated sites of recent times (such as Dūr-Katlimmu) show quite irregular distributional patterns from the chronological and prosopographical viewpoint in the preserved tablets issuing from their different loci of documentary retrieval. Now for other languages in use within the same Assyrian Empire. Were the Egyptian (Muṣurayyu) scribes who are also sporadically mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform texts merely employed to write out legal documents for their brethren residing in Assyria, or did/could they also couch diplomatic letters or treaty-documents meant to be read in Memphis or Sais? And, on this same line of thought: Through which means was communication established with the communities residing to the east of the Tigris? Were the city-lords of the Medes, who were among the recipients of the well-known adê of Esarhaddon in 660 BCE (but who, in fact, never showed up for the vast public ceremony at Kalhu), also expected to receive a copy, or at least a summary, of the proceedings in their own language?21 Or had their scribes been enculturated in the use of cuneiform, like the Urartians? Or, instead, was Aramaic expected to suffice for these communities as well, as some scholars have deduced from the meager and controversial evidence of the inscription from Bukan (while others do not agree)?22 Alas, it would be very welcome to have a picture of vast scope of the scriptoria at the Assyrian court such as we have for Late Bronze Age Ugarit, but the best I can do for the moment is to suggest that the female singers and musicians of many different origins in Esarhaddon’s harem could have performed according to their individual cultural and linguistic traditions, and that is all.23

IV. The Question of Ethnicity: Who Was a Self-defined “Aramean” in Seventh Century BCE Assyria? The third question hinges on the nature of Assyro-Aramaic linguistic and cultural contact that emerges from the above. We can agree, as stated above, on the fact that

21

See FALES 2012. See IDEM 2003; contra LIVERANI 2008. 23 FALES 2013, 64–66. 22

Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria

11

the two writing traditions seem to have fully and openly coexisted, and could have been employed for various types of documents of private or official nature: not only legal deeds, but also administrative records, and possibly letters (although the Assur ostracon has still, since the 1930s, stood in splendid isolation). As for the many depictions on Assyrian bas-reliefs – or even in a wall-painting from Til Barsip – of the two officials standing side by side, facing foreign booty or prisoners, one writing on a tablet with a stylus, the other one using a brush on a sort of roll or scroll, it is still uncertain whether the latter was an alphabetic scribe, as believed by many, or instead a war-artist, as has been long and vigorously maintained by Julian Reade.24 This said, however, it may be observed that nothing, either in writing or in the Assyrian figurative record (especially palatial bas-reliefs), points to the fact that the Aššurayyu and Aramayyu scribes belonged to two different communities, from any point of view. What do I mean by this? If I may briefly hark back to a recent work of mine in the form of three articles on “Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire,” three conclusions leap to the fore: 1. When Assyrian kings repeatedly state in their official inscriptions that, having vanquished this or that enemy polity, they made the people “into” or “as” Assyrians, this is not empty ostentation: the political concept of incorporating all conquered peoples into māt Aššur, literally “the land of Aššur,” by having them relinquish their previous ethno-political ties, and making them adhere to a unitary national project, based on palāḫ šarrūtiya, “reverential fear of my kingship,” was behind this phraseology, as an inscription by Sargon II makes it abundantly clear.25 2. It may be shown that the last major application of the ethno-political definition of “Arameans” in Neo-Assyrian texts concerned the tribes on the lower Tigris and its tributaries, who were progressively and systematically wiped out and/or deported by successive Assyrian rulers between the late eighth and early seventh century. After and beyond this, hardly any mention of “Arameans” survives within the geographical core of the Assyrian Empire, except for scribes (as seen above, relevant to language/script) and for some items of material culture (relevant to tradition: e.g., mutqītu Aramītu, “Aramean sweets”).26 3. Thus, if the search for a visible and recognized “Aramean” ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire of the seventh century were based exclusively on the linguistic aspect of a number of personal names – such as was common in previous decades and still has not completely died out – this would be as methodologically unsound as Donald Trump’s biased request for Barack Hussein Obama’s US birth certificate. Just as Obama, bearing a Kenyan name, is an American – and would not have become 24 See READE 2012. In the light of this ongoing debate, the theoretical possibility that, e.g., the enormous war-booty taken by Sargon II from the temple and palace of Muṣaṣir and recorded in the 100-some lines of this king’s Eighth Campaign account, could have been written out also on an Aramaic list – as might be resumed from the depiction of the two officials on the relevant bas-relief –, cannot be upheld with certainty one way or another. 25 FALES 2015. 26 IDEM 2017.

12

Frederick Mario Fales

POTUS otherwise – these people were Assyrians tout court; whether of high or low status, whether operating in the countryside or in the palace, they were under the authority of the Assyrian state, even though they were allowed to keep traditional monikers (perhaps alongside Assyrian ones) with reference to their religious beliefs of long standing.27

V. How Widespread Were “Arameophones” in the Various Areas/Provinces? In this light, how are we to reach a picture, however vague, of the degree of “Arameophony” within the Assyrian population? The names themselves do, in point of fact, indicate that Aramaic linguistic-cultural realities, or at least remnants thereof, permeated the empire far and wide, especially in the north-western Jezirah of ancient Aramean settlement, alongside a number of other similar components, from Phoenician to Hebrew to Egyptian to Median, etc. Also, a number of Aramaic loanwords crop up at random within the Neo-Assyrian letters; and although their overall number has been recently cut down realistically, they nonetheless exist and appear to be rooted in the Neo-Assyrian Sprachgut. Just to give a few examples: (1) it is plausible that the frequent notation in Neo-Assyrian sale documents regarding real estate, whereby a specific piece of property is described as being GAB.DI one or more other plots – and thus obviously “adjacent” to them – should refer back to Aramaic gb dy, “(by) the side of”; (2) the alternative name (but possibly the surname) of the military base of DurKatlimmu on the Hābūr was Magdālu, Aramaic for “observation point, fortress”; (3) in one and the same text from Assur regarding the sale of a house, the sign-complex ÉTU5 proves to correspond to the syllabically written word tuanu, which refers back to Aramaic twn, “inner room; room; chamber.” These cases, with a number of others, give rise to the conjecture that, at the very least, and especially at the level of day-today communication, a generalized form of mutual interference between Neo-Assyrian and Aramaic may have been in widespread use.28 As is well known, the accepted formulation of the particular type of linguistic interaction between Assyrian and Aramaic on the part of Semitists and Assyriologists alike is for the moment that of an Assyro-Aramaic symbiosis, which should be framed within a scenario of intense and ever-increasing contact between the two linguistic-cultural communities (albeit with, respectively, a “dominant” and a “secondary” member). But this still tells us nothing of the man on the street in Nineveh or Harran, in his undoubtedly varying class and professional affiliations. And, we might even ask, if the presence of our small but not negligible mass of private business contracts in Aramaic alphabetic script could, paradoxically – but perhaps only so at first sight – indicate some sort of social or psychological extraneity of the contemporaneous cuneiform

27 28

FALES 2018. CHERRY 2017.

Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria

13

texts in Neo-Assyrian script and language, perhaps even some covert reaction to their juridical and political background status. A quite different question may be raised, instead, for the higher-level social sectors that were daily exposed to the official language of the empire (e.g., palace or provincial personnel). Did the habitual Aramaic speakers of these “privileged” sectors limit themselves to code-switching in view of specific social circumstances (such as many immigrants of the recent past and present are used to doing as second nature, between their original language and that of the country of destination), or had they already begun to develop a form of mixed idiom – also in view of the relative contiguity between the two languages – which may be variously defined, both “pidgin” and “creole” being inadequate? In a nutshell: Did “Assaramian,” a neologism which I coin on the basis of the modern case of “Spanglish,” exist? Did the historical personification of “the wise Ahiqar” – who could have recalled the court exorcist Adad-šumu-uṣur or someone quite like him – speak it? Or did he, when “out of office,” cultivate with some relish the niceties of Aramaic, much as the members of the ruling class of nineteenth-century Ottoman Istanbul enjoyed speaking French and Arabic among themselves, looking out to the Bosphorus? It is to be hoped that these questions may, to some extent, be answered in the future.

VI. The Latest Published Collections of Aramaic Texts on Clay Tablets: What Do They Show? Moving toward my conclusions, I would like to cast a quick glance over the two newly published collections of clay tablets with Aramaic texts of which I spoke at the beginning of this paper. The Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu collection is extremely well copied and photographed and has been investigated with the masterly competence that we have come to associate with Wolfgang Röllig’s scholarly endeavors. To give a very succinct judgment, despite Röllig’s great philological ability, he had to deal with documents on clay of quite poor quality, which tended to crack easily, or at minimum had produced fissures on the surface, thus obscuring the sign-shapes; the same problem occurred during my work at Tell Shiukh Fawqani, and thus may perhaps be related to the very nature of “western” clay deposits, vis-à-vis the better preserved exemplars from Nineveh and Assur. Further – interestingly enough – this physical shortcoming seems to have particularly affected the triangular dockets that were built around knotted string, thus leaving pockets of air, whereas the parallel cuneiform texts, which were formed in a compact mass of clay, showed many fewer problems of this type. To sum up: Röllig was able to read and understand fully what was legible, and/or to supplement missing parts with standard or topical integrations, but some cases, relevant to less well documented textual typologies (thus possibly leading to new results), fatally seem to require further work. On the other hand, Dūr-Katlimmu has also yielded interesting cases of brief inscriptions on jars, with measures of the contents, and a few legible stamp seals, which increase our knowledge of the typology of the relevant

14

Frederick Mario Fales

iconography and inscriptions. (These are too often tied to materials deriving from the antiquities market, as is well known). 29 Instead, the case of the texts from an unknown location (possibly on the Upper Ḫabur) called Ma’lanâ or Mallanate, acquired in 1972 en bloc by the Brussels Museums is more complex, and not only because the archaeological context of the documentation is lacking and the parallel corpus in Neo-Assyrian has only very recently been made fully available after a preliminary foray by the late Paul Garelli.30 The main problem in the legibility of these Aramaic materials could have been tied once more to the clay used for the texts: in slightly embarrassed tones, the master Semitist Edward Lipiński was forced to admit (2010, 2) that a cleaning and baking process of the tablets, undertaken at the British Museum in London early after their acquisition, yielded a very negative outcome, and that he and his collaborators were thereafter forced to copy the texts in a composite way, by blending the data of the tablets after baking and those drawn from previous photographs and copies. For this or for possibly other reasons, Lipiński’s edition carries just a single photograph of the tablets he publishes, and we are thus otherwise forced to rely exclusively on his hand-copies. Moreover, in a book written in a “late style” – as Edward Said (2006) would have said – Lipiński seems to be able to do no better than to reject any alternative hypothesis for reading and interpretation, even heaping some invective on the suggestions of others, and to reproduce verbatim of his earlier versions, despite the overall Unwahrscheinlichkeit of some of them. At the very end, once again, the standard formats and typologies of the Ma’lanâ/ Mallanate texts yield clear interpretations, while deviant formulae or contents remain obscure: for very different reasons than in Röllig’s publication, we know what we already knew, but can make only very small steps forward towards what we did not (and still do not) know. It must be admitted, on the other hand, that some of Lipiński’s findings on these texts (2010, passim) bear out small innovations in legal terminology, which could go back to a purely Aramaic juridical tradition, extraneous to Mesopotamian models, and this is surely a very interesting theme, which deserves further consideration.31 To sum up: there is very much we still do not know regarding communication in the Assyrian Empire on two major counts – writing practices on different media and written/oral expression in different languages. One point is, however, to be underscored: It will be quite difficult to solve the issue of archival recordings in varying scripts/languages as concerns later “world” empires of the ancient Near East until the Neo-Assyrian evidence in all its varieties has been made to yield its full historical potential on this matter.

29

RÖLLIG 2014, 226–62. GARELLI 1997; HOMÈS-FREDERICQ/GARELLI 2018. 31 See FALES 2013b. 30

Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria

15

Bibliography BEAULIEU, P.-A. (2016): Official and Vernacular Languages: The Shifting Sands of Imperial and Cultural Identities in First Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia, in: S.L. SANDERS (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Chicago, IL, 187–216. BORDREUIL, P./F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET (1996–97): Aramaic Documents from Til Barsib, AbrNahrain 34, 100–107. CHERRY, Z. (2017): Aramaic Loanwords in Neo-Assyrian 900–600 B.C., Uppsala. FALES, F.M. (1986): Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Rome. – (1995): The Assyrian Lion-Weights, in: K. VAN LERBERGHE/A. SCHORRS (eds.), Immigration and Emigration Within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński, Leuven, 33–55. – (2000): The Use and Function of Aramaic Tablets, in: G. BUNNENS, Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Louvain/Paris/Sterling, VA, 89–123. – (2001): L’impero assiro: Storia e amministrazione (IX–VII sec. a.C.), Rome/Bari. – (2003): Evidence for West-East Contacts in the 8th Century BC: The Bukān Stele, in: G.B. LANFRANCHI/M. ROAF/R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, (History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs V), Padua, 131–48. – (2007): Multilingualism on Multiple Media in the Neo-Assyrian Period: A Review of the Evidence, SAAB 16, 95–122. – (2012): After Ta‘yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s adê for Assyrian Political History, RA 106, 133–58. – (2013a): Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe, (I): Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities, in: D.S. VANDERHOOFT/A. WINITZER (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature: Festschrift Peter Machinist, Winona Lake, IN, 47–75. – (2013b): Review of Lipiński, Ma’lana, BiOr 70, 204–10. – (2015): Ethnicity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe (II): “Assyrians,” in: M.G. BIGA/J. CORDOBA et al. (eds.), Homenaje a Mario Liverani, ISIMU 11–12, 183–204. – (2016): The Assyrian Lion-Weights: A Further Attempt, in: P. CORÒ et al. (eds.), Libiamo ne’ lieti calici: Festschrift Lucio Milano, Münster, 483–503. – (2017): Ethnicity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe (III): “Arameans” and Related Tribalists, in: Y. HEFFRON/A. STONE/M. WORTHINGTON (eds.), At the Dawn of History: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J.N. Postgate, Winona Lake, IN, 133–79. – (2018): The Composition and Structure of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Ethnicity, Language and Identities, in: R. ROLLINGER (ed.), Conceptualizing Past, Present and Future, Münster, 443–94. FALES, F.M./G.F. GRASSI (2016): L’aramaico antico, Udine. FALES, F.M./K. RADNER/E. ATTARDO/C. PAPPI (2005): The Assyrian and Aramaic Texts from Tell Shiukh Fawqani, in: L. BACHELOT/F.M. FALES (eds.), Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994–1998, Vol. II, (History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs VI), Padua, 595–694. FOLMER, M. (1995): The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period, Leuven. GARELLI, P. (1997): Les archives inédites d’un centre provincial de l’empire assyrien, in: K.R. VEENHOF (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, Istanbul, 241–46. HOMES-FREDERICQ, D./P. GARELLI (2018): Maʻallānāte, Archives d’un centre provincial de l’empire assyrien, (Akkadica Suppl. XIII), Brussels. GREENFIELD, J. (1978): The Dialects of Early Aramaic, JNES 37, 93–99. KAUFMAN, S.A. (1974): The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, Chicago, IL. LEMAIRE, A. (2001): Nouvelles tablettes araméennes, Geneva. LIEBERMAN, S.J. (1968): The Aramaic Argillary Script in the Seventh Century, BASOR 92, 25–31. LIPIŃSKI, E. (2000): The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 180), Leuven. – (2010): Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics, Vol. III: Ma’lana, (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 200), Leuven.

16

Frederick Mario Fales

LIVERANI, M. (2008): Shamshi-ilu, Ruler of Hatti and Guti, and the Sefire and Bukan Steles, in: W. DAHMASH et al. (eds.), Scrittiti in onore di Biancamaria Scarica Amoretti, Rome, 751–62. RADNER, K. (2002): Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, (BATSH 6), Berlin. READE, J.E. (2012): Visual Evidence for the Status and Activities of Assyrian Scribes, in: G.B. LANFRANCHI et al. (eds.), Leggo! Festschrift Frederick Mario Fales, Wiesbaden, 699–717. – (2018): Assyrian Weights and Money, SAAB 24, 125–94. RÖLLIG, W. (2000): Aramäer und Assyrer: Die Schriftzeugnisse bis zum Ende des Assyrerreiches, in: G. BUNNENS (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Louvain/Paris/Sterling, VA, 177–87. – (2014): Die aramäischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu/Magdalu, (BATSH 17), Wiesbaden. SAID, E. (2006): On Late Style, London/New York. ZACCAGNINI, C. (1999): The Assyrian Lion Weights from Nimrud and the ‘Mina of the Land,’ in: Y. AVISHUR/R. DEUTSCH (eds.), Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 259–65.

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand in the Neo-Babylonian Period* Yuval Levavi The southern Babylonian territory known as the Sealand (Māt-tâmti) has somewhat of a bad reputation. It is often thought of as a traitorous land: the marshes that are the birthplace of (successful) usurpers and (less successful) rebels. While this view is not entirely unfounded, as numerous rulers from the Neo-Assyrian Sargonids to Saddam Hussein would agree, it is a gross simplification. The present contribution examines the interaction between the Sealand officials and their Urukean colleagues at the Eanna temple during the Neo-Babylonian period (626– 539 BCE). Primarily, this will be based on the administrative letters from the archive of Eanna, Ištar’s temple in Uruk, which provide us with a unique and unmediated perspective on the personal and institutional interactions in southern Babylonia.

I. The Sealand1 Although its exact borders cannot be drawn, the Sealand stretched from its southern point in the Gulf up north towards Uruk.2 In fact, during the second and early first *

This paper is based on a presentation titled Personal Interaction between Neo-Babylonian Bureaucrats in the South, given in the conference The Benefits of Office: Privilege and Loyalty in the Ancient Mediterranean World held in Amsterdam (May 30, 2017). I would like to thank the Kristin Kleber, who organised the conference. My talk in the annual RIAB conference in Bar Ilan (March 2017), Between Names and Titles in Neo-Babylonian Administrative Letters, forms a substantial part of a paper that is to appear in Akkadica Supplementum; see LEVAVI forthcoming. I would thus like to thank Aren Maeir for accepting this contribution for the present volume, as well as to Shana Zaia for her useful notes and suggestions regarding this paper. All views and errors are naturally my own. Abbreviations used in this paper follow A.L. OPPENHEIM et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institut of the University of Chicago, Chicago/Glückstadt 1956–2010. In addition, SbB = Spätbabylonische Briefe. Texts marked with SbB 2 numbers refer to editions in LEVAVI 2018. Filiations are rendered as: personal name/father’s name//family name. In translation: [ ] = broken and/or restored text; /…/ = skipping text that exists on the tablet (but is not relevant for discussion); ( ) = author’s clarifications. 1 The studies of Brinkman (1968; 1984) and Frame (1992; 2013) cover the political history of the Sealand. The works of Beaulieu (2002; 2013), Kleber (2008, 311–32), and Jursa (2010, 91–95) focus more on socio-economic issues. The following survey is based on these studies. 2 Encompassing the Gulf area meant that the Sealand was a key overland trade route junction as well as a seaport. This is indeed reflected in the long-distance trade commodities mentioned in the Eanna archive, which entered via the Sealand (JURSA 2010, 102).

18

Yuval Levavi

millennium BCE, Uruk was considered part of the Sealand. This, as we will see below, was no longer the case during the Neo-Babylonian period, although the mutual history and certainly the geographic proximity played an important role all throughout the first millennium. As for topography, while the wetlands did dominate the Sealand landscape, it was by no means just one big eerie swamp. The Eanna archive testifies to a large-scale production of grain in the Sealand, which cannot be cultivated in marshes.3 Indeed, several walled settlements are depicted in the Balawat (ancient Imgur-Enlil) gates of Shalmaneser III.4 Furthermore, the Eanna archive shows that the main urban center in the Sealand was called Madagalšu, which probably served as the base for the governor of the Sealand. Whether or not it was also the site of the main cultic center of the province, the temple of Amurru, is unknown.5 During the Neo-Assyrian period, the Sealand was known as the territory of the Chaldean tribe of Bīt-Yakīn. Thus, for example, when Tiglath-pileser sets the southern border of his kingdom he speaks of the sea of Bīt-Yakīn, referring to the Persian Gulf.6 The constant clashes with the Assyrian kings, however, especially the Sargonids, weakened this Chaldean tribe and the name Bīt-Yakīn is attested only twice during the late Neo-Assyrian period (689–626 BCE).7 In fact, during the Neo-Babylonian period, the name Bīt-Yakīn is completely unattested in cuneiform records.8 In the time-frame which is at the focus of this paper, the term Sealand refers to a political/administrative entity within Babylonia rather than to the home of a specific tribe or to the geographical area. Simply put, it was the southernmost province of Babylonia. The fact that the name of Bīt-Yakīn falls out of use probably had more to do with political/ideological and possibly cultural factors, than an actual demographic shift.9 While the historical association between Uruk and the Sealand goes back to the second millennium BCE, during the Neo-Babylonian period there may have been addi3 JURSA 2010, 91. An interesting case regarding a field in the Sealand is found in (BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52). The letter is discussed below as it relates to several aspects of the Sealand-Eanna relations. Here, I would only mention the end of the letter in which the deputy of the Sealand writes to his Eanna-based addressee, “If you don’t know the saffron field, it’s called ḫurzu-ḫurzi.” This seems to refer to the local name of the field, which may be derived from Aramaic ḥrzy, “prickly.” This may be a rare reference to the local language spoken in the Sealand. For Chaldean onomastics and toponyms see ZADOK, 2013. 4 See FRAME 2013, 101f. fig. 2–4 with further literature. 5 The Amurru temple is probably the one to which the governor of the Sealand refers in his letter to the temple administrator (šatammu) and temple scribe of Eanna; YOS 3, 154 (= SbB 2, 39). The governor states that the addressees should take care of service of the Eanna (maṣṣarta ša Eanna lā tašēlā), as well of service of the temple of his gods (maṣṣarta ša bīt ilīya uṣrā). Since the second temple is clearly not the Eanna, the best candidate would be the Amurru temple in the Sealand. 6 TADMOR/YAMADA 2011, nos. 47: 3, 51: 3, 52: 3. 7 FRAME 1992, 40. 8 Note, however, that other Chaldean tribes such as Bīt-Awkāni, Bīt-Dakkūri, and Bīt-Silāni continue to be used throughout the Neo-Babylonian period; see BEAULIEU 2013. 9 To the best of my knowledge, there is no textual or archaeological data supporting a change in the Sealand’s population. The archaeological data regarding the Sealand area is scarce. For a general overview see BRINKMAN 1984 with further literature, and see WRIGHT 1981 for the southern Iraq (Eridu and Ur) archaeological survey.

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

19

tional aspects that tied the Sealand not only to Uruk, but possibly to the royal family as well. Paul-Alain Beaulieu suggests that Nabopolassar’s family itself originally came from the Sealand, and that Uruk was its power base. 10 It has also been suggested that Nabopolassar was in fact the governor of Uruk under the Assyrian rule, and that once he took over the Babylonian throne he appointed his son (and future king) Nebuchadnezzar as temple administrator (šatammu) of Eanna.11 The following letter, which was sent by a state official to the temple administrator and the temple scribe of Eanna, exemplifies two important aspects of the Sealand through the eyes of a contemporary Babylonian – the problematic topography and the Sealand/Uruk affiliation: I am sending Bēl-nāʾid to the Sealand regarding the šibšu-tax. (Since) he does not know the land, let my brothers send with him a man who knows the roads (and) give him provisions. (BIN 1, 11 = SbB 2, 35)

First, we can see that the Sealand was indeed perceived as a precarious land for outsiders; the (unknown) state official cannot rely on his man to safely make the journey on his own. Second, it is also clear to the writer that the Urukean addresses would be able to supply his man with a guide who did know his way around the Sealand.

II. The Corpus The Eanna archive is almost the sole source for information regarding the Sealand, Sealand officials, and the Sealand-Uruk/Eanna 12 interaction during the Neo-Babylonian period.13 Since the focus of this paper lies in the epistolographic sources, we must first identify the letters within the Eanna archive that were sent by Sealand officials. We can start with the five letters of the governor of the Sealand (1–5 in Table 1), who is the only Babylonian official (other than the king) identifying himself in his letters by his title šakin (māt) tâmti. Other officials present themselves by their first name.14 Yet our extensive familiarity with the prosopography in the Eanna archive allows us to identify at least one more Sealand official with certainty, the deputy 10

BEAULIEU 2002, 114. See also IDEM 1997; IDEM 1998, 198–201 for further discussion. JURSA 2007, 131; IDEM 2014, 124 12 Unless stated otherwise, all Urukean officials discussed below were affiliated with the Eanna temple. Given that all of the texts in our corpus come from the temple archive, non-temple personnel from Uruk are almost completely unrepresented. 13 Other sources include the Hofkalender of Nebuchadnezzar (see fn. 27) and a few texts from Larsa and Ur (see §V.B below). Earlier in the first millennium BCE we find many references to the Sealand is the State Archives of Assyria as well some valuable sources in the so-called Governor’s archive from Nippur; see COLE 1996. For a recent comprehensive treatments of the Sealand during the second millennium BCE see BOIVIN 2018. 14 Filiation is rarely mentioned in the letters in general, and never in the introduction. On the tendency of Neo-Babylonian scribes to address each other and third party individuals, as well to identify themselves, by the first name, see LEVAVI forthcoming. 11

20

Yuval Levavi

(šanû) of the Sealand Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (on whom see §VI.B below). Ten of his letters to various high-ranking Eanna officials are known today (6–15); he is the sole sender in nine of these letters and co-wrote the tenth with a certain Ṣillâ (10). Table 1: “Sealand Letters” Text 1. YOS 21, 136 2. YOS 3, 154 3. YOS 21, 138

SbB 2 No. 36 39 42

Writer(s) governor of the Sealand governor of the Sealand governor of the Sealand

4. YOS 21, 139

43

governor of the Sealand

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

YOS 21, 137 TCL 9, 116 TCL 9, 112 YOS 3, 57 YOS 3, 60 YOS 3, 80 YOS 21, 76 BIN 1, 34 YOS 3, 23 YOS 21, 78 YOS 21, 77 BIN 1, 61 GC 2, 401 TCL 9, 118

48 37 44 45 46 47 51 52 53 54 55 38 41 50

governor of the Sealand Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti + Ṣillâ Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Marduk-nāṣir Aḫḫēa Ṣillâ

19. YOS 3, 18815

40

Nabû-zāqip

20. YOS 21, 5 21. BIN 1, 90 22. YOS 21, 56

49 110 18916

Aplāya Aplāya + Zēria Marduk-zēra-ibni

Addressee(s) Marduk-šuma-uṣur Nabû-nādin-šumi + Marduk-ēṭir Nabû-nādin-šumi Ninurta-šarra-uṣur + Nabû-nādin-šumi + Marduk-ēṭir Nabû-balāssu-iqbi Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi) Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi) Nabû-nādin-šumi Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi) Marduk-ēṭir Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi) Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi) Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin Temple administrator Šamaš-zēra-iqīša Nabû-nādin-šumi Marduk-ēṭir Nādin (= Nabû-nādin-šumi) Amurru-udammiq + Nabû-nādin-šumi + Marduk-ēṭir Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin Nabû-mušētiq-udê Aḫḫēa

Apart from adding to the prosopography of Sealand (e.g. the said Ṣillâ), these fifteen letters have certain distinguishable palaeographical features.17 We are thus able to identify seven additional letters as Sealand letters (16–22 in Table 1 above). These seven letters were sent neither by the governor nor by his deputy, but rather by midhigh-ranking Sealand officials, whom otherwise could only be identified as not of the Eanna household.18 It is addressed to the temple administrator of Eanna, and the writer,

15

The writer of the letter is clearly not a temple official. The specific identification of this tablet as a “Sealand letter,” however, is based on paleography, which cannot serve as definitive evidence on its own at this point. 16 The letter cannot be assigned to the Sealand dossier with certainty. However, both Aḫḫēa (the addressee) and Marduk-nāṣir (line 8) are most probably Sealand men, and the mention of Borsippean goldsmiths and stone-carvers, affirms the letter’s setting in a wider “pan-Babylonian” context. 17 LEVAVI 2018, 152–54. 18 An additional letter, NCBT 11, which is to be published by Paul-Alain Beaulieu, probably belongs here as well. As I was not able to see the tablet, it is not listed above.

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

21

who invokes Amurru and Nabû in the greeting formula, was probably an official in the Amurru temple in the Sealand.19 Also of relevance for our discussion are various Eanna letters in which the Urukean writers mention the Sealand and/or its officials as third parties. I have listed most of the known references in Table 2, though it must be stressed that this list cannot be considered exhaustive. Table 2: Letters Related to the Sealand Text

SbB 2 No.

BIN 1, 11

35

BIN 1, 41

176

NBDMich. 67

159

YOS 3, 165

94

YOS 3, 36

–

YOS 21, 27

177

YOS 21, 33

–

YOS 21, 177

130

A messenger sent from the north (possibly Babylon) to the Sealand. The sender, a state official, asks that the Eanna assign him with a guide for the journey south. A mid-rank Eanna official writes to the temple from his work assignment (possibly in the Sealand) and mentions the governor of the Sealand, with whom he is working at the moment. The writer, who may be the future king Nabonidus, writes about a debt of Uruk20 and discusses the involvement of the deputy of the Sealand in the matter. The deputy of the Sealand is mentioned in a broken context. The writer reports to the temple administrator regarding barley for some Sealanders, and mentions Amurru-šarra-uṣur, a canal inspector (gugallu) of the governor of the Sealand.21 The writer reports to the temple of his encounter with discontent gardeners, among them, he specifies, were Sealanders (as well as members of the Aramean Piqūdu tribe). The writer is being detained by Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli, a canal inspector (gugallu) of the governor of the Sealand22 due to corvée workers (urāšu) that are to be sent to him. A land of the governor of the Sealand located in Bīt-Awkāni is mentioned in a broken context.

III. Urukeans and Sealanders Despite the interweaved history and geographic proximity, the traditional Babylonian urban elite of Uruk, viz. members of the Eanna household, clearly distinguished themselves from the Sealanders and their West-Semitic tribal roots. Note for example YOS 21, 27 (= SbB 2, 177), in which a certain Bēl-uballiṭ reports back to the temple administrator and the temple scribe about problems he is having when facing some discon19

JURSA 2010, 94. Though the debt is said to be of (the city of) Uruk (kaspu mala ša ina muḫḫi Uruk), and not of the Eanna temple, the latter would make better sense in the context. 21 This is Amurru-šarra-uṣur/Ḫašdāyu, who is not the father of Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli/Amurrušarra-uṣur (see fn. 22) but a relative of the latter. See JANKOVIĆ 2013, 59; 127–28; KLEBER 2008, 105. 22 This is Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli/Amurru-šarra-uṣur. See JANKOVIĆ 2007; IDEM 2013, 59; 127–28; KLEBER 2008, 105. 20

22

Yuval Levavi

tent farmers. The writer, Bēl-uballiṭ, is an Eanna official who was sent by the temple to supervise several groups working in the fields away from Uruk. In the background of the letter was apparently the re-allotment of land from sharecroppers (errēšu) to temple plowmen (ikkaru), a decision to which the sharecroppers understandably objected. Bēl-uballiṭ describes his run-in with this angry mob as follows: The protesters (lúma-ḫi-ṣi)23 carried [sti]cks; there were Piqūdeans and Sealanders among them. I told them, “Go to the temple administrator and the temple scribe,” but they did not accept it. (YOS 21, 27 = SbB 2, 177)

The fact that in his account of his confrontation with the sharecroppers the Urukean writer specifically identifies them as Piqūdeans and Sealanders may point to somewhat of a bad reputation these tribesmen had in his Urukean eyes.24 Even if one rejects reading a negative undertone in these words, both the writer and the addressees undoubtedly viewed them as others. A rare glimpse into the Sealand perspective can be seen in one of the letters of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti, the deputy of the Sealand, to the temple administrator of Eanna. In this letter the deputy of the Sealand replies to a request made by the Eanna temple to make use of a certain plot of land. If I were to distribute (the field) without reporting it, [the Sea]land (people) will say, “Did Nādin (i.e. the addressee) distribute it as a (personal) favor, or did you distribute the taken (land)?” The Urukeans, (on the other hand), will say, “Did Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (i.e. the writer) [distrib]ute (it) as a (personal) favor, or is it the [word] of the king?” (BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52)

The vivid description of the Sealanders and the Urukeans’ imagined reaction to the hypothetical distribution of a field to the other side reminds us of the kind of hostility/rivalry usually found between two closely-related but distinct groups. In fact, this subtle hostility may indeed have been more folk-like in nature. As we shall see bellow, the upper echelons of both Uruk and the Sealand were able to maintain positive and fruitful interaction both on the personal as well as the professional level.

IV. Basic Administrative Structure and Hierarchy IV.A. Sealand Three main Sealand office holders attest in the Eanna archive: the governor of the Sealand (šakin (māt) tâmti), the deputy (šanû), and the royal resident (qīpu). In the letter corpus, however, only the governor and his deputy are attested and there is no mentioning of the royal resident of the Sealand. As I have argued elsewhere,25 the 23

The translation of lúma-ḫi-ṣi as “protestors” is speculative. C.f. Jursa’s translation “woodcutters,” JURSA 2010, 94 and “Holzfäller,” IDEM 2014, 81, though he notes that the translation is uncertain. While both translations are certainly possible, I have argued elsewhere that the context seems to favour “protestors,” LEVAVI 2018, 449. 24 JURSA 2010, 94, 101. 25 LEVAVI 2018, 156–58.

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

23

attestations of the deputy and royal resident of the Sealand in the Eanna archive refer to the same official.26 Below I will, therefore, discuss only the governor and the deputy. The governor of the Sealand was the highest non-palace official in the NeoBabylonian Empire.27 Other than the king, he is the only Babylonian official introducing himself in these letters by his title rather than his first name. This small but crucial detail testifies to his superior status within Babylonia. Kristin Kleber has convincingly shown that, in the Eanna archive, there are in fact there two titles which refer to the governor of the Sealand; 1) šakin tâmti, “governor of the Sea(land),” and 2) šakin māti, “governor of the (Sea)land.”28 In an epistolary context, the term šakin (māt) tâmti is used only by the governor of the Sealand himself when introducing himself in his letters. All other attestations of the office, when referred to by other officials, are of šakin māti. This clear-cut pattern of differentiation between the two titles for the same office may point to the latter being a colloquial term. When Eanna officials spoke of the governor,29 no further specification was required, as it was clear that the governor of the Sealand is meant. A similar phenomenon can be observed in references to the deputy of the Sealand. Second in command to the governor stood the deputy (šanû, literally “second”) of the Sealand. In the Eanna letters corpus, the local Urukean officials simply refer to him as the deputy, never specifying that he is from the Sealand. Like in the case of the governor of the Sealand, it was clear to the Urukean temple officials that the deputy must refer to that of the Sealand. The letters show that the interaction of the deputy and the Eanna were probably more intense than those of the governor, and we will see below that these interactions had at times a personal aspect on top of a professional one. IV.B. Eanna The Eanna temple was headed by the royal resident (qīpu), temple administrator (šatammu), and temple scribe (ṭupšar bīti/ṭupšar ayakki).30 The royal resident was the king’s representative in the temple. He was not a local Urukean, but was brought to the temple by the state to supervise the obligation of the temple towards the crown. The temple administrator and temple scribe, on the other hand, came from the local families, the urban elite. The temple administrator was in charge of the overall daily opera-

26 For a possible solution to the one joint attestation of the two officials in Nbk 109, see LEVAVI 2018, 158. 27 This is illustrated by him being listed first among the magnates of the land who donated to the building of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon, Hofkalender vi*: 19´. See, recently, DA RIVA 2013, 213. 28 KLEBER 2008, 324–25. Theoretically, lúgar kur could also be read lúšá-kìn (for šaknu); in the same way that the šanû (māt) tâmti is often called simply šanû. 29 This refers to attestations of šakin māti. The title šakin ṭēmi is often translated as “governor” as well, though in the context of the Eanna archive it refers to the governor (šakin ṭēmi) of Uruk. 30 For a discussion concerning these officials and their role and status in the Eanna temple, see LEVAVI 2018, esp. 97–103.

24

Yuval Levavi

tion of the temple and the temple scribe can be broadly described in this period as his second in command. IV.C. Hierarchical Distance While Uruk and Eanna were not considered part of the Sealand per se, it was clearly of lower administrative status and the temple and its personnel were subordinate to the Sealand.31 In the following letter, written by the royal resident of Eanna to a close subordinate of his, we can see that even the highest official in the Eanna is somewhat anxious regarding his obligation toward the governor of the Sealand: Send me the oxen you said (you would); get them (here) so I could present it to the governor (of the Sealand). My brother must not neglect [my] gift. (YOS 3, 179 = SbB 2, 164)

In another letter, the temple administrator is writing to two mid-rank Eanna officials: I am delivering to you a message from the governor (of the Sealand), read (it and) keep (it). Do not tarry (with) the silver I sent you (and) pay for the bows. (YOS 3, 170 = SbB 2, 86)

While, as the direct superior of the addressees, the temple administrator is not required to explain his orders, the mere fact that he does is not surprising by itself.32 What is, nonetheless, noticeable is the emphasis on the fact that the addressees should not only carefully read the message but they must also keep it. Setting aside the interesting archival aspect of what should or should not be kept, the context suggests that it is the origin of the order, i.e. the governor of the Sealand, which makes the treatment of this message so important to the temple administrator. IV.D. Judicial Authority The Sealand’s authority over Eanna naturally had a legal aspect. Thus, the governor of the Sealand and other Sealand officials took part in judicial proceeding carried out in Uruk.33 Moreover, the governor of the Sealand could at times preside cases alongside the king. This is illustrated for example in a letter of the deputy of the Sealand to the temple administrator of Eanna regarding a disputed land, of which the deputy writes: You and I will litigate (ni-dab-bu-ub) before of the [king] and the governor (of the Sealand). (BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52)34

The deputy of the Sealand who sent this letter and the temple administrator of Eanna who received it had an especially close personal relationship.35 That, in addition to the way in which the deputy phrases his arguments throughout the letter, suggests that we may not be looking at an official trial, but some kind of administrative mediation.

31

For previous literature see note 1. It is not so uncommon even for high officials to address the context of their orders. On the hierarchical interactions within the Eanna temple, see LEVAVI 2018, 120–40. 33 See KLEBER 2008, 329; BEAULIEU 2002, 113. 34 This letter was already quoted above and will further be discussed below (§V.B). 35 See §V.B below. 32

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

25

Whatever procedure is meant by the deputy, the judicial capacity of the governor of the Sealand alongside the king in Babylon is clear.36 IV.E. Collaboration between Eanna and the Sealand Much of the interaction between Eanna and the Sealand took place in the context of the state-initiated building projects. Most of the references found in the letters are generic in nature and the exact context eludes us. Thus, for example, a mid-rank Sealand official writes to the temple administrator of Eanna regarding some temple personnel: The slaves (lamutānu), your servants (ardū-ka) who are here, they excavate … g[ive] them five iron spades. Until the iron spades will be sent to the Sealand (however), they should carry on their work. (TCL 9, 118 = SbB 2, 50)

The mentioning of excavations and iron spades suggest that the context of this letter is the canal/irrigation system. This infrastructure demanded constant care and maintenance, the responsibility for which was assigned by the state to local institutions. In this case, we see that Eanna had such obligations in the Sealand itself. But the collaboration between Eanna and the Sealand went beyond simply sending temple personnel to the Sealand.37 Note for example the following letter sent by an Eanna official to the royal resident, temple administrator, and temple scribe, his superiors: Nanâ-iddin and the (temple’s) decurions were posted here at the disposal of the governor of the Sealand. The (temple’s) overseer-of-serfs supplied Nanâ-iddin with workmen and entrusted him (over them). /…/ Get that silver (for the workers) and send it. He, the governor of the Sealand, has given the iron and bronze to the Lady-of-Uruk. (BIN 1, 41 = SbB 2, 176)

Here, we see that entire teams of the temple workforce are placed at the disposal of the governor of Sealand. Note that unlike in TCL 9, 118 above, the workers’ tools and materials are supplied by the Sealand, while the temple is responsible for their salaries. A more complex illustration of this administrative system may be found in a letter written by an Urukean official named Nabû-aḫa-iddin(/Nanâ-ēreš) to the temple administrator. The deputy of the Sealand sent Nabû-aḫa-iddin along with two of his Eanna colleagues, the chief priest (šangû) of the city of Eridu, and their assistants to work on a building project (possibly the North Palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon). 36

An in-depth study of the role of the king, and certainly of the governor of the Sealand, during the Neo-Babylonian period is lacking. Interesting in this respect is SANDOWICZ 2018, in which she examines the role of the governor of Babylon, (bēl) pī/āḫāt Babīli, in the early Persian period. As noted by Sandowicz (2018, 35), one of the few visible administrative changes between the NeoBabylonian and the Persian periods is the disappearing of the office of the governor of the Sealand and the establishment of the office of the governor of Babylon. Having said that, it must be stressed that Sandowicz discussion regarding the governor of Babylon under the Persian regime cannot be simply extrapolated onto the judicial role of the governor of the Sealand during the Neo-Babylonian period. 37 The term lamutānu, translated here as slave(s), designated a person in a servile position (KLEBER 2018, 453). It may be assumed that the said workers were not temple serfs (širku), as these were usually identified as such (especially in this context), but their exact status remains unclear.

26

Yuval Levavi

Nabû-aḫa-iddin complains that the deputy’s orders concerning him and his companions were misread by the men working on the site, and thus they are not receiving their salaries: (Regarding) Aḫu-lūmur/Nabû-aḫa-ēreš, Nabû-aḫa-iddin/Nanâ-ēreš,38 Kudurru/Nabû-nāṣir, and Nabûušallim the chief priest (šangû); the deputy (of the Sealand) wrote about us to Ša-Nabû-šū (as follows), “I’m sending you four commissioners (bēl piqitti) with their four assistants, forty minas of silver, three reed-workers (and) five boats.” (Ša-Nabû-šū) read the message to (his fellow) freemen39 (as follows), “The chief priest of Eridu and the commissioners of the deputy /…/ and half a talent of silver.” (And so he told them), “Don’t pay silver to the deputy’s (men).” /…/ He assigned us with (only) one section of/for GIBI?, (which) is like suffocation. Send Iddin-Bēl with two minas of silver (so) he’ll give (it to) us. Otherwise, we are (as good as) dead. The treasury official paid s[ilver] to all the men, but he didn’t pay it to us; (saying), “I have (already) entrusted 1½ talent of silver to Nabûaḫa-iddin.” (BIN 1, 46 = SbB 2, 166)

Of the four commissioners sent by the deputy, the first three are known Eanna officials. Yet it is noticeable that they are not sent by the temple, but rather by the deputy of the Sealand. The deputy also sends the chief-priest of Eridu with them, meaning that the workforce combines at least these three southern institutions. Most important in the present context is the way in which our three temple officials are addressed in this letter. First, as noted, they were sent directly by the deputy of the Sealand rather than by their own temple. Clearly, neither Nabû-aḫa-iddin (the sender) nor the temple administrator (addressee) have any problem with this practice. Moreover, note that when Ša-Nabû-šū reads the deputy’s message to his colleagues, he refers to the three Eanna men as the deputy’s men. Again, there is no contention regarding this phrasing. It is clear to both Nabû-aḫa-iddin and the temple administrator that, in this specific context, these men are indeed under the Sealand’s authority.

V. Personal Aspects (Justifications and Explanations) We have seen above that Eanna and the Sealand were closely tied together on both the local and state levels. Mid- and high-ranking officials regularly interacted with each other in Uruk, in the Sealand, and all over Babylonia (in the context of building projects). In all of these interactions the subordination of Eanna to the Sealand is relatively clear. Unsurprisingly, however, given this constant contact, personal relationships were formed along the years between certain officials at both ends. Examining phrasing and argumentation strategies in the letters allow us glimpses into some of these relationships.40 38

Nabû-aḫa-iddin is the writer of this letter, and this is why he will next refer to “us” regarding these four individuals. 39 “Freemen” refers here to the Akkadian mār banê, literally “man of good quality.” The mār bane, however, is a notoriously difficult term to translate, for it bears both legal and social meanings that cannot be incorporated in a single English term. For a recent treatment of first millennium mār bane, see KLEBER 2018, 448–50. 40 For methodological aspects, analysis, and further examples of personal vs. formal argumentation in the letters, see LEVAVI 2018, 120–75.

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

27

The identification (and definition) of friendship in an administrative context, such as the one we examine here, is extremely difficult.41 Still (2019, 131), following Beer (2001), defines friendship as “a more or less informal social relationship, based on choice, trust and voluntariness.” This can be quantified by measuring tie strength, viz. looking at frequency, duration, multiplicity,42 and intensity of interaction.43 Given the legal nature of his corpus (the private archives of Borsippean priests), Still focuses on structural features rather than psycho-emotional aspects. The letters, however, are a different source in this respect. The relatively small sample and oftentimes lack of proper contextualization very much limit our ability to quantify crucial aspects.44 On the other hand, unlike other archival sources, the letters allow us to address questions of phrasing and argumentation. In other words, we may examine the way in which writers frame their request/demand/report and perceive themselves vis-à-vis the addressee. V.A. Examples from Letters of the Governor of the Sealand Let us first look at two letters written by the governor of the Sealand in which we can detect a personal undertone.45 In the first case, the governor asks the royal resident, temple administrator, and temple scribe to send him quivers, wool, and garments for a building project: Quickly, 50 or 60 quivers should arrive (already) this year. Prepare … combed wool … and get them to me. I have been looking after your duties for the (past) 15 years. (So) now, you take care of mine; look after my duties regarding this building equipment. I wish of you neither silver nor gold; so do not neglect [it]. I will notice (those) who will look after my [service]. (YOS 21, 139 = SbB 2, 43)

Some damaged lines at the beginning of the letter mention some stolen goods, and this is probably the reason why the governor is in urgent need of this shipment. Acknowledging that he is making a special request, the governor frames his argument in the context of the long and fruitful relations he has with the three addressees (i.e. with the temple), stressing that he has been looking after the duties/service (maṣṣartu) of the addresses for 15 years.46 Although, as we have seen, the governor had clear authority over the addressees, he refrains from giving a direct straightforward order. Instead, he stresses the modesty of his request (“neither silver nor gold”), promising not to forget their help in the future. While in another context, this latter note could also have been 41

The concept of friendship and the problem of capturing ties of intimacy in an administrative context was recently dealt with by in STILL 2019; see especially the excellent methodological introductory in 130–34. 42 This aspect relates to diversity in form and context of the interpersonal ties. 43 STILL 2019, 133. 44 This mainly concerns intensity of interactions, yet, as we will see below in §VI.B, certain cases do allow us to address multiplicity and duration. 45 Although, as noted, the governor identifies himself by title, the writer of both letters was probably Ea-dayyān. This is based on the office terms of his addressees. For Ea-dayyān, see BEAULIEU 2002. 46 On the meaning and use of maṣṣartu in Late-Babylonian epistolography, see LEVAVI 2018, 105–17.

28

Yuval Levavi

read as a threat, the overall phrasing of the governor’s letter makes it clear that this is not the case. The second case I mention here is less overt. The governor of the Sealand writes to the temple administrator and the temple scribe about two Eanna officials and several messengers who are working with him (probably in the Sealand): Letter of the governor of the Sealand to Nabû-nādin-šumi and Marduk-ēṭir /…/ Up until now I have personally withheld here Nanâ-ibni and Ardīya, along with all of the messengers. It is because they have sworn an oath; they have been in my service. (YOS 3, 154 = SbB 2, 39)

Again, as the superior party in this interaction, the governor of the Sealand needs not to explain himself to the addressees. Yet he stresses that it is he himself who is keeping (anāku … akteli) their men from returning to the temple. Moreover, he explains that the men swore an oath to be at his disposal, thus stressing their commitment to him, and that the Sealand do not arbitrary hold Eanna personnel for no reason. The oath was most probably given for this specific context and, once their work was done, the men would return to their temple in Uruk. Both examples represent routine interactions between the Sealand and Eanna. It is important to bear in mind that the letters, by their very nature, present us with the times things went slightly off plan; whether it is the tools that are required earlier than expected, or temple officials who are delayed in returning from their work with the governor. But the letters also reveal the point of view of their writers and the way they perceived and framed the interaction. In the cases above, whether put forward in clear words or hinted at by the phrasing and argumentation, we see that the governor of the Sealand shares his needs and considerations with his addressees, interacting with temple officials as more than his simple subordinates. V.B. Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti & Nabû-nādin-šumi The interaction between the deputy of the Sealand Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and the temple administrator Nabû-nādin-šumi (aka Nādin) is as close as we get to friendship on the inter-institutional level.47 Six of the ten letters of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti known today (nos. 6–9, 11–13 in Table 1 above) were addressed to Nabû-nādin-šumi.48 This is the second largest known exchange between two individuals in the Neo-Babylonian letter cor-

47

At the local level, i.e. within the same institute, we have better and more diverse documentation concerning specific individuals. Furthermore, in epistolographic contexts, we also have the occasional piggyback letters in which we find individuals sending their regards to their colleagues; see LEVAVI 2018, 132–34. 48 Unfortunately, we do not have any of Nabû-nādin-šumi reciprocal letters, as those would be found in the Sealand archive and not in Eanna’s. Of the remaining four letters of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti: one is to Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin (no. 13), one to Šamaš-zēra-iqīša (no. 15), one to the temple administrator by title (cannot be identified with certainty), and one letter is jointly written by Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Ṣillâ to Marduk-ēṭir (no. 10).

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

29

pus.49 Let us first look at a letter concerning a sheep to be delivered from Eanna for the royal ḫarû-offering: The king will perform the ḫarû-offering from the 15th to the 16th day. Provide good-quality sacrificial sheep. I myself (anāku) have (already) given (you) sheep there; as soon as I’m back, I will personally (anāku) compensate you for the sacrificial sheep. (YOS 3, 60 = SbB 2, 46)

Like in the governor’s letters above, here too we find that the deputy, Nabû-ēṭirnapšāti, mentions twice the fact that he will be the one taking care of the compensation.50 This over stressing of the personal responsibility taken by Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is redundant. The personal aspect of their relationship is further illustrated by the following letter, in which Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti discusses two issues. The first is an unknown problem involving the governor of Uruk (šākin ṭēmi), the temple assembly (kiništu), and some stolen goods, while the second issue is a reply to a previous conversation between the two: Do not neglect the written document concerning the assembly for which the governor has issued you an order. Make an effort and see to it (yourself. You), personally, do not exempt anyone from it; no stolen goods can be caught in your hands! Regarding all that you have spoken (with) me, my brother (can) be pleased. (YOS 3, 57 = SbB 2, 45)

It is unfortunate that we have no further information regarding the first-discussed problem; seldom do we get a glimpse into such a multi-faced inter-institutional interaction. Regardless of the specific details, it is noticeable that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti makes a special effort to disassociate Nabû-nādin-šumi from the problem, and warns him not overlook the order given by the governor of Uruk. Perhaps he fears that Nabû-nādinšumi will instinctively take his temple colleagues’ side and try to “cover for them”. This is suggested by the fact that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti stresses that Nabû-nādin-šumi should personally (ramānu) take care of the problem, and furthermore that no stolen goods should be found in Nabû-nādin-šumi’s possession. The second issue seems to be an unrelated personal matter, most probably a private business transaction between the two, which came up in a previous conversation. Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is now reassuring Nabû-nādin-šumi that things went/are going according to what they have previously agreed upon. Given the succinct phrasing of the deputy’s last remark, it may be argued that my interpretation of a private transaction is (too) speculative. Other sources, however, further support the private context. Note for example the following short note made in another letter of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti to Nabûnādin-šumi:

49

We have seven letters exchanged between the temple administrator Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin (6) and his close subordinate Nabû-bān-aḫi (1). 50 For the use of anāku as affirmative emphasizing agency, see e.g., a-na-ku a-kan-ni mim-ma ma-la˹a˺ ṣe-ba-tu lud-dak-ka, I’ll personally give you here whatever you need; ḫa-an-ṭiš šup-ram-ma a-na-ku lu-še-bi-la-[áš]-šú write me quickly so I’ll deliver it to him myself (YOS 21, 147 = SbB 2, 1); as well as YOS 3, 154 (= SbB 2, 39) mentioned above.

30

Yuval Levavi

Send (me) ten minas of your own silver (kaspu ša ramānika). I will deliver (back) to my brother whatever he needs. (YOS 21, 76 = SbB 2, 51: 20–23)

Here it is clear that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is referring to Nabû-nādin-šumi’s own private funds rather than those of the temple.51 Moreover, several legal texts testify to the fact that high officials and wealthy entrepreneurs from different cities regularly carried out business with each other. Thus, for example, the deputy of the Sealand had a business venture (ḫarrānu) with a certain Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu,52 an entrepreneur from Larsa who also had many connections with Uruk and the Eanna temple.53 I have already mentioned the disputed land about which Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is writing to Nabû-nādin-šumi in BIN 1, 34 (SbB 2, 52). The words that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti puts in the mouth of the Sealanders and Urukeans are as direct a statement as we could have regarding the friendship between the deputy of the Sealand and the temple administrator of Eanna, a friendship which was apparently rather common knowledge (at least in certain circles): Regarding the līmu-land about which my brother had written; I’m not authorized to distribute (it) – (just) by a request of the people – without the king’s (word). If I were to distribute (it) without reporting it, [the Sea]land (people) would say, “Did Nādin distribute (it) due to (his personal) friendship (bēl ṭābtūti), or did you distribute taken (land)?” The Urukeans, (on the other hand), will say, “Did Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti [distrib]ute (it) due to (his personal) friendship, or is it the [word] of the king?” /…/ If it be the king’s will, they will give (it) to me, and if not, they [will give] (it) to you. (BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52)

Both Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Nabû-nādin-šumi are clearly aware that their respected subordinates will immediately suspect that any agreement between them may be “contaminated” by their friendship. In order to avoid the appearance of corruption, the two must turn to the king (and the governor of the Sealand) to conclude the matter. Lastly, I would like to offer one additional aspect of this relationship. Note the following short letter: There’s no wool in the temple; without wool (the) women are idle. /…/ Weigh two talents of wool and give it to (my buyers). Inform me in a letter the day you give them the wool. (TCL 9, 116 = SbB 2, 37)

51

At the beginning of the letter, incidentally, we find another example for the way Nabû-ēṭirnapšāti ties his official interaction with Nabû-nādin-šumi with their close personal relationship: “Don’t treat me as (you treat) Ibnāya. Don’t divert the red dye, (which is set) aside for me, for an alternative (buyer) you (might) have” (YOS 21, 76 = SbB 2, 51: 4–10). The trade in red dye is surely part of an official transaction between Eanna and the Sealand. Yet Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti “plays the friendship card” in order to secure the deal. 52 E.g. NCBT 627, 37 Nbk, unpublished, see BEAULIEU 2000, 55; 57; 67. 53 See ibid., esp. 61–62. Another illustration for the inter-regional business network in southern Babylonia can be seen in NCBT 593 (= IDEM 1992, 409–10, 29 Nbk). The tablet was apparently part of the Eanna archive, although it concerns a house in Udannu, which belonged to the royal resident of Larsa (and was rented to a certain individual from Udannu). The reason for the presence of the document in Uruk is unclear, see ibid., 410.

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

31

The wool trade between Eanna and the Sealand is well known and documented.54 Our interest lies in Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti’s remark regarding the idle women. While it does fit the general context of the letter, it is in fact redundant. First, there is no need to explain to the temple administrator of Eanna that wool is needed in the Sealand. As noted, the trade of wool is well documented and this is not an esoteric issue. More importantly, the idleness of women cannot be regarded as the main problem with the Sealand’s shortage of wool. Several other issues may arise from this situation, such as an interruption in production and delivery of garments for temple personnel as well as for cult statues. Surely the idleness of women was not the prime concern, and could not be taken seriously as a main factor in the Sealand’s need for wool. In light of this, and taking into consideration the known friendship of the Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Nabûnādin-šumi, it is perhaps better to read this note as a sarcastic misogynistic comment regarding the nature of women made between two powerful men. Rather than referring to a specific group of women then, Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti may be speaking of women in general, in the (anachronistic) colloquial sense of “you know how women are/get.” Naturally, this sarcastic reading is speculative in nature and depends greatly on the close and personal interaction between Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Nabû-nādin-šumi for which I argue above.

VI. Conclusion The Sealand and Eanna were the two most important players in southern Babylonia during the first millennium BCE. Yet the hierarchy was clear: the Eanna temple was subordinate to the Sealand and the governor of the Sealand was highest ranking official in these parts of the land. The two were bound not only by a joint history, going back to the second millennium, but also by daily logistic and administrative cooperation in numerous local and national projects. The letters from the Eanna archive are an unmediated source for this collaboration, the day-to-day interactions, and bureaucratic practices. Moreover, they let us tap into the authors’ perspectives of themselves and of their colleagues. Temple officials clearly accepted the authority of the Sealand and its governor over Eanna. These sources further illustrate, however, the personal nature of some of the Sealand-Eanna interactions. Close reading of the letters reveals how intense and long lasting collaborations resulted at times in close personal relations as well as rivalries. Having no archival sources from the Sealand itself, much remains unknown regarding one of the most important areas of the Neo-Babylonian heartland. And so, like the state’s tax collector who was sent south by the writer of BIN 1, 11 mentioned above, we too are dependent on Eanna to guide us through the mystery of the Sealand.

54 For the Eanna wool trade see KLEBER 2010 and also YOS 21 76 (= SbB 2, 51) and YOS 21, 139 (= SbB 2, 43) wool transactions between Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Eanna.

32

Yuval Levavi

Bibliography BEAULIEU, P.-A. (1992): Kissik, Dūru and Udannu, Or. 61, 400–24. – (1997): The Fourth Year of Hostilities in the Land, BaM 28, 367−94. – (1998): Baˀu-asītu and Kaššaya, Daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II, Or. 67, 173–201. – (2000): A Finger in Every Pie: The Institutional Connections of a Family of Entrepreneurs in NeoBabylonian Larsa, in: A.C.V.M. BONGENAAR (ed.), Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs: Proceedings of the Second MOS Symposium (Leiden 1998), (MOS Studies 2, PIHANS 87), Istanbul, 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: A. BERLEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., (Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 3), Wiesbaden, 31–55. BEER, B. (2001): Friendship, Anthropology of, in: N.J. SMELSER/P.B. BALTES (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Oxford, 5805–808. BOIVIN, O. (2018): The First Dynasty of the Sealand in Mesopotamia, (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records, 20), Berlin/Boston, MA. BRINKMAN, J.A. (1968): A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, (AnOr 43), Rome. – (1984): Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics 747–626 B.C., (Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7), Philadelphia, PA. – (1984): Settlement Surveys and Documentary Evidence: Regional Variation and Secular Trend in Mesopotamian Demography, JNES 43, 169–80. – (1993–97): Meerland (Sealand), RlA 8, 6–10. COLE, S.W. (1006): Nippur in Late Assyrian Times C. 755–612 BC, (SAAS 4), Helsinki. DA RIVA, R. (2013): Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (EK 7834): A New Edition, ZA 103, 196–229. FRAME, G. (1992): Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History, (PIHANS 69), Leiden. – (2013): The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in: A. BERLEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., (Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 3), Wiesbaden, 87–121. JANKOVIĆ, B. (2007): Von gugallus, Überschwemmungen und Kronland, WZKM 97 (= Festschrift H. Hunger), 219–42. – (2013): Aspects of Urukean Agriculture in the First Millennium BC, (PhD Dissertation), University of Vienna. JURSA, M. (2007): Die Söhne Kudurrus und die Herkunft der Neubabylonischen Dynastie, RA 101, 125–36. – with contributions by J. HACKL et al. (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, (AOAT 377), Münster. – (2014): Gewalt in neubabylonischen Texten, in: M. KREBERNIK/H. NEUMANN (eds.), Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit: Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlaß des 75. Geburtstages von Prof. Dr. Joachim Oelsner, 2.–3. März 2007 in Jena, (AOAT 369), Münster, 73–94. – (2014): The Lost State Correspondence of the Babylonian Empire as Reflected in Contemporary Administrative Letters, in: K. RADNER (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World, Oxford, 94–111. KLEBER, K. (2008): Tempel und Palast: Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem EannaTempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk, (AOAT 358), Münster.

The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand

33

– (2010): Eanna’s Trade in Wool, in: M. JURSA (ed.), 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, (AOAT 377), Münster, 595–615. – (2018): Dependent Labor and Status in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods, in: A. Garcia-Ventura (ed.), What’s in a Name? Terminology Related to Work Force and Job Categories in the Ancient Near East, (AOAT 440), Münster, 441–65. LEVAVI, Y. (2018): Administrative Epistolography in the Formative Phase of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, (dubsar 3, Spätbabylonische Briefe 2), Münster. – (forthcoming): On the Use of Personal Names in Neo-Babylonian Epistolography, Akkadica Supplementum, (Proceedings of the Babylonian Name and Name-Giving Conference in Leuven, February 2016). SANDOWICZ, M. (2018) Before Xerxes: The Role of the Governor of Babylonia in the Administration of Justice under the First Achaemenids, in C. WAERZEGGERS/M. SEIRE (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence, (OLA 277), Leuven/Paris/Bristol, 35–62. STILL, B. (2019): The Social World of Babylonian Priests, Leiden/Boston, MA. TADMOR, H./Sh. YAMADA (2011): The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria, (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period I), Winona Lake, IN. WRIGHT, H.T. (1981): The Southern Margins of Sumer: Archaeological Survey in the Area of Eridu and Ur, Appendix, in: R. MCC. ADAMS (ed.), Heartland of Cities, Chicago, IL, 295–346. ZADOK, R. (2013): The Onomastics of the Chaldean, Aramean, and Arabian Tribes, in: A. BERLEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., (Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 3), Wiesbaden, 261–336.

On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia from the Period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire down to the End of the Sasanian Period* Ran Zadok Preamble The Arameans in Upper Mesopotamia had their own states for a short period, namely from about the end of the tenth to the middle of the ninth century BCE. Later on the Mesopotamian (“Eastern”) Arameans enjoyed a certain political influence only in Babylonia (along with the dominant Chaldeans). Both the Arameans and the Chaldeans ceased to be political players after the Achaemenid conquest of Babylonia, which terminated the rule of the native dynasties there. Here I would like to concentrate on several issues pertaining to the indigenous population groups in Mesopotamia, especially Babylonia, which has become mainly Aramaic-speaking from about the mid-first millennium BCE onwards. I shall pursue my enquiry as late as the early Sasanian period, which marks, according to a maximalistic approach, the end of the cuneiform tradition and the ensuing demise of paganism (the Zoroastrian religion of the Sasanids is polytheistic, but offers salvation). There is little evidence for the existence of Chaldeo-Aramean territories after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The latest evidence for their existence is the socalled Hofkalender from the early reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.1 Later on there are few and rather implicit references to members of kinship groups which may be Aramean,

* Supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 742/05). I should like to thank the Horn Archaeological Museum (Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan) who allowed me to evaluate data from HAM tablets, and the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to quote from unpublished BM tablets, as well as Dr. Jane Siegel, curator of the Rare Books Room of the Butler Library (Columbia University) for permission to quote Columbia 351. Abbreviations are as in A.L. OPPENHEIM et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institut of the University of Chicago (Chicago/Glückstadt 1956–2010), except PNA 2 and 3 = BAKER 2000–2001 and 2002–2010 respectively. The months (in Roman figures) are the Babylonian. Abbreviated rulers’ names: AmM. = Amīl-Marduk; Dar. = Darius; Nbk. = Nebuchadnezzar; Nbn. = Nabonidus; Npl. = Nabopolassar. Other non-bibliographical abbreviations: adm. = administrative (document); Akkad. = Akkadian; br. = brother; d. = daughter; f. = father; gs. = grandson; hus. = husband; JBA = Jewish Babylonian Aramaic; s. = son; w. = witness; wi. = wife; WSem. = West Semitic. The format of filiations presented below is: given name/father//ancestor. 1 See JURSA 2010.

On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia

35

namely Laetu and Šumatkanu2. The latter are recorded as late as the last quarter of the fifth century BCE.3 Regarding the Chaldeans, who were the main political player in Babylonia under the Sargonid and the Neo-Babylonian empires, their main territory, Bīt-Yakīn, ceased to exist and has become the Sealand province and later Mešān/Messene/Characene. Their two remaining territories are not mentioned after the early Achaemenid period, although Bīt-Awkāni survived as Αὐχανῑτιϛ, a mere geographical-administrative unit.4 The Achaemenid conquest resulted in the end of Elam as an independent state, which served as a retreat for the Chaldean anti-Assyrian rebels in Babylonia during the Sargonid period.5 The only Semitic kinship groups that gained political importance are the Arabian nomads on the fringe of the Syrian Desert, whose frequent razziahs into the Babylonian heartland are recorded from the late Achaemenid period onwards. The Arabians gradually became the dominant group in the western frontier of Babylonia and on the long run they can be regarded as the forerunners of the Lakhmid vassal kingdom of Hira. The urbanites remained the most prestigious group in Babylonia during the long sixth century BCE. This is a well-defined group, which finally crystalized in the preceding post-Kassite period, around 750 BCE at the latest. It is easily identifiable in the sources for its members have three-tier Akkadian filiations, which is given name, paternal name, and surname of a distant ancestor of a clan (also in an abbreviated format, viz. given name and surname). Each temple city had its own system of urban clans, which formed its constituency. The members of the urban clans are the majority of individuals in the numerous documentation groups or the mostly reconstructed socalled archives from this period, archives that stem mostly from the main temple cities. The urbanites consisted of long-established Babylonians who mingled and intermarried with Kassites and other pre-first millennium invaders and infiltrators. Hence, clans bear not only Babylonian, but also Kassite names. There is good reason to suspect that the non-Semitic clan names are mainly Kassite (e.g., Gilūa, Šambā > Šabbā and Tunā),6 but this cannot be proven in the majority of cases as they are not recorded during the period of Kassite rule in Babylonia. Few clans bear gentilics such as Aššūrāyu, “Assyrian”; Hattāyu “Hittite” (i.e. Syro-Anatolian); Lullubāyu, “Lullubian”; Miṣirāyu, “Egyptian”; Nikkāyu (from Nikku); Sūhāyu, “Suhean”;7 and Arbāyu, “Ara2

YOS 6, 40, 12 (cf. ZADOK 1985b, 207 and IDEM 2017, 334 with n. 157; [SPAR and] JURSA 2014, 8 ad 4, 2). 3 BE 10, 115, 7f. (cf. ZADOK 1985b, 296 and BEAULIEU [and MAYER] 1997, 164 ad 266a). 4 PTOLEMY, Geography, 5, 20, 3 (cf. ZADOK 1985a, 58). 5 See BRINKMAN 1984, passim, especially 28–31. 6 Cf. WUNSCH 2014, 309, 310. Ašgandu and Gahal are perhaps Kassite surnames as well. Gilūa is also recorded as a paternal name (Babylon, 11.VI.1 Nbn., IDEM 2000, 109–11: 85: Šūzubu/Gilūa//Sîn-šadûnu). 7 See IDEM 2014, 298 (cf. 303–309, where also the internal Babylonian gentilics Bābilāyu and Isināyu are registered). On the face of it, Hu-ʾ-A+A (in Ubāru/Ṭābīya//H., Dar. 461 = IDEM 2000, 144, 10) from Šuppatu, 20.X.17 Dar. I looks like a gentilic of Hume (/H(u)we/) “Cilicia,” but this is historically problematic, given the fact that Babylonian connections with Cilicia, and explicit Cilicians in Babylonia are not recorded before the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, long after the crystallization of the system of Babylonian urbanite surnames.

36

Ran Zadok

bian” (only in Uruk),8 or quasi-gentilics like Si/utīya, “Sutean,” and Išnukû (> Šinukku), “Eshnunite.” The cities were fundamentally pluralistic and served as a platform of social and communication networks as well as a melting pot. However after circa 750 BCE, the shutters were pulled down with seclusion and endogamy becoming the norm of the Babylonian urbanites. They stopped absorbing other Babylonians of the lower class or of non-local elites (i.e. urbanites of other constituencies) and people of foreign extraction.9 In traditional oriental societies, the bride-taking party is typically the superior one as is still the norm in contemporary Muslim society. They never gave their own daughters in marriage to foreigners. The opposite practice was the norm in international relations, where the stronger party is the bride-giver in diplomatic marriages in ancient western Asia.10 Initially, the urbanites were not only ethnically, but also socially heterogeneous. The ancestral names were not only old-fashioned and archaic anthroponyms, but also names of various offices, professions and occupations. These include several surnames that are normally rated lower class and ultra-lower class, such as Ararru, “Miller”; Išparu, “Weaver”; and Nappāhu “Smith.” The surname-bearing clans of a given temple city are the epitome of class. Their core formed an elite consisting in the first place of the priestly clans who constituted the clergy (clerus maior and minor with a wide array of cultic specializations). Yet, scribes and bureaucrats were members of most urban clans.11 Thanks to their determinant function as bearers of Babylonian culture, the urbanites enjoyed the highest rating in the Babylonian socio-cultural universe. At the beginning of the post-Kassite period they were also the power elite, as the central government was weak and the ruling dynasties short-lived.12 However, after the Chaldeans (followed by the Arameans) took over vast territories in the Babylonian countryside,13 the urbanites lost their political leading role. It seems that during their time of political ascendancy, when they enjoyed a certain degree of political autonomy and several cities had their own small militia-like armies, the military establishment presumably encouraged social mobility. Therefore, even members of low-rated occupations gained priestly roles and kept them for a long period. Thus, those in Borsippa who held the temple enterer’s prebend during the long sixth century BCE were members of the Nappāhu (“Smith”) clan. The implicit social interaction took place mainly 8

Ar-ba-A+A (YOS 6, 59, 4), Ár-ba-A+A (JOANNÈS 1982, 78, 12) from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign and that of Nabonidus (cf. WUNSCH 2014, 303). 9 Cf. ZADOK 2009, 15. 10 The ruler of the large Israelite kingdom gave Athaliah in marriage to the ruler of the petty kingdom of Judah. This resembles the case of Šulgi, the king of the vast Ur III kingdom, who gave one of his daughters in marriage to the ruler of the small polity of Pašime in the Mesopotamian-Susian frontier (cf. STEINKELLER 1983, 241–42 with n. 16). 11 The cuneiform scribes belonged to urban clans with a minority bearing two-tier Akkadian filiations. The only exception is a scribe of Elamite extraction (see ZADOK 1976, 62ff.). 12 Cf. BRINKMAN 1968, passim and 1977, 339, 12 (18 rulers belonging to several dynasties). 13 See LIPIŃSKI 2000, 412 who is of the opinion that the strong Assyrian reaction against the Arameans in the Jazira caused them to migrate to Babylonia. We happen to know by now that also the Chaldeans were initially repelled by the Assyrians’ clients from the Habur region as early as the end of the eleventh century BCE (see ZADOK 2017, 331–33).

On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia

37

among the constituent elements of the urban elite. Interestingly enough, even paradoxically, the term kiništu (attested from the mid-eighth century BCE onwards) for the temple assembly, the body representing the most traditional and exclusive layer of the urban elite, namely the clergy, is not Akkadian (Babylonian), but originally Aramaic. The Chaldeans and Arameans took control of most of the Babylonian countryside from the eleventh century BCE onwards.14 This was followed by some Arabian infiltration into southern and western Babylonia. These three population groups are identifiable by their West Semitic names. However, later on when they have become part of the local scene, many Chaldeans as well as some Arameans adopted Babylonian names. Therefore it is difficult to distinguish between them and the native Babylonians, who resided in the countryside and it is also difficult to distinguish them from the people who dwelt in the cities, but had no surnames in the written record. This third group, the native people living mostly in the countryside and the suburbs, is the least discernible one in the written records. Generally, they had two-tier filiations, i.e. given and paternal names, both Babylonian (Akkadian), but no surnames. Babylonian urbanites who were active in the countryside were almost exclusively the scribes of deeds found in the few rural archives, and these documents were mostly written for non-Babylonian parties. Very few of these Babylonian urbanites acted as principals in the countryside and even they were often related to the scribes. Since Chaldeans adopted Babylonian names with the passage of time, as we see most of them have such anthroponyms from the Sargonid period onwards, it is impossible to distinguish between them and the originally Babylonian rural population. And all the more so, since the latecomers underwent acculturation, and eventually shared the basic set of sociocultural norms valid for all Mesopotamians. This is not to deny the persistence of cultural differentiation: there are hints that rural and suburban shrines existed,15 but the phenomenon is not covered by the urban-biased documentation. It may be surmised that since the urban core lost its capability to bestow protection, the indigenous Babylonians who dwelt in the countryside joined vicinity groups that were often linked to Chaldeo-Aramean kinship groups. However, indigenous Babylonians were also amongst the nondescript urban masses who did not bear surnames, but were under the jurisdiction of the temple cities. The three sectors, namely the urbanites, the rural indigenous Babylonians, and eventually the Chaldeo-Arameans, shared crucial elements of identity such as creed and language, but did not have common geographical origin and descent. In addition, the elite was not an agent of integration. Although the city-dwellers subsisted mostly on agriculture, the elite was urban oriented. Despite the loss of political power, the urban elite kept its leading role based on its placement in the highest cultural rating, on its economic power as well as a retaining of certain degree of autonomy and dominance of local-municipal affairs (decision-making by the 14

See ZADOK 2017, 332–33. Cf. the shrine of Bēl-ālīya (d+EN-URU-ia) of Šarrabānu in Babylon (BAKER 2004, 127–28:48, 2f.). The divine name Bēl-ālīya means “the lord of my settlement” (deified), i.e. originally an appellative (cf. BEAULIEU 2003, 334:7.7), a “dieu topique” of a town in the Chaldean territory of Bīt-Awkāni. The Piqūdeans refer to “our gods” in contrast to “your (=the Urukeans’) gods” in DURAND 1982, 475 from the beginning of the sixth century BCE (see LEVAVI 2018, 451 ad 179). 15

38

Ran Zadok

governor and the council of city elders). This is not to deny that the central government, be it native or foreign, refrained from meddling and manipulating in local affairs whenever its interests required it. The ruling Chaldean dynasties and Aramean chieftains adopted the urban cults, participated in old-established religious festivals and contributed to the urban temples, but they were never accepted into the clergy. However, in this regard they did not differ from most urbanites who did not belong to the clerical class. Worshippers as “spectators” are not unknown in the phenomenology of religions (for instance Catholicism). On the whole, the result was a convergent rather than an integrated pattern. Each sector retained its distinct integrity. Parallel, but different sectors existed. It should be pointed out that the term mār-banî “freeperson,” which is a strictly juridical term (in contradistinction to royal slave, temple oblate or state dependent) was borne mostly, but not exclusively, by individuals with surnames. Free citizens, especially in rural Babylonia, included individuals without surnames (or even consisted mainly of such people). This is stated with due reservation, since it is possible that the scribes sometimes omitted the surnames belonging to inhabitants of small settlements. There are examples for it in the written records, and using an anthropological analogue, I am acquainted with such an oral practice among Palestinian villagers.16 Moreover, we happen to know that members of Chaldean tribes, such as Bīt-Awkāni, are defined as free citizens. Free citizens in rural Babylonia have quite often two-tier filiations without surnames; omission of surnames is exceptional17: the percentage of people with surnames among explicit free citizens from rural settlements is low. This means that free citizens in Babylonia included also non-urbanite Babylonians. It is clear that foreigners were absorbed almost exclusively by other nonBabylonians and people without surnames. A case in point is that of the members of the hatru-organization of the Scythians in the Nippur region (second half of the fifth century BCE), who all bear Semitic names (Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabian).18 One may suspect that the inhabitants of Bannēšu, originally a settlement of Carians19 (presumably of the early wave of prisoners of war from the beginning of the sixth century BCE),20 also assimilated with the non-urbanites in view of their West Semitic names (notably Arabian A-ra-al-tu4/Ha-am-tu-ʾ or A-ha-mu-tu-ʾ),21 provided that these inhab16

E.g., Yūsuf (given name) ʿAbd il-qādir (paternal name) Maḥajni (clan) from Imm il-faḥm is referred to as Yūsuf ʿAbd il-qādir among his fellow villagers. 17 Exceptionally, a free citizen with a two-tier Akkadian filiation is recorded in an urban archive (Nappāhu from Babylon, BAKER 2004, 248:191). Surname-bearing individuals with non-Akkadian given or paternal names are very rare. 18 Cf. ZADOK 1977, 123–24. 19 For their archive see JURSA 2005, 113: 7.10.2.3. The latest document is DURAND 1982, 602 from Nippur, 13.XII.0 Dar. I. 20 They are distinguished in the NB/LB documentation from the later Caromemphitai; the latter are defined as Kar-sa-A+A. 21 Ha-am-tu-ʾ/A-ha-mu-tu-ʾ can be Arabian in view of its ending, viz. -w, and Safaitic Ḥmt and related names (HARDING 1971, 199–200). A-ra-al-tu4, which was etymologized as Old Iranian (ZADOK 1984a, 71; TAVERNIER 2007, 109:4.2.79) is rather Arabian: it can be compared with Safaitic ʾršt (11x, HARDING 1971, 37) with NB/LB št > lt.

On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia

39

itants from the last quarter of the sixth century BCE are indeed the descendants of the same Carians after whom the settlement was named. Both groups, like most of the foreigners who were settled in rural Babylonia, adapted themselves to the local conditions; for instance the inhabitants of Bannēšu cultivated palm groves.

I. The Long Sixth Century BCE The representation of the three sectors of the Babylonian society in the long sixth century (626–484 BCE) is not radically different from the preceding periods, namely the post-Kassite and Sargonid, as it is basically urbanite-biased. A sample of 4,657 individuals belonging to archives of urbanites from the long sixth century BCE reveals that the individuals with surnames were the overwhelming majority.22 This impressive sample, which is extremely selective and geographically confined to the Babylonian Isthmus (actually only Babylon, Sippar, Kish, and Dilbat), is just a very small segment of the abundant pertinent corpus. I.A. Babylon I.A.1. Nappāhu Archive The sample consists of 1,035 individuals, the overwhelming majority bear surnames (967 = 93.43 %, three-tier genealogies); two-tier (Akkad./Akkad.): 68 (= 6.57 % out of which two oblates of Esaggila, two royal officials, one with a -šarra- name, an alphabetic scribe, and two Assyrians = 0.19 %; WSem.: 2 = 0.19 %).

22 Analysis of the material from the preceding period (747–626 BCE) reveals that 80 % of the 892 individuals from Babylon and almost 60 % of the 186 Dilbateans have surnames (versus 13 % and 37 % respectively with two-tier Akkadian filiations; based on NIELSEN 2011; the group with two-tier filiations was not specifically discussed by him). Kish has 83.47–91.3 % surname-bearers in 747–626 BCE, but the sample is too small (46 individuals).

40

Ran Zadok

Nappāhu archive = 1035 Individuals

Assyrians 0.19% Babylonians (two-tier) 6%

West Semites 0.19%

Surnames 94%

Here follows a detailed description of the individuals with two-tier filiations. Of non-Babylonian extraction, viz. Assyrian paternal name (11th = penultimate witness, BAKER 2004, 94:5) or Assyrian filiation (ibid., 192–93:118), Non-urbanite extraction, viz. Aramaic name (200:128), West Semitic anthroponym (guarantor, ibid., 252–53:197). All the people listed below had Akkadian filiations: – People linked to the palatial sector are a royal official (BAKER 2004, 151–52:71), a messenger of a ša-muhhi-bītāni official (ibid., 132:53) and an alphabetic scribe (125:44). Individuals of low status were oblates of Esaggila (a party, ibid., 150– 51:69 and a penultimate = 3rd w., ibid., 299:261); – Debtors (three: BAKER 2004, 229:171; 248–49:192; 277:232); – Last w. (assuming that the witnesses lists are ranked, but this cannot be proven in many cases; 12): 7th (BAKER 2004, 285–86:242), 6th (ibid., 196–97:123), 5th (ibid., 287:244), 4th (ibid., 200:128; 209:142; 210:143; 278:274; and 252–53:197, like the guarantor to the same transaction); 3rd (ibid., 110:25; and 295–96:257, like a principal), 2nd (ibid., 111:27, also the debtor has a two-tier filiation; ibid., 190– 91:115, like both principals = lodgers); – Penultimate w.: 5th (BAKER 2004, 230–31:174: [...]./Akkad.); 3rd (ibid., 216:152). Both witnesses have a two-tier filiation (ibid., 208–209:141; 222:160). The only w. has a two-tier filiation (ibid., 269–70:222). – Lodgers (BAKER 2004, 181:102; and 178–79:99, where the 4th–5th witnesses out of six have also two-tier filiations);

On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia

41

– Neighbors: with landed property in the rural settlement of Iltuk (BAKER 2004, 132– 34:54); four house owners (ibid., 166–67:86; 167–68:87; 170:89); – Other parties (different from the archive owners: BAKER 2004, 94:9; 151:70; 239– 40:183; 256–57:203; 268–69:220; 269–70:222; 276:231). This survey, as well as the following ones (below, I.A.2–I.D.), has a restricted coverage, and the data, which are partially ambiguous, have a limited probative value. At this juncture it should be pointed out that this attempt at a characterization of the socio-economic profile of the individuals with two-tier filiations does not result in more than tentative guidelines for distinguishing them from people with surnames. I.A.2. Egibi Archive (Partial) The sample consists of 1,130 individuals, out of which 1,052 bear surnames (93.1 %); two-tier (Akkad./Akkad.): 78 (= 6.9 %, out of which one oblate of Esaggila, five with šarra-names, one with -mār-šarri-name, one Assyrian = 0.08 % and ten West Semitic = 0.88 %).23 Egibi = 1130 Individuals

Babylonians (two-tier) 7%

West Semites 0.88 %

Surnames 93 %

23

Abi(AD)-ia-a-di-i-ni, “the divine father will judge”; A-da-la-a, “Ay has delivered”; Am-ma-a; Ha-am-ba-qu; Nabû(d+AG)-A+A-lu-na-ta-nu, “Nabû has given support”; and Uk-ku-ba-ʾ, all have mixed filiations (with Akkadian given or paternal names), except for the slave Ba-ar-qu-su and Zabdi-ia, a eunuch of the crown prince Cambyses (refs. in WUNSCH 2000/2, 273–347, index, s.vv.; for interpretation see ZADOK 1978, 56; 74; 84; 99; 107; 115; 151; 153; 235; 251; 427 ad 85, 430 ad 137– 38; for Qu-ub-ba-ar, see IDEM 1979, 19: 212 and for Uk-ku-ba-ʾ cf. NA Ú-ku-bi-ʾ, PNA 3, 1373a).

42

Ran Zadok

The individuals with two-tier filiations are (all Akkad./Akkad. unless otherwise indicated): – Of non-Babylonian extraction, viz. with an Assyrian paternal name (WUNSCH 2000/2, 140–41:115, 2nd = last w.); – Non-urbanite extraction, viz. a West Semitic paternal name (WUNSCH 2000/2, 253– 54:219, 5th w.). Seven individuals have mixed filiations, viz. Akkad. (given name)/WSem. (paternal name): ibid., 71–73:51; 194–95:160 (4th = last w.), 198– 99:165 (1st w.); 228–29:225 (gardener) and with inverted order (WSem./Akkad.), ibid.,130:105 (3rd = last w.); ibid., 255–56:221 (7th–8th = penultimate and last witnesses) and ibid., 263–64:231 (debtor). Ten people were linked to the palatial sector (with -šarra- names, all with Akkadian filiations):24 – WUNSCH 2000/2, 42–45:33 (a neighbor with -šarra- given name); ibid., 61–62:45 (four neighbors, one with -šarra- paternal name); ibid., 212–13:179 (3rd = last w. with -šarra-given name); ibid., 231–32:195; 266–67:235 (two principals with -šarrapaternal names); – WUNSCH 2000/2, 264–65:232: the debtor and the 2nd = penultimate w.; the debtor’s father is Nabû-mār-šarri-uṣur (date lost, perhaps linked to the crown prince Belshazzar); – Low status: an oblate of Esaggila (Nabû-uballiṭ/Ku-šá-A+A), with landed property (ibid., 20–23:12). All the people listed below had Akkadian filiations: – Debtors (seven: WUNSCH 2000/2, 62–63:46; 205:172; 247:211, 249–50:213; 259– 61:226–27 [brothers]); ibid., 125–26:99–100 (= gardener according to ibid., 128– 30:103–104). Last w. (21): – 8th (WUNSCH 2000/2, 252–53:217); 7th (ibid., 251–52:216); 5th (ibid., 79–81:57); 4th (ibid., 40–41:31; 228–29:192; 242:205; and 229–30:193, like the the debtor); 2nd–4th (= last, ibid., 196–97:162; rural); 3rd (ibid., 144–45:119; 178:142; 178–80:144; 220:185; 233–34:198); 2nd (ibid., 104:80; 147:121; 180–81:145; 187:152; 191:157; 203:169). – Penultimate and last: 5th–6th (WUNSCH 2000/2, 253:218); – Penultimate and preceding: 3rd–6th (WUNSCH 2000/2, 227–28:191);

24

Exceptionally, there is only one occurrence of a surname-bearing individual (w.) with a -šarra(paternal) name (WUNSCH 2000/2, 240–41:184). The practice to (re-)name people of the palatial sector with šarra-names is amply recorded in Assyrian. Such names become more common in Babylonia from the Sargonid period onwards due to Assyrian influence.

On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia

43

– Penultimate: 9th (237–38:201); 3rd (WUNSCH 2000/2, 241:204); 2nd = penultimate (ibid., 191–92:158). The only w. is with a two-tier filiation (WUNSCH 2000/2, 254–55:220; 202– 203:168). The 1st and 8th witnesses have two-tier filiations (ibid., 192–94:159, most of the names of the other witnesses are lost; rural?); – Neighbors (with landed property; ten):25 adjacent to that of the Aramean Šá-amDINGIRmeš (WUNSCH 2000/2, 10 Dar. I, 23–25:13); ibid., 209–10:176 (three); 20– 23:12 (two); 2–3:2; 145–47:120; 221:186; 248–49:212; – Other neighbors are Lāgamāl-iddina/Uraš-iddina and his son Bēl-īpuš (apparently originally from Dilbat, property on upper Nāru-eššu opposite the Illil gate of Babylon); they are followed by another three neighbors (WUNSCH 2000/2, 23–25:13). – Other parties (five: ibid., 1–2:1; 60–61:44; 114–16:90; 245–46:209; 253–54:219). A sample of 455 individuals occurring in WUNSCH 2003 and IDEM 2000/2: Die Häuser (unpubl., see IDEM 2014, 293) has: – With surnames: ibid., 399 = 87.69 %; – Presumably with surnames: 31= 6.81 %; – Without surnames: 25 (including one scribe) = 5.49 %. Wunsch’s preliminary note specifies neither individuals with non-Babylonian and -šarra-names, nor does it indicate any offices or status groups. I.B. Sippar Marduk-rēmanni Archive26 The sample consists of 845 individuals whose overwhelming majority is with surnames (three-tier genealogies: 471 = 55.73 %). There are much less two-tier genealogies (no surnames, total: 374, Akkad./Akkad.: 312 = 36.92 %). Mixed filiations (mostly with West Semites including a royal merchant, total: 61 = 7.21 %, of which Assyrian 3, Judean 1, Iranian 1, people from Hindānu [with the theophorous element Būru] 2, with -šarra-names 6).

25

Wunsch (2014, 293, n. 17) recommends to leave out the filiations of neighbors, as they were prone to be abbreviated. However, there are only 15 = 1.32 % such filiations, which do not significantly affect the outcome (they would push up the percentage of individuals with surnames to 94.42). Neighbors of Dilbatean extraction, with -šarra-names, or oblates are not included among these 15. 26 For the extensive lists below, peruse the index of WAERZEGGERS 2014.

44

Ran Zadok

Marduk-rēmanni = 845 Individuals

Hindaneans (Būru + Adad)